BEARERS OF THE TRUTH....

JL, You hardly have cause for humiliation. I've been following along and learning form you analysis of the question.

Lash Goth, Thanks for telling me that you have been faking. I was about to launch into an explanation of my view that there is absolutely no absolute proof of the absolute. So, your confession has saved me some effort. As things are, I've been unwinding with a double shot of good Irish whisky, and am about ready to turn in.

You misunderstood, Hazlitt. JLNobody said she'd been reading my posts, and said I was not as addled as I was making out to be.

I AM as addled as I seem. I meant I'd been faking reasonable intelligence. You two must not be able to believe that I am still in the universe of absolute truth.

I have read some explanatory comments on the thread, but I don't get it. I was asking for a simple example.

But, Hazlitt, if the bed calls, and it is so hard to explain why there are no absolutes, I will give up trying to understand it here.

JLNobody. If somehow my attempts to get someone to explain this to me made you feel I was being snide with you, this was not my intent in the least. I'm just at the back of the class in philosophy.

truth
I give up. My conception of politics is apparently too narrow. Hazlitt is right to suggest--if that is his suggestion, or impllication at least--that all social life is inherently political, insofar as it is competitive. Now I have to figure out how to get my wife to see Lord of the Rings with me tomorrow instead of About Schmidt. That's political.

Hey, even if you lose, you win. Schmidt is supposed to be great, but I'm with you.

Think Lord of the Rings edges out Nicholson.

That's the 'absolute truth'.

truth
Lash Goth, let me very brieflly suggest why I do not look for absolute truth. I feel that ALL of our notions reflect our collective attempts to adapt and prevail in life, and this has always been so. I am what some would call a Constructivist. The world, as Schopenhauer put it, is my idea (meaning of course OUR idea, referring to culture). One of the biggest intellectual sins is reification, the forgetting that all our ideas come from us, are our "constructions," not existing apart from us in some Platonic world of absolute ideals. When we think that ideas (like "truth") exist apart from us, that they are not our "useful inventions," we believe that they are not invented but given. That they exist in nature, like the unheard sound of the fallling tree in the forest--heard by no human, but heard by God. Relative truth belongs to that category of ideas that we have invented; Absolute truth belongs to that category of ideas that exist apart and independent from and before the existence of all human life. The latter makes "absolutely" no sense to me. Thanks for this opportunity.

Well, okay, Lash (Any relation to Lash La Rue?), this is what I am talking about.

Take a very common issue. Is there a God. I don't want to get into particular arguments, or to switch the nature of this thread. Here is what I mean. There have never been any conclusive arguments presented to verify an affirmative answer to that question. I recognize that several arguments exist that seem conclusive to some people. But the validity of these arguments is not so strong that all people agree that they are conclusive beyond any reasonable doubt. So it is reasonable, perhaps even compelling , to state that we do not know if there is a God.

In addition to the various arguments, we can say with some assurance that we have not seen God, nor do any of us know anyone who can demonstrate that he or she has seen God. Again, I recognize that there are people who say they have seen God or other spiritual beings, but these claims are generally unverifiable in terms of our normal means of investigation, so we are compelled to exercise doubt.

There are other kinds of knowledge that we call scientific. For example, based on very careful observation we believe that it is safe to make certain statements about the atomic and sub-atomic nature of matter. For all practical purposes, all people believe these statements. However, the peculiar thing about scientific knowledge is that it is always subject to revision and change as ongoing investigation alters old findings. So there is a lack of certainty connected with scientific knowledge.

In addition to these considerations we have questions of perception. We have senses that transfer images of outer reality to the brain which somehow arranges them so that we can function in the world. It is obvious that our sense of perception only tells us a limited amount about reality. We have instruments that allow us to know more, or to think we know more, but we know we don't understand everything, and maybe never will.

Additionally, everything we know about reality and about ourselves and each other is all coded in human language. Language has its limitations when it comes to the ability to describe reality. Yet we are totally dependant upon language.

One result of all this uncertainty is that it is not so easy to answer questions like the following: Is it wrong to take a human life? Is it wrong to tell a lie? Is it wrong to commit adultery? Traditionally all these prohibitions have been rooted in the idea that they are wrong because the deity says they are wrong. Many of us think that we cannot rely on these traditions. But almost everybody recognizes that if we are going to have a stable society, which is something most of us want, we need to have rules like these to govern our behavior. So we must find other justifications for those rules (and that's another question).

