3000 gods but only yours exists

[PRmerger]

No. We also have to add in the meanings of the symbols: in Chinese “=” represents 2 and “+” represents 4.

LOL!

Are we talking in Chinese? Did someone change the universe of discourse here and not tell me?



We all see the amount of special pleading that must go on in order to stand by the “there is no absolute truth” paradigm when one is actually arguing absolute truths.

You believe that what you are asserting is true. And you want to persuade others that your argument is true, and not simply a preference like “I like turnips better mashed than fried”.

If there is no truth to your assertions, you might as well be on a food preferences forum. And the discussions there are as lame as any other forum that’s about personal favorites.

 

[rossum]

Are we talking in Chinese?

No. We are talking about absolute truth. Is English any more absolutely true than Chinese?

What is the absolute meaning of the symbol “=”? Can you define its absolute meaning without referring to some external source? If you have to refer to an external source then the meaning of the symbol is not absolute but contingent on that source.

If I look up “elf” in an English dictionary, it means a magical humanoid. If I look up “elf” in a German dictionary, it means 11 (in base 10). Which one, if either, is the absolute meaning of “elf” that is absolutely true with no external dependencies?

I work with relative/contingent truth because that is all we have.

rossum

 

[rossum]

You are not the first to notice my sig. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school of Buddhism that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

A bit more than “fortune cookie wisdom”.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

No. We are talking about absolute truth. Is English any more absolutely true than Chinese?

What is the absolute meaning of the symbol “=”? Can you define its absolute meaning without referring to some external source? If you have to refer to an external source then the meaning of the symbol is not absolute but contingent on that source.

I think you are confusing the representation with the reality. The symbol is contingent on the language or mathematical representation being used to express a reality. The underlying reality is, however, not contingent on the symbol. The reality is represented by the symbol in some representational language or other. That does not mean the symbol is the reality. You might claim the symbol or representation is contingent on the language, that doesn’t mean the underlying reality is.

Again, if the symbol were the reality, there could be no sense in which translations from one language to another or one number system to another could be valid. Yet, we suppose that f in hexadecimal does stand for the same number as 15 in base ten.

If I look up “elf” in an English dictionary, it means a magical humanoid. If I look up “elf” in a German dictionary, it means 11 (in base 10). Which one, if either, is the absolute meaning of “elf” that is absolutely true with no external dependencies?

I work with relative/contingent truth because that is all we have.

rossum

I think you are confusing symbolic representations and the fact that many languages permit the same symbol or set of characters to stand for or represent multiple realities as some kind of proof that the realities that gave rise to their respective symbolic representations are, therefore, necessarily dependent upon their representations for truth value. That has not been shown by you.

The fact that the same symbol set “elf” exists in German as in English is really of no consequence to your argument. German as well as English comprehend the idea of “magical humanoid” despite that they each might let a different word represent that conceptual reality. You aren’t trying to argue that Germans can not know that the quantity represented by “elf” in German is the same as that represented by eleven in English, are you? Better keep on eye on your business dealings with any German people, then.

The German number “Elf” not only translates to eleven in English, but it also appears that the word “elf” which means “magical humanoid” actual derives from German, so clearly both languages grasp the same concept behind the word.

elf (n.) Look up elf at Dictionary.com
“one of a race of powerful supernatural beings in Germanic folklore,” Old English elf (Mercian, Kentish), ælf (Northumbrian), ylfe (plural, West Saxon) “sprite, fairy, goblin, incubus,” from Proto-Germanic *albiz (cognates: Old Saxon alf, Old Norse alfr, German alp “evil spirit, goblin, incubus”), origin unknown; according to Watkins, possibly from PIE *albho- “white.” Used figuratively for “mischievous person” from 1550s.

In addition to elf/ælf (masc.), Old English had parallel form *elfen (fem.), the plural of which was *elfenna, -elfen, from Proto-Germanic *albinjo-. Both words survived into Middle English and were active there, the former as elf (with the vowel of the plural), plural elves, the latter as elven, West Midlands dialect alven (plural elvene).

