»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Truth and Reality
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Truth and Reality |
|
LoveBug
Moderator
Member Elite
since 2000-01-08
Posts 4697
|
"What is true in our minds IS true, even if other people don't know it" Is that statement true? My boyfriend believes that God is sort of like that.. people believe in Him, so He exists. If everyone stopped believing, He would cease to exist. I think it's, well, not like that at all, but I thought it would make an interesting topic!  God or anything... if it's true to one person, or to a million people, does that make it true?Oh, make me Thine forever |
||
| © Copyright 2004 Erica N. - All Rights Reserved | |||
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
I've never agreed with that idea, because it makes it seem to me like there's no distinction between percieved truth and absolute truth, which seems pretty stupid to me. Makes me think of Zarathustra's cry that God had been killed... not that He had literally been killed, but that nobody truly believed in Him anymore, and thus He was dead. If I wrote a word on a piece of paper and then burned it, and died, there would never be any way of knowing what was written on that piece of paper, but that wouldn't change the fact that it had happened, and that it was a certain word that had been written. Likewise things such as atomic structure have always existed regardless of whether or not there was anyone around to realize that was how it worked. We've had diseases for longer than we've been able to understand them, for example. Descartes had argued that, because God is by definition perfect, and it is more perfect to exist than not to exist, then He must exist by definition. Now doesn't that sound just a little silly to you? It does to me. How can something as sacred and mysterious as existence be found by nothing but bland logic? No more than this can belief or simple faith constitute existence. You can't deny that there are people who have faith in things non-existing. Hopefully you can see how the great mystery of all things forbids absolute truth from being a matter of mere belief... "God becomes as we are that we may be as he is." ~William Blake |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Careful, Brian. You're positing the existence of absolute truth without offering any support for its existence. If there is no such thing as absolute truth, your whole argument falls apart. |
||
|
LoveBug
Moderator
Member Elite
since 2000-01-08
Posts 4697 |
Nicely put, Brian. I also believe in Absolute Truth. Could you elaborate on how there may not be absolute truth, Ron? Oh, make me Thine forever |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
It's a great question. Unfortunately, I'm not completely sure I understand the next question. The first is correct. There is such a thing as absolutely true in time and place. I'm not sure, however, if the next part truly reflects the first question. Thoughts do not make the world happen, but they can make the world happen. |
||
|
LoveBug
Moderator
Member Elite
since 2000-01-08
Posts 4697 |
Are things true because they are true in the mind? Is that enough or not? Oh, make me Thine forever |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
No, but the interesting part is that your boyfriend, perhaps intuitively, understands that truth really is about a relationship, or interaction, between mind and world, reality and how we describe it. He's just got the causal relationship reversed. Things are true in the mind because they are true in reality. Say we walk down a mountain path and both of us see a cat. I say "That cat is true". This makes no sense (Unless of course we're talking about Puss 'n Boots and whether or not he's true to his word or his lover or whatever). If I say, "There's a cat over there," you might respond, "Yes, that's true," and that makes perfect sense. What's the difference? True things must always be in the form of a proposition or statement and in order to do that you require a language or mind. No language or mind, no true statements. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
The student of Derrida....  Eyes and hands.... (sorry for the sp last night... too hurried to go to bed... try these search words instead -- you know who you are )[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (08-02-2004 06:36 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Angels hold up the stars Is this true? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The most indispensable point in truth I believe is to acknowledge at least that everything exists. If one may fathom that then he shall be in the right orb and thew. Is a dragon nonexistant because he is not physically "here and now". Nope; He is simply elsewheres. Everything exists; we don't always refer to everything in the right places, times, and orders though. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Excerpt from Derrida's 'Differance' http://www.hydra.umn.edu/derrida/diff.html Do you see a martini? or bikini? http://www.janushead.org/JHFall98/rolsen.cfm |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
One of the paragraphs I wanted.. quote: http://www.janushead.org/JHFall98/rolsen.cfm |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
