• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Truth: Absolute or Relative?

^But say a very simple truth, as already mentioned- 2 objects plus another two object equals four objects- always. That is true. No matter how you look at it, you can have no less or more then four items. It can only change if another is added; then there are five objects.

The problem with this is that truth is actually a relative term when used culturally, but technically it means the absolute. But strictly speaking, the term truth can't be used for relative truths; the term belief could be supplemented. I may believe somethings that aren't true, but my belief renders their reality to me.

This is a deep essay for year 12 or are we all too flipped out t answer it simply? :D
 
if i close one eye i see in 2-d
same thing with both eye but if i add them up i end up with 3-d and not 4-d
2+2=3 :(

its always relative
and i mean always in a absolute way
 
toa$t said:
this is a tough question for a highschool paper. If you want a neat little answer to this, you should use Bernard Williams's argument against cultural relativity. To say that the truth is relative means that there are no absolutes. But saying that everything is relative is an absolute. Ergo, the truth is not relative.

You can also read James Rachels's paper called The Challenge of Cultural Relativism for more intuitive discussion on the subject. However, you will not get a concrete argument from Rachels. He simply points out that if the truth is relative, then we have no basis for criticizing atrocities like the holocaust since killing jews was right for germans in nazi germany, and we simply feel that this is false. Similarly, without absolute truths we have no basis for comparing our current society to those
in the past, and thus the idea of moral progress is impossible. Note that cultural relativists can take the easy route out here and simply agree to those terms though. This not an option with the Williams argument which points out the inherent paradox within the cultural relativist position.

haha, there's a great paper for you.
Click to expand...

I think this post helped me out the most...thanx toast =)

Im definately gonna use this idea in my essay: To say that the truth is relative means that there are no absolutes. But saying that everything is relative is an absolute. Ergo, the truth is not relative.

Also, the thing about science (where its considered truth if the chances of it being false approach 0) can easily be countered. We consider gravity a truth, but if it suddenly did not "work" on one occasion, it would not mean the truth is relative (in fact it would make the whole gravity theory false). It would just mean that there is another force pulling you down to earth.

Another main point in my essay is that there are many many things that people cannot know for sure. To be able to cope with this, people assure themselves that what they percieve is true, but this is only subjective truth. Im focusing more on objective truth, where it is not dependant on human perception and is therefore the same for everyone.

Edit: also, im looking more for very specific support and opposition....not just "yeah, i think truth is relative :)".
 
make sure you don't claim that as your own idea by them way! your teacher will certainly be familiar with the argument. For some bonus points you may want to read this. For additional bonus points, read this.
 
If we don't perceive it, we cannot know it. Objective truth is unknowable and non-existant. Is there anything we all perceive the same way? No. We are all different and unique and will interact, on the molecular level, differently to the same stimulus. We are also geographically located differently so we cannot even receive the same stimulus even if we were cloned. Even under the most stringent duplicate conditions, two clones would end up different due to miniscule events outside our control.

However, the alternative means there would be no discrimination between "you" and "I", we believe we are different but are just aspects of the same entity. This is the basis for panentheism but again relies on an unknowable objective truth - the entity. If you think you are perceiving the entity, you are not but only an aspect of it.

If I could hazard a guess at an objective truth, it would be that paradoxy defines the boundaries of everything. You can take any line of thinking as far as you like, you can create a web of connections as intricate as you can, but once you hit a paradox you must turn back and leave your strings of thought loose. Does paradoxy exist outside thinking and language? I believe so because if there wasn't, there would be no boundaries on the universe, no discrimination underlying events, and ultimately no consciousness.
 
neonads, I generally agree with you -- things-in-themselves (a la Kant) are not available to us humans. Everything we perceive is tainted with just that -- our very perception of it.

I also agree with you that pretty much any philosophical framework is a house built on sand. There is no philosophy whose most basic starting point(s) can't be called into question.

But...
that's not to say a search for statements all people will find true is a futile effort. Working AS IF something were absolutely true, at all times for all sentient observers, is an indispensible tool for connecting and communicating with other people, thus making life easier and more efficient through predictive power and the ability to assume upon other people.

I judge philosophies and worldviews not by how close they claim to come to answering the big questions and expressing everything in indisputable truths (which they all ultimately fail at), but by how well they succeed in bringing people together based on the knowledge that we all share a single existence. I rarely have much good to say about any philosophy whose conclusions can only lead to lonliness and despair.
 
