Absolute Truth is Unobtainable

@JeffD2,

Kennethamy wrote:

If I could not, then, since my belief that the vase is on the table is not adequately justified, I do not know that the vase is on the table.

You must be consistently verifying the vase is on the table to have adequate justification?

Quote:

Indeed, unless the justification condition of knowing is satisfied, then we do not know. But what is odd about that? Sometimes we can, and sometimes we cannot satisfy the justification condition

It seems odd, because, as I've repeatedly stated, we can rarely consistently verify anything. Hence, according to your definition, we rarely have adequate justification and therefore can rarely hold knowledge.

Quote:

But could you explain what you mean by "referencing and defining a truth"? I have no idea what that means. Can you give an example of doing that?

I explain what I mean by referent truths in many of my posts. Particularly in post #107.

@richrf,

richrf;71968 wrote:

Fine. What ever works for you.

Rich

By admitting we are fallible beings makes it very obvious that we will never know the absolute truth. We are not absolutes maybe god is if you like, but even he makes big mistakes, heck he made me !!:bigsmile:

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;71995 wrote:

By admitting we are fallible beings makes it very obvious that we will never know the absolute truth. We are not absolutes maybe god is if you like, but even he makes big mistakes, heck he made me !!:bigsmile:

Fallible means that we are liable to make mistakes. The fact that we are liable to make mistakes, though, does not mean that we always make mistakes. Sometimes we do; more often, we do not. For example, I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. There is no reason to think it is not true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. In particular, that it might not be true is no reason to think that it is not true. Nor, is it any reason to think that we do not know it is true (which is a different thing). So, I don't see why you think that since we are fallible we cannot know the truth.

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;71995 wrote:

By admitting we are fallible beings makes it very obvious that we will never know the absolute truth. We are not absolutes maybe god is if you like, but even he makes big mistakes, heck he made me !!:bigsmile:

Hi Alan,

I've been surprised very often in my life, and I just don't have the urge to declare anything true or false anymore - unless it has to do with my bank account. Smile

What I have observed is that people often seem more interested in who is right as opposed to just understanding and learning. Many of the threads eventually turn into conflicts about definitions. If you look up words like truth, knowledge, know, true, etc. there are many definitions in the dictionary, which means that by consensus people have agreed that the word can be used in many ways.

With this, then it is more a matter of understanding what usage the other person is using, present a point of view, discuss it if necessary, and then complete any thoughts. To continue to argue over word usage seems to me to be unnecessary. And if the concepts that are being presented are clear and understood, and there is disagreement, then so be it. That is the way human interact and grow.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;72000 wrote:

Hi Alan,

I've been surprised very often in my life, and I just don't have the urge to declare anything true or false anymore - unless it has to do with my bank account.

What I have observed is that people often seem more interested in who is right as opposed to just understanding and learning. Many of the threads eventually turn into conflicts about definitions. If you look up words like truth, knowledge, know, true, etc. there are many definitions in the dictionary, which means that by consensus people have agreed that the word can be used in many ways.

With this, then it is more a matter of understanding what usage the other person is using, present a point of view, discuss it if necessary, and then complete any thoughts. To continue to argue over word usage seems to me to be unnecessary. And if the concepts that are being presented are clear and understood, and there is disagreement, then so be it. That is the way human interact and grow.

Rich

Why can't you be interested in what is right, and also in understanding and learning. In fact, it seems to me that being interested in what is true or false is a necessary condition for understanding and learning. For how can you understand and learn unless you know that you have something yet to understand and learn. And if you always think you know what is right, you won't think you have anything else ot understand and learn. Moreover, how can you learn anything new, unless what you learn is true? What if you "learn" what is false. What is the good of that?

Even if a word has a number of meanings, that does not mean that there are not a number of meanings the word does not have. Not everything is as good as everything else. "Knowledge" does not mean, "belief". And "truth" does not mean, "probable". And "fish", does not mean "mammal". Words mean what they mean. And, in fact, much of the conflict in philosophy is not over definitions, but about something more substantial: over concepts. I am certainly not interested in the point of view of a person who is wrong, and it is not worth discussing his view with him. What is there to discuss if someone is, for instance, a denier that Earth is round, or that the Holocaust ever happened?

@JeffD2,

Rich - You may not like arguments, but if so you are very definitely in the wrong place. Philosophy proceeds by dialectical refutation and argument is its method. The argument may go on inside your head or in the pub or on a website, but it's got to go on somewhere. The argument should hopefully be polite and businesslike, but need not be so to be effective. I'm sure you're right to say that holding strong views about what's right and wrong can get in the way of progress, but this is why argument is so important. You're hoping that the other person can find fault with your view or that you can find fault with theirs, and that eventually this process will result in the elimination of all false views to leave only the correct one.

