[Eynstyn]

Consider the statements below, taken at random from a series of recent interviews at a major university. The interviewer asked, "Is there such a thing as absolute truth?" Students answered:

"Truth is whatever you believe."

"No, there is no absolute truth, and if there was, how would we know what it is?"

"People who believe in absolute truth are dangerous."

The Death of Truth Group Study Guide - Chapter 3: The postmodern response to modernist assumptions.

In a discussion where two people enjoy divergent viewpoints can either one claim she can "prove" her position with facts? Or are both viewpoints equally valid because there is no such thing as an absolute truth? In other words, everyone's opinion is equally valid?

[nonhuman]

In order to answer that question you really have to first answer the 'brain in a vat' question ...which is essentially unanswerable. The only possible answer is that, within a given context, absolute truth is possible. It may also be possible to have a universal absolute truth, but we aren't capable of knowing it.

[mitchell_pgh]

The problem is... there aren't many "absolute facts" in this world.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

In order to answer that question you really have to first answer the 'brain in a vat' question ...which is essentially unanswerable. The only possible answer is that, within a given context, absolute truth is possible. It may also be possible to have a universal absolute truth, but we aren't capable of knowing it.

Scene: Moe and Joe are talking about a girl they both know named Shamiqua who was fired from her job and was arrested for 'clocking' a guy with a heavy duty 3-hole punch. The guy was a well known public nuisance at the Kinko's where she worked and he'd been arrested before when trying to strong arm a new employee a few months back but he got off with a small fine and a few days behind bars.

Moe says Shamiqua got what she deserved.

Joe says Shamiqua called him and said she had a good reason for assaulting the guy but she can't discuss the case in detail except to say that her lawyer says she should be acquitted of the charges of assault & battery.

Moe says they could go around and around arguing their respective viewpoints from here til eternity and never come to a conclusion because there is no absolute truth and that everyone's opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.

Joe says that once they become aware of the facts of the case there will be no more arguing because the facts will be known.

Moe disagrees saying it will still be a matter of opinion.

[::maroma::]

Wow, this is a refreshing thread topic. Kudos Eynstyn.

Without really studying this or thinking about it too hard, I would say that no there is no absolute truth. At least in the state of consciousness that we humans live in at this time. I am a believer that we are merely infants in our consciousness and we have a long way to go before we're at a level where we can even begin to speak of absolute truths. I don't dismiss that one day, if we survive long enough, we will have an awakening so to speak, where we'll elevate to another level of consciousness or being. But I guess thats for another discussion.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

Wow, this is a refreshing thread topic. Kudos Eynstyn.

Without really studying this or thinking about it too hard, I would say that no there is no absolute truth. At least in the state of consciousness that we humans live in at this time. I am a believer that we are merely infants in our consciousness and we have a long way to go before we're at a level where we can even begin to speak of absolute truths. I don't dismiss that one day, if we survive long enough, we will have an awakening so to speak, where we'll elevate to another level of consciousness or being. But I guess thats for another discussion.

Thanks. Well, if you start that discussion in a new thread I'm sure it will be well attended. And I would certainly check in to offer my 2 cents!

[CMYKid]

Without getting waaaaaay too more deeperly into philosophy and theology than the Lounge can handle I'd have to say that there simply HAS to be such a thing as absolute truth.

Of course from a religious perspective it makes sense to say that, but even from a simply practical standpoint I don't believe that you could continue to have a functional, lasting society based on empiricism.

Its little different than disagreeing with gravity. Your belief or disbelief in something really has no effect whatsoever on whether or not it is actually true.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by CMYKid 

Without getting waaaaaay too more deeperly into philosophy and theology than the Lounge can handle I'd have to say that there simply HAS to be such a thing as absolute truth.

Of course from a religious perspective it makes sense to say that, but even from a simply practical standpoint I don't believe that you could continue to have a functional, lasting society based on empiricism.

Its little different than disagreeing with gravity. Your belief or disbelief in something really has no effect whatsoever on whether or not it is actually true.

You and Joe share the same point of view, I see.

[- - e r i k - -]

Of course there is such a thing as absolute truth. It just makes sense.

But then again, the intricacies of this truth is beyond our current level of comprehension. Although that should not stop us from moving towards that singularity where "all there is to be known is known". It's the journey that's the reward, not the goal.

