What I'm saying is that we can never know the truth about anything. There is no way to know if our rules of logic are correct. We can't even know the probability of them being correct. Therefore, we cannot be absolutely certain about anything.

To be absolutely certain about something is to know the truth.

What I'm saying is that we can never know the truth about anything. There is no way to know if our rules of logic are correct. We can't even know the probability of them being correct. Therefore, we cannot be absolutely certain about anything.

To be absolutely certain about something is to know the truth.

I agree. Everything is in constant flux and we all experience everything from our own perspective. The concept of truth satisfies a need for hierarchy. Me ... I'm satisfied with observing and experiencing all that is around me.

Rich

You can never know the absolute truth about anything, but what is false kills people, so the truth can be known...
Logic is really good with the physical world, and logic does work, or rather, what works teaches logic.. Something like the first nuclear bombs required an immense number of logical calculation that obviously worked, as long as a lot of physical acts in order to refine enough nuclear material of the correct weight...The logistics were amazing, and experiments were done and new skills achieved based upon the simple logic of numbers....So please don't tell me it does not work... Perhaps you are asking the wrong question...Perhaps your logic is flawed..Perhaps your base knowledge is wrong...We can only honestly know reality, that is physical reality because it moves in what we know as a logical fashion...A Patton said: You can't push a string, and logic is a string, so it does not much increase our knowledge...As with the bomb, the logic is never any better than the proof played out in physical terms

We need enough truth... We need truth where our forms inform us as to our reality...This is the only place the word has universal meaning, but whether we can conceive of truth or not, we still need enough truth, or death is certain...

William;67336 wrote:

What killed Kennedy had nothing to do with the truth. Kennedy's logic is what killed him. He illogically deduced he was experienced enough to fly. That "avoided" the truth and rationalization took over, which is ignoring any preceived truth to satisfy a selfish desire. The desire was to get to his destination. Had he adhered to the perceived truth that he was not competent enough to fulfill that desire. he would have never gotton on the plane.
William

And logic is not a means to discover truth???.He had not logic and he had not truth, and life was the prize and life he lost...And ---------- Post added at 10:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:08 AM ----------

Jeff, Your post was right on the mark. The reason we do not rely on deductive reassoning is because of our rationalizations we make to reach selfish goals. And it is those rationalizations that not only kill us, but also kill others. We rationalize what is the truth simply because the truth does not agree with our rationalizations. Hence the phrase "The Truth Hurts". To know the absolute truth, one one have to know all there is in the universe. Unfortunately there are some who claimed they do and deductive reasoning, if it conflicts with "what" they know, doesn't fit into their equations in that they feel no one can refute their knowledge based on their illogical rationalizations.
Hence, the ego is created. Kennedy's ego is what killed him. After all, he was a Kennedy and they lived in Camelot. No one could dispute his logic.
William

I just had a thought...If "absolute truth is unobtainable" is true, then wouldnt the absolute truth be that absolute truth is unobtainable. Absolute truth is a paradox.

Maybe the only absolute truth we can know is that we cant know anything except this statement.

Maybe it is correct to say the following: "All I can be certain of is that I know nothing for certain, except this statement."

---------- Post added at 11:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 AM ----------

Didn't Socrates say that also?

I take back what I said. Socrates said "I know that I know nothing". Also, I feel like I've proved that absolute truth is unobtainable and "I know that I know nothing". Wouldnt this imply that the truth value about this statement unknown. I've proved nothing but my arguement is valid. Does this mean the laws of logic are a paradox? If logic is a paradox and logic is supposed to demonstrate how reality operates, then is reality a paradox. If it is, then everything is a paradox. Thus, truth value is an illusion.

Damn...

Know the truth and the truth will MAKE you free

We know what we experience. It is all inductive, so we don't know that there is some mystical ever pervasive tautology that makes it necessary that everything is contingent upon everything else and that this is the only way things could ever work, so we can't say that it is guaranteed that some process will continue; but so what?

If the sun didn't rise tomorrow, we might be screwed over big time, but there is nothing to indicate that, so why would we consider the possibility?
This is why in practical terms we go on our best guesses, what has always been right and we hope will always be right. There is no big universal guarantee, and that is essentially what you are looking for.

You have recognized that there might be a little need for a bit of faith, lest you doubt yourself into nothing but a jibbering loon:D. You see, you have come to the point where reasonably certain things can be doubt-able, so they should be doubted, but in fact there is no sense in doubting them. This is one of the few instances a bit of faith in what has been determined is necessary, if only for practical purposes. You might doubt a claim, but just doubt judiciously.

To be rational means, more than anything else, to utilize logic along with certain givens to come to a sound conclusion. There is no basis for axioms beyond that they seem intrinsic or obvious.

We know what we experience. It is all inductive, so we don't know that there is some mystical ever pervasive tautology that makes it necessary that everything is contingent upon everything else and that this is the only way things could ever work, so we can't say that it is guaranteed that some process will continue; but so what?

If the sun didn't rise tomorrow, we might be screwed over big time, but there is nothing to indicate that, so why would we consider the possibility?
This is why in practical terms we go on our best guesses, what has always been right and we hope will always be right. There is no big universal guarantee, and that is essentially what you are looking for.

You have recognized that there might be a little need for a bit of faith, lest you doubt yourself into nothing but a jibbering loon:D. You see, you have come to the point where reasonably certain things can be doubt-able, so they should be doubted, but in fact there is no sense in doubting them. This is one of the few instances a bit of faith in what has been determined is necessary, if only for practical purposes. You might doubt a claim, but just doubt judiciously.

To be rational means, more than anything else, to utilize logic along with certain givens to come to a sound conclusion. There is no basis for axioms beyond that they seem intrinsic or obvious.