Objective truth - from a Buddhist perspective #01

agrees....

hence logic can only produce "logic" truths and not any other truth. IMO

For the purposes of this discussion I am guilty as accused of using them synonymously however to get really deep would see differentiation..

In a sense yes but not in the way your question implies.
If taking a God perspective [ universal overview perspective] every thing is a part of an objective reality so to speak [ an absolute truth]. It is only mans POV and opinion that renders it as a fallacy or subjective...this is however a highly controversial opinion and maybe a later thread would be appropriate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's Christmas Eve here in Melbourne Australia the sun is setting after a glorious day and I would like to wish all who follow the Christian belief a very Merry Chrstmas and for others a Merry Festive period.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I would also like to in the next few posts summmarise this threads results and am working towards that end currently...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Woops. I thought I put that in there.
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html


I think I see where you are going. I was thrown off with your use of "absolute truth" as inaccessible. What you might be moving towards with this thread is human absolute knowledge of all objective truth as in the example of being an executioner. Absolute knowledge is incaccessible.

Plato stated that knowledge is justified belief. He claimed that even if you conclude X is true (Have a belief). You do not have knowledge unless you understand the reasoning behind this belief. We now see that this is incorrect.

Justification does not grant us access to knowledge. Justification is simply material that compels an observer to a belief. Whether using logic or illogic, an observer that has a belief tends to have some form of reasoning behind it.

Logic is a form of justification. It is material that compels an observer to a belief. Not to knowledge. Other philosophers have stated that a person can understand the reasoning behind his conclusion, but if his conclusion is false, then it poses a problem. They were correct.

Justification -> Belief (subjective knowledge). We know that a belief that is true is knowledge (objective knowledge). We also know that, while the observer must claim to be in a state of knowledge regarding his belief, objectively speaking, it doesn't mean he is in a state of knowledge (as he may be in a state of misconception). IOW, while it is a necessity in the observers perspective that he has knowledge, it is not an objective necessity. We as observers understand, by rule, everything we state as true is only limited to the scope of our belief. ("X is true" = "IMO, X is true").

This is how logic limits us. We can have knowledge of truth in logic, but we are still characterized by the rule of knowledge/misconception. So the Buddist might say that if we eliminate ego, logic has no relevance. We are simply left with the constant observer. This constant observer is an executioner (character with absolute knowledge) who operates metalogically. There is no sense of knowldge/misconception for the executioner. The executioner only knows, and has no characteristic of misconception. While logical limits of the human mind do not allow this state of absolute knowledge, you can acheive this state through meditation and elimination of the ego (elimination of logical limitation that makes absolute knowledge unavailable). Thereby, the "IMO X is true" scope of belief rule doesn't apply. You simply know "X is true" (X being any particular item of truth) becuase you have absolute knowledge.

Your claim that logic makes absolute truth unavailable was on the right track, but it is not exactly accurate. It is not that we do not have access to absolute truth (we do if our belief corresponds to truth in actuality). I think what you are describing is that logic makes absolute knowledge unavailable. In that case, while I don't necessarily agree or disagree that eliminating ego will lead to enlightenment and absolute knowledge, I do agree that it might be an accurate description of the buddist perspective. That logic makes absolute knowledge unavailable.

As such, there is a difference between the 2 ideas:
1. Absolute knowledge is not available through logic.
2. Logic makes absolute knowledge unavailable.
While I do agree with the first, I don't necessarily agree with the 2nd which is the buddist perspective.
Merry Christmas.




Because truth is independent of human observation, humans must only work within their scope of belief.
"IMO, the Earth is round."
"IMO, 1+1=2."
"IMO, there is a computer in front of me."
"If anybody disagrees with any of these (considers this misconception), please provide your justification."

Executioner doesn't have misconception.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I disagree with them.

The earth is a geoid.
Air is in front of you.

You were wrong 2/3, way to go lixluke.

