Debate 3 Discussion: Whether there exists absolute truth: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate 3 Discussion: Whether there exists absolute truth » Debate 3 Discussion: Whether there exists absolute truth

Debate 3 Discussion: Whether there exists absolute truth

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Debate 3 Discussion: Whether there exists absolute truth

flatliner
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1766

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 06/03/04 - 08:57 PM:	#11
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: Perhaps it is a lie, but what logical deduction isn't? However the whole of my posts addressed to socrastein was an attempt to show this logical deduction, in one way or another. The only one I wish to present is "logic/knowldge/reason" and all faculties are simply the way they are for preservation. They have not been developed for the goal of absolute truth(as if it existed), but for the preservation of our species. I've lost my shouts for the day, but you're welcome for commenting. It's my pleasure. I see you're more sophisticated than i had hoped. And perhaps this is neitzsche himself i am speaking to. It seems that your claim has underlying it the idea that since there never was anything aptly called truth, to demand that a premise must be true in the stong sense (the sense in which myself and socrastein understand it) is to miss the point. Since it is the case that logic has been built on lies, a premise must only be a certain kind of lie, a kind of lie we would misguidedly like to call a truth, and your premise from which you derive the conclusion all truths are relative must only be a truth in this lying way. My worry is this (and i think neitzsche believes this): if all we mean by 'truth' is this special kind of lie we can construct arguments on, then there is truth in that sense. And when you deny there is truth, you don't deny that there is what we actually mean by 'truth', you deny what we think we mean. But now we have to take what we think we mean by 'lie' down a notch from where we thought it was such that it is something we can't constuct arguments on. But this process now looks meaningless. We have lie1 (what we call truths) which we can construct arguments on and lie2 (what we call lie) which we can't construct arguments on. What have we lost? The penny we thought was shiney and useful is shown to be worn but useful, and the penny we thought was worn and useless is shown to be what? faceless and useless? more later.
What is this, a school for ants?! http://www.specialdefects.com/v1/embed/heart_preloader.html

RandomPrecision
Divisible by 3

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Elsewhere
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1383

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 06/05/04 - 12:20 PM:	#12
Hmm. I haven't been on the forums for a while, and missed this debate, but I didn't think there really could be an argument against absolute truth. Consider: There is either absolute truth, or there is no absolute truth. The latter is self-contradicting, and the first disjunct is therefore true. TSZ wrote: Oh but that isn't an absolute truth, simply a logical deduction. Does that mean that the statement "There is no absolute truth" is sometimes false, because it is not an absolute truth in itself? TSZ wrote: Perhaps it is a lie, but what logical deduction isn't? A=A is a logical deduction that isn't a lie. If A=B and A=C, B=C wouldn't be a lie. It is not necessary for logical deductions to be lies. flatliner wrote: And perhaps this is neitzsche himself i am speaking to...My worry is this (and i think neitzsche believes this)... Nietzsche certainly isn't on these forums, and he doesn't currently believe anything. He's too busy being dead. ThusSpokeZarathustra, it seems to me that your argument is circular. You assert there is no absolute truth, therefore all logic is based on relative truth, and therefore, there is no absolute truth. It seems to me that some subjective truths are relative. For example, I view the philosophy forums with the "dark" theme. Is this not an absolute truth? Anyway, it was a good debate, until the end, in my opinion. ThusSpokeZarathustra, I don't feel that you sufficiently proved that all logical assertions are "tricks" that you needed to be sarcastic in reasserting yourself. TSZ wrote: You act as if there are logical proofs which aren't tricks Additionally, your four quotations about "intellectual dishonesty" seem to be the bastard children of ad hominem attacks and non sequitur conclusions. The first was an assertion that Socrastein would demonstrate an absolute truth, and the second was an addition to it, after you found the first to be unsatisfactory. The third quotation asserted that the cogito ergo sum argument was not an example of absolute truth with which he would argue, and the fourth quotation asserted that the cogito argument was tautological. Truth and tautology are not the same thing. In your final attack against absolute truth, I would be curious as to how you came to the conclusion you state in A. If you define absolute truth as existing in worlds that don't exist, it clearly cannot exist, but I don't feel that is a commonly accepted part of the definition of absolute truth. I don't understand what you are trying to state in B. As for trying to use the law of the excluded middle to disprove absolute truth, that law is typically considered an absolute truth. How can you disprove absolute truth by using one as a premise? Furthermore, by your misnaming it, compounded with the non sequitur conclusion that there is no absolute truth because absolute truth would require reality, I doubt that you know what the law of excluded middle is. The ending, about how there is no real world, and there is therefore NOTHING doesn't follow at all.

