There is indeed ultimate truth

[CrypticWritings]

I recently saw this as someone’s signature quote:

The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.

That statement is considered an absurdity (a contradiction).
Why?
Because if that were to be considered a ‘true’ statement, it has just made it(self) ‘true’ and therefore truth exists.

Then there is ‘Ultimate Truth’ which is absolute and can not be othewise.

Let’s talk: Truth

 

[stbruno]

**John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. **

Jesus said “…you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32

Sounds like the truth to me!

 

[Church_Militant]

Sound reasoning Cryptic…

 

[ABostonCatholic]

“Sentences” such as “This sentence is false.” “There is no absolute truth” are basically nonsensical statements. You might as well be saying something like “The color blue transfigures into non-being at a rate of 5 kilowatts per second.”

 

[CrypticWritings]

“Sentences” such as “This sentence is false.” “There is no absolute truth” are basically nonsensical statements. You might as well be saying something like “The color blue transfigures into non-being at a rate of 5 kilowatts per second.”

Yes…there are many nonsensical statements made by radical skeptics.

Too bad there isn’t a philosophy forum. I think sound reasoning would help for the layity to have better knowledge of in many situations.
Many of the obstacles I see as a Catholic with refuting non-Christian religions can only be addressed with good philosophy to counter it.
I know I personally like to learn those things as I try to progress.

 

[Other_Eric]

I recently saw this as someone’s signature quote:

The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.

That statement is considered an absurdity (a contradiction).
Why?
Because if that were to be considered a ‘true’ statement, it has just made it(self) ‘true’ and therefore truth exists.

Then there is ‘Ultimate Truth’ which is absolute and can not be othewise.

Let’s talk: Truth

The signature is nothing more than a poor attempt to sound profound when, in reality, what it reveals is a juvenile taste for nihilism.

 

[rossum]

The signature is nothing more than a poor attempt to sound profound when, in reality, what it reveals is a juvenile taste for nihilism.

The original source of my sig is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. This might be rather heavy going for those of you not philosophically inclined. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

 

[DanteAlighieri]

The original source of my sig is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

rossum

The problem is that, out of context, it does imply a juvenile taste for nihilism.

Imagine if I quoted Leviticus out of context:

'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."

Peace,
Dante

 

[CarlosG]

The problem is that, out of context, it does imply a juvenile taste for nihilism.

Whos problem is that though? Ours (the reader in general) or his? He did not quote it out of context, we read it out of context. Granted that the quote in and of itself with no outside help does ‘fall on its own petard’, but from what I have read of rossum I gave him the benefit of the doubt that there was something behind it, because as you said, its a very sophmoric mistake.

The real question is now if we have a duty to be as clear as possible, of course ‘duty’ is loaded language but we can generalize for now. I certainly dont understand alot of peoples quotes around here. Latin isnt my specialty so it is not clear to me, and I must look it up. I can still after looking it up read it wrong. So should they justify their quote with explainations as well?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Greetings and peace be with you all,

If the greatest commandments are the greatest thing we can do then this must be a greatest truth.

And to put his to the test, Can God love each one of us as he loves himself?

Can God love us more than he loves himself?

In the spirit of searching

Eric

 

[CrypticWritings]

The original source of my sig is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. This might be rather heavy going for those of you not philosophically inclined. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

This sounds like one of those radical skeptics.

The truth ‘reality’ is:
The only thing/being that possesses ultimate existence is an Absolute being in which that beings essence is its existence. Anything contigent is dependent upon what is absolute, but still possesses existence.
Contingent beings have a nature and properties: height, width, handsomeness, color.
The Absolute Being can have a stated property applied to it, but must possesses that property in its perfection and entirety; the Absolute Being is: Truth, Wisdom, Beauty, Existence, Love…

I hope this makes sense, it’s 2:00am and I can’t think well right now.

 

[rossum]

This sounds like one of those radical skeptics.

Nagarjuna is certainly radical.

The truth ‘reality’ is:
The only thing/being that possesses ultimate existence is an Absolute being in which that beings essence is its existence.

Such a being cannot change, since change implies that it would be dependant on time and an absolute being is not dependent on anything.

Such a being cannot cause anything, otherwise the effect that it causes would itself also be eternal. If the cause is eternal and unchanging then the effect is always being caused and must itself be eternal and unchanging. "On the first day the Unchanging said ‘Let there be light.’ and on the second day the Unchanging said ‘Let there be light.’ and on the third day the Unchanging said ‘Let there be light.’ …

Such a being cannot cause anything that changes since otherwise the cause itself must be changing, which is not possible.