The Germanic elf originally was dwarfish and malicious (compare elf-lock “knot in hair,” Old English ælfadl “nightmare,” ælfsogoða “hiccup,” thought to be caused by elves); in the Middle Ages they were confused to some degree with faeries; the more noble version begins with Spenser. Nonetheless a popular component in Anglo-Saxon names, many of which survive as modern given names and surnames, such as Ælfræd “Elf-counsel” (Alfred), Ælfwine “Elf-friend” (Alvin), Ælfric “Elf-ruler” (Eldridge), also women’s names such as Ælfflæd “Elf-beauty.” Elf Lock hair tangled, especially by Queen Mab, “which it was not fortunate to disentangle” [according to Robert Nares’ glossary of Shakespeare] is from 1592.
etymonline.com/index.php?term=elf

Clearly, any quantitative reality is not dependent on the word being used for it in any language or numeric system. The number of these blue diamonds is the same in all languages and number systems.

 

[Rau]

No. We are talking about absolute truth. Is English any more absolutely true than Chinese?

What is the absolute meaning of the symbol “=”? Can you define its absolute meaning without referring to some external source? If you have to refer to an external source then the meaning of the symbol is not absolute but contingent on that source.

If I look up “elf” in an English dictionary, it means a magical humanoid. If I look up “elf” in a German dictionary, it means 11 (in base 10). Which one, if either, is the absolute meaning of “elf” that is absolutely true with no external dependencies?

I work with relative/contingent truth because that is all we have.

rossum

Symbols, forms of expression, aren’t absolute because they are made up arbitrarily at a point of time. But they may be used to describe some fact that is absolute, whether or not the expression is understood or always has the same meaning.

 

[clem456]

It’s a whooooole lotta discussion to prove it’s all relative.

I think that if I believed in such a manner I’d be at home with a coupla margaritas and a remote.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s a whooooole lotta discussion to prove it’s all relative.

I think that if I believed in such a manner I’d be at home with a coupla margaritas and a remote.

Right.

We all know that anyone who posts an argument here (especially with the certitude that’s suggested by the posts) simply cannot believe that truth is relative.

 

[rossum]

I think you are confusing the representation with the reality.

No I am not. All we have is a representation. We do not carry reality in our brains, all we carry in our brains is a representation of reality. Some external stimuli are converted into electrical impulses which travel to our brain and form models. Those models are generally good approximations of reality, but they are not reality. Firstly, our senses are imperfect and completely miss some parts of reality, like polarization of light. Secondly, our model building cannot actually build reality. It can only build a close internal model of the external reality.

You can never escape some level of representation, because representation is all you can have. It is all your brain/mind can sense.

As to abstract objects, there are reifications. They may be useful reifications, but they are not real. They are just another form of internal model.

rossum

 

[Even_So]

Rossum, you state there are immaterial and material parts to the body. Could you please splain which is which? Thanks! And idunno if I posted questions that got bounced or never hit submit, but I was going somewhere, really. Where I end up is anyone’s guess.

 

[808Catholic]

It’s a whooooole lotta discussion to prove it’s all relative.

I think that if I believed in such a manner I’d be at home with a coupla margaritas and a remote.

 

[Rau]

No I am not. All we have is a representation. We do not carry reality in our brains, all we carry in our brains is a representation of reality. Some external stimuli are converted into electrical impulses which travel to our brain and form models. Those models are generally good approximations of reality, but they are not reality. Firstly, our senses are imperfect and completely miss some parts of reality, like polarization of light. Secondly, our model building cannot actually build reality. It can only build a close internal model of the external reality.

You can never escape some level of representation, because representation is all you can have. It is all your brain/mind can sense.

As to abstract objects, there are reifications. They may be useful reifications, but they are not real. They are just another form of internal model.

rossum

Peter was right.

 

[rossum]

Rossum, you state there are immaterial and material parts to the body. Could you please splain which is which? Thanks! And idunno if I posted questions that got bounced or never hit submit, but I was going somewhere, really. Where I end up is anyone’s guess.

