Philosophy Thread~ Objective Reality

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FightingFat

Guest
Catholics maintain an objective reality. We know that some things are real- even somethings beyond our empirical knowledge (like God).

What is an objective fact or thing? How do we argue in today’s relative society for an objective reality?

Is something that can not measured or sensed as external objective?

Cupcakes exist in objective reality do good, bad, triangles, colours etc exist objectively?

Is it possible to be 100% objective about anything ?
 
It is with a sense of deja vu that I read this thread, is reality as real as deja vu, I ask you.
But you need a starting point to begin to think. The best and brightest starting point is the best and brightest ideal. And everything is held in relation to that, triangles, colours, and everything.
When you need to compromise Truth to survive something, you’ll then have to revise you ideal starting point and that means decieving yourself which then throws your triangles out of kilter and gives you an unreal sense that everything is whatever subjective thing you want it to be…:hypno:
 
Well…if everything disappeared, and I mean everything…then the only thing that could be left would be Truth - nothing else could exist to be relative to it…:whacky:
 
Seriously- this has important moral ramifications for us as Catholics. Canon law states that a man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family is not in fact stealing. So theft remains wrong, the context in which the action takes place is altered.

We need to be able to argue for the reality of objective ideas like “good” for this argument to work don’t we?
 
I suppose the existance of Law proves the existance of ‘good’.
The law serves for the good of the person. It recognises good. The good of the person is not always served by the law. The good always supercedes the law.
 
Consider this statement.

“There is no absolute Truth”

When people say this they shoot themselves in the foot. Because if there’s no absolute Truth then then can’t “Absolutely” say that there is no absolute Truth.

JD
 
Johndigger said:
Consider this statement.

“There is no absolute Truth”

When people say this they shoot themselves in the foot. Because if there’s no absolute Truth then then can’t “Absolutely” say that there is no absolute Truth.

JD
Click to expand...
Isn’t this a bit of a strawman?

Surely the problem is that there may be any number of ‘absolute truths’ but that it’s just not possible to establish any of them as being, well, absolutely an ‘absolute truth’. Somebody saying “there is no absolute truth” is really being naive, all they really needed to say is words to the effect of “OK person demanding the acceptance of an absolute truth, PROVE IT.”
 
I_Leatherman said:
I suppose the existance of Law proves the existance of ‘good’.
The law serves for the good of the person. It recognises good. The good of the person is not always served by the law. The good always supercedes the law.
Click to expand...
How does Law prove the existence of good has objective existence? If this were true, then the Law of the land would be the same in every country, like the force of gravity - and we wouldn’t experience the sea changes in legal practice like the abolition of the death sentence. The practice of Law is extremely varied - in the UK it has been established through legal precedent.
 
Not any particular law, just the existance of Law as a common concept, is a fleeting acknowledgement that there is such a thing as abstract personal goods, and that in turn nods to a source of Good. A source is an objective thing.
If we were animals, we’d have no concept of good, and no law to to acknowledge it through. Which is what we find.
 
I_Leatherman said:
A source is an objective thing.
Click to expand...
Only if you can stipulate a set of physical test conditions where the ‘source’ could be potentially falsified (where such test conditions are currently available) or potentially falsified in principle (where those test conditions are not currently available but may be available in future).

Otherwise it’s just another of those nice metaphysical concepts floating out there being polished (in/on principle).
 
FightingFat said:
Catholics maintain an objective reality. We know that some things are real- even somethings beyond our empirical knowledge (like God).
What is an objective fact or thing? How do we argue in today’s relative society for an objective reality?
Is something that can not measured or sensed as external objective?
Cupcakes exist in objective reality do good, bad, triangles, colours etc exist objectively?
Is it possible to be 100% objective about anything ?
Click to expand...
Hi
I think there are different level of certainty for human knowledge.
Certainty of reasoning- if one sees smoke rising from a building one knows/reasons there must have some fire broken out there.
**Certainty of Sight **( knowing with one of the senses) - One goes closer to the building and finds flames rising from the building and also a lot of heat there; this is certainty of seeing.
Certainty of experience– one enters into the building and one’s skin gets burned, this is knowledge by experience.
The things which are physical or material that could be objectively proved. For things which are spiritual or which have attributes only must have some other sources of knowledge. Revelation or Word from GodAllahYHWH’s mouth has certainty by experience of the righteous ProphetsMessengers and requires no further witnessing.
Thanks

