Absolute truth?

I'll ask one question

are we made of one substance or of multiple substances ?

1 Reply

@north,

Where did I said it was ?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Where did I said it was ?

you didn't

I did

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

You sir, are continously deifying "Truth" by endowing it with attributes that you cannot possibly account for by any reasonable standard.

Again and again... what is it that, according to your way of thinking, proves that "Truth does n ´t require to be known by any spectators in Order to be"?

If I did go to a restaurant I probably did so with full knowledge of what I was doing, as an observer of the experience, one raised in a conceptual reality in which a restaurant is a meaningful concept that I can interact with. What has this got to do with you?
You accuse the ones who say truth needs an observer of being anthropocentric. But you are the one who is thinking along such lines, trying to separate human aspect of reality from some imagined "objective reality", as if human reality could have any meaning or existence on such terms.

1 - oh, so you can know in order to be true but others don´t ???
What kind of criteria is this ?
...either Truth must be known or it don´t...set your discourse straight !

2 - ...your idea of the restaurant as concept is part of what is True and not part of the restaurant which also is yet another part, or segment, of what is true as a Whole...thus where am I dividing ?

3 - Its precisely because I don´t separate man from the thing, that have brought me to defend that perspective has true value as a component of what is True !
man is also a perspective proponent and not the epicentre of what there is...
let me just give you this straight forward friendly advise...be a little bit more coherent !

I will finish by being really arrogant this time around.
You don´t follow ! Not my fault !

2 Replies

@north,

We are made of that substance which phenomenologically can be seen as many precisely because its one...

0 Replies

@north,

Absolute Truth is just exactly where perspective ends...where conflict rests and is finally solved...so its only fair to admit its true value for what Truth as a Whole addresses !

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:

You sir, are continously deifying "Truth" by endowing it with attributes that you cannot possibly account for by any reasonable standard.

Again and again... what is it that, according to your way of thinking, proves that "Truth does n ´t require to be known by any spectators in Order to be"?

If I did go to a restaurant I probably did so with full knowledge of what I was doing, as an observer of the experience, one raised in a conceptual reality in which a restaurant is a meaningful concept that I can interact with. What has this got to do with you?
You accuse the ones who say truth needs an observer of being anthropocentric. But you are the one who is thinking along such lines, trying to separate human aspect of reality from some imagined "objective reality", as if human reality could have any meaning or existence on such terms.

1 - oh, so you can know in order to be true but others don´t ???
What kind of criteria is this ?
...either Truth must be known or it don´t...set your discourse straight !

2 - ...your idea of the restaurant as concept is part of what is True and not part of the restaurant which also is yet another part, or segment, of what is true as a Whole...thus where am I dividing ?

3 - Its precisely because I don´t separate man from the thing, that have brought me to defend that perspective has true value as a component of what is True !
man is also a perspective proponent and not the epicentre of what there is...
let me just give you this straight forward friendly advise...be a little bit more coherent !

I will finish by being really arrogant this time around.
You don´t follow ! Not my fault !

to both of you

absolute truth has nothing to do with either of your perspectives

absolute truth , what makes us

atoms

1 Reply

@north,

Hell North what are Atoms to be eh ?...Are they wave or corpuscular ? Can they be just Information ? Maths ? Perfect form if primordial substance ? What ?

I will just answer as Fido Fresco and Cyracuz did so far...that is discourse...its meaning...
Truth is not about describing Truth as an object...we can speak on its patterns through metaphor as equivalent nothing else !
One can assert its need but not its description !
...or to go the other way around, all perspectives are part of Truth, have true value, and are true only in that sense, but never alone !

And I am just actually confident enough to throw another blow on to the table just for the sake of clarity :

TRUTH IS SUCH AND SO NEEDED AND SO ABSOLUTE, THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ERROR...

...ERROR AS AN ILLUSION IS AGAIN JUST PERSPECTIVE FROM INCOMPLETE CONFLICTING OBJECTS (ILLUSIONS) ON THAT WHICH TRUTH IS AS A WHOLE...THE PAN OBJECT !!!

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

(Aside from your dialogue with North....)

You want to account for the "unexpected".....the "discovery" of some previously "unknown phenomenon"....(yes ?)...and that is why you need a concept of underlying "truth" in order to "explain" the new "observation". But such a discovery requires :

1. The observer to be in a particular receptive state (physiological,epistemological) relative to the state of the world.
2.The observer to be able assimilate (process) and communicate the discovery by means of a socially acquired language (or metalanguage of mathematics).

In short "facts" (from the Latin facere) are interactive constructions between species/culture specific observers with respect to their "world". You cannot eliminate "the observer" even if you want to call "truth " the sum of observer+world. Independent facts have no ontological status since they are retro-dictive constructions in the mind of observers.

So what do you want ? .....to extend "truth " to cover all the sum of all interactions between all possible species for all possible worlds/universes for all time? Somewhat vacuous don't you think ! Smile

1 Reply

@fresco,

(REPLACE "discovery" WITH "discovery event" IN THE ABOVE)

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

BTW
Just as a matter of interest, what answer would you give (if any) to which of these is "true".

1. The sun goes round the earth.
2. The earth goes round the sun.

Ken has argued (and probably North would too) that to state no.1 would be "an error". In particular, how does your word "perspective" get you out of the point that "truth" appears to be meaningful only relative to zeitgeist, functionality and mathematical elegance ?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

This time around??

