"There are no absolute truths."

The above statement is commonly bandied about by the professional and amateur philosopher alike, coming as it is from a position that seems to epitomize the the modern world's prevailing nihilism and the skepticism of ages past. But at first glance by a trained mind, one can see that it is faulty. For consider what it is claiming: That it is objectively so that there exists nothing in this world which can be claimed that is true absolutely. But...would not that mean that the very sentence thus claimed is not itself an absolutely true statement? For if there are no absolute truths, it must be itself absolutely true that such do not exist, or the statement is wrong, but the statement -is- wrong if it is -right-...so what are we left with? Well, quite simply, we are left with absurdity. Whereas on the other hand, suppose we take this statement and analyze it:

"There are absolute truths"

Now, what would happen if this declaration was true? Does it fall victim to the same pitfalls? No, it is directly the opposite! It is impossible to refute! For consider if it is right, there are absolute truths, and the above statement itself is an example, but were it wrong, it would be right, for it would demonstrate that which is absoulute, namely, that there are no absolutes.

For Water specifically: See above for an example of a context-independent truth. I've noticed your skepticism in a few posts recently! I've been lurking!

But back to the topic...

Now I do declare that the above is the strongest reason to assert that there exists some truths are absolute, but a reasonable question can be asked which goes as followed:

James, might there not be some truths which are not absolute?

To which I answer:

No, my good man, there is not. For let us consider, as always, the question in depth.

Now, it would seem to be at first glance, that I am wrong. That there exists such things as are known as subjective truths, which hold true, but only hold true to that person. For instance, I rather like the song I am listening to now, and I could declare that it is a subjective truth in that it is not objectively so that this song is good, but only that I have declared it such as it fits with my personal tastes (for those interested, I am currently listening to "How High" by Madonna, although that bodes ill for my heterosexuality). Yet though it is peculiar to me that I like this song, and by no means must another also enjoy it, nor is it true that because I like it everyone else does, it is nevertheless always a truth that so long as I like this song, that I like this song. In essence: That it is an absolutely so that that I like this song at this present time, and to say that it is otherwise is not to point at some relativity, but to simply be wrong. Now, what would happen if I changed my tastes in the future? It would cease to be true, so in what way is it absolutely true that I like this song? Does not absolute status preclude the capacity for something to change? In some cases, yes, but only in what can be determined as necessary truths, such as as in our first example of truth's absolute nature. When speaking of subjective truths, however, one is speaking of truths which must not necessarily so, but so long as they are so, they are absolutely true, because that is what objectively is to be found. Moreover, it shall be true forevermore that I held a like for this song, and though few will remember down through the ages that I was a fan of such, it will nevertheless be true even if this was declared a million years hence. To put it another way, even the subjective may become objective, and though the subjective may change, the past objectivity of the subjective truth is perpetually so. Furthermore, when my tastes do change, that new truth is similarly absolutely so.

Lastly: What about perspective? (Water: This is for you, also!) It is sometimes held that perspective invalidates truth, on the foundation that someone might look at an object from the right and declare it looks like a cube, whereas another looks at the left and declares it looks like a pyramid, and in reality, neither would be right, as the shape is so designed as to be an optical illusion, and really it is some sort of combination of the twain. Now, it would seem that this undermines the entire notion of truth, for if two rational agents can look at the same thing and come to utterly contradictory conclusions, where is truth to be found? But this, in fact, is a faulty belief. Why? Now, it is indeed true that this confuses truth, but like most things, it is because the matter was not fully investigated. There is a famous picture that illustrates this point quite well, where if viewed from one angle it looks like a rabbit's ears, whereas from another it looks like the bill of a duck. Which one is it? Well, in reality, it is -both- and something -more-. That the shape, when viewed differently, and oriented in one way or another, is so as to resemble either. The truth then is to be found in its multiple perspectives and as an object that is neither rabbit nor duck, nor both at the same time in the same respect, but capable of being seen as such from different angles. So that what may be deemed "the lesser truths" are perspective-based - that it is true that the drawing can be conceived as a pair of rabbit ears or a duck's bill - yet the non-contextual truth is that it is neither, but an image so constructed so as to be an optical illusion. That far being from invalidating truth, perspective only shows us that even in empirical matters that truths beyond perspective can be found, for it is in the realization that both perspectives are equally valid only from that perspective and that the object is something else entirely, that we find that truth remains vindicated on all levels, and absolute as again, for in either case every truth is so and shall remain so.

