Truth, an absolute?

[insane]

Just curious as to what the users here believe truth to be (epistemologically, I guess).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe that truth is an absolute. There may be certain opinions (ie. if food tastes "good" or not), but overall truth is truth, people can be *wrong*. No matter how hard you may believe something, you are either right or wrong.

[Korla]

you mean truth is an absolute as opposed to being an opinion?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

well, I think I'm fairly leaning towards it being an opinion. At least when touching it in this world, the idea behind truth is that it's an absolute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But when looking at it in this world, what with senses ALWAYS showing only bits of the whole truth, making our own truth a half-truth, an opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look at the way history changes because of what we learn, what most take for granted, god vs. satan, USA vs. the middle east, etc. There are many things we all take for granted as being truths, seeing as how we've been told them by secure sources, the bible, pope, old people, the american president, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

if I was to continue arguing it to be an opinion, I might say that truth is a factor of what we know of the situation and what we carry inside us. Hence there are as many truths as there are people, everyone has his own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In other words, for there to be a truth, there must be a being comprehending it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Esse est percipi" ("To be is to be perceived") - Berkeley

 

 

 

or:

 

 

 

"Did the tree fall if noone was there to see it?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's kinda the same, isn't it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Excuse my long post. I hope I made some sense :oops:)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

found abit of an interesting read while fininshing this post, they even ended up talking abit about truth towards the end, if anyone's interested:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/arch ... p/t-320331

[hammerhand]

I think truth is an absolute, however some truths are beyond human comprension, this is what causes alot of arguing.

[Bmw]

I'm not 100% sure if I understand the post...but I believe that truth is is only an opinion to the best of our abilitiy.

[AniseCookies]

I'm not 100% sure if I understand the post...but I believe that truth is is only an opinion to the best of our abilitiy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hmm yes, but this topic confuses me :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

off topic: lmao korla, everytime i see your sig, i laugh :lol:

[____]

Truth, IMO, is scalar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only only a few things make it all the way to either end :P

[logic-is-overrated]

"Did the tree fall if noone was there to see it?"

I don't see the validity of that argument. If the tree fell then it fell. My not seeing it doesn't excuse the literal, actual, physical fact that the tree is no longer standing.

[Rhys]

I think truth is dependant on the majority opinion. Some people say the sky is blue, other say it is striped but the truth is that the sky is blue because the majority see it as blue. So, I believe that truth doesn't actually exist as the majority could be wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not sure if that post had any sort of relationship with the topic, hard to work out what you mean. :oops:

[Lionheart_0]

:? Somethings are only truth, some are only opinon. Like the thing about food, there is no such thing as a good tasting food. Its all opinon. Unless you could say its good by the % of the population that likes the food compared to the other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, The quote is " If a tree falls, and no ones is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So hard to answer.

[ShadowSam19]

There is a definate difference between truth and opinion. How we see things, and comprend things, and know things, are all opinion. The sky being blue is an opinion that the majority of people have, a colorblind person, however, would say its not blue (i think tehy would say grey...i dunno). Some opinions, like teh sky thing, are held so commonly that it may seem to become truth. A different example would be everyone thinking the world was flat. At that time it was the truth that the world was flat...but they were wrong so it wasnt the truth, so i guess it was more of an opinion. An elephant being bigger than an ant is the truth. No matter who you are, what you are, or how big you are, it is the truth.

 

 

 

I dunno if this all came out right... this is somewhat of a, for the lack of a better word, confusing, topic. But thats just my truthful opinion...

[Greatsilverwyrm]

I think some things can be absolute, but most are inabsolute...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like, how fast is 65 miles per hour? Well, we invented miles, and hours, so we can measure both things and say for sure, yeah, that's absolutely 65 miles per hour.

 

 

 

Things like "Am I here right now?" is a different story. But that brings in all kinds of weird things beyond current human comprehension, so I won't go there..

[insane]

To clear things up: An absolute is something that is undisputable. Obviously opinions don't fall under this category, they are excepted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So my question basically is (it's hard to explain), are there any major exceptions that you think exist?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like for instance, one (or many) might say that moral truths are subject to opinion. But IMO (rofl), moral truths are objective. They are absolute.

[Lionheart_0]

To clear things up: An absolute is something that is undisputable. Obviously opinions don't fall under this category, they are excepted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So my question basically is (it's hard to explain), are there any major exceptions that you think exist?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like for instance, one (or many) might say that moral truths are subject to opinion. But IMO (rofl), moral truths are objective. They are absolute.

 

 

 

that.. was... more confusing then the other post...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lucky me, i understood the first post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BTW, how could mores be objective? They are not definit. Someone could have diffrent morals, therfore it being subjective.

[logic-is-overrated]

BTW, how could mores be objective? They are not definit. Someone could have diffrent morals, therfore it being subjective.

A lot of religous people base their morals on (the Bible, Quran, Torah, etc...). So for instance a Christian would say that what the Christian God views as good is good, no matter who believes other wise. Therefore to them there is a set standard of morals that is right.

[Death_By_Pod]

There is no such thing as an absolute truth in my opinion; your brain always has some form of bias, conscious or not. All you have to do is repeat a phrase and soon it will get so entrenched in your mind that it will become a truth. I don't see how moral arguments can be absolute truths when they are formed by people within the human population to describe the human population. Sure there are trends in the overall population but there are many exemptions to the trend at the same time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For example I believe in Social Contract Theory but who's to say it works everywhere; evolution might have taken a different turn where reproduction was Asexual and you did not have to compete with each other for resources. There are some exceptions to this theory at the same time, such as the "tough guy" who breaks the law and yet still finds people who will happily be their partner (maybe the partners that are attracted to "tough guys" have faulty Genes, who knows).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even for empirical science that there is no truth since we will never be able to resolve our equipment to the level of perfect accuracy (For example you can not have better resolution then an atom because you need something smaller then the atom to read the atom, which you don't have, available).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is interesting to note that we had a discussion on this when I was in a Year 12 English class at high school (which was for people with intelligence in the top few percent of the state, a selective school for those people in Sydney) and pretty much everyone was on the side of no absolute truth (except for the kid who wanted to be difficult and "different" of course).