Anything contigent is dependent upon what is absolute, but still possesses existence.

Why? Anything contingent depends on other things. There is no requirement that the things depended on have to be absolute. I know that I depend on my parents for my existence. My parents are themselves contingent and not absolute.

Contingent beings have a nature and properties: height, width, handsomeness, color.

Agreed.

The Absolute Being can have a stated property applied to it, but must possesses that property in its perfection and entirety; the Absolute Being is: Truth, Wisdom, Beauty, Existence, Love…

This is just reification of contingent properties. For example, “creator” is a contingent description - there can be no creator without also a creation. There is no parent without there also being a child, in a similar way creator depends on creation. Hence any attempt to reify “creator” into an absolute “CREATOR” fails because any creator depends on its creation so any reified CREATOR cannot be absolute. The same applies to truth etc. All those descriptions are contingent and so their reifications must also be contingent.

rossum

 

[CrypticWritings]

Such a being cannot change, since change implies that it would be dependant on time and an absolute being is not dependent on anything.

Such a being cannot cause anything, otherwise the effect that it causes would itself also be eternal. If the cause is eternal and unchanging then the effect is always being caused and must itself be eternal and unchanging. "On the first day the Unchanging said ‘Let there be light.’ and on the second day the Unchanging said ‘Let there be light.’ and on the third day the Unchanging said ‘Let there be light.’ …

Such a being cannot cause anything that changes since otherwise the cause itself must be changing, which is not possible.

True, an Absolute being can not be dependent on anything and is sufficient in an of itself.
The Absolute being does not change, however, can change in His (its) relationship to a being that is contingent. In this instance though, it is the contingent being that “changes.”
The Absolute can create beings which can and do change, but to say that the Absolute can not create a changing being would put limitations on the Absolute.
There are absurd questions I’ve heard before like when someone asked me: “Can God create a rock that is so heavy He can not lift it?” I found later this is a normal question people try to ask to “stump” someone.
The problem is that either way a person answers that question, they are putting a limitation on God (the Absolute).
There is perhaps usually a misunderstanding of omnipotence in these instances by the person who asks the question.
Contingent beings are finite, and they can not hold themselves in existence from one moment to the next.

The Absolute being “causes” the contingent being, but not out of necessity.

So, considering this, and hopefully some of which you agree with. I would say your argument lies in the understanding of a “First Cause” and saying that would mean the Absolute somehow aquired that property only because He “caused” someting and had He not “caused”, He would just “be”…

I think I saw you mention this before here or another thread, but you mentioned the barrier of language. I think that may be the case here as it can impede/limit understandings.
For reasons as this I try to automaticaly remember that the the Absolute being is outside of time.

Why? Anything contingent depends on other things. There is no requirement that the things depended on have to be absolute. I know that I depend on my parents for my existence. My parents are themselves contingent and not absolute.

This is just reification of contingent properties. For example, “creator” is a contingent description - there can be no creator without also a creation. There is no parent without there also being a child, in a similar way creator depends on creation. Hence any attempt to reify “creator” into an absolute “CREATOR” fails because any creator depends on its creation so any reified CREATOR cannot be absolute. The same applies to truth etc. All those descriptions are contingent and so their reifications must also be contingent.

rossum

I do think it can be difficult to apply the term “creator” because you are saying that it implies that the Creator must have creation in order to exist as Creator. Again, that is really language problems and it makes understandings and explinations difficult.
But…
You nor your parents are absolute, true.
But the problemn is that if one keeps getting a contingent, from another contingent, then an infinite regress results.

As far a properties, a person or plant (contingent) can be beautiful, but not in the same way as the Absolute who would be “Beauty Itself”, and the perfection of beauty (as we understand it).

I’m not sure how else to put this, but I think it would make sense to say that the only reason the plant has beauty (even a fraction), is because beauty does indeed exist.

I’m new to philosophy, so thanks for the discussions!

 

[rossum]

The Absolute can create beings which can and do change,

If the Absolute cannot change, then it cannot change its creative action. If if created a huan zygote at one instant of time, then it must create the same human zygote at all other instants of time. The zygote can never develop beyond the zygote stage since it is constantly being created anew as a zygote by the unchanging Absolute.

but to say that the Absolute can not create a changing being would put limitations on the Absolute.

To say it is Absolute is to limit it - it can never bwe non-Absolute, it can never change, it can never move and so forth.

The Absolute being “causes” the contingent being, but not out of necessity.

An unchanging cause has the problem of unchanging effect, as I showed with the zygote example. “On the first day the Absolute said ‘Let there be light.’ and on the second day the Absolute said ‘Let there be light.’ and on the third day the Absolute said ‘Let there be light.’ …”. An unchanging cause can only cause one effect, and it causes that effect for ever.