It is with the above in mind that a triune declaration can be made: Absolute truth is reasonable, absolute truth exists, and absolute truth prevails at all times. Accordingly, we can resign nihilism on the nature of truth to the duskbucket and, moreover, be certain that knowledge is possible for us. Now, it seems rather silly - as does many things in philosophy - that we must justify whether or not we can know something, as knowledge seems so present, but nonetheless, I would affirm that the rescues of knowledge from the dungeon of ignorance is of paramount importance not only to the individual, but to mankind.

Oh: And I am back.

Welcome back, James!


Question: About what can we assert absolute truths?

That it is objectively so that there exists nothing in this world which can be claimed that is true absolutely. But...would not that mean that the very sentence thus claimed is not itself an absolutely true statement? For if there are no absolute truths, it must be itself absolutely true that such do not exist, or the statement is wrong, but the statement -is- wrong if it is -right-...so what are we left with? Well, quite simply, we are left with absurdity.While your argument is logically correct, you are presuming that logic is a valid tool with which to dissect the nature of absolutes. In other words, logic is a premise or condition of your argument. Thus your conclusion is only true providing your premise is. The truth of any statement is dependent upon its premises. Therefore to ground any statement as an absolute one would first have to prove all of its premises. So far as I'm aware no one has been able to do this which means that all true statements are conditional.

Oh: And I am back.Welcome back :)

~Raithere

The fact that you are listening to Madonna... Well, need I say more. :D

Water:

"Question: About what can we assert absolute truths? "

Everything which can be true or not true - which is practically any statement - would be an absolute truth (or absolute falsehood/lie) after being found to be such. That is to say, all truths are absolute by nature of being true. Of course, we must be careful of what we are saying. If I once again return to Madonna - and that is silly, I know, but I shall persist - and say that "How High" is a great song - and it isn't great, but it is enjoyable - then I am not saying something true, but rather am I declaring a statement of belief, though I personally -do- think it is such, and thus if the statement was "How High is a great song for James" it would be true and true absolutely.

Moreover, the notion of truth, though inherently connected with epistemological validation of justified-true-belief, is not necessarily connected to all the problems. Whether or not I know it or not, or whether I knew if I guessed and was right, if a carton of milk currently is in the refridgerator, than it is true regardless. Whether or not I could have made any statements that would be knowledge is another thing all together.

Raithere:

"While your argument is logically correct, you are presuming that logic is a valid tool with which to dissect the nature of absolutes. In other words, logic is a premise or condition of your argument. Thus your conclusion is only true providing your premise is. The truth of any statement is dependent upon its premises. Therefore to ground any statement as an absolute one would first have to prove all of its premises. So far as I'm aware no one has been able to do this which means that all true statements are conditional. "

So in essence: You would have me prove logic to validate my claims to absolute truth?

A tall order if so!

But I am up to try it out.

Anyway, I shall be focusing here on two laws which I find most relevant to philosophical logic, namely, Aristotle's conception of the laws of Non-Contradiction and Identity (although the latter some say was more explicitly stated by Aquinas...but yes).

The two laws in my own words are as followed for purposes of reference:

All things must equal themselves, or A = A.

No thing may hold contradiction, that is to say, it cannot hold to two mutually exclusive attributes at the same time and in the same respect. If we assume A and B to be mutually exclusive, A cannot equal B.

A justification of the first statement can be found rather simply in considering whether something which exists could retain existence if it ceased to exist. Now, in order for something to exist, we must say th at yes, it exists. If it loses this quality of existence, and instead does not exist, are not we saying that it does not exist and therefore no longer has that prior existence we spoke about? So if we do not say that "existing things exist" (or basically that existing things are themselves), we are commiting what seems to be a grave error in judgement? Or to put it otherwise: It is false to say the opposite of existing things are themselves, which is existing things have no equality to themselves? Or to put it even still further otherwise: That A = A is true, and A != A is false?

