Absolute Truth?

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Absolute Truth?

I think that as far as human psychology goes, one of the things that you can assume with a fair amount of evidence is that an absolute truth is most if not all of human actions thoughts and behavior is specifically geared for the attainment of happiness, whether it is for your own happiness or for someone elses (which in turn generally makes the person happy themselves to see others happy as a result of their actions)

So in such an example, yes, there are absolute truths. However there is not ONE absolute truth.

[devonin]

Re: Absolute Truth?

So in such an example, yes, there are absolute truths. However there is not ONE absolute truth.

Could you not then say that Absolute Truth is simply the compilation of all of those smaller absolute truths you are willing to say exist?

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Absolute Truth?

Well sure, but then you would be right back saying that it is an absolute truth that there are a bunch of small subcategory truths.

[Revolversaid]

Re: Absolute Truth?

If you cannot find the truth right where you are, where else do you expect to find it? - Dogen.

Absolute truth is also when 1 + 1 = 2. Nothing can ever make 1 + 1 = 3.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Absolute Truth?

I'm pretty sure an alternate base value can. There is common consent on the semantic value of "1", and given that value 1 + 1 = 2, but it doesn't inherently have to equal 2.

[devonin]

Re: Absolute Truth?

Though to that I'd say that there's also common consent on the semantic value of 2, and given that value 1+1=2

It is the case though, that 1+1=2 gets used as the standard "see, some things are just true" example so often that it becomes really tempting to point out the semantic quibble that makes it not so, but you could just as easily substitute anything tautological. However, I'd still say that these are truths not Truths. It is pretty difficult to actually point to a capital T truth without appeals either to an outside influence in the creation of the universe, or pointing to things that to us seem to be unequivocably true but that we can't necessarily state are absolutely true in all cases (ie. Just because nothing seems able to violate the second law of thermodynamics doesn't mean nothing ever can, necessarily.)

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Absolute Truth?

but you could just as easily substitute anything tautological.

1+1=2 is not tautological. Not formally, at least.

However, I'd still say that these are truths not Truths. It is pretty difficult to actually point to a capital T truth without appeals either to an outside influence in the creation of the universe, or pointing to things that to us seem to be unequivocably true but that we can't necessarily state are absolutely true in all cases (ie. Just because nothing seems able to violate the second law of thermodynamics doesn't mean nothing ever can, necessarily.)

There isn't actually a problem with the second. If a refutation presents itself, then it presents itself. Potential falsification is what enables us to be confident things are true, to say "this might be false therefore there is no such thing as Truth" makes no sense.

[devonin]

Re: Absolute Truth?

Except that I'm not saying "this might be false therefore there is no such thing as Truth" I'm saying "Whether there is Truth or not, the inherant possibility that things we've seen to be true in all cases so far might not turn out to be true in -all- cases means that we will basically never be able to identify a Truth even if we're very sure we have one."

And no 1+1=2 isn't tautological, but if you wanted to use a different example of a "universally true" statement, anything tautological would serve.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Absolute Truth?

Of course we can identify truths. We might not correctly identify them, but that's beside the point. If we identify something as true, we identify ways in which it could be proven false, and then we don't find them, we can consider it true. Odds are it is true. The importance of epistemic uncertainty of the sort brought up by "skeptics" over and over again is actually very low.

[devonin]

Re: Absolute Truth?

See also, my use of truth and Truth. truth is easy, Truth, I'm suggesting, is nigh if not completely impossible to claim with certainty.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Absolute Truth?

Not to be a dick, but the point is that doesn't actually matter.

[TheWired724]

Re: Absolute Truth?

Do you believe that absolute truth exists? Do you believe that absolute truth exists for certain things, but not others?

I believe there are absolutes. Without absolutes there is nothing, including man and morals, that has meaning.

[devonin]

Re: Absolute Truth?

But that's not a suitable body of evidence to believe there are absolutes.

"I believe they exist because if they don't, the consequence is something I don't like" is fallacious logic. Just because the alternative is that there is no morality or meaning to existance doesn't make it so.

[TheWired724]

Re: Absolute Truth?

But that's not a suitable body of evidence to believe there are absolutes.

"I believe they exist because if they don't, the consequence is something I don't like" is fallacious logic. Just because the alternative is that there is no morality or meaning to existance doesn't make it so.

So would you say there are not any absolutes?

[Revolversaid]

Re: Absolute Truth?

You have lost me. I had to look up tautological.
tau·tol·o·gies
1.
a. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
b. An instance of such repetition.
2. Logic An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.

I'm guessing the context of the use is more towards #2. At the end of the day if you have one thing and then you have another one thing and you put them next to each other you have two things. Clearly I am dealing with some seasoned philosophy students in this forum, who are over my head so to speak.