GENIUS FORUMS

truth seems absolute to those who don't understand the function of true and false, and what these values refer to

shut up, bigot

(To all adults in this thread: nor do I consider my passing response extreme. Average is performing another hasty generalization of the exact same sort that lead him to bigotry toward schizophrenics. As well, it is another example of what Dave Toast called in his last post "conceptual inconsistency", in that it is an absolute statement that claims that absolutes don't exist. The double-dose of irony -- that he made this post right after Dave's post, and that he performed this poor reasoning in such a short space -- is not lost on me. Knowing full well the impossibility of reasoning with bigotry, malice, inconsistency, or fundamentalism in any of their various forms, there is no reason to give average in-depth replies. Dave Toast is on the right track: this conversation ended, but clearly not on average's terms.)

The way that I understand it, ‘truth’ is a relationship which holds between the existential subject of a proposition and its essential predicates; that relationship being one of ‘identity’. For example, the proposition, “Socrates is an ancient Greek philosopher.”, is ‘true’ if-and-only-if, the existential subject (Socrates) is in fact “an ancient Greek philosopher”.

Further, there are two kinds of truths, those which are absolute and those which are only relative. A relative truth is one that may be true in one situation but untrue at another. For example, the proposition above may be true of one Socrates (the ancient Greek philosopher); but not true of another Socrates (the contemporary Greek baker). A relative truth then is one that is contingent upon circumstances.

An absolute truth, on the other hand, is one that is necessarily true, and so is not subject to circumstance. Take the mathematical proposition, “Two plus two equals four.”, for example. The existential identifiers, ‘two’ and ‘four’, signify the quantities (--) and (----) respectively, and regardless of the term that one employs to signify these two quantities, the qualities themselves are immutable; and so the proposition (-- + -- = ----) always holds.

Dave Toast,

NM: Oh yes, our truth is very important to us. It is required to communicate with each other and for our reasoning. However I am stating that it is likely that truth is simply ours and that it exists only because it has evolutionary advantages.

DT: I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'simply ours'.

If you mean that truth is not fundamental to all consciousness, then you need to provide some reasoning and deal with my reasoning to the contrary.

Everything we have is simply ours, including our vision of the world, our concepts, and our truth. There is good reason to assume that we are not absolute beings. There is good reason to assume that our consciousness is not the only type of consciousness, or that we can even imagine all other types. There is good reason to assume that we are not the center of life. There is no good reason to believe that our "truths" somehow overcome any of these. When we say "absolute truth" it means, to me at least, truth free of subjective perspective. So the phrase in itself is non-sense unless we believe humans are the center of the world or that we are absolute beings or whatever else.

If you're saying that truth is relative, you know the arguments against that.

I don't count grammatical conventions as authority on reality like the extreme rationalists and metaphysicians do.

Further, I didn't say that I don't deeply value truth and have good reason to do so. Sanity demands it. To not do so is to be unreasonable, foolish and, if you take the definition of sanity to its logical conclusion, insane.

As long as you don't sacrifice everything else for truth and then try to teach others to do the same I agree that valuing truth for practical purposes is important.

Jehu,

An absolute truth, on the other hand, is one that is necessarily true, and so is not subject to circumstance. Take the mathematical proposition, “Two plus two equals four.”, for example. The existential identifiers, ‘two’ and ‘four’, signify the quantities (--) and (----) respectively, and regardless of the term that one employs to signify these two quantities, the qualities themselves are immutable; and so the proposition (-- + -- = ----) always holds.

The concepts "two" and "four" and "plus" and "equals" are all contingent upon our developed human mind and education. Is it not then only relative? If we assume that there is something outside our mind, something Jehu may have trouble doing, we must conclude that our truth that "2+2=4" is only necessarily true for us.

Jehu: you are completely accurate, if longwinded.

Neil: Jehu is completely accurate, if longwinded. The phrase "necessarily true for us" is gibberish. A necessary truth is necessary. Don't try to side-step necessity by adding "for us".

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Jehu: you are completely accurate, if longwinded.

Neil: Jehu is completely accurate, if longwinded. The phrase "necessarily true for us" is gibberish. A necessary truth is necessary. Don't try to side-step necessity by adding "for us".

By your reasoning it is absolutely true that grass is green. Suddenly everything is absolutely true. If I don't share the same concepts of "two" and "four" I could very easily proclaim "2+2=4" as false.

Neil,

By your reasoning it is absolutely true that grass is green.

Not quite. My reasoning is more like this: "If grass is green, then it is absolutely true that grass is green."
Or, perhaps: "It is absolutely true that grass is grass."
Or: "It is absolutely true that grass is not not-grass."
Or: "It is absolutely true that grass, if it exist as a thing, is both less than the Totality and subject to causality."

If I don't share the same concepts of "two" and "four" I could very easily proclaim "2+2=4" as false.

Correct. But if your definitions correspond to the standard definitions of two and four, then 2+2=4 is absolutely true.

