Absolute Truth is Unobtainable

@JeffD2,

There is no "truth" Jeff; there is only life and the perfecting of that life which is infinite. IMO, what Socrates was saying in that he new nothing simply what he knew makes no difference in what he was experiencing "now". You can't change that now matter how much you try. Where we really screw up, IMO, is when we go to the past and try and predict the future. Not a good Idea. Communication is the key in our daily communiction with other human beings. "No human is an island"; Life is a cooperative experience we should share, not direct, command, order, tell, coerce, manipulate. That is the ego efforting to communicate and that is selfishness. Have you heard the phrase, "That's my decision, and I sticking to it?" Ha. That the ego being triumphant. That is relative truth defending itself and that logic is what divides us. It's like life itself in going from the "negative to the positive" and what keeps us from moving in that direction is "resistance". As long as we stick to our egos, the more ohms of that resistance. The more we communicate without the egos interferrence, the least the resistance and we begin to communicate together and begin perfecting that life for all. :a-ok:

William

@William,

Quantum logic is not new logic, in fact the only thing that can be new a bout any logical structure is its formal development. Quantum logic is just many valued as opposed to bi valued. There is also fuzzy logic, which accounts for gradated truth, like if you wanted to ask whether something is thick or not; there is not clear cutoff, if something is thick if it is 4 inches thick, is it no longer thick if it is 3.999999999 inches thick? This is used in AI to aide the recognition of more qualitative concepts. So the logical structure or formalization is new, but the concept is certainly old and ingrained in us.

Anything like mathematics or formal logic is simply organization, it creates nothing new, but shows relations and organizes ideas and patterns in a way that makes them applicable, like a refinement process that takes vague patterns and concepts and makes them concrete and actually useful, throwing away what is not necessary to solve the problems at hand. It is a kind of refinery for human ingenuity, once the pure form is distilled, it can be communicated and applied. It is amazing how precisely logical ideas can be communicated when the language and all of the definitions are so heavily standardized and agreed upon, allowing for no different interpretation.

@richrf,

richrf;67335 wrote:

For sure, if someone has one Truth it will disagree with another's Truth,
As for me, I am satisfied, observing that which I can observe, not caring whether it is a Truth or otherwise, because I need none of the above.

Rich

You seem to think that it is true that you can observe. Don't you?

What you must mean when you write that if someone has one Truth it will disagree with another's Truth, is, that if someone believes one "truth", it may very well disagree with what another believes true. But that's nothing new or startling. We all know that there are conflicting beliefs about what is true. But, we should not confuse this with the impossibility of conflicting or inconsistent truths. Beliefs as to what is true may be (and sometimes are) inconsistent. But truths are never inconsistent. For it is the definition of consistency, that truths must be consistent (although consistent beliefs need not be true). That is why if someone is lying, he needs to be sure his story is consistent, but if someone is telling the truth, he need not make sure his story is consistent, since truth already takes care of consistency. A true story cannot contain inconsistencies. (By the way, that a true story must be a consistent story is an absolute truth if there are any absolute truths. Another is that a consistent story need not be a true story).

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;68807 wrote:

You seem to think that it is true that you can observe. Don't you?

What you must mean when you write that if someone has one Truth it will disagree with another's Truth, is, that if someone believes one "truth", it may very well disagree with what another believes true.

More than this, I personally have no need to think something is True. I can live without the concept. It is enough that I just do things in life. However, I have no problem if someone else thinks what they re saying is True.

It may or may not be true that I am observing. I sometimes contemplate what is going on when I am observing. It is fascinating. What is it that is actually "observing", whatever it may be.

By not locking myself, and giving myself wiggle room, I am able to explore and move on in life. If someone locks themselves in a Truth, they may find it more difficult to admit the mistake and move on. On the other hand, they may not.

Rich

@JeffD2,

If absolute truth is unobtainable, then we have just discovered an absolute truth :
That
absolute truth is unobtainable,

therefore
absolute truth is obtainable.

Implication :
Always keep your mind open to all possibilities.
That is the absolute truth.

@JeffD2,

Quote:

Fido

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan McDougall
Know the truth and the truth will MAKE you free

Well; that certainly explains that..

Think about it, if you really knew the truth it would not set you free like you set a caged animal free it would MAKE you free in a way that you could embrace all of lifes challenges

The source of truth is also the fountain of all knowledge!

@Poseidon,

Poseidon;68919 wrote:

If absolute truth is unobtainable, then we have just discovered an absolute truth :
That
absolute truth is unobtainable,

.

I wonder how you know that absolute truth is unattainable, if true, is an absolute truth. Perhaps it is not. (That, of course, depends on what an absolute truth is, and I have to admit being hazy about that).

@kennethamy,

"I believe X, but I may be mistaken"

means exactly the same as

"I believe that X is true, but I may be mistaken".

The first sentence is just a more concise way of saying the second.

@ACB,

Poseidon;68919 wrote:

If absolute truth is unobtainable, then we have just discovered an absolute truth :
That
absolute truth is unobtainable,

therefore
absolute truth is obtainable.

Implication :
Always keep your mind open to all possibilities.
That is the absolute truth.

ACB;69179 wrote:

"I believe X, but I may be mistaken"

means exactly the same as

"I believe that X is true, but I may be mistaken".

The first sentence is just a more concise way of saying the second.

To whom dear friend from green green England do you direct that post at

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;69186 wrote:

To whom dear friend from green green England do you direct that post at

At anyone in this thread who thinks that truth implies infallibility. You can believe that you have the truth about something, but still accept that you may be wrong.

