svensky

This statment is trivially easy to refute.

You statment is contradictory, you claim there are no absolutes of truth or knowledge, but this claim is a claim of absolute truth and knowledge. Therefore there must be at least one, which renders the statment contradictory.

It is an example of a self-refuting argument.

Much like the statement

"This sentence is false"

Jason

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: svensky ]</p>

John Page

Jason:

Not so fast! Your argument is self-refuting too - you are agreeing that my statement "There are no absolute truths" is true!!!

Also, "This statement is false" is not self refuting, its just incomplete. The evaluation of a proposition results in a true or false value, not the proposition itself. Would you say "There are five of these sentences" is self-refuting?

svensky

I'm not agreeing with the statment at all. The statment if true then it is false, which is a logical contradiction. Therefore it must be false.

The only way to work out logical contradiction is to presume they are true and then show that you end up with notx = x.

Jason

John Page

Whether you call it logical or not, a contradiction can also be worked out by locating and correcting errors in a) the axioms and other a priori assumptions, b) the process or method employed to derive a conclusion, c) more clearly stating the premise/s.

I still can't see that you have any proof of falsity. Just because you can't arrive at a binary conclusion using your logical rules of absolute truth doesn't give you license to say "Therefore it must be false"!

On the contrary, the failure of (your) logic to arrive at an absolute and definitive answer is fully supportive of my claim that there are no absolute truths.

Truth is a mental value and therefore subject to the vagaries of relativism. For us, our existence is an absolute truth (like Descartes) but in relation to the quadrants of reality our (subjective) absolute truth is limited in scope.

svensky

Bollocks.

Your claiming that "not a" = "a". Which is a contradiction. Contradictions can't (by there nature) be true. This is a basic rule of logic. Not merely "my" logic.

Should we discard the basic rules of logic ?

"There is no absolute truth" (or any of this statements variations) makes an absolute truth claim. Is it really that hard to follow to see that this is a contradiction ? Really ?

You can hold a position that is at its root contradictory if you like, humans aren't known for being completely rational, but that doesn't make it a non-contradiction.

Jason

xoc

The whole "self-refutation of Relativism" thing really points to that, to have a meaningful philosophy, you must acknowledge some kind of "universal truth", or "absolute", or even just "objective truth." Simply you can't say that "whatever you think is true and whatever I think is true" because these "truths" must come in conflict and try and defeat the other. IT's simply pointing out that there have to be "truths" that follow across the board. It only refutes the absolutism of Relativism, which is obviously contradictory to begin with. So there are still "real, objective truths" even if there remain "subjective opinions." "Relative truths" are mostly opinions, by definition.

svensky

I dont believe it. Somebody else gets it

Relative truths are not truths, becasue as you point out they are merely opinions.

Truth pretty much by definition has an absolute right/wrong feel to it.

Jason

John Page

Jason:

Gday. Why is it OK for a universe that has absolute truths to have contradictions but not a relativistic universe?

xoc:

In logic, truth is determined by premise, axioms, method etc. Therefore, each truth has a scope limited by the argument from which it was derived. The truth about truth has not be universally tested. Ergo there is no basis in logic to assert truth is absolute, every truth is localized.

both:

I know the above doesn't prove that there is no absolute truth - I'd need to go deeper into the nature of truth for that. However, what I'm hoping to do first is get recognition that a) there are logical limitations to formal logic and b) The process of universal quantification is an anathema to the principle of identity, eventually leading to illogical conclusions.

Something else to chew on: Isn't the Axiom of Choice an admission of relativism?

svensky

The universe must contain some absolute truths.

The truth (not that I agree) may simply be that we live in a coldly impersonal universe without meaning, and that we exist but briefly then to be extinguished forever. But this is a truth (well it might be false, but it cant be relativly true).

This relativism malarkey, is simply poor thinking masquerading as wisdom. More typically it is simply an excuse for license.

Jason

John Page

Jason:

Why? and What's a malarkey?

By the way, I'm pushing back because I really want to find the absolute truth! I'm not convinced that I have, therefore my dialectic.

What I really call a load of bollocks is the following, taken from San Jose State University's site:

"Three reasons for the study of logic are (1) correct thinking requires it; (2) discerning minds necessarily depend on it; and (3) man is a rational being in the image of his Creator. Logic is universal, necessary, and irreplaceable. Man's mind was formed on the principles of identity, excluded middle, and contradiction. These three laws are the basis for all intelligible thought. Without them, all rational discourse vanishes.

"COME NOW AND LET US REASON TOGETHER, says the Lord." (Isaiah 1:18)"

Whatever!