Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Cannabis Seeds Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

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: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy)
    #4089855 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4089992 -

: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 (04/23/05 11:19 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4090066 -

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4090098 -

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 (04/23/05 10:40 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #4090260 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4090340 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4090369 -

'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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4090373 -

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/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: freddurgan]
    #4090435 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #4090450 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #4090466 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4090473 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4090476 -

BUCKET OF TRUTH


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4090511 -

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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4090519 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Jellric]
    #4094418 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4094827 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4095136 -

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


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: the_phoenix]
    #4095167 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4095489 -

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4095507 -

Non-contradiction is a synonym of truth... and hence it is also true, it's merely a slightly more developed principle of your theory of the absolution of identity.

However, the fact of the matter is that truth is abundant in this world, and it is also absolutely subjective... if it wasn't, we'd all be in agreement as to what is true... as truth is in the eye of the beholder, and one truth contradicts another truth, such is the nature of it's being that one cannot say anything to be absolutely true, as it isn't true in all cases, unless we define a system and establish tenants to place truth. Without a predefined template, or a system to relate the truth to, it's nature isn't inherent, and its application isn't subject equally to all scenarios.

Might want to expand on it a bit more, or was that a taste of the principle? :smile:


--------------------
"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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4095550 -

shroomydan said:
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.

Being and non-being. If you have a chair, that is being? And the empty space around it is non-being? But without the empty space you'd have a block of solid matter instead of a chair, and without the chair you wouldn't know what to make of the empty space because you lack a reference point of something that exists physically (against which you can contrast this supposedly empty space). So being and non-being are contingent on one another and not totally separate. This is a matter of contrast that happens to be a tenet of many Eastern religions, but it isn't itself religious. You see what I mean? How can you examine anything in isolation, without considering its context?

I could also say that empty space doesn't exist, that supposedly empty space is 'dark matter', is very subtle energy. So from this perspective the chair and the space around it are one and the same: energy. Some of the energy is simply more solid and concrete than the rest.

Another take on being and non-being. If I'm walking in the desert, desparately thirsty, and I see a mirage of a pond, is it real or illusory? Well first of all it must exist to some extent. If it doesn't exist externally in objective reality, the colours I perceive it to be must at least exist in my head, otherwise I wouldn't perceive it at all in the first place. To me it exists, until I approach it and realize it's not real. So can I say it never existed? It must have existed on some level because the image I saw of it cannot be non-existent, because after all I did see it. So it doesn't exist physically, but it isn't non-existent either.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: the_phoenix]
    #4095583 -

:thumbup: Great mirage example.

Both and neither, merely a hoax played on ourselves. Human perceptions doesn't allow absolution beyond our ideals, and the unachievable and that with a defined nature e.g. an absolutely "perfect" circle is only such as we denote what  perfect circle is... which doesn't lend itself to being absolutely perfect nor absolute in any actual sense beyond our dipictions and suggestions as to its nature.


--------------------
"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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4096304 -

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.

But we're still left back where we started.

Identity is and always has been self-evident, granted. However, this does not mean that it is and always has been true; only that it reasonably can be considered to be true.

That's only good enough if you'd titled the discussion "Almost Absolute Truth".

Only by proving your founding axiom can you be justified in referring to your argument as Absolute Truth.

The problem is with the word "Absolute".

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.

That we can't conceive of something only goes to our ability to conceive; it says nothing about whether or not such a thing could be. This is all well and good for "Almost Absolute Truth", yes, but not for "Absolute Truth" which can leave nothing to faith... nothing.


--------------------
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Diploid]
    #4096319 -

:handth:


--------------------
"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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4096461 -

Often things do not imply themselves. The cosmic joke is that you're laughing at yourself and you don't even know it, you don't even know yourself. And it keeps going because within that magical clarity every time you shed a layer the next one becomes evident, and you just keep discovering and discovering deeper and deeper selves, and it's so obvious Now that it's funny.

People associate themselves with an egoic projection of themselves all the time, and often it's founded in delusion. When things are understood as what they truly are, then great clarity has been achieved. The world still looks the same, for the most part, but everything is richer and deeper. The meaning and significance is so much deeper. Most people see divinity in nothing, nor do they seek contact with it transcendently, so they certainly do not perceive all that's behind the label of reality.

