The "Truth" of No Absolutes Made Barely Consistent?

[Mort_Alz]

I know that it is nonsense to say “There is no absolute truth,” because that statement is an absolute and, by nature, contradicts itself and it falls apart.

But what can be said of “The only absolute is there are no absolutes.” This seems, at face, to be logically plausible. This is very similar to “change is the only constant.”

Any thoughts are appreciated. This one started bugging me today.

 

[4Horsemen]

I know that it is nonsense to say “There is no absolute truth,” because that statement is an absolute and, by nature, contradicts itself and it falls apart.

But what can be said of “The only absolute is there are no absolutes.” This seems, at face, to be logically plausible. This is very similar to “change is the only constant.”

Any thoughts are appreciated. This one started bugging me today.

Are you absolutely certain you exist?

Below is what someone once posted that I thought interesting:

“If certainty is impossible it is certain that it is impossible to be certain that certainty is impossible!”

 

[St_Francis]

I know that it is nonsense to say “There is no absolute truth,” because that statement is an absolute and, by nature, contradicts itself and it falls apart.

But what can be said of “The only absolute is there are no absolutes.” This seems, at face, to be logically plausible. This is very similar to “change is the only constant.”

Any thoughts are appreciated. This one started bugging me today.

Change is the only constant does not contradict itself the way *The only absolute is that there are no absolutes *does.

 

[The_Fool]

“The only absolute is there are no absolutes”

I would argue an absolute limit exists. Poor y=x/2 + a, as I can see absolutely no way that x can be greater than or equal to 2.

Change the equation enough and it is no longer recognized as the same thing. Change the conditions enough and recognition is still difficult. Then again, perhaps that limit only exists in the theoretical realm of mathematics and thus cannot exist.

Half-life is fun too, or even finding the derivative of a derivative of a derivative that actually reaches a constant without any change of derivative of that derivative of… etc. Weierstrass function is pretty interesting too.

Oh, oh! The bureaucratic mentality is the only constant in the universe, we’ll get a freighter! Sorry, I’m tired.

 

[The_Exodus]

I know that it is nonsense to say “There is no absolute truth,” because that statement is an absolute and, by nature, contradicts itself and it falls apart.

But what can be said of “The only absolute is there are no absolutes.” This seems, at face, to be logically plausible. This is very similar to “change is the only constant.”

Any thoughts are appreciated. This one started bugging me today.

A passing of judgment on the statement “The only absolute is there are no absolutes” would either be true or false. If true, then its affirmation would be absolutely true, and its denial would be absolutely false, in which case, the statement would refute itself, since by being true it would give rise to two absolute statements - its affirmation is true and its negation false. Of course, one could say that these two statements are merely a reaffirming of the single statement, but again, such a judgment would itself have to be another absolute truth, or else it would be false.

But all that is really sophisticated nonsense in my opinion. The only thing, it seems to me, which can be true or false are propositions, and propositions can exist only in the mind. The most reasonable thing then is to conclude that there are some false propositions in our mind, and some true. Our job is to search out the best reasons for thinking the ones true and the others false.

 

[JDaniel]

I know that it is nonsense to say “There is no absolute truth,” because that statement is an absolute and, by nature, contradicts itself and it falls apart.

But what can be said of “The only absolute is there are no absolutes.” This seems, at face, to be logically plausible. This is very similar to “change is the only constant.”

Any thoughts are appreciated. This one started bugging me today.

Welcome to CAF, Mort:

In my opinion, there is one, and only one, absolute and unconditional truth, and that is God. All other Truths are forward-eternal with beginnings. Physical truths, mathematical truths, geometric truths, truths of magnitude, grammatical truths, and most metaphysical truths, are all truths that came, or come, into being upon creation.

jd

 

[Betterave]

I know that it is nonsense to say “There is no absolute truth,” because that statement is an absolute and, by nature, contradicts itself and it falls apart.

No, that statement is just a statement; you have added the claim that it is an absolute. So what justifies you in doing so?

 

[lemondiesel]

I know that it is nonsense to say “There is no absolute truth,” because that statement is an absolute and, by nature, contradicts itself and it falls apart.

“I think, therefore I am.” This is the only Truth, and all other truths are interpretations of the World that contains the “I am.”

As JD put it:

Physical truths, mathematical truths, geometric truths, truths of magnitude, grammatical truths, and metaphysical truths, are all truths that came, or come, into being upon creation.

“If certainty is impossible it is certain that it is impossible to be certain that certainty is impossible!”