@Whoever,

Whoever;72048 wrote:

Rich - You may not like arguments, but if so you are very definitely in the wrong place. Philosophy proceeds by dialectical refutation and argument is its method. The argument may go on inside your head or in the pub or on a website, but it's got to go on somewhere. The argument should hopefully be polite and businesslike, but need not be so to be effective. I'm sure you're right to say that holding strong views about what's right and wrong can get in the way of progress, but this is why argument is so important. You're hoping that the other person can find fault with your view or that you can find fault with theirs, and that eventually this process will result in the elimination of all false views to leave only the correct one.

I think that the feelings of arguments and of Rich are mutual. They don't like each other.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;71998 wrote:

Fallible means that we are liable to make mistakes. The fact that we are liable to make mistakes, though, does not mean that we always make mistakes. Sometimes we do; more often, we do not. For example, I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. There is no reason to think it is not true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. In particular, that it might not be true is no reason to think that it is not true. Nor, is it any reason to think that we do not know it is true (which is a different thing). So, I don't see why you think that since we are fallible we cannot know the truth.

We cannot "Know All Truth" this is what I meant , the thread title is "Absolute Truth is On obtainable" and that is the absolute truth for fallible entities like us.

@Whoever,

Just to go back over a few points:

1. Kennethamy - Is my interpretation of your views in my post #134 correct?

2. Kennethamy - You are saying (a) if you verify at reasonable intervals that the vase is on the table, then you are justified in believing (and can therefore claim to know) that it is on the table all the time; but (b) if you later find out that it was off the table at a time when you claimed to know it was on it, then your claim was wrong (i.e. you thought you knew, but you didn't really know). In other words, you repudiate your claim. That is what you mean, right? If so, I agree. It seems like a good practical use of the word "know".

3. Zetherin - I have read through your post #107 again. Like kennethamy, you would be content to claim knowledge that the vase was on the table all the time, without the need for uninterrupted verification; but unlike him, you would not retrospectively cancel your earlier claim of knowledge (although you would say that you now know the vase was not on the table). In other words, you earlier knew it was, but now you know it wasn't (note the tenses). Likewise if future scientists discovered new information about Mars. Is that a correct summary of your position?

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;72069 wrote:

We cannot "Know All Truth" this is what I meant , the thread title is "Absolute Truth is On obtainable" and that is the absolute truth for fallible entities like us.

I really have only the vaguest idea of what absolute truth is, let alone all truth is. All I have a clear idea of is that we, collectively, know a great many propositions that are true.

@Whoever,

Whoever;72048 wrote:

Rich - You may not like arguments, but if so you are very definitely in the wrong place. Philosophy proceeds by dialectical refutation and argument is its method. The argument may go on inside your head or in the pub or on a website, but it's got to go on somewhere. The argument should hopefully be polite and businesslike, but need not be so to be effective. I'm sure you're right to say that holding strong views about what's right and wrong can get in the way of progress, but this is why argument is so important. You're hoping that the other person can find fault with your view or that you can find fault with theirs, and that eventually this process will result in the elimination of all false views to leave only the correct one.

Hi there,

I do not shy away from discussions, but I have learned others do not change each one of us - we change ourselves. Look over the forum, and observe how many people are listening in order to change and how many are attempting to change the views of others. And observe the results.

If I present a viewpoint and the other side shows interest, then I feel comfortable continuing the discussion. If it becomes an argument over who is right, then I think the discussion goes no where, except in the usual ad hominen direction, which I have seen all too much of on philosophy forums.

There is a time for talk and their is a time for relaxation. I do not find it particularly important to argue over anything, since I have plenty of other things to learn in my life - including when to move in a different direction. Learning to listen and understand where the other person is coming from and their perspective is something I am learning. For me this is knowledge.

I do not have to be right. I do not have to have the truth. I do not have to win. For me, it is enough to experience, and that is knowledge to me. When I practice Taiji, I learn about the inner experience of energy flow. The essence of Chinese philosophy and medicine. There is no right or wrong in this. There is just experience and understanding.

Thanks for your comment.

Rich

---------- Post added at 09:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 AM ----------

kennethamy;72004 wrote:

Even if a word has a number of meanings, that does not mean that there are not a number of meanings the word does not have. Not everything is as good as everything else. "Knowledge" does not mean, "belief". And "truth" does not mean, "probable". And "fish", does not mean "mammal". Words mean what they mean. And, in fact, much of the conflict in philosophy is not over definitions, but about something more substantial: over concepts. I am certainly not interested in the point of view of a person who is wrong, and it is not worth discussing his view with him. What is there to discuss if someone is, for instance, a denier that Earth is round, or that the Holocaust ever happened?

