Absolute truth?

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

FBM wrote:

By the way, do you actually know much about Pyrrhonian skepticism? A Pyrrhonian skeptic would disavow any metaphysical knowledge or belief. Not claiming to know that truth exists and also not claiming to know that it doesn't exist. Suspending judgment while keeping one's eyes and mind open for conclusive evidence...

Don't you think that to judge any evidence as conclusive you will need your judgement?

Maybe, maybe not. If it's a direct experience or necessary inference, little if any judgement is required. For example, if you see a scar it's safe to infer that there was once a wound. It doesn't require any metaphysical backing, which is the sort of judgement that a Pyrrhonist would suspend.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

Absolute truth must be both mutable and immutable, since asserting either one leads to contradiction. So absolute truth is just a truth capable of becoming false while still being true. As for an example, once you find absolute truth, all existence becomes an example of it.

This is presupposing the existence of absolute truth, which is in doubt. It's a bit circular, seems.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

guigus wrote:

FBM wrote:

By the way, do you actually know much about Pyrrhonian skepticism? A Pyrrhonian skeptic would disavow any metaphysical knowledge or belief. Not claiming to know that truth exists and also not claiming to know that it doesn't exist. Suspending judgment while keeping one's eyes and mind open for conclusive evidence...

Don't you think that to judge any evidence as conclusive you will need your judgement?

Maybe, maybe not. If it's a direct experience or necessary inference, little if any judgement is required. For example, if you see a scar it's safe to infer that there was once a wound. It doesn't require any metaphysical backing, which is the sort of judgement that a Pyrrhonist would suspend.

So the only judgement a Pyrrhonist would need is that capable of distinguishing metaphysical judgement from ordinary one? That seems quite straightforward...

0 Replies

IOW, if you can show me something that can be experienced directly and cannot be contradicted, rejected, denied, then you have a candidate for Absolute Truth.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

guigus wrote:
Absolute truth must be both mutable and immutable, since asserting either one leads to contradiction. So absolute truth is just a truth capable of becoming false while still being true. As for an example, once you find absolute truth, all existence becomes an example of it.

This is presupposing the existence of absolute truth, which is in doubt. It's a bit circular, seems.

Recognizing what something must be to exist is not presupposing it exists, but rather anticipating what it would necessarily be like if it existed, which is the only way to recognize it when you find it, it that ever happens.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

Recognizing what something must be to exist is not presupposing it exists, but rather anticipating what it would necessarily be like if it existed, which is the only way to recognize it when you find it, it that ever happens.

So it's still speculative, abstract and metaphysical. To me, that means it's useless for anything other than a mental exercise.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

IOW, if you can show me something that can be experienced directly and cannot be contradicted, rejected, denied, then you have a candidate for Absolute Truth.

You have just missed what I said: absolute truth can be contradicted, rejected and denied, without ever ceasing to be true. The reason you cannot find absolute truth is because you are locked in a unilateral conception of it.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

guigus wrote:
Recognizing what something must be to exist is not presupposing it exists, but rather anticipating what it would necessarily be like if it existed, which is the only way to recognize it when you find it, it that ever happens.

So it's still speculative, abstract and metaphysical. To me, that means it's useless for anything other than a mental exercise.

When you go shopping and search for a product with a certain size, color, shape, and price, are you doing a metaphysical exercise? Or do you buy the first thing you find, no matter the size, color, shape, or price?

Likewise, to find absolute truth, I must begin by finding out how it must look like.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

When you go shopping and search for a product with a certain size, color, shape, and price, are you doing a metaphysical exercise? Or do you buy the first thing you find, no matter the size, color, shape, or price?

I buy whatever my experience tells me works best for whatever I'm going to use the product for. No metaphysics necessary, just memory of direct experience and necessary inference.

Quote:

Likewise, to find absolute truth, I must begin by finding out how it must look like.

But you have no experience of absolute truth, whether it exists or not, so you have nothing but speculation based on metaphysical assumptions, which are themselves uncertain, debatable.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

guigus wrote:
When you go shopping and search for a product with a certain size, color, shape, and price, are you doing a metaphysical exercise? Or do you buy the first thing you find, no matter the size, color, shape, or price?

I buy whatever my experience tells me works best for whatever I'm going to use the product for. No metaphysics necessary, just memory of direct experience and necessary inference.

What is metaphysical about previously knowing what size, color, shape and price a product must have to fulfill my needs? And how is this different from "memory of direct experience and necessary inference"?

FBM wrote:

Quote:
Likewise, to find absolute truth, I must begin by finding out how it must look like.

But you have no experience of absolute truth, whether it exists or not, so you have nothing but speculation based on metaphysical assumptions, which are themselves uncertain, debatable.

First, you don't know if I have an experience of absolute truth or not: you simply couldn't.

