Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on August 13, 2015, 06:36:35 PM
-
Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.
-
Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.
You're quite right - in at least some cases it seems to be a way of claiming that a subjective opinion or preference is somehow more than that.
-
I am reminded of me old sainted grandma, in this case, who, if bested in any discussion, would declare 'aye, well ah'll always thinkit'
-
Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.
You're quite right - in at least some cases it seems to be a way of claiming that a subjective opinion or preference is somehow more than that.
In addition the 'true for me' approach doesn't exist in isolation and is often, it seems to me, accompanied by other fallacies.
In the thread NS is talking about the 'true for them' resurrection claimants seem to be underpinned by large dollops of confirmation bias and special pleading (just for starters!)
-
Not sure that on the other thread, the perfectionists are taking the true for me line. I think they are balls to the wall, eye sockets flailing, increasingly saying true for everybody, though without justification.
The true for me stuff just arises from what is, on surface, a more reasonable approach but seems designed to subvert the actual idea of truth and colour an opinion on a slightly more pleasing shade of fact.
-
Well, I have my true for me's - the sun is deity, the earth is deity, the universe is deity - they are a part of my reality, same as 'roses smell nice' and 'I like dogs and cats but not for the same reasons'. But I don't expect any of that to have meaning for others. Why on earth would it?
-
But then what is the point in smuggling in the concept of 'truth' to 'i think'?
-
Are you paying attention Horsethorn? Looking forward to your response to Nearly and our resident Marxist on what your "true for me" thingy means to you.
I believe that Horsethorn uses the "true for me" thingy to avoid that annoying "evidence" demand. A demand he loves to toss at Christians but is never able to provide regarding his god of the month. I don't have to provide evidence cause "it's true for me".
-
Are you paying attention Horsethorn? Looking forward to your response to Nearly and our resident Marxist on what your "true for me" thingy means to you.
I believe that Horsethorn uses the "true for me" thingy to avoid that annoying "evidence" demand. A demand he loves to toss at Christians but is never able to provide regarding his god of the month. I don't have to provide evidence cause "it's true for me".
The difference of course is that Christians tend to say that Christianity is, in their opinion, true for everyone whereas as far as I know ht doesn't go beyond 'true for me' - and he doesn't seem to want to influence our kids at school or have special privileges (unlike some elements within Christianity).
-
Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.
Oddly enough, the only people I know on this forum who use the term 'true for them/you/me' are those who want to suggest that a given faith/fact does not have universal validity, and use the term to explain why that faith or fact isn't valid for them.
I've used this analogy before and accept that it isn't perfect, but goes a long way to being so.
Imagine: a friend of yours is trying to unlock his or her front door, and consistently fails because they are using the wrong key. You come along, point out their error and help them recognise the correct key by some characteristic on it that all the other - similar - keys on their keyring don't have. By your explanation above, that is only an example of 'true for me', and doesn't have universal validity for ebveryone. In other words, you are eventually bound to find a key that does undo the lock (even if you don't have the 'proper' key with you).
-
...(unlike some elements within Christianity).
Something that you could probably have said perfectly validly, with Muslim/Atheist/Hindu/Communist/Labour/Tory/SNP..., instead of 'Christianity', Gordon. It is definitely not an idea that is exclusive to Christianity.
-
Surely we're making this way more complicated than it need be.
Mainstream philosophy recognises an unbridgeable gap between fact and value (and that you can't derive the latter from the former, but that's another discussion for another day). Certain classes of things are what we call facts, objectively demonstrable within a given worldview, while others are subjective beliefs which we can't share with others. It's true for Tim if he hates football and loves pizza, but not for Tom if Tom loves football and hates pizza. That these preferences are held are facts, but the preferences themselves are just that.
-
...(unlike some elements within Christianity).
Something that you could probably have said perfectly validly, with Muslim/Atheist/Hindu/Communist/Labour/Tory/SNP..., instead of 'Christianity', Gordon. It is definitely not an idea that is exclusive to Christianity.