Reality is like art, it's all symbolism, and if you follow the symbolism back to it's source there is a common Symbolized for all things. If you look at the world and say "Ah, look at everything, it's all atoms, I understand," well that's good but what does *that* symbolize? Science is metaphor and it's absolutist approach to things tends to halt the unravelling of symbolism with supposedly impenetrable barriers that boggle logic (reason is saved by the fact that science has yet to move beyond a theory nor embrace 'experience').

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: the_phoenix]
    #4096500 -

Nice, whats that from? I don't agree with it all, but its meaningful in some respects.


--------------------
"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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4096504 -

I don't know who it's from, but I did the typing.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: the_phoenix]
    #4096524 -

:lol: even better. Just figured it was from somewhere else due to the italics.


--------------------
"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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4096543 -

It was sort of in rebutle to Diploid's post, and he bolded his text for emphasis (justifiably). I thought italics were sleeker so I used them. I did debate it though, hehe.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: the_phoenix]
    #4100701 -

Quote:
So being and non-being are contingent on one another and not totally separate...


You bring up some interesting points Phoenix, and maybe some other time we can discuss being and non-being. This thread however is about Absolute Truth, and specifically about the principle of Identity which, if it can be established, will reopen the horizon of objective reality which is presently closed to the relativist. For now I would like to place the problematic of the unity of being and non-being on hold while addressing the issue at hand.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4100737 -

Quote:
The fact of the matter is that truth is abundant in this world, and it is also absolutely subjective... if it wasn't, we'd all be in agreement as to what is true... as truth is in the eye of the beholder, and one truth contradicts another truth...


To say that one truth can contradict another renders the term "truth" meaningless. This is the error of relativism which I am attempting to remedy by establishing a base of absolute Truth to which all other truths are relative.

I have presented what I believe to be this base.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4100750 -

I'm not saying it isn't, but right now as to its definition, it isn't nearly explicit enough, and can (and has, through this thread) been misconstrued.

Most, if not all truths containg contradictions when related to another instance where it isn't applicable. Provide an example of a truth with no conflict, nor contradiction in any form.

The term "truth" in itself isn't true to its definition, as if their was one truth that was meaningful in all circumstances it'd be adapted by everyone.

Some examples of simple truths that are relatively meaningless;
1) all humans breathe.
2) we need to take in external substances to survive.
3) If you're reading this you're alive.

As far as deeper "truths" that attempt to expand on a grand unification, and/or assert more then the obvious, their is usually a flaw in its analysis.

Examples;
1) everything is one.
2) god is male.
3) Perfection exists.
4) Good and evil are always defined the same by everyone, and their is a convergence of opinion as to exactly what is absolutely good, and absolutely evil.


--------------------
"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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Diploid]
    #4100882 -

Diploid said:
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.

But we're still left back where we started.

Identity is and always has been self-evident, granted. However, this does not mean that it is and always has been true; only that it reasonably can be considered to be true.

That's only good enough if you'd titled the discussion "Almost Absolute Truth".

Only by proving your founding axiom can you be justified in referring to your argument as Absolute Truth.

The problem is with the word "Absolute".

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.

That we can't conceive of something only goes to our ability to conceive; it says nothing about whether or not such a thing could be. This is all well and good for "Almost Absolute Truth", yes, but not for "Absolute Truth" which can leave nothing to faith... nothing.


Kudos to you Diploid. Your argument is very convincing, and I was nearly ready to concede, but then I noticed the circularity.

You say that it is not good enough for first premises to be self evident; they must be proved. Furthermore, the scientific method cannot be used to prove a founding premise because inductive reasoning can only approach certainty. Inductive reasoning merely produces "almost absolute truth". But because no deductive argument can prove its own founding premise, any attempt to prove something using deductive reasoning will lead to an infinite regress in search of a foundational true premise. Therefore absolute truth cannot be demonstrated.

Herein lies the circularity. You have ruled out the reliability of both inductive and deductive logic, yet you used logic to make your case. You have effectively used logic to establish that logic is unreliable for discovering truth.

We are once again right back where we started.  :smile:

Perhaps you are correct in your assertion that faith is required to find truth. And perhaps one who is unwilling to believe those things which are self evident has no hope of finding it. However this does not mean that there is no absolute truth.

Try this for a foundational premise.