There are material and immaterial parts to a human being. The material part is the physical body. The immaterial part has four sub-parts: feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness. For details look up the Five Skandhas. None of the five are permanent and none of them are a soul.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

No I am not. All we have is a representation. We do not carry reality in our brains, all we carry in our brains is a representation of reality.

It appears that the only way that you could be certain that the “representation of reality” we carry in our brains is ONLY representative is by knowing what the reality actually is. You admit you don’t have that kind of privileged insight, which means you have disqualified yourself from legitimately making any claims about reality to begin with. The problem is that you are assuming the representation cannot be the reality because it sometimes “appears” to be merely a representation, but you can’t know it is only a “representation” without knowing what the reality is to begin with. Ergo, your claim is self-defeating.

Unfortunately, what leads you to think the representation cannot be the reality is based upon the times when there is some kind of disconnect between the representation and the reality, leading you to suppose the representation must, therefore, always be disconnected. Then, again, you could only know there is a disconnect if you know what the reality is that you are purportedly disconnected from.

 

[rossum]

It appears that the only way that you could be certain that the “representation of reality” we carry in our brains is ONLY representative is by knowing what the reality actually is.

No. If reality is actually the Matrix, i.e. a deceptive reality, then we have no means of knowing that it is deceptive.

I work on the assumption that my senses deliver reasonably good approximation of what is actually out there. I know that my senses are imperfect, so do not get a full picture, and I know that I am making an assumption, which might be wrong. Maybe Loki/Trickster created the world last Thursday?

I do not have any absolute knowledge that my assumption is correct. It is only a rule-of-thumb and so far it appears to work reasonably well.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

No. If reality is actually the Matrix, i.e. a deceptive reality, then we have no means of knowing that it is deceptive.

I work on the assumption that my senses deliver reasonably good approximation of what is actually out there. I know that my senses are imperfect, so do not get a full picture, and I know that I am making an assumption, which might be wrong. Maybe Loki/Trickster created the world last Thursday?

I do not have any absolute knowledge that my assumption is correct. It is only a rule-of-thumb and so far it appears to work reasonably well.

rossum

Yes, I get that the above is the “truth” that you go by, but the problem is that you are using your “rule of thumb” capriciously and arbitrarily. You admit you do have a kind of oblique access to the truth while admitting your senses are “imperfect,” yet you use their fallibility to claim the truth essentially cannot be accessed and is, instead, “reified.”

I work with relative/contingent truth because that is all we have.

Either we do have access to the truth - i.e., things as they really are - OR we do not. You are claiming our access is “imperfect” and thereby are warranted to take liberties with regard to making all reality “relative.”

The point being, again, that you have no warrant for claiming all truth is merely relative without knowing what the truth actually is in the first place. And if you can access the truth, even imperfectly, then you are accessing THE truth after all. There is no need, nor do you have metaphysical warrant, to make all truth “relative.” You are playing a kind of mental bait and switch.

Either all mental constructs are representative, in which case you ought not make any claims with regard to truth at all. Or the way our senses work with our intellect gives some reliable access to truth – as truth and not merely representational of it – which in turn gives us warrant for thinking we actually do access reality (and truth) as it is.

You seem to ‘want your cake and to eat it, too,’ in the very real sense of wanting to say something meaningful about reality and truth at the same time as you want to throw it in the EasyBake Oven™ and subsequently devour it by “reifying” it - i.e., claiming it isn’t real or absolute because you have, inexplicably, some better view of truth that you attained by reading Buddhist writings and by practicing the teachings contained in them.

The problem, again, is that you cannot make any claims with regard to truth from a premise that all mental phenomena are merely representational because they, then, cannot provide any reliable access to actual reality. But, then, you want to smuggle in truth and reality by making truth claims on the grounds that your senses are “generally reliable.” Well, if they are, indeed, generally reliable, then we have grounds for thinking we actually do access THE truth at least to some level and aren’t merely “reifying” our representations. This is where your logic fails to make the appropriate inferences and you take the unwarranted step of making truth “relative” when you have no justification for doing so.

Either stop making claims about truth entirely if you suppose all mental constructs are merely representational and we can’t access the truth. Or admit that truth – the actual reality of things – can be accessed to some level or degree, which entails that your claims regarding the reification of truth are simply misleading and unjustified.

