We Must ALL Agree (part 1)

[tGette]

My point is that you cannot have “2 + 2 = 4” on its own as an absolute truth. You also need an agreed definition of what those particular characters mean - with a different meaning the truth value might change. Hence those characters are not an absolute truth but a conditional truth; they do not stand alone but require the presence of an agreed set of meanings. For example, 2 + 2 = 10 in numbers to base 4; “2 + 2 = 4” is meaningless in base 4 since the symbol ‘4’ has no meaning in base 4, only the digits 0, 1, 2 and 3 have meaning.

An absolute truth stands on its own. Anything expressed in a language does not stand on its own but also requires the presence of a dictionary. Hence anything expressed in a language cannot be an absolute stand-alone truth.

Absolute truth may possibly exist, but since we live in a contingent world it is very difficult to be sure that we have found it, and that we do not have a close approximation to it. Any close approximation to absolute truth cannot be an absolute truth, but must be contingent.

rossum

I’m starting to understand you better!
I still love the way you think, by the way!

Let me ask this:

To come to an agreement on what those characters mean…would we not need to use a language to figure that out? And how do we agree on what the words of that language mean without speaking a language?

How do we ever come to an agreement what those words in the dictionary should mean?

So…if you got arrested and had to go to court…in the courtroom would you tell them that what the officer spoke to you could have meant a million things depending on what those words mean in a different language?

This seems to be going in a circle and the argument is almost self-defeating.

Of course 2+2=4 in Arabic would not make sense.

So what you are saying is if you were to take a math test you would go up to the teacher and ask them what all those symbols mean? And then refuse to take the test because those symbols mean so many things in other languages (and sometimes they mean nothing)?

 

[rossum]

I’m starting to understand you better!
I still love the way you think, by the way!

Blame Nagarjuna. Many of my ideas are taken from him.

The question you asked in your OP was “Basically: Do we(you) believe truth is absolute?” I am saying that in practice any expression of truth relies on some agreed assumptions about the meanings of symbols and the meanings of sounds. For ordinary day-to-day stuff we all have an agreed set of assumptions so everything works reasonably smoothly. There are small frictions such as “peanut butter and jelly sandwich”, which UK English speakers hear as “peanut butter and jello sandwich” but mostly things work OK and we all make allowances for Americans’ strange tastes in food. We prefer peanut butter and jam sandwiches.

However if we are talking about absolute truth then we cannot let these assumptions just slide by. An absolute truth stands by itself independent of all assumptions. You can only have an absolute truth if you have eliminated all assumptions. That is a very difficult thing to do. I do not deny the possibility of an absolute truth existing, but I do assert the great difficulty of actually expressing an absolute truth because we have to be 100% sure that we have eliminated all our underlying assumptions. If we leave even one assumption then the expressed truth is not absolute, but contingent since it is still dependent on the remaining assumption.

rossum

 

[rossum]

**Can I try to some up the point you are trying to convey?
Let me know if I am way of base…
You are saying that if we want to find truth we have to agree on what the words we are using mean and convey before we can come to a search for truth and truths.
**

This is part of it. However we need to know that the full meanings of the words is shared between the participants. This can be very difficult due to the overtones of words. Words like “God” have different overtones for atheists and theists. “Liberal” or “conservative” have different meanings on different sides of the Atlantic and also have different overtones to people of different political beliefs.

In order to convey absolute truth you have to be absolutely sure that all words used have absolutely the same meanings and absolutely the same overtones for all parties in the discussion. That task I see as a practical impossibility. It may be theoretically possible, but in all practical senses it is not. Hence in practice all we can transfer between ourselves is an approximation to the absolute truth - which can only be a contingent truth.

rossum

 

[ralphinal]

Let me pose some questions.

First, is the execution of an entire race of humans ever acceptable?

Second, does light exhibit the properties of both a wave and a particle?

Third, is it not an absolute statement to say there are no absolute statements?

Forth, is it not an absolute truth to say that Ralph likes to eat, especially pork products and butter pecan ice cream?

Finally, does the fact that someone denies that there is an aboslute Truth actually negate that truth, or, by definition, does that Truth not exist weather it is accepted or not?

 

[rossum]

Let me pose some questions.

First, is the execution of an entire race of humans ever acceptable?

Yes, if they are Amalekites. (1 Sam 15:3)

Second, does light exhibit the properties of both a wave and a particle?

Photons do. How do you see the relationship between “light” and a photon?

