Question regarding absolutism/absolute truth

  • Thread starter Thread starter junostarlighter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

junostarlighter

Guest
A friend writes:
absolutism is absurd unless you’re all knowing. How can anyone say something is 100% correct all the time, unless they actually “know” that to be true. Fact of the matter is we do not"know" because we are not all knowing. We use reason, right?
Click to expand...
My question (I think this is where he goes wrong/he’s weak) does belief in absolutism/absolute truth depend on whether you’re all knowing?
 
Well, in my opinion, I think that dude is right. We can say that something out there exists without a doubt–even the Bible/Bhagavad Gita/Koran/etc. says it’s true-- but, in the end, we really can’t know.

God is this mysterious being we can’t claim to know or understand. He is supposed to be unknown; He is everything–which is where many people go wrong; they fail to finish such an insight: God is everything, therefore nothing.

But, that’s the beauty of it. Belief is a free playground; so long as you keep yourself safe, everything is possible.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
 
Starlighter: Buffalo??? yeah, that IS a hard knock life. I lived there through two Winters and I am SO glad to be out of there!!!

Yours is a very interesting question, and an ancient one. It raises the question of the Identity of the knower and of the mode of knowing.

Both English and Catholicism are dualistic systems and do not admit except by scholarly consideration a way of knowing that is not scholarly. It is refered to as Knowledge by Identity. The best treatment of the subject I have found is in Franklin Merrell-Wolff’s “The Philosophy of Consciousness without an Object.” It is pretty serious reading, but the idea is more colloquiallly aproached in his book chronicaling his personal transformation called “Pathways Through to Space.” Very good material in an area very sadly untouched by christianist thought.
 
junostarlighter said:
A friend writes:

My question (I think this is where he goes wrong/he’s weak) does belief in absolutism/absolute truth depend on whether you’re all knowing?
Click to expand...
Pardon me. I’m interested in how you are defining absolutism/absolute truth. Thank you.

Please note: common definitions
Absolutism is a political theory holding that all power should be vested in one authority. or A form of government in which all power is vested in a single authority.

Absolute truth refers to a statement that is fundamental or is the basis of thought and being. An example is: All human life is worthy of profound respect. or All Human life is sacred.
 
So I’m convinced that there is an absolute truth, and was debating my atheist friend about it, but some of the things she mentioned that got me stuck were things like…
  1. You like pizza and I don’t. See? what’s true for you isn’t true for me.
  2. If somebody’s color blind, their colors will be different that what another may see. Thus, truth changes between people.
I know these don’t have to deal with facts or morals, but what do I say to this? It seems that truth really does change. Any help?

All for Jesus through Mary,
Alex B.
 
  1. pizza is a taste not a truth
  2. blue is blue even if you are colored blind or blind the color does not change due to disease of the eye.
 
stinkyweed said:
  1. pizza is a taste not a truth
  2. blue is blue even if you are colored blind or blind the color does not change due to disease of the eye.
Click to expand...
Exactly - a color refers to lightwaves of a certain length that are (normally) perceived by the eye in a certain way. Regardless of how your eye perceives them, light waves of a certain length will always be ‘red’ lightwaves, those of another length always ‘blue’ and so on.

Apologies to any physicists if I’ve mangled that explanation.

And a taste for pizza is different to the existence of a deity or truths about that deity - or for that matter truths about human behaviour or the world in general.

Your friend does not cease to exist, for example, just because I for whatever reason am unaware of their existence or believe that he or she does not exist. Your friend’s existence is thus an objective truth.

Nor do other truths pertaining to your friend (his or her height, hair colour, eye colour) change regardless of whether I believe they are a different height, have a different hair or eye colour etc. Nor do truths about the world - that it is basically round, that it goes around the Sun etc etc.

Gods existence being a truth, humanity’s existence being a truth, morality necessarily is an objective truth as well, since it is always related to our behaviour towards the deity or other people, and what is right or wrong to do in relation to the deity or other people is a constant, not changeable.
 
