What It Is Like to Find the Truth

[Nemra]

The illustrated illusion exists.

It's obvious in two ways:

• You see two faces.
• You see the details that make you assume that the illustration is composed of two faces.

Both exist.

The falsehood about that illustration is thinking that there are only two faces, which is true for you before noticing the falsehood. After noticing, the falsehood exists as a falsehood, otherwise if it isn't recognized as a falsehood, then you still haven't seen through the illusion.

If you define truth as a thing inside or outside of existence, your definition of truth will be arbitrary.

If you don't equate truth to existence, you will slip into infinite regress.

Edited 7 hours ago by Nemra

[Nemra]

5 hours ago, Nemra said:

If you define truth as a thing inside or outside of existence, your definition of truth will be arbitrary.

If you don't equate truth to existence, you will slip into infinite regress.

Which is why God, as the creator of existence, is either false or existence itself.

However, since nothing can be referenced outside of existence, God must be existence itself, given that God is the creator of existence. Because existence is truth, all existent things are self-caused; therefore, God creates by causing itself, as God encompasses everything that exists.

Since you rely on your own experience to refer to what exists, your experience encompasses everything that can exist, which is why your experience is self-evident and direct.

If God is existence, and your experience is what exists, you are God.

Edited 1 hour ago by Nemra

[Ziran]

7 hours ago, Nemra said:

I answered in an abstract way. It's not difficult to understand.

I didn't say that specific truths are obvious. I'm talking about truth itself. So your specific case does matter here.

Why do you think that people believe that they have the truth? They are fooled by the obviousness of existence, so they think what they believe is true.

Heard.  I'm still not seeing a connection to the example I provided.  None the less:  maybe it would help me to understand if I refer back to your original assertion:  "truth's properties are obviousness and existence."

If so, how can anyone be "fooled by the obviousness"?  If "obviousness" is a property of truth; then, how is it both "obvious" and "truthful" and "fooling oneself"?

If there is no good answer, or useful response, perhaps just leave my questions unanswered as fuel for further contemplation?

Thank you, 

[Nemra]

50 minutes ago, Ziran said:

If so, how can anyone be "fooled by the obviousness"?  If "obviousness" is a property of truth; then, how is it both "obvious" and "truthful" and "fooling oneself"?

Let's say you think that something is true and the next day you find out it isn't true.

Was that thing not obvious to you that it was true before finding out the truth? Doesn't that obviousness make you think that you have got the truth if you're not careful about your epistemology?

I'm not saying that you knew the truth.

It's just that, regardless of you knowing something to be true or not, that obviousness points to something deeper about reality that is absolutely true, without a doubt, beyond whatever you think about it.

If the truth were not beyond epistemology, how could you determine that your epistemology is truthful?

If an epistemology were to validate itself using its own criteria for truth, it would be inherently untruthful.

So, truth must be beyond epistemology.

Edited 20 minutes ago by Nemra

[blankisomeone]

@Nemra

Hi Nemra! What did you have for lunch today? Did you get a good night sleep? Anything pending from work you're avoiding? Did you socialize with family and friends today? Give and receive some hugs? Have a good day my man.

[Nemra]

What I'm seeing is that different epistemologies use their own criteria for truth by splitting existence in their own ways.

They want to have a monopoly on what it means to be true.

It's mental masturbation.

Like @Leo Gura says, "it's a self-licking ice cream cone".