mhc

I think there's a good case to be made for the idea that being is knowledge of being. It's really irrefutable, given the impossibility of an objective view.
But the question is---on what grounds do we go beyond this strict notion, and posit that which we cannot know?
and more practically-
what is the human quality which urges us to do so; what is its utility?

very stimulating, Mr. Page.

Keith Russell

A rock exists; the rock is; the rock is being.

So, to be, is not necessarily to be conscious of that fact.

Keith.

mhc

But the rock does not exist--to itself!
It only exists to those conscious of its being.

John Page

Different Epistemic Status argued in this link. How do you know the rock is there when you're not observing it? The rock may or may not be there.
Agreed. This is what I keep telling myself as I fall asleep - so far I've regained consciousness...

Cheers, John

long winded fool

Consciousness is required to form an understanding of what material existence means. A location in three dimensions of space and one of time is all that is required for something to materially exist. Without consciousness, space-time and "existence" have no definition, but we are aware that the state which "existence" describes still exists independently of consciousness. This cannot be proven, however it doesn't have to be proven. The universe doesn't care whether human beings understand how it works, and this has no effect on whether things are ultimately true or false. There is no logical reason to presume that the universe itself is dependent upon your own personal perception of reality. The ways in which the universe operates still exist without the human applied laws of physics and logic. Yes, all laws are entirely relative to human understanding, but the things which they describe are not dependent on consciousness and therefore not relative to differing individual consciousness. So, it seems "truth" can be both relative and absolute depending on your point-of-view. Relative truth describes the flawed human interpretation; absolute truth describes reality separate from flawed human perception. Since perception can change, it ought to change towards "absolute truth." By identifying things that are false, we are making progress towards things that are true.

And I don't have to know for sure what is absolute and what isn't to show that there is an absolute! To demand that one show absolute truth is to imply that belief in absolute truth is equal to dogmatism. It doesn't logically matter what I think is absolutely true or isn't. I have flawed perception and can be wrong. Yes, my interpretation of absolute truth is relative to other interpretations. Actual absolute truth is not relative to anything. My argument is that all human beings believe in some absolute truth outside of their own subjective understanding, and that relativism in the connotation of the op is impossible. Any being that learns and changes his mind based on perceptions cannot truly be a relativist. They can be against close-mindedness and dogmatism, but they can't escape their belief that something is absolutely true somewhere. Relativism is not a logically defendable position since any defense depends on some authority and authority doesn't exist in relativism. How do you ever know you are correct in assigning value if all truth must necessarily be relative? Because you value your eye doesn't mean that I do. If you truly believe in relative truth, you can't logically have a problem with my eye-poking morality.

Since we all believe that some things are absolute, it is socially responsible to agree on what these absolutes are for as long as they appear to be absolute, as we have done in this society, and to not tolerate dissenting behavior. Our relative interpretations can change, but they ought only to change for the "better," that is, towards universal absolute truth independent of consciousness. We know we are moving towards absolute truth when we recognize absolute falsity.

mhc

I can't say I'm arguing with you, because I really don't know what my position, if any, is, but let me question a few of your points:

How are we aware of this? It isn't a forgone conclusion.

True, but nor do I see how it is "logical" to assume that it is not!

I was proposing that the things they describe ARE dependent on consciousness. I understand that you do not agree, but to simply assume your conclusion as a premise is begging the question.

John Page

You see, you make an assertion and then say it can't be proven. I think it may be provable in the context of how the human mind operates, that what our brain does with the sense data leads us to ceratin conclusions about our consciousness and existence. Such conclusions are, however, relative to our perception. Maybe a bat or an alien or a man-made consciousness would see things differently.
Therefore absolute truth is something dreamed up by humans that they cannot know, for we are all flawed? HGow would you describe these flaws?
LOL, if you're not sure, how can it be absolute?
Relativism can be defended logically, and, as I proposed at the outset of this thread, such defense is to demonstrate that non-relativistic claims are flawed. As a relativist, I can use any viewpoint to attack any other viewpoint - an accurate reflection of what really happens when we debate, yes?
...and we recognize absolute falsity how?

Cheers, John

long winded fool

It seems the communication problem lies with the difference between what is perceived and what is. Would you agree that in order for something to be perceived and interpreted, it must first exist independently of both perception and interpretation? While perception and interpretation are relative to the individual, the thing being perceived and interpreted is not. How would we know that we are rightly perceiving and interpreting a thing? I don't know, and this is in fact irrelevant to the argument. Perception is a priori relative. It is not logical to then assume that the thing we are perceiving (falsely or not) can also be relative. It is only logical to assume that our perception is what is relative. Hence, my claim that no one is in possession of absolute truth, yet truth itself is absolute. Absolute truth merely means that there are black and white answers. It doesn't mean I have them, nor that I can even necessarily tell the difference between black and white.

Mr. Page, how can non-relativistic claims be flawed? In what manner are they flawed exactly? And can you give an example of an unflawed relativistic claim?

Maybe a bat or an alien or a man-made consciousness would see things differently.

See what things differently?

How are we aware of this? It isn't a forgone conclusion.

It is as forgone a conclusion as any logical law. A thing must exist before it is perceived. Even our own thoughts are physically real things in our brain before they are perceived. This means that all things perceived logically must exist apart from perception. To assume the universe does not is not logical.

mhc

Well, that is your opinion. There is much debate over the matter. No one can show that physical processes in the brain are identical with thoughts, and there is much argument on both sides.
The conclusion that there are knowable mind-independent facts, objects or properties is hardly a given. Metaphysical anti-realism remains a legitimate philosophical position. No "logic" has been able to show it otherwise.

As philosophers, we ought to be able to critically question the ideas we hold to be self-evident, and see how they may be understood as simply another assumption among many.

long winded fool

No argument here. You certainly can't learn without an open mind. I think you'll agree that unless some unprovable assumptions are made on some basic level, we can we never learn anything. The existence of a thing prior to perception of it is a logical assumption. The perception of a thing being the catalyst that brings it into existence might be a logical induction as well, (though I personally think the very claim is logically flawed,) however this complicates things unnecessarily and raises more questions than answers. It can and should certainly be explored, however when presented with two theories, Ockham's razor applies. If the entire observable universe behaves in a specific way, one ought to assume a theory that reflects this with as few unproven variables as possible instead of one that reflects it with a complicated set of many unproven variables. The second might be correct, but the first must be assumed in order to be logical. If the second is indeed correct, we can only logically deduce this by first assuming the first and encountering the errors that will necessarily stop us. (Put simply, a geocentric solar system was a logical deduction for a cave man in possession of comparatively few scientific laws. A heliocentric solar system was not. Lucky guesses have nothing to do with logic.)

So then, if we assume reality is separate from perception, and that truth is the description of this reality, proving the relativistic nature of individual perception shows that people who think they know absolute truth in fact do not, but it does not show that truth is relative. Though it appears to be relative based on imperfect and variable descriptions of reality, what we are calling "truth" in these cases actually falls short of an accurate description of reality, just as what we today call "laws of physics" probably fall short of an accurate description of how things actually work in reality. Our human definitions are relative to the absolute things they are defining.