Do you believe in absolute truth?

[Cellmold]

When it comes to truth I feel like the Little one inside the flask.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Truth is subjective. What is true today may not be so tomorrow. Because Truth is subjective, "absolute truth" would be the median between the subjectivities of those in question. The "absolute truth" for my family is not the "absolute truth" for my nation, nor humanity. The "absolute truth" for humanity is not the same as the "absolute truth" for the collectiveness of life on Earth. The "absolute truth" of today is not the same "absolute truth" of tomorrow. As such, the only absolute truth is the truth which is always subject to the hearts of others.

 

[Lark]

Truth is subjective. What is true today may not be so tomorrow. Because Truth is subjective, "absolute truth" would be the median between the subjectivities of those in question. The "absolute truth" for my family is not the "absolute truth" for my nation, nor humanity. The "absolute truth" for humanity is not the same as the "absolute truth" for the collectiveness of life on Earth. The "absolute truth" of today is not the same "absolute truth" of tomorrow. As such, the only absolute truth is the truth which is always subject to the hearts of others.

You want to give that one a whirl on the truth known as gravity?

 

[Jeremy8419]

You want to give that one a whirl on the truth known as gravity?

Sure, we'll jump back to before Newtonian Physics, take a gander, then jump back to before the Theory of Relativity, take a goose, and then jump to the solving of the trans-dimensional equation, then wait for the acid to wear off.

 

[Lark]

Sure, we'll jump back to before Newtonian Physics, take a gander, then jump back to before the Theory of Relativity, take a goose, and then jump to the solving of the trans-dimensional equation, then wait for the acid to wear off.

Or maybe not, your attitudes to drugs probably explains your attitude to truth.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Or maybe not, your attitudes to drugs probably explains your attitude to truth.

Your attitude to truth probably explains your attitude to people.

 

[Lark]

Your attitude to truth probably explains your attitude to people.

I'd say they're related.

 

[Jeremy8419]

I'd say they're related.

Apples usually don't fall far from the tree.

 

[Avocado]

It is absolute truth that 2+2=4.

 

[Jeremy8419]

It is absolute truth that 2+2=4.

2 apples plus 2 apples equals 4 apples, but how many apple cells in two apples plus how many apple cells in two other apples equals how many apple cells? Hmmm... *scratches chin*

 

[Mole]

I assumed that the whole purpose behind mbti would be to"know thyself".

This is what mbti promises: to know thyself, but if we don't take mbti at face value and do our due diligence, we find mbti makes a false claim: to be part of psychometrics, when in fact mbti is cult-like, with a guru, Carl Jung, who was both mad and bad, and who became a guru of the New Age. And like any cult mbti is impervious to evidence and reason. And mbti is successful because it appeals to our narcissism. Mbti is a cult of the zeitgeist.

And if we are genuine is wishing to measure our personality, we don't measure it ourselves and we don't interpret the measurements ourselves, because this invalidates the measurements and the interpretation.

However if we wish to wallow in psychopathic narcissism, we apply mbti to ourselves.

Mbti not only appeals to our narcissism but fits perfectly into our consumer society, where we are urged to buy, because we deserve it. And if we believe that, we believe almost anything.

 

[Dreamer]

Just going to drop a quick thought in here since there was no way I was going to read through 14 pages of posts. I do believe in absolute truth, but will we ever know it, not a chance. It is impossible to remove personal bias and further, each individual perspective clouds any accurate judgement on that knowledge. I feel in some areas of all human knowledge, we are close to the truth than others, but for the most part, our understanding of the world and the universe is this amorphous blob that pulls in and stretches around the core truths. Again, in some areas, we are closer to that core, but in others, we are far from it. I also believe that there are just some things that is not humanly possible for us to understand. We understand our world through multiple systems of understandings, physics being one of them. While physics allows us some universal truths which we can then broaden to all aspects of life, it is still, a system which we created, a system we created so that we can understand. A language we gave to ourselves, to understand the external world. In order to truly understand absolute truth, I would feel the language we use, would have to be a universal language, one that is grounded in the realm where absolute truth can be found, not a language that was created external from that system, and then applied to it, and flexed over to cater to it. It needs to be a language that is natural and organic. One with that universal truth.

Do I believe in absolute truth? Yes. Do I believe we have the capability, as man, to know and to understand that absolute truth? No. But I am perfectly ok with the fact that there are just things in this universe that we will never know.

 

[Kanra Jest]

It is absolute truth that 2+2=4.

Yet there are still those who believe otherwise.

 

[Nico_D]

Mathematics is a human invention.