I appreciate your comments, but this is still sticky for me.

I could say going back to the example, that I like pizza. And she could say that she doesn’t like it. OK, those are our opinions. But aren’t they (the opinions) true for us individually? Therefore wouldn’t truth differ between her and I?
 
aball1035 said:
I appreciate your comments, but this is still sticky for me.

I could say going back to the example, that I like pizza. And she could say that she doesn’t like it. OK, those are our opinions. But aren’t they (the opinions) true for us individually? Therefore wouldn’t truth differ between her and I?
Click to expand...
Nope - opinions are beliefs, they aren’t truths. They’re merely descriptions of what you think at a particular time. Truth on the contrary is that which accurately reflects reality, which your thoughts (opinions) do not always do.

For example, you could turn around and stop liking pizza tomorrow (say if you ate a really horrible one tonight that turned you off all pizza), your friend could turn around and start liking it (if she tried a new one that appealed to her). That wouldn’t be inconsistent, because a preference is not a truth.

Whereas the earth simply COULDN’T start being flat as opposed to round tomorrow. 2+2 couldn’t start equalling five, the law of gravity couldn’t cease to operate, you couldn’t cease to have your bloodgroup or what have you.
 
aball1035 said:
So I’m convinced that there is an absolute truth, and was debating my atheist friend about it, but some of the things she mentioned that got me stuck were things like…

All for Jesus through Mary,
Alex B.
Click to expand...
Truth seems to be like Beauty; it’s in the eyes of the beholder. To define truth is pretty messy business. You can cross dangerous lines, and that goes for both you and your friend.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
 
An absolute truth is, to put it plainly, something that is as it is and cannot be questioned. If your friend says: “It cannot be questioned that all truth is relative, that there is no absolute truth” - isn’t she enunciating the absolute truth of the relativity of truth thereby? You see, then, that even someone who sticks to the relativity of truth cannot get rid of absolute truth.
 
There are no absolutes.

That statment, is a circular argument that proves itself. The statement is making an “absolute” claim.

So, there are absolutes, even if there is just one.

The issue is not about wether or not that there are absolute truths. The issue is about what those truths are and you will win no arguments with your friend if she is an even remotely decent thinker.

She will know the difference between belief and truth. 🙂

Most philosophers haven’t really been able to deal with this one. Even christianities favourite philosophers such as aquinas admited they can never know for sure. At least he was honest 🙂
 
junostarlighter said:
A friend writes:

My question (I think this is where he goes wrong/he’s weak) does belief in absolutism/absolute truth depend on whether you’re all knowing?
Click to expand...
He makes a good argument actually. One I haven’t thought of.

I think you can claim their are absolutes. But, unless you are all knowing you can’t claim to have them.

Hence the thread, absolutism is irrelevant 🙂
 
Dameedna said:
He makes a good argument actually. One I haven’t thought of.

I think you can claim their are absolutes. But, unless you are all knowing you can’t claim to have them.

Hence the thread, absolutism is irrelevant 🙂
Click to expand...
What kind of absolutes are your referring to?
 
grannymh said:
What kind of absolutes are your referring to?
Click to expand...
There are no absolutes.

That statment, claims…an absolute…therefore contradicting itself. The only logical statment that can be given is…

Absolutes exist 🙂
 
Dameedna said:
There are no absolutes.

That statment, claims…an absolute…therefore contradicting itself. The only logical statment that can be given is…

Absolutes exist 🙂
Click to expand...
Great answer – Absolutes exist. I agree.

Would you give me an example, please?
 
grannymh said:
Great answer – Absolutes exist. I agree.

Would you give me an example, please?
Click to expand...
I just did my friend 🙂

Absolutes is a concept, that through the use of logic we can conclude is real and exists.

This makes an assumption of course that logic is correct.

Using logic, we have discovered so much, which leads us to suspect that logic is a tool that can be used to determine a concept called truth.

Logic, is why we have computers 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top