 

Ahhhh !!! I knew it!!!
Lixluke is actually a good thinker behind all that fluff and flurry of ...dare I say....misconception.....[chuckles]
Good post Lix!!

Language and the use of words of course always provides initial if not ongoing confusion and this is but another example of how "word logic" [ aka subjective meaning ] can make a common "pseudo truth unavailable.

Sheesh! Most of human conflict is due to our reliance on a system of communication that is so subjective that it nearly destroys us. [ the use of a glossary [dictionary] [ or a wiki - ha ] helps but of course this is rather inefficient when discussing complex subjects such as these where words and meaning are paramount to sharing an understanding.
As you probably would agree the advent of the INTERNET has made great inroads into this communications issue on a global scale...

yes if logic is utilized.

Ditto but more due to his conditional requirements that fail to go far enough...he just needed more time to think on it some more and he would have probably arrived at our beliefs. [ he only lived for 80 years I think ]
So IMO Plato's comments were not so much incorrect but more "Immature"..

Thus that reasoning is his justification.....I agree

spot on! IMO

A belief that we know to be true is no longer a belief but true knowledge....

hmmmmm "Belief is just a stepping stone on the way to truth" ~anon

But essentially I can relate to what you are saying, and possibly we are dealing with semantics now.

yes, however one condition :
As soon as you self realize you have "knowledge" in absolute terms you have applied logic and you no longer have knowledge. Thus the cycle returns to maintain your subjective state.

With all due respect:
This is how the Buddhist theory fails. In that they fail to realize in absolutism that until they actually die physically they will always by their very nature return to a subjective state.
"Whilst the heart beats subjectivity is ever present"
It is only between beats so to speak that objectivity is available so therefore absolute truth is on ly a fleeting tease for those that breath.
Even Buddha himself had to pull a bit of a "swifty" so as to maintain his state as a maha-Bodhisattva"

If he died under the Bodhi tree he would have ...well....died. [ which he did later from food poisoning....[according to history]

I can go with this no problemo and correct, accuracy is difficult when dealing with words and meaning...

But we must always remember that the human body/mind is also a part of that truth and I contend that it is our rational mind that limits from even seeing our own bodies [ existence ] and of course especially our own minds.

so in our heads so to speak is a dog chasing it's tail a taoist trap and one hell of a paradox which is the nature of illogicality and irrationality [ absolute truth ] is always irrational and illogical to the person using logic to find it.
It only becomes rational I guess if one stops using logic to find it as it is not logical to begin with [ to the logical thinker ]

All in all though I commend your post as a rather surprising change from earlier posts and trust you continue to enjoy your journey....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

We do see it as incorrect - but not in the way you believe so.

And this is where I think most philosophers and thinkers would disagree with you... in that you are thus removing the need for "justification" - or at least you seem to be saying that since any conclusion / belief requires justification (of some sort, logical or otherwise) to be reached, you seem to think that "justified belief" is somehow tautological - and that "justified" is redundant, and that "belief" is thus sufficient.

While Plato was seemingly too woolly in his "justified true belief" it was because, as has been argued and discussed by Gettier et al, his definition leads to situations where his definition of "knowledge" holds true but no knowledge can be said to be held. E.g. if we guess, or base the justification on flawed or irrelevant premise, we can't be said to have knowledge. (E.g. I believe the earth is not flat because it is a Tuesday) is not demonstrating knowledge, despite the justification.

Gettier's examples led to the "justification" needing to be based on no false premise[/b] in order for there to be knowledge, and subsequent philosophers are still debating how to define knowledge as simply as possible, 'cos even Gettier's condition was seen as insufficient.

Accepting our disagreement on justification, you seem to finally gain an understanding. I applaud you.

I still disagree with you on the nature of the required justification, but at least we have made progress.

It might be a matter of interpretation, but my view is that, because of 1, 2 is also true. i.e. if you are needing to use logic, you have already gone past the stage of being able to identify absolute knowledge/truth or not.