What special privileges do these groups seek?
-
...(unlike some elements within Christianity).
Something that you could probably have said perfectly validly, with Muslim/Atheist/Hindu/Communist/Labour/Tory/SNP..., instead of 'Christianity', Gordon. It is definitely not an idea that is exclusive to Christianity.
What special privileges do these groups seek?
OK, Nepal is finally due to have a new Constitution signed on Sunday. Currently, there is no freedom of religion clause within it (though there are many people - Hindus included - pushing for one to be included). The politicians want to return Nepal to being a Hindu state, just without a monarch. Comparable laws apply in Muslim countries, communist countries, etc. Before you say "but we're talking about the 'UK', or 'the West'" where is this limitation referred to in this thread. We are tlking globally, as well as individually: we are NOT talking nationally or even culturally.
-
Well, I was - I don't live in Nepal.
-
Well, I was - I don't live in Nepal.
I appreciate that, but we all live in what is an increasingly global village where different people's attitudes and opinions impinge of everyone else.
-
...(unlike some elements within Christianity).
Something that you could probably have said perfectly validly, with Muslim/Atheist/Hindu/Communist/Labour/Tory/SNP..., instead of 'Christianity', Gordon. It is definitely not an idea that is exclusive to Christianity.
Quite simple - it was the Christians who were looking to gain access to my kids when they were at school, whereas the SNP or the Hindus never did, and there are a bunch of CofE clerics sitting in the HoL simply because they are CofE clerics.
So, within the context of my experience there are some Christians (though not all) who seem to work on the basis that since they've caught something nasty they'd really like it if the rest of us caught it too: they seem unable to keep it to themselves!
-
Well, I was - I don't live in Nepal.
I appreciate that, but we all live in what is an increasingly global village where different people's attitudes and opinions impinge of everyone else.
So what special privileges are the SNP seeking in Nepal then?
-
So what special privileges are the SNP seeking in Nepal then?
Good to see that you have missed the point of both my posts #11 & 14. Not that I would expect much else from you.
-
If you wanted a discussion about the constitution of Nepal, Nepali religious freedom and its relevance to people who live in Yeovil or Nuneaton I really think you should have said ::)
-
Gordon,
Like i said, Horse uses that line to avoid providing evidence when asked. Makes no difference who you think a truth is for. If you won't provide evidence for something you believe is true then don't demand it from others.
True, Horsethorn may not be able to stand on the street and share his paganism with others but he is just one. Every time I've been to Hawaii those pagan hare krishnas are in the airport trying to get money from people and on the main strip at night in Waikiki, trying to hook converts and collect money of course.
-
If you wanted a discussion about the constitution of Nepal, Nepali religious freedom and its relevance to people who live in Yeovil or Nuneaton I really think you should have said ::)
The reason that the Nepalese constitution is relevant to people in Yeovil or Nuneaton is that globally, certain groups want to 'gain access to' (as Gordon put it in a previous post) other members of a society. When I was at school, it was drug runners, paedophiles, atheists, the occasional homosexual staff member and Anglicans. OK, perhaps I had a rather different educational background to some here - but since the offenders hadn't changed a great deal by the time I became a teacher, I doubt it.
This is not something exclusive to Christians, nor is it something exclusive to the UK - which seems to be what you want to make it out to be.
-
Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.
You're quite right - in at least some cases it seems to be a way of claiming that a subjective opinion or preference is somehow more than that.
Doesn't it just mean it's true for them and reflects a desire not to be doctrinaire about there own point of view. Something you and I are not into.
-
Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.
You're quite right - in at least some cases it seems to be a way of claiming that a subjective opinion or preference is somehow more than that.
Doesn't it just mean it's true for them and reflects a desire not to be doctrinaire about there own point of view. Something you and I are not into.
In which case why not just say 'I think'?
