The only true statement I can make: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » The only true statement I can make » The only true statement I can make

The only true statement I can make

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

The only true statement I can make

truce_m3
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 04, 2003
Location: maryland
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 40

Posted 05/10/03 - 06:25 PM:	#1
To those who may believe are no absolutes, I make this statement: "That 'a' reality exists is an absolute fact." [both subjective and objective] Who can disprove this? Is the only absolutely factual statement of which I can think.

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 05/10/03 - 07:04 PM:	#2
Originally posted by truce_m3 To those who may believe are no absolutes, I make this statement: "That 'a' reality exists is an absolute fact." [both subjective and objective] Who can disprove this? Is the only absolutely factual statement of which I can think. ______________________________________ I can think of a lot of others: 2+2=4; George W. Bush is 43rd president of the United States; Paris is in France; Water is H20. Why aren't those absolutely true statements too? Or, I would just prefer to call them true, since I don't understand what "absoutely" adds except to indicate that the person who says them is sure they are true. Like an exclamation mark, maybe.

Brad
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 29, 2002
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 882

Posted 05/10/03 - 07:48 PM:	#3
Uh oh, someone's been reading Rand again.

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 05/10/03 - 08:02 PM:	#4
Originally posted by Brad Uh oh, someone's been reading Rand again. ____________________________________ I don't think I have ever read more than about four paragraphs of Rand. What did I write that makes you believe I did? But, if it is anything like what Rand said, I surely will have to re-think it. I guess I am trying to find out what people have in mind by "absolutes" or "absolute truths" and so on. Why isn't it that George W. Bush is the 43rd president an "absolute" or an "absolute truth?" Do you know?

yffer
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 02, 2003
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 482

Posted 05/10/03 - 09:12 PM:	#5
truce_m3 wrote: "That 'a' reality exists is an absolute fact." [both subjective and objective] You have to define ‘reality’, and ‘exists’ And how is it absolute? Is an illusion reality? If so, compared to what? If you claim that whatever you perceive is your ‘reality’, then it’s not absolute because it’s not everybody’s reality. Meaning, that reality is absolute cannot be proven. Jon1667 wrote: Why isn't it that George W. Bush is the 43rd president an "absolute" or an "absolute truth?" Do you know? There are probably hundreds of George W Bush’s and not all of them are the 43rd president. “Paris is in France.” There are individuals, towns, books, wines etc. named Paris who / that are not in France. “Water is H20” John Water is not H20. (well not entirely )

Brad
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 29, 2002
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 882

Posted 05/10/03 - 09:16 PM:	#6
Jon, Wasn't referring to your post, was referring to truce-m3. I agree with most of what you said. But I got it wrong anyway. Hmmm, maybe the John Galt name was too close and I combined the two threads unconsciously. Truce-m3, Sorry about that. On rereading, I think I see where you're going, but I have to ask, why would anyone want to refute that? Unless you have a particular description of reality in mind, I don't see the point. It says everything, so it says nothing.

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: Sacramentoish
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11794

Last Blog: Blog welcomes giant check in Happy Dry Spot

Posted 05/10/03 - 11:16 PM:	#7
I don't know of anyone who says no absolutes exist. If anyone says it, most likely they mean no absolutes are part of the objective state of affairs since they're all subjective. They would likely say this based on the Kantian/Wittgensteinean metaphysical framework... in which case the point would simply be that 'absolute' and 'relative' are concepts which our need to apply to everything indicates are part of how we interpret things and thus meaningless for things in themselves. Mostly, people will simply say that absolute truths don't exist. Myself, I'm willing to phrase it that way often because I feel it's a disgrace and insult to truth to call absolute things truths. Absolutes share the universal quality of being contentless. If something has no content it's not worth of the label 'truth' in philosophical terms... though it's perfectly fine for it to be used in math and formal logic. Every claim can be formulated as an absolute. Example: It is absolutely true that the Earth is flat relative to my stipulation that the definition of 'Earth' includes flatness as a neccesary condition. Must we dignify absolutes, when they're all so obviously meaningless? They serve only as structural points in our language which organize the things which do have meaning. For example, we say there is a universe so that we can start talking about the things within it. The universe label itself is just an arbitrary canvas the mind creates for the purpose of drawing the all the things which exist onto it. Truce_m3, if you can only make one true statement that's your problem due to your absurd and self-destructive epistemological premises (foundationalist absolutism). I can, of course, make countless true statements. The Earth is round. The sun is hot. I am making a post here right now. You're just being absurd if you want these things to be absolute, because if they were they would be meaningless.

Little_Timmy
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 08, 2003
Location: round on the ends, hi in the middle
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 103

Posted 05/11/03 - 10:16 AM:	#8
Paul, Other than pragmatism, is there a philosophical reason you have for rejecting foundational absolutism? Is truth something that can exist outside of the mind? Are you saying that the Sun exists and also demonstrates 'hotness' (which also exists), objectively; That a reality exists (perceived or not) that there is an object (Sun) and has qualities (hotness). Or are you saying that the statement "the sun is hot" is true within your own philosophical framework? truce, Assuming that the 'self' exists, and that the self can perceive (illusion/delusion or not), wouldn't the perception itself be a fact? I don't want to, nor could I, define 'exist' or 'fact' (or 'self' for that matter) so don't ask me to. maybe i should change my sig.. haphazardly, -LT

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 05/11/03 - 11:49 AM:	#9
Originally posted by yffer truce_m3 wrote: You have to define ‘reality’, and ‘exists’ And how is it absolute? Is an illusion reality? If so, compared to what? If you claim that whatever you perceive is your ‘reality’, then it’s not absolute because it’s not everybody’s reality. Meaning, that reality is absolute cannot be proven. Jon1667 wrote: There are probably hundreds of George W Bush’s and not all of them are the 43rd president. _________________________________ So your objection is that I am not specific enough. O.K. The George W. Bush who is president of the United States in 2003. and is the husband of Laura Bush. and so on. Is that really the point, that of saying that such a truth is not an absolute truth? I didn't know what the point was, but I did not think that was the point. So, according to you, if a truth is made specific enough then it is an absolute truth? Now why isn't what I have just said specific enough. And, if I set my mind to it, I suppose I could make the other statements specific enough. But is that really your point. It sounds a bit weak to me. There are individuals, towns, books, wines etc. named Paris who / that are not in France. I said that Paris is in France. It is also true that there is a city named "Paris" that is in France, but that is not what I claimed. John Water is not H20. (well not entirely ) _________________________________ Fine, then we'll get a chemist to give a more precise definition.

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 05/11/03 - 11:51 AM:	#10
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jon1667 [B]_________________________________ Fine, then we'll get a chemist to give a more precise definition. But, all right, have it your way. The absolute truth is that Water is H20 (partly) All right?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.