Third, is it not an absolute statement to say there are no absolute statements?

No. All statements made in human language must be contingent on the meanings assigned to the symbols and sounds of that language. These can differ from individual to individual.

Forth, is it not an absolute truth to say that Ralph likes to eat, especially pork products and butter pecan ice cream?

Possibly, for certain definitions of “Ralph” and only for such time as the given Ralph exists. When Ralph was somewhat younger than now, his preference was for milk. His preferences might change in future, so any description of Ralph’s food preferences is contingent on the date at which the description applies.

Finally, does the fact that someone denies that there is an aboslute Truth actually negate that truth, or, by definition, does that Truth not exist weather it is accepted or not?

I do not deny the possible existence of an absolute truth. I am extremely sceptical of our ability to specify such a truth using a contingent human language. Can you specify exactly and absolutely the taste of butter pecan ice cream using only language?

rossum

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Light is light, and that is as far as I personally am capable of claiming as a truth.

So, I’ll repeat MY question in hopes you’ll answer it:

Is light being light a truth?

As rossum stated, it’s a tautology, which by itself is meaningless. So no, it’s not a truth, because it contains no information. You might as well say nothing at all.

Well, this sums up the non-Catholic (atheist) mind quite well then.

To that mind, the simple truth that a thing is a thing is a truth is “nothing at all”.

To say, “Light is light” is to say that light exists as what it is seen to be, even if one can’t see the entire depth of what it is one is seeing.

To the non-Catholic (aka, in this case, the atheist) mind, no thing exists as what it is seen to be because ABSOLUTE CLARITY of understanding what one is seeing can be known.

Everything is therefore “unreal”, and reality is therefore nearly perfectly maliable by simply “wishing it were so”.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

That assumes a two-valued Aristotelian logic. There are alternative logics such as a probabilistic logic or a four-valued Nagarjunian logic: yes, no, both, neither.

A = A is a tautology in most (all?) logics.

rossum

But what that “statement” (A=A) tells us that their is at least ONE “A”. That “A” exists!

That is the “information value” of the above statement, which makes the statement “A=A contains no information” false, aka a contradiction.

Why should we allow someone to make blatantly self-contradicting statements get away with it?

 

[ralphinal]

Yes, if they are Amalekites. (1 Sam 15:3)

Photons do. How do you see the relationship between “light” and a photon?

No. All statements made in human language must be contingent on the meanings assigned to the symbols and sounds of that language. These can differ from individual to individual.

Possibly, for certain definitions of “Ralph” and only for such time as the given Ralph exists. When Ralph was somewhat younger than now, his preference was for milk. His preferences might change in future, so any description of Ralph’s food preferences is contingent on the date at which the description applies.

I do not deny the possible existence of an absolute truth. I am extremely sceptical of our ability to specify such a truth using a contingent human language. Can you specify exactly and absolutely the taste of butter pecan ice cream using only language?

rossum

the last one was the only one I cared about, but I will respond to all.

1. And what made that one different?
2. As a photon, to me anyway, is understood to be the means by which light travels, I would say that in this case it is a aspect of light.
3. This is a dogde. You are now saying that as language is not absolute, there may be truth but it cannot be convayed.
4. Perhaps, although there is no Ralph but Ralph and Ralph is is messenger. My food preferences have stayed the same over my solid eating days.
5. Same issue. Either the Truth is or it is not even if we cannot express it.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

My apologies, I tend to work in dichotomies in using logic.

I am not very familiar with Buddhist forms of logic.

There is no “buddhist logic”. There are “buddhist rationales”, but the “true-false-both-neither” so-called “logic” is fully contained within mathematical logic.

Does “set theory” come to mind?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ralphinal View Post
Light exhibits qualities of both a wave and a particle. That is truth.

But, how can this be? Wave properties and particle properties are mutually exclusive. Something can’t be both at the same time!

Yet, light is still light, is it not, and both the truth of that statement AND the truth that light is light still exist, don’t they?

Perhaps there’s something “wrong” with the whole idea of “wave” and “particle”?

Why lay the “blame” of light being “strange” on the light, instead of what you think particles are and what you think waves are?

Light is true, while your “wave” and “particle” seems to be false!

Imagine that! God’s creation being TRUE and man’s mind being FALSE! What a concept.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by tGette View Post
I’m sorry, but that is the silliest thing I have ever heard.
Because…we are quite aware that we are typing in English and the assumption is that those symbols mean what they mean in English.

