FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-13-2002, 09:24 AM   #81
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Arizona
Posts: 403
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Philosoft:
<strong>

Huh. How, exactly, do we discern inaccurately interpreted morality from made-up stuff? It's not like we have the objective moral laws themselves to reference is it?</strong>
I am comming from the premise that, like mathmatical truths and scientific truths, there are moral truths. Truths by which, if an orderly society is to exist, have to be followed or anarchy will ensue.

In other words, to have order, there must be truth. To have moral order, there must be moral truth.
JusticeMachine is offline  
Old 12-13-2002, 09:34 AM   #82
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Fidel
Posts: 3,383
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Philosoft:
<strong>

Huh. How, exactly, do we discern inaccurately interpreted morality from made-up stuff? It's not like we have the objective moral laws themselves to reference is it?</strong>
Just an idea...

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?
Kharakov is offline  
Old 12-13-2002, 12:43 PM   #83
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,597
Talking

Quote:
Originally posted by John Page:
<strong>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.</strong>
Well, I'm not sure that I agree. While I don't want to get into a discussion regarding Foundationalist epistemology, it seems to me that we must start somewhere. An objective external world seems an eminently reasonable place to start given that its contradiction renders the entire project meaningless.

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:
Originally posted by John Page:
<strong>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"</strong>
I don't need anyone's agreement to grasp the absolute truth of my existence, so that truth is certainly not arrived at inter-subjectively. I perceive that something exists. That perception tells me two things: that something exists that perceives ("I"), and that something is the object of perception (the external world).

Quote:
Originally posted by John Page:
<strong>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.</strong>
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. I would agree that everything that occurs in the mind is subjective (because that's the definition of "subjective."), but I'm not clear on how subjectivity renders truth non-absolute.

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:
Originally posted by John Page:
<strong>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.</strong>
I disagree; it seems to me that existential claims are different. "Does this jacket exist" and "is this jacket inside out?" are qualitatively different questions. One is a question of existence, the other regards a predicate of an existent.

Quote:
Originally posted by John Page:
<strong>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?</strong>
Why should I require intersubjective agreement to verify to myself that I exist? How would I go about "proving" it to myself? I'm honestly unable to grasp how that would work. Do I misunderstand you?

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:
Originally posted by John Page:
<strong>Is "not self-contradicting" your definition of a logical system?</strong>
Well, no, I don't think that statement would be sufficient to serve as a definition, although I do think that it's a necessary characteristic.

Quote:
Originally posted by John Page:
<strong>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).</strong>
I believe that you used this example before in a similar discussion we had. I still don't think it's a very good one.

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
Bill Snedden is offline  
Old 12-13-2002, 07:52 PM   #84
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: US
Posts: 5,495
Cool

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:
Originally posted by Bill Snedden:
<strong>
Originally posted by John Page: I think it is a huge mistake to insist on an set of priori claims in the form of an ontology.....

....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...
</strong>
Now you're sounding like a theist. i.e. here is a self-evident truth therefore..... I am not making a claim that you are or are not a theist, merely pointing out the reasons that I completely reject any philosophy based on an ontology that seemed like a good idea at the time.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Snedden:
<strong>Originally posted by John Page: I'm still confused about your claim for absolute truth.....

I don't need anyone's agreement to grasp the absolute truth of my existence...Perhaps the issue is one of the meaning of "absolute". In this context, I would define absolute as "necessarily true;
</strong>
A truth is only true in relation to the system of thought and the facts to which it applies. For a truth to be absolute its domain must be absolute, unlimited. Thus we can state that since a truth may not apply outside the confines of the system/facts that gave rise to the truth in the first place, it cannot be absolute.

Accordingly, IMO, your absolute truth is subjective and we should not claim access to a truth that we do not know.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Snedden:
<strong>I disagree; it seems to me that existential claims are different. "Does this jacket exist" and "is this jacket inside out?" are qualitatively different questions. One is a question of existence, the other regards a predicate of an existent.
</strong>
Hmmm, a jacket without any qualities. How am I to know what such a jacket is that I may discuss it?

