Truth - Revision history

Odyssee: /* Subject and Object */

2021-05-26T12:38:40Z

Subject and Object

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:38, 26 May 2021
Line 262:		Line 262:
	Or as [[Johannes Scotus Eriugena\|Johannes Scotus Eriugena]] puts it with reference to [[Dionysius Areopagita]]:		Or as [[Johannes Scotus Eriugena\|Johannes Scotus Eriugena]] puts it with reference to [[Dionysius Areopagita]]:

	{{Quote\|For the thoughts of things are truly the things themselves, as St. Dionysius says: "the knowledge of the existing is the existing itself;" but their primordial causes and reasons are led to union by thought-activity, not by the things themselves.\|[[John ~~Scottus~~ Eriugena]]\| ''On the Division of Nature''\|ref=<ref>Johannes Scotus Erigena, Ludwig Noack (Übers.): ''Über die Eintheilung der Natur'', Verlag von L. Heimann, Berlin 1870, Erste Abtheilung, S. 133f [http://www.odysseetheater.org/jump.php?url=http://www.odysseetheater.org/ftp/bibliothek/Philosophie/Johannes_Scotus_Erigena/Johannes_Scotus_Erigena_Ueber_die_Einteilung_der_Natur.pdf#page=140&view=Fit]</ref>}}		{{Quote\|For the thoughts of things are truly the things themselves, as St. Dionysius says: "the knowledge of the existing is the existing itself;" but their primordial causes and reasons are led to union by thought-activity, not by the things themselves.\|[[John Scotus Eriugena]]\| ''On the Division of Nature''\|ref=<ref>Johannes Scotus Erigena, Ludwig Noack (Übers.): ''Über die Eintheilung der Natur'', Verlag von L. Heimann, Berlin 1870, Erste Abtheilung, S. 133f [http://www.odysseetheater.org/jump.php?url=http://www.odysseetheater.org/ftp/bibliothek/Philosophie/Johannes_Scotus_Erigena/Johannes_Scotus_Erigena_Ueber_die_Einteilung_der_Natur.pdf#page=140&view=Fit]</ref>}}

	The subject-object division, without which our I-consciousness would not be possible, but through which the truth is initially veiled under the veil of objects, is brought about by the I-self in each individual way and can also only be revealed again by the individual I-self. By illuminating the truth in the act of cognition, the gap between ego and world, torn open by our ego-consciousness, is overcome again.		The subject-object division, without which our I-consciousness would not be possible, but through which the truth is initially veiled under the veil of objects, is brought about by the I-self in each individual way and can also only be revealed again by the individual I-self. By illuminating the truth in the act of cognition, the gap between ego and world, torn open by our ego-consciousness, is overcome again.

Odyssee at 12:15, 26 May 2021

2021-05-26T12:15:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:15, 26 May 2021
Line 29:		Line 29:
	Only after man had learned to make use of his own intellect, which, however, can also be subject to error through the influence of Ahriman, does the question arise again and again, which Pontius Pilate also had to ask: "What is truth?"		Only after man had learned to make use of his own intellect, which, however, can also be subject to error through the influence of Ahriman, does the question arise again and again, which Pontius Pilate also had to ask: "What is truth?"