Jehu wrote:The way that I understand it, ‘truth’ is a relationship which holds between the existential subject of a proposition and its essential predicates; that relationship being one of ‘identity’. For example, the proposition, “Socrates is an ancient Greek philosopher.”, is ‘true’ if-and-only-if, the existential subject (Socrates) is in fact “an ancient Greek philosopher”.

This is a "correspondence" theory of truth - a statement is true if it corresponds to some actual state of affairs in the world. I believe this has some problems - in particular, whether a statement "corresponds to" some state of affairs is, in the end, an opinion.

An absolute truth, on the other hand, is one that is necessarily true, and so is not subject to circumstance. Take the mathematical proposition, “Two plus two equals four.”, for example. The existential identifiers, ‘two’ and ‘four’, signify the quantities (--) and (----) respectively, and regardless of the term that one employs to signify these two quantities, the qualities themselves are immutable; and so the proposition (-- + -- = ----) always holds.

Whether the mathematical equation holds depends on whether what we are doing in the physical world corresponds to the mathematical concepts. Adding two sheep to a pen containing two sheep does result in four sheep, as the correspondance is good. "Sheep" behave reasonably like elements of a set, and putting them together in a pen corresponds well with bringing two sets together to create a larger set.

As a simple counterexample, if I have a bowl that can hold three cups of liquid, I can have two cups of liquid in the bowl. If I then "add" another two cups of liquid to the bowl, I do not end up with four cups of liquid in the bowl. The physical limits of the particular situation do not correspond to the straightforward mathematical idea of addition.

So, while "2+2=4" is always true, it may not always apply - it may not correspond to what's actually going on in a situation - and that may or may not be obvious. Different people may have different opinions on whether the correspondance is close enough to work - e.g., "addition" would work fine in the bowl example if I was "adding" one cup to one cup. There is a sudden discontinuity when the bowl becomes full.

In the Socrates example, there was (presumably) an ancient philosopher that was named Socrates; but there were likely other people named Socrates as well. I'm sure you can imagine situations where it might be ambigous whether I was referring to that Socrates - there might be situations in which a person could interpret the statement to be true, while someone else interprets it to be false, because of the possible ambiguity or because of a different context.

Dave,

This is a "correspondence" theory of truth - a statement is true if it corresponds to some actual state of affairs in the world. I believe this has some problems - in particular, whether a statement "corresponds to" some state of affairs is, in the end, an opinion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but so long as the word "correspond" is carefully defined, this problem should not emerge.

Neil wrote:

The concepts "two" and "four" and "plus" and "equals" are all contingent upon our developed human mind and education. Is it not then only relative? If we assume that there is something outside our mind, something Jehu may have trouble doing, we must conclude that our truth that "2+2=4" is only necessarily true for us.

As I said earlier, truth is a relationship, it is not an entity; and so it cannot be possessed of its own intrinsic properties. Nevertheless, a truth can also be absolute, but only if the subject of the proposition is itself an absolute entity. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that their exists an absolute entity A, which is possessed of its own intrinsic causes: b and c, and is not dependent for its existence upon any extrinsic causes. Being an absolute (necessary) entity, A cannot but consist in b and c, and so the proposition “A consists in b and c.” is necessarily and absolutely true; regardless of whether or not a cognizant agent ever actually conceives of the said proposition.

While terms such as ‘two’ and ‘four” are clearly not absolute entities, the quantities that they signify are. If, for example, we wished to communicate the quantity signified by the term ‘four’ to someone who could not understand our language, we could simply gather together a number of sets of objects, each of which contained four elements. In other words, by whatever term or symbol we might signify the quantity of objects in each set, or whether or not there is a cognizant agent there to count their numbers, there would still be the same quantity of elements in each set.

DHodges wrote:

This is a "correspondence" theory of truth - a statement is true if it corresponds to some actual state of affairs in the world. I believe this has some problems - in particular, whether a statement "corresponds to" some state of affairs is, in the end, an opinion.

Yes, but the question is not how one may verify the truth of a proposition, but only whether or not an absolute truth is possible.

Whether the mathematical equation holds depends on whether what we are doing in the physical world corresponds to the mathematical concepts. Adding two sheep to a pen containing two sheep does result in four sheep, as the correspondance is good. "Sheep" behave reasonably like elements of a set, and putting them together in a pen corresponds well with bringing two sets together to create a larger set.

As a simple counterexample, if I have a bowl that can hold three cups of liquid, I can have two cups of liquid in the bowl. If I then "add" another two cups of liquid to the bowl, I do not end up with four cups of liquid in the bowl. The physical limits of the particular situation do not correspond to the straightforward mathematical idea of addition.

So, while "2+2=4" is always true, it may not always apply - it may not correspond to what's actually going on in a situation - and that may or may not be obvious. Different people may have different opinions on whether the correspondance is close enough to work - e.g., "addition" would work fine in the bowl example if I was "adding" one cup to one cup. There is a sudden discontinuity when the bowl becomes full.

The mathematical summing of two or more quantities is strictly an intellectual affair, and is not dependent upon whether or not it is practicable among actual entities.

In the Socrates example, there was (presumably) an ancient philosopher that was named Socrates; but there were likely other people named Socrates as well. I'm sure you can imagine situations where it might be ambigous whether I was referring to that Socrates - there might be situations in which a person could interpret the statement to be true, while someone else interprets it to be false, because of the possible ambiguity or because of a different context.