Either there is or there is not something which is absolutely true.

Seems this sentence must be absolutely true.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Psychoactive1984]
    #4100910 -

Quote:
Some examples of simple truths that are relatively meaningless;
1) all humans breathe.
2) we need to take in external substances to survive.
3) If you're reading this you're alive.

As far as deeper "truths" that attempt to expand on a grand unification, and/or assert more then the obvious, their is usually a flaw in its analysis.

Examples;
1) everything is one.
2) god is male.
3) Perfection exists.
4) Good and evil are always defined the same by everyone, and their is a convergence of opinion as to exactly what is absolutely good, and absolutely evil.



I agree that If p then p is not especially meaningful, but right now I am trying to lay a foundation so that we can work up to something more profound.

I am first trying to demonstrate the possibility of absolute truth by showing that at least one thing is always and everywhere true. Where there is one, there may be more. It might take some time to get beyond these baby steps; Diploid is giving me a run for my money.

More tomorrow.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4100987 -

I look forward to it.

"Either there is or there is not something which is absolutely true.

Seems this sentence must be absolutely true. "

It could be, absolutely true, but in its current context it seems very uncertain as to whether it is absolutely true.

Due to the fact of it's general nature, although that is applilcable to something, it means relatively nothing in approaching anything meaningful. The thing is, that it'll only be true provided you assign some restraints/conditions on it, and hence you've lost your absolution. Absolute truth, shouldn't need restraints to be absolutely true, else it's merely relatively true in the greater sense, even if absolutely true in its environment.



--------------------
"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 (04/26/05 11:44 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4101538 -

Truth, is in the eye of the beholder, discuss.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4101829 -

Kudos to you Diploid. Your argument is very convincing, and I was nearly ready to concede

Dam!

You have ruled out the reliability of both inductive and deductive logic

Only in the case of First Principles, i.e. your founding axiom. Once the founding axiom is accepted on faith (or proved), then logic is a v-e-r-y powerful and irrefutable tool to draw out and analyze the consequences of the axiom.

yet you used logic to make your case. You have effectively used logic to establish that logic is unreliable for discovering truth.

I didn't use logic to establish anything. In fact, I didn't use logic at all. Logic isn't required for my rebuttal because since you are the one making claim that the axiom is Truth, the burden of logical proof of that assertion lies with you. All I did was call you on it when you tried to sidestep one of the rules of logic by stating something without backing it up with proof.

I have the easy job here, all I have to do is demand proof of your axiom before the discussion begins; I don't have to provide it, and I don't have to prove your axiom untrue.

Either there is or there is not something which is absolutely true. Seems this sentence must be absolutely true.

Prove it.  :wink:

Judgment calls (Seems this sentence must be absolutely true) are not allowed in logic.

The rules of logic, which you're supposed to be following, require that every statement in the proof be mechanically verifiable by tracing it back to it's supporting proof, which in turn is also mechanically verifiable.

If, when you reach the beginning of the proof, you hit an unverifiable statement (your founding axiom), the entire edifice collapses into faith.

The problem is still with the word "Absolute"

And we're back were we started.


--------------------
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.

Edited by Diploid (04/27/05 05:38 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Diploid]
    #4103010 -

Quote:
Either there is or there is not something which is absolutely true. Seems this sentence must be absolutely true.

Prove it.  :wink:


OK.

Its truth is derived from the form of the argument.
Here is an example of that form.

1) The moon either is or is not made of green cheese.
2) If the moon is made of green cheese, then 1 is true.
3) If the moon is not made of green cheese, then 1 is true.
4) Even if there is no moon, 1 is still true because a non-existent moon would not be made of green cheese.
5) Therefore 1 is true.

The form of this argument guaranties that 1 will always and everywhere be true. It is objectively true in and of itself.

Let us apply the same universally true argument form to to absolute truth.

a) There either is or there is not something which is absolutely true.
b) If there is something which is absolutely true, then a is true.
c) If there is not something which is absolutely true, then a is true.
d) Even if one were to say that the existence or non-existence of absolute truth cannot be known, a is still true because both possibilities are represented.
e) Therefore it is true that There either is or is not something which is absolutely true.

Not only is a true in a relative sense, it is always and everywhere objectively true by virtue of the the universally true argument form which proved it.