And ya gotta love this; quote:http://www.hydra.umn.edu/derrida/diff.html (what was the difference between Dierde and Derrida?) |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
LR, You realize I actually think that makes sense. As long as we take true to be the absolute presence that Derrida talks about, I think he's right, but we can also deflate it a bit and still, I think, retain all of the useful things that we reserve for that word. In a nutshell: "Frogs are green" is true if and only if frogs are green. The difference (without the a), I think, is best exemplified by 'really': "What is it?" "It's a green frog." "Yeah, but what is it really?" You ain't gonna get there because there's no there there. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: It's a fantastic start for this topic point though Brad. If you remember frog is as much an attribute as green. Or better still, frog, in this case is a marker (to use Derridan terminology), or a data point. Better still, in the instance of 'The frog is green', it's a key field to a record. In your statement, 'It's a green frog', frog becomes even more apparent as merely a field, an attribute of 'it'. But what is it? Really? Or what is the data a record of? What we prefer to think of as an it, a WHAT, a something, a noun, (and is in this case represented by the information we recognize as frog) is like all 'whats' better understood as an event. Or better said a culmination of events. It, is the culmination of events that we understand to have the attributes associated with a green frog, NOW. As opposed to the entire body of events that might be associated with being any other set of events at any other point in time. Or non-events. In time, if the what is associated with the set of events we recognize as a chameleon frog, what we recognize as a green frog may become a brown, or red frog. Or yet still a dead frog. Or topsoil. And, lest we forget HUP, it is the set of events that we understand to have the attributes associated with a green frog, now, that the sets of events known as we, are OBSERVING. But if there are two frogs, we would, obviously need to add another identifier that would in that context become the key field -- the green frog, the red frog, the big green frog, the little green frog -- And like smells in a room, that we might notice when we walk in, our senses become tired of them quickly -- that is to say our brain ignores the data when there is no differentiation or new data, and we don't 'smell' the smell anymore, but it doesn't mean the smell isn't there... but with no further need to differentiate the data sets as green or frog -- big and little become sufficient... or if there were ten green frogs we may even resort to proper names -- Fred, Ethel, Ricky, Lucy, Little Ricky...Kermit. None of which is possible without first having assembled the data, or paradigm, 'frog'. Without the abstraction we cannot recognize Kermit IS a green frog, let alone that he is KERMIT the green frog. Now. But since WE are observing Kermit there are really two Kermits, KERMIT/Hawke, KERMIT/Brad. And since all events exist in time and have a beginning and end the culmination of events we associate with Kermit will indeed end, and with the end of events known as we the specific abstractions of Kermit also end -- without ever really understanding the culmination of events KERMIT/n (the abstraction) represented. We may tell people of Kermit and they may have their own abstraction of frog, and Kermit the green frog -- but with our demise KERMIT/Hawke, KERMIT/Brad is gone. quote: So, within our own langscape we can 'know' that this specific statement IS 'true'; The culmination of events under observation right now match the data sets retained by Brad and Hawke that define the attributes frog, green, and Kermit and having done so satisfy the greater abstraction of KERMIT/n. Does anyone begin to see why in Hebrew thought God could have no name but only be described as the great 'I Am'? Is the aversion to idolatry equally understood? Even 'I Am' is somewhat lost in the English langscape because ours is a syntax driven language where Hebrew is given equally to morphology. Naming God, even the word God, eventizes the IS. IS is IS and not was or yet. Therefore it could only be written YHWH -- not even a word -- but the acronym of the words, because even in word an abstraction is formed -- an idol becomes erected in the mind. (By word all (abstractions) are created.) God becomes a 'What', and not, IS. The WHAT of God does exist -- as abstraction -- as people alter the WHAT then THAT God may cease to particularly exist. It is the ISNESS of God that IS but, is not -- 'there'. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Yep. And the reason we know that we know this is precisely because we agree on a point, "green frog" that's outside (distal object) and maintain two views from different points in the world. Triangulation. More later, |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Sounds like fun.. I'll be around. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