Be skeptic of being skeptic

-John

 

[Betterave]

“If certainty is impossible it is certain that it is impossible to be certain that certainty is impossible!”

If this is a true conditional, it simply implies that we cannot affirm the antecedent with certainty. There’s nothing paradoxical about that.

 

[edwest2]

It is self refuting. That’s all there is to it. If there really are no absolutes then life falls into that wonderful (for some people) grey area where they get to make things up as they go along. The related statement is: “It’s forbidden to forbid.”

OK. So, I think most people would not immediately run out to kill, rape and pillage, but once those three are crossed off the list, everything else is fair game.

Face it folks, our only options are to do good or act at some level of less good across the spectrum to pure evil. So - who wants to stop doing his best? Anybody? How about making certain sinful acts OK?

Peace,
Ed

 

[4Horsemen]

If this is a true conditional, it simply implies that we cannot affirm the antecedent with certainty. There’s nothing paradoxical about that.

I didn’t claim the sentence is paradoxical; it’s merely a play on words.

How about the following for a paradoxical statement:

“I have found the paradox, that if you love until it hurts, there can be no more hurt, only more love.” (Mother Teresa)

 

[Betterave]

I didn’t claim the sentence is paradoxical; it’s merely a play on words.

How so?

 

[Mort_Alz]

Let me restate my questions and statements

It’s obvious that the statement “there is no absolute truth” is logically, and philosophically impossible.

But, a clever way to make it philosophically and, at face value, logically sound is to state that “The only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth.”

Let me make it clear, I believe in absolute truth, I am only looking for clarification concerning this hard-headed effort to maintain truth as wholly relative. Is it possible to logically and philosophically debunk it, or does it require another line of reasoning?

 

[4Horsemen]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Horsemen
I didn’t claim the sentence is paradoxical; it’s merely a play on words.

How so?

Original proposition: “If certainty is impossible it is certain that it is impossible to be certain that certainty is impossible.”

par·a·dox

–noun

1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.
2. a self-contradictory and false proposition.
3. any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature.
4. an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion.

According to definitions #1 and #2, the statement may be a paradox or just illogical (since the conditional that “certainty is impossible” presupposes that nothing is “certain” including the impossibility to be certain . . . " but in your original post you stated:

“If this is a true conditional, it simply implies that we cannot affirm the antecedent with certainty. There’s nothing paradoxical about that.”

Besides being a paradox according to the definitions, the rotation of the words “certainty” (“certain”) and “impossible” make the sentence a play on words.

I guess this is off-topic though. As for the OP stated below in bold, I would consider it a false statement in that the complete subject is false since there is not only one absolute and that the conclusion or complete predicate is also false because it does not follow from the antecedent and is, therefore, false and illogical.

“The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.”

 

[Betterave]

Let me restate my questions and statements

It’s obvious that the statement “there is no absolute truth” is logically, and philosophically impossible.

No, it’s not obvious, and I pointed out why.

 

[Betterave]

Original proposition: “If certainty is impossible it is certain that it is impossible to be certain that certainty is impossible.”

par·a·dox

–noun

1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.
2. a self-contradictory and false proposition.
3. any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature.
4. an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion.

According to definitions #1 and #2, the statement may be a paradox or just illogical (since the conditional that “certainty is impossible” presupposes that nothing is “certain” including the impossibility to be certain . . . "

But the whole statement is a conditional. “certainty is impossible” is the antecedent of the conditional and it states that certainty is not possible. The consequent simply states a logical result of the antecedent.

but in your original post you stated:

“If this is a true conditional, it simply implies that we cannot affirm the antecedent with certainty. There’s nothing paradoxical about that.”

Besides being a paradox according to the definitions, the rotation of the words “certainty” (“certain”) and “impossible” make the sentence a play on words.

But how is it a paradox according to the definitions? You haven’t explained that. And you can call it a mere play on words if you like, but there is no compelling reason to interpret it that way.

Here’s a paraphrase: one thing we could never be certain of is that no certainty of any kind is possible. That’s not paradoxical is it?

 

[4Horsemen]

But the whole statement is a conditional. “certainty is impossible” is the antecedent of the conditional and it states that certainty is not possible. The consequent simply states a logical result of the antecedent.
But how is it a paradox according to the definitions? You haven’t explained that.

