|
 Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
 Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy)  [Re: shroomydan]
#4095507 - 04/25/05 02:43 PM (18 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
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? 
--------------------
"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.
|
 the_phoenix
Stranger
Registered: 07/07/04
Posts: 541
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
#4095550 - 04/25/05 02:54 PM (18 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shroomydan said:
Hello the_phoenix
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. 
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.
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: the_phoenix]
#4095583 - 04/25/05 03:05 PM (18 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
 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.
|
Diploid
Cuban
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
 Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
#4096304 - 04/25/05 05:27 PM (18 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
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.
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Diploid]
#4096319 - 04/25/05 05:31 PM (18 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
"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.
|
the_phoenix
Stranger
Registered: 07/07/04
Posts: 541
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Psychoactive1984]
#4096461 - 04/25/05 06:17 PM (18 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
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').
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: the_phoenix]
#4096500 - 04/25/05 06:27 PM (18 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
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.
|
the_phoenix
Stranger
Registered: 07/07/04
Posts: 541
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Psychoactive1984]
#4096504 - 04/25/05 06:28 PM (18 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I don't know who it's from, but I did the typing.
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: the_phoenix]
#4096524 - 04/25/05 06:33 PM (18 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
 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.
|
the_phoenix
Stranger
Registered: 07/07/04
Posts: 541
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Psychoactive1984]
#4096543 - 04/25/05 06:37 PM (18 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
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.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite
Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: the_phoenix]
#4100701 - 04/26/05 09:29 PM (18 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
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.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite
Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Psychoactive1984]
#4100737 - 04/26/05 09:42 PM (18 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
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.
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
#4100750 - 04/26/05 09:45 PM (18 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
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.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite
Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Diploid]
#4100882 - 04/26/05 10:41 PM (18 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
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.
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.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite
Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Psychoactive1984]
#4100910 - 04/26/05 10:58 PM (18 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
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.
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
#4100987 - 04/26/05 11:33 PM (18 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
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)
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God 
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
|
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
#4101538 - 04/27/05 02:00 AM (18 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Truth, is in the eye of the beholder, discuss.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
Diploid
Cuban
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
#4101829 - 04/27/05 05:14 AM (18 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
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.
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)
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite
Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: Diploid]
#4103010 - 04/27/05 02:20 PM (18 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Either there is or there is not something which is absolutely true. Seems this sentence must be absolutely true.
Prove it.
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.
|
Psychoactive1984
PositiveCynicist
Registered: 02/06/05
Posts: 3,546
Loc: California, Monterey Coun...
|
Re: Absolute Truth Revistited (First Philosophy) [Re: shroomydan]
#4103035 - 04/27/05 02:25 PM (18 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shroomydan said:
Quote:
Either there is or there is not something which is absolutely true. Seems this sentence must be absolutely true.
Prove it.
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.
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.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Buy Bali Kratom Powder 
Red Vein Kratom 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
fearfect
infidelGOD
nubious
Sclorch
chodamunky
World Spirit