Is there absolute, objective, truth?

[fix]

Actually, 1+1=3 for sufficiently large values of 1. Which is essentially the nominalist argument against realism.

JSA+

I am not familiar with this. Is nominalism simply changing the name of something and claiming its essence is changed as well?

 

[blackrobe]

I am not familiar with this. Is nominalism simply changing the name of something and claiming its essence is changed as well?

Nominalism, of which there are many grades and variants, is a general term for a perspective which doubts or denies the real relationship between concepts and objects. Nominalism suggests that either there is no objective truth or that if there is we can’t know anything about it because everything is so tied up in our perceptions.

Something to consider: Even the most intellectually convinced nominalists act like realists when it counts-- generally obeying traffic laws, not keeping the hair dryer on the bathtub, ducking punches, etc. I saw a pro-life ad which included a perfect example of a converted nominalist. A woman who had decided against abortion pondered the question “Why was it a baby when I wanted it and something else when I didn’t’”?

JSA+

 

[fix]

Nominalism, of which there are many grades and variants, is a general term for a perspective which doubts or denies the real relationship between concepts and objects. Nominalism suggests that either there is no objective truth or that if there is we can’t know anything about it because everything is so tied up in our perceptions.

Thank you, that was helpful.

Something to consider: Even the most intellectually convinced nominalists act like realists when it counts-- generally obeying traffic laws, not keeping the hair dryer on the bathtub, ducking punches, etc. I saw a pro-life ad which included a perfect example of a converted nominalist. A woman who had decided against abortion pondered the question “Why was it a baby when I wanted it and something else when I didn’t’”?

JSA+

 

[BlaineTog]

You are ust playing with the numbers.

My example still stands. It is your translations that are faulty.

Not at all. Among other reasons, putting one finger next to another finger doesn’t give you two fingers at all, but one finger next to another. Just because they are slightly closer to each other doesn’t affect an ontological change. However, it could. There is no reason why when, say, when placing two coins next to each other, a third couldn’t spontaneously appear. Other than that it hasn’t so far, of course. That would be a bona fide way of 1+1=3. Or one of the coins could disappear, making 1 + 1 = 0. Or we could deny the law of noncontradiction, and say that 1 + 1 = 0 OR 2 OR 3 OR X, where X = any number, or maybe not.

My point is that just because you’re very certain about something doesn’t mean it’s any more certainly true than anything else. You may well simply be deluded more strongly that usual.

 

[buffalo]

Not at all. Among other reasons, putting one finger next to another finger doesn’t give you two fingers at all, but one finger next to another. Just because they are slightly closer to each other doesn’t affect an ontological change. However, it could. There is no reason why when, say, when placing two coins next to each other, a third couldn’t spontaneously appear. Other than that it hasn’t so far, of course. That would be a bona fide way of 1+1=3. Or one of the coins could disappear, making 1 + 1 = 0. Or we could deny the law of noncontradiction, and say that 1 + 1 = 0 OR 2 OR 3 OR X, where X = any number, or maybe not.

My point is that just because you’re very certain about something doesn’t mean it’s any more certainly true than anything else. You may well simply be deluded more strongly that usual.

If another coin appears than at that time we all see what we call three. Before that time, we see what we call two.

 

[fix]

Not at all. Among other reasons, putting one finger next to another finger doesn’t give you two fingers at all, but one finger next to another. Just because they are slightly closer to each other doesn’t affect an ontological change. However, it could. There is no reason why when, say, when placing two coins next to each other, a third couldn’t spontaneously appear. Other than that it hasn’t so far, of course. That would be a bona fide way of 1+1=3. Or one of the coins could disappear, making 1 + 1 = 0. Or we could deny the law of noncontradiction, and say that 1 + 1 = 0 OR 2 OR 3 OR X, where X = any number, or maybe not.

My point is that just because you’re very certain about something doesn’t mean it’s any more certainly true than anything else. You may well simply be deluded more strongly that usual.

Is this not what the other poster calls nominalism?

 

[Newbie2]

But, when one rejects some proof that does not mean the proof was wrong. It only means one refuses to accept it.

Exactly…I meant to add “…to that person”.

 

[brycelaliberte]

I’m sufficiently confused by all the responses dealing with numbers, for wouldn’t the answer to it simply be that arithmetic is a lingual system designed to understand the relationships of values in certain situations? So it’s absolute, that having 3 will give you 3, but not absolute, that we use the term 3.

