"All truth is relative" = an absolute truth: Why?

[Ben_Sinner]

Ok, so one of the arguments proving absolute truth is the one I just mentioned in the title.

If I were to conclude “There is no absolute truth”, then my conclusion would be self-refuting and would be a statement of absolute truth.

I then realize this and believe absolute truth to be real.

but what if someone were to ask “Why do you believe that “there is no absolute truth” is an absolute truth?”

What is a good answer I could give that wouldn’t result in an infinite regress, circular argument, or assumption?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Ok, so one of the arguments proving absolute truth is the one I just mentioned in the title.

If I were to conclude “There is no absolute truth”, then my conclusion would be self-refuting and would be a statement of absolute truth.

I then realize this and believe absolute truth to be real.

but what if someone were to ask “Why do you believe that “there is no absolute truth” is an absolute truth?”

What is a good answer I could give that wouldn’t result in an infinite regress, circular argument, or assumption?

In order for the statement to be true AT ALL, it must be false. That is why it is self-refuting and incoherent.

It is like saying, “Every statement I make is false.”

It is incoherent BECAUSE in order to be true at all it must be false. Which makes it both true and false at the same time with respect to the same thing. It completely shatters the logical law of non-contradiction by making a false statement true and a true statement false.

 

[Ben_Sinner]

In order for the statement to be true AT ALL, it must be false. That is why it is self-refuting and incoherent.

It is like saying, “Every statement I make is false.”

It is incoherent BECAUSE in order to be true at all it must be false. Which makes it both true and false at the same time with respect to the same thing. It completely shatters the logical law of non-contradiction by making a false statement true and a true statement false.

I agree that it is an illogical statement and one I don’t believe.

I would just assume that someone would play devil’s advocate and ask “well why do you think thats incoherent? What power do you have to judge it as incoherent?”

 

[Lucy107]

I would just assume that someone would play devil’s advocate and ask “well why do you think thats incoherent? What power do you have to judge it as incoherent?”

A good rule of thumb is that whenever one finds oneself in a double bind (ie. when any and all options that come to mind as answers to the problem at hand seem wrong or detrimental to oneself and/or others), it’s good to look at the context of the situation as a whole, and address that.

In the above case, this would mean to ask oneself something like “Why am I having a conversation with this person who appears to be playing the devil’s advocate? What is my goal that I am trying to achieve in this conversation?”

While this approach can sometimes make one look like a coward or inept, it does have the advantage of preventing one to waste time and other resources.

 

[Bradski]

Ok, so one of the arguments proving absolute truth is the one I just mentioned in the title.

If I were to conclude “There is no absolute truth”, then my conclusion would be self-refuting and would be a statement of absolute truth.

All truths are relative. All facts are not. The statement that all truths are relative is a statement of fact.

That you can get universal agreement on any given aspect of morality does not make it a fact.

 

[John_Martin]

All truths are relative. All facts are not. The statement that all truths are relative is a statement of fact.

That you can get universal agreement on any given aspect of morality does not make it a fact.

Bradski is correct; “relative” is not opposed to “true” as “false” is opposed to “true”. Saying “All truth is false” would be a statement by someone I would avoid talking to, but not the post Title.

To reason with the post title, or with Bradski, one would look at the understanding of the terms “relative” and “truth” to reason whether one can be predicated of the other, whether truth is contingent or not or sometimes (depending on the “truth” in question). Human reason allows for two types of truth, one of universals and one practical. For instance, universally it is known that a human has two arms (natural form of a human - a universal). Yet reason and understanding also knows individual truth, that not all humans have two arms (whether from a birth defect or an amputation of some sort), yet all are still human. The question of there being absolute truth would be asking whether there are any universals, whether the human mind can know them if they exist.

But as for “agreement on morality”, agreement does not make true, as if political or popular sentiment decided truth. Agreement can allow for “exception” or “acceptance” of a particular act within a society, but does not conclude truth. It merely grants license to a desire’s fulfillment (but can do nothing to ease a conscience when that license is for something truly immoral, i.e., contrary to natural law, accessible to all through fully sound reasoning unobstructed by sensitive appetite.)