^ Me too. All philosophies should end in a paradox or in a loop that ends where it began. See avatar <---

:)
 
kamikaze__ said:
The topic of my essay is "Is Truth Absolute or Relative?". My viewpoint is that truth is absolute..
Click to expand...
Can one answer the question without 'knowing/experiencing' Truth? What sort of 'truth' is being questioned? Small 't' 'truth'; "At the moment, my chin itches." Big 'T' 'Truth'; "Existence is relative to, and dependent on, perspective."

Without a clearly understood concensus understanding, without a 'personal experience of 'Truth', I don't see how the question can be answered (or the answer understood). From this perspective, the question is faulty, like asking the mundane man if 'enlightenment' itches. It is merely uninformed idle speculation unless YOU are 'enlightened'.

First 'discover' 'Truth', then you'll already know whether it itches or not.
Capisce'?
 
neonads said:
All philosophies should end in a paradox
Click to expand...
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.
 
^The weed of paradox? I toootally could go for some of that right now.. =D

Everything is relative, Einstein wasn't a genius fer nothin'.
 
Do you believe that the universe divides naturally into distinct objects which may be perceived more or less accurately? Or do you believe that the act of investigation actually transforms the object (potential objects) of investigation?
Herein lies your answer...

ebola
 
namelesss said:
Can one answer the question without 'knowing/experiencing' Truth? What sort of 'truth' is being questioned? Small 't' 'truth'; "At the moment, my chin itches." Big 'T' 'Truth'; "Existence is relative to, and dependent on, perspective."

Without a clearly understood concensus understanding, without a 'personal experience of 'Truth', I don't see how the question can be answered (or the answer understood). From this perspective, the question is faulty, like asking the mundane man if 'enlightenment' itches. It is merely uninformed idle speculation unless YOU are 'enlightened'.

First 'discover' 'Truth', then you'll already know whether it itches or not.
Capisce'?
Click to expand...

lol. Unfortunately, my teacher made the class do that topic so i had no other choice. Believe me, if i could choose another topic i would.
 
Relativity:

Put your hand on a hot stove and a second feels like an hour. Put your hands on a hot woman and an hour can feel like a second.

Einstein said that I think, or maybe it was L.L. Cool J.. In any case, its definitely the truth.
 
>>So if I believe 2+2=5 than that makes it true? No. >>

yes, but what is the seat of this truth?
Is it in our heads? Is it a fundamental property of the universe?

I think that to say 2 + 2 = 4 is true, you have to begin with a system of axioms and then "build up" until you have arithmetic. So 2 + 2 = 4 is a result of which axioms you choose to hold. A bit more relative than it might seem at first glance.

ebola
 
>>neonads, I generally agree with you -- things-in-themselves (a la Kant) are not available to us humans. Everything we perceive is tainted with just that -- our very perception of it.>>

This assumes that there is an observer who stands apart from the observed and that there are objects "as such", to be seen accurately or through distortions.

I think that it is more useful to thing of investigation as an interaction that "creates" the observer-environment complex. In this way, truth is relative, but not completely. It's very truth is anchored in the use towards which it is put.

ebola
 
kamikaze__ said:
lol. Unfortunately, my teacher made the class do that topic so i had no other choice. Believe me, if i could choose another topic i would.
Click to expand...
Any good 'teacher' never stops learning.
Perhaps you might confront (and I use that word delicately) the 'teacher' with the problem inherent in his question, thereby rendering it nonsensical. Teacher learns a bit, you learn a bit, everyone gains. Learning 'things' is inferior to learning to 'think'! It wouldn't hurt him either! *__-
 
ebola? said:
...you have to begin with a system of axioms and then "build up" until...
Click to expand...
There's the fallacy in 'reasoning'..
First we must accept an 'assumption'... I have never found an 'assumption' that didn't fall (fail) to critical thought.
Logic demands that we have to accept (consensually) a 'house of cards', and build our world upon it. (Perhaps thats why things get so 'shakey' on critical investigation?) Logic is a limited 'tool' at best.
Peace
 
>>There's the fallacy in 'reasoning'..
First we must accept an 'assumption'... I have never found an 'assumption' that didn't fall (fail) to critical thought.
Logic demands that we have to accept (consensually) a 'house of cards', and build our world upon it. (Perhaps thats why things get so 'shakey' on critical investigation?) Logic is a limited 'tool' at best.>>

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

ebola
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top