Lets discuss! Absoute Truth vs Relative Truth

[PRmerger]

Hi everyone. this is an important topic for today.

Is there really an absolute truth regarding every situation?

No. Some situations are morally relative.

**or **are situations relative based on the context of whats happening.

You’re creating a false dichotomy. No need to put the “or” here.

No one evaluates a situation without looking at the context.

However, there are some situations in which it would be ALWAYS wrong to proceed with that behavior.

Each culture has a different worldview on love, politics, relationships, Religion, etc. Should we focus on the truth being on what is best in the situation? Or is there an absolute truth to everything regardless of what happens in this world no matter the situation

Again, a false dichotomy.

Yes, we should focus on the truth on what is best in the situation, and yes, absolute truth exists (but not to everything).

If someone thinks that contraception is okay because it prevents them from getting an STD from their spouse who is infected… is it okay to use contraception in that scenario? or is there a truth that we should never use it even if the truth harms us?

Someone may think an action is moral, but that doesn’t make it moral.

Honor Killings are thought to be moral by the men in the tribe.

Clearly, objectively, they are profoundly and deeply immoral actions.

 

[STT]

It’s difficult but not impossible to find absolute truth. You ask the question "Is this true for all people in all places at all times?" If the answer is yes then it’s an absolute truth.

The problem is that we have no idea what Absolute Truth looks like. All we know is that it is foundation of all truth. I have a thread here that I am discussing whether absolute truth is mathematics or not, given the fact that they have similar definitions.

For example, you can say it’s a sunny day today. That might be true for you but maybe the sun is clouded over somewhere else. For someone else it’s a cloudy day. So it’s not an absolute truth. But it is an absolute truth that the sun is always shining even if we don’t see it.

I think what you are referring to (bold part) is only truth.

Another example, you can say that it’s absolutely true that murdering someone in cold blood is wrong. I don’t think you’ll find anyone at any time or place that will say that is not true.

I think that is moral truth which in principle should be derivable from Absolute Truth.

You could probably find people who actually do kill in cold blood and think nothing of it, but if you killed someone they loved I’m sure they wouldn’t think it’s quite ok (unless they’re psychopaths). So it’s not true for them at all times.

The key is asking that question.

I think it is ok to kill cold blood with respect if we need food. It is of course going to hurt you if you love them.

 

[PRmerger]

The problem is that we have no idea what Absolute Truth looks like.

I think this is false.

 

[STT]

I think this is false.

So tell me what Absolute Truth is.

 

[PRmerger]

So tell me what Absolute Truth is.

Fixed, unalterable fact.

For example: it is absolutely true that there are no married bachelors.

 

[STT]

Fixed, unalterable fact.

For example: it is absolutely true that there are no married bachelors.

That is a prior knowledge and not Absolute Truth. I think we should agree on the definition of Absolute Truth before we can engage on further discussion. Absolute Truth is a set of rules which underlies all truth and can explain any state of truth.

 

[PRmerger]

That is a prior knowledge and not Absolute Truth.

Can you offer your definition of “prior knowledge”?

I think we should agree on the definition of Absolute Truth before we can engage on further discussion.

Of course.

Absolute Truth is a set of rules which underlies all truth and can explain any state of truth.

Can you offer some confirmation that this is the correct definition of Absolute Truth?

Perhaps a dictionary link, or a Philosophy website?

 

[STT]

Can you offer your definition of “prior knowledge”?

I just googled it: A priori knowledge, in Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences, as opposed to a posteriori knowledge, which derives from experience.

Of course.

Cool.

Can you offer some confirmation that this is the correct definition of Absolute Truth?

Perhaps a dictionary link, or a Philosophy website?

That is my definition. You can find another definition here.

I however think my definition is more suitable for topic of this thread.

 

[PRmerger]

I just googled it: A priori knowledge, in Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences, as opposed to a posteriori knowledge, which derives from experience

And how is a priori knowledge different from Absolute Truth?

 

[PRmerger]

That is my definition.

“That is my definition”: Well, surely you can see how incoherent that is to me.

No one gets to “make up” definitions as we go.

Imagine if you were a math professor and a student decides to say: a triangle is a shape that has 4 sides. “That is my definition.”

You would (rightly) say: em, no…you do not get to make up definitions. You need to submit to what’s the correct definition.

If you could offer some support from an disinterested 3rd party that affirms your definition, then we can discuss.

You can find another definition here

And that, friend…

is exactly consonant with MY definition.

So you have affirmed that my definition is confirmed by a disinterested 3rd party. Thank you.