Anyway, that might sound like complete new age philosophic wish wash, but it really describes scientific progress.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Of course there is such a thing as absolute truth. It just makes sense.

But then again, the intricacies of this truth is beyond our current level of comprehension. Although that should not stop us from moving towards that singularity where "all there is to be known is known". It's the journey that's the reward, not the goal.

Anyway, that might sound like complete new age philosophic wish wash, but it really describes scientific progress.

I don't call it wish wash at all. I agree with you.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

I would say that no there is no absolute truth.

Isn't this an absolute statement?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Isn't this an absolute statement?

Yep.

There must be absolute truth, because you can't argue with nature. Go down below crush depth in a submersible. Go up in a balloon without oxygen. As your air runs out, debate with yourself over "absolute truth."

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Yep.

There must be absolute truth, because you can't argue with nature. Go down below crush depth in a submersible. Go up in a balloon without oxygen. As your air runs out, debate with yourself over "absolute truth."

I don't think it is a matter of arguing with nature. Everything we know or think we know or will EVER know is viewed through our human prism of consciousness. Even universally accepted "laws" such as gravity are simply observations made from our own perspective.

In particle physics they know that what they observe can change with the conditions of the observation. That is, how they look at something actually changes it. Who's to say that this isn't how everything works?

Isn't the idea of truth a human creation? How can we discuss anything in terms of absolutes when there is no such thing as a neutral perspective?

[- - e r i k - -]

Just because you don't understand how it works doesn't mean there's no such thing as an absolute truth. The universe would still continue to function if all humans were removed from it.

[Doofy]

Of course there's absolute truth.

As I type this, I'm holding a Jim Dunlop .73mm nylon guitar pick in my left hand. That's an absolute truth. Whether you believe that I'm holding the pick in my left hand is irrelevant to the actual facts of the matter.

With respect to religion, let's ask the question "does God exist". The answer can only be yes or no. So either the guy saying "God exists" or the guy saying "God does not exist" is speaking an absolute truth. The other is just plain wrong. And the guy who says "God exists if you believe he does" is, quite frankly, an idiot.

[- - e r i k - -]

In fact I'd say the idea that there is no absolute truth is purely a human invention.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

In fact I'd say the idea that there is no absolute truth is purely a human invention.

All ideas are human inventions…

The universe only exists because it is manifested in the brains of the observers.

[gametime10]

I'm absolutely sure there is no such thing as absolute truth.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The universe only exists because it is manifested in the brains of the observers.

Chicken/egg.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

All ideas are human inventions…

The universe only exists because it is manifested in the brains of the observers.

Hahaha. Talk about new age wish wash philosophy.

Unfortunately the universe disagrees with you.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Chicken/egg.

Well, not really because the theory of evolution answers that question quite nicely...

But, regardless of whether or not there are absolute truths, it would be impossible to identify one as you're always going to be constrained to your own context without an understanding of other possible contexts. You can say that you're holding something in your hands, but you can't even be certain that your perceptions are accurate and that you're not actually just a 'brain in a vat' being fed the proper impulses to make you perceive the things you perceive.

It's like that one episode that pretty much every sci-fi show ever has done: the main character wakes up in a mental hospital to be told that everything they know is a delusion. The truth is, you can never know because either one, or both, could be the delusion.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Hahaha. Talk about new age wish wash philosophy.

Unfortunately the universe disagrees with you.

Actually this is one of the oldest questions in philosophy...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

But, regardless of whether or not there are absolute truths, it would be impossible to identify one as you're always going to be constrained to your own context without an understanding of other possible contexts. You can say that you're holding something in your hands, but you can't even be certain that your perceptions are accurate and that you're not actually just a 'brain in a vat' being fed the proper impulses to make you perceive the things you perceive.

It's like that one episode that pretty much every sci-fi show ever has done: the main character wakes up in a mental hospital to be told that everything they know is a delusion. The truth is, you can never know because either one, or both, could be the delusion.

However, regardless of one's own perceptions, there would still be an absolute truth. I may be perceiving a guitar pick in my left hand yet could be, as you say, actually sitting in a brain vat... ...in which case, even though I'm not aware of it, the brain vat scenario would be the absolute truth.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

With respect to religion, let's ask the question "does God exist". The answer can only be yes or no. So either the guy saying "God exists" or the guy saying "God does not exist" is speaking an absolute truth. The other is just plain wrong. And the guy who says "God exists if you believe he does" is, quite frankly, an idiot.

