All solutions and answers are correct

  • Thread starter Thread starter olde drunk
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the nature of truth, exploring concepts of absolute versus relative truth, subjective beliefs, and the validity of personal experiences in shaping one's understanding of reality. Participants engage in philosophical reasoning, questioning the existence of absolute truths and the implications of subjective perspectives in various contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that all answers and solutions to philosophical questions are valid based on individual perspectives and experiences.
  • Others argue against the notion of absolute truth, suggesting that truth is inherently subjective and context-dependent.
  • A participant questions whether truth can exist outside of sensory experience, using the example of a breakfast choice to illustrate the concept of a singular correct answer.
  • There is a discussion about the distinction between relative truth and absolute truth, with some asserting that while relative truths are known, absolute truths may be beyond human comprehension.
  • One participant suggests that beliefs shape experiences and realities, indicating that what one accepts as truth can influence their understanding of the universe.
  • Another participant introduces the idea of three-valued and fuzzy logic as a means to address paradoxes, prompting questions about the implications of such logic on the concept of truth.
  • There is a debate about whether knowledge can exist in a state of uncertainty, with references to the idea of a third truth value (M) that represents indeterminate states.
  • Some participants reflect on the philosophical implications of personal experiences in defining moral truths, such as the morality of killing in war, suggesting that these truths are valid within specific contexts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of truth, with no consensus reached. While some agree on the validity of subjective truths, others challenge the existence of any absolute truths, leading to an ongoing debate without resolution.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on individual definitions of truth and the unresolved nature of philosophical arguments regarding the existence of absolute truths versus relative truths.

  • #31
Originally posted by Pseudonym
olde drunk - What would you say to a man breaking into your house?

why is it necessary that you do this? i am not a threat to you. take what you need, please do not harm anyone.
if you have problems, please realize that we have come together for a reason, this is not an accidental meeting. can we work toward another solution?

again, material property has no value compared to my, or my families injury.

i would deal with the interloper on whatever terms he presented.

yes, i would report the crime and prosecute the culprit.

why do you ask?

peace,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
absolute anything??

as a practical matter, why do we need an absolute truth or anything?

are we so unsure of ourselves that we must have a 'truth' above all other 'truths' in order to confidently face the world?

even a misguided truth (when weighed against the societal or scientific 'truth') can lead to a revelation. so, for that individual, the relative, wrong truth, was valid and necessary.

peace,


ps: we do agree on rules of nature and man for convenience in dealing with each other.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Phoenix

I don't agree with your 'third way' approach to truth and falsity, but it's too big a topic for this thread. I do at least agree that there are an infinite number of relatively true (or false)statements.

Olde Drunk

One reason truth is important is that without absolute truth morality can only be relative, To put that another way, if there is no absolute truth then the question of how we should behave does not have an answer. This is the big danger of thinking that there are no truths, as can be seen from the current behaviour of human beings.
 
  • #34
This is a remarkable statement.

One reason truth is important is that without absolute truth morality can only be relative, To put that another way, if there is no absolute truth then the question of how we should behave does not have an answer. This is the big danger of thinking that there are no truths, as can be seen from the current behaviour of human beings.

Do you mean we should believe in absolute truth, for no other reason than that it would be morally inconvenient not to? The whole trend of philosophy after Kant led to the position stated by Nietsche: God is dead, there is no absolute truth, and we have to decide for ourselves how to behave. Are you just waving all that away?
 
  • #35
Originally posted by Canute
.
Olde Drunk
One reason truth is important is that without absolute truth morality can only be relative, To put that another way, if there is no absolute truth then the question of how we should behave does not have an answer. This is the big danger of thinking that there are no truths, as can be seen from the current behaviour of human beings.

we think we have these 'truths' now. what good have they done?

if we show everyone, that they are the powerful creator of their reality, not an outside force. AND that they are responsible for enjoying the consequences of all their actions, we might short circuit the 'hopeless-helpless' feelings that cause antisocial behavior.

we cannot legislate morals and/or behavior. we can only educate! haven't we learned that yet? why do we continually pass laws and rules when something is wrong in society? we must have thousands of books containing laws, including sacred books (bible, talmud, torah, koran, etc) what is your result? 'the current behaviour of human beings'?

let's lead the way for self-determination, with a minimum of rules. do you think that everyone would drive safer if they knew that all the traffic controls were suspended during their trip?

peace,
 
  • #36
Originally posted by selfAdjoint

Do you mean we should believe in absolute truth, for no other reason than that it would be morally inconvenient not to? The whole trend of philosophy after Kant led to the position stated by Nietsche: God is dead, there is no absolute truth, and we have to decide for ourselves how to behave. Are you just waving all that away? [/B]
No I didn't mean that at all. Far from it. What I meant was that it matters whether there are absolute truths or not and what they are.