 It is a frog. But it's not green. But it IS a frog. So if I'm picking this up right, it all relies on how specific one wants to be with what IS, in order to avoid confusion. Right? |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Sometimes I post things that I know are true....Ron deletes them....does that mean since they're gone they weren't true?...Does that mean if Ron didn't delete them and everyone didn't believe what I wrote I'd be dead?...Sometimes I wake up the next day, see my post gone..and wonder if I really posted one?....I'm not sure if I posted this?...Did I?..who the hell's posting under my name?...Just go ahead and delete this Ron.... |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Why does he delete them? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Not specifically  'It', isn't a frog. But it isn't NOT a frog. Frog simply doesn't encompass 'It'. 'Frog' is a metaphor. 'Green' is a metaphor. They both are used to communicate the information contained in the concept of green and frog. You understand what I mean when I say 'frog'. But not completely. Which is Brad's next point. Did you see a bikini? Or a martini? If I saw one, and you saw the other... which one of us is correct? Are either of us correct? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Bah humbug? It has been slightly less than 500 years since Nicolaus Copernicus self-published his hand-written book, Little Commentary (1514). For thousands of years prior to Copernicus (and actually for a whole lot of years after), pretty much everyone believed the universe revolved around the Earth. The ego of mankind is no small thing. Reality doesn't revolve around man, nor would it suddenly cease to exist in the absence of man. There might not be anyone around to talk about it, but truth would survive human hubris. Egocentricity isn't new and probably isn't avoidable, but I don't see a lot of value in steeping ourselves in it, either. It's not a gateway, it's just a limitation of perception. quote: Because sometimes Toe confuses humor with shock value. I've heard enough crude jokes about sex and drugs to last a lifetime already. They stopped being funny a long time ago. Quite unlike Derrida, who is still worth a small chuckle here and there. |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Boy, it's easy to confuse you Ron....Actually Essorant, it's because I do, (and admit it)...write some things that I probably shouldn't...but, I try to bring a tad of humor to an all too sad world..seems to me the world could use some humor...maybe I can't bring that to everyone..obviously not Ron...but to some I think...at least the emails I receive from many of the folks here at Ron's wonderful site thanking me for being silly make me believe so?....I have no ill feelings about being deleted here and there...I understand why they're deleted, and, my post above was not a "jab" at Ron for deleting...it was cutting myself for being the Toerag that I am..(small chuckle).... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ron, Truth is a dimension of assessment. It is not reality, it is a way of judging our statements about reality. Certainly, I don't believe that Uri Gellar can bend spoons with his mind (telekinesis) anymore than you do, but I don't deny that he does bend spoons and that his mind does have some factor to play there -- that he's consciously fraudulent for example. So while I think I understand the gist of your statement, I think technically its wrong. The mind does indeed influence reality because it is a part of that reality just as reality influences the mind -- or would you deny that as well. This is both trivially true and goes to the heart of the complaints against the Myth of the Given. The Myth of the Given is the belief that the world is simply there and it's the job of the mind or consiousness to describe it as exactly as possible. Where do you begin doing that if you aren't there (this is the trivial part -- and it's easy to think about horses and rocks and things by using counter-factuals, "If I were there, I would see. . .), and where do you begin if you have no point from which to start? No mind, no starting point. No starting point, no description. No desciption, no truth. Which gets us into the whole problem of absolute presence. Rebel makes the point that I will never know completely, absolutely, his thought of the frog. This is true. But differance comes into play the moment any particular proposition or thought is born in one's own mind as well. So does he know completely, absolutely what he means by 'frog'? And before that, of course, he had no thought of it at all. And this turns out to be a very good survival trick if I'm understanding some of my (extremely quick) reading of how are brains are wired. If you picture a frog in your brain, do you see it as green (I do.). Look at Sunshine's picture, is there anyone here who would deny that it's not a frog? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Human hubris? Certainly. Cogito ergo sum. Now that's ego-centric! (made in the image of.. who? dominion over all the what?) Western culture isn't just steeped in egocentrism -- it's cast in it. All (human) perception is limited. That's the whole point. The conditional 'Truth is a dimension of assessment. It is not reality, it is a way of judging our statements about reality.' could be more quickly said -- if a tree falls in the forest -- the impact, the acoustic vibrations --EXIST -- but sound does not unless there is an ear to hear and a mind to interpret. But, if there is a tree frog on the tree??  quote: Certainly. Frog, it's um, yeah... what was it I was going to say? (And unfortunately I CAN say that Sunshine's Frog is a Red X...  ) Kermit is a muppet. Kermit is a frog. Kermit is a photograph, movie, electronic image. Kermit can be a lot of things. Frog can be a lot of things -- in context -- we know what each of us means when we say frog -- so long as we understand that what we perceive of an event is merely the portion of the iceberg that extends above the waterline and is the side that is exposed to our view. Certainty becomes a kind of operative ignorance. We don't need to say 'that event has frogness'. It is sufficient for everyday functioning to say -- it's a frog. Unless it has toadness. How do you know a blackbird isn't red on the other side? |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote: So if a tree falls in the forest and only ONE person is there to hear it, we should still doubt whether it made a sound? When others or their perceptions (by which you are saying we verify reality) are also filtered exclusively through our senses, how is a group "knowledge" any less suspect than that of an individual? quote: But it's always been our tacit assumption that what we experience through our senses is a representation of the real. When we have to commit epistemological suicide just to establish that there's no way of knowing for sure, we've made a serious mistake I think. And who ever said that there is no mind over and above real "reality"? In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. This describles a real reality independent of human knowledge. Stephen |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: No, the tacit assumption is that when you see a frog, you see a frog, not a representation of that frog. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
So you guys contend that the very definition of both truth and sound depend upon human perception? In the absence of human presence, the frog simply ceases to exist? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Nope. The frog will be what IT is (until it is not). 'Frog' exists independently from 'it'. If (objective) Reality ceases to exist then Truth goes with it (since we're a part of objective reality). Not the other way around. But if we go -- Truth ('Frog') goes too. Whatever else that is left still exists. If that includes a sentient species that can perceive and conceive -- then Truth is there. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
So, truth only exists in the presence of sentience? Isn't that unnecessarily limiting? If a jet hits mach 2 thirty feet over my house and no one is around to hear the sonic boom, will that save me from buying all new windows? Do all non-concrete language constructs, such as pride and peace and beauty, disappear with truth and sound? WHY? What does this buy us? (Are there no declarative sentences in this whole darn post? ) |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
If a statement is true, it is absolutely true (given the conditions of a linguascape to use LR's nifty term) so I don't understand the question. Of course, the frog would exist even if you weren't there. Why bring it up? Again, you can't apply true to things other than propositions: "The volcano is true" makes no sense. "That the volcano exists is true" does. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"The volcano is real" makes sense. Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Sure it does. It can also be true, it can also be false. Real and true aren't synonyms. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: And yet, when our senses fail us, we seldom have thought the reality affected. Blurry eyes don't mean blurry frogs. A distinction between our sensory data and the real object is a natural one to make. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Again, why so limiting? The dictionary entry for truth seems to be a bit more flexible. Einstein's equations were true thousands of years before man surfaced in this universe, and they will still be true long after man has ceased to ponder semantic gymnastics. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Limiting? Liberating is the better word. By putting agency in the definition of truth it is both more accurate and more honest than pretending that either we can see the world as if we don't exist or that even if we do exist, we are somehow cut off. We live in the world. Deal with it. [This message has been edited by Brad (08-10-2004 10:55 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: All of these are completely consistent with our declarative statements Ron Truth is a metric like any other -- be it a dimensional metric like inches or millimeters, or any other. It is a constituent of our langscape that attempts to describe the universe... but moreover attempts to assign a qualitative value to our other metrics. It is a metric of our metrics. All five of the above definitions show Truth to be a measurement. In Erica's juxtaposition of belief (that which one holds to be the truth) between objective reality and God we're simply showing that switching yardsticks doesn't change reality -- it