-
Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.
You're quite right - in at least some cases it seems to be a way of claiming that a subjective opinion or preference is somehow more than that.
Doesn't it just mean it's true for them and reflects a desire not to be doctrinaire about there own point of view. Something you and I are not into.
In which case why not just say 'I think'?
Yes I can see that might appeal for a sub ''truth'' existence where nothing as exciting as a truth normally pops up.
-
But then what is the point in smuggling in the concept of 'truth' to 'i think'?
If you want to put it like that, what us truth at all? Might as well dump it altogether.
-
But then what is the point in smuggling in the concept of 'truth' to 'i think'?
If you want to put it like that, what us truth at all? Might as well dump it altogether.
Things will be true - putting the concept of truth into opinion seems pointless
-
Here's a nugget for you youngsters to chew on if you fancy it - Kant's theory of knowledge.
1) Opinion - subjectively insufficient and objectively insufficient. ("It's only my opinion/taste/preference - it's true/right/good for me but I can't demonstrate it to anybody else and I don't claim it's anything more than my own personal opinion"). Example: Marmite.
2) Belief - subjectively sufficient but objectively insufficient. ("I firmly believe this to be true, but I can't share my conviction that this is so and so can't demonstrate it to another party"). Example: belief in God.
3) Knowledge - subjectively sufficient and objectively sufficient. ("I believe X to be true because of the evidence for X, and can show X to you or any number of others who can themselves independently validate the truth of X"). Example: the atomic structure of beryllium.
-
Here's a nugget for you youngsters to chew on if you fancy it - Kant's theory of knowledge.
and ...?
-
Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.
I don't think I use the expression 'true for me'. I often say 'in my opinion', which seems only right and proper if I say something controversial.
-
Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.
I don't think I use the expression 'true for me'. I often say 'in my opinion', which seems only right and proper if I say something controversial.
I think there is a difference between a 'true for me' statement and an 'opinion'. To my mind something that is true for me is something entirely internalised with no suggestion that it goes beyond me. So if I say that Mozart is my favourite composer that is 'true for me' - I'm not suggesting that Mozart should be your favourite composer nor that Mozart is the best composer - merely that he is my favourite.
It isn't therefor an opinion that Mozart is my favourite composer, because an opinion is a challengeable view. Sure I could be lying, but if I'm not no-one else could legitimately challenge what my personal preference is.
However if I said that Mozart is the greatest composer - that's an opinion that I am externalising - I'm not saying he is the greatest composer (to me) but the greatest composer. That opinion may reasonable be challenged by others and a debate held. But if someone else said that rather than Mozart their favourite composer is Britten - that isn't really a challengeable opinion merely a statement of fact for them - i.e. true for me.
-
Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.
I don't think I use the expression 'true for me'. I often say 'in my opinion', which seems only right and proper if I say something controversial.
I think there is a difference between a 'true for me' statement and an 'opinion'. To my mind something that is true for me is something entirely internalised with no suggestion that it goes beyond me. So if I say that Mozart is my favourite composer that is 'true for me' - I'm not suggesting that Mozart should be your favourite composer nor that Mozart is the best composer - merely that he is my favourite.
It isn't therefor an opinion that Mozart is my favourite composer, because an opinion is a challengeable view. Sure I could be lying, but if I'm not no-one else could legitimately challenge what my personal preference is.
However if I said that Mozart is the greatest composer - that's an opinion that I am externalising - I'm not saying he is the greatest composer (to me) but the greatest composer. That opinion may reasonable be challenged by others and a debate held. But if someone else said that rather than Mozart their favourite composer is Britten - that isn't really a challengeable opinion merely a statement of fact for them - i.e. true for me.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm! I don't see the difference, to be frank, but if you do, fair enough!
-
Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.
I don't think I use the expression 'true for me'. I often say 'in my opinion', which seems only right and proper if I say something controversial.