I think that answered my question, actually.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

If I hold up the fingers and you and I both see them then we both observe the same thing. If we keep adding people they will observe the same thing.

We can all agree to say that 1+ 1 = whatever we name it, but the fact is we all understand the same thing.

really would one billion people all see them the same? or would some be blind, others too far back, no one absolutely no one would see only one finger and not the other, etc, etc, would that be impossible? completely impossible for one to be blind, or have poor sight.

BTW would any particular finger cause interpretation issues? would all seeing these fingers always know to add 1 + 1 ?

I’m sufficiently confused by all the responses dealing with numbers, for wouldn’t the answer to it simply be that arithmetic is a lingual system designed to understand the relationships of values in certain situations? So it’s absolute, that having 3 will give you 3, but not absolute, that we use the term 3.

I think that answered my question, actually.

Did you forget calculus ? Bill starts to walk to a door which is 32 ft away, he notes 16ft is halfway, and 8ft is half of that, and so on, and so on. So what is the last halfway point, and there must be one because until he walks past the last halfway point he cannot reach the door.

 

[buffalo]

really would one billion people all see them the same? or would some be blind, others too far back, no one absolutely no one would see only one finger and not the other, etc, etc, would that be impossible? completely impossible for one to be blind, or have poor sight.

BTW would any particular finger cause interpretation issues? would all seeing these fingers always know to add 1 + 1 ?

Did you forget calculus ? Bill starts to walk to a door which is 32 ft away, he notes 16ft is halfway, and 8ft is half of that, and so on, and so on. So what is the last halfway point, and there must be one because until he walks past the last halfway point he cannot reach the door.

Who said I asked them to add?

 

[brycelaliberte]

Did you forget calculus ? Bill starts to walk to a door which is 32 ft away, he notes 16ft is halfway, and 8ft is half of that, and so on, and so on. So what is the last halfway point, and there must be one because until he walks past the last halfway point he cannot reach the door.

Oh let’s not be picky and bring up Zeno now.

 

[BlaineTog]

If another coin appears than at that time we all see what we call three. Before that time, we see what we call two.

No, we saw one over here and other over there. Any attempt to group them results in three. You’re just playing word games.

But again, I challenge you to find a reason that doesn’t depend on beliefs for 1 plus 1 to always and only equal 2.

Is this not what the other poster calls nominalism?

I don’t think so, at least partly because I’m only asserting possibilities rather than claiming actualities.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Absolute objective truth = **GOD
**
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[drafdog]

Yes, there is absolute truth. What there isn’t is an ability to communicate absolutely the truth.
All of what we “know” and communicate is filtered through our unique experience of living and our unique understanding of language. Just because I use the same words does not mean I communicate the same meaning.

Matthew

 

[dbg]

I have been getting in some arguments lately, and it seems those who would disagree with me, whenever I about have them admit something undesirable that is only a logical conclusion of their reasoning, respond with “Well, there isn’t any absolute, objective truth anyway.” And they then continue to go back to the beginning of the argument, calling me some names and fingering their nose at Catholicism (or anything, really) along the way.

Is there some way to prove the necessity of absolute truth? I understand there MUST be, for if there wasn’t, that itself would be absolute and so contradicting. But aside from that easy proof, what else is there?

There’s no way to prove it because it’s not there. There is a way to disprove it however. See my thread (with the title including “objective morality”) for details. In brief, if there were an absolute, objective truth, it would seem that one would be obliged no matter what to believe in it. However, it is also apparent (and Catholic philosophy teaches) that one is obliged to follow one’s conscience, i.e. one’s sincerely held beliefs – so if one sincerely believes there is no such thing then one is bound, subjectively, to not believe in it. But one can one be obliged in any way to not believe in that which is “absolute” truth? Do yourself a favor and drop the notion of absolute objective truth … it’s just not true and it does harm in the world (like radical Islam, radical Christianity and radical Hinduism,etc). Your own Anselm had a much better notion of truth as that which something is meant to be. That means truth is in individual thing. A bird is meant to sing. A woman is meant to dance. And everyone is meant to explore and express themselves. Even beliefs that are not accurate can still be quite true, though not perfectly so. A similar idea is “truthiness” or “truth” versus “fact” … it’s a newly recognized word and was popularized by Stephen Colbert.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