We think we agree on what words mean in English, but each of us probably has different interpretations. In America an automobile has a hood and a trunk. In Britain a car has a bonnet and a boot. How can we be sure that we both understand the same meaning of the same word? Unless we are absolutely sure then any truth we convey from one person to another cannot be an absolute truth. It is contingent upon the match between our different understandings of the same words in our respective versions of out common language.

The reason that we choose symbols like “2” and “+” and “=” is to confine, by agreement, the scope of what we’re talking about so that a useful discussion and CONCLUSION to that discussion can be arrived at.

The relativist is vested in perpetuating MISUNDERSTANDING by making all “agreement” as fuzzy as possible.

Why? So that their “pet feel-good (to them) behavior” can be “morally” indulged in with a “clear conscience”.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TriuneUnity View Post
What?? I have to agree with tGette here, rossum…this IS one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard.

Regardless of the language it’s being written in, 2+2 still equals 4 whether it’s the English 2 or a scribble mark in sanskrit!

My point is that you cannot have “2 + 2 = 4” on its own as an absolute truth.

Yet, it DOES stand on it’s own if we agree about the meaning of the symbols.

You also need an agreed definition of what those particular characters mean - with a different meaning the truth value might change.

The relativist is not interested in agreement! They are interested in being able to do as they like because they can claim that they were “misunderstood” because agreement is impossible to come to.

The basic claim of the relativist is that there is no possibility of humans agreeing on anything, because it can’t be “perfectly” agreed to!

This comes right back around to the (nearly ever present) WISH of the non-God-oriented person for the world to be either PERFECT or IRRELEVANT.

They hate God because He didn’t create a perfect world for them, and then consider both God and reality to be “unreal” because it’s not what THEY want to live in!

Thus, all things are suffering (because it’s not what they want) and navel-gazing is the preferred avoidance mechanism (especially in cultures where they PAY you to do so) to avoid contact with all suffering producing “things”.

Hence those characters are not an absolute truth but a conditional truth; they do not stand alone but require the presence of an agreed set of meanings. For example, 2 + 2 = 10 in numbers to base 4; “2 + 2 = 4” is meaningless in base 4 since the symbol ‘4’ has no meaning in base 4, only the digits 0, 1, 2 and 3 have meaning.

An absolute truth stands on its own. Anything expressed in a language does not stand on its own but also requires the presence of a dictionary. Hence anything expressed in a language cannot be an absolute stand-alone truth.

Absolute truth may possibly exist, but since we live in a contingent world it is very difficult to be sure that we have found it, and that we do not have a close approximation to it. Any close approximation to absolute truth cannot be an absolute truth, but must be contingent.

Or, in other words, “Ohmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…”

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Let me pose some questions.

First, is the execution of an entire race of humans ever acceptable?

Certainly. Yes. If allowed by the only persons who can allow it.

Second, does light exhibit the properties of both a wave and a particle?

Light exhibits what light exhibits which have some resemblance to behaviors we call those of waves and particles.

Apparently, waves and particles are not overly full descriptions of what light behaves like.

Third, is it not an absolute statement to say there are no absolute statements?

That is an absolute statement. Yes.

Forth, is it not an absolute truth to say that Ralph likes to eat, especially pork products and butter pecan ice cream?

Yes, that is a truth [noun] if it is indeed true when it is said.

Finally, does the fact that someone denies that there is an absolute Truth actually negate that truth,…

No. That does not negate a truth if that truth is true.

To say that “there is no absolute truth” is a statement which CREATES an absolute truth [a noun], which in fact negatively negates TRUTH [the noun, universal noun] and confirms it AS truth.

…or, by definition, does that Truth not exist weather it is accepted or not?

Weather rains and shines, but does not ACCEPT anything!

But that truth is truth regardless of ANY CONTINGENCY, such as anyone’s acceptance of it or not, and is simply an absolute TRUTH!

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Finally, does the fact that someone denies that there is an aboslute Truth actually negate that truth, or, by definition, does that Truth not exist weather it is accepted or not?

I do not deny the possible existence of an absolute truth.

Then, it is an absolute truth that you don’t deny that absolute truth is a possibility?

I am extremely sceptical of our ability to specify such a truth using a contingent human language.

But we don’t HAVE to be “utterly specific” about identifying absolute truths. We only have to agree with each other that we are describing something real.

Language is perfectly capable of describing absolute truths so that they can be identified.

To say that language is incapable of describing absolute truth is like saying that painters are incapable of painting because no canvas is BIG ENOUGH to contain what is to be painted.