	{{GZ\|"Among the Hebrew people there were scribes who knew from the Scriptures what had been preserved from the ancient wisdom of the gods. Out of these scribes came the judgment that condemned the Christ Jesus to death. Such a man as Paul, when he was still Saul, looks up to the primeval wisdom of the gods. From it flowed down to the scribes of his time that which this godly wisdom had become for man. Because outstanding men devoted themselves to writing, this wisdom of the gods was maintained and just judgements being pronounced. An innocent man condemned to the death on the Cross: impossible, impossible! if everything took place as it did in the condemnation of the Christ Jesus. Only the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, who was already instinctively involved in a completely different world view, could pronounce the meaningful word: What is truth? - For Paul, when he was still Saul, there was no possibility of even thinking that what took place according to just judgement should not have been truth.		{{GZ\|Among the Hebrew people there were scribes who knew from the Scriptures what had been preserved from the ancient wisdom of the gods. Out of these scribes came the judgment that condemned the Christ Jesus to death. Such a man as Paul, when he was still Saul, looks up to the primeval wisdom of the gods. From it flowed down to the scribes of his time that which this godly wisdom had become for man. Because outstanding men devoted themselves to writing, this wisdom of the gods was maintained and just judgements being pronounced. An innocent man condemned to the death on the Cross: impossible, impossible! if everything took place as it did in the condemnation of the Christ Jesus. Only the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, who was already instinctively involved in a completely different world view, could pronounce the meaningful word: What is truth? - For Paul, when he was still Saul, there was no possibility of even thinking that what took place according to just judgement should not have been truth.

	What conviction did Paul have to come to? The conviction that what once came from the gods as truth can be error among men, that men can make it into error, into such strong error that the most blameless goes through the death on the cross.		What conviction did Paul have to come to? The conviction that what once came from the gods as truth can be error among men, that men can make it into error, into such strong error that the most blameless goes through the death on the cross.
Line 41:		Line 41:
	Of course, Saul could only convince himself by the fact that this was so. Only the Christ Himself could convince him when He appeared to him, as happened through the event at Damascus. But what did that mean for Saul? It meant that the old wisdom of the gods was no longer there, but that the Ahrimanic had flowed into it.		Of course, Saul could only convince himself by the fact that this was so. Only the Christ Himself could convince him when He appeared to him, as happened through the event at Damascus. But what did that mean for Saul? It meant that the old wisdom of the gods was no longer there, but that the Ahrimanic had flowed into it.

	Thus Paul came to realise that the evolution of mankind was seized by an enemy, and that this enemy was the source of error on ~~earth~~\|211\|117ff}}		Thus Paul came to realise that the evolution of mankind was seized by an enemy, and that this enemy was the source of error on Earth\|211\|117ff}}

	=== I am the Way and the Truth and the Life ===		=== I am the Way and the Truth and the Life ===
Line 260:		Line 260:
	As spiritual content, the innermost core of the world comes to life in self-knowledge. For the human being, the experience of self-knowledge means weaving and working within the core of the world.\|7\|33f}}		As spiritual content, the innermost core of the world comes to life in self-knowledge. For the human being, the experience of self-knowledge means weaving and working within the core of the world.\|7\|33f}}

	Or as [[w:Johannes Scotus Eriugena\|Johannes Scotus Eriugena]] puts it with reference to [[Dionysius Areopagita]]:		Or as [[Johannes Scotus Eriugena\|Johannes Scotus Eriugena]] puts it with reference to [[Dionysius Areopagita]]:

	{{Quote\|For the thoughts of things are truly the things themselves, as St. Dionysius says: "the knowledge of the existing is the existing itself;" but their primordial causes and reasons are led to union by thought-activity, not by the things themselves.\|John Scottus Eriugena:\| ''On the Division of Nature''\|ref=<ref>Johannes Scotus Erigena, Ludwig Noack (Übers.): ''Über die Eintheilung der Natur'', Verlag von L. Heimann, Berlin 1870, Erste Abtheilung, S. 133f [http://www.odysseetheater.org/jump.php?url=http://www.odysseetheater.org/ftp/bibliothek/Philosophie/Johannes_Scotus_Erigena/Johannes_Scotus_Erigena_Ueber_die_Einteilung_der_Natur.pdf#page=140&view=Fit]</ref>}}		{{Quote\|For the thoughts of things are truly the things themselves, as St. Dionysius says: "the knowledge of the existing is the existing itself;" but their primordial causes and reasons are led to union by thought-activity, not by the things themselves.\|[[John Scottus Eriugena]]\| ''On the Division of Nature''\|ref=<ref>Johannes Scotus Erigena, Ludwig Noack (Übers.): ''Über die Eintheilung der Natur'', Verlag von L. Heimann, Berlin 1870, Erste Abtheilung, S. 133f [http://www.odysseetheater.org/jump.php?url=http://www.odysseetheater.org/ftp/bibliothek/Philosophie/Johannes_Scotus_Erigena/Johannes_Scotus_Erigena_Ueber_die_Einteilung_der_Natur.pdf#page=140&view=Fit]</ref>}}

