Question regarding absolutism/absolute truth

[emill311]

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.

I might suggest that this is not an absolute or objective truth, but a subjective truth.

1. 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.

The objective truth, as was stated above, is that the sky is always blue, regardless of our ability to see its true color.

As a Catholic I beleive objective moral truth does exist and comes from God. It is written on all creation and on the hearts of men. Some people have a hard time seeing this because of our fallen and imperfect nature- it could be said that they are “spiritually colorblind”

 

[grannymh]

In some systems God is called “The Absolute.”

I can see why God would be called “The Absolute”. An example: God is the cause of the universe and subsequently human life. Besides Tao of Pooh I’ve only read one serious book about Eastern religious systems. Is “The Absolute” a term used there?

small note about your line: “Question your mind. Your unexamined thoughts are the source of your suffering.” ~ Byron Katie, I’ve experienced “unexamined thoughts” big time in the past.

Blessings,
granny

 

[Detales]

Yes, in my experience, it is one of the synonyms for God, particularly in the system of Monism or non-duality. That is by far the least understood of philosophies, though there are proponents of it here that are remarkable individuals. Two I believe, including Byron Katie, who has her headquarters nea Ojai, Californis, if I’m no mistaken. It is a system I came to investigate due to an experience I had that was unexplainable to my satisfacton in terms of my Catholic religion. So I can tell you from experience, most Westerners don’t have a clue, and even the definition I found in the Catholic Encyclopedia is lacking, as far as my personal understanding is concerned. The best explication in scholarly terms that I have read is from another Californian, Franklin Merrell-Wolff, in two books, one a chronical called Pathways Through to Space, and the “thick” one, The Philosophy of Consciousness Withut an Object. He was an electric engineer and very thorough.

BTW, Katie is known for using an exceptionally efficient and productive method of “questioning your mind.” It has helped me much, as well as others, and is why her quote is in my signature.

 

[grannymh]

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

My thoughts keep moving… Thanks, friend.

That suspicion of yours. Could it be translated as:
An absolute truth would be a concept which, through the use of logic, is determined as real and existing.

Definitely, I will tell my computer about logic. Would it be o.k. to give it a swift kick as a reminder?

Blessings,
granny

 

[Dameedna]

An example: God is the cause of the universe and subsequently human life. Besides Tao of Pooh I’ve only read one serious book about

No that is not an absolute. That is a claim, firstly that the universe has been created, and it is also a claim about the “name” that humans should give that creator is God.

An absolute would be… The universe exists.

I am in complete support of absolutes.

 

[grannymh]

No that is not an absolute. That is a claim, firstly that the universe has been created, and it is also a claim about the “name” that humans should give that creator is God.

An absolute would be… The universe exists.

I am in complete support of absolutes.

The universe exists is an absolute truth. Somehow, I like to add the word truth:shrug: However, it is not all that necessary.

I have another thought---- Unfortunately, I’m out the door and won’t be back for awhile.

Human life exists. Building on that absolute would be
Human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, in my experience, it is one of the synonyms for God, particularly in the system of Monism or non-duality. That is by far the least understood of philosophies, though there are proponents of it here that are remarkable individuals. Two I believe, including Byron Katie, who has her headquarters nea Ojai, Californis, if I’m no mistaken. It is a system I came to investigate due to an experience I had that was unexplainable to my satisfacton in terms of my Catholic religion. So I can tell you from experience, most Westerners don’t have a clue, and even the definition I found in the Catholic Encyclopedia is lacking, as far as my personal understanding is concerned. The best explication in scholarly terms that I have read is from another Californian, Franklin Merrell-Wolff, in two books, one a chronical called Pathways Through to Space, and the “thick” one, The Philosophy of Consciousness Withut an Object. He was an electric engineer and very thorough.

BTW, Katie is known for using an exceptionally efficient and productive method of “questioning your mind.” It has helped me much, as well as others, and is why her quote is in my signature.

I’m out the door so will be brief. I’ve read the above a couple of times because in checking on dualism, I came across a mention of monism. What I used in my own experience was a process of forgiving combined with the process in grieving where one faces up to the sorrow, walks through it and beyond. The key was that I had to question my mind first. That is, I had to search for what was really causing me trouble.

 

[1holycatholic]

No that is not an absolute. That is a claim, firstly that the universe has been created, and it is also a claim about the “name” that humans should give that creator is God.

An absolute would be… The universe exists.

I am in complete support of absolutes.

The universe exists temporally. - absolute truth
Infinite temporal regression violates the principle of non-contradiction and is impossible. - absolute truth

The universe was created. - absolute truth

 

[BobCatholic]

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?

No.

His reasoning is flawed.

First, let’s look at logical tautologies. These are things that are always true.

Example: A dog is a dog.

Ask your friend under what conditions the above is not true. Are there dogs that are cats? Maybe a dog can be a cow?

Second, let’s look at logical law of non-contradiction. Something cannot be something and not the same something at the same time.

Example: A dog cannot be both a dog and not a dog.

Those are examples of two absolute truths without anyone having to be omniscent.

However, on the other hand, by denying that there is any absolute truth in the universe, he must be claiming omniscense, because he must be privvy to all the information in the universe and has analyzed it to determine that relativism is true. I seriously doubt he has all the information in the universe, so how can he say there is no absolute truth?

