Are There Absolute Truths?

Great Debates
81

JThunder: “So you’re saying that the claim, “There are no absolute truths” is not absolutely true, right?”

I agree that it is contradictory with the means of analysis we use. But that’s all. It is as “not absolutely true” as the queen being able to jump pawns. Think of it like Lib using it as a definition. A definition isn’t true (or, if you wish, it is a tautology and necessarily true, but I think this conflates the issue). We can always create analyzable sentences from definitions (like the mistake I made, and corrected, in my chess statement) by using relational statements as in, “Is it absolutely true that this […] is the definition of […]?” (which makes us look at definitions as tautologies)

Let me say: if the issue is semantics, then the resolution is to disregard the notion of all statements having some truth value. If the issue is ontological, then the resolution (to me) is that there must be some absolute truths because of the way the negation of absolute truths is parsed (that is, it is contradictory). But this also makes it semantic: the means I have for analyzing statements include absolutes, and if I consider them true then it is no surprise that the statement “There are no absolutes” is contradictory since we already knew there were absolutes: my tools of analysis. And of course my tools of analysis exist. But I can’t prove that: I simply use them.

The truths my tools demonstrate can be no more true than the rules themselves. But since the rules declare truth, they aren’t true at all (which doesn’t mean false, of course). Which means that if there are absolute truths they don’t necessarily have the ontological status of a necessary being/element of knowledge/ etc.

There is no proof of the existence of absolutes, there is a game we play with absolutes as rules. I guess we could torturously say that absolutes must then exist in the forms of rules for games by definition, but again, this is back to the definitions-as-tautologies which doesn’t seem to shed much light on the matter (but that might just be my distaste for the a priori creeping in).

I remember a conversation with Spiritus Mundi once on epistemology, and we were discussing the truth-status of an epistemology itself. I had declared that an epistemology could analyze itself if we wrote its rules down on a piece of paper. Since we can presumably know reality with the epistemology, and this paper and these symbols were in reality, then we could know our epistemology epistemologically. I think I see now why he disagreed with me and said that the stuff on the paper was not the epistemology.

When we discuss absolute truths, we often don’t mean things that we all think, or things that no one denies, but things that no one can deny. photopat’s facts, not necessarily truth. “The propositions of logic all say the same thing: to wit, nothing.” This is because, if logic is truth, then the definitions are tautologies. And this means all truths are then necessary truths. But this means everything that is true is true in any world, however it can be imagined, meaning the propositions of logic fail to attach to (describe the) world at any point… rather, they attach at every point. So they can’t say anything about this world (unless this world is necessary, good for a hard-core determinist I suppose).

[deep breath]

I’ll shut up now.

82

Don’t you dare!

83

Can you elaborate, please? What precise definition are you referring to, and can you substantiate it?

84

Substantiate it? Every definition is a tautology: [symbol]f[/symbol] is [symbol]y[/symbol].

85

Let’s shift direction and look at the issue from another perspective.

First of all, let’s get rid of the word “absolute”. After all, what is the meaning of this word here? We are debating whether there is any such thing as truth.

Pretty much every poster would agree that there is a word “True.” I would also suppose that all would admit that where X is a proposition and one says “X is true”, that one is saying something about X.

Now when you argue there is no truth, i.e., that the predicate “True” does not attribute the property of truth to a proposition, are you arguing thereby that the term is meaningless? Are you saying that “true” has no function in English?

Well, if your argument is that there is no truth, then you may be arguing that “true” is meaningless IN SPITE OF THE FACT OF ITS WIDESPREAD USE IN OUR WORLD.

Even a deflationsist theorist of truth allows for a ROLE for truth, they just argue that it is not a substantive property such as, e.g., redness. Even a deflationsist will say that there are many things that are true in the world.

Are you all, you argue there are no truths, saying the word “true” has no role in English? Can we totally dispense with the word without doing damage to the way we think and live? If not, what could you possibly mean by “there is no truth?”

86

I think you’re laboring under a misconception here, Lib. Not all definitions are tautologies.

Here’s how dictionary.com defines “tautology”:

Note that the statement “Only tautologies are true” does not qualify as a tautology. Ergo, the statement refutes itself, and we can not claim that tautologies are the only true statements.

87

Originally posted by Iamthat

Originally posted by Daniel Shabasson

My point was one cannot know anything outside their own mind, so in that sense it is an absolute.

That does not mean that others are not part of their knowledge, and share in what appears to be a common world.

I think that is an absolute truth, that your mind is a personal absolute.

However that may appear oxymoronic to some, but not to me.

88

JThunder wrote:

:smiley: Well, sure it does.

Let “[symbol]f[/symbol]” = “Only tautologies”.

Let “[symbol]y[/symbol]” = “true”.

Hypothesis:

[symbol]f Û y[/symbol]

Axiom:

T("[symbol]a[/symbol]")[symbol]Û a[/symbol]

Conclusion:

[symbol]f Û y[/symbol]

QED

89

Lib, that’s circular reasoning! You are presenting the following as an axiom:

when it is nothing of the sort. SHOW ME a single textbook on symbolic logic which presents “Only tautologies are true” as an AXIOMATIC STATEMENT.

Moreover, what is an axiom? It is something which is ASSUMED to be true. By describing your claim as an axiom, you are ASSUMING its veracity… even though its veracity is precisely the matter under debate!

