Sorry, nothing to contribute here, just wanted to see some more action in
JThunder VS Ramanujan … Round 2.
It’s turning out to be a very interesting mano-a-mano comp.
loinburger 's point is well taken. Are you his manager?
There are absolute truths, but neither you nor anybody else can know with absolute certainty what they are.
The Red Sox will never win a championship.
Hmmm. I don’t know, this doesn’t seem to be a terribly hard problem. There are objective truths. Try “Something exists.” How would you go about denying that? Can this be true in any meaningful sense of the word “exist”?
By the way, I think it’s moot, but you can get around the “no absolute truth” paradox by saying “The only absolute is that it is the only absolute.”
For pity’s sake! That’s not even remotely correct.
The statement “There is absolute truth” does NOT validate the claim that “there is no absolute truth.” It merely says that SOME absolute truth exists. It makes no judgment as to which statements are true or not.
You say that Ramanujan’s claim (“There is no absolute truth”) “was only invalidated in the first place by the statement being true.” That’s simply not the case. Rather, we assumed for the sake of argument, that it was correct, and found that a contradiction ensued. ERGO, the assumption was false. ERGO, the claim is false.
The statement “There is no absolute truth” is self-contradictory, and therefore incorrect. Its complement must therefore be true – namely, that there IS absolute truth. Is this really so hard to grasp?
Let’s go over this ONE. MORE. TIME. If a statement contradicts itself, then it can not be true. “There is no absolute truth” is inherently self-contradictory. Its opposite (“There IS absolute truth”) does not, and thus, does not refute itself.
Is that really true? Are you absolutely certain of it?
I heartily disagree. What you described is belief, but not truth. The dictionary defines truth as “*the body of real events or facts: ACTUALITY” and “agreement with fact and reality.” It does not equate truth with belief.
Now, one might believe something to be true, but that does not make it ture. People once believed the world to be flat, but it was not. Belief and truth are two entirely different things, and should never be confused with each other.
No.
A was not dishonest, since there was no intent to deceive… but he did not tell the truth either. Rather, he merely told what he believed to be the truth. A critical and fundamental distinction, to say the least.
JThunder
I think so.
JThunder, you are doing a wonderful job proving the absurdity of my claim. let me explain to you where you are misinterpreting it though.
i say that my reason for claiming that there are no absolute truths is that the concept of truth itself is not absolute. let us imagine a world with no concept of truth. in this world, logic does not apply. therefore, if you prove a statement false using logic, it means nothing in this truth-free world. that world is not governed by logic.
in essence, what you’re doing is using logic to show that a claim about something said to be not logical is false. you can’t meaningfully do this, since any meaning you generate is lost when we step into that non-logical world.
since we give ‘truth’ its definition, i claim that this is just such a non-logical world. it’s very difficult to imagine a world without a concept of truth, but it isn’t hard to imagine that in such a world, logic cannot be used to prove something.
as someone said earlier, relativism sucks. but that’s the way i see it.
-d-cubed
The Greek philosopher Plato was an idealist; his student Aristotle was a realist. So those are the two extremes as far as perceiving the world goes. Plato basically taught that the world exists in your head (or soul/nous/whatever). This went as far as his belief that you’re born with all the knowledge you’ll ever know and you need only to remember it. Aristotle, conversely, held that you can only be sure of things you have experienced through your own senses.
Anyway, there are some concepts–like geometry–that only perfectly exist in theory. A perfect triangle is impossible to create in reality, for instance. And naturally, when we think of Plato, we think of what he did during his lifetime and not so much the dust and whatnot that he is today. So while neither exists in reality, both exist as ideals.
So basically, truth is about perception. You can run with this in one extreme and end up with solipsism, or you can rationalize it and say that absolute truth exists only conceptually.
"Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it" —Andre Gide
def. - absolute truth
How can a tautology be false? And if it cannot be false, then why is it not absolutely true?
JT, I disagree. I stand by my proposition. What we have here is a semantic dispute. My truth is your belief, your truth is my fact. Of course, my truth is also my belief. Granted that they are often used interchangeably, that has led to many disputes regarding religion and philosophy. The Bible, for example, is not a totally factual book. It may however, be truthful, to those who believe.
That’s the way I see it.
I must take the side of JThunder on this issue. If “There is no truth”, is true, then its true. Period.
And what’s the relevance of the word “absolute” in this question. What could “inabsolute” truth possibly be?
What is truth? Well, that is an active philosophical debate in modern philosophy. There are correspondence theorists, believers in the deflationary model, and coherence theories of truth. But whether there is anything such as truth is not up for debate because noone can assert “truth does not exist” on the pain of self-contradiction.
This brings us to the crucial point: if you did not believe that anything could be true, what would the point be of asserting anything? Just to hear the sound of you own voice?
Truth is the GOAL of all assertions (other than lying to people). You are trying to say things about the world that are true. If there is no truth, then there is no difference between an assertion and just humming a tune. In fact, if there is no truth, then whole this thread cannot be asserting anything – its just a tune we are humming.
We must also carefully distinguish between skepticism re KNOWLEDGE and doubting that truth exists. You can be an out-and-out sceptic and believe that we have no knowledge about the world, and yet believe that there is some way the world is, whether we have access to that or not.
Sorry. The first line in my last post should have read:
“I must take the side of JThunder on this issue. “There is no truth” is self-contradictory. So it cannot be true. Period.”
No. Belief is belief, not truth. The dictionary stands by me on this issue.
In fact, if truth were nothing more than belief, then we could never accuse another person of being wrong in their beliefs. The ancient belief that the earth was flat would have been “true”; after all, it was the belief at the time. Similarly, people who believe that black people are intellectually inferior would be telling the “truth,” according to your tenet; after all, that’s what they sincerely believe.
No, belief and truth are not the same thing. If they were, then nobody’s beliefs would be incorrect.
In fact, since I believe that belief and truth are entirely different things, then according to your claim, what I said is the truth. Ergo, your own proposition is fatally self-refuting.
Not at all J. What you said is true, for you. What I said is true for me. Truth is different for each person. Sadly, for some people truth is ugly, but it isn’t absolute. When a person who believes that black people are intellectually inferior says that. he’s stating his truth. I don’t believe it, and it’s factually incorrect. But to that person it’s true.
We can certainly accuse people of being wrong in their beliefs. We can point out that facts contradict them.
My mind is a personal absolute for me.
Your mind is a personal absolute for you.