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

[rossum]

Your point seems to be that we ought to assume we will always be incorrect about what we think we know because we have no assurance that we could be correct.

My apologies for not expressing myself more clearly. My point is that all our knowledge is relative. It may be correct, indeed it very often is, but we cannot make that last step from relatively correct to absolutely correct. For real world working, 99.9999999% correct is good enough. Science is well used to working with quantities that come with margins of error. The same is true elsewhere. There are no absolute truths because there is no source of absolute truth available to us. Our senses are not absolute. Our languages are not absolute. There is no absolute determinant of what is, and what is not, absolute. All we can ever have is a relative truth. A great many relative truths are indeed true, but we cannot be absolutely sure.

We need to learn to live with that edge of uncertinty.

Admittedly, a haze surrounds knowledge, but the only way through the haze is to question, observe, reason, experiment, think some more, propose, question some more, assess, and repeat, repeat, repeat until greater clarity comes about.

Agreed. However, “greater clarity” can never reach “absolute clarity”. There is an asymptotic approach which gets closer and closer, but never actually gats there. No matter how many decimal points you calculate, there are always more decimal points to be calculated.

You also completely discount – and arbitrarily, I might add – the fact that whatever stands on the other side of the haze has an absolute interest in making itself known to us.

How do you know that, absolutely? You believe that the Christian God is out there. Others believe it is Allah, or the Jewish YHWH, or Durga, or Vishnu, or Amaterasu. Where is your absolute source of knowledge of what lies on the other side of the haze? How do you access this absolute source without using your relative senses or relative human language.

From my Buddhist point of view, there is nothing on the other side of the haze. We just, mistakenly, think that there is something there. There isn’t, there is just the haze.

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.

The problem is that you admit that YOU cannot know anything with absolute certainty so you have no grounds from which to dispute anything – you admit you don’t know anything with any degree of certainty. You can remain in your fog if you choose. I find no compelling reason to want to stand beside you.

As you say, I do not have any absolute truths, but I do have a good set of working truths that work for me here and now. It is irrelevant if those truths are relative or absolute. The important question is whether or not they work here and now.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Words are merely signs that point to things or events. If the letters mean nothing, are mere nonsense syllables, that is not a proof of relativism.

What events are being pointed to? One possibility is an entry in a dictionary. A dictionary is relative, not absolute. Do the words point to a mental event in my head? Unless you have mind-reading powers, you cannot know that event, all you can know are the words I use to describe it. We know that in many cases, such descriptions are either faulty or are misunderstood. Just consider how many different ways the words in the Bible are interpreted by different Christian denominations.

Words are not absolute. If they were then there would only be one denomination of Christianity, of Islam, of Judaism, of Buddhism etc.

No matter what language you use, when you say in that language that the Earth revolves about the Sun, you are making an absolute truth statement.

No. Putting those words into a Hindi dictionary will result in nonsense, since most (or all) of those words have no meaning in Hindi. Your alleged “absolute truth” is not absolute because it depends on the knowledge of the person reading. Hence it is relative to the knowledge of the reader. This is true of all human languages.

In some circumstances your statement is true; in other circumstances it is nonsense. Therefore it is not an absolute truth. An absolute truth is true in all circumstances. Your statement is a relative truth, since it is only true in relation to some, but not all, circumstances.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Facts don’t exist inside our heads nor do we invent them. They existed long before we existed! There are many facts that haven’t been discovered; otherwise science and philosophy are pointless investigations…

“outside” is the key word. Can we be mistaken about what we are thinking? Or whether we are in pain? Dr Johnson’s test would soon dispel any doubt about that…

If it is not an absolute fact that you and I exist all your communications are pointless. By the very fact that you are attempting to give reasons for your conclusions you imply that the truth exists objectively and independently of our opinions. It is an absolute truth that facts don’t exist inside our heads nor do we invent them, that they existed long before we existed and there are many that haven’t been discovered. Otherwise science and philosophy are pointless investigations…

 

[tonyrey]

Your logic is baffling in the extreme.