 

[Detales]

Grannymh, I have the utmost respect for anyone who can do what you did. Looking at yourself as a phenomenon and applying honesty of perception is no small task. I would imagine that your experience was quite the adventure.

Bindar Dundat

 

[Dameedna]

Definitely, I will tell my computer about logic. Would it be o.k. to give it a swift kick as a reminder?

Blessings,
granny

Hehe. I’m pretty sure your computer uses logic for it’s processing. Not too sure how much it is aware of this use.

I’d probably not recommend a swift kick…you only have one set of toes after all

 

[aball1035]

My logic teacher brought up an interesting subject.

If somebody steals something, is it wrong in all societies? In other words, is there absolute right and wrong for all?

He didn’t answer of course, as it brought up mixed emotions.

Now I believe there is. What do you think? And please logically tell why, and don’t base your answers purely off emotions.

 

[Sarpedon]

If morality is wholly subjective, then it can be either subjective or objective depending on the person. This turns into a contradiction, which means that morality must not be a real thing or law. Thus, morality must be an imaginary thing. People who take this position usually say that morality is nothing more than popular societal agreements, created by human beings through consensus. Of course, the question is then raised- what if the collective consensus approves “horrible” things, like slavery?

 

[fhansen]

In Catholic theology, the law is based on love. Therefore, anything which acts against love, e.g. taking something that didn’t belong to us or doing unto others something we wouldn’t want done to us, should qualify pretty much across the board as being immoral.

 

[Dameedna]

In Catholic theology, the law is based on love. Therefore, anything which acts against love, e.g. taking something that didn’t belong to us or doing unto others something we wouldn’t want done to us, should qualify pretty much across the board as being immoral.

I think this is actually a step in the right direction.

The problem however then becomes how do we determine what is loving?

And the BIGGER issue is, why love at all?

 

[Dameedna]

If morality is wholly subjective, then it can be either subjective or objective depending on the person. This turns into a contradiction, which means that morality must not be a real thing or law. Thus, morality must be an imaginary thing.

Not, it simply means morality is an idea we have, that we didn’t “create” on our own. It’s something we recognize existed and/or was needed.

People who take this position usually say that morality is nothing more than popular societal agreements, created by human beings through consensus. Of course, the question is then raised- what if the collective consensus approves “horrible” things, like slavery?

We have done exactly that. We have decided what is moral. Morality has and alway’s will be a human choice.

We have also decided that morality exists as a concept. I have little doubt it does. However, I do not think that morality for humans can exist in any absolute way.

Morality is a weird concept. It pretty much defines us as humans, but it is not what drives us. Morality is big but it is based on something bigger yet. It is based on a reaction or response to a fundamental awareness of love and truth.

Combine truth, love and hope , and you have morality.

As your capacity for love and as your acceptance toward truth grows, so does your morality.

It’s a real concept, but it is not fundamental. It is like the colour purple. Based on a pimary colour

Or I could be wrong…hehe

 

[Detales]

My guess is that Absolute has to do with perception. We can say that God is “The Absolute,” or that there is “absolute zero” or “absolute alcohol.” There are absolutes in many catagories, but it is always of extreme degree. The word “moral” stems from a root meaning “custom.” Since we are not an isolated tribe with its parochial mores (except often in our own minds, lol!) we might say that morals are practical behaviors relative to a percieved absolute. That could mean one thing to a Catholic, another to a bushman, another to a Monist, and yet another to a theif.

I’m wondering then who this, or any, definition might be useful to. Is it a tool for changing ourselves relative to our ideal? That could be similar to C.S. Lewis saying “I pray to God not to change Him, but to change myself.” Is it to use as a yardstick for others? Then if you are a civil judge it is one matter, but another if you are like some of the folks on the forums and elsewhere who seem to have made themselves the final authority in the name of their personal understanding of the Church and God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Cogito: ergo, sum. I think: therefore I am.

Rene Descartes, the French philosopher, put us in touch with absolutes by this famous statement. I must believe it is absolutely true that I exist, because if I do not exist, how could I be questioning whether or not I exist?

To be able to question that I exist and admit at the same time that I might not exist would be an insane position to be in. To the degree that one is drawn more and more to the position of relativism, one is drawn more and more into lunacies (such as the notion that a fetus is not a human, or that men should be encouraged to marry one another). Yet we live in a corrupt age of relativism. Those of us who know God is an Absolute and that our end is to draw nearer and nearer to Him, at the same time experience the knowledge that *relativism *(an iconic notion for liberals) seeks to draw the world farther and farther away from Him.

 

[Dameedna]

Cogito: ergo, sum. I think: therefore I am.

Rene Descartes, the French philosopher, put us in touch with absolutes by this famous statement. I must believe it is absolutely true that I exist, because if I do not exist, how could I be questioning whether or not I exist?

To be able to question that I exist and admit at the same time that I might not exist would be an insane position to be in. To the degree that one is drawn more and more to the position of relativism, one is drawn more and more into lunacies (such as the notion that a fetus is not a human, or that men should be encouraged to marry one another)…

Obviously lunacy is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dameedna

Obviously lunacy is in the eye of the beholder.

No … it is in the brain of the lunatic … and especially the lunatic who thinks he is perfectly sane.