Truth: Absolute or Relative?

[mulberryman]

^The only alternative, speaking entirely logically mind you, is instinct, which while highly illogical at times, can still be valuable as well, even when it defies logic.

 

[Alephnul]

Your answer should depend on what subject this essay is being written for, physics, philosophy, formal logic etc.

I agree with ebola, one inevitably ends up discussing things-in-themselves and Kantian categories (ie – what is the relationship between the sense-experience of an external object, as it occurs in my brain (+ nervous system) and the thing itself.

As for arguing for truth values of future events, Hume on inductive reasoning would give some good insight.

Or, bringing the fields of epistemology and philosophy of science together: J. D. Barrow’s Impossibility: The Science of Limits and the Limits of Science (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998 ) is an excellent read, with the introduction alone offering insight into your question. You could also look up some of the pre-Socratics, whose debate of the question of relative perspectives (of the Pythagorean solids for example) offer some of the earliest extant musings on the question of absolutes.

Another valid approach would be to explore historiography, or the history of art (the relationship between art and the truth), or a history of thought approach, Plato/Aristotle as archetypes of rationalism/empiricism.

Cultural and temporal relativism are germane to the topic, but much of the literature looks at the truth values of moral absolutes...though this would be a good avenue to go down.

Excuse my ignorance, but what age is year 12? For me, the question posed would be a good 101 in epistemology at University. Though I suppose it’s been left nicely open-ended to allow you to take it in the direction you want.

Good luck!

AN

 

[namelesss]

All true (well, I'd speak of "logics"). But what alternatives have we?

Logic is pragmatic and has its usages. But, ultimately, it is a very 'closed' system, reflecting nothing but the contents of our own mind, and the subjective patterns we 'see'.
There is intuition..
Experience...
Sponteneity/Zen...
All good in their particular applications.

 

[neonads]

Paradox simply means that there is 'error' somewhere, usually a faulty assumption, a misunderstanding. 'Truth' does not lead to paradox. That is how one knows that one is in errorland, that is the only place that the weed of paradox grows.

MmHmm. Still, laying out how not to construct an argument still has value, and who could scrap all that work? I meant that a philosophy that doesn't end in paradox is unfinished...except one (perhaps).

I think that it is more useful to thing of investigation as an interaction that "creates" the observer-environment complex.

Negating the 4th dimension...Hmm. I'll have to think hard on this one. Cheers!

 

[namelesss]

Still, laying out how not to construct an argument still has value,

Of course learning how to 'efficiently' and effectively communicate your notions has 'value'. 'Argument' is a poor word for 'rational and logical communication'. Growth and learning is not a competitive sport, as I see it. It is best served as an interpersonal 'sharing and understanding'.

I meant that a philosophy that doesn't end in paradox is unfinished...except one (perhaps).

And I am saying that, from my perspective, paradox is a sure sign of cognitive error at some (usually a foundational) basic point.
A philosophy that doesn't end in paradox seems to be worth a close and critical examination. There seem to be damned few... only 'one' (TOE) of which I am aware.

 

[Edvard Munch]

It doesn't matter.

 

[Rated E]

Saying both dosen't exactly help him guys 8)
I'm with swilow, truth is absolute and undenyable, that's why it's called truth

That's a bit circular isn't it?

Truth is absolute because truth is absolute.

Not much to work with for an essay...