Home | Community | Message Board


Kraken Kratom
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: NordVPN NordVPN   PureVPN PureVPN

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisibleshroomydan
exshroomerite
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy)
    #4089855 - 04/23/05 10:30 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Hello all. :smile:

This is mainly for Psychoactive1984, who requested it, but of course all are welcome to comment. Please stay on topic. This is a thread about the fundamental basics of philosophy, and as such mentions of the Bible or specific religions are out of place here.
-----------

It seems that if anything is true, then at least one thing must be true. If it can be proven that one thing is always and everywhere true, then the existence of objective truth will be demonstrated.

Here is the first little nugget of Absolute Truth.

The Principle of Identity.

a=a
or
If p then p.


I hereby assert that the principle of identity is true always and everywhere, and is therefore absolutely true.

If there are no objections I will move on to the principle of non-contradiction, but first I will entertain objections to Identity.

Take your time to think about this, i will check back tomorrow.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4089992 - 04/23/05 11:36 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

:thumbup: Please... continue. I originally thought your notion was in respect to some religious indoctrination.

That's of course, if we're assuming that the "identity" of them is wholly static... is that part of the premise? (might want to make that inclusive)

Kind of how we can call gravity, gravity... even though the constant changes in relation to the object, yet it's still gravity, but it's fundamental identity isn't constant as the constant is dependant on the variable (mass in this situation). So although it is gravity, we can't suggest that it as a force will behave as a phenomena the same on all instances of some mass "A" as it's identity is ever changing in respects to it's size. (I dunno if that makes much sense)

Or we can call an apple and apple; yet their are different types of apples, without it being perfectly the same in all instances, it doesn't follow that all apples are akin to the apple presented in the example. (I realize that the = sign is making the assertion that they are identical, just I feel it'd be better to make that absolutely clear as in the general case of the apple it isn't always applicable absolutely)

Example:
apple = apple

Is true linguistically.

However, if we were to get Fuji apples, versus Washington apples
and weigh them on a balance that measured their characteristics by comparison of their actual identity denoted as a linguistical concept; they wouldn't be shown to be equal (taste, chemical/moisture content, color, size, dna, etc...of course that's dependant on one's preferences, what one attributes to a higher characteristic, and the apples environment).

Further it'd be proven that Fuji apples clearly beat the shit out of Washington apples. (take the taste test :tongue:)

Edit:
Attempted to clarify some of my points.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.


Edited by Psychoactive1984 (04/24/05 01:19 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4090066 - 04/24/05 12:08 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

No two equals are the same.
Everything appears to be in constant flux.


--------------------
PsyPost - Psychedelic Research


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4090098 - 04/24/05 12:22 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Objective truth is a subject. A subject is an object/objective truth.

I think its cool how they are absolutely tied together as one and the same thing though people act and speak as if they are two different things.

When you say, "I object!" You the subject are now the objection.

When you say, "I am subject to that" The object has become you the subject.

Go ahead and prove the existence of objective truth. Along with doing so you will prove subjective truth at the same time, philosophically speaking. :wink:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Edited by gettinjiggywithit (04/24/05 12:40 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #4090260 - 04/24/05 01:10 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Yes! :thumbup:

We still must play with the theory of objectivity though. (subjectively speaking of course)

P.S.
Welcome to the nuthouse.  :smirk:


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,946
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4090340 - 04/24/05 01:40 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

The Law of Identity.

Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is. "This leaf is red, solid, dry, rough, and flammable." "This book is white, and has 312 pages." "This coin is round, dense, smooth, and has a picture on it." In all three of these cases we are referring to an entity with a specific identity; the particular type of identity, or the trait discussed, is not important. Their identities include all of their features, not just those mentioned.

Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.

To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else. An entity can have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part of its identity. A car can be both blue and red, but not at the same time or not in the same respect. Whatever portion is blue cannot be red at the same time, in the same way. Half the car can be red, and the other half blue. But the whole car can't be both red and blue. These two traits, blue and red, each have single, particular identities.

The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.

Thank you, Aristotle.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4090369 - 04/24/05 01:52 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

'Identity' does not appear to be in the objects themselves.

For instance: The rose is red.
'Red' does not come from the rose, 'red' comes from the interaction of our senses with the rose.