	The subject-object division, without which our I-consciousness would not be possible, but through which the truth is initially veiled under the veil of objects, is brought about by the I-self in each individual way and can also only be revealed again by the individual I-self. By illuminating the truth in the act of cognition, the gap between ego and world, torn open by our ego-consciousness, is overcome again.		The subject-object division, without which our I-consciousness would not be possible, but through which the truth is initially veiled under the veil of objects, is brought about by the I-self in each individual way and can also only be revealed again by the individual I-self. By illuminating the truth in the act of cognition, the gap between ego and world, torn open by our ego-consciousness, is overcome again.

Odyssee: /* Feeling for truth */

2021-04-06T09:11:22Z

Feeling for truth

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:11, 6 April 2021
Line 11:		Line 11:
	=== Feeling for truth ===		=== Feeling for truth ===

	{{Quote\|All that we call inventing, discovering in the higher sense, is the significant exercise, activity of an original feeling for truth, which, formed long ago in silence, leads unexpectedly, with lightning speed, to a fruitful knowledge. It is a revelation coursing from its inner source to its outer unfolding manifestation, which makes man sense his likeness to God. It is a synthesis of world and spirit, which gives the most blessed assurance of the eternal harmony of existence.\|[[~~J. W.~~ Goethe]]:\|''Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre''\|ref=<ref>Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: ''Berliner Ausgabe. Kunsttheoretische Schriften und Übersetzungen'' [Band 17–22], Band 18, Berlin 1960 ff, S. 564 {{Zeno-Werk\|Literatur/M/Goethe,+Johann+Wolfgang/Aphorismen+und+Aufzeichnungen/Maximen+und+Reflexionen/Aus+»Wilhelm+Meisters+Wanderjahren«/Betrachtungen+im+Sinne+der+Wanderer\|Betrachtungen im Sinne der Wanderer}}</ref> }}		{{Quote\|All that we call inventing, discovering in the higher sense, is the significant exercise, activity of an original feeling for truth, which, formed long ago in silence, leads unexpectedly, with lightning speed, to a fruitful knowledge. It is a revelation coursing from its inner source to its outer unfolding manifestation, which makes man sense his likeness to God. It is a synthesis of world and spirit, which gives the most blessed assurance of the eternal harmony of existence.\|[[w:Johann Wolfgang von Goethe\|Johann Wolfgang von Goethe]]\|''Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre''\|ref=<ref>Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: ''Berliner Ausgabe. Kunsttheoretische Schriften und Übersetzungen'' [Band 17–22], Band 18, Berlin 1960 ff, S. 564 {{Zeno-Werk\|Literatur/M/Goethe,+Johann+Wolfgang/Aphorismen+und+Aufzeichnungen/Maximen+und+Reflexionen/Aus+»Wilhelm+Meisters+Wanderjahren«/Betrachtungen+im+Sinne+der+Wanderer\|Betrachtungen im Sinne der Wanderer}}</ref> }}

	=== The question of Pilate ===		=== The question of Pilate ===

Odyssee at 00:55, 19 March 2021

2021-03-19T00:55:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:55, 19 March 2021
Line 2:		Line 2:
	the truth will set you free.</poem>\|{{B\|John\|8:32}}}}		the truth will set you free.</poem>\|{{B\|John\|8:32}}}}

