Absolute Truth is Unobtainable

@JeffD2,

"Know" has a social significance... Again, the truth is a form, and like all forms is a form of relationship....The practical use is that it serves the relationship...

@Fido,

Fido;70324 wrote:

"Know" has a social significance... Again, the truth is a form, and like all forms is a form of relationship....The practical use is that it serves the relationship...

"Know" does have a social significance, since when you claim that you know, you are assuring others that you have investigated the matter as thoroughly as the claim merits, and that they can rely on you for that assurance. And, of course, what investigations you have performed will largely depend on what stakes are involved. When you say that you know that Peter has murdered someone, it is different from saying that you know that Paul likes chocolate ice-cream. You had better be surer of your investigatory efforts in the first case than in the second case. For a lot more depends on it.

And truth is a relation. It is a relation between a sentence, or a belief, and a state of affairs in the world. So that, if the sentence (or belief) that the cat is on the mat, is true, then in the world, there is a state of affairs such that there is a cat, and there is a mat, and the cat is in a certain relation to the mat which is meant by the term "on". Failing that, the sentence that the cat is on the mat is false. That relationship is often called, "correspondence". The sentence (or belief) corresponds to the state of affairs in the world.

As Aristotle put the matter, "To say what is true is to say that what is, is, and to say what is not, is not". Seems true to me.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;70134 wrote:

(B) is all we ever have, ABC.
So, if humans discovered mars was made out of playdo instead of rock 500 years down the road, I would say we had knowledge of Mars being made of rock, yet we were wrong. Because, as I mentioned, if we do not say we held knowledge, then how are we ever to claim any knowledge?

Code:



"we had knowledge of Mars being made of rock, yet we were wrong."

Would you please clarify the meaning you intend to convey by the above sentence?

... had knowledge of Mars being made of rock ... were wrong.

The tense implies that we both had knowledge at that time - and - were wrong at the very same time. My question is; what are you saying we were wrong about?

I'm thinking that you don't mean that we were wrong about having knowledge, but rather that we were wrong about Mars being made of rock. Is this correct?

Or, perhaps you do mean that we had knowledge and that we were wrong that we had knowledge?

Whichever it is, it seems that there must be a better way to say it.

@goapy,

goapy;70575 wrote:

Code:"we had knowledge of Mars being made of rock, yet we were wrong."
Would you please clarify the meaning you intend to convey by the above sentence?

... had knowledge of Mars being made of rock ... were wrong.

The tense implies that we both had knowledge at that time - and - were wrong at the very same time. My question is; what are you saying we were wrong about?

I'm thinking that you don't mean that we were wrong about having knowledge, but rather that we were wrong about Mars being made of rock. Is this correct?

Or, perhaps you do mean that we had knowledge and that we were wrong that we had knowledge?

Whichever it is, it seems that there must be a better way to say it.

"We believed we knew that Mars was made of rock, and we were wrong". We can believe we know things, just as we can believe anything else, and be mistaken.

@JeffD2,

There is no human created or defined Absolute Truth, Truth is only Absolute in the subjective

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;70666 wrote:

There is no human created or defined Absolute Truth, Truth is only Absolute in the subjective

Sounds fine to me. Only, I have no idea what it means. I'll guess though. You mean that people only believe there is absolute truth, but there really isn't any. Is that right? English is a hell of a lot easier to understand than philosophese.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;70674 wrote:

Sounds fine to me. Only, I have no idea what it means. I'll guess though. You mean that people only believe there is absolute truth, but there really isn't any. Is that right? English is a hell of a lot easier to understand than philosophese.

Your truth is your truth, an others truth is their truth, because we all differ and are unique

Why don't you like what you call "philosophese" after" all this is a forum for philosophy

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;70448 wrote:

As Aristotle put the matter, "To say what is true is to say that what is, is, and to say what is not, is not". Seems true to me.

Law of thought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These are the foundation of truth. Aristotle was a genius.

@Kielicious,

I believe God is the truth or if you prefere a symbol of the truth, because God is good, beautiful, true, etc.

@Dearhtead,

Dearhtead;70692 wrote:

I believe God is the truth or if you prefere a symbol of the truth, because God is good, beautiful, true, etc.

Now, isn't that nice?

---------- Post added at 05:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:53 PM ----------

Kielicious;70689 wrote:

Law of thought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These are the foundation of truth. Aristotle was a genius.

Now that's nice. Do you think that because Aristotle was a genius, that everything he said is true?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;70713 wrote:

Now that's nice. Do you think that because Aristotle was a genius, that everything he said is true?

Correct me if I'm wrong but my sarcasm detector is going off...

Do I agree with EVERYTHING he said? No, of course not. However, the three laws of logic are axiomatic.

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;70748 wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but my sarcasm detector is going off...

Do I agree with EVERYTHING he said? No, of course not. However, the three laws of logic are axiomatic.