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2181

Posted 06/05/04 - 01:54 PM:	#13
Thank you for your, as always, intelligent and analytical feedback. It's great hearing input and observations from various other sources. Nice to see you posting too, it has been to long since I've seen from you
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 06/06/04 - 04:05 PM:	#14
RandomPrecision Does that mean that the statement "There is no absolute truth" is sometimes false, because it is not an absolute truth in itself? All it means is that it is no more, or no less, "true" than any other logically deduced statement. The notion of true and false should not enter into the description of logics acheivments. Logic is not a path to the truth, the fundamental error of logic, is that it thinks it can acheive truth. But in all reality it can at best acheive consistancy, and logical understandings. A=A is a logical deduction that isn't a lie. If A=B and A=C, B=C wouldn't be a lie. It is not necessary for logical deductions to be lies. You assume that logical analysis must be true, in an attempt to say that it isn't a lie? That is not a way for proving the truth of logic, it is simply a way of showing how effective logic is as organizing human thought. Anyway A=A supposes that there are two events exactly the same, which is a fundamental error. The foundation of A=A is a falsity. Or at best tautology. ThusSpokeZarathustra, it seems to me that your argument is circular. You assert there is no absolute truth, therefore all logic is based on relative truth, and therefore, there is no absolute truth. No, my argument is that logical analysis is the result of preservation, and should not be seen as a path to absolute truth. Concequently any logical truth that we achieve cannot be considered absolute truth, without the implementation of metaphysical hypothesis. It seems to me that some subjective truths are relative. For example, I view the philosophy forums with the "dark" theme. Is this not an absolute truth? Logic and experience tell you that you view philosophy forums as dark(I prefer light, dark hurts my eyes), and as asserted at the beginning experience is not a way to absolute truth, and neither is logic. The whole notion of an absolute truth supposes an absolute reality, which is nothing more than opinion. ThusSpokeZarathustra, I don't feel that you sufficiently proved that all logical assertions are "tricks" that you needed to be sarcastic in reasserting yourself. Agreed, and I am sorry if I upset you, but the sarcasm kept me sane while I wrote that post. I love sarcasm, and I will continue to use it whenever I see fit. Additionally, your four quotations about "intellectual dishonesty" seem to be the bastard children of ad hominem attacks and non sequitur conclusions. Absolutely. The third quotation asserted that the cogito ergo sum argument was not an example of absolute truth with which he would argue, and the fourth quotation asserted that the cogito argument was tautological. Truth and tautology are not the same thing. I think you looked to deep. The third showed his admitance that he would not use cogito, and the fourth showed him using it. But enough of this, as I'm having to "knock" socrastein to explain this to you. That is something I do not wish to do. In your final attack against absolute truth, I would be curious as to how you came to the conclusion you state in A. If you define absolute truth as existing in worlds that don't exist, it clearly cannot exist, but I don't feel that is a commonly accepted part of the definition of absolute truth. Perhaps not, did you read all the stuff about "absolute being" which requires and "absolute reality" which is the "absolute world" that I was speaking of. I don't understand what you are trying to state in B. As for trying to use the law of the excluded middle to disprove absolute truth, that law is typically considered an absolute truth. Logical tautology, not absolute truth. How can you disprove absolute truth by using one as a premise? Furthermore, by your misnaming it, compounded with the non sequitur conclusion that there is no absolute truth because absolute truth would require reality, I doubt that you know what the law of excluded middle is. I undoubtedly have never studied it, but I did do a little research on it during the debate. I think a little research is all you need to understand it. Your assumption that it is absolute truth should not be used as an attack against me, or me misunderstanding it. Neither should me misnaming it have anything to do with anything but ad hominem. You may doubt that I know what law of middle exclusion is all you want, but what you presented as argument for saying that is not sufficient. The ending, about how there is no real world, and there is therefore NOTHING doesn't follow at all. If you have a problem with my logic, I would be happy to explain fully. But saying "it doens't follow" gives me little to work with. Thank you for your input, it is appreciated more than you could know.

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 06/06/04 - 04:21 PM:	#15
flatliner wrote: What have we lost? The penny we thought was shiney and useful is shown to be worn but useful, and the penny we thought was worn and useless is shown to be what? faceless and useless? the only different between lie1 and lie2 is the "utility" for humans. Unfortunetely we have the crazy idea that human necessity corresponds with truth.

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 2181

Posted 06/07/04 - 01:45 AM:	#16
I think we need a clear and concise definition of Absolute Truth, in your opinion, TSZ.
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

Posted 06/07/04 - 12:04 PM:	#17
Socrastein wrote: I think we need a clear and concise definition of Absolute Truth, in your opinion, TSZ. A concise definition of something that supposes so much is not possible. It is a concept designed to justify human understanding of our world. It supposes that there is "truth" independent of human understanding, which seems to be fundamentally flawed. It also supposes that this truth exists absolutely, in an absolute reality of sorts, which is another fundamental flaw. The fact that it supposes truth as anything more than logical preservation creates probelms too. "Absolute truth" seeks to create reality, and justify human belief. Before we can define absolute truth, we would first need to define truth.

flatliner
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1766

Posted 06/07/04 - 09:39 PM:	#18
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: the only different between lie1 and lie2 is the "utility" for humans. Unfortunetely we have the crazy idea that human necessity corresponds with truth. Is that true?
What is this, a school for ants?! http://www.specialdefects.com/v1/embed/heart_preloader.html

RandomPrecision
Divisible by 3

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Elsewhere
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1383

Posted 06/08/04 - 09:35 AM:	#19
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: A concise definition of something that supposes so much is not possible. Then how can you disprove it? Also, is that an absolute truth?

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

Posted 06/09/04 - 09:12 PM:	#20
RandomPrecision wrote: Then how can you disprove it? Knowing a consice definition of a concept has nothing to do with weather or not it is provable or disprovable. Also, is that an absolute truth? No, just me avoiding having to define something that I don't want to define.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.