--------------------
PsyPost - Psychedelic Research


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinefreddurgan
Techgnostic
Male

Registered: 01/11/04
Posts: 3,648
Last seen: 5 years, 30 days
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4090373 - 04/24/05 01:54 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

I think that the law of identity is a pointless rule of semantics. For instance,

a = a

whatever is deemed "a" at one instance is time is equal to itself? What relevance to anything does this have? It doesn't even matter how low level of philosophy you go, I don't see how anything could be built upon this.

Enlighten me?


--------------------
Ishmael
http://www.ishmael.org

Ron Paul 2008!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: freddurgan]
    #4090435 - 04/24/05 02:13 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

shhhh! Next episode is tomorrow.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,946
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #4090450 - 04/24/05 02:17 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Our visual perceptions of the rose is what I think you're alluding to. The rose is as it is. Take a video camera and aim it towards the rose, and you'll see that the rose's identity hasn't changed.
Take a color-blind individual, and show the person a rose, he'll see a 'different' color of the rose, but the identity of the rose remains the same. Only the interpretation of the visual data has changed. Makes sense?

Freddurgan, the law of identity is really just an establishment of objective knowledge as a common-ground for collaborative purposes,i.e. science, etc.

The Law of Identity is a very fundamental basis of all Science.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4090466 - 04/24/05 02:22 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

assuming it is explicit in its interpretation.


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4090473 - 04/24/05 02:29 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

The Principle of Identity.

a=a
or
If p then p.


But you're stating an axiom. You haven't proven it and without that proof, the rest of your construct rests on faith that the axiom is true.

That falls short of Absolute Truth.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDreamer987
The VerbalHerman Munster
Female

Registered: 04/15/03
Posts: 5,326
Loc: Texas
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4090476 - 04/24/05 02:30 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

BUCKET OF TRUTH


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,290
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 8 days, 17 minutes
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4090511 - 04/24/05 02:44 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Cool thread,

Absolute truth and the law of identity huh?

I think there may be something here but, it still needs further clarification... if I'm going to jump on the identity/truth train.

The problem with words, and the word, "Identity", is the identity-limiting nature of language itself.

You see, once you say something is called, "X" that word, that sound, those letters on print, become "X's" identity. "X" now has a label. Great, we know what "X" is. We know what to call it, and how to spell it. :smile:

But what's happening in China?

The Chinese have used "X" for millenia, they know what it is, they LOVE it, but they call it "Ha". "X" now, has a dual identity due to language.

But wait, there's more!

What if our term, "X" describes all "X's". "Ha" on the other hand, describes a quality of the item being described... perhaps its shape or use. There is another Chinese word, "He" that is used to describe another type of this particular item.

Now it is "X/Ha/He".

So we have one word, "X", which we use to describe all items of this type. The Chinese have two words... "Ha" for some "He" for others.

Both languages limit the identity of the item by the very linguistic identity they chose to give it. We are limited to one vague word describing all "X's". The Chinese have two words "Ha/He" to specify the identity further, but they have no word ("X")to lump all items in the group together. The identity language provides, is hardly universal or true.

A real life example is the English word, "Love". It means everything from pure, passionate, true love, to casual, friendly, brotherly love. Other languages have a word for each different quality and level of love.

Obviously, you can see how language can start to interfere with the law of identity.

So, we must look beyond words for this law to have any chance of working.

How do we do that?

Archetypes.

Language can not form absolute truth. Language can only provoke and communicate thought. But, the mind can, and does, find the true identity, all the time.

If I asked someone to think of a lion (assuming I use the correct word(s))... anywhere in the world, there would be a universal thought. A universal mental picture formed. Everyone, when asked, can see a mental picture of a lion with their mind's eye. This picture, or idea of a lion is the true identity of the lion. Everybody knows what makes a lion a lion and not a squirrel, or even a house cat. This universal image of a lion, is it's archetype, its Absolute truth, its identity.

The problem with this true archetypal identity is, it can not be bound by language, and therefore, often gets mistaken for the language used to describe it.

Deep stuff.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleJellric
altered statesman

Registered: 11/08/98
Posts: 2,261
Loc: non-local
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4090519 - 04/24/05 02:45 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

I would have to say yes.