Words are merely signs that point to things or events. If the letters mean nothing, are mere nonsense syllables, that is not a proof of relativism.

No matter what language you use, when you say in that language that the Earth revolves about the Sun, you are making an absolute truth statement. If this is not true in every language, but true in only some languages and false in others, you would have a case to make. But there is no language in which this is not true.

Now some people who are ignorant might say the Sun revolves about the Earth, but they are deceived by their senses, and so it cannot be said that they are relatively right to believe so. They are absolutely wrong. No?

Irrefutable, Charlie.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In some circumstances your statement is true; in other circumstances it is nonsense. Therefore it is not an absolute truth. An absolute truth is true in all circumstances. ** Your statement is a relative truth, since it is only true in relation to some, but not all**,rossum

Under what circumstances would it not be absolutely true to say that the Earth is currently revolving about the Sun?

If the Earth for some catastrophic reason ceased to exist, no longer revolved about the Sun, it would only follow that at one time it absolutely did revolve about the Sun.

What is your problem with facing absolutely certain truths (facts)?

 

[Bradski]

Which of the terms are relative, Brad? We? Try? Believe?

‘Believe’. You are not making an objective statement if you say you believe something to be true. If you say ‘Peter’s car is red’, then that is an objective statement. It either is true or false, but you are making a factual claim. If you say that you ‘believe’ his car is red, then that is not a factual claim. You are saying that ‘as far as you understand it’ or ‘as far as I know’ or ‘to the best of my understanding’. You are in fact saying ‘I believe his car is red (but I could be wrong about that)’. Otherwise you wouldn’t need to qualify it with the word ‘believe’.

Whether the objective claim is absolutely true or not is also eligible for debate precisely because the claim is about something objectively available to all - or at least a few - knowers at some level. Subjective truths are claims about subjects by the subjects themselves and, as such, are not disputable in the way that objective claims are.

I’ve no problem with that. But he’s talking about objective facts.

If I say: ‘There is a pen on my desk’ it’s an objective claim. And one which can be determined objectively. My statement may turn out to be the truth or I may be lying. We can determine either objectively. However, if I turn out to be lying it is literally impossible to say that I was doing something wrong unless you know why I did it. IF the situation justified it (and you agree) then you can say that it was the correct thing to do. IF the situation did not justify it, then you can say it was wrong. But whether it was right or wrong is dependent upon, is contingent upon, is relative to the situation.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’ve no problem with that. But he’s talking about objective facts.

If I say: ‘There is a pen on my desk’ it’s an objective claim. And one which can be determined objectively. My statement may turn out to be the truth or I may be lying. We can determine either objectively. However, if I turn out to be lying it is literally impossible to say that I was doing something wrong unless you know why I did it. IF the situation justified it (and you agree) then you can say that it was the correct thing to do. IF the situation did not justify it, then you can say it was wrong. But whether it was right or wrong is dependent upon, is contingent upon, is relative to the situation.

Is it possible for a person to be certain about their own motives? Does that certainty depend upon their own will or something else? In other words, if someone thinks they are jealous or envious is it merely thinking it that makes them jealous or envious or does jealousy objectively exist in them? Can they merely decide I am not jealous and that decision makes them not jealous? Or is there more to it?

 

[Bradski]

Is it possible for a person to be certain about their own motives? Does that certainty depend upon their own will or something else? In other words, if someone thinks they are jealous or envious is it merely thinking it that makes them jealous or envious or does jealousy objectively exist in them? Can they merely decide I am not jealous and that decision makes them not jealous? Or is there more to it?

Not sure how this ties in with previous posts. And I’m not sure how you can be unsure about your own motives. If you ask me why I did something, then I can’t imagine me answering: ‘I’m not sure’. I may not be sure of the consequences but I must have thought about why I am doing it. Whether I consider it to be right or wrong is something I could probably tell you if I’d thought about it (and unless it was inconsequential, I probably would have).

And it beats me with jealousy. It’s an automatic feeling like love or anger. You can’t do much about it. You can control your response but that doesn’t prevent the feeling.

