Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
12-13-2002, 09:24 AM | #81 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 403
|
Quote:
In other words, to have order, there must be truth. To have moral order, there must be moral truth. |
|
12-13-2002, 09:34 AM | #82 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Fidel
Posts: 3,383
|
Quote:
What do physical laws do? Physical laws describe physical phenomena. Of course if we did not agree on the definition of physical phenomena (if it was pecular to each society) we would not be able to have a meaningful discourse. I believe we agree on what physical laws do...maybe.. a little bit at least, I mean, do we agree on what a physical phenomena is? So.... What do moral laws do? |
|
12-13-2002, 12:43 PM | #83 | |||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,597
|
Quote:
I would agree that our epistemology and ontology should agree or complement one another, but I don't think that's really an issue here. If I'm going to engage you, or anyone else for that matter, in any sort of discussion, it must be an a priori assumption on my part that both I and my opponent exist. Likewise, for you to do the same you must make the same assumption. To then ask whether or not that assumption is warranted seems to me to serve little purpose. And remember, my argument really only applies if one is willing to accept my ontological assumptions. If you are willing to forgo a belief in an external reality, then there's no sense continuing this conversation. However, if you accept that initial position, I don't see how you can disregard what seems to me an ineluctable conclusion. Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps the issue is one of the meaning of "absolute". In this context, I would define absolute as "necessarily true; incapable of being denied without contradiction." Under this definition, even the "subjective" truth of my own existence is absolute. It's objectivity comes from the initial axiom: an objective, external world exists. Quote:
Quote:
One's own existence is by definition a self-evident truth that cannot coherently be denied. Denying it renders the argument self-defeating. As Keith Russell indicated, it's exactly equivalent to saying, "There absolutely are no absolute truths!" Quote:
Quote:
A=A is merely symbolic notation to represent the concept that "a thing is itself". The essence of contradiction is only made possible by context. Thus, in order for a contradiction to exist, it must exist within the system. The second A obviously cannot be exactly the same as the first A, but in the context of the logical system in which the symbolism is employed, it stands as a referent to the first A. In context therefore, it violates neither LOI nor LNC. Regards, Bill Snedden |
|||||||
12-13-2002, 07:52 PM | #84 | |||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: US
Posts: 5,495
|
Hi Bill!
First, I would like to state that the views expressed below are not necessarily those of the author, since the author may either a) not exist or b) be someone other than the author thought he was. Quote:
Quote:
Accordingly, IMO, your absolute truth is subjective and we should not claim access to a truth that we do not know. Quote:
A name or label for an object, sometimes called a noun, has associated with it (in our minds) a host of predicates without which the noun would be meaningless. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Your claim seems to be that because a contradiction arises through a confusion of symbolic context, which, by the way is not clarified in any textbook I know on propositional logic, its "OK". I have no beef with the LOI or LNC, I do have a problem when people try to apply such logic to statements like Keith's. If T is the absolute truth then he gave a statement where T is a predicate of itself its like saying T = f(T) - such a recursive function cannot be resolved without isolating T itself. Once you acknowledge that, because ultimately things "out there" cannot be assumed to be identical, things are only similar and "assumed" identical in the mind I think it will be easier for you to question what the "I" is that thinks it exists. Indeed, is it identical in all respects "I" that existed a nanosecond ago... (trick question) Cheers, John |
|||||||
12-13-2002, 08:36 PM | #85 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dumfries, Virginia, USA
Posts: 12
|
Quote:
I believe the term "absolute truth" can be defined in two ways: 1) as an "eternal truth"- Something is true regardless of time or conditions. According to this definition our human lives, as history, would therefore not be considered an absolute truth. In this sense, I personally don't think there are any absolute truths. Those who believe in God or in the eternality of the soul, though, consider those concepts to be absolute truths. 2) as an "uncontestable truth". This definition concerns historical occurrences. Anything that is happening now, even though it might end and never occur again, still can be argued to have occurred (our human lives for instance). It seems as if your test to validate or falsify a belief deals solely with definition #2. The main point I was trying to make was that all that we conclude as an uncontestable truth (definition #2) depends completely upon our own limited perspectives. Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" isn't (to me with my philosophical glasses on) an airtight proof for the validity that I currently exist other than as according to my own terminology. Of course, I do believe I exist simply because of my perceived consciousness; my awareness. But this is a perspective forced upon me by my physiology - my physical "life" demands that I have consciousness. But this all is totally in accordance to my own human perspective. What is "consciousness" except what it appears to be as my own perspective? Descarte used the term "thinking", but what is thinking in relation to a perspective that is separated from the human race? (For that matter what is "life" itself?) I might not really be "existing" or "thinking" as such like I perceive myself to be. Now of course there are many philosophers who state that an independent perspective (non-rational, non-human) doesn't matter. But I don't believe that humanity is the measure of reality, much of which hasn't and still doesn't concern us. The physical universe existed for millions of years before life and mankind showed up. The physical universe is not a rationally thinking mind. I believe assumptions like: "the universe's purpose was to create life and mankind" helped man to create the concept of "God". Any rational traits we give the non-rational universe (like questioning its purpose) is merely a projection of our rational minds into the non-rational. That is one of my arguments against the theist's "design theory" argument for God's existence. The physical universe appears to us to be "organized", but is it really? Is it possible that the universe's "organization" is all our rational human perspectives are capable of perceiving? I don't believe our limitations are undeniably the same limitations that the universe must suffer from. We merely will to believe we aren't so limited in relation to the universe- that we perceive reality totally as the universe perceives its reality. "Perspective", as a concept, doesn't have to be limited by humanity (rationally thinking consciousness). If there is no God, then humanity is a product of the cold universe. What is life, humanity, existence, and human language in relation to the perspective of a cold, non-thinking universe? |
|
12-14-2002, 03:31 AM | #86 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 820
|
Quote:
<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=absolute" target="_blank">dictionary.com</a> definition: Quote:
|
||
12-14-2002, 10:58 AM | #87 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer
Posts: 5,276
|
Hi Thomas,
I guess it depends on what definition you use. When I think of absolute truth I understand it as without doubt and uncertainty. As such it would be 100% certain. This is not listed as the "philosophical" definition but is listed under the common meanings of the word. Not being a philosopher I tend to use the common meaning of words. The second philosophical definition: "Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else." does appear to imply 100% certainty. How else could a completely unrelated "truth" exist? The only way I can think of to come up with such a "truth" is by definition. You have to admit that this definition could apply to anything supernatural. The philosophical definitions do appear to have the "stink" of religion, as does a good bit of philosophy. Starboy [ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p> |
12-14-2002, 04:41 PM | #88 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Belgium
Posts: 75
|
Quote:
As far as ethics are concerned, I base myself on the prnciple of reciprocity. I don't do certain things and I expect others, in exhange, and to our mutual benefit, to refraid from those doing same things that I don't do. I don't care whether the others are mere subjective or objective. Even if reality would be an illusion, that illusion would still seem real enough for me to believe that it is real. Again, as I said before, I think the duality between subjective and objective is a fake one. But, I don"'t think solipsism or the MUSH (Multi User Shared Hallucination) idea of reality are useful in any way. |
|
12-14-2002, 06:59 PM | #89 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
|
Quote:
|
|
12-15-2002, 04:36 AM | #90 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 820
|
Quote:
Well, I think I might actually have agreed with you all this time. 'Absolute truth' is an ambiguous term, and I agree that the definitions most dictionaries give tend to be somewhat vague, and allow for either 100% certainty, or just objectivity. I'm not (necessarily) claiming that anyone can ever have a purely objective knowledge of a truth, or be 100% certain, but I would like to defend the view that there is an objective truth and physical reality. This seems to be justified by the law of parsimony - sure there could be a malevolent demon, or aliens creating a simulated reality while they perform invasive probes. But neither explain our available experiences as simply or satisfactorally as an objecitve, physical world. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|