If you are looking for a particular star in the sky and you have a telescope with a lens-cap on, the position of the star is not available through that telescope.
Likewise, (use of) that telescope makes the position of the star unavailable to you. I.e. you must use other means at your disposal... the most obvious being just to look.

 

Aside from discussion and communication, there is simply language's effect on thought/reasoning. There are tons of ways which I will not get into that language interferes with people's reasoning.

Again, very off target. You mention a belief that "we know" to be true. Your statement simply doesn't follow. You are basically stating the following:
"A belief that we believe is no longer a belief, but knowledge."

Linguistically: When a person uses the statement: "I know X is true.", we can/should interpret it as the following => The person believes X is true.

There is no such thing as a belief that an observer knows to be true per say. It is more accurate that all beliefs an observer holds is considered knowledge by that observer.

Rules:
1. Any belief that an observer holds is knowledge in the perspective of that observer.
2. Any belief that an observer holds that is true in actuality is knowledge.

Furthermore, it cannot be said that knowledge is no longer a belief. Knowledge is a type of belief. There are 2 types of belief. Knowledge and misconception.

No. If in the case, an observer can somehow attain such level of absolute knowledge, we can no longer describe his absolute knowledge as operating within the parameters of logic. We can only use logic to relate to the situation, but drawing conclusions cannot be logically based. Contradictions are out of the door. We can infer a few things. For one, a contradiction is not going cut it in measuring whether or not such buddist theory fails. As such, an executioner with absolute knowledge has knowledge absolute including knowledge that he has absolute knowledge. While you may consider it a fact that buddist theory fails logically, you cannot possibly use that fact to conlude that buddist theory fails.

There is some sort of psychadelic intellectualism movement that emphasizes the use of psychadelics not logic to attain truth/knowledge/oneness etc. Using logic to expose illogic within those theories cannot logically allow us to conclude those theories flawed.

 

The human body is not part of truth in the sense that the body exists in the real while truth exists in the ideal. Our rational mind is limited to logic as it sort of short circuits in a sense when attempting to comprehend metalogical concepts. If you don't understand this separation (if you don't understand that there are things the human mind is incapable of comprehending) then you go all irrational. All because you are not separating the logical from the metalogical, but blending it all together. Understanding the separation, we know that logical parameters, it is easily proven that we can acheive absolute truth.

 

These people claim that you do not have knowledge unless you possess a clear understanding of the reasoning behind your belief. They claim that as long as you understand the reasoning behind your belief, you have knowledge. Whether some self-proclaimed true input is required or not, this is completely false, incorrect, and baseless.

The fact is that justification has nothing to do with knowledge. Justification is ANYTHING that compels an observer to a belief. If an observer believes X is true, then whatever it is that compelled that observer to that conclusion is that observer's justification. Is knowledge in the picture? NO.

If a bunch of scientists did a bunch of experiments, and arrived at the conclusion that X is true. Then those experiments are their justification. Does this mean they have knowledge? Of course not. It doesn't matter what the justifcation is, knowledge is only about the validity of the conclusion. If conclusion is correct, it is knowledge. If the conclusion is incorrect, it is misconception.

 

But anything that compels an observer to a 'belief', must be evidence for that belief - knowledge of evidence, of the correct observation/interpretation leads to at least an understanding, or a 'sketch' of what that evidence suggested, in support of any belief or knowledge. That is, we know how to build certain things because we know about how they work.

If a jet pilot believes there's a runway in front of him (X is true), he's justified in landing a big plane. He probably knows that if it isn't a runway (X is not true), but some other kind of surface not designed to land big jets on, that it's not good to know, and so is justified in feeling anxious about landing (say beyond the runway, or in front of it, where there are roads and houses).

 

All you're doing is using the terms knowledge and belief interchangably. A person believes he can build something based on his scope of belief? A pilot will not land his plane unless he believes there is a runway in front of him? What is your point? If he lands on a runway, that is justification for his belief that the runway is there?

