The “truth” from the heart and the “truth” from the intellect are very different things, the former being feelings and such, while the latter being something that is true according to some objective standard. If one is careful to distinguish between the two, I don’t have any particularly problem with it, but all too often people who use “truth” in both ways often conflate the meanings.

The most egregious example are postmodernists, who are the sort to make arguments like “I feel the truth in a picture of a corpse of some specific person, so it could be argued that it must be true that the person must be dead” (sucky parody, I know, but the best I can do at a moment’s notice). All too often, it’s not made clear what kind of “truth” one is talking about, and the two meanings are incorrectly interchanged.

I also don’t put much value in the term “truth” when used in the sense of “truth from the heart”. Why not just say feelings, emotions, understanding, etc. directly? Saying “truth” could cause confusion with the other meaning with little benefit. But this is mostly a personal preference.

In summary, my main problem is that “truth”s from the heart and “truth”s from the intellect are two very different things, and it often causes confusion to call them both “truth”s. Just call the former something else that everyone else understands and be done with it.

Statements in science can be said to be true or false according to some objective standard, or at least “appears to be true or false”, mainly by checking against reality. But what does “a Mozart’s Symphony is true” supposed to mean? I would say that I feel awe, beauty, a sense of rhythm, etc., but I would not say that a symphony is true or false, and I wouldn’t even know what that would mean. (And yes, I enjoy Mozart’s music. )

(Linda, don’t worry about me being offended by my name. I like my name and the confusion it sometimes causes. I like saying confusing things like “Yoo is not you. I am Yoo.” )

Darryl: As such discussions are wont to be, our difference of opinion seems to be definitional.

Indeed we disagree about what is truth.

if you get too abstract with “truth” you can easily end up with something that’s too squishy to serve as a stable philosophical foundation. Truth can become whatever someone “feels” it to be; and feelings are notoriously unreliable.

Unfortunately, we live a life that depends upon the abstract–we are abstractors. Many of our greatest ideas, including the idea of “truth,” are abstractions. I’m not looking for “a stable philosophical foundation.” What am I doing, building a skyscraper that’s earthquake proof? I depend upon science as much as you, but I’m also concerned with what is true and what is good (another abstract idea). Why is science good, and how do you know? What makes science more true than a Mozart Symphony? Because one can heat your home and the other only your heart?

Thank you for responding to my comment. After I posted it, I worried that I might have offended you, which definitely was not my intention. Heck, I had to change my name many years ago because no one could pronounce it. (I’m also Asian.)

I agree with you that the word “truth” gets thrown around a lot without much thought. However, I firmly believe that there definitely is truth in things other than what is obvious or what can be proven.

I was going to insert an example here, but I just don’t feel like being burned alive today. I just got over the last one not too long ago. Today is a good day, and I want to hang onto it for a bit. A great day, actually, because it’s been proven to me today beyond any doubt that I had wrongfully judged someone in the recent past. It feels so good to be wrong sometimes…

Art, music, literature, etc… The creative part of our human-ness… is the “heart” of our society. It is a big part of who we are. If you deny that as half the truth of humanity, then you are denying the part of yourself that makes you uniquely you. Then we might as well all be robots.

It seems to me that you see the heart as the weaker link to the intellect; but without our creativity and imagination, along with the desire to express them, we have no future. There is the truth of the present that we see here and now, but do not dismiss the truth of the future that remains to be seen and the truth of the possibilities that may never be seen.

As such discussions are wont to be, our difference of opinion seems to be definitional. For me, “truth” can only be that which demonstrably conforms to reality, as I said. I settle on that definition first because it’s what the dictionary says and second because if you get too abstract with “truth” you can easily end up with something that’s too squishy to serve as a stable philosophical foundation. Truth can become whatever someone “feels” it to be; and feelings are notoriously unreliable.

But, that’s fine. We won’t settle it here, anyway. The sun will keep shining if we don’t. (I hope!)

Yoo, you may not like the idea of other “truths,” but you’re hard put to interpret so much of human experience without it.