	'''Truth''' (from [[w:Indo-European languages\|Indo-European]]: ''*wēr-'' "trust, faithfulness, assent"; [[w:Latin\|Latin]]: ''veritas''; {{ELSalt\|ἀλήθεια}} ''Aletheia'', from α privativum and λῆθος, P.P.P. from λανθάνω, "conceal", thus literally meaning "that which is unconcealed") is a basic philosophical concept, but one that has been conceived very differently by different thinkers → truth.		'''Truth''' (from [[w:Indo-European languages\|Indo-European]]: ''*wēr-'' "trust, faithfulness, assent"; [[w:Latin\|Latin]]: ''veritas''; {{ELSalt\|ἀλήθεια}} ''Aletheia'', from α privativum and λῆθος, P.P.P. from λανθάνω, "conceal", thus literally meaning "that which is unconcealed") is a basic philosophical concept, but one that has been conceived very differently by different thinkers → [[w:truth\|truth]].

	{{GZ\|Truth, however, is not something about which one can have opinions. One knows a truth or one does not know it. No one can say that the three angles in the triangle are 725 degrees instead of 180.\|93\|108}}		{{GZ\|Truth, however, is not something about which one can have opinions. One knows a truth or one does not know it. No one can say that the three angles in the triangle are 725 degrees instead of 180.\|93\|108}}

Odyssee: /* Theories of Truth */

2021-03-19T00:52:17Z

Theories of Truth

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:52, 19 March 2021
Line 105:		Line 105:
	\| –		\| –
	\|-		\|-
	\| [[w:Truth#~~Pragmatic~~\|Performative theory]]		\| [[w:Truth#Performative\|Performative theory]]
	\| what one does when one says a statement is true		\| what one does when one says a statement is true
	\| Action / speech act / self-commitment		\| Action / speech act / self-commitment

Odyssee: /* Theories of Truth */

2021-03-19T00:50:27Z

Theories of Truth

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:50, 19 March 2021
Line 80:		Line 80:
	!width="22%"\|''Criteria of Truth''		!width="22%"\|''Criteria of Truth''
	\|-		\|-
	\| Theory of Ontological-metaphysical ~~correspondenc~~		\| [[w:Correspondence theory of truth\|Theory of Ontological-metaphysical correspondence]]
	\| „Veritas est adaequatio intellectus et rei“<br />Truth is the correspondence of cognizing intellect and thing		\| „Veritas est adaequatio intellectus et rei“<br />Truth is the correspondence of cognizing intellect and thing
	\| Thinking		\| Thinking
Line 90:		Line 90:
	\| Praxis<ref name="Wahrheit">Artikel „Wahrheit“. In: Georg Klaus, Manfred Buhr (Hrsg.): ''Philosophisches Wörterbuch.'' 11. Aufl., Leipzig 1975.</ref>		\| Praxis<ref name="Wahrheit">Artikel „Wahrheit“. In: Georg Klaus, Manfred Buhr (Hrsg.): ''Philosophisches Wörterbuch.'' 11. Aufl., Leipzig 1975.</ref>
	\|-		\|-
	\| Logical-empirical pictorial theory		\| [[w:Logical positivism\|Logical-empirical pictorial theory]]
	\| Conformity of the logical structure of the proposition with that of the facts it depicts		\| Conformity of the logical structure of the proposition with that of the facts it depicts
	\| Structure of propositions		\| Structure of propositions
	\| Structure of facts		\| Structure of facts
	\|-		\|-
	\| Semantic theory of truth		\| [[w:Semantic theory of truth\|Semantic theory of truth]]
	\| "x is a true statement if and only if p" (For "p" insert any statement, for "x" insert any proper noun of this statement)		\| "x is a true statement if and only if p" (For "p" insert any statement, for "x" insert any proper noun of this statement)
	\| Proposition (of the object language)		\| Proposition (of the object language)
	\| ‘Universe of discourse’ (of the object language)		\| ‘Universe of discourse’ (of the object language)
	\|-		\|-
	\| Redundancy theory ]		\| [[w:Redundancy theory of truth\|Redundancy theory]]
	\| The concept of truth only being used for stylistic reasons, or to lend emphasis to one's own assertion.		\| The concept of truth only being used for stylistic reasons, or to lend emphasis to one's own assertion.
	\| Sentences		\| Sentences
	\| –		\| –
	\|-		\|-
	\| Performative theory		\| [[w:Truth#Pragmatic\|Performative theory]]
	\| what one does when one says a statement is true		\| what one does when one says a statement is true
	\| Action / speech act / self-commitment		\| Action / speech act / self-commitment
	\| Own behaviour		\| Own behaviour
	\|-		\|-
	\| Coherence theory		\| [[w:Coherence theory of truth\|Coherence theory]]
	\| freedom from contradiction / deriving relations of a statement to the system of accepted statements		\| freedom from contradiction / deriving relations of a statement to the system of accepted statements
	\| Statement		\| Statement
	\| No contradiction of statement and already accepted statement system		\| No contradiction of statement and already accepted statement system
	\|-		\|-
	\| Consensus theory		\| [[w:Consensus theory of truth\|Consensus theory]]
	\| Discursively redeemable claim to validity associated with a constitutive act of speech		\| Discursively redeemable claim to validity associated with a constitutive act of speech
	\| Statement/proposition<ref name="Habermas">Jürgen Habermas: ''Wahrheitstheorien''. In: Helmut Fahrenbach (ed.): ''Wirklichkeit und Reflexion. Walter Schulz zum 60. Geburtstag''. Neske, Pfullingen 1973, S. 211–265, hier S. 249: „Nur Aussagen können wahr oder falsch sein.“</ref>		\| Statement/proposition<ref name="Habermas">Jürgen Habermas: ''Wahrheitstheorien''. In: Helmut Fahrenbach (ed.): ''Wirklichkeit und Reflexion. Walter Schulz zum 60. Geburtstag''. Neske, Pfullingen 1973, S. 211–265, hier S. 249: „Nur Aussagen können wahr oder falsch sein.“</ref>

