• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What's your take on absolute truth?

wildcat

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,622
MBTI Type
INTP
I don't think this topic has been discussed here yet, but if it has, sorry...please disregard.

This is something I have been thinking about a lot lately, and in the end I have come to the conclusion that there is a need for absolute truth, because if absolute truth does not exist, then what standard do we live by?

Sure, I could say that "I live by my own standards and morals," but that is really just saying, "Hey, I can do whatever I want because it's right for me." There is absolutely no accountability or standardization of right and wrong....it's all relative. So basically, following with that line of thought, everything should be permissable given certain circumstances.

Yet, I find it amazing that once "our own standards and morals" are violated by someone else we are the first to appeal to a higher authority by saying, "Hey, that's not fair/right." For example, you've been waiting patiently in the post office line for the last 10 mintues, you are the next one to be helped when all of a sudden some guy just breezes in to the post office and totally cuts you (and everyone behind you) off. Chances are, you or someone else is gonna tell that person to get in the back and wait their turn. But what if he responds, "Well, I'm late for work, and getting to work on time is more important than waiting in line so I'm sure you all won't mind if I just go next." Well, this guy has no problem cutting in line, because he puts his own needs/wants in front of everyone else's. If what is right and wrong is truly relative then you really have no authority to tell the man to get to the back of the line, right?

To me, relative truth seems like a catch 22. What do you think? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Facts are built on make believe.
Make believe is built on facts.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
It's so elusive, isn't it? Although if we had it, what would we have left to seek? Perhaps that's why we can't be certain... because if we were, what would we have left to influence?
Well that's the kicker isn't it. We look for it almost knowing it cannot be found. It's a little like the whole concept of "true love". It's something we can claim we have found but we can never prove that it's true, only if it lasts as a claim.
Facts are built on make believe.
Make believe is built on facts.
Shame on you. You claimed to have no wisdom. Charlatan!
;)
 

MX5

New member
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
83
MBTI Type
INTJ
If one defines truth as "an accurate verifiable description of a state or condition conforming to a standard and transcending perceived experience" (and I formed this definition from a distillation of the dictionary definition of truth), then truth is dependant on the applied standard. The question then becomes (if we seek to determine whether truth is absolute) whether the standard is absolute in its application to the state or condition it is being applied to.

For example; 1+1=2 is true. The standard being applied is mathematical summation. The state is the state of all non-relativistic units of measure. Within this state 1+1 will always equal to two; one ball plus another ball is two balls. However, in a different state 1+1 does not necessarily have to equal to 2. One particle of matter plus one particle of anti-matter does not equal two particles of (something). Therefore, what is true in one state of matter is not true in another. Therefore 1+1=2 is not absolute truth, because truth is dependant on the standard and on the state or condition.

Absolute truth becomes even less so when perceived experience is factored in (which the definition categorically excludes, but I'll cheat). This is because each individuals experience is unique and therefore the standards and conditions are likewise unique. In the banana experiment the determination of which person likes bananas more is entirely subjective. What constitutes more? How is more measured? If I eat more bananas (a condition that can be measured) does that mean that I like them more (or just that I can eat more)? Like Kiddo says, its entirely relativistic (or subjective, as I term it).
 

Camelopardalis

New member
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
58
MBTI Type
INTJ
One particle of matter plus one particle of anti-matter does not equal two particles of (something)

Well said.

I don't believe in absolute truth or absolute morality. For example, do you deny that I exist? Most people wouldn't, but one could always debate that I don't exist, because technically I'm an illusion created by the repelling electrons, and if they lose their charge, I wouldn't be anything. Morality is even less absolute than truth, in my opinion. For example, it is NOT ok to use one person (in consequence, killing the person) to save five without the unfortunate victim's consent, but is it still ok if the victim just happened to be there, and killing them is necessary to save the five people? The tangible result is still the same. One dies. Five lives. 'Real' consequences aside, we still have much to discuss. Morality is just too 'grey' to be black OR white.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
The "absolute" part of "absolute truth" is redundant, because if a proposition is not entirely and absolutely true, then it must be false, by definition. If there is no "absolute truth" then there is no truth, period. The distinction is erroneous for anyone who, assuming that something called "the truth" exists, is interested in discovering it. That includes everyone, even those who claim otherwise, something betrayed everytime they do not walk idly out onto a busy road.

Whoever said that you can't argue definitions, eh?
 

Zergling

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,377
MBTI Type
ExTJ
For example; 1+1=2 is true. The standard being applied is mathematical summation. The state is the state of all non-relativistic units of measure. Within this state 1+1 will always equal to two; one ball plus another ball is two balls. However, in a different state 1+1 does not necessarily have to equal to 2. One particle of matter plus one particle of anti-matter does not equal two particles of (something). Therefore, what is true in one state of matter is not true in another. Therefore 1+1=2 is not absolute truth, because truth is dependant on the standard and on the state or condition.