There are less-than-the-universe sized absolute truths! The relativist thinks that only the universe AS A WHOLE can be considered as an absolute truth.

So, to them, no “absolutely truthful” painting can exist which isn’t as big as the universe.

Can you specify exactly and absolutely the taste of butter pecan ice cream using only language?

We don’t have to.

All we need to do is agree that that ice cream is a good thing to Ralph.

The TRUTH is that it is good to him. And it is an absolute truth (while it is true) for RALPH, which we don’t have to UTTERLY UNDERSTAND IN EVERY DETAIL but only agree with with Ralph.

 

[po18guy]

Light is light. That is the truth.

Is light being light a truth?

He’s LDS, in spite of what he says. So, truth is whatever Joseph Smith says it is. And, since JS said it is truth, it is.

 

[rossum]

the last one was the only one I cared about, but I will respond to all.

1. And what made that one different?

Ask God, not me. He was the one who ordered it.

1. This is a dogde. You are now saying that as language is not absolute, there may be truth but it cannot be convayed.

Truth may be conveyed in ways other than through language. “Preach always, use words if you have to.”

1. Perhaps, although there is no Ralph but Ralph and Ralph is is messenger. My food preferences have stayed the same over my solid eating days.

So your truth in contingent on your being in your solid eating days, and did not apply before then. That is a contingent truth - contingent on time.

1. Same issue. Either the Truth is or it is not even if we cannot express it.

The truths of Buddhism are seen in meditation. They cannot be fully expressed in language.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Then, it is an absolute truth that you don’t deny that absolute truth is a possibility?

No, it is contingent truth since I expressed it in language.

But we don’t HAVE to be “utterly specific” about identifying absolute truths. We only have to agree with each other that we are describing something real.

Is something that it 99% absolute truth an absolute truth? Not to me it isn’t, it is an approximation to an absolute truth but not itself an absolute truth.

Language is perfectly capable of describing absolute truths so that they can be identified.

Only if you have an absolute dictionary for that language. I am not aware of any human language that posesses such a dictionary.

To say that language is incapable of describing absolute truth is like saying that painters are incapable of painting because no canvas is BIG ENOUGH to contain what is to be painted.

The real painting is in the painters mind. What is on the canvas is only a representation of the real painting. It is a finger pointing to the moon. Do not mistake the finger for the moon.

rossum

 

[ralphinal]

Ask God, not me. He was the one who ordered it.

Now we are getting warmer

Truth may be conveyed in ways other than through language. “Preach always, use words if you have to.”

But would that not still be subjective? If you saw me doing good, how do you know that I am doing it because of my love for God?

So your truth in contingent on your being in your solid eating days, and did not apply before then. That is a contingent truth - contingent on time.

Yes, but you mentioned that it could change. As long as the conditions are as such, they have been constant, leading me to conclude that it is a permanant state.

The truths of Buddhism are seen in meditation. They cannot be fully expressed in language.

rossum

Then how are they not subjective?

Is a truth that is not objective a truth?

 

[rossum]

My apologies, I tend to work in dichotomies in using logic.

I am not very familiar with Buddhist forms of logic.

See Tetralemma for the four valued logic.

Please give me what, under this philosophy, would be said of the statement:
“Either I will go to work tomorrow or I will not”

The four values are:* A: I will go to work tomorrow.

• not A: I will go to the shops tomorrow.
• both A and not A: I will go to work and I will go to the shops tomorrow.
• neither A nor not A: I will be at the beach all day tomorrow.

Also, Where can I learn more about Nargarjunian logic anyways?

For a brief introduction look at the entry for Nagarjuna in Wikipedia or in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Nagarjuna’s magnum opus is his Mulamadhyamakakarika. This is not an easy work to understand. Reading it raw, without a commentary is not recommended - you need a good background in Buddhist philosophy and Buddhist technical terms first. The best translation into English that I am aware of is by Jay Garfield - “The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way”. Your local library may be able to get a copy. Perhaps a better introduction to Nagarjuna’s philosophy is “The Emptiness of Emptiness” by Huntington and Wangchal. This is a substantial introduction and translation of a text (Madhyamakavatara) by Chandrakirti, who was one of the most significant commentators on Nagarjuna. Again your library may be able to help.

rossum

 

[rossum]

There is no “buddhist logic”.

You would do well to study Nagarjuna, Dignaga and Dharmakirti before making such an assertion.

rossum