I think there is a difference between a 'true for me' statement and an 'opinion'. To my mind something that is true for me is something entirely internalised with no suggestion that it goes beyond me. So if I say that Mozart is my favourite composer that is 'true for me' - I'm not suggesting that Mozart should be your favourite composer nor that Mozart is the best composer - merely that he is my favourite.
It isn't therefor an opinion that Mozart is my favourite composer, because an opinion is a challengeable view. Sure I could be lying, but if I'm not no-one else could legitimately challenge what my personal preference is.
However if I said that Mozart is the greatest composer - that's an opinion that I am externalising - I'm not saying he is the greatest composer (to me) but the greatest composer. That opinion may reasonable be challenged by others and a debate held. But if someone else said that rather than Mozart their favourite composer is Britten - that isn't really a challengeable opinion merely a statement of fact for them - i.e. true for me.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm! I don't see the difference, to be frank, but if you do, fair enough!
If is say 'I like marmite more than jam' - that is a statement of fact, but only applies to me. If I say 'Marmite is nicer than jam' or even 'everyone likes Marmite more than jam' those are opinions that I think applies beyond me. They aren't statements of fact, where as the first comment is a statement of fact, i.e. true for me.
-
Here's a nugget for you youngsters to chew on if you fancy it - Kant's theory of knowledge.
and ...?
... and it's relevant to the topic of the thread, i.e. stating that something is "true for me" and thus is merely a subjectively and objectively insufficient opinion. (Like Floo, I can't really see any useful or meaningful distinction between Prof. Davey's "true for me" statement and an opinion). If there are any bits that you're struggling with, just ask - always glad to help.
-
Here's a nugget for you youngsters to chew on if you fancy it - Kant's theory of knowledge.
and ...?
... and it's relevant to the topic of the thread, i.e. stating that something is "true for me" and thus is merely a subjectively and objectively insufficient opinion. If there are any bits that you're stuggling with, just ask - always glad to help.
I've never claimed that Christianity is just 'true for me'. That seems to be the preserve of non-believers.
-
I've never claimed that Christianity is just 'true for me'.
I'm not aware that anybody had claimed that you'd made such a claim.
That seems to be the preserve of non-believers.
Based on what?
You don't seem to be very clear on precisely what position you're taking.
Is it, or is it not, your belief that Christianity is true and remains true whether someone believes that it is true or not, i.e. that Christianity is true regardless of what Jews, Muslim, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Zoroastrians, pagans, atheists say to the contrary?
-
Here's a nugget for you youngsters to chew on if you fancy it - Kant's theory of knowledge.
1) Opinion - subjectively insufficient and objectively insufficient. ("It's only my opinion/taste/preference - it's true/right/good for me but I can't demonstrate it to anybody else and I don't claim it's anything more than my own personal opinion"). Example: Marmite.
2) Belief - subjectively sufficient but objectively insufficient. ("I firmly believe this to be true, but I can't share my conviction that this is so and so can't demonstrate it to another party"). Example: belief in God.
3) Knowledge - subjectively sufficient and objectively sufficient. ("I believe X to be true because of the evidence for X, and can show X to you or any number of others who can themselves independently validate the truth of X"). Example: the atomic structure of beryllium.
Except I'm not sure we know anything for certain. I think the best we can get is 'true according to how we understand the universe to work' - so probably 'we think' rather than 'I think', but no more than that.
-
Here's a nugget for you youngsters to chew on if you fancy it - Kant's theory of knowledge.
1) Opinion - subjectively insufficient and objectively insufficient. ("It's only my opinion/taste/preference - it's true/right/good for me but I can't demonstrate it to anybody else and I don't claim it's anything more than my own personal opinion"). Example: Marmite.
2) Belief - subjectively sufficient but objectively insufficient. ("I firmly believe this to be true, but I can't share my conviction that this is so and so can't demonstrate it to another party"). Example: belief in God.