So, considering this, and hopefully some of which you agree with. I would say your argument lies in the understanding of a “First Cause” and saying that would mean the Absolute somehow aquired that property only because He “caused” someting and had He not “caused”, He would just “be”…

There are immense problems with an unchanging First Cause. How can the universe change if it is constantly being caused in its original state by an unchanging cause?

For reasons as this I try to automaticaly remember that the the Absolute being is outside of time.

There you go limiting the Absolute again. You are trying to deny it a presence inside time.

But the problemn is that if one keeps getting a contingent, from another contingent, then an infinite regress results.

Not always, two contingent things can be mutually dependent - “parent” and “child” for instance. Neither can exist without the other, yet somehow parents have children and children have parents.

As far a properties, a person or plant (contingent) can be beautiful, but not in the same way as the Absolute who would be “Beauty Itself”, and the perfection of beauty (as we understand it).

Why just beauty, what about ugly and “Ugliness Itself”? Why just “Truth”, what about “Lies”? Since those two are incompatible then you have at least two Absolutes, each as logical as the other and you are into a Manichaean world. Even without ging for direct opposites, there are problems. Knowledge and learning for instance. If the Absolute id “Knowledge” then the Absolute can never learn anything since it already knows everything. Hence a second Absolute for “Learning”.

I’m not sure how else to put this, but I think it would make sense to say that the only reason the plant has beauty (even a fraction), is because beauty does indeed exist.

Rewrite that with “warthog” and “ugly”. You are doing a lot of reifying here. To me these are just convenient descriptions. To us a flower is beautiful, to a bee or a cow it is food. To us a warthog is ugly, to another warthog it may well be different.

I’m new to philosophy, so thanks for the discussions!

I’m no expert, but it can be fun

rossum

 

[CrypticWritings]

After reading your last post, I was reminded of the problem of anthropomorphism.
In regards to beauty, ugliness etc. there are the pure perfections and then there are characteristics that are human, but it something must have authority over as more than one creature may possess it.
And I think you bring up a good point that applying certain characteristics to God or an Absolute Being can be problematic.
However, I still try to keep in mind that we are lesser beings trying to understand a greater which is not entirely possible with our limited language and understandings however vast they may seem.
If I may inquire, what “school” of thought or angle are you approaching thiw with? I had a roomate this past year who was getting a masters in philosophy and while his arguments made my head hurt, he had several different ways of looking at things.
I am actually going to be learning more philosophy these next couple years so you give me and idea of the trouble I’m in for!

 

[rossum]

In regards to beauty, ugliness etc. there are the pure perfections

Why? I am not a subscriber to the Platonic theory of ideals. Indeed my philosophy is adamantly opposed to the existence of any sort of Platonic ideal. That is one of the meanings of my sig.

and then there are characteristics that are human, but it something must have authority over as more than one creature may possess it.

Why? What is the requirement for this being in authority?

And I think you bring up a good point that applying certain characteristics to God or an Absolute Being can be problematic.

Applying any words to the Absolute is problematic, since all words are contingent and not absolute: “all descriptions of nirvana are false”. Words can only ever be the finger, they can never be the moon to which the finger points.

However, I still try to keep in mind that we are lesser beings trying to understand a greater which is not entirely possible with our limited language and understandings however vast they may seem.

Wittgenstein: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

If I may inquire, what “school” of thought or angle are you approaching thiw with?

I am a madhyamika Buddhist. The name to search on is Nagarjuna. If you have access to a good library then I would suggest: The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, which is an excellent translation of Nagarjuna’s magnum opus, his Mulamadhyamakakarika.

I am actually going to be learning more philosophy these next couple years so you give me and idea of the trouble I’m in for!

The main point is to enjoy yourself.

rossum

 

[cpayne]

Dear Rossum: As I’m sure you know by now, one of the many reasons people are going to disagree with your signature is that Christians for the most part will not agree with the Middle Way; in fact, I’m pretty sure Nagarjuna would regard Christians as heretics for accepting the really existing self rather than thinking of the self as merely nominal. But we do accept the self, the eternal soul. We also accept God’s self-revelation in Christ; this means we are not trying to escape the bonds of the illusory self or the illusory unitary body. We believe God sanctifies and redeems the physical world and completes and glorifies our inner selves; one day our inner and outer selves will be redeemed as one, when they are glorified together in the Resurrection of the Body. For us, these are not just part of the “veil of appearances,” but fundamental to the very idea of God’s Incarnation.

