David Henry

No idea of what you're talking about, and I'm not sure I want to know

David Henry

Save the melodramatics Cludth.
And yes, I do think most will reject what I post about optimal dieting{when I can, the World Cup is on and AUS is the best EVER}


How about YOU wait patiently...I mean you are a philosopher aren't you..?

David Henry

Both, rational and non-rational knowledge{intuitive, biological knowledge}.



I'm not interested in pursuing the religious concept of absolute truth, this concept was "authoritarian" in nature, whereby the goal was to create a realm of truth or authority that was unquestionable.
The history of science and history in general has made a mockery of organized religious concepts, and the notion of absolute has been replaced with objective truth...although this truth is relative both to the particular paradigm and the knowledge state of the paradigm{low, med, high levels of certainty and development}



Interesting, did you use language to express your truths here?
Is what you said logical?
If so, how is it other than by logical assertion, can reality be the final arbiter?
One can say there is an abstract logical framework that exists, and when we place data into it, the outcome that is most rational is that which has the most logical validity.
2+2=4 is an example of us using that framework...the order and patterns are what we can recognize, and why logic is the arbiter of rational truth.



Ok, so we can't know it consciously, but YOU want to declare that it MUST exist in presumably a transcendental state, and you'll do this whilst you're conscious.

Bob Stewart

Along with others (I think others are still a bit in the dark) , I am still looking for clarification of the question "Is there an absolute truth?" Is the question here something more than a question about whether or not anything can be known?

To those who responded directly to my first post in this thread, are you maintaining that I don't really know that Paris is the Capital of France? If I do know that Paris is the Capital of France, or if I do know that Bill Clinton is no longer the President of the United States, does this knowledge, as it were, answer the question "Is there an absolute truth?"

To Dave Henry, you said Will you tell me what prompted this comment and/or what it means! Was it supposed to be addressed to someone else?


Bob Stewart

Gurdur

You seem confused about the semantic nature of "objective", and the notion of absolute truth is hardly just a religious invention; one of the strongest proponents of absolute truth (which you've simply reworded as "objective") was Plato, not a terribly religious philosopher, and one who saw religion as a tool and to be strictly governed, not as an end in itself.

Science deals in intersubjective truth simulating objective truth, and as often said, sometimes science will advance on purely subjective truth.

Additionally, your argument as it is depends upon intersubjective judgment of the physical world; it has no application at all to the ethical, aesthetic etc. worlds where there is no objective truth at all to be simulated through intersubjectivity, and science has no determining function in those worlds whatsoever.

Clutch

I was unaware that asking you to write something intelligible counts as melodrama. And, of course, someone who wrote this......might be more cautious about finding melodrama, of all things, in the writings others.
Either you'll make sense of your OP, or you won't; I can't make you write something intelligible if you'd rather not. In any case, your remark about philosophers is ill-informed. Virtually all the philosophers I know tend to be more impatient than I with the sort of behaviour you've demonstrated so far.

Once again, then, and hoping for an answer instead of an evasion:

David Henry

Whoever invented it is largely irrelevant to this topic.
My aim was to counter appeals to further scientific knowledge as being necessary for acceptance that we have found optimal truth when it comes to determining our dietry needs.

Also objective here means repeatable via experiment thus giving it merit as objective knowledge, IOW, anyone of competence can validate this optimal truth.


Are you certain there aren't any objective norms relating to ethics?

David Henry

[Deleted - HH]

David Henry

Ok, but what does this mean to anyone?, as we're still able to derive practical benefit from this diluted knowledge.



You're using logic to be transcedent about reality, it was logic that gave you access to reality at a conscious level...no logic, no reality.



Logic determines rational truth.




The problem here is that I'm talking about objective/optimal knowledge and you're takling about the totality...that there is a totality{expressed by anyone who uses logic}, is academic as far as this topic is concerned.

Hugo Holbling

This, in combination with your inability to explain your point further in spite of several requests, is why the thread is now going ~Elsewhere~. You are welcome to try again with a coherent OP.