This doesn't say anything about absolute truth, it says something about the definitions you are using. The absolute truth in this case would be that 1 + 1 = 2 of the same object, quantity, etc., when counting. In the case of a particle of matter and a particle of antimatter do make 2 total particles when counted. When interacting, they won't make 2 of a particle, but that is not what "1 + 1 = 2" describes. (it would describe that if both particles had carried 1 unit of energy, a total of 2 units of energy would be released, but that is a case where counting and addition work.)

In terms of the abstract math, the absolute truth would be that "In this universe, the 'counting with numbers' mathematical system has 1 + 1 =2 at all times". (There are other mathematical systems where this is true also, I'm guessing.)
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
The "absolute" part of "absolute truth" is redundant, because if a proposition is not entirely and absolutely true, then it must be false, by definition. If there is no "absolute truth" then there is no truth, period. The distinction is erroneous for anyone who, assuming that something called "the truth" exists, is interested in discovering it. That includes everyone, even those who claim otherwise, something betrayed everytime they do not walk idly out onto a busy road.

Whoever said that you can't argue definitions, eh?
Piling 2 fence panels on top of 2 fence panels means you have a stack of four fence panels (assuming certain parameters). This we know is true within those parameters.

There is truth but it is currently limited by those parameters we created. Is that absolute truth?
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
There is truth but it is currently limited by those parameters we created. Is that absolute truth?
I have no idea what you are talking about. A proposition is either true or false i.e. either corresponds to the facts or does not correspond to the facts, "parameters" be damned!

There is an irritating tendency to confuse the truth of a proposition with our ability to confirm, verify or test it. The latter are all very interesting problems regarding the methodology of investigation, but the truth would be true even if nobody existed, so such methods are not integral to a discussion about truth, which is always absolute. If a proposition is not absolutely true, then it is false.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
I've decided that if there is an absolute truth, then I'm simply going reject it and substitute it with my own. Tis the blessing of being an NF. :party2:
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
I've decided that if there is an absolute truth, then I'm simply going reject it and substitute with my own. Tis the blessing of being an NF.
NFs are Gods? The universe has an irritating habit of ignoring what we think is true in favour of what is actually true, and we all suffer when what we think is true does not correspond to what is actually true. The universe forces us to make decisions and act, and we all choose how to act relative to what we think is true, even when we recognise that such thoughts are human and fallible. Sometimes we are wrong, and we call this "making a mistake".

That is, unless we are God, and what is actually true depends on what we think is true. God doesn't make mistakes.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
NFs are Gods? The universe has an irritating habit of ignoring what we think is true in favour of what is actually true, and we all suffer when what we think is true does not correspond to what is actually true. The universe forces us to make decisions and act, and we all choose how to act relative to what we think is true, even when we recognise that such thoughts are human and fallible. Sometimes we are wrong, and we call this "making a mistake".

That is, unless we are God, and what is actually true depends on what we think is true. God doesn't make mistakes.

You just figured out why INFJs can never be wrong. :D
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
I have no idea what you are talking about. A proposition is either true or false i.e. either corresponds to the facts or does not correspond to the facts, "parameters" be damned!

There is an irritating tendency to confuse the truth of a proposition with our ability to confirm, verify or test it. The latter are all very interesting problems regarding the methodology of investigation, but the truth would be true even if nobody existed, so such methods are not integral to a discussion about truth, which is always absolute. If a proposition is not absolutely true, then it is false.
So the truth is true regardless of whether or not you can establish it to be true? Sounds dangerously like an excuse to use an "authority" to establish what is and what is not.

Surely you recognise that for something to be accepted as true then it has to be proved true or reasoned as probably true to the satisfaction of people? Sure you'll get the nay sayers who will not accept something but a truth which only you see and only you can know is a bit like being out of touch is it not?

You can have one man who is correct when all others are saying he is wrong but it more likely that someone will agree with him if indeed he is correct. For others to agree however there must be something there for them to base their agreement on. If not then they are merely saying "yes you're right" without ever understanding why they are right or if they should agree or not.

Truth does exists without proof, that much is true (oh dear this will be complicated) but for such truth to be communicated it must be seen as true by another or proven to be true regardless of their conception of it. Ergo truth and proof go hand in hand.

As for parameters, 1+1=2 only within our on established parameters of mathematics and our understanding of the nuances of those parameters. 2 fence panels plus two fence panels does equal four fence panels but if built into a fence it equals five fence posts.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Unless you believe in a higher power, truth is defined by humans. It is an abstract concept that exists only within the minds of humans. If humans did not exist, then it would have absolutely no relevance and would be as good as non existent since there would be nobody to recognize it. The only reason people can percieve that it would exist without us, is because we are here to recognize it. But it isn't matter, and it has no physical or tangible properties, so it only significant within human consciousness.