Well, they should be. They are tautologies.

@Dearhtead,

Dearhtead;70692 wrote:

I believe God is the truth or if you prefere a symbol of the truth, because God is good, beautiful, true, etc.

Hello there from France, the truth needs defining the truth can be hurtful do we always have to tell the truth. For instance take a little child with a fatal sickness must we always tell the truth in a case like that.

I like the word honesty more than truth, because truth is both negative and positive.

Honesty filtered through compassion is a nice way to define truth. The truth can hurt really really hurt at times

Welcome all the way from beautiful France and peace to you from me

@Alan McDougall,

I think the truth can be logically demonstrated. But of course we had to know it before demonstrating.

So how to know it if not by logic? I think common sense is a good tool for that. Then, after "founding" the truth, it becomes a criterium to judge, that is to say to discern what is true and what isn't.

Nevertheless we can say that in using common sense we already make a logic demonstration...

Certainly, the truth can hurt. But this concerns the morale not the logic, even if they are highly connected, because if we don't know the truth we don't know what is morale or immorale too!

@Dearhtead,

That is kind of the heart of the thing: Since we must always know something to prove anything, and yet proof is, to an extent, the proof of knowledge, or ones knowledge then which came first proof or knowledge...Obviously, we take so much on faith, and must know as a practical matter long before we can reason, that this has given rise to much metaphysical speculation, about how people come by a'priori knowledge... Well, we are never ever quite without some ability to reason...We have the inate ability to recognize patterns, and this grasp of identity is the basis of the syllogism, which is all about telling this from that, and it is good for little more than classification...Children do not reason, but define, and indentify... That is my opinion, and I cannot say I know enough to defend it... But I am not writing a book...I want to know without defending...I guess...My mind is the one place I am built for speed, and I know enough that it often causes me to jump to conclusion... And I should not, knowing how dangerous that can be...I saw where that cost a man his life once...

@Fido,

Fido;70868 wrote:

That is kind of the heart of the thing: Since we must always know something to prove anything, and yet proof is, to an extent, the proof of knowledge, or ones knowledge then which came first proof or knowledge...Obviously, we take so much on faith, and must know as a practical matter long before we can reason, that this has given rise to much metaphysical speculation, about how people come by a'priori knowledge... Well, we are never ever quite without some ability to reason...We have the inate ability to recognize patterns, and this grasp of identity is the basis of the syllogism, which is all about telling this from that, and it is good for little more than classification...Children do not reason, but define, and indentify... That is my opinion, and I cannot say I know enough to defend it... But I am not writing a book...I want to know without defending...I guess...My mind is the one place I am built for speed, and I know enough that it often causes me to jump to conclusion... And I should not, knowing how dangerous that can be...I saw where that cost a man his life once...

What is all this about?

@JeffD2,

Aristotle concluded that whether the rules of the dialectic apply to the universe cannot be known except empirically. Iow, logic can prove nothing with certainty about reality.

But this doesn't mean we can't prove or know absolute truths. Empiricism trumps logic. It just means we can't demonstrate them.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;70931 wrote:

What is all this about?

Uhhh... A certain branch of Philosophy having to do with knowledge, and how we know what we think we know... How is that for a hint???

---------- Post added at 08:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 AM ----------

Whoever;71001 wrote:

Aristotle concluded that whether the rules of the dialectic apply to the universe cannot be known except empirically. Iow, logic can prove nothing with certainty about reality.

But this doesn't mean we can't prove or know absolute truths. Empiricism trumps logic. It just means we can't demonstrate them.

If everything we know came from a big bang, and everything we know will fall into another big bang then that is the only absolute truth we are capable of knowing, and how do we know it except by presumption??? Think of all the matter in the universe fitting through a keyhole, or the eye of a needle and coming out the other side combined in fashions we will never see or would never recognize... Where is the absolute in flux??? Everything changes, so to tell the truth, there is no truth except change...And who knows about that...

@JeffD2,

If there is no truth in change would this not imply something unchanging? After all, the Big Bang, as we usually conceptualise it, cannot have been a unique event.

@Whoever,

Whoever;71043 wrote:

If there is no truth in change would this not imply something unchanging? After all, the Big Bang, as we usually conceptualise it, cannot have been a unique event.

If change is the only constant then there is no constant, so no absolute... If I say evertything changes some one else might correctly say that nothing changes so far as we can see...Stasis is what we build our forms to achieve, and we con only form a conception of reality in stasis... So if I say change is reality, I have characterized a condition rather than a res, a reality...Our reality is unreality... And as I read it, the big bang may change all the rules, so every event may be unique, and all of matter entirely different on the far side of the bang....I think we make a mistake to say it can only be this way, or that the forces and reactions will be similar...

Philosophy Forum

Absolute Truth is Unobtainable

Quick Links

My Account

able2know