merely changes how we perceive reality. The existence of God is not in jeopardy as a matter of our reasoning. Is is IS. quote: http://www.ouc.bc.ca/fina/glossary/l_list.html |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I disagree, Brad. By putting agency into the definition of a word, we limit our use of the word to only perspectives that include agency. We NEED to be able to pretend we can see the world as if we don't exist. We need to be able to talk about that perspective, too, and we can't do that if we let you redefine our language. Acknowledgement of our boundaries is fine, but shouldn't be purposely hard-wired into our tools. quote: Truth is indeed a metric, Reb, but not like any other. We define inches and millimeters, and can redefine them should something better present itself. We don't define truth, however, so much as we refine it. We don't invent truth, so much as we discover better and more useful approximations of truth. Yes, conceptions of the world alter perceptions of the world, but that is a prison we should be trying to escape, not a lover we should be seeking to embrace. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: We live in the world. Deal with it. Contrast "We live in the world" with "We are the world". It seems to me that your above statement presupposes an objective world in which we may live. Or to put it another way, if we live in it, it must be possible not to live in it. But how is "it" so dependent upon us? Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Truth is to true As strength is to strong As width is to wide And length is to long |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
My suspicion is that we couldn't squeeze a cigarette paper between our positions on this. But since it's civil, entertaining, and approaching the boundaries of a learn/learn thread instead of a win/lose -- let's go ahead and split frog hairs. If you look at the paragraph I wrote (instead of parsing the first sentence of it); quote: you see that I draw the distinction that truth is like other metrics because it, like others, attempts to describe the universe. It is different because it becomes the measurement of our other metrics. So we do agree that it is unlike the others. The board is six feet long. A tape measure, produced in accordance with the standard of inches and feet maintained at the ANSI lab, will confirm whether or not that statement is true. Truth, in this case, is a measurement of an arbitrary unit of lineal measure. If the board was placed on a coordinate-measuring machine we could, within a few thousandths of an inch, determine HOW true the statement is. The board is 5 feet 11.9505 inches. Close enough to true, or not? It would depend upon the application. quote: This statement co-mingles the measurement with the measured. We don't dictate objective reality -- we attempt to describe it. Truth represents the body of knowledge we've gained through the observation of objective reality. So, it is certainly my belief also that we discover what is true -- but that is a judgment we make. Jesus can tell a parable that has no basis in fact -- but it can tell us the truth nevertheless. There need not have been an actual man who fell into the hands of robbers, or an actual Samaritan to help him for us to see the 'truth' that racial and religious bigotry are wrong, or for his contemporaries to see that he was slapping the Temple Priests in the face for all their ceremonial cleanliness and elevated walkways that kept them away from the people. Truth is not a measure of the facticity of the story, but whether or not it is true that the Temple Priests don't have their heads or hearts in the right place. The preists would have made a different judgement. quote: Here again -- it's hard to tell the difference in what's being said. If we're going to look at the universe without bias we have to have the perspicacity to recognize that we have one while we're ignoring it. We don't like to concede that ours is merely 'a' langscape instead of 'truth'. The hard part is attempting to think outside our langscape. Something very few have accomplished. quote: Again -- I think I agree with this statement -- at least the first two-thirds -- but since I have no inkling what the locus is for the final phrase I'll have to reserve judgement for now. quote: We're more dependent on 'it' than it is on us. But it is an interstitial relationship. Hence my comment 'eyes and hands'.. we perceive the universe (eyes) we effect the universe (hands). What we think determines what we do with our hands. Thanks Erica and guys et al for the thread. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Stephan, I've never suggested otherwise. Ron, I'm not arbitrarily redefining a word, I'm trying to convey what many philosophers have said about truth. I don't know, maybe I've been a little sloppy, but in a nutshell, Davidson's deflates the notion of truth (I've quoted him before in different threads) to roughly what I've been trying to say here. Derrida, at least when he was deconstructing things -- he doesn't really do that anymore -- shows that a more ambitious use of 'truth' always falls apart under any sustained scrutiny. But, honestly, I don't know what the cash value is of maintaining the convenient fiction you describe. It seems the same results occur if we go with honest (truthful) observation combined with triangulation. The upside is that we get away from the dualism of mind and world. And that idea, as far as I can tell, leads to the kind of egotism you're talking about. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
