99Percent

Some people deny truth because they don't like it. The fact that we are going to die and cease to exist is the one truth that is hard to accept, so the only recourse left for those who don't like it is to redefine truth (making it false), or simply negate it by either inventing their own "truth" or by claiming its not absolute.

But truth can only be absolute because facts of existence, of "thisness", are either true or false. There is no in between.

JusticeMachine

One could even say that the biblical GOD of the new testament either exist, in totality of the way the bible describes him, or he doesn't.

Or the religous beliefs of the Hindus are either absolutly true or they are not.

But the pluralistic view that both can be true is utter nonsense. Both these views can be wrong, but both cannot be right.

I know that isn't where you were headed, but I felt it bares mentioning.

Powerfull Voices

Pilot asked Jesus, "what is truth". He didn't stick around to hear the reply but at least he asked the right being. Jesus the enbodiment of Truth.

Starboy

Keith, it seems arbitrary to me also. But then you are talking to a guy that thinks that “truth” in general is of limited utility. As I see it, science, one of the most successful endeavors in the history of mankind for understanding our surroundings doesn't make reference to "truth" in any way at all. It is an excellent example of what can be done when people ignore the "truth" while making an honest attempt to find what works. The dismal record of religion and the outstanding record of science should be evidence enough that the supernatural doesn’t exist and that there is an objective reality. Do not get me wrong; I do not say this as a statement of “truth” but as a working hypothesis. When it comes to “absolute truth”, I say, forget about it.

Starboy

dostf

Keith Russell:

dostf said:
"- There is no "truth" "outside" of you."
Keith: The 'truth inside of me', disagrees with this statement

- The idea here is that there is no "truth" "out there somewhere" waiting to be found.
- Further, ideas of "outside" and "inside" are also incorrect

dostf:
"Your perception defines what truth is for YOU."

Perception of what? My perception is part of me, but that which I perceive, is not...(Keith)

- Your knowledge, experiences, upbringing, perceptions, etc. all define what is true FOR YOU....
- Further the "seperation" you describe between "observer"(you) and "object" (perceived thing) is also a falsity attibuted to the idea of "you" or "self" as a "reality"

- an aside....some of these ideas I tried to convey quite some time ago in a "truth" thread, but the medium of the written word is very poor for expressing thoughts on this matter.
- IMO any discussion of "truth" has far more value when done face to face, (for me "truth" is a "living"- not a knowing, or doing , or understanding etc.)....however that is not to say we shouldn't try....

Be seeing you...

dostf

Bill:

Is there anyone posting here who seriously doubts the absolute truth of his/her own existence?(Bill)

- Not with regards to our "physical existance".
- However I would contend the "self", and all our ideas, notions, understandings and beliefs, related to it, most certainly do not exist....

Be seeing you...

Keith Russell

dostf said:
- The idea here is that there is no "truth" "out there somewhere" waiting to be found.

Is that true?

dostf- Further, ideas of "outside" and "inside" are also incorrect

Incorrect? As opposed to 'correct'? Is that true?

dostf- Further the "seperation" you describe between "observer"(you) and "object" (perceived thing) is also a falsity.

False, as opposed to 'true'? Please, say it isn't so...!

Keith.

dostf

Keith Russell:

What is your point if any??

Be seeing you...

John Page

Hi Bill!

I think an absolute truth and an existential fact are two different things. As for a truth, it is a value or conclusion that is derived from the "truth telling process" applied to sense data. Existential fact, on the other hand, is merely the presence of sense data.

As to your question, consider the statement "I exist". First there is ambiguity since we have not defined what "I" is. Is "I" the thing that detects its own exitence? If so, we merely arrive at a tautology - things that exist exist.

Also in relation to your question, it would seem impossible to test the contra, i.e. I have no idea what it is to not exist. Here one again runs into issues with the "I", if one dies then one's life may be deemed to be non-existent but the corporeal presence remains.

In conclusion, I cannot be certain whether I exist or not according to the ambuguity in your proposition.

But all this happens inside your mind/brain, thus "truth" is inside your head.

If all truth statements involve some degree of subjectivity, how can you conclude that there is absolute truth?

Again, depends on how you define "one" or "I". I could tell you that my soul aches for all eternity, however, if my soul turns out to be a phantasm then the truth functionality of my statement is irrelevant. Similarly, if the mind's "I" is illusory then I have imagined an "I" that does not exist.

To end my post, systems of logic can be self-contradictory (as we have exchanged words before on propositional logic and the Liar Paradox etc.). IMO one needs to look to an ontology to examine existential propositions - whether those ontologies are logically tenable is a different issue.

Cheers, John

Answerer

Well, for your information, Buddhism don't deny absolute truth, neither do it claim that absolute truth exists independently from relative truth or that it could be expressed clearly in words and concepts. The ultimate aim in Buddhism is to "let go"(not deny) rather than clearly define an 'absolute concept'.