It’s actually pretty easy: they’re human experiences! Trying to interpret them using overloaded meanings for truth just makes things really confusing.

A few weeks ago, I would have never thought the following words would come out of my mouth: (or typed by my hands…)

The letter A does not only stand for Atheist in your case. It also stands for Awesome!!! I’m gonna print out the last two paragraphs you wrote and share it with my church next Sunday!!

And what I’m getting at is that art–be it music, sculpture, painting, or otherwise–while it might inspire us in that it provides an emotive impulse, does not contribute to “truth” in any meaningful way. Feelings are not truth. Impressions are not truth. Truth is veridicality; it involves facts; accurate and demonstrable perceptions of reality.

I disagree. Art is certainly meaningful, and if so must hold the possibility of being true. The truth that you have in mind is not the same kind of truth as I suggest can be had in art, but it is truth nonetheless. I am an atheist for good reason, but I am not unaware of the elements of other truths that inhabit the products of the imagination, even religion, and that explain their lasting appeal.

I sometimes wonder if atheists do not fall into the systems trap–making all the pieces fit neatly–so much so that they devalue the irrational aspects of human experience. Some of this may be blamed on how we educate people, and the countermanding and contradicting distractions and diversions of pop culture. While it may be true that we have a learning deficit in the sciences here in the U.S., we most certainly have one in the arts and music, and not just their practice, but their philosophy, and the vital part they play in the whole of knowledge.

So, you DO agree that you need both? You cannot dismiss the part of the truth that the heart can see, can you? One truth is not complete without the other, is it?

While I’d say that we need both, the heart is not necessary at all for determining truth. That is, with only the heart us human beings would be awash in delusions (real world examples should be easy enough to find), while with only the intellect everything we know could be true but we’d be complete psychopaths.

I just really dislike the hijacking of the term ‘truth’ by some of those of the artistic bent. A lot of art or literature contain valuable emotions and beliefs, but calling them ‘truth’ misleads people into thinking that they’re true or false according to some objective standard in reality. Or at least imply that conflicting emotions or beliefs must be lies …

And what I’m getting at is that art–be it music, sculpture, painting, or otherwise–while it might inspire us in that it provides an emotive impulse, does not contribute to “truth” in any meaningful way. Feelings are not truth. Impressions are not truth. Truth is veridicality; it involves facts; accurate and demonstrable perceptions of reality. The only thing emotion unequivocally tells us about reality is the phenomenon of emotion itself. A view of the world based on feelings is a very shaky structure indeed.

Now, I don’t mean to trivialize emotion. I sometimes make a nuisance of myself in atheist circles by stressing that we’re as much emotional creatures as we are rational. (Maybe more so unless we’re careful.) Reason can never provide the impulse to do anything. That’s the role of emotion. Even the drive to employ reason is an emotional one. It’s just that emotions don’t enlighten us as to truth. The desire for truth is an emotional fillip that employs reason to seek out truth.

Truths, perhaps, can be illustrated by art. (E.g. A painting of the planet Saturn reflects the truth of Saturn’s existence.) Beyond that, what “truths” are there in art?

Mikespeir,

If you must ask that question, then you do not understand art. Art and music are not things that can be “explained.” They just are. Art is an expression of the artist. When you see a piece of art, you just understand what the artist was thinking, feeling, seeing, etc… If you don’t, then you don’t. Not good or bad. Just the way it is.

Same thing with music. Music just is. And as it plays out, it carries us with it. It has a language of its own that words cannot explain.

The truth in art and music is the fact that we cannot deny their power. There’s something in them that nourish us and make us thrive… (so I thought…) Maybe that is not true for all of us… ?

When I was referring to the heart, I was not talking about the rescue-a-puppy-feel-good-romance-novel-touched-by-an-angel kind of touchy feely stuff. I was trying to point to something much more complex (or perhaps way too simple) which is embedded deep within us.

And Richard, I agree with Darryl. Your examples do not illustrate the difference between the heart and the intellect that I was alluding to. Your examples may point to rational vs. irrational, but they do not quite get to the “heart” of the matter. (pun intended)