Is Truth Subjective? Exploring the Concept of Absolute Truth

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

There is absolute truth, it is an experience which will uncover the great secret. In knowing this little secret, the universe will open to you. Any question in which you desire to ask will be answered. ANY QUESTION. It does not matter who agrees or disagrees, it stands of itself, and touches the heavans and the earth, for it is all things, and unthings.

Ummm.. yyeeeaahh.. 'Absolute Truth' cannot answer the question of "What chocolate tastes the best?", or "What is the prettiest flower?", etc. I think you may have watched one too many reruns of The Lord Of The Rings.

 

[Iacchus32]

Ummm.. yyeeeaahh.. 'Absolute Truth' cannot answer the question of "What chocolate tastes the best?", or "What is the prettiest flower?", etc. I think you may have watched one too many reruns of The Lord Of The Rings.

What difference does it make so long as you're in heaven?

 

[Iacchus32]

There is or isn't an absolute truth.

Yes, if we are choosing between absolute truth and no absolute truth, we are choosing between one of two absolute truths. Got it?

 

[Egmont]

Yes, if we are choosing between absolute truth and no absolute truth, we are choosing between one of two absolute truths.

(playing the devil's advocate for a bit...)

I have seen this kind of reply a lot of times and it does make sense. The sentence "there is no absolute truth" can't possibly be true as a matter of logic, ergo it must be false, ergo absolute truth exists. That is fine. But what next? If absolute truths must exist as a matter of logical necessity, where are they, how do we find them, and can anyone provide some examples?

Now that, I think, will be tough. "I know it exists, I just don't know where it is". Just like misplaced car keys...

Any takers?

 

[Enos]

There is and isn't an absolute truth.

 

[selfAdjoint]

There is and isn't an absolute truth.

Is that "There is and there isn't" in the sense of Goedel, or in the sense of Schroedinger?

 

[Enos]

Now who are they? lol

 

[Imparcticle]

Why are you concerned with an absolute truth with food tastes? Of course there is no absolute truth with the likeness of certain foods. things like favorite food, color, movie, music are all opinions, relative things. As far as mathematics is concerned, i think it is an absolute truth. i think it must be, since it is the "language" of the universe. Like I said before, 2+2=4, no matter where or when you are. It is independent of reference frame, like many things in math (tensors for example)..

Precisesly my original point. But I have come to wonder, do opinions have a factual basis? Are they logical?

My example about the brain was intended to describe a possibility where opinions are determined by the energy of certain chemical reactions. This implies there may be a systematic basis (that is, a logical basis) in which opinions are developed. Now, it may seem to us that opinions are tend to be different amoung various people. Some may have the same opinion, others a different opinion. This leads to the question, why do people have different opinions or opinions that are the same? If there are two ways in which to describe how much you like something (your liking of it is at a low degree or it is at a high degree), doesn't that make you wonder if there is a logical basis on which opinions are determined or exist?
Opinions seem to be rather sporadic. Just like a scatter plot diagram (i think that's what it's called; the name just won't come to me at this moment ) where many points on a coordinate plane are sporadically charted. Though it is sporadic, a line may be identified as a description of the average tendencies of the sporadic points on the graph. Do you understand where I'm going with this?

 

[Prometheus]

Actually, I think "absolute truth" is a description of a statement, or set of statements, that is true no matter what, where, or when. Such as in math, 2+2=4, no matter what culture, no matter what galaxy...

No matter what the base, unless of course it is base 3.

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

No matter what the base, unless of course it is base 3.

base or mod? it should work out anyways in either..

 

[Ad Infinitum NAU]

Precisesly my original point. But I have come to wonder, do opinions have a factual basis? Are they logical?

My example about the brain was intended to describe a possibility where opinions are determined by the energy of certain chemical reactions. This implies there may be a systematic basis (that is, a logical basis) in which opinions are developed. Now, it may seem to us that opinions are tend to be different amoung various people. Some may have the same opinion, others a different opinion. This leads to the question, why do people have different opinions or opinions that are the same? If there are two ways in which to describe how much you like something (your liking of it is at a low degree or it is at a high degree), doesn't that make you wonder if there is a logical basis on which opinions are determined or exist?
Opinions seem to be rather sporadic. Just like a scatter plot diagram (i think that's what it's called; the name just won't come to me at this moment ) where many points on a coordinate plane are sporadically charted. Though it is sporadic, a line may be identified as a description of the average tendencies of the sporadic points on the graph. Do you understand where I'm going with this?

yea.. but i'll have to wait til later to respond. my bday so I am runnin around catching sleep and parties..