There’s no way to prove it because it’s not there. There is a way to disprove it however. See my thread (with the title including “objective morality”) for details. In brief, if there were an absolute, objective truth, it would seem that one would be obliged no matter what to believe in it. However, it is also apparent (and Catholic philosophy teaches) that one is obliged to follow one’s conscience, i.e. one’s sincerely held beliefs – so if one sincerely believes there is no such thing then one is bound, subjectively, to not believe in it. But one can one be obliged in any way to not believe in that which is “absolute” truth? Do yourself a favor and drop the notion of absolute objective truth … it’s just not true and it does harm in the world (like radical Islam, radical Christianity and radical Hinduism,etc). Your own Anselm had a much better notion of truth as that which something is meant to be. That means truth is in individual thing. A bird is meant to sing. A woman is meant to dance. And everyone is meant to explore and express themselves. Even beliefs that are not accurate can still be quite true, though not perfectly so. A similar idea is “truthiness” or “truth” versus “fact” … it’s a newly recognized word and was popularized by Stephen Colbert.

Contrary to the above post, truth is not relative, for the simple fact it cannot contradict itself. It is one, singular and immutable.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Filius99993]

It’s really simple. If there is no absolute truth, nothing can be completely real. NOTHING. True, people try to make their reality as what best fits them… but that doesn’t make it true. Sanity requires an objective, absolute truth.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

There’s no way to prove it because it’s not there. There is a way to disprove it however. See my thread (with the title including “objective morality”) for details. In brief, if there were an absolute, objective truth, it would seem that one would be obliged no matter what to believe in it. However, it is also apparent (and Catholic philosophy teaches) that one is obliged to follow one’s conscience, i.e. one’s sincerely held beliefs – so if one sincerely believes there is no such thing then one is bound, subjectively, to not believe in it. But one can one be obliged in any way to not believe in that which is “absolute” truth? Do yourself a favor and drop the notion of absolute objective truth … it’s just not true and it does harm in the world (like radical Islam, radical Christianity and radical Hinduism,etc). Your own Anselm had a much better notion of truth as that which something is meant to be. That means truth is in individual thing. A bird is meant to sing. A woman is meant to dance. And everyone is meant to explore and express themselves. Even beliefs that are not accurate can still be quite true, though not perfectly so. A similar idea is “truthiness” or “truth” versus “fact” … it’s a newly recognized word and was popularized by Stephen Colbert.

Moral relativism is nonsense and is based on philosophical idealism, that there is no reality, only our perceptions. There is a real, objective truth - his name is Jesus Christ. You can believe or not believe, it doesn’t change the fact that He is real.

You can not believe in gravity, but I wouldn’t suggest jumping off a tall building based on that belief. You can not believe in Jesus Christ, but you violate his precepts at the peril of your immortal soul - even worse than jumping off the tall building!

 

[john_doran]

There’s no way to prove it because it’s not there. There is a way to disprove it however. See my thread (with the title including “objective morality”) for details. In brief, if there were an absolute, objective truth, it would seem that one would be obliged no matter what to believe in it. However, it is also apparent (and Catholic philosophy teaches) that one is obliged to follow one’s conscience, i.e. one’s sincerely held beliefs – so if one sincerely believes there is no such thing then one is bound, subjectively, to not believe in it. But one can one be obliged in any way to not believe in that which is “absolute” truth? Do yourself a favor and drop the notion of absolute objective truth … it’s just not true and it does harm in the world (like radical Islam, radical Christianity and radical Hinduism,etc). Your own Anselm had a much better notion of truth as that which something is meant to be. That means truth is in individual thing. A bird is meant to sing. A woman is meant to dance. And everyone is meant to explore and express themselves. Even beliefs that are not accurate can still be quite true, though not perfectly so. A similar idea is “truthiness” or “truth” versus “fact” … it’s a newly recognized word and was popularized by Stephen Colbert.

you’re confusing moral relativism with metaphysical relativism; relativism concerning propositions about what ought to be the case, with propositions about what is the case.

moral relativism does not entail metaphysical relativism (though metaphysical relativism does entail moral relativism).

 

[fix]

Do yourself a favor and drop the notion of absolute objective truth … it’s just not true and it does harm in the world (like radical Islam, radical Christianity and radical Hinduism,etc).

Is this absolute truth?