Furthermore, truth statements about Absolute Truth must themselves be absolute, for to say that Absolute Truth exists relative to one subject, but not to another would be to say that absolute truth is relative, which of course would be absurd. Hence There either is or is not something which is absolutely true is an absolutely true statement.

Therefore there is at least one thing which is absolutely true.
:yesnod:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4103035 -

shroomydan said:
Quote:
Either there is or there is not something which is absolutely true. Seems this sentence must be absolutely true.

Prove it.  :wink:


OK.

[1]

Its truth is derived from the form of the argument.
Here is an example of that form.

1) The moon either is or is not made of green cheese.
2) If the moon is made of green cheese, then 1 is true.
3) If the moon is not made of green cheese, then 1 is true.
4) Even if there is no moon, 1 is still true because a non-existent moon would not be made of green cheese.
5) Therefore 1 is true.

The form of this argument guaranties that 1 will always and everywhere be true. It is objectively true in and of itself.

Let us apply the same universally true argument form to to absolute truth.

[2]

a) There either is or there is not something which is absolutely true.
b) If there is something which is absolutely true, then a is true.
c) If there is not something which is absolutely true, then a is true.
d) Even if one were to say that the existence or non-existence of absolute truth cannot be known, a is still true because both possibilities are represented.
e) Therefore it is true that There either is or is not something which is absolutely true.

Not only is a true in a relative sense, it is always and everywhere objectively true buy virtue of the the universally true argument form which proved it.

Furthermore, truth statements about Absolute Truth must themselves be absolute, for to say that Absolute Truth exists relative to one subject, but not to another would be to say that absolute truth is relative, which of course would be absurd. Hence There either is or is not something which is absolutely true is an absolutely true statement.

Therefore there is at least one thing which is absolutely true.
:yesnod:


1) Constraints, negating absolution.

2) See 1.

Anything can be absolutely true provided an environment is attributed to it, where their is no other choice... beyond semantics that absolution is meaningless, and is relatively absolute due to the given constraints and restrictions provide by our good ol' friend language.


--------------------
"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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4111982 -

Its truth is derived from the form of the argument.

Wow, talk about circular arguments.  :tongue:

OK...

1) The moon either is or is not made of green cheese.

This is where you fall short again.

You make your opening statement sans a reference to a previously proved statement. When you make a statement like this in-vacuo, you reduce it to faith.

Just because I agree that it seems inconceivable that the moon could have a condition other than green or not green doesn't mean that it cannot have such a condition, only that I can't conceive of it.

The form of this argument guaranties that 1 will always and everywhere be true. It is objectively true in and of itself.

This may in fact be true, and I concede that as far as I can tell, it is, but that's not good enough for Absolute Truth, only for Almost Absolute Truth.

You're trying to side-step one of the rules of logic which requires that every statement be mechanically verifiable by tracing it back to it's supporting statement(s).

Your whole construct still rests on faith that your founding axiom is true.

The only way to escape this quandary is to construct a framework in which to begin your proof. Mathematicians call this an Internally Consistent Formal System.

Inside this framework, you are God and anything you say by way of founding axiom is irreproachably true, but only inside the framework. From your founding axiom you can then construct a universe by logical deduction and it will be Absolute Truth inside your framework. This is how much of mathematics works, and it's a very useful technique.

However, the viewer outside your framework still sees your entire universe based on an unproven founding axiom; the whole thing stands on one leg (the axiom) which is accepted as true by faith.


--------------------
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.

Edited by Diploid (05/01/05 05:18 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Diploid]
    #4116167 -

The green cheese moon argument above is a demonstration of the third founding premise of rational thought.

The Principle of the Excluded Middle.

So far we have:

1)The Principle of Identity

If p then p.
a=a


2)The principle of Non-Contradiction
 
If p then not ~p
a does not = ~a

3)The Principle of the Excluded Middle.

In an alternation of denials, one of the terms will be true.
p or ~p
p=true
or
~p=true

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

Diploid said:
Quote:
The only way to escape this quandary is to construct a framework in which to begin your proof. Mathematicians call this an Internally Consistent Formal System.

Inside this framework, you are God and anything you say by way of founding axiom is irreproachably true, but only inside the framework. From your founding axiom you can then construct a universe by logical deduction and it will Absolute Truth inside your framework. This is how much of mathematics works, and it's a very useful technique.


