Is the pursuit of ultimate truth futile for humans?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zero
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Knowledge
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the limitations of human understanding and the pursuit of ultimate truth, suggesting that while humans can approximate knowledge, they may never fully grasp absolute truths. Participants argue that seeking practical knowledge is essential, as it allows for meaningful application in life, while the quest for ultimate truths can lead to overlooking simpler, actionable insights. The conversation touches on the idea that the human mind's design may reflect a higher power, yet others contend that physical laws govern existence without the need for divine intervention. There is a recognition that while ultimate truths may be elusive, the pursuit of them can yield practical benefits and insights. Ultimately, the dialogue emphasizes the balance between seeking deeper understanding and recognizing the value of practical knowledge in navigating life.
  • #51
Originally posted by Another God
An interesting point that was brought to my attention just recently was the beliefs of the Pragmatist Philosopher John Dewey. Being someone heavily influenced by the discussions in these forums, when told that Dewey's stance was that there is no distinction between Inner and Outer, that the world that exists 'out there' is precisely the world we live in, and that's all there is, I questioned it.
Well he obviously wasn't a spiritualist. For if there is a spiritual side to our being, "interiorly," then the distinction must be made -- or, will be made, when we pass on. Of course to a staunch materialist, this doesn't bear any further consideration.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
i can believe what i do not see. Seeing isn't the only sense we have. So blind faith is what you call those who believe without seeing? You can smell, touch, hear, and taste things also. If there was an apple pie in a picth black room I am sure you can believe that it is apple by by simply feeling, smelling and tasting it. Even your eyes can deceive you. Relying on your eyes to tell you what's true is being blind.
 
  • #53
Originally posted by THANOS
i can believe what i do not see. Seeing isn't the only sense we have. So blind faith is what you call those who believe without seeing? You can smell, touch, hear, and taste things also. If there was an apple pie in a picth black room I am sure you can believe that it is apple by by simply feeling, smelling and tasting it. Even your eyes can deceive you. Relying on your eyes to tell you what's true is being blind.
Oh, I see what you mean. And I didn't see, taste, smell, feel or hear anything of it. Yes, seeing is believing. :wink:

Actually what you're doing here is mixing the physical with the abstract, either that or you're trying to confound me in a little game of semantics. Hmm ... I wonder how far back the expression "seeing is believing" goes anyway? It's not like I just happened to whip it out of my back pocket you know ...
 
  • #54
Explain

In case this is a forum forum were we all know each other, I am Blu,
 
  • #55
Originally posted by Iacchus32
That would be blind faith then. In which case seeing is believing. :wink:
I once saw Siegfried & Roy make an elephant appear out of thin air. Seeing is believing! :wink:
 
  • #56
Amazing!
 
  • #57
Originally posted by blu
Explain

In case this is a forum forum were we all know each other, I am Blu,

Welcome to the PFs, Blu! :smile:
 
Back
Top