3) Knowledge - subjectively sufficient and objectively sufficient. ("I believe X to be true because of the evidence for X, and can show X to you or any number of others who can themselves independently validate the truth of X"). Example: the atomic structure of beryllium.
Except I'm not sure we know anything for certain. I think the best we can get is 'true according to how we understand the universe to work' - so probably 'we think' rather than 'I think', but no more than that.
I don't really see any difference between 1 and 2. To an extent this relates back to Prof D's idea of internalising and externalising - they are notional expressions with no justifocation other than the 'decision' of the speaker to phrase the declaration in that way.
And I agree with Rhiannon that all we can say is we think but in those positions, we have agreed the method but none of those even addresses hard solipsism.
-
That seems to be the preserve of non-believers.
Based on what?
The only people I've heard use the term 'true for me' is non-believers when trying to ridicule believers.
-
That seems to be the preserve of non-believers.
Based on what?
The only people I've heard use the term 'true for me' is non-believers when trying to ridicule believers.
Really?
Mind you, believers who state they have evidence to substantiate their faith, but refuse to supply it certainly deserve to be challenged!
-
That seems to be the preserve of non-believers.
Based on what?
The only people I've heard use the term 'true for me' is non-believers when trying to ridicule believers.
So when I say that I have 'true for me' experiences (beliefs if you like) as in post 5 above, I'm trying to ridicule you? How does that work?
-
That seems to be the preserve of non-believers.
Based on what?
The only people I've heard use the term 'true for me' is non-believers when trying to ridicule believers.
But Hope, you've said certain parts of your Bible aren't to be trusted, no?
-
That seems to be the preserve of non-believers.
Based on what?
The only people I've heard use the term 'true for me' is non-believers when trying to ridicule believers.
Really?!? I don't think so.
When I use the term it is to mean something that applies to me alone (e.g. my personal preference, my personal belief) that I don't apply to anyone else or 'externalise' and I know to be 'true to me'.
No sense of ridicule in that at all.
I don't like marmite is a statement which is true to me - might not be true to you, but it is certainly true to me.
-
Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.
You're quite right - in at least some cases it seems to be a way of claiming that a subjective opinion or preference is somehow more than that.
In addition the 'true for me' approach doesn't exist in isolation and is often, it seems to me, accompanied by other fallacies.
In the thread NS is talking about the 'true for them' resurrection claimants seem to be underpinned by large dollops of confirmation bias and special pleading (just for starters!)
Well Gordon you are going to die someday then you will know if The Lord Jesus Christ is true for you,meanwhile settle back and wait.
~TW~
-
Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.
You're quite right - in at least some cases it seems to be a way of claiming that a subjective opinion or preference is somehow more than that.
In addition the 'true for me' approach doesn't exist in isolation and is often, it seems to me, accompanied by other fallacies.
In the thread NS is talking about the 'true for them' resurrection claimants seem to be underpinned by large dollops of confirmation bias and special pleading (just for starters!)
Well Gordon you are going to die someday then you will know if The Lord Jesus Christ is true for you,meanwhile settle back and wait.
~TW~
An assertion without any evidence to back it up! ::)
-
Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.
You're quite right - in at least some cases it seems to be a way of claiming that a subjective opinion or preference is somehow more than that.
In addition the 'true for me' approach doesn't exist in isolation and is often, it seems to me, accompanied by other fallacies.
In the thread NS is talking about the 'true for them' resurrection claimants seem to be underpinned by large dollops of confirmation bias and special pleading (just for starters!)
Well Gordon you are going to die someday then you will know if The Lord Jesus Christ is true for you,meanwhile settle back and wait.
~TW~
I'll be dead, so I won't know anything.
-
I'll be dead, so I won't know anything.
To quote Floo, An assertion without any evidence to back it up! ::)
-
I'll be dead, so I won't know anything.
To quote Floo, An assertion without any evidence to back it up! ::)
Don't be silly, Hope (hint - ask your local undertaker for confirmation that dead people aren't active in either a physical or mental sense.)