Odyssee: /* Weblinks */

2021-02-28T16:21:55Z

Weblinks

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:21, 28 February 2021
Line 337:		Line 337:
	* {{Kirchner\|Wahrheit}}		* {{Kirchner\|Wahrheit}}
	*[http://www.gerd-albrecht.de/Die%20Gnostischen%20Schriften/Das%20Philippusevangelium.htm Das Philippusevangelium] (Gerd Albrecht)		*[http://www.gerd-albrecht.de/Die%20Gnostischen%20Schriften/Das%20Philippusevangelium.htm Das Philippusevangelium] (Gerd Albrecht)
	* [http://web.archive.org/web/20070912010206/http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~rzellwe/nhs/node87.html#SECTION000190000000000000000 Das Philippusevangelium] (~~deutsche Übersetzung von~~ Gerd Lüdemann ~~und~~ Martina Janßen)		* [http://web.archive.org/web/20070912010206/http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~rzellwe/nhs/node87.html#SECTION000190000000000000000 Das Philippusevangelium] (German translation by Gerd Lüdemann and Martina Janßen)

	== References ==		== References ==

Odyssee: /* Literature */

2021-02-28T16:18:16Z

Literature

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:18, 28 February 2021
Line 332:		Line 332:

	{{GA}}		{{GA}}

			== Weblinks ==
			* {{Eisler\|Wahrheit}}
			* {{Kirchner\|Wahrheit}}
			*[http://www.gerd-albrecht.de/Die%20Gnostischen%20Schriften/Das%20Philippusevangelium.htm Das Philippusevangelium] (Gerd Albrecht)
			* [http://web.archive.org/web/20070912010206/http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~rzellwe/nhs/node87.html#SECTION000190000000000000000 Das Philippusevangelium] (deutsche Übersetzung von Gerd Lüdemann und Martina Janßen)