I don’t have much difficulty accepting most of what Brad and Hawke have written. One of Derrida’s (and other neo-Sophists’) greatest contributions to rhetoric seems to be the debunking of the notion that man can grasp and communicate absolute truth. Davidson’s triangulation (inasmuch as I understand it, at any rate) seems to be a sensible means to verifying the relative objectivity of facts – but his approach, in essence anyway – seems to be a very old one (if, that is, the similarities I see between Davidson’s approach and Anglo-American legal reasoning are more than coincidental). Fewer problems arise when we attempt to ascertain the truth of observable facts (like the green frog) than when we ascribe value to the green frog (i.e., the green frog is good, the green frog is bad). Perhaps the green frog is of the a very rare, highly poisonous South American variety – to a scientist, discovering the frog may be “good.” To the same scientist, discovering the same frog sharing his sleeping bag may be “bad.” It would seem that absolute truth would have to be either propositional or revealed by a Being with absolute knowledge. In either case, our understanding or application of such proposed or revealed absolute truths would (and should) be subject to rigorous tests, with the understanding that successive tests would only afford us with successive approximations of the absolute truths we seek to understand. This doesn't necessarily mean the truth is any less absolute, only that our understanding of it will invariably fall short of being absolute. The practical problems with this limitation is that we may find ourselves in the same boat as Oedipus – had we just had the one or two missing pieces of the puzzle that would have made our decisions “truly” informed, we might have avoided making those tragic decisions. Interesting thread, folks. I’ve enjoyed following it. Jim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Thanks Jim. You reminded me to bring up the distinction between absolute truth (true anywhere and everywhere regardless of situation) and absolutely true (if the situation is true, true anywhere and everywhere). Why do I think I'm going to have to explain that better? One of the most intriguing things, for me anyway, is that value judgements can also be assigned an objective designation. As long as we're clear about our definitions, "frogs are good" can be objective or to be a little clearer: "The Nazi actions were evil." Now, I don't know what to do with that statement if we define evil as in league with the devil, but if we define the murder of people for the sole reason or religion or race, then it is an objective statement. The usual argument against such things is that you can't convince a Nazi that what they did was evil. But that's because they would disagree with the definition of evil, not because the statement is objective or subjective. Or, alternatively, they might argue that that is, in fact, not what they did, but that it was Jews, gypsies, homosexual, communists that were hurting them -- and that their acts were justified. In the former case, we have no communication. In the latter case, we have your Oedipal problem. But there is in fact no philosophical problem to accepting the idea that moral judgements can be objective. It's just our problem. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote: You meant "of" religion or race right? I wonder though, how we can define evil at all without making reference to some kind of over arching standard. If we can't do that, then the Third Reich was guilty of no more than upholding the interests of it's own regime, and the percieved "good" that it imagined. Atrocities can be justified as simply a pro-active and prophyllactic kind of self defense. But where do we get the concept of "injustice" without reference to something more than human subjectivism? Somewhere along the way, we have to look at motives and actions (preferably our own first) and ask whether they are just or unjust, evil or good. If we define "murder", to use your example, as bad merely because it harms the propagation of the human race, then I would ask whether the value of progeny is the a priori moral value you have finally appealed to. It seems that in escaping one assumed traditional ethic (such as "murder is wrong"), we always end up appealing to another one anyway, (such as "you should always value life, or the survival of the human race"). Lewis put it this way... quote: Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, I think there is an overarching standard, but it's birth is not outside or inside us. It takes place as we interact. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Then what is meant by "overarching"? Saying that "it takes place" is purely descriptive, not prescriptive. Differing values, and what justifies them or villifies them, can't be talked of strictly in that category. Stephen |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