Am I wrong? :huh:
 

Zergling

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,377
MBTI Type
ExTJ
Unless you believe in a higher power, truth is defined by humans. It is an abstract concept that exists only within the minds of humans. If humans did not exist, then it would have absolutely no relevance and would be as good as non existent since there would be nobody to recognize it. The only reason people can percieve that it would exist without us, is because we are here to recognize it. But it isn't matter, and it has no physical or tangible properties, so it only significant within human consciousness.

Am I wrong? :huh:

This does not say that there isn't an absolute truth, only that it doesn't matter unless human (or animal, or alien) minds are there to figure out out. (This is up for grabs, though, depending on what is needed for something to 'matter".)
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
This does not say that there isn't an absolute truth, only that it doesn't matter unless human (or animal, or alien) minds are there to figure out out. (This is up for grabs, though, depending on what is needed for something to 'matter".)
Think about biological evolution. The truth matters, even if there is nobody there to know it. Indeed, if it did not matter, then there would be nobody to know it :)
 

Zergling

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,377
MBTI Type
ExTJ
Think about biological evolution. The truth matters, even if there is nobody there to know it. Indeed, if it did not matter, then there would be nobody to know it :)

Whether something "matters" or not depends on opinion, so will just end up being up to the person talking about it. in your case, it does, to someone else, some things will not "matter".
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Whether something "matters" or not depends on opinion, so will just end up being up to the person talking about it. in your case, it does, to someone else, some things will not "matter".
Yeah, well, kinda. My last post was mostly written for rhetorical punch. That said, for most people, it matters that stuff matters, so the truth matters, even before there was anyone around for it to matter to, or else there would be nobody for anything to matter to, and it matters to people that stuff matters.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
This does not say that there isn't an absolute truth, only that it doesn't matter unless human (or animal, or alien) minds are there to figure out out. (This is up for grabs, though, depending on what is needed for something to 'matter".)

There's a truth because and only because humans created the concept. It is a perception! It seems silly to me to care about the existence of things that only have relevance to their creators. We might as well be arguing that the concept of "cold" would still exist if all humans were gone. Cold is the absence of heat as measured by human scales. If there was no human to feel it and thus percieve it, then what would cold ultimately be? It's nothing but the parameters that humans have assigned to sensory experiences. Truth is nothing but the parameters that humans have assigned to situational experiences. Without somebody to percieve it, it has absolutely no meaning.
 

miss fortune

not to be trusted
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
20,589
Enneagram
827
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
to probably have the least eloquent response here :)

two guys get into a fist fight in a crowded bar- it started with a disagreement, escalated to pushing, then to shoving and then a full out fistfight broke out. The bouncer tries to break up the fight and the cops are called. The cops want to know who started the fight so they ask the two men- each man totally beleives that he's right in saying that the other man started the fight- after all, there had to be a reason that they were throwing punches with such enthusiasm. The police move on to ask the other patrons of the bar what they saw, and though most of them saw the fight, no two patrons have the same answer.

If we can't answer a question as simple as who started the bar fight, how are we supposed to be capable of having an absolute truth? Absolute truth would have to be a human invention, I am assuming, since animals have no such concept. Our truth is based on our 5 senses and our brains, and illusions prove that those things are not always right *shrug* it just doesn't make SENSE!

(note- a better response existed, but when I hit Post Quick Reply I was taken to the damned screen that announced that the site was having issues :tongue:)
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
7,312
MBTI Type
INTJ
to probably have the least eloquent response here :)

two guys get into a fist fight in a crowded bar- it started with a disagreement, escalated to pushing, then to shoving and then a full out fistfight broke out. The bouncer tries to break up the fight and the cops are called. The cops want to know who started the fight so they ask the two men- each man totally beleives that he's right in saying that the other man started the fight- after all, there had to be a reason that they were throwing punches with such enthusiasm. The police move on to ask the other patrons of the bar what they saw, and though most of them saw the fight, no two patrons have the same answer.

If we can't answer a question as simple as who started the bar fight, how are we supposed to be capable of having an absolute truth? Absolute truth would have to be a human invention, I am assuming, since animals have no such concept. Our truth is based on our 5 senses and our brains, and illusions prove that those things are not always right *shrug* it just doesn't make SENSE!

(note- a better response existed, but when I hit Post Quick Reply I was taken to the damned screen that announced that the site was having issues :tongue:)

The bolded part explains the entire difference between the opposing points of view. I think that truth exists even if we can't figure it out. Something was the last straw that set one of those guys off, even if nobody knows what it was.
 
Top