God is an idea and ideas in their own environment are just as real as a guitar pick is in it's own environment.

If there was an absolute answer to whether God exists or not we would not be asking the question since the absolute existence of God can only be surmised from the perspective of God's non-existance. Therefore it is a relative statement.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Hahaha. Talk about new age wish wash philosophy.

Unfortunately the universe disagrees with you.

Prove it.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

However, regardless of one's own perceptions, there would still be an absolute truth. I may be perceiving a guitar pick in my left hand yet could be, as you say, actually sitting in a brain vat... ...in which case, even though I'm not aware of it, the brain vat scenario would be the absolute truth.

True. But you'll still never know which is the absolute truth. What you perceive, the vat, or something entirely different. And what if it shifts back and forth between different 'truths'?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

God is an idea and ideas in their own environment are just as real as a guitar pick is in it's own environment.

If there was an absolute answer to whether God exists or not we would not be asking the question since the absolute existence of God can only be surmised from the perspective of God's non-existance. Therefore it is a relative statement.

It's a binary question with a binary answer, regardless of our own perceptions or concepts. We didn't ask about the nature of God - we simply asked if He exists. It's like asking whether Tom Cruise is currently married. He either is or isn't, regardless of our perception.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's a binary question with a binary answer, regardless of our own perceptions or concepts. We didn't ask about the nature of God - we simply asked if He exists. It's like asking whether Tom Cruise is currently married. He either is or isn't, regardless of our perception.

But if the answer in inherently unknowable, then is it really binary?

If it's impossible to prove that something either exists or doesn't, can you really make any absolute claim about it one way or the other?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

But you'll still never know which is the absolute truth.

We don't need to know which is the absolute truth for there to be one.

Let's take a forest which nobody has ever explored. Either there's a bright purple statue of Barry White at the centre of the forest or there isn't - regardless of whether anyone has actually seen it.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And what if it shifts back and forth between different 'truths'?

Then the absolute truth would be that it shifts back and forth between different states.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

But if the answer in inherently unknowable, then is it really binary?

Yes, of course it is. Is the cat in the box? It either is or isn't, regardless of what we perceive or the limits of our ability to perceive.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

If it's impossible to prove that something either exists or doesn't, can you really make any absolute claim about it one way or the other?

We're talking about absolute truths, not absolute claims to know what that truth is.

[Chuckit]

There is absolutely no such thing as absolute truth.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes, of course it is. Is the cat in the box? It either is or isn't, regardless of what we perceive or the limits of our ability to perceive.



We're talking about absolute truths, not absolute claims to know what that truth is.

Yes, but now we're basically talking about Schrödinger's cat. Maybe it's both right up until the moment that we open the box and observe for ourselves. We can never know and it can't be said to be either.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Yes, but now we're basically talking about Schrödinger's cat. Maybe it's both right up until the moment that we open the box and observe for ourselves. We can never know and it can't be said to be either.

Unless the box has a window.



And what of René DesCArTes?

"I think, therefore I am."

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Yes, but now we're basically talking about Schrödinger's cat. Maybe it's both right up until the moment that we open the box and observe for ourselves. We can never know and it can't be said to be either.

But before we open the box, it *is* something. And that something is the absolute truth, regardless of our ability to observe it.

If folks like Schrödy stopped worrying about useless philosophical questions like this and put their brain power to better use we'd probably have cured cancer by now.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If folks like Schrödy stopped worrying about useless philosophical questions like this and put their brain power to better use we'd probably have cured cancer by now.

Finally you make an intelligent argument.

I enjoy bullshitting about things like this but in the end I don't really give a **** one way or another. The answer won't improve me or my life one little bit.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn 

Unless the box has a window.



And what of René DesCArTes?

"I think, therefore I am."

Descartes' 'I think, therefore I am' was an implicit acknowledgment that it was impossible to know whether his reality was what it seemed to be or not. He wrestled with this question for a while, and then, realizing that it was unanswerable, decided to take the position that the only way he could ever even possibly get some productive philosophizing done was if he simply made the assumption that he existed and that things were the way he perceived them because otherwise he would get nowhere. When faced with the inability to prove his own existence he was forced to simply assume that he existed.