@ACB,

ACB;69220 wrote:

At anyone in this thread who thinks that truth implies infallibility. You can believe that you have the truth about something, but still accept that you may be wrong.

Now that would be something, wouldn't it? Having your cake and eat it. I'm open to that!

Rich

@ACB,

ACB;69179 wrote:

"I believe X, but I may be mistaken"

means exactly the same as

"I believe that X is true, but I may be mistaken".

The first sentence is just a more concise way of saying the second.

Yes, I agree. And?

(Sorry, did not see what you replied to). Of course you are right. But saying that you believe that p, but you may be wrong is not having your cake and eating it too. What having your cake and eating it too would be, is, "I know that p, but I may be wrong".

@ACB,

ACB;69220 wrote:

At anyone in this thread who thinks that truth implies infallibility. You can believe that you have the truth about something, but still accept that you may be wrong.

A; as much as is possible I try to suspend belief, seeing it as no substitute for knowledge...I consider what I think true may be true, false, true and false, or some measure of both, or neither... Much of what I think I know is of the past... So who can check that??? Yet, like many others I catch at presumptions on little evidence... Perhaps, for this reason, insight is so essential to philosophy, so we can leap creeks we cannot ford...Truth is like the steps of logic... What if the object is not to prove, but to know, and to know enough to where we can understand -which is the object...We all understand a lot more than we know, or can prove... Look at the metaphysical argument of Plato, in having Socrates give a slave a math test... What did he prove in fact???

@Fido,

Fido;69394 wrote:

A; as much as is possible I try to suspend belief, seeing it as no substitute for knowledge...I consider what I think true may be true, false, true and false, or some measure of both, or neither... Much of what I think I know is of the past... So who can check that??? Yet, like many others I catch at presumptions on little evidence... Perhaps, for this reason, insight is so essential to philosophy, so we can leap creeks we cannot ford...Truth is like the steps of logic... What if the object is not to prove, but to know, and to know enough to where we can understand -which is the object...We all understand a lot more than we know, or can prove... Look at the metaphysical argument of Plato, in having Socrates give a slave a math test... What did he prove in fact???

Certainly, what we think (or believe) true may be false. That is why we use the term "believe". But what we know is true is not false, since it it is false, the we do not know it is true. But why should that mean that we should say we believe when we think we know? That would be dishonest.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;69414 wrote:

Certainly, what we think (or believe) true may be false. That is why we use the term "believe". But what we know is true is not false, since it it is false, the we do not know it is true. But why should that mean that we should say we believe when we think we know? That would be dishonest.

Sure; and dishonesty is a vice... The whole thing is about moral form, and moral forms of relationship... To become a Muslim, a man must testify, swear that there is no God but Allah and that Mohammid is his prophet... The whole form rests upon honor and not upon the reality of God... When we attack Islam we attack their honor... We torture them, we bribe them, or malign them..And they are an honor society, so that is their strength and their weakness....
When we say we know, what we know is as useful as it is true... What we know is alike what we know with, our lives...If something is true it is good, even if it is bad news...The truth is what we live by...

@Fido,

Fido;69462 wrote:

Sure; and dishonesty is a vice... The whole thing is about moral form, and moral forms of relationship... To become a Muslim, a man must testify, swear that there is no God but Allah and that Mohammid is his prophet... The whole form rests upon honor and not upon the reality of God... When we attack Islam we attack their honor... We torture them, we bribe them, or malign them..And they are an honor society, so that is their strength and their weakness....
When we say we know, what we know is as useful as it is true... What we know is alike what we know with, our lives...If something is true it is good, even if it is bad news...The truth is what we live by...

Has this anything to do with my post?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;69509 wrote:

Has this anything to do with my post?

Is this where I get to call you thick??? Truth is a moral form...Honor and honesty are moral forms... Ultimately life is the only reality, and life has no meaning without the relationships, and life is served by truth, usually...What reality do you give to moral forms???When we talk about physical realities we can talk about absolutes... That is absolutely the moon in the sky, and tomorrow I will be able to absolutely see the sun...What does absolute mean??? Perfect, complete, whole... Does it say general, probable, subjective??? Moral forms are like all forms, and must express some sort of perfection, but as soon as anyone scratches the surface of that perfection all they find is the imperfection.... How many thousands of years have people been trying to arrive at a perfect sense of Justice, or virtue...The closest they can come is to rind what is virtue or just for them...
I am not saying we do not have to define moral forms... We are thick to think we can define any of them as absolutes... Each of them has a sort of contextual definition, and so long as it serves the form of the relationship, that is, keeps both parties alive, it is defined sufficiently...Truth is only as true as it keeps us all alive...

@JeffD2,

kennethamy wrote:

Certainly, what we think (or believe) true may be false. That is why we use the term "believe". But what we know is true is not false, since it it is false, the we do not know it is true. But why should that mean that we should say we believe when we think we know? That would be dishonest.

What you know to be true could be false. One never has "absolute" knowledge, if that's what you're implying.

If one says they believe (using the notion I believe you were using), this means they think they know. How is this dishonest?

@Zetherin,

Post deleted....

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;69544 wrote:

What you know to be true could be false. One never has "absolute" knowledge, if that's what you're implying.

If one says they believe (using the notion I believe you were using), this means they think they know. How is this dishonest?

What we say we know, we know with some evidence.. What we say we believe we often accept contrary to evidence..

Philosophy Forum

Absolute Truth is Unobtainable

Quick Links

My Account

able2know