Second, what I am telling you is what absolute truth must be, logically: when you say there is no absolute truth, you contradict yourself, since you have just uttered a pretense absolute truth, so there must be an absolute truth. On the other hand, anything you say can be contradicted, so absolute truth must contradict itself, as also permanently transcend its self-contradiction, or it wouldn't be capable of absolutely neutralizing any contradictory statements, hence being immune to them. That's what absolute truth must be to exist: if there is an absolute truth, then it contains its own falsity within itself.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

What is metaphysical about previously knowing what size, color, shape and price a product must have to fulfill my needs? And how is this different from "memory of direct experience and necessary inference"?

If you know the properties of what you need as the result of direct experience and necessary inference, you're not guessing. If you don't have any such experience and necessary inference, you are.

Quote:

First, you don't know if I have an experience of absolute truth or not: you simply couldn't.

It's clearly inferred by the fact that you're speculating about what it must be like. If you had direct experience of it, you wouldn't be, would you?

Quote:

Second, what I am telling you is what absolute truth must be, based on logic:

And by doing so, you're only reflecting feature of your system of logic. There's no entailment that it applies to anything outside that system of logic. For example, logic without experience says that there must be a thermal absolute zero. Science, which depends strictly on direct observation and necessary inference, says there can't be a thermal absolute zero in nature. Thus, my preference for direct experience and necessary inference over non-empirical logic and/or speculation.

Quote:

when you say there is no absolute truth, you contradict yourself, since you have just uttered a pretense absolute truth, so there must be an absolute truth. On the other hand, anything you say can be contradicted, so absolute truth must contradict itself, as also permanently transcend its self-contradiction. That's what absolute truth must be to exist: if there is an absolute truth, then it contains its own contradiction within itself.

Where did I say that there is no absolute truth?

0 Replies

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

You have just missed what I said: absolute truth can be contradicted, rejected and denied, without ever ceasing to be true. The reason you cannot find absolute truth is because you are locked in a unilateral conception of it.

Word salad, I think. By definition, if it's true, it's not false. If someone denies that the true is true, they're in error. I'm not interested in erroneous positions, just the ones that can be demonstrated as correct and irrefutable.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

guigus wrote:

You have just missed what I said: absolute truth can be contradicted, rejected and denied, without ever ceasing to be true. The reason you cannot find absolute truth is because you are locked in a unilateral conception of it.

Word salad, I think.

That's what you want it to be.

FBM wrote:

By definition, if it's true, it's not false. If someone denies that the true is true, they're in error. I'm not interested in erroneous positions, just the ones that can be demonstrated as correct and irrefutable.

It is amazing how classical logic is behind the most apparently disparate ways of thinking! And you pretended to be so original...

Well, I have news for you: classical logic reputes truth as just a formal artifact, without any relation to the real world: it is an empty formalism. So it is not correct or incorrect, it is at most useful. You couldn't be farthest from absolute truth than with classical logic.

Here is something you should read:

http://www2.swgc.mun.ca/animus/Articles/Volume%201/andrews.pdf

That will (hopefully) show you precisely how classical logic is flawed.

1 Reply

@guigus,

I don't give a rat's patooey about classical logic, and I don't claim that it's a path to knowledge. I doubt it is. But definitions are definitions. If it's "absolute" truth, then it, by definition, won't be false.

I can contradict anything, like whether or not I'm typing this right now, but just contradicting it is epistemologically impotent. As is writing word salads.

You were the one referencing logic, not me, y'know:

Quote:

Second, what I am telling you is what absolute truth must be, based on logic:

So, anyway, where did I claim that absolute truth doesn't exist?

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I don't give a rat's patooey about classical logic, and I don't claim that it's a path to knowledge. I doubt it is. But definitions are definitions. If it's "absolute" truth, then it, by definition, won't be false.

I can contradict anything, like whether or not I'm typing this right now, but just contradicting it is epistemologically impotent. As is writing word salads.

You were the one referencing logic, not me, y'know:

Quote:
Second, what I am telling you is what absolute truth must be, based on logic:

So, anyway, where did I claim that absolute truth doesn't exist?

You said it when you said absolute truth admits no contradiction. For example, how do you account for the liar paradox? How do you account for the sentence:

Code:This sentence is false.

Whatever absolute truth is, it must account for it.

1 Reply

Maybe the question of absolute truth is another koan...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Maybe the question of absolute truth is another koan...

Absolute truth is where intuition and logical thinking become the same. Besides, contradiction does not arise only with absolute truth but with all truth:

Code:

1. If any truth were untrue,

then it would not be a truth:

every truth must be true.



2. And yet, since the truth of a falsehood is a falsehood,

for any truth to be true it must have itself as a truth,

which must be different from it.



3. So its truth must be different from itself,

hence untrue.



3. But if the truth of a truth is untrue,

then the truth it makes true is also untrue:

any truth becomes its falsity,

which makes every truth variable.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

FBM wrote:

I don't give a rat's patooey about classical logic, and I don't claim that it's a path to knowledge. I doubt it is. But definitions are definitions. If it's "absolute" truth, then it, by definition, won't be false.