The Word of GodAllahYHWH is and had been the first/authentic and primary source of human knowledge whether revealed on Moses/Jesus/Muhammad or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad; it is of itself complete and without doubt and requires no external witnessing.
 
Can 2 + 2 not equal 4 in any conceivable world?

What about the law of non contraditiction?

Are these not 100% absolute truth?

Ut
 
Kaninchen said:
Only if you can stipulate a set of physical test conditions where the ‘source’ could be potentially falsified (where such test conditions are currently available) or potentially falsified in principle (where those test conditions are not currently available but may be available in future).

Otherwise it’s just another of those nice metaphysical concepts floating out there being polished (in/on principle).
Click to expand...
In other words, materialism. You reduce all things to physical realities. Correct?

Aren’t there non material, untestable realities which you would nevertheless consider to be absolutely true? For example, 2+2 =4?

Ut
 
utunumsint said:
In other words, materialism. You reduce all things to physical realities. Correct?
Click to expand...
If one wishes to talk about things being “objective”, I’m afraid that’s (at some point) necessary.
Aren’t there non material, untestable realities which you would nevertheless consider to be absolutely true? For example, 2+2 =4?
Click to expand...
2+2 = 4 is not an ‘absolute truth’ it’s a statement about relationships within a particular formal structure.

You may not have noticed that I had said that there may be any number of ‘absolute truths’, the problem is establishing any of them as being so.
 
Kaninchen said:
Only if you can stipulate a set of physical test conditions where the ‘source’ could be potentially falsified (where such test conditions are currently available) or potentially falsified in principle (where those test conditions are not currently available but may be available in future).

Otherwise it’s just another of those nice metaphysical concepts floating out there being polished (in/on principle).
Click to expand...
I thought the falsifiability criterion had been dropped? Didn’t Quine point out that it itself cannot be falsified even in principle, so that it turns out to be self-refuting?
 
cpayne said:
I thought the falsifiability criterion had been dropped? Didn’t Quine point out that it itself cannot be falsified even in principle, so that it turns out to be self-refuting?
Click to expand...
I’ve always thought Kuhn much more telling as a critic.

If you have a methodology that will relate a statement to possible test conditions, please describe it.
 
Kaninchen said:
I’ve always thought Kuhn much more telling as a critic.

If you have a methodology that will relate a statement to possible test conditions, please describe it.
Click to expand...
I’ve got to run, but here’s a preliminary attempt. The original point of dispute was the statement “a source is an objective thing.” In context, I’d agree. If something is an effect of a cause, the existence of the effect indicates the objective existence of the cause EVEN IF the cause can no longer be directly observed or discovered. As far as the existence of the effect itself is concerned, some things (such as sense perceptions) are direct powers of the sense-oriented intellect (not the rational intellect). As such, they should be considered as principles of knowledge themselves. If one accepts this, as I do, it leads to the controversial point: Sense experiences don’t have to be demonstrated to have objective reality. They themselves have objective reality and are principles of direct knowledge, leading to inferential demonstrations of the objective existence of other things about which we do NOT have direct knowledge. (God, for example.)

So my test conditions would be: Is it observable by the senses? If so, it has objective reality. Secondly, can it be logically demonstrated based on the knowledge of objective reality already possessed? If so, it has objective reality, too. The first condition is material in nature, but not the second, since objective realities can be logically demonstrated that are not material in nature—the way the mind “understands” beyond sense perception, for example.

If anyone wants to respond, I’ll try to get back to this tonight. Bye for now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top