I think I disagree with this in its entirety, so I will take it line by line.

The only way to escape this quandary is to construct a framework in which to begin your proof.

The self evident framework is already in place. I didn't build it; it was already there for me to discover.

Mathematicians call this an Internally Consistent Formal System.
An internally consistent formal system is one that does not violate the principles which I have listed above.
http://home.ddc.net/ygg/etext/godel/


Inside this framework, you are God and anything you say by way of founding axiom is irreproachably true, but only inside the framework.

Isn't it interesting how any examination of absolute truth quickly leads to God. :smile:

If God exists, his absolute transcendent Truth would cut across all subjective constructs of reality. Any system which denies God's existence would be false, even within its own framework, if God does in fact exist. A subject may be able to convince himself that his founding axiom is absolutely true, within his framework, but if that founding axiom does not correspond to reality, then the whole system is merely fiction. Fiction is not absolutely true even in the mind of its author. So this statement could only be true if God did not exist, which has not been demonstrated.

This is how much of mathematics works, and it's a very useful technique.

There are different philosophies of Math. Perhaps it is merely a conventional language by which men communicate, and perhaps it is a fundamental aspect of nature discovered by rational beings. Either way it is not a subjectively determined framework. It relies on self evident theorems.

1=1

If someone says that 1 ~= 1, that person is not doing mathematics, he is writing fiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4116192 -

1 = 1

ALWAYS = 1!!! Provided we say that 1 is always = to 1.

The trouble with your argument is that you must provide constraints to assert absolution... where true absolution needn't any constraints, or it would be as Diploid suggested the almost-absolute truth.

We can say 1 = 1 and assume it to be true, but without specifying the constaints on our system, its all but meaningless.

1 car doesn't = 1 truck.
We can say that 1 automobile = 1 automobile, but we would need to apply a constraint on our defined system to make the methodology of absolution always stick... by doing so we negate absolution, but we must utilize a constrint to achieve a form of absolution.... it's absolutely insane how it works out, but an Absolute that is achievable is relatively meaningless.

As per earlier examples mentioned with the simple absolute truths always being applicable, we can additionally counter those arguments through our definition of language. One simply can't nor will they be able to find absolute truth as our language isn't precise enough to do so. Even then, provided we do achieve that, the absolution will be restricted to our defined system (that of the language we develop to make absolution possible), but by doing so, we place further constraints, and further negate the possibility of our original intention; by restricting absolution solely to said language (form of interpretation if we want to draw what I'm suggesting as language out). Simply put, Absolute truth is a mindfuck of a concept that really can't exist :smile:.


--------------------
"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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
    #4117009 -

The self evident framework is already in place.

Self-evident isn't good enough for Formal Logic.

For a long time, it was self-evident that parallel lines never meet. Then along came non-Euclidean geometry and previously self-evident truth was shown to be seriously lacking.

This is why 'self-evident' is good enough for Almost Absolute Truth, but not good enough for Absolute Truth.

If someone says that 1 ~= 1, that person is not doing mathematics, he is writing fiction.

The same was said of the Euclidean parallel line axiom, which turned out to be less than correct.


--------------------
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Diploid]
    #4117013 -

:lol:


--------------------
"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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* absolute truth
( 1 2 all )		 fearfect 2,336 22 09/01/17 10:46 AM
by Philosite
* Absolute Truth vs. Science
( 1 2 all )		 infidelGOD 2,552 20 01/14/04 01:27 PM
by muhurgle
* The 'ABSOLUTE TRUTH' is unnattainable.... nubious 1,197 8 10/21/02 06:02 PM
by Metasyn
* There is no Universal, Absolute Truth
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Sclorch 5,957 61 07/09/02 05:03 PM
by llib
* Truth?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 all )		 Anonymous 17,403 205 10/21/02 02:08 PM
by Anonymous
* Problems in Philosophy: Knowledge chodamunky 1,158 3 05/03/04 08:38 AM
by TheShroomHermit
* truth?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 deep_umbra 5,790 66 05/21/02 09:12 AM
by Anonymous
* The Official Truth Thread - No jokes please!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )		 World Spirit 19,808 178 10/31/02 12:23 AM
by Strumpling

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,469 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 15 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.047 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.