	== References ==		== References ==

Odyssee: /* The living truth lives in the etheric body */

2021-02-28T16:16:14Z

The living truth lives in the etheric body

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:16, 28 February 2021
Line 288:		Line 288:

	With the intellectualising mind bound to the tool of the physical brain, one can only grasp dead truths that refer to what has already become, which is already more or less ready in the world. Although in this way the most manifold lawful relationships between the individual phenomena of the world that has become can be illuminated and presented in a logically coherent way, which is absolutely necessary for the knowledge of the physical world, the knowledge. nevertheless, remains incomplete as long as what has now become finished is not grasped in its original becoming, from which it once emerged. It is true that changes in what has already become, which need by no means be thought of as rigid and unchanging, can be described with intellectual thinking by relating them to the lawful interaction of individual partial elements of what has become. However, this does not yet capture the actual living becoming. We are still left with the mere combination of finished dead elements. True becoming is only given where something completely new, something that did not exist before and that cannot be derived from something that already exists, arises, as it were, out of nothing. As long as the living becoming is not comprehended, it is condemned to remain incomprehensible in terms of its actual origin, just as the corpse remains incomprehensible as long as it is not recognised as the result of a formerly living being. The full truth, which includes the living becoming, can only be grasped through the living activity of the etheric body:		With the intellectualising mind bound to the tool of the physical brain, one can only grasp dead truths that refer to what has already become, which is already more or less ready in the world. Although in this way the most manifold lawful relationships between the individual phenomena of the world that has become can be illuminated and presented in a logically coherent way, which is absolutely necessary for the knowledge of the physical world, the knowledge. nevertheless, remains incomplete as long as what has now become finished is not grasped in its original becoming, from which it once emerged. It is true that changes in what has already become, which need by no means be thought of as rigid and unchanging, can be described with intellectual thinking by relating them to the lawful interaction of individual partial elements of what has become. However, this does not yet capture the actual living becoming. We are still left with the mere combination of finished dead elements. True becoming is only given where something completely new, something that did not exist before and that cannot be derived from something that already exists, arises, as it were, out of nothing. As long as the living becoming is not comprehended, it is condemned to remain incomprehensible in terms of its actual origin, just as the corpse remains incomprehensible as long as it is not recognised as the result of a formerly living being. The full truth, which includes the living becoming, can only be grasped through the living activity of the etheric body:

			{{GZ\|By living in man in the form of thoughts, truth lives in the etheric body. Truth directly grasps the etheric part of the head and there naturally transfers itself as truth to the physical part of the head.\|170\|72}}

			{{GZ\|One actually perceives the true only when one succeeds in grasping the judgements in such a way that one detaches them from the physical body, that one detaches the etheric body from the physical body. The initial clairvoyance is already truly pure thinking. He who conceives a pure thought is already clairvoyant. But ordinary human thinking is not pure thinking, but thinking filled with sensual ideas, with phantasms. But he who grasps a pure thought is actually already clairvoyant, for the pure thought can only be grasped in the etheric body.\|176\|116}}

			{{GZ\|Because man's consciousness is not so immersed in his etheric body, truth appears to him as something finished. That is precisely the startling, the surprising thing about initiation, that one begins to feel truth, as it pulses into the etheric body, as something just as free as one otherwise feels the pulsing of morality or beauty into the astral body. It is this startling, surprising thing for the reason that it brings the man who has undergone some initiation into a much freer relation to the truth, and thereby into a much more responsible relation to the truth. If the truth enters us quite unconsciously, then it is ready, and then we simply say with ordinary logic: this is true, this is untrue. Then we have a much smaller sense of responsibility towards truth than if we know that truth is just as basically dependent on deep-seated feelings of sympathy and antipathy as morality and beauty, so that we enjoy a somewhat free relationship to truth. Herein lies a subjective mystery which manifests itself in the fact that some who do not approach the experience of initiation in a right, dignified manner do not gain in their sense of truth in such a way that they lose a greater sense of responsibility which they have towards the imposed truth and enter into a certain untrue element.\|170\|72f}}