And have arbitrarily made up a definition for yourself.

Do you see how this borders on the absurd?

 

[PRmerger]

You can find another definition here.

So, STT, since we have my established definition (which you have, helpfully backed up with a website), let’s just go with that.

How is it that you can say that Absolute Truth (as defined above by me and the website) doesn’t exist?

Is it a unalterable fact that a married bachelor does not exist?

 

[Rhubarb]

I don’t think a priori statements are what people who deny objective truth are talking about. When we say that there can’t be unmarried bachelors, that’s like saying five cannot equal three. It’s a definitional thing. There’s nothing in question - unless we dispute the definitions. Now I don’t think anyone wants to dispute the definition of bachelor. But quite a few people dispute the definition of the good.

 

[STT]

So, STT, since we have my established definition (which you have, helpfully backed up with a website), let’s just go with that.

Your definition is related to common sense truth. There is nothing to discuss about given your definition.

How is it that you can say that Absolute Truth (as defined above by me and the website) doesn’t exist?

I didn’t say so.

Is it a unalterable fact that a married bachelor does not exist?

That is common sense.

 

[PRmerger]

Your definition is related to common sense truth. There is nothing to discuss about given your definition.

I didn’t say so.

That is common sense.

So, common sense and absolute truth sometimes converge.

And logic now tells you that you can no longer say you don’t know what Absolute Truth looks like.

 

[PRmerger]

But quite a few people dispute the definition of the good.

Let’s see if that’s true.

Do you dispute that it’s not good to torture babies for fun?

 

[STT]

So, common sense and absolute truth sometimes converge.

I didn’t say so. Absolute Truth as you defined it is common sense.

And logic now tells you that you can no longer say you don’t know what Absolute Truth looks like.

There are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares. What we are going to do with this sort of knowledge?

 

[PRmerger]

I didn’t say so. Absolute Truth as you defined it is common sense.

Well, it’s actually as you defined it as well, when you offered the website (affirming my definition)

There are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares. What we are going to do with this sort of knowledge?

1. We know that Absolute Truth exists
2. We know what it looks like
3. We know that you can now retract what you said earlier.

The problem is that we have no idea what Absolute Truth looks like

 

[inocente]

Hi everyone. this is an important topic for today.

Is there really an absolute truth regarding every situation? or are situations relative based on the context of whats happening. Each culture has a different worldview on love, politics, relationships, Religion, etc. Should we focus on the truth being on what is best in the situation? Or is there an absolute truth to everything regardless of what happens in this world no matter the situation

If someone thinks that contraception is okay because it prevents them from getting an STD from their spouse who is infected… is it okay to use contraception in that scenario? or is there a truth that we should never use it even if the truth harms us?

Hume divides knowledge into what he calls relations of ideas, and matters of fact.

A relation of ideas is a statement based on logic alone, like there are no married bachelors, or there are square circles. Such statements are absolutely true or absolutely false.

Whereas a matter of fact is a statement based on experience of the world, like the Sun will still exist tomorrow. Such statements cannot be proved - we can’t say it’s absolutely true that the Sun will exist tomorrow because although we’re fairly sure it will, no one can prove it won’t explode beforehand.

 

[Rhubarb]

Let’s see if that’s true.

Do you dispute that it’s not good to torture babies for fun?

Nope. But I dispute that contraception, non-marital sex, etc. isn’t.

These normative facts are where there’s going to be dispute - where fussing will happen. Well. Some normative facts. Torturing babies for fun never gets in anyone’s good column. Before this turns into cherry-picking each other. Recall my first post in the thread said that I believe there are both absolute and relative truths. There’s room for both in our epistemology.

 

[PRmerger]

Nope.

Excellent.

So we are agreed that there is some understanding of what is good, in refutation of what you posted earlier:

“But quite a few people dispute the definition of the good.”

We know, from natural law, what is good.

But I dispute that contraception, non-marital sex, etc. isn’t.

Fair enough.

But it still remains true: there is no dispute (or ought not be) for some things which are considered “good” and “bad”.

These normative facts are where there’s going to be dispute - where fussing will happen. Well. Some normative facts.

Normative facts are in dispute? Really?

Is it a fact that contraception, non-marital sex are good?

Torturing babies for fun never gets in anyone’s good column.

Egg-zactly.

QED.

Before this turns into cherry-picking each other. Recall my first post in the thread said that I believe there are both absolute and relative truths. There’s room for both in our epistemology.

If you believe in Absolute Truth (and good for you for acknowledging this!), then the natural conclusion is that there is an Absolute Truthgiver.