Quote:

1 - oh, so you can know in order to be true but others don´t ???
What kind of criteria is this ?
...either Truth must be known or it don´t...set your discourse straight !

What? ...... And you are asking me to be more coherent?

Let me try to explain it in another way.. Truth is a word that relates to meaning, not object. It is a value assigned to IDEAS where anticipation corresponds with prediction, and prediction corresponds with observation. It is meaningful within that relationship, but in order to determine any truth, a relationship must first be established.

So I'll ask... again.. what is it that, according to your way of thinking, proves that "Truth does n ´t require to be known by any spectators in Order to be"?

What is this "to be" that you propose to have meaning independent of our interaction? Such a concept is a fallacy, not relevant to the world it seeks to describe. It exist only in one place; in the heads of those who erroneously hold such a concept as a truth about reality.

I am coherent. I have been arguing the same position all along. You are the one who is jumping from place to place, referring to concepts now to validate your views that you were adamantly rejecting three pages ago...
This is like trying to explain evolution to a creationist.... Rolling Eyes

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Hmmmmmmmmmm ..Cyracuz it seems puzzeling that you wants to follow me, now that you have complained so much about me, even have had some minor feudes, so why?

The truth please! ..the absolute truth! Razz

1 Reply

@HexHammer,

Why do you think? It's so I can have better surveilance on you. Very Happy

Nah, I'm kidding.
It is because your activities here on a2k are entertaining sometimes.
When you for instance post that someone is mentally retarded because they believe as they do, that is sure to create som entertaining drama. And when you then eventually apologize and "take back" your statement, it indicates some change in your understanding, and such things are always interesting.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Yearh, sometimes I misunderstand things, latest I went too far in my crusade.
I actually do mean well when I bash people for being psycotic/skitzo, and try to get their sorry asses to a shrink, just that the way I do it is horrofying bad.

..now thinking about it, it's suprizingly many I have accused of being psycotic.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Man...

what concepts did I rejected eh ??? you are seriously delusional !
I never said there was no meaning, or that that there was n´t a fusion between observers and objects...what I said is that man alone cannot bring about objects without a source, which was what you actually and your "friends" suggested, even if not consciously, and I gave you a different more enlarged definition of "observers" which I proudly sustain...

Truth is about correspondence between the object of idea and something "out there" as an "emitter"...as segment of an unbounded totality that correspondence exists...not to the object alone which is just idea, but to the whole which is also composed of ideas...can you get the subtle difference ?
I bet you can´t otherwise you would be quiet already !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Truth is about correspondence between the object of idea and something

Thats all well and good, but that isn't what you started out saying. You started out advocating truth as some transcendent entity that we could grasp only imperfectly due to our human condition. Something existing independent of observers.
Now, in the face of the resistance to your ideas you have modified yourself to a view that is more indistinguishable from what we are saying.

Now, instead of shouting "it IS regardless of how we relate to it" you are saying that "man alone cannot bring about objects without a source".

I have to call attention to the word "realtionship" in the face of such a statement. What is the thing you call "a source", in contrast to man alone?
Wouldn't you perhaps agree that these two concepts are the very ones that stand as dualistic counterparts in this RELATIONSHIP??
I never said "man alone# or "source". If you invoke any of these concepts as factors you are disregarding the relational aspect by dividing the relating oposites. But there is no justification for such a perspective. If we divorce these two there is no relationship. To me it gives no meaning without the relationship. But this particular issue relates to the nature of "self" which is an entirely different discussion. The bottom line is that specific distinctions between "self" and "external" are virtually impossible to make beyond the obvious physical experience. It is entirely arbitrary.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Again you fail to see the distinction between Being as Truth and the perception that man can have of Being...

Truth is not just correspondence...correspondence may or may not be true, which is different ! In relative terms, thus between perspectives, one may well suggest that this correspondence hardly could exist, and yet they all correspond to Being, which is that who takes them all..
Necessarily Man´s perception is true and valid in Being.

...now of course, given you don´t have a clue on what I am at so far, you can well have the type of conclusion that you just did...expected !

There´s nothing, not an inch, that I take back...this is not a matter on knowing.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Again you fail to see the distinction between Being as Truth and the perception that man can have of Being...

And you fail to understand that the relevance of such a distinction may be about as justifiable as creationism. I have asked you repeatedly for an argumentation that shows that it is reasonable to say that there exists a world that is the source of our perceptions, and that this pre-concieved state of reality has any claim on the concept of truth. You haven't responded to that...

And if it's not a matter of knowing, what is it then?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

...a matter of Necessity just as simple as you being arguing for no bearings at all as your bearing stance...(hope this makes sense in English)

Given any argument requires a reference which one is yours if no truth ?
Knowledge without reference is not knowledge...where does it end the foundation of your "building" ?

If meaning is all there is, then meaning upon what ??? Upon meaning ?

The fact is that I have shown your pseudo thesis to be self circular several times and you just sidestep the issue...can you come up with an argument for it ?
Otherwise we are wasting each other´s time...by now it sounds plain pointless to keep up.

Just answer directly if you please:

Do you believe in a source of data outside the mind upon which we build concepts or not ? If you do, you have a problem with your theory that there is no Truth no matter what we know about it...

That we are a part of that which is Truth, is quite different from saying that that which is Truth is something that we build...
...Truth by definition is already build...

If there is no Truth then you don´t have a theory neither you should be defending any once there is no referents for meaning with true value !!!
Get it ?
nah...y´don´t !

2 Replies

Absolute truth?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know