Objective Truth

[NietzscheHimself]

If you do not have an argument, kindly link me to whatever site it is where you got the idea that there is an argument. I cannot provide a crit unless you produce something.

You are his argument and he has made his point clear. I would not say this except I believe it can only be said from an outside prospective.

He said at the heart of all objective truth there is something in reality you can "look at"/"experience". You asked what it was and he basically told you to go find it.

Nevermind him telling you how to ascertain a state of mind in which to perceive this objective truth objectively...

Is that about right MoM?

 

[ughaibu]

You are his argument and he has made his point clear.

I am not an argument, I am a reader. If he doesn't produce an argument withing the next six hours, I will take the liberty of attempting to construct one from what he's written.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

I am not an argument, I am a reader. If he doesn't produce an argument withing the next six hours, I will take the liberty of attempting to construct one from what he's written.

That's very subjective of you... I, I, I, he...

 

[wynn]

Relativism is indefensible, if someone tries to defend it, they have to use objective arguments and thus undermining their position. This is why relativism leads to indifferentism.

Agreed.

Actually, it's not really a separate topic, since the implication is that indifferentism is an inevitable result of not embracing that which you feel is necessary in order for there to be any sort of legitimate, objective truth at all. You know, God. So are you saying that an atheist has no rational ground for adopting one philosophical position over another, or is unable to make legitimate judgments on issues of morality or ethics?

On principle, yes.

An atheist who were to have rational ground for adopting one philosophical position over another, or be able to make legitimate judgments on issues of morality or ethics,
would have to have epistemic autonomy in order to do so.

As we have discussed before, epistemic autonomy, although very much desired by many, is a highly problematic concept.

 

[wynn]

Objectivity and absolutes are not presuppositions, they're logical conclusions. If you're stating the way I'm defeating relativism is begging the question of realism, you're mistaken. Realism is a valid premise because logic leads to it. What is your contrast? Conceptualism and nominalism? Absurd ideas and completely indefensible.

This is where you (repeatedly) go wrong (read: become atheistic).
I've addressed this before, but you keep avoiding the topic.


Descartes' arguments were meant to be used as ready-made tools against atheists, Protestants and other "heathens," not for Catholics to justify their Catholic position.

 

[Rav]

On principle, yes.

An atheist who were to have rational ground for adopting one philosophical position over another, or be able to make legitimate judgments on issues of morality or ethics,
would have to have epistemic autonomy in order to do so.

As we have discussed before, epistemic autonomy, although very much desired by many, is a highly problematic concept.

I submit that it is rational to believe that a basis for morality can be derived simply from a consideration of the nature of who and what we are. Specifically, that we are creatures that can experience pain and suffering, and that that is something that we all want to avoid.

Demonstrate that this is not a rational philosophical position.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

If you do not have an argument, kindly link me to whatever site it is where you got the idea that there is an argument. I cannot provide a crit unless you produce something.

You're missing the point of my retort. If you desire reading material on the subject, I suggest Last Superstition by Feser which deals with this subject in the chapter "Greeks bearing gifts" under the subsection "Realism, nominalism and conceptualism."

 

[wynn]

I submit that it is rational to believe that a basis for morality can be derived simply from a consideration of the nature of who and what we are. Specifically, that we are creatures that can experience pain and suffering, and that that is something that we all want to avoid.

Demonstrate that this is not a rational philosophical position.

It may be a rational philosophical position - but it is not one that can be defended with reductionist empirical science.

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

Why not? Support your claim.

 

[wynn]

For starters, because the "I" and the "you" are mere epiphenomena, with no real substance.

 

[Arioch]

And how does that prevent empirical science from addressing ethical questions on the basis of what does and doesn't cause suffering?

 

[Rav]

It may be a rational philosophical position - but it is not one that can be defended with reductionist empirical science.

That people don't want to experience pain and suffering can easily be established empirically (and you know it), but WTF does reductionism have to do with this?

 

[ughaibu]

You're missing the point of my retort.

So, no argument.
Here's the post to which I responded:

Law of non-Contradiction.

Relativism is indefensible, if someone tries to defend it, they have to use objective arguments and thus undermining their position. This is why relativism leads to indifferentism.

I assume that your first argument is something like this:
1) relativism and the principle of non-contradiction, are incompatible
2) any argument offered in support of relativism will need to rely on the principle of non-contradiction
3) therefore, any argument offered in support of relativism will be inconsistent.
First, you will need to demonstrate that your premises are plausible, and that will be difficult, because on the face of it, they're both false. Certainly, in order to defend premise 1, you'll need to explicate the notion of relativism that you're addressing. After all, it might turn out to be a notion that nobody has any interest in defending. Second, you will need to be clear about the nature of the incompatibility, mooted in premise 1, and state the inference by which this incompatibility entails your conclusion.
About your second "argument":

This is why relativism leads to indifferentism.