And I’m waiting for your explanation on how you decide if something is objectively true.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And I’m waiting for your explanation on how you decide if something is objectively true.

That would depend on what that “something” is.

The other thing you might be waiting for is how you would explain that something is objectively untrue.

There are many ways to achieve objectivity, including evidence, logic, intuition and common sense. The “something” you are talking about has to be objectively approached using any one or mote of the above criteria.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Not sure how this ties in with previous posts. And I’m not sure how you can be unsure about your own motives. If you ask me why I did something, then I can’t imagine me answering: ‘I’m not sure’. I may not be sure of the consequences but I must have thought about why I am doing it. Whether I consider it to be right or wrong is something I could probably tell you if I’d thought about it (and unless it was inconsequential, I probably would have).

And it beats me with jealousy. It’s an automatic feeling like love or anger. You can’t do much about it. You can control your response but that doesn’t prevent the feeling.

And I’m waiting for your explanation on how you decide if something is objectively true.

Wallace’s point was that the difference between subjective and objective has to do with which determines the truth value of the proposition. Is it the subject or the object?

Preferences or opinions are changeable by the subject. I can opine or prefer one thing or idea to another and I have the capacity to change my preference or my opinion, but objectively true statements are not susceptible to being altered by the subject. I cannot, merely by thinking or wishing it, make a white car blue. What determines the colour of the car is not determinable by the subject, but by qualities residing in or about the object.

You claimed circumstance and motive make moral truths relative. Perhaps they are relative, but that, in itself, fails to make moral truths not objectively true, in particular, since you admitted that motives are not under the control of the subject to determine merely by whim, caprice or act of will. Motives, in that case, may then be objectively true about subjects in the same sense that colour is objectively true about objects, precisely because they would not be amenable to being altered solely by the subject in the way preferences and opinions are.

 

[Bradski]

You claimed circumstance and motive make moral truths relative. Perhaps they are relative…

Well, it seems all that fun I had putting together ‘barely comprehensible’ arguments seem to have been not in vain. Except that:

…that, in itself, fails to make moral truths not objectively true…

If something it not objectively true, it must be relatively so. So you have just said that because a moral truth is relative doesn’t make it…relative. You’re losing me, Peter. You’re losing me.

…in particular, since you admitted that motives are not under the control of the subject to determine merely by whim, caprice or act of will.

I said nothing about motives not being under the control of the subject. You continue to misquote me and it’s becoming more than a little frustrating.

Motives, in that case, may then be objectively true about subjects in the same sense that colour is objectively true about objects, precisely because hey would not be amenable to being altered solely by the subject in the way preferences and opinions are.

Motive is a function of a conscious decision, made with free will. There can be no motive to steal something if I don’t actually decide to steal something. You can’t say: ‘What is your motive for doing that?’ if I haven’t decided to do anything. So motive can only exist if I decide (note that word) to do something. If I decide to rob a bank, then my motive would be to have more money. I may have an opinion about robbing banks (the insurance will cover anyone’s losses) and I may have a preference as to whether I should rob one (maybe I should try something more ‘white collar’). But robbing one is a conscious decision (not a preference or an opinion) and motive is a function of that.

That would depend on what that “something” is. There are many ways to achieve objectivity, including evidence, logic, intuition and common sense. The “something” you are talking about has to be objectively approached using any one or mote of the above criteria.

I think we can pass on intuition and common sense. They are different for everyone. I won’t even bother giving examples. We need something that works for everyone under all circumstances.

And I’ve got a nasty suspicion that when you say ‘logic’ you would us it in the sense of suggesting ‘isn’t it logical?’ When actually what you’d be saying is that it appears to be logical to you. Logic has limited uses when it comes to morality. In fact, it may be completely useless.

But evidence. Oh yeah, you bet. With you all the way here Charles. So give me evidence that killing is wrong. Or lying is wrong. And please don’t give me any specific scenarios or certain ‘circumstance and motive’ as Peter said. Because, as he said, in that case it becomes…relative.

