Draygomb

Blu

Think of absolute truth as all of the roads which lead to Rome. Relative truth are then all of the roads which aren't in some way connected to Rome like the ones in America.

Blu

Draygomb:

I have a feeling you are trying to out-do me in the confusion category.... One road can be a "relative aspect" and then there is a system of roads which make up multiple roads... these roads are in a given city and roads connect cities to other cities... other states etc.

Your version of the "road" metaphor does not make too much sense to me....although I am trying.

John Page

That's absolutley true, but others may disagree.

Datheron

Interesting thread.

Anyway, what stuck me first as I read through the thread was the claims made on Absolute Truth when we make the provision that we cannot know of Absolute Truth. In many ways, this is like the theist argument "God is unknowable, but somehow we know of this". If it is indeed true that we cannot know of any Absolute Truths, and that absolute and relative truths are mutually exclusive (otherwise, we would "know" of absolute truths, but they would seem relative to us), then we should not be able to make any absolute statements about the Absolute Truth, for all these claims made from us are by definition relative.

The only way I can see to reconcilate this is to make the adjustment that we cannot know the set of all Absolute Truths; which is just a fancy way of saying that we cannot be omniscient.

Blu

Datheron thanks for responding and complimenting the ideas in this thread.

I had a thought on how to better explain what I meant by relative and Absolute....

Relative is a microcosm. It is something that is related to something else. The valves of the heart are relative to the heart... the heart is relative to the cardiovascular system... the cardiovasicular system is relative to the body... the body is relative to the human species....the human species can be relative to the earth... the earth is relative to the solar system... the solar system is relative to the Universe... What is the Universe relative to?

I don't have an answer...

Universe, and/or God then is Absolute. Absolute Truth houses all systems and sub-systems.

Relative is the opposite of Absolute.

Does this definition make the concept a little more understandable?

Datheron

Blu,

So, really, what you're looking for is not, per se, relative, but more of the idea of a subset - i.e. that we know a part of the truth, but not all of it, nor can we know the complete, absolute truth.

In short, I still don't see how that's any different from saying that we cannot be omniscient, and that has already been proven in Quantum Mechanics by the Uncertinty Principle. Is there something I'm missing?

Blu

Datheron,


Yes, it is the same as saying we are not omniscent. The original argument was mostly about: Is there or isn't there Absolute Truth? And if there is Absolute Truth can the human mind know this type of Truth? Everyone's belief is relative truth meaning everyone's belief is relative to a group, and/or experience, as well as perceptions they have of the world. These are all personal.

I was trying to make the argument that everything is systems within subsystems including belief and religion. Everyone's religion is also relative truth because it is related to a group, a culture, a history etc.

I said the Absolute Truth is the encompassing system which houses all systems of belief or personal truth. Just as the Universe houses all subsystems of solar system, earth, continents, countries, states, cities, communities, families, and individuals.

I went further to compare Absolute Truth with the Universe and then with God. Are they one in the same?

People are still having trouble with the concept that there is an Absolute Truth.

So that is basically everything....

I hope you will share your views.

Datheron

Blu,

If there is Absolute Truth, and everyone's belief is relative, then by definition we cannot know the Absolute Truth, unless we form a consensus of opinion as a whole for all minds that have and will ever exist. By claiming that any particular individual has stumbled upon a personal truth that coincides with absolute truth, you are saying that his relative truths are somehow more superior than that of any other individual, when we have already established the playing field as that all are evenly relative. In other words, there is no practical way for us to know whether we actually achieved the absolutity of truth.

I've also had this argument before - I argued that since all thought must be placed within some context, if God had created the universe ex nihilo, then he cannot have had thought, hence he was not conscious, therefore he was not God. I agree w/ you fully that all our experiences do require some context to make sense.

But I suspect that such a truth does not exist. I'm no expert in set theory, but if we think of Absolute Truth as the set of all possible relative truths (personal belief), then it will also house a belief that will contradict its own truths. For example, suppose that the Absolute Truth states that the meaning of the universe is...to create me, say. One of the beliefs expressed on this thread was that there is no meaning to the universe, and AT must contain that belief within its set - furthermore, the truths of AT are their own set, so they are also a part of AT. Hence, we've got contradicting elements in our set - not a good thing if it's a set of truths. Ultimately, what this means is that necessarily all our beliefs don't fit with AT, meaning that there is no way for us to coincide with AT; therefore, if it does exist, then our very spectulation of it is wrong.

The problem with those kinds of comparisons is that there are a lot of implications nested with each term. The "Universe" implies a materialistic, physical set. Absolute Truth implies a moral, philosophical set of truths. God implies a spiritual, extra-dimensional entity-set. These three, by implication, are mutually exclusive, yet you want to clump them metaphorically into this giant entity. Personally, I do not see how one can be the same as another, and there's no way that one implies the existence of another, not when one breaks it down like I do above.

jpbrooks

Datheron's point:

is an important one. I don't have a problem with assuming that Absolute Truth exists. To assume that truth can only be "relative" or "perspective" is to assume that an absolute position on truth can be taken. It is, in effect, to claim that it is absolutely "wrong" to assume that AT exists, (a claim which implicitly alludes to all possible perspectives).
Absolute truth (AT) cannot be (or contain) the mere collection of all "relative truths". It, if it is assumed to exist at all, must be a "synthesis" of truths from all possible perspectives because it cannot contain the erroneous truth claims in each perspective that assert that the "relative" position is the truth.

Furthermore, while I agree that reality manifests "systems within systems", this "systems" analogy is also a good example of a"relative" truth claim with limitations. In reality, things are complicated by the fact that "systems" interact with one another. Thus, for example, the "eco-system" is composed of various creatures that are each, in turn, made up of cellular systems, and so on. What happens at the cellular level within a particular creature can (eventually) have an effect on other creatures in the "eco-system". Similarly, changes in the "eco-system" can affect the creatures within in it. These interactions between systems, that would presumably be taken into account by AT, are not adequately accounted for by the "systems within systems" analogy.

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Blu

My response:

This is exactly what I think. All systems interact with each other. I separated systems to categorize and explain a point but yes they are all interconnected. One would even go so far to say all systems need all other systems in order to function.