 

[Ben_Sinner]

What is the difference between ‘truth’ and ‘fact’ ?

 

[Bahman]

What is the difference between ‘truth’ and ‘fact’ ?

Fact is objective (it does not relay on person) and truth is subjective (it does relay on the person).

 

[grannymh]

Ok, so one of the arguments proving absolute truth is the one I just mentioned in the title.

If I were to conclude “There is no absolute truth”, then my conclusion would be self-refuting and would be a statement of absolute truth.

I then realize this and believe absolute truth to be real.

but what if someone were to ask “Why do you believe that “there is no absolute truth” is an absolute truth?”

What is a good answer I could give that wouldn’t result in an infinite regress, circular argument, or assumption?

I would like to reply because truth can be reasoned in two different ways. However, first I need to know if your “absolute truth” is actually “objective truth.” And then, what do you mean by “objective truth.”

Thank you.

 

[zerubabel]

I don’t think this one is going to get figured out. But I’ll add something here:

Understood etymologically truth describes the successful completion of a promise, or the faithfulness of the promise-maker. All Indo-European languages’ variants stem from the PIE *deru-/*dreu- “be firm, solid, steadfast”.

“The remedy for unpredictability, for the chaotic uncertainty of the future, is contained in the faculty to make and keep promises … binding oneself through promises, serves to set up in the ocean of uncertainty, which the future is by definition, islands of security without which not even continuity, let alone durability of any kind, would be possible in the relationships between men.”

Hannah Arendt acknowledges here the foundational essence of “truth” and the foundational necessity of* “truth”* in the relations between men. When I say “I will do this” - and I do it - that is truth and it is made absolute by my faithful completion of it. Minimally this is the underlying theme in the Biblical relations between the Hebrew patriarchs and God, and perhaps also in the Christian promise of faith-based redemption.

The philosopher takes this foundational meaning of “truth” and alters it to mean - that which stands-up to all scrutiny. And we end up with
The Artichoke of Truth. (39 second YouTube clip)

.

 

[Peter_Plato]

All truths are relative. All facts are not. The statement that all truths are relative is a statement of fact.

That you can get universal agreement on any given aspect of morality does not make it a fact.

How do we know that “All truths are relative” is, indeed, a statement of fact? It appears to be a truth claim on your part and, therefore, a statement of truth rather than a fact.

You seem to be making arbitrary delineations because the distinction between truth and fact just seems to collapse.

Your statement that “All facts are not relative” is, itself, a truth claim and, therefore, according to you, a relative one since “All truths are relative.”

That means “All facts are not relative” is not a fact, so we can’t know with any degree of certainty that “All facts are not relative.” For all we know, they could be.

We would have to arbitrarily make the claim that “All facts are not relative” in order for it to be thought true - which reduces it to a truth claim and a relative one at that.

I think you are constructing a house of cards based upon the way you see the world.

What precisely is a “fact” that would not, thereby, make it a “true statement about the world?”

Statements of fact would then become statements of truth which would make them all relative. Hello?

 

[Ben_Sinner]

I would like to reply because truth can be reasoned in two different ways. However, first I need to know if your “absolute truth” is actually “objective truth.” And then, what do you mean by “objective truth.”

Thank you.

Objective truth.

Objective truth is not an opinion or assumption, it is a fact.

 

[Bradski]

What precisely is a “fact” that would not, thereby, make it a “true statement about the world?”

So if dogs haves four legs, then that animal over there with four legs is a dog?

Facts are true in the sense that they are indisputable statements about reality. If I say ‘There is a pen on my desk’ is a statement of fact, totally independent of any other considerations (it also happens to be true).

But if you say that lying is wrong, then it is not a fact but is entirely dependent upon the situation. You might give an example where you would get universal agreement on the truth value of any given statement but that doesn’t, simply by everyone agreeing, make it a fact. If it did, then anything that had universal agreement would be a fact.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So if dogs haves four legs, then that animal over there with four legs is a dog?

Facts are true in the sense that they are indisputable statements about reality. If I say ‘There is a pen on my desk’ is a statement of fact, totally independent of any other considerations (it also happens to be true).