His entire meditations were supposed to be based on the premise that what you observe is, in fact reality. Of course he failed in that goal when he 'reasoned' that God exists because he couldn't conceive of a world where God doesn't exist...

His pragmatic decision was an important step in philosophy, and it basically set the tone for philosophical thought from that point forward. But, as with everything else, it's status as an 'absolute truth' exists only within the proper context.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Finally you make an intelligent argument.

I enjoy bullshitting about things like this but in the end I don't really give a **** one way or another. The answer won't improve me or my life one little bit.

I bet it could.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Finally you make an intelligent argument.

I *always* make intelligent arguments. Whether you perceive them to be intelligent arguments or not doesn't alter their status.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But before we open the box, it *is* something. And that something is the absolute truth, regardless of our ability to observe it.

If folks like Schrödy stopped worrying about useless philosophical questions like this and put their brain power to better use we'd probably have cured cancer by now.

Actually, according to Schrödinger, it's neither. And both. The cat exists in a 'superposition' of both states. And this is far from a useless philosophical question. Schrödinger was a physicist, and his problem was directly relevant to the development of quantum theory.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Actually, according to Schrödinger, it's neither. And both. The cat exists in a 'superposition' of both states.

So, like I said, it *is* something.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, like I said, it *is* something.

Is it? If it simultaneously is and isn't two different things, than is it really anything?

[imitchellg5]

I love how people spend their whole lives trying to answer questions like this... just to die.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I love how people spend their whole lives trying to answer questions like this... just to die.

If you're just going to die anyway, than philosophy is as worthy a pursuit as any.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Descartes' 'I think, therefore I am' was an implicit acknowledgment that it was impossible to know whether his reality was what it seemed to be or not. He wrestled with this question for a while, and then, realizing that it was unanswerable, decided to take the position that the only way he could ever even possibly get some productive philosophizing done was if he simply made the assumption that he existed and that things were the way he perceived them because otherwise he would get nowhere. When faced with the inability to prove his own existence he was forced to simply assume that he existed.

His entire meditations were supposed to be based on the premise that what you observe is, in fact reality. Of course he failed in that goal when he 'reasoned' that God exists because he couldn't conceive of a world where God doesn't exist...

His pragmatic decision was an important step in philosophy, and it basically set the tone for philosophical thought from that point forward. But, as with everything else, it's status as an 'absolute truth' exists only within the proper context.

I'm glad you were here to bring this up. I was hoping someone would.

That is the same kind of assumption that we must make when answering the Topic Question in the affirmative. (Some of us answer it without consciously acknowledging this assumption and others of us do it while nodding at the step as we hop over it...)

The assumption is the same one George Harrison referred to when he spoke of living in the material world. In this material world there are absolute truths. And that is, I believe, an absolute. Isn't it?

The housefly that zips into your car on a warm summer day and gets trapped in the passenger compartment as the windows go up and the air cond temperature goes down is only flying at his little fly-speeds, but we all know he's actually or also traveling at freeway speed. But in HIS limited definition of the world his fly-speed is what defines his truth set.

[wolfen]

Truth is not a concept well received by humans. Are there any interesting "partial truths" available? Maybe something that implies I'm wonderful?

[imitchellg5]

Here's a partial truth: Windows is good.

[Ghoser777]

Are you meaning Truth versus truth? I always loved that discussion in philosophy class.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by smacintush

The universe only exists because it is manifested in the brains of the observers.

That's what you think!

In all possibility, what you perceive as the universe only appears to you to exist because what you perceive as your brain seems to generate the perception thereof at this particular moment.

On the matter of truth (let alone absolute, lol), there clearly can be no such thing outside of the commentator's own semanticoillusionoversal perception flux state, as that is all he or she or it may be qualified to comment on, and the whole situation may seem to have changed in the interim, anyway.

----------------------------------
Death to all fanatics!

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Death to all fanatics!

You might want to tone it down so you don't incite yourself into something destructive. The exclamation point implies your own undoing, here.

My take on the discussion:

The successes of science support an objective reality.
The failures of science suggest we will never completely define it.

Such is also the case for any individual's perceptions, experiences, and interpretations.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by wolfen

You might want to tone it down so you don't incite yourself into something destructive. The exclamation point implies your own undoing, here.

It's a joke, silly. I thought that was obvious, given that the statement itself is fanatical.