This is just the briefest, and admittedly incomplete, outline, from my point of view, of why it is not possible to get any general consensus on a large range of questions that have traditionally been answered in terms of absolutes.

Try this: every time you state an "absolute" truth, stop and ask, "How do I know this is true?" Then when you've answered yourself, ask again, "How do I know this answer is true?" Keep asking. Unless I am wrong, every answer you come up with will prove to be inconclusive and unsatisfying in some way. This leads to skepticism.

Others may well explain this is a more lucid way.

JL, your Constructivist philosophy strikes me as a likely explanation of how we form our ideas of reality. Maybe tomorrow we can get into this question. Each mind is building up its concept, or view, or image of what reality is like. Although we have many differences, we are all able to agree on a striking number of things about the nature of reality. Is this because all our brains are sufficiently alike that they all come up with a reasonably similar picture of reality? Everyone's "picture" would be influenced by cultural considerations, I expect.

I have never been able to accept any overarching philosophy. In general, I've thought they all have internal contradictions, and they all seem to be in a constant state of flux and evolution. So, I limp along just trying to strike a balance between all the conflicting ideas and values. Surprisingly, I feel very little dissatisfaction with the lack of certainty and orientation.

In practical terms, I set aside my ultimate doubts and accept the world as I find it and feel justified in making value judgments based on ideas of justice, truth, fairness, and common sense. I feel that some values are definitely better than others. I believe that we form values because we must if we want to survive, and I think some values promote survival better than others. I would judge values by the criteria of the above mentioned justice, truth, fairness, and common sense. I also like the values of liberty, equality and beauty (Whatever these all mean).

I am rambling. Good Night All.

Back to Absolute;
JLN et al;
Let me make an attempt to clarify my "axiom" theory.

Hazlitt's example of the varied approach to the "commandments" is a good metaphor for "given"; many would take those as examples of "absolute truths".

Now, getting personal, to me, not killing is axiomatic; to not take the life of another human being is obviously the correct "stance" for a sensible human being. Of course there are cases where the choice of killing to protect others comes into consideration; but this is a morrality concern, the "killing" is still "absolutely" wrong, no question, and, under circumstances, made "necessary", not "right"!

I maintain that to a "normal" (we could go into that one - forever) person, this is not a "rocket science" idea, it just makes sense, naturally.

To pursue the example, to "not commit adultery"; now there is a dictate based entirely on unverified traditional mores, with no actual relation to reality. Again, relatively obviously, if a couple choose to live together in a partnership, they should realize that that connection is based upon "trust", and that if that "trust", as defined within the partnership, is broken, so is the contract, and it is better for them to assess the "damage" and decide how to proceed, (did the event occur due to an actual change in basic feelings between the partners, or was it a random moment of bad judgment, not meant to undermine their cherished bond with one another), rather than having to deal with lies, recrimination, outside interferrence, and embarrasment, to be factored into a totally personal matter. This then, to me is most definitely "not" an absolute.

Does this make sense to anyone?

I have to bring up another point here; both JLN & Hazlitt have brought the concept of "debate" into the discussion.
This is one of my own personal "absolute truth" examples that seems so obvious to me, but not sadly to vitually anyone else on this planet.
Where does the human need for conflict and competition come from?
Silly question, we all know the answer; "from the life and death struggle of the jungle".
I should say, when it is of no value, counterproductive, and detrimental to real or potential relationships, to use combatant tactics in aproaching the sharing of ideas, why do humans refuse to shed the ancestral warrings of the distant past, in following the natural process of airing concepts, testing new ideas, and combining minds to produce new solutions to the problems of todays world.
When one seeks to discuss, why must we always "debate"?

truth
Bogowo, Good post; I particularly liked your last paragraph where you question the necessity for debate in post-jungle joint explorations into the nature of truth. I brought up the political model of truth (Nietzsche and Foucault) in response to something asked by someone--were we discussing truth in the political or the philosophy forum?
I agree that the political dimension--while very important--can be over stated. When philosophers have debated issues by means of their respective publications over long periods of time, their outcomes have not always been the result of political power, except, perhaps, in times of tyranny, whether governmental or eccesiastical.

