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

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 05/30/04 - 07:28 PM:	#1
A third debate is born. Whether there exists absolute truth. Now, since there are many members new to the forums since the creation of Debates, I'll mention that anyone who hasn't yet done so, and feels the desire to post anywhere in the Debates forum, should peruse the Debate Forum Paramters. This thread is for the discussion of that debate and issues related to the debate. Thanks.

Curt Monash
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Location: Boston area
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 1268

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/31/04 - 02:23 AM:	#2
I would like to respectfully suggest that both sides are full of it. First of all, "something exists" certainly sounds like an absolute truth. There's one little problem, however -- what does it mean? If it has no meaning, then it can not be true. And it would be difficult to explain its meaning clearly while leaving the statement as self-evidently true as it initially appears to be. On the other hand, the argument that mathematical truths are relative seems even sloppier to me. Giving different expressions for the same real number is not the same as giving different real numbers. The statement "5 + 7 = 12" may or may not be self-evident, depending on the precise meaning envisioned. But the statement "5+7=12 if the Peano Postulates hold and the common meanings are assigned to all terms" seems, indeed, to be an absolute truth. Now, it might seem that I am being inconsistent, accusing "something exists" of lacking meaning unless clearly defined, while assuming that "5" has a a common, precise meaning. But I'll stand by both halves of that, and not admit to a contradiction until somebody proves one.
www.monash.com

dreamweaver
Web we Weave

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 29, 2003
Location: London, UK
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2038

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/31/04 - 05:01 AM:	#3
The debate looks promising to me; both sides are backing up their points. However, I'm not all that sure on the definition of "absolute truth". In the debate it was defined as something that was "irrefutable". I'd say that a lot of things are irrefutable; sure, one cannot doubt their own existence since they have to acknowledge it, but someone can easily doubt one other's existence. That's because we're forced into it, we necessarily assume an axiom. On another note, what is the problem with the absolute, "there is an absolute truth". Surely, since the contradictory leads to an absurdity, we have a sufficient reason to prefer it. And, what about simplistic statements such as A=A? It's both analytic and tautological. Tautologies are certainly irrefutable, are they not? I agree that "something" needs a clearer definition. What is a thing? Must it be something physical? I know several people who doubt that the Universe has any physical reality; Libertarian comes to mind. For those interested, I remember reading an interesting article on nothingness; it also tackles the presupposition of "nothing exists". [fixed typo]
Dos moi pou sto kai kino taen gaen. ~ Archimedes

Curt Monash
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Location: Boston area
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 1268

Posted 05/31/04 - 05:27 AM:	#4
Well, "irrefutable" is a lousy standard for absolute truth. "Meaningful and irrefutable" might be OK, but without that codicil it's kind of stupid.
www.monash.com

flatliner
banned

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

Posted 06/03/04 - 06:02 PM:	#5
I don;t know where i am, but concerning the debate with socrastein and other guy, i am curious as to why a debate about whether there exists absolute truth has turned on a question about what can be known. Also, Socrastein vanquished the guy who claimed 'there is no absolute truth, all truths are relative' when he said 'that is an absolute truth. you can't use an absolute truth to claim there are no absolute truths'. Clearly, this debate is over, and the other guy should throw in the towel. Concerning the starting point, whoever it was who picked to argue for absolute truth clearly had the advantage. thank you.
What is this, a school for ants?! http://www.specialdefects.com/v1/embed/heart_preloader.html

flatliner
banned

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

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 06/03/04 - 06:08 PM:	#6
if I had been opposing you socrastein, that confusion between metaphysics and epistemology would have cost you.
What is this, a school for ants?! http://www.specialdefects.com/v1/embed/heart_preloader.html

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 - 07:12 PM:	#7
ThusSapkeZar wrote: as we can see this "real world" does not exist How can we see this if the world doesn't exist!?
What is this, a school for ants?! http://www.specialdefects.com/v1/embed/heart_preloader.html

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

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

Posted 06/03/04 - 07:22 PM:	#8
flatliner wrote: 'there is no absolute truth, all truths are relative' when he said 'that is an absolute truth. you can't use an absolute truth to claim there are no absolute truths'. Oh but that isn't an absolute truth, simply a logical deduction. I had already forwarded my opinion about logic not being able to depect the absolute. So my statement does not beg to be absolute, only appears to be. How can we see this if the world doesn't exist!? Simply a figure of speech. "As you can logically deduce". Am I allowed to talk in the discussion now that the debate is over? Or am I breaking the rules?

flatliner
banned

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

Posted 06/03/04 - 07:33 PM:	#9
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: Oh but that isn't an absolute truth, simply a logical deduction. I had already forwarded my opinion about logic not being able to depect the absolute. So my statement does not beg to be absolute, only appears to be. Then what bite do you intend it to have? And what is it a logical deduction from? Deduced from what? a lie? Then the premise is unsound! If you can stand behind a conclusion derived from an unsound premise and still hold your head high, you either have no idea what you're doing with logic, or we don't mean the same thing by 'logic'. If it is the latter, which i think it is, what sense am I to make of your claim that it is a logical deduction? We need here a list of rules for how your logic is done. And if you can give such a list, then aren't those at least true of how your logic is done? ThusSpake wrote: AmI allowed to talk in the discussion now that the debate is over? Or am I breaking the rules? I don't think it is breaking the rules. That list is long. I'll get my lawyer.
What is this, a school for ants?! http://www.specialdefects.com/v1/embed/heart_preloader.html

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

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

Posted 06/03/04 - 07:40 PM:	#10
Dang, I thought I could handle this without breaking it up into soundbites, oh well. flatliner wrote: Then what bite do you intend it to have? One that is exactly equal to the bite of all other logically contrived statements. And what is it a logical deduction from? Read the debate. Deduced from what? a lie? Then the premise is unsound! If you can stand behind a conclusion derived from an unsound premise and still hold your head high, you either have no idea what you're doing with logic, or we don't mean the same thing by 'logic'. If it is the latter, which i think it is, what sense am I to make of your claim that it is a logical deduction? We need here a list of rules for how your logic is done. And if you can give such a list, then aren't those at least true of how your logic is done? 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.

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

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.