Althought the aforementioned "yes" may change to a "no" at a later date.
Please continue..


--------------------
I AM what Willis was talkin' bout.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleshroomydan
exshroomerite
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Jellric]
    #4094418 - 04/25/05 10:17 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

OK, I'm a day late but back nonetheless.  :smile:

Psychoactive1984 objects that the principle of Identity only works if things don't change. If this were the case then it could not be considered absolutely true because it would not apply always and everywhere. He uses the example of gravity.

>That's of course, if we're assuming that the "identity" of them is wholly static... is that part of the premise? (might want to make that inclusive)<

->Kind of how we can call gravity, gravity... even though the constant changes in relation to the object, yet it's still gravity, but it's fundamental identity isn't constant as the constant is dependent on the variable (mass in this situation). So although it is gravity, we can't suggest that it as a force will behave as a phenomena the same on all instances of some mass "A" as it's identity is ever changing in respects to it's size. (I dunno if that makes much sense)<--

I understand what you are getting at here, but Identity is not threatened by change. The variable 'p' in - If p then p - is a place holder who's value does not effect the veracity of the axiom. For example, let 'p' represent the strength of the gravitational field between earth and the moon at time T1. At T1 Identity holds true because p=p.

Now assume an asteroid strikes the moon increasing its mass, and increasing the strength of the gravitational field. Time is now represented as T1+1.

At time T1+1 the gravitational field between earth at moon can no longer be represented as 'p' ; its value has changed so now it is represented as 'q'. The Principle of Identity still holds true, for q=q. The field is what it is even as it changes.

------- 

Psychoactive1984 also objects that all things with a given name are not exactly the same, so p may not always equal p. He sites the difference between varieties of apples. 

Once again you bring up an interesting point. Any attempt to say what a thing is leads to the problematic of universals and particulars and the notion of common essences. This however is beyond the scope of the Principle of Identity which applies to particular things.

If I have this particular Fuji apple, then I have this particular Fuji apple. If p then p still holds true.
-----

Cervantes objects that the variables 'p' or 'x' mean different things in different languages and cultures.

The principle of Identity however is not dependent upon the meaning associated with a variable. It simply states that if something is, then that thing is.
It holds true regardless of meaning ascribed to variables.

-----------

Diploid had the most interesting objection.

----------------------------------------
The Principle of Identity.

a=a
or
If p then p.

But you're stating an axiom. You haven't proven it and without that proof, the rest of your construct rests on faith that the axiom is true.

That falls short of Absolute Truth.
-------------------------------

You are correct in stating that the Principle of Identity is an axiom which is not proven to be true.

It is impossible for any deductive argument to prove its own first premises. Any argument which does is called circular and declared invalid. The seeker of truth finds himself in an awkward situation. There is no way to prove any first premise using deductive reasoning, because any argument to prove a premise would require its own first premises which would also have to be proved. This process would run ad infinitum and never prove anything.

The escape form this quandary is the scientific method. reality is observed, patterns are noticed, and axioms are formed. This is inductive reasoning. Once inductive reasoning establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that something is true, then that something is called an axiom and can be used as a first premise for a deductive argument.

Form the dawn of time, always and everywhere the principle of Identity has been evident. If you can provide a single instance where a thing does not imply itself, where 'a' does not equal 'a', then we would have grounds to question the axiom. However such an instance cannot be found, nor is it conceivable that something could not be itself.

Identity still stands.

------------------


Freddurgan wonders where this is going, so I will reveal the next golden nugget of Absolute Truth. The Principle of Non-Contradiction which follows from Identity.

a does not equal ~a

or

if p then not ~p

A thing and its negation cannot be simultaneously true.

A thing cannot be and not be in the same way at the same time.

Any violation of  Non-Contradiction is a violation of Identity.


In so far as Identity is absolutely true, non-contradiction is also absolutely true. The truth does not contradict itself.

This one is a little harder to grasp than Identity, and I'm not sure that I have presented it adequately, so I will be happy to respond to any objections.