But if you say that lying is wrong, then it is not a fact but is entirely dependent upon the situation. You might give an example where you would get universal agreement on the truth value of any given statement but that doesn’t, simply by everyone agreeing, make it a fact. If it did, then anything that had universal agreement would be a fact.

I am not ASSUMING universal agreement is what makes something right or wrong, true or false.

I would claim that the ground for truth is somewhat like what you claim is the ground for fact – the nature of underlying reality. You claim THAT ground is naturalistic or material, effectively begging the question.

I claim that the ground of reality is intentional, purposeful and supportive of qualitative truth. You think it isn’t and only give the fact that there is not universal agreement on the part of subjects as support for your position.

Effectively, you are using the negation of “simply by everyone agreeing, [doesn’t] make it a fact. If it did, then anything that had universal agreement would be a fact,” to claim that truth statements are relative (i.e., not universally agreed upon) to declare them to be “not facts.”

To proclaim that your view that only facts correspond to reality begs the question because it assumes eliminative materialism is, by default, the ground for reality. Merely by stating truths are relative (not universally agreed upon) does not prove they are. Which is essentially what you rely on – an assertion that facts are indisputable and therefore true but truth statements are disputable and, therefore, relative.

You don’t seem to see that your use of “indisputable” simply means universal agreement, so the ground you have for not allowing truth statements even if they are universally agreed upon is essentially the same ground you claim for allowing facts because they are indisputable, i.e., universally agreed upon. It is a little sleight of hand maneuver on your part.

 

[zerubabel]

…
Facts are true in the sense that they are indisputable statements about reality. If I say ‘There is a pen on my desk’ is a statement of fact, totally independent of any other considerations (it also happens to be true).
…

Truth is a speech act.

As evidence consider: Truth is abstract, i.e. not material. Abstract ideas can not exist without language*. While truth may exist outside of language, language is always present at the manifestation of truth. Truth, as it exists in the secular world, is a speech act.

• Test oneself: In the dead quiet of the night contemplate some abstract idea (e.g. subjectivism). And do so without using one’s inner voice. If someone can do it, they are extraordinary.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

If I were to conclude “There is no absolute truth”, then my conclusion would be self-refuting and would be a statement of absolute truth.

I think the philosophical problem is in the designation “absolute truth” itself. Things are either judged to be “true” or “not true.”

 

[zerubabel]

I think the philosophical problem is in the designation “absolute truth” itself. Things are either judged to be “true” or "not true."

By “things” you of course mean speech acts (?). A rock is not judged to be either true or not true.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

So if dogs haves four legs, then that animal over there with four legs is a dog?

Facts are true in the sense that they are indisputable statements about reality. If I say ‘There is a pen on my desk’ is a statement of fact, totally independent of any other considerations (it also happens to be true).

But if you say that lying is wrong, then it is not a fact but is entirely dependent upon the situation. You might give an example where you would get universal agreement on the truth value of any given statement but that doesn’t, simply by everyone agreeing, make it a fact. If it did, then anything that had universal agreement would be a fact.

I’m still not getting the distinction you’re trying to make. Dogs have four legs (in almost all cases) is true. All four legged animals are dogs is false. Both are objective statements purporting to represent fact. Neither claim is subjective.

On lying, you seem to go in two different directions. The beginning seems to be consistent with the acceptance of objective morality- “it would be wrong for me to lie right now” will be objectively true or false, depending on the situation. But in the next part you seem to suggest that “moral facts” don’t exist.

So I’m not clear on what you think on the matter or, more importantly, what it has do with a distinction between truth and fact.

 

[Lucy107]

There are many theories of truth -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theories_of_truth
plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

Without acknowledging this, it’s rather difficult to discuss this topic …

 

[John_Martin]

I think the philosophical problem is in the designation “absolute truth” itself. Things are either judged to be “true” or “not true.”

Judged by us for our use in understanding reality as true or not. God is truth in himself, yet we also judge about the truth of God as to whether it (or he) is true or not, and by our understanding of this we interface with the actual object of God (interface well if we have judged correctly, interface poorly or not at all if we did not conclude truth in God).