[____]

So my question basically is (it's hard to explain), are there any major exceptions that you think exist?

 

 

 

It's either absolute or it's not. There are no exceptions to that rule.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I don't quite get your last line. You say, in your opinion, that moral truths are objective then finish up saying they [implied] are absolute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@DBP: Willing to bet that "other kid" lost out hard, yeah ;)

[Korla]

 

"Did the tree fall if noone was there to see it?"

I don't see the validity of that argument. If the tree fell then it fell. My not seeing it doesn't excuse the literal, actual, physical fact that the tree is no longer standing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I mean is that for an action to take place, there must be an observer. Someone to concisoucsly experience it as something that's happening. You might say that world around us only exist because I'm here to see it, and therefore you might also say that my reality revolves around me, and what I can see, experience. So there must infact be someone there to see an action (a truth in this case, as I saw it for the discussion) take place, and therefore it's subject to the shortcomings of our senses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To clear things up: An absolute is something that is undisputable. Obviously opinions don't fall under this category, they are excepted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So my question basically is (it's hard to explain), are there any major exceptions that you think exist?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like for instance, one (or many) might say that moral truths are subject to opinion. But IMO (rofl), moral truths are objective. They are absolute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't agree, for one reason; I don't beleive in objectivity, plain and simple, it's a far-fetched dream we cling to, we will always have something reflecting our opinions in everything we do, etc. There's no way for us to completely step out of the shell of human existence. IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even for empirical science that there is no truth since we will never be able to resolve our equipment to the level of perfect accuracy (For example you can not have better resolution then an atom because you need something smaller then the atom to read the atom, which you don't have, available).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

well, if you imagine there's a smallest particle in the world (which I don't beleive, but for the sake of this conversation) then you could make a microscope with that particle, and see that size particles in it, right? therefore it should be possible to make equipment as accurate as we could possibly need.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So my question basically is (it's hard to explain), are there any major exceptions that you think exist?

 

 

 

It's either absolute or it's not. There are no exceptions to that rule.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I don't quite get your last line. You say, in your opinion, that moral truths are objective then finish up saying they [implied] are absolute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@DBP: Willing to bet that "other kid" lost out hard, yeah ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

he meant, are there any that aren't absolute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the moral truths are absolute BECAUSE they are objective :) seeing as they would then be part of some universal standard. I don't beleive that either, though :D

[____]

he meant, are there any that aren't absolute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the moral truths are absolute BECAUSE they are objective :) seeing as they would then be part of some universal standard. I don't beleive that either, though :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no universal standard for morality since Morals are based on opinion.

 

 

 

So they really can't be absolute unless you consider opinions to be.

[Korla]

 

he meant, are there any that aren't absolute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the moral truths are absolute BECAUSE they are objective :) seeing as they would then be part of some universal standard. I don't beleive that either, though :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no universal standard for morality since Morals are based on opinion.

 

 

 

So they really can't be absolute unless you consider opinions to be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yes, that's what I beleive, too.

[insane]

 

So my question basically is (it's hard to explain), are there any major exceptions that you think exist?

 

 

 

It's either absolute or it's not. There are no exceptions to that rule.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I don't quite get your last line. You say, in your opinion, that moral truths are objective then finish up saying they [implied] are absolute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@DBP: Willing to bet that "other kid" lost out hard, yeah ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Objective ~ absolute. Absolute = undisputable, objective = not subject to opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's funny though :) how circular everyone's reasoning has to be. There actually no way around it. Because truth being absolute determines whether or not morals would be. So believing in subjective truth, and assuming it's true leads you to the point where morals are subjective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I like that it's unproveable :) it either is or it isn't - it springs a different type of argument when compared to theist/atheist debates - a nice change, methinks.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

Even for empirical science that there is no truth since we will never be able to resolve our equipment to the level of perfect accuracy (For example you can not have better resolution then an atom because you need something smaller then the atom to read the atom, which you don't have, available).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree there, and maybe I should have worded it differently. We can estimate measurements, and so we can say that such and such is for an absolute truth around 10 meters long..

[Bryan]

something that's in the eye of the beholder

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or was that beauty?

[Lionheart_0]

 

BTW, how could mores be objective? They are not definit. Someone could have diffrent morals, therfore it being subjective.

A lot of religous people base their morals on (the Bible, Quran, Torah, etc...). So for instance a Christian would say that what the Christian God views as good is good, no matter who believes other wise. Therefore to them there is a set standard of morals that is right.

 

 

 

Ya i can see where you are coming from. But insane is saying that no matter what religion, no matter anything, the moral is either good or bad.

[How2PK]

 

 

 

Also, The quote is " If a tree falls, and no ones is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So hard to answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is that hard to answer? I mean, it makes sound if somebody is there, why shouldn't it make sound when there is nobody there to hear it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Truth is just truth, nothing more or less. I mean, 5 + 5 = 10, that's the truth. Right? Robbie Williams makes good songs, well, some people thinkg it's true, some people don't think that's true. It's an opinion. I'm probably stupid and didn't get the topic. :P

[____]

Why is that hard to answer? I mean, it makes sound if somebody is there, why shouldn't it make sound when there is nobody there to hear it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's there, there's just nothing to recieve it in its audio form.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can say the same thing about light...

 

 

 

Does light exist if there is no one around to see the source?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Damn straigh it does.