Peace friends.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinethe_phoenix
Stranger

Registered: 07/07/04
Posts: 541
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4094827 - 04/25/05 01:07 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

I choose to object to the entire premise from which you pursue absolute truth, to the principle of identity, and to the principle of non-contradiction. :smile:

What is "truth"? Can we touch it? Can we feel it? Truth is not totally separate from our experience. If we are considering truth then our own identities must be taken into consideration as well. It's impossible to consider truth in isolation, just as it is impossible to separate the observer from the observed.

For example, if we have two apples. Who is viewing these apples? We are humans and we choose to label a group of elements as "apple". Were we bacteria then we couldn't possibly perceive the entire apple, but we could perceive its individual cells. But is an apple an apple, a grouping of cells, a grouping of atoms, frequency waves interconnecting? What about the empty space around it that defines its physical delimitations? That must somehow also be a part of it.

Think of human existence/awareness as cubes in space. So we are our bodies but also the empty space around our bodies and whatever is in close proximity to us. If we didn't subconsciously all project this earthly reality, then it wouldn't exist. So, like apples, we are more than our bodies. I'm Andrew, I'm many body parts, many organs, many cells, many atoms. And I'm more than even what's under the label "Andrew", because I'm also my environment (hence I can influence it through "magic" which in truth is hardly unexplainable).

The principle of identity is valid if it's considered between two people who share a common perspective. To be honest, I don't know if even that's possible.

As for the principle of non-contradiction, let me first cite people wiser than I:

"To be, or not to be: that is the question." William Shakespeare
"To be or not to be is not the question; to be is not to be." Alan Watts
"To be and not to be arise mutually." Lao Tzu

The question is how deeply we consider a pair of opposites, because essentially they are the very same. Essentially we are all the very same. To us, the Tao seems ever-changing because we perceive it in terms of constant interplay between the Yin/Yang, but in actuality the Tao is the Nameless Tao (the Ineffable) free of duality. The Nameless Tao is static(infinite), and from its all-encompassing perspective we are ever-changing as we exist in conventional impermanent states. We live, die, live, die, etc.

Everything fits into the Ineffable where there is no distinction or definition. It is the merging of duality, the merging of opposites. The merging of the most fundamental opposites?existence and non-existence. Because nothing can exist without contrast, without its opposite. So things are contingent on their opposites as the apple is on empty space around it.

It isn't an either/or matter, it's a matter of degrees. How separate or not are opposites is a matter of how deeply they are considered, it's a matter of how conventional/fundamental is the perspective from which they are considered. And things are not either fundamental or conventional, they are a mix of both, because contrast is always needed.

Change is the only constant, but again, to us it appears that the Tao is in constant flux, whereas from its perspective we are. Change is merely a crude way of describing the framework of a relative universe, and it's this framework, this backbone of relativity, that is a constant. And ultimately the framework is the unseen creator, the Ineffable, the Nameless Tao.

Take a sheet of paper, draw three dots that form a triangle and draw an "X" in the middle of the triangle. You can definitively determine the location of the "X" in relation to the three dots. But expand the context, pick up the paper and wave it in the air, and ask where the "X" is in relation to the entire room you're in, and the three dots suddenly are useless in defining the location of "X". So the original definitive location is absolutely true, relative to its context. It is a relative absolute, or a relative truth.

Everything is true to the extent that it exists, to the extent that it is fundamental, and everything is false to the extent that it is non-existent, to the extent that it is conventional. Absolute conventionality and absolute fundamentality are the same thing and constitute?in a strictly non-dualistic way?the Ineffable. So what's true is the contextual framework of any given consideration, which is understood as relatively true when the context expands.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,290
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 8 days, 17 minutes
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4095136 - 04/25/05 03:10 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Identity lives in two places. With the object, and within the eye of the beholder. One identity is true, the other is relative.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleshroomydan
exshroomerite
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: the_phoenix]
    #4095167 - 04/25/05 03:20 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Hello the_phoenix :smile:

I can say with absolute certainty that your objection is either valid or it is not. The principle of non-contradiction assures this to be true.  :wink:

You have introduced a lot of religious premises which don't seem to pertain.