As this is your first mention of indifferentism, there is no "this is why" about it, and on this occasion, I have no idea what the argument is supposed to be.
You will need to explain what "indifferentism" is and defend a premise, which in conjunction with your first argument, entails your second conclusion.
So, as things stand, you haven't shown that relativism is indefensible and you haven't shown that it it were, this would entail indifferentism.

 

[wellwisher]

An interesting angle on objective truth is, if you read and accept a socially acceptable objective truth, it is not necessarily objective truth to you, since you may not fully understand how it is derived (objectively) but your acceptance is based on some form of subjectivity; prestige.

Let me give an example, science has many arguments and data to support the big bang theory. For the sake of argument say this is considered objective truth by the experts. The layman reads and learns some of the bottom lines about the big bang. Although these bottom-lines may be objective truth at the level of astral physics, since the layman can't derive any of them, he does not exactly have objective truth. Rather he has a subjective version, of the objective truth, based on the prestige of the scientists who he assumes, know the truth. Unless you can derive truth yourself, reading does not always lead to objective truth, even when you are reading about objective truth.

Knowing the talking points of objective truth is not the same as understanding them when it comes to objective truth. One might be able to define the objective truth, but when one is asked to support that claim, a lack of full understanding adds subjectivity to the explanation, so what is transferred to others, is no longer based on the objective truth. If one is not called upon to explain anything to anyone including themselves, we can create an illusion of objective truth with objective truth talking points.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

The question with most people is how to make truth exist inside the mind.

This is the branch of philosophy called epistemiology, and maybe half of all philosophy books are about it.

To get to the truth associate with the best thinkers.
Aquinas if the most respected of all philosopher for a billion Catholics and many others.
Other philosophers, like Kant, Spinoza and others are remembered mostly for historical reasons rather than the public's bellief that these guys got it right.

Off anybody's list of best thinkers are the atheists. Ever hear of an atheist's book taught in college? Well, Karl Marx, maybe.

 

[wynn]

And how does that prevent empirical science from addressing ethical questions on the basis of what does and doesn't cause suffering?

Why deal with things that aren't exactly real?

 

[wynn]

That people don't want to experience pain and suffering can easily be established empirically (and you know it),

Since when are human desires for how things should be, relevant to scientists?

but WTF does reductionism have to do with this?

In that it reduces humans to mere matter - and matter isn't something to concern oneself with seriously.

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

Why deal with things that aren't exactly real?

Suffering is completely real, in fact we can measure just how real it is by measuring the effects it has on our bodies. We can also measure what things cause the most suffering. So your answer is invalid and your scientific knowledge is way out of date, you should spruce it up a bit.

I'll ask again, how does that prevent empirical science from addressing ethical questions on the basis of what does and doesn't cause suffering?

Since when are human desires for how things should be, relevant to scientists?

Since we became able to address issues like what does and doesn't cause suffering in humans and other species.

In that it reduces humans to mere matter -

Why do you say "mere" matter? Matter is a phenomenal thing that can act in millions, perhaps billions, of different ways.

and matter isn't something to concern oneself with seriously.

I disagree. Given that every single thing we interact with in our lives is made of matter, from the person down the block to the sandwich you eat, I'd say that it's a very serious thing indeed. That you don't take it seriously just shows that you don't understand what you're talking about here.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

So, no argument.
Here's the post to which I responded:I assume that your first argument is something like this:
1) relativism and the principle of non-contradiction, are incompatible
2) any argument offered in support of relativism will need to rely on the principle of non-contradiction
3) therefore, any argument offered in support of relativism will be inconsistent.
First, you will need to demonstrate that your premises are plausible, and that will be difficult, because on the face of it, they're both false. Certainly, in order to defend premise 1, you'll need to explicate the notion of relativism that you're addressing. After all, it might turn out to be a notion that nobody has any interest in defending. Second, you will need to be clear about the nature of the incompatibility, mooted in premise 1, and state the inference by which this incompatibility entails your conclusion.
About your second "argument":As this is your first mention of indifferentism, there is no "this is why" about it, and on this occasion, I have no idea what the argument is supposed to be.
You will need to explain what "indifferentism" is and defend a premise, which in conjunction with your first argument, entails your second conclusion.
So, as things stand, you haven't shown that relativism is indefensible and you haven't shown that it it were, this would entail indifferentism.

Before going into it, are we to use absolute objectives to arrive at a conclusion? Are we to assume truth exists and not just within each our minds but universally observed? Seems you're begging the question of objectivity to prove subjectivity, a catch 22 on you're part.

 

[ughaibu]

Before going into it, are we to use absolute objectives to arrive at a conclusion?

What do you mean? I'm asking for an argument, as you can see by reviewing my posts.

Are we to assume truth exists and not just within each our minds but universally observed?

What the hell is "universally observed" and how is it relevant? If it is not the case that relativism is indefensible, then the statement that it's not indefensible is true. Is that the kind of thing that you mean?

Seems you're begging the question of objectivity to prove subjectivity, a catch 22 on you're part.

Does it? I imagine that would depend on what you mean, which yet again appears to be anybody's guess.