I can contradict anything, like whether or not I'm typing this right now, but just contradicting it is epistemologically impotent. As is writing word salads.

You were the one referencing logic, not me, y'know:

Quote:
Second, what I am telling you is what absolute truth must be, based on logic:

So, anyway, where did I claim that absolute truth doesn't exist?

You said it when you said absolute truth admits no contradiction.

Read a little closer, please. I said that the contraciction of an absolute truth is an error, a non-truth. This is not even close to a claim that absolute truth doesn't exist. C'mon, be intellectually honest, please. If you don't see the distinction, then it's because you don't want to. Maybe Internet arguments are an issue of pride for you? What gives?

Quote:

For example, how do you account for the liar paradox?

Why would I want to? What does it have to do with Absolute Truth? Any logical system can create paradoxes. They can also create nonsense. The square root of a negative number, for example. It's not based on observation or necessary inference. It's meaningless, but useful for a narrow range of applications. "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." So what? Word salads are possible because language is an imperfect tool, as is the logic that you referenced.

Quote:

How do you account for the sentence:

Code:This sentence is false.

Obey this directive: Don't read this.

Quote:

Whatever absolute truth is, it must account for it.

Why? Because you say so?

So, anyway, where did I claim that absolute truth either does or doesn't exist? You don't seem to like this question...You seem to prefer to throw up red herrings rather than admit error.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

guigus wrote:

FBM wrote:

I don't give a rat's patooey about classical logic, and I don't claim that it's a path to knowledge. I doubt it is. But definitions are definitions. If it's "absolute" truth, then it, by definition, won't be false.

I can contradict anything, like whether or not I'm typing this right now, but just contradicting it is epistemologically impotent. As is writing word salads.

You were the one referencing logic, not me, y'know:

Quote:
Second, what I am telling you is what absolute truth must be, based on logic:

So, anyway, where did I claim that absolute truth doesn't exist?

You said it when you said absolute truth admits no contradiction.

Read a little closer, please. I said that the contraciction of an absolute truth is an error, a non-truth. This is not even close to a claim that absolute truth doesn't exist. C'mon, be intellectually honest, please. If you don't see the distinction, then it's because you don't want to. Maybe Internet arguments are an issue of pride for you? What gives?

Quote:
For example, how do you account for the liar paradox?

Why would I want to? What does it have to do with Absolute Truth? Any logical system can create paradoxes. They can also create nonsense. The square root of a negative number, for example. It's not based on observation or necessary inference. It's meaningless, but useful for a narrow range of applications. "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." So what? Word salads are possible because language is an imperfect tool, as is the logic that you referenced.

Quote:
How do you account for the sentence:

Code:This sentence is false.

Obey this directive: Don't read this.

Quote:
Whatever absolute truth is, it must account for it.

Why? Because you say so?

Because if it cannot account for something, then it must be relative to just whatever it can account for, hence being relative, rather than absolute. It seems you don't realize the gravity and implications of the word "absolute."

Absolute truth says something about all truth, about what it means to be true, which must be valid for every truth, including the contradictory truth of the liar paradox -- which is why I asked you for a non-contradictory solution to that paradox in the first place: until you can provide one, absolute truth must incorporate contradiction.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

Because if it cannot account for something, then it must be relative to just whatever it can account for, hence being relative, rather than absolute.

If it can't account for something, it's relative to what it can account for. OK. I think I'm beginning to see the light. Maybe not the one you're pointing to, tho.

Quote:

It seems you don't realize the gravity and implications of the word "absolute."

I won't deny that it's hypothetically possible.

Quote:

Absolute truth says something about all truth, about what it means to be true, which must be valid for every truth,

You're pretty prolific with these bold assertions. They seem almost as if they were based on the logic that you claim not to trust...*cough*

Quote:

...including the contradictory truth of the liar paradox -- which is why I asked you for a non-contradictory solution to that paradox in the first place:

I'm not the one making bold assertions without empirical support. Why should I give a rat's arse about the liar's paradox? I'm not the one using logic to discredit...logic.

Quote:

until you can provide one, absolute truth must incorporate contradiction.

Again, why? Because you say so? Got anything empirical to support that? Or is it just another groundless metaphysical presupposition and conjecture?

I'm not the one making metaphysical assertions; it's not up to me to do anything other than show the flaws in yours. Which is like shooting fish in a barrel lately.

You've made a number of errors so far. You mistakenly claimed that I asserted that there is no absolute truth. You mistakenly claimed that I'm the one defending and depending on logic, when your arguments are based on it. What's the deal? Is it a reading comprehension problem? Or are you tilting at windmills and assuming, without close investigation, that I represent an opinion that you oppose? If you read carefully what I have written so far...

1 Reply

Absolute truth?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know