 

When man first realised that the moon was real and that it was a material object hanging in a vacuum he acknowledged a truth.
He then spent the next few hundred years working out how this can be logically true. Thus discovering the reasoning behind this spherical ball like object shining in the night sky.

The use of logic allowed the removal of doubt about what he knew to be true.
The use of logic eventually allowed man to stand on the moon. And further confirm it's material existance [ returning to Earth with moon rocks and dust]

Did the use of logic alter the truth? Nope!
Did the use of logic provide anything but the reasoning behind the truth?

The use of logic allows us to find a way to believe in the truthof our initial observations thus confirming the veracity of our own percpetions.

I wish to throw this into the arena:
That logic is to allow us to eventually believe in the truth and is essentially due to our ownself doubt about what we observe as the truth.

 

poser:
"It's the truth, why don't you believe me?"
"Because what you are saying is not logical"

 

Yes, but I do distinguish between belief, as in immediate 'knowledge' based on observation (of a runway, or a lack of runway) and previous, or 'stored knowledge' - the sort of thing a man flying a big plane should know, you know, similar to all the things the people who built the plane also 'know' about.

 

Every time you guys use the word justification or just I get a little kick out of myself... lol. I think maybe justice or justification is a good word we've used it a lot afterall. Maybe you'd think that there's some point behind that afterall.

I guess the moon in the sky having spheral shapes is some wonder about what has changed in human centurys.

Theres a lot of things though, objective or not, which probably are not acceptable to be discussed and myself I can understand why!

 

Belief is not immediate knowledge.

 

It's not "as long as you understand the reasoning behind your belief" but that the justification for the belief is sound, logical and not based on flawed premise.

You seem to assume that anything is sufficient justification.
And thus I will always have a fundamental disagreement with you on the nature of knowledge.
What you propose - i.e. the removal of the need for "valid" justification from the concept of what is knowledge or not - makes "knowledge" meaningless (well, not meaningless per se... but certainly very different in meaning).

You seem to think that "knowledge" = a "truth" (i.e. in the objective sense) that someone believes.

But you fail to grasp that people can believe an "objective truth" without actually having knowledge of it.
You seem to think this is impossible, and by your definition of knowledge it indeed is - but I dispute your definition.


Knowledge is the end result of a process of justification.
If the justification is flawed / based on false premise etc then knowledge can not be obtained.
You might arrive at the answer by accident, but this does not mean you have knowledge.
But for some reason you reject this notion, and you spout your "rules of knowledge" etc.

And thus we disagree.

Put simply, to philosophers from Plato onwards, the idea of knowledge not requiring justification - and more recently not requiring justification that is based on unflawed premise etc - is naive.

If you can not see that a guess does not provide nor demonstrate knowledge, and all you can do is spout your self proclaimed "rules of knowledge" in response, then I can't see that you have anything further to add.

 

Ok, if that's true, what then is 'immediate knowledge'? Say, the sort of thing someone in a car that's heading towards a big tree or a boat heading towards rocks, or the pilot of a large jet heading towards the surface of the ocean 'believes'?

The sort of thing the lookouts would have 'known', on the Titanic when they spotted the iceberg, miles away? Why did they already 'know', or 'believe' it was too late?

 

No I never said anything about sufficient anywhere. What are you talking about? Justification is anything that compels an observer towards a belief. Discontinue misinterpreting the facts.

Justification does not make anything knowledge nor does it have anything to do with knowledge. Furthermore, your claims of "sufficiency" are all relative to the observer. You CANNOT proclaim your standards for sufficient justification as absolute without regard to the rules of misconception.

It is illogical to presume your standards of justification as absolute without regard to the fact that each observer proclaims their standard of justification as absolute without presumption.

It is even more illogical for you to proclaim that your standard of justification is required for a belief to be knowledge. Each observer has a standard for which they individually consider what is "sufficient" enough to compel them to a belief. Thus an observer claims knowledge based on their justification. Not yours. And furthermore, may not necessarily be knowledge.

 

Knowledge is knowledge. It is the same thing as explained.