 

[Philocrat]

Actually, I think "absolute truth" is a description of a statement, or set of statements, that is true no matter what, where, or when. Such as in math, 2+2=4, no matter what culture, no matter what galaxy...

Well, climb out of the form that you are now in (that is, your human form) and watch mathematics, logic and any other device of causal and relational analysis colapse with it! Can you calculate or reason in a formless state?

 

[misogynisticfeminist]

There is a big objective reality out there, or rather, absolute truth. But i don't think human minds would be able to fully comprehend it. Just as some people say the subjective is needed to elucidate the objective. its like light, light can lie to us, maybe our sh*it is pink or blue, but light tells us that its brown. its like accepted truths, it may not be exactly objective and an accurate representation of this "absolute truth", but as much as we need light, we need these bits of accepted wisdom.

Its like maybe, what if EM induction was not the result of electrons moving in the wire when it cuts a magnetic field. Maybe its little fairies in the wire who carry the electrons around and this movement wakes them up or something. Ok, so, this bit of accepted wisdom is defunct, but we invented electricity and the generator in the process anyway.

Humans naturally live in delusion, because the objective reality would be too infinite for us to comprehend. And its good, because it compels us to seek out this "truth", and this would lead to growth in human knowledge, an endless one even.

 

[TENYEARS]

We are expressions of absolute truth.

 

[cogito]

I was having a discussion with a friend a few days ago about the validity of absolute truth. She said that in many philosophy classes, it is taught that there is no aboslute truth. She believed the contrary was true, and based her argument on the following illustration (and for the heck of it, I'll just type our conversation):
My Friend: "What color is this wall?"
(the wall would normally be considered white)
my friend continues: "I believe it is white. Do you agree?"

me: "Yes. But how do I know the white you see is the same as the white I see? How do I know the white you see is not the equivalent of something I would percieve to be red?"

My friend: "How do you think we would be sure? I think we should go ask the maker of the paint"

me: "Ah, but my argument still holds for anyone. What if the maker is color blind? What if he IS blind?"

my friend: "well, we will have to bow to the creator of the paint. He should know what it is he created."

Me: "I think you misunderstand. The idea that there is no absolute truth is based on another idea: that there are various perspectives of one thing. There is no absolute certainty of one person's being more right than another. If it were taken as litrally as you have, then there would be no logical system in which to come up with the notion of truth in the first place...The universe has its own logical system of things, and those things have truth in them. On the other hand, we can say truth is defined by a particular logical system."

Am I right? I really want to understand this subject, if I have come to misunderstand it.

thanks

Look, suppose we assume that no claim is true absolutely (i.e., true regardless of what anybody thinks or perceives). If so, then we can infer that there is in fact at least one absolute truth. We can infer from our original supposition that the claim "no claim is true absolutely" is itself true absolutely. But, of course, this contradicts our original supposition. So, the supposition "no claim is true absolutely" entails its own falsehood. Any claim that entails a falsehood is false, so our original supposition is false. Hence, there is at least one abolute truth. QED

 

[Preator Fenix]

Absolute truth?

Absolute compared to what?

 

[phoenixthoth]

The following sets have the same cardinality:
1. the set of absolutely true statements
2. the set of statements that aren't absolutely true
3. the set of statements
4. the set of natural numbers

and perhaps the above statement is itself a member of the set mentioned in 1.

 

[4newton]

Of course there is absolute truth. If truth were not absolute then it would make no difference what we do. Everyone has found that at about the age of 2 that what you do make a difference in results. If you have been paying attention all you life you should know by now that going against absolute truth has bad results. I think the number of repeated bad choices they make never realizing that they are making choices against basic truth may judge the intelligence of a person.

 

[Mazuz]

We are expressions of absolute truth.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[cragwolf]

Is there an absolute truth??

NO!

Oh, wait...

 

[magus niche]

yes, we are expressions of absolute truth, but we are under illusion if we think we are representing it absolutely objectively. ie. mathematics are elitist to the nonmathematician. philosophy is elitist to the non philosopher. etc...

yet all the people (and animals and plants etc.) in the world who have there own versions of truth, still exist, and mathematicians still exist for all the others.

the complexity of ones truths reflects the individual constructor of the truth, and is also linked directly to their intentions.

for example, fish F may have the truth: subject X provides quality Y for my own survival. (one obviously cannot assume to understand another, unless one IS the other, but this is just an example)

but fish P may have the truth: subject X provides quality Z for my offsprings survival.

now, when fish F and P both desire subject X for say quality T (maybe to restore a dwelling) quality T would be considered an objective truth, no?


ohhh... maybe not but it makes you think though doesn't it?

substitute the fish F for one culture of the human race, and fish P for another and what do you get? maybe a surprisingly accurate representation of Reality.


does this make sense?