For instance you conflate being and non-being into one thing, and all I can say with absolute certainty is that this is either true or it is not true. If you are also conflating truth with falsehood, saying that they are the same thing, then your argument is circular, which of course makes it invalid.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePsychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Male
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4095489 - 04/25/05 04:39 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

shroomydan said:
OK, I'm a day late but back nonetheless.  :smile:

Psychoactive1984 objects that the principle of Identity only works if things don't change. If this were the case then it could not be considered absolutely true because it would not apply always and everywhere. He uses the example of gravity.

>That's of course, if we're assuming that the "identity" of them is wholly static... is that part of the premise? (might want to make that inclusive)<

->Kind of how we can call gravity, gravity... even though the constant changes in relation to the object, yet it's still gravity, but it's fundamental identity isn't constant as the constant is dependent on the variable (mass in this situation). So although it is gravity, we can't suggest that it as a force will behave as a phenomena the same on all instances of some mass "A" as it's identity is ever changing in respects to it's size. (I dunno if that makes much sense)<--

I understand what you are getting at here, but Identity is not threatened by change. The variable 'p' in - If p then p - is a place holder who's value does not effect the veracity of the axiom. For example, let 'p' represent the strength of the gravitational field between earth and the moon at time T1. At T1 Identity holds true because p=p.

1) Now assume an asteroid strikes the moon increasing its mass, and increasing the strength of the gravitational field. Time is now represented as T1+1.

At time T1+1 the gravitational field between earth at moon can no longer be represented as 'p' ; its value has changed so now it is represented as 'q'. The Principle of Identity still holds true, for q=q. The field is what it is even as it changes.

------- 

Psychoactive1984 also objects that all things with a given name are not exactly the same, so p may not always equal p. He sites the difference between varieties of apples. 

2) Once again you bring up an interesting point. Any attempt to say what a thing is leads to the problematic of universals and particulars and the notion of common essences. This however is beyond the scope of the Principle of Identity which applies to particular things.

If I have this particular Fuji apple, then I have this particular Fuji apple. If p then p still holds true.





1) It's identity is changed, as well as everything related to it in that instance. Example, you buy a brand new SUV, with standard features, however you get a few new componenets added on several months after you've owned it and it no longer is recognized as it's former identity... It's identity is wholly changed as to the circumstances held onto it by virtue of the identity not being static. The new and improved SUV now has extra options, and one couldn't say that it shares the identity as a standardized model as it contains new equipment which deviates from said standardization. (same in respects to gravity, concept is a little easier to relate to though)

2) Only in a general sense though... p = p isn't applicable in situations where we assume p to be a letter, verses "p" to be equal to pressure in a physics formula. It must have defined constraints, without such it isn't absolute (my primary point in that example).


--------------------
"Their is one overriding question that concerns us all: How can we get out of the fatal groove we are in, the one that is leading towards the brink?" Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
"We may not be capable of eradicating the corruption of reason, but we must nevertheless counter it at every instance and with every means." Dan Agin
"Politics is the best religion and politicians are the worst followers."
-It's ok to trip as long as you don't fall.
-Substance over Style.
-Common sense is uncommon.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: NordVPN NordVPN   PureVPN PureVPN

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Absolute Truth vs. Science
( 1 2 all )
infidelGOD 1,588 20 01/14/04 03:27 PM
by muhurgle
* absolute truth fearfect 1,055 17 11/12/05 01:04 AM
by Amber_Glow
* The 'ABSOLUTE TRUTH' is unnattainable.... nubious 871 8 10/21/02 08:02 PM
by Metasyn
* An ontological argument for absolute truth. shroomydan 1,743 13 02/11/07 11:55 AM
by shroomydan
* There is no Universal, Absolute Truth
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Sclorch 3,951 61 07/09/02 07:03 PM
by llib
* Absolute Truth Chronic7 737 16 10/04/08 02:24 PM
by Icelander
* I'm sure 1+1=2... absolute truth and truths
( 1 2 all )
Kukaracha 2,265 31 04/09/09 03:13 PM
by Kukaracha
* the truth about "truth"
( 1 2 all )
lIllIIIllIlIIlIlIIllIllIIl 2,846 26 12/02/07 11:59 PM
by a_guy_named_ai

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
3,034 topic views. 1 members, 7 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Crestline Sales - MycoPath
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.057 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 21 queries.