As to the Law of Non-Contradiction, let us consider it in a similar light to the above. Now, there seems to be in this world certain things which are mutually exclusive. Existence and non-existence (in an absolute, ontological sense, or a relative sense - either work) seem to be one of these dichotomous pairs. Now it is perfectly fine and reasonable to conclude that somethings may at one time exist, then relative to their current construction, cease to exist (although we have many reasons to suggest that everything which made them has simply moved onto other things, rather than disappeared) but this does not hold to be true when we speak of something which would hold true mutually exclusive things in the same respect and time. Again, to go back to existence and non-existence, both of these things are manifestly mutually exclusive, yes? That if we were to speak of an opposite of existence, we'd have non-existence, and non-existence, the opposite of existence, right? Well, how could any thing have both of these qualities at once at he same time and same respect? We'd find a cancelling out of what it means to be either thing if one thing had both. To have existence, and then to also have non-existence, would make one have -neither-. One could not say it exists if it has non-existence, whereas we could not say it non-exists if it has existence. Same thing with a square and circle. The roundness of the circle, and the straightness of the square, are mutually exclusive, so how would one reconcile them into one thing, if this law did not prohibit them?

Also, in order to give Aristotle the monumental credit he is due, I shall default to his own defenses on the matter as quoted in Wikipedia:

According to Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, this is a fundamental principle of thought, which can only be proved by showing the opponents of the principle to be themselves committed to it. Thus, Aristotle considers the case of someone who denies the principle in the strong way – holding that every proposition is both true and false – and asks why such a person goes on the Megara road to get to Megara from Athens, since on such a person's view it is just as true that any other road would get him to Megara.

"Welcome back"

Thank you.

Bowser:

Hey, if you were not a fan of Madonna at least one time in your life, I do declare you do not have a soul.

Seriously. Go about in procuring of such. We can listen to "Like a Virgin" afterwards.

Bowser:

Hey, if you were not a fan of Madonna at least one time in your life, I do declare you do not have a soul.


:p ...

Look at these long post that ramble on and on and say nothing in the end. Glad I no longer study philosophy. Pathetic waste of time.

And say nothing in the end? I am making a case for the existence and nature of truth. In what way is this "saying nothing"?

I don't know, James. Something stinks here ...

"There are no absolute truths."

The above statement is commonly bandied about by the professional and amateur philosopher alike, coming as it is from a position that seems to epitomize the the modern world's prevailing nihilism and the skepticism of ages past. But at first glance by a trained mind, one can see that it is faulty. For consider what it is claiming: That it is objectively so that there exists nothing in this world which can be claimed that is true absolutely. But...would not that mean that the very sentence thus claimed is not itself an absolutely true statement? For if there are no absolute truths, it must be itself absolutely true that such do not exist, or the statement is wrong, but the statement -is- wrong if it is -right-...so what are we left with? Well, quite simply, we are left with absurdity. Whereas on the other hand, suppose we take this statement and analyze it:

"There are absolute truths"

Now, what would happen if this declaration was true? Does it fall victim to the same pitfalls? No, it is directly the opposite! It is impossible to refute! For consider if it is right, there are absolute truths, and the above statement itself is an example, but were it wrong, it would be right, for it would demonstrate that which is absoulute, namely, that there are no absolutes.

For Water specifically: See above for an example of a context-independent truth. I've noticed your skepticism in a few posts recently! I've been lurking!

But back to the topic...

Now I do declare that the above is the strongest reason to assert that there exists some truths are absolute, but a reasonable question can be asked which goes as followed:

James, might there not be some truths which are not absolute?

To which I answer:

No, my good man, there is not. For let us consider, as always, the question in depth.

Now, it would seem to be at first glance, that I am wrong. That there exists such things as are known as subjective truths, which hold true, but only hold true to that person. For instance, I rather like the song I am listening to now, and I could declare that it is a subjective truth in that it is not objectively so that this song is good, but only that I have declared it such as it fits with my personal tastes (for those interested, I am currently listening to "How High" by Madonna, although that bodes ill for my heterosexuality). Yet though it is peculiar to me that I like this song, and by no means must another also enjoy it, nor is it true that because I like it everyone else does, it is nevertheless always a truth that so long as I like this song, that I like this song. In essence: That it is an absolutely so that that I like this song at this present time, and to say that it is otherwise is not to point at some relativity, but to simply be wrong. Now, what would happen if I changed my tastes in the future? It would cease to be true, so in what way is it absolutely true that I like this song? Does not absolute status preclude the capacity for something to change? In some cases, yes, but only in what can be determined as necessary truths, such as as in our first example of truth's absolute nature. When speaking of subjective truths, however, one is speaking of truths which must not necessarily so, but so long as they are so, they are absolutely true, because that is what objectively is to be found. Moreover, it shall be true forevermore that I held a like for this song, and though few will remember down through the ages that I was a fan of such, it will nevertheless be true even if this was declared a million years hence. To put it another way, even the subjective may become objective, and though the subjective may change, the past objectivity of the subjective truth is perpetually so. Furthermore, when my tastes do change, that new truth is similarly absolutely so.

