John Page

Jason:

But I don't know any.......

I think we're going round in a loop here. For something to be objectively true you need to know the premises, conclusions etc. and these are limited in time and space. Thus you cannot prove an absolute truth (as defined in your earlier post quote "I would say absolute truth (in a moral sense, I presume that is what you speak of) exists in a "for all time and space" sense. Even as I said, if that truth turns out to be, that we all mean nothing and morality is just an illusion. It is still an absolute moral truth.") exists. Thus, you can define an absolute truth all you want but you can never find or prove one.

Objective truth is necessarily 'localized', would you care to offer a reason why not?

Regards

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

svensky

What do you mean buy localised ? I would have thought that if something was objectivly true and did, which I presume means true regardless of an observer (among other things, but do you see what i'm getting at ?) as opposed to a subjective truth that is filtered through an observer.

Any absolute truth would be objective, and any objective truth couldn't apply locally, at least on how I currently understand the use of the term objective truth.

Would you care to elaborate further ?

Jason

John Page

Jason:

Whoa! If, as you stated above, subjective truth is that which is filtered by an observer, and you are always an observer, anything any observer says is subjective.

You also state "Any absolute truth would be objective".

Are you saying a subjective truth can be absolute? If so, how? and please provide one so we can test your subjective observation on the matter.

Regards

Adrian Selby

OK, to start an exploration.

I am looking out of my bedroom window. There are no dragons in my back garden. I think this is a statement that is true for me and any observer, were they here now. I think it is a true statement about the piece of universe outside my bedroom window. It can never be false to say that at this point in time there is not a dragon in my back garden.

It's a start

Part of my original point, acknowledging the flaws in this start position, was asking whether we could know I wasn't stating an absolute truth by stating the above. John, you argue that there can be objective truth but it is impossible for us to attain it. How can you be sure that there is objective truth then? Do you share the position that we could be stating absolute truths but we never know them? I'm using the words absolute and objective interchangeably here, I acknowledge now this might be a problem. I take objective truth to mean that which is true now and for ever.

Adrian

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: Adrian Selby ]</p>

Gabriel Syme

From the theistic argument from absolutes page:

"Unless you can refute that statement, it is true"

Yep, I think that's what the whole of theism is based on. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

----------------
Gabriel Syme
"You want to abolish government" "To abolish God!"

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: Gabriel Syme ]</p>

John Page

Adrian:

I never argued there was no objective truth!!!! I said for a truth to be objectively true it must necessarily be constrained by it premises etc.

In my previous post I responded to Jason's assertion that (an observed) truth could only be subjective. I pointed out that (if true) this leads to a conclusion that all truth is subjective and therefore can never be absolute.

By the way, I don't believe there were any dragons in your back garden. What you thought was your bedroom window was in fact a large screen TV showing Shrek! (An excellent movie IMO).

As a different example, I tell my kid she's the best kid in the world. For me that's true but it doesn't (necessarily) make my kid better than yours. It doesn't matter whether you substitute facts or opinions, such a statement is made from a subjective point of view.

Objective truth is manufactured by testing observations against external reference points (either others' opinions or repeatable measurements). However, such objective truths are not absolute, their applicability is bound by the (localized) circumstances that bore them.

An absolute truth, to me, is an abstract concept of something that cannot exist. To know be truly objective you need to know everything in space and at all times past and future. Defining a god that is exactly this could solve the problem, but that doesn't make the god exist. sr summarizes this very succinctly above.

Does this clarify the thinking behind my prior statements?

Regards.

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

svensky

I've expressed myself badly it appears.

I meant that a subjective truth is more or less an opinion.

"Loud hawian shirts are the best sort of shirt", is subjectivly true for me, it is my observation, it is true for me, but it is really only an opinion.

(Presuming God exists and the bible is accurate).

"Murder is a moral evil", assuming for the sake of argument the above, this is absolutely true. The truth of the statement is not dependant on me as the observer, it simply is the case.

Does that clear up the distinction ? Dont attack the example, just look at the distinction between the two please.

Jason

Vorkosigan

Yes, I see the distinction. Your example is a TAUTOLOGY. "Murder" by definition is an ethically indefensible killing. Thus your statement is trivially speaking, an absolute truth. However, it is like saying "Evil is bad."

A real absolute truth, like the kind you are talking about, would be to uncover a definition of "ethically indefensible killing" that was absolutely true. But that is impossible. To sincerely flatter SingleDad, in order to know what an "absolute" moral is, first you would have to have some definition of "absolute." But your grounds for choosing that definition would have to be relative.

For example, for you, an absolute value might be "something in the Bible." For another, it might be "agreed-upon across many cultures." For Nixon it might be "whatever keeps me in office." The ground for that definition, however, can never be absolute; it is always relative to the point of view of the proponent.

Ultimately, the use of the term "absolute" to describe values is simply rhetorical aggrandizement designed to give the user domination over the minds and bodies of his listeners. At their heart, "absolute" values such of the kind advocated by many Christians, Svensky, are always authoritarian.

Michael

Bill Snedden

If I can step back for a moment to the title of this thread...

I think that what most people mean when they claim that relativism is "self-refuting" is that it makes no sense to argue for an ideal if that ideal is, specifically, that no ideal is better than any other.

In other words, to argue that "there are no absolute truths" is a little like arguing that one doesn't exist; one must assume the premise in dispute in order to advance the argument and it is therefore contradictory to do so.

However, I think the question really should be "what does one mean by 'relativism'?"

We all accept that there are some "absolute truths". I exist, you exist, existence exists; we accept these things axiomatically. We're not going to argue about them because to do so would be self-refuting. It seems to me that these types of things (axioms) would be the only things that we could hold "absolute", simply because we must do so in order to get anywhere else (philosophically speaking).

But I think that when most people say "relativism", they are referring to moral or metaphysical truths, not "physical" ones. But moral/metaphysical relativism is not self-refuting.

One can consistently hold the position of moral relativist, and even argue that moral relatavism is true without one's argument becoming self-refuting. However, for a moral relativist to argue in favor of a particular moral truth would be self-refuting as he/she has already abandoned the possibility of any standard against which such an evaluation (for/against) could possibly be made.

My $.02 cents.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

John Page

Michael:

Thank you so much for bringing more objectivity than I.

I guess I would be even more picky though, I don't think that a definition qualifies as an absolute truth, its merely an assertion or a priori statement.

Jason:

Sorry I couldn't risk attacking the example, I have this tendency to take things to the absurd to satisfy myself they're not going anywhere. Shrek! is a great movie though - I put the in the response not because I was sticking my tongue out at you - its just green like Shrek.

Cheers