Thomas Ash

Could you explain this a little more? I don't really see how that's different. Most of the Buddhists I've heard (not that that's many) have been very emphatic on the idea that Buddhism doesn't believe in absolute truth, and teaches only the existence of subjective truths for each person. On the other hand, I could have got that wrong - if so, please let me know what exactly Buddhists (or your type of Buddhist, at least) think about absolute truth?

Thomas Ash

Nope.

I still think the people who are taking the anti-absolute truth side are arguing against a straw man. Defending 'absolute truth' doesn't mean defending the belief that we abolutely know the truth with 100% certainty. The weather report obviously doesn't come with a very high level of certainty, but it can be right sometimes (in the UK for instance you can just predict rain each day and end up an acclaimed forecaster ). There is an absolute truth to which statements in philosophy correspondor or don't correspond with, just the same as with weather - it's just that it's harder (impossible?) to know to the same extent as we doin maths that we're right.

Answerer

Well, perhaps you have some misunderstandings with their views. On the other hand, I can't really comment as I had not meet your friends(or are they?) before.
Simply put, enlightenment can only be experienced, I'm not sure if you want to call this 'absolute truth' but in my case, I prefer to think of absolute truth as mere concept rather than having a physical or spiritual existence or meaning, in this case, it is the same as subjective truth as both shared the same characteristics and dependent nature. If you still feel that I'm talking rubbish, you can refer to my previous link for a better understanding.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

These discussions always seem to come back to the same problem:
One group says 'There absolutely is 'absolute truth', while their opponents (apparntly oblivious to the searing irony) gleefully shout 'There absolutely is not!'

And so it goes...

Keith.

Bill Snedden

Hmm...I confess I don't see the distinction unless it relates to some differentiation in the meaning of the word "true."

Propositions about existential facts can certainly have positive or negative truth value. "This chair exists" is either true or not true. My point was that one cannot coherently maintain that such propositions are neither true nor false or both simultaneously (see my assumptions at the end of this post). It follows, therefore, that things either exist or they don't; either case would be one of "absolute" truth.

I see my argument as being one from an ontological perspective while I see your response as epistemically based. However, as I mentioned in the post to which you responded, whether or not we can know absolute truth is, I believe, irrelevant as to whether or not it exists.

Even assuming that is so, what prevents that tautology from being absolutely true?

Regardless of what ambiguity of definition might exist, it seems to me undeniable that something exists. Is that not an absolute truth? Even accepting the subjectivity of definitions, how could one coherently argue that nothing exists?

There's no need to test the contra. As you note, it's impossible; it can't be by definition. Is that not an example of an absolute truth? As I see it, the issue isn't exactly what is meant by "I"; the issue is whether or not it is absolutely true that "something" exists (that I denote by "I"). I maintain that this proposition cannot be denied coherently. I have seen no successful argument yet to the contrary.

I don't seriously believe for a minute that you are actually uncertain as to the truth or falsity of your own existence. I believe that "you" know perfectly well what "you" are.

I'm having more than a bit of trouble accepting that you actually believe what you seem to espouse. Denying one's own existence is utterly irrational. Funny, you don't look crazy...

There's that epistemic viewpoint again. I'm arguing ontology. Of course determining whether or not the chair exists happens "inside my head", however that has nothing to do with whether or not the chair is really there.

Well, I didn't say that all truth statements involved subjectivity, but that's really moot. My argument depends upon a distinction between the existence of truth and the knowledge of truth. Thus, it seems to me that your question is irrelevant.

To be completely honest, while I do recall those conversations, I don't recall really understanding how a logical system can be self-contradictory and still valuable.

In re: ontology, I stated my ontological assumption in the post to which you responded: "Anyone who accepts the existence of an objective, external reality..." So, my argument assumes that there exists an objective distinction between the observer and the observed.

To come completely clean on assumptions, I would say that I'm also assuming the veracity of the law of non-contradiction and the principle of the excluded middle.

In conclusion, I would agree that the epistemic status of "truth" may, at least in many circumstances, be undetermined, even (in some circumstances) indeterminate. For the monment, however, I remain convinced that this does not necessarily impact the status of ontological truths.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Starboy

Thomas thanks for elaborating on the weather analogy. In that particular case are you saying that because of your statistical sample of UK weather that you know absolutely that it will rain every day for +/- eternity?

Absolute truth that is not 100% percent absolute seems to be nonsense. Please elaborate.

Starboy

John Page

Bill:

I think it is a huge mistake to insist on an set of priori claims in the form of an ontology. As you state, they are only assumptions. Ontological claims need to be supported by an explanation of "how we come to know them" which throw you right into the epistomological arguments. IMO one needs to arrive at complementary ontological and epistomological claims.

I'm still confused about your claim for absolute truth. At one point you seem to concur that truth is arrived at intersubjectively e.g. we can agree that we exist. I didn't see any clarification of what you mean by "I" so was unable to make any progress in understanding your ontological assertions other than "something exists"

Here's a proposition. One can only make a truth claim if one has compared the proposition with sense data (or another proposition). If the truth claim and the sense data appear coherent (through the process of mind which we don't fully understand yet) then the truth claim will appear self evident. One cannot substitute the observer because this destroys the "I", thus all claims of self-evident truths are subjective.

Example. I see a jacket that appears inside out according to the concept of "jacket" in my mind. You, on the other hand, are familiar with reversible jackets and claim the jacket is not inside out. Even if we now turn the jacket inside out there will be no ready explanation of the contradiction between our "absolute truth" regarding the jacket. All truths occur in the mind and are subjective. Existential (truth) claims are no different.

BTW I agree there is "stuff" out there and we can intersubjectively agree that we perceive it. However, the ontological status of your claim for self-existence would seem to require verification from all "I"'s in order to hold water as an absolute truth. What other method would you propose to yield proof of this absolute?

Is "not self-contradicting" your definition of a logical system?

Paradoxically, it seems to me that all systems of logic I have seen contain contradictions. Why? They all use repetitions of symbols to represent the same entity twice in propositions. Is A=A an existential claim or a proposition? If its a proposition then it fails (LOI), if its an existential claim it fails also (LNC).

Cheers, John

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

Thomas Ash

Hi Answerer,

I'd say they're mostly friendly acquantances, but I only know one or two Buddhists off the web.
Well, I'm an atheist, so I was really talking more abount mundane truths like whether the chair I'm sitting on exists. I don't mean by 'absolute truth' to talk about 'fundamental, spiritual truth' or 'the objective meaning of life, the universe and everything.' I don't think that's what most of the (non-Buddhist) atheists in this topic were talking about either - perhaps 'objective truth' is a better term?

Thomas Ash

Yes - if you lived in the UK you'd understand...! ( - I like my country, really.)

I think you may have a different concept of 'absolute truth' from me. I'm talking about 'objective truth', whether we can ever know it or not, really, as I said in my last post and my post back on page 2 where I responded to Chip.

Beoran

What I don't get from this whole discussion is ther elevance of truth being absolute or not. My father told me me to eat cooked food, to drink clear beverages, and to speak the truth. I think it's much more important to speak the truth, or what we condider to be the truth, as long as it is not inhumane or unethical to do so, then to argue about whether it is absolute or not.