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:
Originally posted by Bill Snedden:
<strong>
Why should I require intersubjective agreement to verify to myself that I exist? How would I go about "proving" it to myself? I'm honestly unable to grasp how that would work. Do I misunderstand you?
</strong>
I think so, I did not require this for you, but I do require it for an absolute truth. (Otherwise its just your opinion, a self-evident truth for you).
Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Snedden:
<strong>One's own existence is by definition a self-evident truth that cannot coherently be denied. Denying it renders the argument self-defeating. </strong>
This is a poor rebuttal to a request to clarify what you mean by "I" and I start to wonder what you mean by existence.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Snedden:
<strong>As Keith Russell indicated, it's exactly equivalent to saying, "There absolutely are no absolute truths!"
</strong>
To paraphrase Keith "God is the absolute truth therefore god exists". (Sorry Keith) I don't accept this sort of self-satisfying argument which is merely a repetiion of the sort of error made in arriving at the Liar Paradox.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Snedden:
<strong>Originally posted by John Page:
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).


I believe that you used this example before in a similar discussion we had. I still don't think it's a very good one.

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.
</strong>
Of yes it does!! Which is the real A? (Pick either). Then the other A is an impostor and violates the LOI.

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
John Page is offline  
Old 12-13-2002, 08:36 PM   #85
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dumfries, Virginia, USA
Posts: 12
Post

Quote:
Oxymoron wrote:

I am wondering exactly how I could believe my own existence is not an absolute truth (a la Descartes' Malicious Demon argument).

Refer to my posting on page 1 of this thread. Absolute Truth is a red herring. The only thing that matters is whether there exists a test to validate or falsify a belief. It's the nearest we can get to absolute truth. Now, do I exist or not? Let's test: ooh! if there is someone there to do the testing, job done. Hurrah, I exist!
I have read your posting on page 1 and must commend you on your clarity of writing. It was a great post!

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?
Heraclitus Nietzsche is offline  
Old 12-14-2002, 03:31 AM   #86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 820
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Starboy:
<strong>

Thomas Ash, look up the word absolute. Absolute truth would be truth with NO caveats.

Starboy</strong>
I did - here's the
<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=absolute" target="_blank">dictionary.com</a> definition:
Quote:
<strong>Absolute</strong> Philosophy.
a. Something regarded as the ultimate basis of all thought and being. Used with the.
b. Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else.
That seems fairly reasonable, though dictionaries often differ. 'Absolute truth' according to this doesn't mean 100% certain, it means truth which has a basis outside our subjective perception. Do you agree with this?
Thomas Ash is offline  
Old 12-14-2002, 10:58 AM   #87
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer
Posts: 5,276
Post

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>
Starboy is offline  
Old 12-14-2002, 04:41 PM   #88
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Belgium
Posts: 75
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by JusticeMachine:
<strong>

But you see the irony is; if there is not moral truth, then what is "unethical" or "inhumane". If the definitions of such are subjective, who am I to impose my subjective beliefs on others. Thus anarchy.</strong>
First of all, I must say that I agree with much that Heraclitus Nietsche has said. Reality is, and exists objectively, in an "absolute way," but our perception of it passes trough the subjective mind filter.

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.
Beoran is offline  
Old 12-14-2002, 06:59 PM   #89
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Southeast of disorder
Posts: 6,829
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Kharakov:
<strong>

What do physical laws do? Physical laws describe physical phenomena.

So.... What do moral laws do?</strong>
Moral laws prescribe. They tell us what we should do. Not really comparable to physical laws.
Philosoft is offline  
Old 12-15-2002, 04:36 AM   #90
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 820
Smile

Quote:
Originally posted by Starboy:
<strong>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 ]</strong>
Hi Starboy,

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.
Thomas Ash is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:55 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.