Exactly, this is the nature of the relative truth, it may be true in one set of circumstances, but untrue in another set.

Part of the mystery of our existance is the existance of paradoxes, particularly in philosophical thinking. In the end, it's all a matter of interpretation, abstract logistics, what one chooses to believe, given one's particular bias...For me, being an a-theist, enables me to step out of the absolute truth paradox, to view it objectively, to see it for what it is, with an open mind. Absolute truth exists, you say, I say, prove it. Absolute truth doesn't esist, you say, I say, prove it...

the paradox:

You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth…

"There are no absolutes." First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes.

"Truth is relative." Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.

"Who knows what the truth is, right?" In the same sentence the speaker declares that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement.

"No one knows what the truth is." The speaker obviously believes his statement is true.

There are philosophers who actually spend countless hours toiling over thick volumes written on the "meaninglessness" of everything. We can assume they think the text is meaningful! Then there are those philosophy teachers who teach their students, "No one's opinion is superior to anyone else's. There is no hierarchy of truth or values. Anyone's viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's viewpoint. We all have our own truth." Then they turn around and grade the papers!

z

Trevor,

NM: By your reasoning it is absolutely true that grass is green.

TS: Not quite. My reasoning is more like this: "If grass is green, then it is absolutely true that grass is green."
Or, perhaps: "It is absolutely true that grass is grass."
Or: "It is absolutely true that grass is not not-grass."

All these truths are value judgments by a subject on an object, in fact all truths are. Since we don't know if any subjects are absolute we don't know if any truths are absolute.

NM: If I don't share the same concepts of "two" and "four" I could very easily proclaim "2+2=4" as false.

TS: Correct. But if your definitions correspond to the standard definitions of two and four, then 2+2=4 is absolutely true.

It is absolutely true that I am God, you just need to accept my standard definitions to see this.

Jehu,

While terms such as ‘two’ and ‘four” are clearly not absolute entities, the quantities that they signify are.

Last I checked sheep were not absolute entities.

zarathustra,

the paradox:

It has been solved! The problem is metaphysics. The problem is that people forget that our language is simply a mode of communication, not the laws of the universe, and then forget that despite thousands of years of evolution it cannot and never will be able to describe or govern anything "otherwordly".

Neil,

All these truths are value judgments by a subject on an object, in fact all truths are. Since we don't know if any subjects are absolute we don't know if any truths are absolute.

The axe swings both ways: if we know that the truth it refers to is absolute, then we know that the subject is absolute. Nothing is resolved by this, unfortunately. Did you intentionally say something so vacuous?

Also, I have a question. Why did you feel the need to use a different meaning of the word "subject" in these two sentences? I'd call foul on the fallacy of "equivocation", but you may have had some secret reason for doing this, since when you say:

It is absolutely true that I am God, you just need to accept my standard definitions to see this.

...one might think that you are not being a stubborn moron committing fallacy after fallacy as he attempts to prove once and for all that true is not true, and that you might have intentionally left the empty phrases and equivocations in your other reply to help everyone see the dangerous error of foolishly believing that black is black and white is white.

Trevor,

The axe swings both ways: if we know that the truth it refers to is absolute, then we know that the subject is absolute. Nothing is resolved by this, unfortunately. Did you intentionally say something so vacuous?

"If we know that the truth it refers to is absolute".... What is absolute? This word has utterly zero meaning in reality. The term is purely abstract and belongs with the rest of metaphysics, the misuse of language. There is no axe swinging both ways. Either you embrace metaphysics and believe that you can accurately talk about "the nature of reality" and other otherwordly things with our language, or you realize that metaphysics is useless.

'useless' - absolutely!

z

...

absolutely!!!!

z

Neil, metaphysics does not refer to otherworldly things, but transcendent concepts. Causality is metaphysical; ESP is not.

When "absolute" is applied before the word "truth", it is more severe even than the term a priori, in that it means that the truth is true in all possible worlds, without exception.

I hope this clears up all your peculiar misconceptions, since you seem prone to error on these points.

Trevor,

When "absolute" is applied before the word "truth", it is more severe even than the term a priori, in that it means that the truth is true in all possible worlds, without exception.

All possible worlds that... you can imagine? All possible worlds that conform to the rules of your grammar?

Oh now he is going to whip out the english definition of a "world"!

We don't even understand our own world (and we cannot) and yet you think that you can define every possible world because... well... it wouldn't be a "world" if it wasn't "finite" and "contingent" and whatever else. These terms are abstract and fictional. We made them up. They don't describe anything we know of. They only describe abstract and fictional worlds that we create in our minds.

xerox wrote:Is = absolute.
Are = absolute.

Therefore the statement "there is no absolute" is self refuting.

My "is" and "are" are not absolute. I am the one making the statement. Please don't take it out of context.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but so long as the word "correspond" is carefully defined, this problem should not emerge.

Do you have an idea of how to go about forming such a definition?

Seems to me like it's stepping off into Wittgenstein country.