Lastly: What about perspective? (Water: This is for you, also!) It is sometimes held that perspective invalidates truth, on the foundation that someone might look at an object from the right and declare it looks like a cube, whereas another looks at the left and declares it looks like a pyramid, and in reality, neither would be right, as the shape is so designed as to be an optical illusion, and really it is some sort of combination of the twain. Now, it would seem that this undermines the entire notion of truth, for if two rational agents can look at the same thing and come to utterly contradictory conclusions, where is truth to be found? But this, in fact, is a faulty belief. Why? Now, it is indeed true that this confuses truth, but like most things, it is because the matter was not fully investigated. There is a famous picture that illustrates this point quite well, where if viewed from one angle it looks like a rabbit's ears, whereas from another it looks like the bill of a duck. Which one is it? Well, in reality, it is -both- and something -more-. That the shape, when viewed differently, and oriented in one way or another, is so as to resemble either. The truth then is to be found in its multiple perspectives and as an object that is neither rabbit nor duck, nor both at the same time in the same respect, but capable of being seen as such from different angles. So that what may be deemed "the lesser truths" are perspective-based - that it is true that the drawing can be conceived as a pair of rabbit ears or a duck's bill - yet the non-contextual truth is that it is neither, but an image so constructed so as to be an optical illusion. That far being from invalidating truth, perspective only shows us that even in empirical matters that truths beyond perspective can be found, for it is in the realization that both perspectives are equally valid only from that perspective and that the object is something else entirely, that we find that truth remains vindicated on all levels, and absolute as again, for in either case every truth is so and shall remain so.

It is with the above in mind that a triune declaration can be made: Absolute truth is reasonable, absolute truth exists, and absolute truth prevails at all times. Accordingly, we can resign nihilism on the nature of truth to the duskbucket and, moreover, be certain that knowledge is possible for us. Now, it seems rather silly - as does many things in philosophy - that we must justify whether or not we can know something, as knowledge seems so present, but nonetheless, I would affirm that the rescues of knowledge from the dungeon of ignorance is of paramount importance not only to the individual, but to mankind.

Oh: And I am back.

I absolutely agree that there are absolute truths. These truths are found in binary complements.

Example:

Positve/Negative/ High/Low, Even/Odd, On/Off, True/False, Right/Wrong, Yes/No, Cause/Effect, Action/Reaction, Stimulus/Response, Input/Output, Hot/Cold, Wet/Dry, Up/Down, North/South, East/West, Male/Female, Heaven/Hell, God/Satan, Life/Death etc. are binary absolutes that exist in relationship to each other.

The structure of the atom determines all things to have their binary complement. The benefit of having absolute truths is it enables change to occur. Otherwise, all things would remain constant.

water:

Something stinks with my post? Or someone else's?

stanleyg:

"Positve/Negative/ High/Low, Even/Odd, On/Off, True/False, Right/Wrong, Yes/No, Cause/Effect, Action/Reaction, Stimulus/Response, Input/Output, Hot/Cold, Wet/Dry, Up/Down, North/South, East/West, Male/Female, Heaven/Hell, God/Satan, Life/Death etc. are binary absolutes that exist in relationship to each other."

Agreed that they are such and have an important role in epistemological and ontological concerns.

But to clarify: You in essence postulate that duality is an absolute?

"The structure of the atom determines all things to have their binary complement. The benefit of having absolute truths is it enables change to occur. Otherwise, all things would remain constant. "

In what way do you mean that it allows for change? And do you mean the structure of the atom's positive and negative charges? For would not that be more like another manifestation of this duality, rather than a foundation?

The Two truths doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths), or perhaps the Three Grades of Knowledge (http://www.kheper.net/integral/Absolute_and_Relative.htm) (cf. AQAL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AQAL))?

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universality_%28philosophy%29) has this interesting statement: "Absolute truth is the essence of thought and distinguishes the capacity of the sapient being."