truth
It's so easy to confuse things in these discussions. I guess I have been confusing truth (that dealt with by philosophers) and ideology (that imposed by the powerful to justify themselves and their actions upon the less powerful).
What I like to do, and what we seem to be doing here, is make my statements boldly (and carelessly), and await the necessary criticisms. I then--without feelings of humiliation--proceded to qualify my initial position (or perhaps throw it out completely, but not likely; the ego doesn't work that way), and then resubmit it, waiting for further criticisms [Of course I play this critical role with others regarding the theses submitted by each of us). As time passes, and if we continue, the issues become--by means of this dialectical process--more complex, subtle and sophisticated. Our initial "quick and dirty" theses are washed in the cleansing waters of sincere discussion (or debate, Bogowa). We do this in a spirit of overt cooperation, even though there may--will be, face it--covert competitive ego-driven currents, which is human and to me acceptable within limits.

JL, in essense, you are forcing the group to abide by your rules of play. Those who wish to play, stay; the others move on to another thread.

I think we've made the issue of "truth" too complex. Each individual has their own truth which depends on several influences; 1) culture, 2) religion, 3) genes, 4) money, 5) education, 6) environment, 7) parents, and 8) politics. How each of these influences the individual is the real mystery. c.i.

c.i., nicely stately...

JL, I like your analysis of the way in which the discussion or debate goes along. I think that is the only way it can be, and it is to only way in which consensus or at least understanding can be reached.

I want very much to continue this conversation, but time will not allow until late tonight at the earliest, or maybe even tomorrow afternoon. If you are still interested by that time. I have left questions by Bogowa unanswered and an eager to get at them.

Also I hope we hear from Lash Goth.

CI is also introducing an interesting dimension.

truth
Mapleleaf, it bothers me that you think I was setting forth rules for our behavior. Not at all. I was merely giving a description of what has been happening, how I made an assertion that I admit was extreme in form and how the responses to that assertion enabled me to refine/modify/improve my own understanding of the relationship between power and conceptions of truth (or anything else). Hazelitt understood me completely, to my relief. I do think that the dialectical approach--which HAS been in operation--is one of the positive social functions of forums such as Able2Know . It's a way for people to learn through dialog with others. I KNOW that my experience with the abuzz forum has benefitted me immensely. I expect to gain at least as much with Able2Know.

Whereas, some of this thread has been meaningful for me, I fine that parts of it became wordplay amongst a few people. In long threads, I prefer for the drop-by reader to be able to discover the gist within a page or two. For me, it is the difference between understanding the needs of the total A2K community vs self-interest. That being said, I will leave you to your discussion and look for something else to do.

Hi. Thanks for calling me out of the corner. My Dunce cap was beginning to chafe my forehead.

Hazlitt, JLNobody and c.i.--
Thank you. Hazlitt--I realized that I knew the facts of the explanation you gave. I see most of the things you wrote as morality issues (which each person must decide for themselves) and opinion. You went into science and I won't even go there for absolute seeking.

c.i.--I get you, too. People make determinations about the way they see life based on what they have seen and how their thinking process has been shaped since they've had their first thought.

JLN--You seem to be talking about how some people force their will on others to force a point. It seems as though it has something to do with the fact that I used a couple of political facts as examples. I may have missed something, but I have looked on this thread as a learning experience. I didn't notice anyone here of debating as in 'arguement style.' I kept reading back to explain to myself Mapleleaf's last comment. The only explanation I can come up with, is you were talking about me. You must have thought I was being sarcastic with you about not understanding, and asking for direct examples. That would make me awful. I would have had to be completely assured of philosophy, and an egregious asshole to do that. I assure you I am not the former, and I am hopeful I am not the latter.

I don't think absolute truths exist in every issue. Many are opinion and many are value judgements.

I think if it's raining, it's raining. If someone lied, they lied. If the law says don't do this, and you did this, you broke the law.... I get the questioning down to the nexus of nothing--and I see what you are saying. I just reject it on the basis that this practice can absolve human beings of admitting the truth, when it is staring them in the face.

This does not in any way diminish my sincere appreciation for the thoughtful, helpful explanations you have offered here. I can see how the questioning would be helpful for people who insist that their moral views or opinions are absolute truth. I believe that there is opinion, moral or value judgements and truth.

truth
I assure you, Lash, I did not have you in mind at all. I think you're fun, not sarcastic.

Thank goodness. Now I need to work on my suspicion....