90

before everyone gets their undergarments all ruffled, let’s take a moment to review here…

it is very clear that many people are unwilling to let go of logic as their way of thinking. JThunder, for example, is not the only one to claim the statement “there is no absolute truth” is self-refuting. obviously, by what we define as logic, it is. it’s as good as the liar’s paradox. i don’t think we need to argue semantics here, nor present mathematical proofs about tautologies. although, it should be said that claiming something is true because it is assumed is not CIRCULAR, per se, but trivial.

anyway…

let me get on to my point. i think i may have been a bit hasty when i said “there are no absolute truths.” what i think i should have said is “i cannot know that there are absolute truths.” allow me to back this statement up, then explain why i was wrong in the first place.

it is clear to me, and indeed, it ought to be clear to all, that the meaning of truth is assigned. it is a definition that i have given, or that someone has given and i have accepted. the concept of truth is one that i buy into, but not one that i consider absolute; logic works for me, but i do not claim that it must indeed work in all worlds. so, i thereby claim that the concept of truth is not absolute. from there, i consider what a world without such a concept must be like, and i realize i cannot reason about it because anything i reason must be based on the concept of truth, which has no meaning there. if i try to reason about that world, as i did, it occurs to me that since i cannot say that anything is absolute (what with no truth and all), there must be no absolute truths. i think my mistake came when i tried to use reason to analyze such a world, in which it clearly has no meaning. thus, i now change my statement to: “i cannot know that there are absolute truths.” i think that’s a bit more accurate.

i admit it’s hard when the concept of truth is so fundamental to us, to admit that it is a concept something that we assign meaning to, and to attempt to imagine a world in which it has no meaning. i think this is where we have all gone wrong thus far. if we imagine such a world, clearly we cannot claim there are absolute truths in it, and if we attempt to think about it logically, we may either conclude that no such world may exist, or that such a world is a counterexample to the idea that absolute truths exist. we all err in thinking about it logically, regardless of which conclusion we draw. we can say neither thing about such a world, since any conclusion we can draw is based on the concept of truth and the postulate that it exists.

all that being said, i would still like to claim that in our world, truth has no meaning independent of what we assign it, so ours could certainly be such a (truth=non-existant) world. i’m curious as to how someone might dispute that concept without appealing to authority or arguing via ad populism.

-1

91

Well, if someone seeks a logical answer, then one must use the tools of logic.

And, with all due respect, I think that your own musings demonstrate a radical departure from logic.

92

The axiom doesn’t say that only tautologies are true. It is commonly called the Tarskian Biconditional, and merely means that the truth of a term implies the truth of a sentence, and vice-versa. It is typically an elementary axiom in any text on symbolic logic. You can google it.

93

Either tautologies utilize logic in a manner that produces absolute truth, or they do not.

Is this sentence self-refuting?

94

Bob Cos wrote:

That’s a tautology.

95

Ah, I see. I misread what you typed. In any event, I think it’s clear that you’re applying this ‘logic’ recklessly, but perhaps here’s a simpler way to illustrate it.

Consider the statement “Alternate universes exist.” Is this statement a tautology? Obviously not, as it does not meet the criteria described in the definition of a tautology. Is the statement true? Quite simply, we don’t know… but the mere fact that we DON’T know it to be false shows that non-tautologies CAN be true.

In fact, tautologies rest on the fact that SOME of their component conditions are true. Hence, they ultimately rely on non-tautologies for their own truthfulness to occur!

96

I don’t understand at all. Why are we arguing about tautologies? That is more appropriate in a debate about analytic/synthetic or the existence of a priori knowledge. We don’t need to prove the existence of a priori knowlegde to justify using the concept truth. Take, for example, the sentence:

“The Straight Dope message boards exist in 2002” is true.

This is neither a tautology nor know a priori. It is purely synthetic a priori.

If you agree with this statement, you believe that some things are true. If you want to argue that there are not truths, then you must argue either that this sentence above is false, (in which case you argue that its negation is true, which means you admit something is true), or you state that the sentence above is either meaningless or has an indeterminate truth value, in which case you may need to check into a mental hospital.

You may want to argue that this sentence is only true “for us”, but not true for others (subjective truth). If so, please define what that means.

As to the word “Absolute”, I think it has not place here, and its only purpose is to improperly introduce an improper element into the debate, to wit: posters keep stating that truth is not absolute because we cannot know others minds or we cannot be certain of how the world is (our reasoning is falliable). THIS HAS NOTHEING, ZERO, NADA, BUBKISS TO DO WITH WHETHER THERE IS TRUTH!!! Please keep in mind the distinction beteen things being true and our ability to know that they are true. Whether X is true and whether we can know X’s truth are distinct issues. If you are arguing that truth is not absolute because we cannot know perfectly about the world, you are in error.

97

i think a radical departure from logic is in order.

in this case, at least.

what i mean to say is that you can’t (logically) seek a logical answer about whether or not logic exists (or is “absolute”). logic just doesn’t work that way.

so if your assumption is logic, perhaps you shouldn’t be asking or listening to someone who asks “what if logic isn’t absolute?”. you can just be happy with p -> p for all p.

of course, we can’t draw any meaningful conclusions without assuming the existence and absoluteness of logic. which is why we invented it in the first place.

-d^0

98

Yes, it is clear that you have abandoned logic in your attempt to demonstrate the “truth” of your claim that there is no absolute truth.

That admission speaks volumes.

99

Maybe.

I’m sure, as well, that the irony of answering “No.” has been noted by many.

Oh, and that one-word response is both a joke and a fairly honest answer.

100

All cats are cats.

its true over all cases over all time.

A=A

however you define cat… every thing you apply the name cat to… you apply the name cat too…