The other thing you might be waiting for is how you would explain that something is objectively untrue.

Well this isn’t too difficult. An objective truth is either true or not independent of the opinion on the subject. So if I say that Peter’s car is red, then to check if that is objectively true or not you (wait for it) have a look.

 

[Lucy107]

Not sure how this ties in with previous posts. And I’m not sure how you can be unsure about your own motives.

Modern psychology and many spiritual traditions focus precisely on this issue, pointing out that it is not always easy to figure out what one’s own motives are.

 

[rossum]

Can we be mistaken about what we are thinking?

Of course we can. We may think we are healthy, when in fact we are not. The majority of people make a mistake in thinking that there is YHWH/Allah/Shiva/Amaterasu/no gods/Moroni etc. There are a great many incompatible religions, and incompatible denominations within those religions, and within atheism. At most only one of those many different beliefs is correct, and possibly none of them.

We can most certainly be mistaken about what we are thinking.

If it is not an absolute fact that you and I exist all your communications are pointless.

It is not an absolute fact, since both our existences are relative to time. Neither of us existed 150 years ago. Neither of us will exist in 150 years time. Our existence is relative to time, it is not absolute.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Under what circumstances would it not be absolutely true to say that the Earth is currently revolving about the Sun?

For some alignments of the planets, basically when the Earth is between Jupiter and the Sun, then the joint centre of mass, around which all bodies revolve – yes, that includes the Sun – lies outside the Sun.

Also, your use of the word “currently” renders your statement relative. 10 billion years ago, your “currently” would render your statement false since neither the Sun nor the Earth were then in existence.

Once the Sun has expanded, long in the future, then the Earth will not be revolving “around” the Sun, but instead “inside” the Sun.

You have given yet another example of a true and useful relative truth. It is true and usable for the moment, but it breaks down far in the past, and far in the future. Such relative truths are perfectly usable, provided we bear in mind the limits within which they operate.

If the Earth for some catastrophic reason ceased to exist, no longer revolved about the Sun, it would only follow that at one time it absolutely did revolve about the Sun.

Five billion years ago, that was exactly the case. There was no Earth, just an accretion disc around a newly forming star.

What is your problem with facing absolutely certain truths (facts)?

My problem is with the word “absolutely”. Facts can be true and useful, but they are not absolute. Facts are relative, as is clearly shown by the word “currently” in your initial statement. That makes your statement relative to time.

rossum

 

[Lucy107]

We can most certainly be mistaken about what we are thinking.

I see you have noted that you are Buddhist in your profile.
Would you like to explain the Buddhist teaching that perception is an active process?

 

[rossum]

I see you have noted that you are Buddhist in your profile.
Would you like to explain the Buddhist teaching that perception is an active process?

This is OT here, so I will be brief.

Perception requires three elements: an object, a sense organ and consciousness.

The object, say a horse, is perceived by the sense organ, say the eye. The eye passes nerve impulses to the brain/consciousness. Our consciousness matches those incoming impulses to stored patterns and recognises “horse”. The brain is good (sometimes too good) at recognising patterns.

One of the tasks of a meditator is to recognise what part of our perception is due to those patterns inside our brain, and which are actually real in the external world.

For example, the water in a mirage is in our head, not out there in the real world.

HTH

rossum

 

[Lucy107]

This is OT here, so I will be brief.

Not at all, I think it would solve the cunundrum around the “absolute truth” or “objective truth”.

Perception requires three elements: an object, a sense organ and consciousness.

I was hoping you’d say more about how we perceive something is guided by our ideas and passions (how “we see what we want to see”).

People looking for the “objective truth” sometimes fail to recognize how their own preconceived notions and especially passions shape what (it is that they think) they see.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, it seems all that fun I had putting together ‘barely comprehensible’ arguments seem to have been not in vain. Except that:

If something it not objectively true, it must be relatively so. So you have just said that because a moral truth is relative doesn’t make it…relative. You’re losing me, Peter. You’re losing me.

