Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JusticeMachine · 12-12-2002, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beoran:
What I don't get from this whole discussion is ther elevance of truth being absolute or not. My father told me me to eat cooked food, to drink clear beverages, and to speak the truth. I think it's much more important to speak the truth, or what we condider to be the truth, as long as it is not inhumane or unethical to do so, then to argue about whether it is absolute or not.

But you see the irony is; if there is not moral truth, then what is "unethical" or "inhumane". If the definitions of such are subjective, who am I to impose my subjective beliefs on others. Thus anarchy.

Keith Russell · 12-12-2002, 01:15 PM

Justice:

But, doesn't the very fact that you are questioning your right to 'impose subjective beliefs on others' imply a moral directive?

Keith.

Heraclitus Nietzsche · 12-12-2002, 04:48 PM

JusticeMachine, your initial question: "Does truth exist outside of my ability to perceive it, or does what I perceive define what truth is?" sounds to me like a re-asking of the question: "If a tree falls in the forest while no one is around, does it make a sound?"

I take this to mean: Is reality a combination of subjectivity (S) and objectivity (O) or is everything subjectivity? I believe reality is a combination of S and O. The reason I believe this is because we don't have absolute power over everything we encounter in our existence. I think a common reason of confusion about the topic is because everything that we encounter is subjectivized by us. In other words, we can only perceive objective reality THROUGH the filter of our individual perspective. So in a manner of speaking, everything [to us] IS subjective. But, since we cannot control everything, there are other wills around us that prevent our own wills from having absolute power. Therefore, our subjectivity, our perspective, observes objectivity.

The title of this thread is: Absolute Truth?
I, for one, do not believe in Absolute Truth. Because everything we observe and decide IS Truth is dependent upon our individual perspective. Our physical bodies are limited in their natural tools of observance (the naked eye). That is why we had to build tools to observe further (telescopes, microscopes). But even these powerful tools are not all-powerful. Even they are dependent upon there perspectival power.

We will to believe in Absolute Truths because it gives us a sense of power to have a base of truth on which to stand.

Do I believe my own existence is an Absolute Truth? In my own perspective, yes. But I'm not foolish enough to believe my own perspective dictates Absolute Truth. My "existence" really be something quite different than I perceive it to be if the perspective was broadened.

John Page · 12-12-2002, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JusticeMachine:
...If the definitions of such are subjective, who am I to impose my subjective beliefs on others. Thus anarchy.

One person's anarchy is another person's freedom!

Cheers, John

Answerer · 12-12-2002, 07:49 PM

Okay, Thomas, I get your point. Time to switch topic.

Oxymoron · 12-13-2002, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Heraclitus Nietzsche:
Do I believe my own existence is an Absolute Truth? In my own perspective, yes. But I'm not foolish enough to believe my own perspective dictates Absolute Truth. My "existence" really be something quite different than I perceive it to be if the perspective was broadened.

I am wondering exactly how I could believe my own existence is not an absolute truth (a la Descartes' Malicious Demon argument).

Refer to my posting on page 1 of this thread. Absolute Truth is a red herring. The only thing that matters is whether there exists a test to validate or falsify a belief. It's the nearest we can get to absolute truth. Now, do I exist or not? Let's test: ooh! if there is someone there to do the testing, job done. Hurrah, I exist!

JusticeMachine · 12-13-2002, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page:


One person's anarchy is another person's freedom!

Cheers, John

As long as something esle in the world exist that can impose its rules/laws/beliefs on me, against my will, then I will never be free.
Freedom is an illusion. People are simply more or less free that others, but as long as other people exist, people will never be free.

JusticeMachine · 12-13-2002, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell:
Justice:

But, doesn't the very fact that you are questioning your right to 'impose subjective beliefs on others' imply a moral directive?

Keith.

The point is, is that there is morality, despite our ability to accurately interpret it.

Starboy · 12-13-2002, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Ash:

I think you may have a different concept of 'absolute truth' from me. I'm talking about 'objective truth', whether we can ever know it or not, really, as I said in my last post and my post back on page 2 where I responded to Chip.

Thomas Ash, look up the word absolute. Absolute truth would be truth with NO caveats.

Starboy

Philosoft · 12-13-2002, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JusticeMachine:


The point is, is that there is morality, despite our ability to accurately interpret it.

Huh. How, exactly, do we discern inaccurately interpreted morality from made-up stuff? It's not like we have the objective moral laws themselves to reference is it?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-12-2002, 01:15 PM	#72
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Justice: But, doesn't the very fact that you are questioning your right to 'impose subjective beliefs on others' imply a moral directive? Keith.

12-12-2002, 04:48 PM	#73
Heraclitus Nietzsche Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Dumfries, Virginia, USA Posts: 12	JusticeMachine, your initial question: "Does truth exist outside of my ability to perceive it, or does what I perceive define what truth is?" sounds to me like a re-asking of the question: "If a tree falls in the forest while no one is around, does it make a sound?" I take this to mean: Is reality a combination of subjectivity (S) and objectivity (O) or is everything subjectivity? I believe reality is a combination of S and O. The reason I believe this is because we don't have absolute power over everything we encounter in our existence. I think a common reason of confusion about the topic is because everything that we encounter is subjectivized by us. In other words, we can only perceive objective reality THROUGH the filter of our individual perspective. So in a manner of speaking, everything [to us] IS subjective. But, since we cannot control everything, there are other wills around us that prevent our own wills from having absolute power. Therefore, our subjectivity, our perspective, observes objectivity. The title of this thread is: Absolute Truth? I, for one, do not believe in Absolute Truth. Because everything we observe and decide IS Truth is dependent upon our individual perspective. Our physical bodies are limited in their natural tools of observance (the naked eye). That is why we had to build tools to observe further (telescopes, microscopes). But even these powerful tools are not all-powerful. Even they are dependent upon there perspectival power. We will to believe in Absolute Truths because it gives us a sense of power to have a base of truth on which to stand. Do I believe my own existence is an Absolute Truth? In my own perspective, yes. But I'm not foolish enough to believe my own perspective dictates Absolute Truth. My "existence" really be something quite different than I perceive it to be if the perspective was broadened.

12-12-2002, 07:49 PM	#75
Answerer Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,956	Okay, Thomas, I get your point. Time to switch topic.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.