Of course language is going to be slippery, which is why we speak in analogical terms when referring to God. However, the analogies speak of spiritual realities, not illusions from which we are trying to escape. In other words, the “ultimate truth” is not non-existent or impossible to apprehend; Christians believe it is progressively being revealed and will one day be revealed completely, in our very beings. Until that time, however, at least we can speak of it.

So your signature does indeed represent a point of view—just not the Christian one. Even if you are able to explain it very well, it will not be accepted. For example, you might try to explain to Christians why they should prefer nirvana / “blowing out,” to redemption and fellowship with God our Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[cpayne]

Let me add a postscript: Of course belief in nirvana would be preferable if that description is true. However, Christians do not think of it as true; they do not think of existence as fundamentally suffering, or transience, or emptiness. They think of existence as fundamentally good and full (even if fallen), because created by God Who is Goodness and Plenitude.

 

[CrypticWritings]

Dear Rossum: As I’m sure you know by now, one of the many reasons people are going to disagree with your signature is that Christians for the most part will not agree with the Middle Way; in fact, I’m pretty sure Nagarjuna would regard Christians as heretics for accepting the really existing self rather than thinking of the self as merely nominal. But we do accept the self, the eternal soul. We also accept God’s self-revelation in Christ; this means we are not trying to escape the bonds of the illusory self or the illusory unitary body. We believe God sanctifies and redeems the physical world and completes and glorifies our inner selves; one day our inner and outer selves will be redeemed as one, when they are glorified together in the Resurrection of the Body. For us, these are not just part of the “veil of appearances,” but fundamental to the very idea of God’s Incarnation.

Of course language is going to be slippery, which is why we speak in analogical terms when referring to God. However, the analogies speak of spiritual realities, not illusions from which we are trying to escape. In other words, the “ultimate truth” is not non-existent or impossible to apprehend; Christians believe it is progressively being revealed and will one day be revealed completely, in our very beings. Until that time, however, at least we can speak of it.

So your signature does indeed represent a point of view—just not the Christian one. Even if you are able to explain it very well, it will not be accepted. For example, you might try to explain to Christians why they should prefer nirvana / “blowing out,” to redemption and fellowship with God our Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

Well, thank you for that explination…

Yeah, I agree with cpayne but I’m sure I will run up against the philosophy that rossum uses soon as I am going to be taking more classes on the issue. At least now I am a little more aware of it and can get a better idea of what I will be up against…

 

[rossum]

Dear Rossum: As I’m sure you know by now, one of the many reasons people are going to disagree with your signature is that Christians for the most part will not agree with the Middle Way;

Christianity ansd Buddhism are different, yes.

in fact, I’m pretty sure Nagarjuna would regard Christians as heretics for accepting the really existing self rather than thinking of the self as merely nominal.

Not “heretics”, merely mistaken. Heresy is a Christian concept.

But we do accept the self, the eternal soul.

The Buddhist problem with an eternal soul is that it can negate the possibility of salvation and it always negates the utility of moral behaviour. If the soul is eternal then, like anything eternal, it cannot change. If an unchanging soul is not currently saved then, because it cannot change, it can never be saved - the possibility of salvation is negated. If the soul is currently saved then, because it cannot change, it is always saved no matter how many immoral acts are done. In either case, morality is useless bacause it can have no effect on whether we are saved or not. A belief that denies the utility of morality is not seen as useful.

Of course language is going to be slippery, which is why we speak in analogical terms when referring to God. However, the analogies speak of spiritual realities, not illusions from which we are trying to escape.

By their very nature, words can only refer to the illusions and not to the realities.

In other words, the “ultimate truth” is not non-existent or impossible to apprehend; Christians believe it is progressively being revealed and will one day be revealed completely, in our very beings. Until that time, however, at least we can speak of it.

Here we will have to differ.

So your signature does indeed represent a point of view—just not the Christian one. Even if you are able to explain it very well, it will not be accepted. For example, you might try to explain to Christians why they should prefer nirvana / “blowing out,” to redemption and fellowship with God our Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

You don’t have to die to attain nirvana - it is available here and now. The Buddha attained nirvana when he became enlightened at age 35. He died for the last time aged 80. He spent 45 years living in the world while at the same time living in nirvana.

Let me add a postscript: Of course belief in nirvana would be preferable if that description is true. However, Christians do not think of it as true; they do not think of existence as fundamentally suffering, or transience, or emptiness. They think of existence as fundamentally good and full (even if fallen), because created by God Who is Goodness and Plenitude.

What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?"

“As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.”

"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.

Assu sutta, SN 15.3

rossum