			== The Origin of Truth on the Old Sun ==

			Truth, beauty and goodness are the three great virtues of the initiate, who in this respect only sets an example to other people, so that they may one day also acquire these virtues to the full. We have to look for the disposition to these virtues already in the past, but they are of very different ages. Since truth lives in the etheric body, we must look for its origin where the etheric body of man came into being. The first disposition of the human etheric body was formed on the ancient sun as a gift of the spirits of wisdom. Truth was also predisposed at that time, and it is thus the oldest of the three virtues mentioned; beauty goes back to the old lunar existence, where at the same time truth was further purified into wisdom, and the sense of the good is only developed on earth:

			{{GZ\|Thus man stands by the true, the beautiful, the good. In the true he opens his etheric body, first the etheric part of the head, directly to the cosmos. In the beautiful he opens his astral body directly to the cosmos. In morality, he directly opens his I-self to the cosmos. In the true - we will go into these things further tomorrow and then also mention the laws of life between birth and death and also between death and a new birth - in the true we have something that has been prepared for man for the longest time. In the beautiful we have something that has been prepared for a comparatively shorter time; and in the moral we have something that is only now beginning on earth. That which lives in truth, which purifies itself into wisdom, actually begins during the evolution of the sun, then reaches its climax in a certain way in the evolution of the moon, lives on in the evolution of the earth, and will be essentially completed in what we know as the evolution of Jupiter. There the human being will have attained a certain full completion with regard to the content of wisdom. Beauty - which is a very inner thing for man - takes its beginning during the lunar evolution, continues during the terrestrial evolution, and will attain completion during the Venusian evolution, which we call the Venusian evolution.\|170\|74}}

			On the [[Old Sun]], truth could not yet be grasped individually by man, nor on the [[Old Moon]] the wisdom that developed there. This could only begin on earth, since man developed his [[I]]-self here. Since then, divine wisdom has been joined by individual human wisdom.

	==Literature==		==Literature==

Odyssee: /* Truth is a free creative product of the human being */

2021-02-28T16:10:16Z

Truth is a free creative product of the human being

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:10, 28 February 2021
Line 131:		Line 131:
	For [[Fichte]], to whom Rudolf Steiner refers in his dissertation, truth "''must be produced actively and with freedom, through effort and the use of one's own strength''"<ref>[http://www.odysseetheater.org/jump.php?url=http://www.odysseetheater.org/ftp/bibliothek/Philosophie/Fichte/Fichte_Ueber_Belebung_und_Erhoehung_des_reinen_Interesses_fuer_Wahrheit.pdf Johann Gottlieb Fichte: ''Ueber Belebung und Erhöhung des reinen Interesses für Wahrheit'']. In: [[Johann Gottlieb Fichte]]: ''Werke''. Bd. 8, S. 351</ref> and ultimately consists in thinking in agreement with oneself.		For [[Fichte]], to whom Rudolf Steiner refers in his dissertation, truth "''must be produced actively and with freedom, through effort and the use of one's own strength''"<ref>[http://www.odysseetheater.org/jump.php?url=http://www.odysseetheater.org/ftp/bibliothek/Philosophie/Fichte/Fichte_Ueber_Belebung_und_Erhoehung_des_reinen_Interesses_fuer_Wahrheit.pdf Johann Gottlieb Fichte: ''Ueber Belebung und Erhöhung des reinen Interesses für Wahrheit'']. In: [[Johann Gottlieb Fichte]]: ''Werke''. Bd. 8, S. 351</ref> and ultimately consists in thinking in agreement with oneself.