You can’t have your cake and eat it, too, princess. :hey_bud:

 

[rossum]

Either we do have access to the truth - i.e., things as they really are - OR we do not.

False dichotomy. There is a third option, an imperfect, fuzzy, access to the truth. We know that our senses are imperfect, and give us an imperfect picture of the external world. What method to you propose to give us a perfect picture of the external world?

You are claiming our access is “imperfect” and thereby are warranted to take liberties with regard to making all reality “relative.”

Any reality we can know must at least be relative to the information provided by our senses. If there is a non-relative reality out there that we do not know, then we are forced to ignore it, because we do not know it. Everything that we know is mediated through our senses.

The point being, again, that you have no warrant for claiming all truth is merely relative without knowing what the truth actually is in the first place.

Any truth we know it obviously relative to ourselves: we cannot know a truth that we ourselves do not know.

We can make assumptions about what we do not know, but we need to remember that they are just assumptions. Those assumptions may, or may not, correspond to the true state of the external world. However, we do not have any way of checking them.

rossum

 

[clem456]

No. If reality is actually the Matrix, i.e. a deceptive reality, then we have no means of knowing that it is deceptive.

I work on the assumption that my senses deliver reasonably good approximation of what is actually out there. I know that my senses are imperfect, so do not get a full picture, and I know that I am making an assumption, which might be wrong. Maybe Loki/Trickster created the world last Thursday?

I do not have any absolute knowledge that my assumption is correct. It is only a rule-of-thumb and so far it appears to work reasonably well.

rossum

Great.
It is a relief that you do not believe too strongly what you are saying.
I will go about my business.

 

[Peter_Plato]

False dichotomy. There is a third option, an imperfect, fuzzy, access to the truth. We know that our senses are imperfect, and give us an imperfect picture of the external world. What method to you propose to give us a perfect picture of the external world?

I am not clear how this nullifies my point. We can’t have an “imperfect, fuzzy access to the truth” without some assurance that what we are accessing is the truth. That is, we need to have some assurance that the truth is what is being accessed BEFORE we can claim to even have an “imperfect, fuzzy, access” to it. The “truth” would still have to be THE truth, after all.

 

[Abu]

Rossum #201
There is a third option, an imperfect, fuzzy, access to the truth.

That is the ultimate cop out, for we have the truth and the evidence to support that truth.

No one else has been able to say as Jesus, the Christ, proclaimed: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” (Jn 14:6).

The historian Eusebius in his Church history, 4.3, 1.2, tells us that writing about 123 A.D., apologist Quadratus cited those in his day who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus of Nazareth – prime witnesses – long after the miracles, crucifixion and death of the Son of God. No other religious founder claimed to be God and proved it – not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.

His miracles “were so frequent, the eyewitnesses so numerous, and the evidence so stark, that not even Christ’s enemies disputed the fact of their occurrence. Instead they ascribed them to the power of the devil, or defied Him to perform another one in His own favour.” (See Mt 12:24; 27:39-42;Jn11:47).Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 104].

Christ’s Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).” St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

The evidence of history which attests Christ as the Son of God, sent to redeem humanity, also attests, to this day, to His reality and His truths through the facts of the miracle of the Sun at Fatima, the medically attested miracles that take place at Lourdes, and the Eucharistic miracles.

The evidence is overwhelming that Catholicism is God’s design, the fullness of Christ’s teaching and His mode of salvation for everyone, whether one knows it or not.

 

[rossum]

I am not clear how this nullifies my point. We can’t have an “imperfect, fuzzy access to the truth” without some assurance that what we are accessing is the truth. That is, we need to have some assurance that the truth is what is being accessed BEFORE we can claim to even have an “imperfect, fuzzy, access” to it. The “truth” would still have to be THE truth, after all.

OK, I’ll rephrase. We have imperfect, fuzzy access to something. That something might be the truth, it might not. We make a working assumption that it is the truth.

You appear to be looking for absolute hard-edges assurances. You won’t find them. All we have are imperfect senses and working assumptions. As long as they work, then we retain those assumptions.

rossum