Well, no. My point was that things being relative does not, by itself, stop them from being objectively true.

You keep failing to see the distinction between “objective truths” (true about objects independent of subjective determination) and “subjective truths” (true in the sense of currently held by subjects, and determinable by subjects themselves.)

Merely because some truths have dependencies (are relative) does not disqualify them from being objectively true, nonetheless. It is just that the truth value in this case depends upon several objects rather than just one. In other words, these truths are conditional on the relative alignment of objects.

So, your statement that “If something it [sic] not objectively true, it must be relatively so,…” is false. Relatively true statements can still be objectively true, just that dependencies exist. “Relative” does not logically imply “NOT objective,” as you claim it does.

And, “because a moral truth is relative doesn’t make it…relative…” is not what I held. I held that if a moral truth is relative, THAT does not disqualify it from also being objective.

That you are so easily lost seems your issue, not mine. It is all crystal and persuasive to me. Perhaps your reading glasses are all smudgy?

I said nothing about motives not being under the control of the subject. You continue to misquote me and it’s becoming more than a little frustrating.

Motive is a function of a conscious decision, made with free will. There can be no motive to steal something if I don’t actually decide to steal something. You can’t say: ‘What is your motive for doing that?’ if I haven’t decided to do anything. So motive can only exist if I decide (note that word) to do something. If I decide to rob a bank, then my motive would be to have more money. I may have an opinion about robbing banks (the insurance will cover anyone’s losses) and I may have a preference as to whether I should rob one (maybe I should try something more ‘white collar’). But robbing one is a conscious decision (not a preference or an opinion) and motive is a function of that.

I don’t deny that some motives are functions of conscious decision, my thought is that not all are. In fact, I would say that corruption in a moral sense is when a person has no conscious control over motive such that motive becomes the dominant force bringing about an act – in fact that is when motives become objectively obvious and certain to the outside world because motives become virtually causal. That is why courts of law, for example, seek means, MOTIVE, and opportunity because when moral wrong occurs the presumption is that motive has overwhelmed good sense.

The normative state may be that motives are within the control of individual will and conscious decision, but sin (moral corruption) creates a “fallen” or debilitated state where control is abdicated. This aligns well with Jesus’ teaching that “He who sins is a slave to sin,” and with Augustine’s ideas in “On Grace and Free Will.”

Ergo, motive may be entirely amenable to subjective determination or entirely not – the point at which motive overwhelms subjective determination it takes on an objective “life of its own,” so to speak.

 

[tonyrey]

Can we be mistaken about what we are thinking?

I didn’t ask whether our thoughts always correspond to reality but whether we know what we are thinking! In other words is it possible to be unaware of our conscious thoughts?

If it is not an absolute fact that you and I exist all your communications are pointless.

It is not an absolute fact, since both our existences are relative to time. Neither of us existed 150 years ago. Neither of us will exist in 150 years time. Our existence is relative to time, it is not absolute.

It remains an absolute, immutable, universal and eternal fact that **we **exist on 9th February 2015. The future and the past are irrelevant because they do not imply we do not exist. Even in time every single moment is unique, irreplaceable and impossible to qualify or diminish in any significant way. It is an unconditional and indestructible fact unrelated to anything else. I should have thought a Buddhist would agree that spiritual reality is independent of all physical considerations.

 

[rossum]

It remains an absolute, immutable, universal and eternal fact that **we **exist on 9th February 2015.

No. Neither of us existed in the year 2015 AUC. Neither us us existed in the year 2015 BCE. Neither of us will exist in the year 2015 AH.

The truth, or not, of your statement is relative to the calendar being used.

The future and the past are irrelevant because they do not imply we do not exist.

Since the future and the past are not relevant, then there is no point in having an absolute truth compared to a relative truth. The difference is “irrelevant”.

I should have thought a Buddhist would agree that spiritual reality is independent of all physical considerations.

No, the two are closely related. Karma and enlightenment both involve the material and the spiritual. It is an error to see the two as separate, when they are not. The two interact with each other in many different and subtle ways.

rossum