	{{Quote\|The question is not whether we think in agreement with others, but whether we think in agreement with ourselves. If the latter is the case, then we can be certain of the former without any effort on our part, and without first collecting the opinions of all those who are in agreement with themselves; for the essence of reason is one and precisely the same in all rational beings. How others think, we do not know, and we cannot assume. How we ought to think, if we wish to think rationally, we can find (out); and so, as we ought to think (for ourselves), all rational beings ought to think. All enquiry must be from within, not from without. I should not think as others think; but as I should think, so, I should suppose, do others think. - To be in agreement with those who are not in agreement with themselves, would that (actually) be a worthy goal for a rational being?\|Johann Gottlieb Fichte:\| ''On the Revival and Enhancement of the Pure Interest in Truth''\|\|ref=<ref>[http://www.odysseetheater.org/jump.php?url=http://www.odysseetheater.org/ftp/bibliothek/Philosophie/Fichte/Fichte_Ueber_Belebung_und_Erhoehung_des_reinen_Interesses_fuer_Wahrheit.pdf Johann Gottlieb Fichte: ''Über Belebung und Erhöhung des reinen Interesses für Wahrheit'']</ref>}}		{{Quote\|The question is not whether we think in agreement with others, but whether we think in agreement with ourselves. If the latter is the case, then we can be certain of the former without any effort on our part, and without first collecting the opinions of all those who are in agreement with themselves; for the essence of reason is one and precisely the same in all rational beings. How others think, we do not know, and we cannot assume. How we ought to think, if we wish to think rationally, we can find (out); and so, as we ought to think (for ourselves), all rational beings ought to think. All enquiry must be from within, not from without. I should not think as others think; but as I should think, so, I should suppose, do others think. - To be in agreement with those who are not in agreement with themselves, would that (actually) be a worthy goal for a rational being?\|Johann Gottlieb Fichte:\| ''On the Revival and Enhancement of the Pure Interest in Truth''\|ref=<ref>[http://www.odysseetheater.org/jump.php?url=http://www.odysseetheater.org/ftp/bibliothek/Philosophie/Fichte/Fichte_Ueber_Belebung_und_Erhoehung_des_reinen_Interesses_fuer_Wahrheit.pdf Johann Gottlieb Fichte: ''Über Belebung und Erhöhung des reinen Interesses für Wahrheit'']</ref>}}

	Truth is not something ready-made in the world, but something to be created freely and individually by the I-self - Rudolf Steiner also took this standpoint in his fundamental philosophical work [[Truth and Knowledge]] (1892):		Truth is not something ready-made in the world, but something to be created freely and individually by the I-self - Rudolf Steiner also took this standpoint in his fundamental philosophical work [[Truth and Knowledge]] (1892):

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:55, 19 March 2021
Line 2:		Line 2:
	the truth will set you free.</poem>\|{{B\|John\|8:32}}}}		the truth will set you free.</poem>\|{{B\|John\|8:32}}}}

	'''Truth''' (from [[w:Indo-European languages\|Indo-European]]: ''*wēr-'' "trust, faithfulness, assent"; [[w:Latin\|Latin]]: ''veritas''; {{ELSalt\|ἀλήθεια}} ''Aletheia'', from α privativum and λῆθος, P.P.P. from λανθάνω, "conceal", thus literally meaning "that which is unconcealed") is a basic philosophical concept, but one that has been conceived very differently by different thinkers → truth.		'''Truth''' (from [[w:Indo-European languages\|Indo-European]]: ''*wēr-'' "trust, faithfulness, assent"; [[w:Latin\|Latin]]: ''veritas''; {{ELSalt\|ἀλήθεια}} ''Aletheia'', from α privativum and λῆθος, P.P.P. from λανθάνω, "conceal", thus literally meaning "that which is unconcealed") is a basic philosophical concept, but one that has been conceived very differently by different thinkers → [[w:truth\|truth]].

	{{GZ\|Truth, however, is not something about which one can have opinions. One knows a truth or one does not know it. No one can say that the three angles in the triangle are 725 degrees instead of 180.\|93\|108}}		{{GZ\|Truth, however, is not something about which one can have opinions. One knows a truth or one does not know it. No one can say that the three angles in the triangle are 725 degrees instead of 180.\|93\|108}}