Answerer

Well, you can say that, you can also call that statement true too but again relative truth doesn't really matter. The 'underlying nature'(emptiness) of that statement are also found within and independent of all the different physical views and concepts. But do note that words and phrases are not enough to express my points. To prevent more confusion if I try to explain further, perhaps you can look at the link that I provided if you are not clear.

Thomas Ash

Chip, you've got completely the wrong idea. I think a lot of people who don't like the idea of absolute truth because they have an idea of it as 'Sunday School' absolute truth, like you do. But you can be just as much an atheist as the next internet infidel and still believe in absolute truth. Indeed, I'd say that if you don't believe in absolute truth you can be at best an agnostic because God's non-existense could only be a subjective truth (and no one wants to be called that here, do they? )

The point you're missing is that you can believe absolute, non-subjective truths (like God's non-existence, or your existence) does exist without claiming that we can ever be 100% sure of most of those truths. Religion claims to be 100% sure of certain truths through faith alone, and that's wrong. (Isn't that effectively claiming that you're omniscient if you're a religious person?) Like JusticeMachine (I think) said, science doesn't claim to be 100% sure of any truths, but it comes as near as it can to discovering certain, absolute truths.

I don't think you or Buddhism-boosters realize quite how problematic denying absolute truth is. It means no objective morality. It means no real grounds for preferring any one belief over another. It means that if a religious cultist believes in a wrathful, violent God, that is as 'true' as believing in science and atheism based on evidence. Relativism and subjectivism are definitely not good ideas, though sadly they're all-too-common.

Bill Snedden

I must admit to being somewhat confused over why anyone would deny or seek to deny that "absolute truth" exists. It seems to me unavoidably self-evident. Anyone who accepts the existence of an objective, external reality, regardless of a stand on whether or not we can know that reality, simply must accept that absolute truth exists, whether or not it can be known.

Regardless of the limits of human knowledge, reality is either one way or another. God either exists, or he doesn't. Whichever is true, is true. That's an example of an "absolute truth." Whether or not we can know it or discern it to 100% probability is a different matter entirely.

Perhaps, however, the issue is how we define this term, "absolute truth". Are we talking about "Truth" in a teleological sense, equating it with some sort of meaning or purpose? Or are we talking about something else?

I tend to think of truth in a more propositional sense; the characterization of propositions or statements about the existence of objects in reality. For example, "does this chair exist?" It seems to me that such a statement is either true or false, regardless of our subjective feelings about the matter and regardless of our ability to know.

At the moment I can't think of any predicates to which "truth" statements would necessarily be applicable; all seem to me to involve some degree of subjectivity. For example, "is this chair brown?" seems to involve both objective and subjective elements (namely, the definition of "brown."). The "truth" value of such statements seems to me generated by intersubjective agreement rather than objective reality (for me, this includes statements of moral truth as well).

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

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Keith Russell

dostf said:
"- There is no "truth" "outside" of you."

Keith: The 'truth inside of me', disagrees with this statement.

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.

Kharakov

Raises hand and shouts "I do, I do!!!!"

Starboy

The only knowledge that can be called "absolutely true" is knowledge that is declared to be "absolutely true". Thus 1+1=2 is "absolutely true" because it is defined to be so. The declaration is not without some provocation, that being it is consistent with all other "absolutely true" mathematical statements that it is related to. Religion also contains “absolute truth”, made so by declaration, however internal consistency or validation through objective verification need not apply. As for philosophy, it is akin to the study of the weather, a great deal of talk about “absolute truth” but no philosopher can reliably identify it.

Starboy

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Keith Russell

Starboy:

If religious declarations are 'absolutely true' because someone decided to call them 'absolutely true', then 'absolute truth' seems very aribtrary to me...

Keith.

JusticeMachine

No, truth is not dependent on the language and words we use, our view of truth is dependent on the languauge and words we use. Truth itself, while hard to define, is objective.

JusticeMachine

I contend this:

1. A person's actions betray his true beliefs, regardless of what comes out of his mouth.

2. If a person truly believed that all truth is subjective, it would be pointless to log onto a forum to discuss our subjective beliefs, for why debate subjectivity, when you can never reach a conculsion to that debate without some sort of mutually agreed upon truth to resolve that debate. In matters of taste you cannot argue.

3. Simply by debating means, at heart, you believe there is a truth to be found. Not that you necessarily know what it is, but that it is.
Example: I would not try to design an offensive foodball stratigy to over come an agressive nichole defense, if I don't believe in the existance of the sport of football.
Simply by comming up with different arguements agains truth, implies that there is truth to defend against. Why else argue?

4. For even to say "all beliefs/truths are subjective" implies there being the objective truth that that statment is correct/true.

5. People fear truth because they fear being incorrect, on any front, not just moral. Though admittedly morality (and religion) are/is some of the more inflamitory topics.

On a personal note: It seems the arguement of objective vs subjective truth is linked somehow to the agruements for a world of order vs a world of choas.

Bill Snedden

It was, of course, a rhetorical question. It cannot be answered affirmatively without causing a logical contradiction.

The point is, of course, that one cannot coherently doubt one's own existence. To do so is logically self-contradictory.

Regards,

Bill Snedden