One shouldn't believe anything that one does not think is a truth, not for any reason.

Btw I'm having a lot of trouble with this thread. Posts keep disappearing and appearing again. I seem to be missing some of them.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
Originally posted by Canute
No I didn't mean that at all. Far from it. What I meant was that it matters whether there are absolute truths or not and what they are.

One shouldn't believe anything that one does not think is a truth, not for any reason.

what i am saying is that for a given moment in time(or an experience) the subject has an absolute truth unique to that moment. it is, however, a subjective-relative truth within eternity, as are all truths.

perhaps, eternity and infinity are the only absolutes?

peace,
 
  • #38
I half agree with that and half disagree. But I can't think of how to express what I mean at the moment.
 
  • #39
Originally posted by olde drunk
why do you ask?
Because it seems that you would be deceiving the man. You tell him not to hurt your family. Why not? Maybe according to his current "experience" hurting them would be a valuable and good thing. You have no real grounds for reasoning with him, and you're only imposing your morality on him.
 
  • #40
Originally posted by Pseudonym
Because it seems that you would be deceiving the man. You tell him not to hurt your family. Why not? Maybe according to his current "experience" hurting them would be a valuable and good thing. You have no real grounds for reasoning with him, and you're only imposing your morality on him.

1. i do not tell, i ask. we would work with what the situation presented.

if, it was necessary for him to kill me, then that would be the consequence. death, imho, is not the end of my existence.

2. i offer to discuss and reason with him, because there are ALWAYS BETTER solutions to any problem.

3. I am not imposing anything. see #2.


within my experience, violence is not an option. but, that is my relative truth. living in fear of violence, breeds violence.

peace,
 
  • #41
can someone please explain how his personal decision on what he would do in a situation relates to solving paradoxes?
 
  • #42
i think, his point was that 'if i am living my truth and the aggressor is living his' HOW do the two co-exist and/or resolve issues.

if, i wasn't clear, my viewpoint is that we have been drawn to each other [via subconscious (telepathy?) communication] to have this situation so that we can help each other to achieve our goal(s) in life.

our 'truths' may differ but we are here have experiences and expand awareness. this will lead to broader truths.

peace,
 
  • #43
Yes, I was interested how you would apply this idea in life. It's just about meaningless to create a theory without examining how it plays out in the real world.

How should I make decisions? Should I just 'go with my gut'?

And is there any reason apart from your feelings on the matter that I should accept this theory?
 
  • #44
within the premise of the original post. you will believe whatever you want and/or need to belive.

my 'truths' are mine; your's are your's. we agree on the basic rules of physicality so that we can share this experience. there are some cultures that have managed to suspend, alter these rules w3ithin their belief system. again, for their purpose(s).

life is a game to be played respectfully. let's have fun. hell, my contract was renewed, again today, for another minute. no signing bonus (ARG!).

peace,
 
  • #45
Originally posted by elibol

i can argue against this. the simple philosophical fact (and to my knowledge the only one) that the only thing we truly know is that we posses conciousness...

How certain is it that we possesses consciousness? Maybe what we consider consciousness is nothing more than a perception of awareness that we assume exists.

nsciousness, we shall find, is reducible to relations between objects, and objects we shall find to be reducible to relations between different states of consciousness; and neither point of view is more nearly ultimate than the other.

ATTRIBUTION: T.S. (Thomas Stearns) Eliot(1888–1965)
 
Last edited:
  • #46
i think three-valued logic is the key. true, false, or maybe.
 
  • #47
Originally posted by talus
How certain is it that we possesses consciousness? Maybe what we consider consciousness is nothing more than a perception of awareness that we assume exists.

"consciousness, we shall find, is reducible to relations between objects, and objects we shall find to be reducible to relations between different states of consciousness; and neither point of view is more nearly ultimate than the other."

ATTRIBUTION: T.S. (Thomas Stearns) Eliot(1888–1965)

Your quote contradicts your argument.
 

Similar threads

Is mathematics invented or discovered?
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
2K
Is Reality Just a Construct of Our Beliefs?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Is Belief in God Justified by Anecdotal Evidence?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Is the 'theory of god' a legitimate theory?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Defending Science Against Ongoing Threats: Why the Scientific Method Matters
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Graduate Why Is Time Dilation Considered a Real Phenomenon?
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
5K
Brethren, unite against the thought police
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Undergrad How Did 1900s Physicists Misjudge the Completeness of Physics?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Is it possible for all truths to be known?
  • · Replies 136 ·
5
Replies
136
Views
24K
Question re electrochemical marking of stainless steel
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K