John Page

Agreed if this is a theory about absolute truth. If, however, one considers that truth is merely the relation between one state of affairs and another, and that neither state of affairs can be absolutely identical, one is measuring the degree of correspondence.

Cheers, John

Keith Russell

John said: Well, [the Law of Identity/non-contradiction] doesn't actually state that, this is your conclusion as to its import.

Second, if the word "dog" is not allowed to refer to all dogs, what is the basis for saying that the letter "A" should be taken to refer to all A's.

Keith: John, 'A' is a variable, in the algebraic sense; 'dog' is not.

John: Third, you say that "A is A refers to the same object (an object is equal to itself)". My issues with this statement are a) the mind posits the object A from the sense data it receives, b) how can you test for an object being equal to itself?

Keith: If you test the object, and discover certain characteristics, those are the characteristics you've discovered. 'A' (in this case the tested for and found characteristics) is equal to 'A'. Yes, tautological, but also true.

John: IMO the closest you can get is that the mind recognizes certain patterns of sense data and types them - i.e. compares them to learned archetypes.

Keith: Or, simply memories from earlier mental recognition of other patterns of sense data. I see no reason why earlier memories are 'learned archetypes', while more recent memories are only 'sense data'. A is A.

John: Equivalence (having the same properties for the purpose of comparison) is very different than A is A.

Keith: 'A' is a variable, and the truth of your statement depends completely on what 'A' is--in this case--supposed to represent.

John: I'm not saying that logic is not extremely useful and powerful in formalizing the accuracy and consistency of statements but it seems to be built upon a fallacy that one can compare A with B to see if A is A.

Keith: Oh, it is--absolutely.

But 'A' nonetheless remains 'A'.

Keith.

John Page

But this is logic, not algebra.
So A is not equal to A. They share the characteristics of A'ness. Let's call these characteristics c,d,e,f. Now if one regards these characteristics individually the mind is comparing data of or about these characteristics. What is the mind comparing them to, well, the archtypes of characteristics c,d,e,f which, when amalgamated denote the presence of an A.

Thus I argue just saying the A's have common characteristics doesn't make the logic bomb go away.
If there is no archetype or template, then, how can we discern an A? BTW I agree with your comment on sense data - I was trying to simplify my point but sense data (beyond the sense boundary) is a memory. By "learned archetypes" I'm suggesting the template of characteristics that fit the parameters of specific types of thing e.g. man, woman, tree, ball.
In which case truth is a variable because no two A's are the same (Law of Identity) - see the contradiction emerging?
All things that have the form/characteristics of A are A, again violating the LOI and LNC. This is the reason you can see two "A"s in the previous sentence.

Cheers, John (or at least someone fitting the archetype of John.)

long winded fool

I accede that there is a mechanism which makes human perception of truth and falsity contingent called logic. Proper application of logic should lead to truth. Any false conclusion is always the result of an improper application of logic. False conclusions might not be immediately identified, but when they are, they are known to have been false from the outset because of the error in our understanding of logic. Logic is not relative to those who understand how to apply it and those who don't.

If truth is defined as how well a fact corresponds to reality, then wouldn't any fact that doesn't correspond to reality be automatically false? Truth can only be as variable as reality. While our perceptions of reality can vary widely, reality itself does not. Otherwise any non-christian (for example) belief becomes a ridiculous intellectual induction, because a self-contradicting God might conceivably have existed in the past and might conceivably come back into existence in the future and fulfill the prophecies of the Bible, and all you atheists will be screwed! If reality is truly a variable thing, then this cannot be discounted.

So our perception of truth is indeed relative to how perceptive/intellignent/sane we are. This doesn't preclude that truth is absolute outside of human perception any more than something which defies our current understanding of the laws of physics precludes the possibility of absolute physical laws. The laws of physics exist even when not identified, or misidentified. The same goes for truth. If you'll pardon another tautology, a true proposition is always true even if mislabeled false. While the tautological nature of this statement shows clearly that close-minded dogmatism is not logical, (How do we ever prove what we have is a true proposition?) it does not prove that no fact can ever possibly correspond absolutely to reality. If actual material reality (outside of mental reality) is non-variable, then truth corresponding to material reality (not variable mental reality) is absolute.

In order to ask better questions, you must believe that there are better answers. You don't have to believe that you are or will ever be in possession of absolute truth to believe in absolute truth, you just have to believe that the right answers to your questions are going to keep getting you closer to an absolute understanding of material reality, and that any answers that don't are categorically wrong. Traditional relativism rejects these beliefs in theory.

(I've yet to meet a true practicing relativist and strongly suspect that I never will. Everyone I've ever met who claims to be a relativist always gets mad when I poke them in the eye. )

King Rat

Which brings me to a question:

Why do some relativists act as though they exist in a vacuum?

There are quite a few societal/religious proscriptions that make a lot of sense. Whether they be for hygienic reasons or otherwise. They exist, some work, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Does their (debateable) origin in religion somehow invalidate them?

I must be missing something.

John Page

Hi Long Winded, some comments if I may:

Proper? Should?
How so? Or perhaps you mean "an illogical conclusion is cannot be logical"
Wrong. Logic is a product of the human mind. There are many forms of logic with differing conventions, paradoxes etc.
Reality is enormously variable.
Wrong. Logic is not a god susbstitute.
Agreed.
Truth for humans does not exist outside of human perception. Whatever it is that's out there doesn't have little labels proclaiming "True" and "False" - the mind infers truth and falsity by comparing our perceptions of whats out there.
Yes, but what is truth and how do you tell?
Illogical
..but such belief in the existence of absolute truth is without foundation!
False. Relativism does not state that all views are equal - indeed this would be an absolute truth claim! How would you propose we measure our closeness to absolute understanding?
Their madness being relative to how hard you poke them in the eye?

Cheers, John

John Page

According to popular scientific opinion, this is termed "outer space" and its exactly what we do exist in.

(Of course, there are always the spoilsports who say there is an all permeating ether from which matter emerges).

Cheers, John

mhc

I believe that "truth" does not exist independently of reason,
-except-
in the sense that "truth" means that there is a state of things, a way everything *is* in relation to everything else. I could never perceive such a state, but logic tells me it must be so, because to be is to be *in some way*.
In other words, I think being is prior to consciousness.
What do you think, John Page?

John Page

Marvellous! Everything after the "-except-" is a truth devised by reason so everything is as it was.
"Being" is what we are conscious of said Pooh (that our reason tells us must be the truth, because we are conscious of it being so, added Rabbit).

Interesting that you put "I think" in front of your proposition. Maybe "I consciously think"? offered Owl.

I'm not sure about the "prior". How about "Being is consciousness"? (which does not logically exclude the possibility of something being unconscious.) said Piglet, trying to go one better than Pooh.

Hmmmmm. To be conscious is to know consciousness, murmured Christopher Robin to himself as he nodded off to sleep.

Cheers, John

mhc

Well, you're a dyed-in-the-wool rationalist!
shouted Eeyore, uncharacteristically.