 

[Zangetshumody]

Excuse me for not reading anyone else's post in this thread:

I just wanted to make the following comments (lets see if anyone can accuse me of repeating someone else's already-made point!)

I think the title or question of this thread might just as well have been:
What is your absolute truth?
or
What is the absolute truth?

[From the responses to either of those two questions, if people answered the question directly,— would provide a far more revealing and clearer indication of a person's philosophical stance;- people would accordingly sort themselves into: "I don't know"; "the absolute truth is N/A, aka meaningless, AKA nothing" {although in that form of direct answer, the skeptical view is nakedly conceited, so the philosophical 'apology' that would have to accompany it, would be greatly revealing into the person's (scant) epistemological book-keeping}; "the absolute truth is X" where X is a positive concept that has a dynamic expression through creativity and within an account of reason.]

Many people, even those self-styled to be extremely cautious, will focus on stressing the individual capacity to access such a 'concept', even if they concede the 'thought' [of absolute truth] has any real meaning.

Most "bright" types, will be agnostic about absolute truth, and stress the inability for us to ever know about 'touching' it, until that day, when Science renders us some greater permission— which the mind has already chosen to concede onto that separate inquiry. Such arrangements of belief are like all those which require an external locus of validation ("verification" in this specific example), such are condemned by the appearances of solid ground, even when they are already regarded as swallowed by quick-sand, for having their confidence lost to the pit of a relative solitude,— crafted from a deterministic spell by holding tightly onto fixtures or features (the false solace from an abstracted idol).

It is erroneous to seek out these Deterministic spells, as they are all false;- in that sense only— the [external] truth can never be absolute, because if it were, you might be eternally captured and enslaved by such a spell. In this sense truth and liberty are twins. I'm sorry if my response doesn't interface well with your original question, but, the forms of some questions can themselves be proof of misunderstanding the truth, which can't always conform to shedding light, onto every possible brand of skepticism.

 

[Nico_D]

Well I am one of those who doesn't believe there is such a thing as Absolute Truth - or there may be but because we can't never see things objectively from all the different sides and perspectives without our own personal history and belief-systems, we also aren't able to never reach it knowingly and intentionally.

Truth can be highly subjective thing too. Two boys play ball outside. Suddenly the ball flies far and breaks a window. Which one of them did it? Each of them are playing each other either for kicking the ball or pushing the other one to do it. Each others parents are likely to believe their own kid - that's their truth. Maybe the janitor believes the boy B cause he likes that kid more and he can't believe he'd do something like that.

But lets say the boy A kicked the ball that broke the window. What were the circumstances? Maybe it had rained last night and the grass was slippery and ball just went the wrong direction. It was an accident. Maybe something the boy B said to the boy A that caused him to lose his concentration and mis-aim the ball. Maybe boy A's parents are divorcing and his head isn't in the game cause he's stressed and thinking about it. Maybe whoever owns that ball and is responsible for it didn't fill it with enough air which caused it to act strangely and fly to a wrong direction.

What I mean is that the truth can be what we make it out to be, to what we want to believe in and/or how far we are willing to follow the causality link.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Reason is always born from desire. You can read one's heart by the logic they present.

 

[soremfinger]

It's logic to think that something cause the first ripple. It's ego to think that everything came out of void, by chance. But that sounds like magic. For a discipline of inquiry who puts logic above everything else seem to suddenly abandon logic.
I don't know and cannot comprehend what the source is but it's only rational to deduce that it's there. If science can incorporate fantastical axiom like infinity, I can't see why would it be that hard accepting an axiom that is absolute.

 

[Typh0n]

Mathematics is a human invention.

Mathematics is probably the only objective (outside our egos) thing that is absolute, tbh. Not sure how much of an "invention" math is ; 2 + 2 always equals 4, no matter how you look at it; you can't "invent" mathematical forumals, just discover them.

 

[Jeremy8419]

Mathematics is probably the only objective (outside our egos) thing that is absolute, tbh. Not sure how much of an "invention" math is ; 2 + 2 always equals 4, no matter how you look at it; you can't "invent" mathematical forumals, just discover them.

Wonder what math would look like if we had 12 fingers? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, €, ¥, 10. 10/2=6. Surely some number system would get rid of this pesky pi...

123123*456456456=123123123*456456
(123)(123)*(456)(456)(456)=(123)(123)(123)*(456)(456)
2*3=3*2
So what exactly is the first 2, and what exactly is the second 2, and what exactly is the 4 in 2+2=4. Crap. Think I gave myself dyscalculia again.. Sob..