Ok, I agree with that. Because of the conditional "If . . . ", the rest of the sentence is not logically tenable. As for being a paradox, I wasn’t the one who even brought that up to start with. In fact, I didn’t consider the idea of a paradox until you brought it up (I’m not putting boxing gloves on over this though ). However, after looking up the definition of the word, I do NOW believe the statement is a paradox, at least according to definition #2 which is “a self-contradictory and false proposition” in that the rest of the sentence does not follow from the antecedent (or conditional). I would think we can agree on that according to the definition. If certainty is impossible, you can’t ever be certain about anything or any statement.

Original proposition: “If certainty is impossible it is certain that it is impossible to be certain that certainty is impossible.”

par·a·dox

–noun

1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.
   **2. a self-contradictory and false proposition. **
2. any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature.
3. an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion.

Here’s a paraphrase: one thing we could never be certain of is that no certainty of any kind is possible. That’s not paradoxical is it?

Right! But I see nothing wrong describing the original as a play on words.

 

[Betterave]

Ok, I agree with that. Because of the conditional "If . . . ", the rest of the sentence is not logically tenable. As for being a paradox, I wasn’t the one who even brought that up to start with. In fact, I didn’t consider the idea of a paradox until you brought it up (I’m not putting boxing gloves on over this though ). However, after looking up the definition of the word, I do NOW believe the statement is a paradox, at least according to definition #2 which is “a self-contradictory and false proposition” in that the rest of the sentence does not follow from the antecedent (or conditional). I would think we can agree on that according to the definition. If certainty is impossible, you can’t ever be certain about anything or any statement.

Original proposition: “If certainty is impossible it is certain that it is impossible to be certain that certainty is impossible.”

par·a·dox

–noun

1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.
   **2. a self-contradictory and false proposition. **
2. any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature.
3. an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion.

Right! But I see nothing wrong describing the original as a play on words.

A conditional (if-then statement) is true if and only if it is not possible for its consequent to be false if its antecedent is true. So isn’t the statement simply ?: “If certainty is impossible, then it is certain that it is impossible to be certain that certainty is impossible.”

The statement is not: “If certainty is impossible, then* you can be certain of something*, namely, that it is impossible to be certain that certainty is impossible” - which is how you seem to have construed it.

 

[4Horsemen]

A conditional (if-then statement) is true if and only if it is not possible for its consequent to be false if its antecedent is true. So isn’t the statement simply ?: “If certainty is impossible, then it is certain that it is impossible to be certain that certainty is impossible.”

The statement is not: “If certainty is impossible, then* you can be certain of something*, namely, that it is impossible to be certain that certainty is impossible” - which is how you seem to have construed it.

Aren’t we really saying the same thing? Note that I stated in an earlier post:

If certainty is impossible, you can’t ever be certain about anything or any statement.

I am NOT stipulating that "If certaintly is impossible, “then you can be certain of something, namely . . . .” I COMPLETELY AGREE that since the consequent is false (of the conditional “if-then” statement), then the antecedent must be false. One can’t be certain because the statement already set up a condition of certainty being impossible.

Maybe that’s not a very elegant way to explain it. Maybe my linguistics (or lack of) doesn’t even explain it. But I’m not saying what you described as what I’m saying. :banghead:

 

[Betterave]

Aren’t we really saying the same thing? Note that I stated in an earlier post:

If certainty is impossible, you can’t ever be certain about anything or any statement.

I am NOT stipulating that "If certaintly is impossible, “then you can be certain of something, namely . . . .” I COMPLETELY AGREE that since the consequent is false (of the conditional “if-then” statement), then the antecedent must be false. One can’t be certain because the statement already set up a condition of certainty being impossible.

To explain…

You wrote:
If certainty is impossible, you can’t ever be certain about anything or any statement.

The first ‘certainty’ is an abstract, objective use. The second ‘you can’t be certain’ is a subjective use. That seems like an equivocation on the key concept which cannot be justified on the basis of the original statement.

Ergo my reply:
The statement is not: “If certainty is impossible, then you can be certain of something, namely, that it is impossible to be certain that certainty is impossible” - which is how you seem to have construed it, insofar as you have put the emphasis on the subjective state of a ‘you’. Sorry if that’s convoluted, but I hope it makes sense.

When you wrote above, “since the consequent is false…”, that is an irrelevant statement for evaluating the truth of the whole conditional. To evaluate the truth of the conditional you would have to say, “if the consequent is false, then the antecedent is false,” and this would imply that the conditional is true. “Since” implies a categorical statement, whereas the original statement is obviously a conditional.