-
I'll be dead, so I won't know anything.
To quote Floo, An assertion without any evidence to back it up! ::)
How many dead people have you seen alive after they died?
-
"It's true for me" is nothing more than a possible alternative for "common sense".
It's common sense means: "I have no evidence to support my view, nor I have any intention of seeking supporting evidence, but it is clear to me that ... "
-
That's very common-sensible of you. :)
-
Truth is relative for everyone in their own way and individual circumstance.
So true for anyone is going to be radically different on many levels.
-
Truth is relative for everyone in their own way and individual circumstance.
So true for anyone is going to be radically different on many levels.
No.
What is true is true no matter how many believe it.
-
Truth is relative for everyone in their own way and individual circumstance.
So true for anyone is going to be radically different on many levels.
No.
What is true is true no matter how many believe it.
I have two children a boy and girl. True for me... is that true for you.
So how about thinking about the truth and the definition of true for me....
-
Truth is relative for everyone in their own way and individual circumstance.
So true for anyone is going to be radically different on many levels.
No.
What is true is true no matter how many believe it.
I have two children a boy and girl. True for me... is that true for you.
So how about thinking about the truth and the definition of true for me....
If you have two children then the fact you have two children is a fact and is also true for me.
Coincidentally I also have a boy and a girl. Facts are not relative and are true for everyone.
-
Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.
'True for me' as a choice of phrase, is an expression of ego. Truth is not a commodity, it cannot be owned, traded, divided, apportioned or bartered. When people say 'true for me' they are expressing that a point of view seems unquestionably true from their perspective, and that is fair enough in itself, but the phrase 'true for me' goes further, it seeks to lay a claim of ownership over something that cannot be owned (ie truth).
-
Doesn't that depend on why people use it? 'True for me' when I use it means an experience or understanding that I cannot deny but that I am uncertain or doubtful as to whether it could ever be true for you, or indeed verifiably true. When it comes to perspectives and experiences of deity they are so many and so varied that no honest theist/deist could claim to have the truth. But to deny that my experiences are true for me would be for me to be disrespectful to an element of my life that matters to me.
-
Truth is relative for everyone in their own way and individual circumstance.
So true for anyone is going to be radically different on many levels.
No.
What is true is true no matter how many believe it.
I have two children a boy and girl. True for me... is that true for you.
So how about thinking about the truth and the definition of true for me....
Well unless you are deliberately lying by saying you have two children, a boy and girl, that is a fact which can definitely be proved without a shadow of doubt!
-
Truth is relative for everyone in their own way and individual circumstance.
So true for anyone is going to be radically different on many levels.
No.
What is true is true no matter how many believe it.
I have two children a boy and girl. True for me... is that true for you.
So how about thinking about the truth and the definition of true for me....
Well unless you are deliberately lying by saying you have two children, a boy and girl, that is a fact which can definitely be proved without a shadow of doubt!
Only if we accept that our reality is true, and I'm not sure that it is. It seems we have 'rules' that help us to make sense of the world and our existence so that we can function. But we can't really know that anything is 'true'. Time, for example, might not work as we think it does.
-
Truth is relative for everyone in their own way and individual circumstance.
So true for anyone is going to be radically different on many levels.
No.
What is true is true no matter how many believe it.
I have two children a boy and girl. True for me... is that true for you.
So how about thinking about the truth and the definition of true for me....
Well unless you are deliberately lying by saying you have two children, a boy and girl, that is a fact which can definitely be proved without a shadow of doubt!
Only if we accept that our reality is true, and I'm not sure that it is. It seems we have 'rules' that help us to make sense of the world and our existence so that we can function. But we can't really know that anything is 'true'. Time, for example, might not work as we think it does.
If you mean what we think is reality could be each one of us living our own version of it, like playing a computer game, then that is always a possibility.