Hi,

I have lost track of what you are arguing about or for. I rarely find agreement in anything you say, even when I concede a point. I just don't see where things are headed other than deeper into an abyss of arguments. Sorry.

If you don't change direction, you will end up where you are going.
[Chinese proverb]

Rich

@JeffD2,

The original idea/conept, when taken on pure face value, is perhaps the only recognizable truth of our universe: all rules may have excpetions, all "truths" may be false in some given case- the fact is that we do not know/perceive otherwise. This, an ultimate folly of all there is to today's infinite objective scienctific research, stems from our inherent nature of lack of satisfaction with an incomplete truth. Our lack of recognizing this folly begets an infinte need to rationalize.

@aeris ac,

aeris_ac;72100 wrote:

The original idea/conept, when taken on pure face value, is perhaps the only recognizable truth of our universe: all rules may have excpetions, all "truths" may be false in some given case- the fact is that we do not know/perceive otherwise. This, an ultimate folly of all there is to today's infinite objective scienctific research, stems from our inherent nature of lack of satisfaction with an incomplete truth. Our lack of recognizing this folly begets an infinte need to rationalize.

Yes. I agree. Learning to live with incompleteness and questions, is not easy. But that might be all there is. It may be the game of hide-and-seek, or peek-a-boo that we are all playing. :detective:

Nature loves to hide. [Heraclitus]

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;72096 wrote:

I have lost track of what you are arguing about or for. I rarely find agreement in anything you say, even when I concede a point. I just don't see where things are headed other than deeper into an abyss of arguments. Sorry.

Rich

I am not surprised. Insofar as I have been arguing for anything, it has been against your views that there is no true or false, nor good or bad, nor any rational standards whatever. Of course, you have, yourself, presented nothing but ad hominem arguments (if that is the word) for this radical skepticism which you contradict each time you express an opinion, which, by the way, you do a lot.

As has been pointed out to you, you are in the wrong place. Arguments are the heart and soul of philosophy, since philosophy is a rational discipline, and advancing a view without an argument is pointless. What you seem to want is for your views (perspectives) to be accepted for no reason, perhaps than that you have advanced them. (And that doing so will prevent strife). So, you have lately expected people to take your word for it that Bohr is a great physicist, or that QM is "mind-boggling". Not of course that Bohr was not a great physicist, or that QM is, at least interesting. But you have no right to make such statements since your own view says, as you yourself write, what are you going to do if someone disagrees with you. For you advocate unilateral rational and moral disarmament. You are rationally defenseless by your own lights, while you still take (apparently) rational views.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;72193 wrote:

... what are you going to do if someone disagrees with you.

Listen and try to understand, and then acknowledge the differences, without arguing - though discussion is always possible. I practice Taiji Push Hands. When I come upon a partner who wishes to practice I practice. When I come upon one who wants to fight, I politely move on.

For you, your perspective, and others, arguing is a necessary part of your participation. I understand. I come across it all of the time in my experiences. However, it is not necessary for me.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;72198 wrote:

Listen and try to understand, and then acknowledge the differences, without arguing - though discussion is always possible. I practice Taiji Push Hands. When I come upon a partner who wishes to practice I practice. When I come upon one who wants to fight, I politely move on.

For you, your perspective, and others, arguing is a necessary part of your participation. I understand. I come across it all of the time in my experiences. However, it is not necessary for me.

Rich

Hmm. Apparently, you have just argued that argument is not necessary for you. I'll have to consider your argument, and determine whether I think it is a cogent one. Right now, it does not impress me. Would you care to argue that your argument satisfies the conditions of being a cogent argument?

By the way, when would you agree that I have tried to understand what you are getting at? Would it be only when I agree with you. Does disagreement mean that I have not understood you? Wouldn't that be convenient (for you)?

@JeffD2,

Ahh needs some truth...Michael Jackson died... Does that mean all us alzheimers have got to quite making Michael Jackson jokes every time we can't find a glove??? They say you can't beat a dead horse, but I don't know why...To beat a live one you have to catch em.... To beat a dead one you don't hardly have to aim...

@richrf,

richrf;72198 wrote:

Listen and try to understand, and then acknowledge the differences, without arguing - though discussion is always possible. I practice Taiji Push Hands. When I come upon a partner who wishes to practice I practice. When I come upon one who wants to fight, I politely move on.

For you, your perspective, and others, arguing is a necessary part of your participation. I understand. I come across it all of the time in my experiences. However, it is not necessary for me.

Rich

You are so right, some people join a forum just to fight and argue prove how smart they are and how stupid we are, this is not sensible debating or dialogue. I use the ignore option on such people it is a great invention the ignore option

Is it so hard for some people to be polite and still hold to their position in a debate?

Peace and light to you Rich

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;72308 wrote:

You are so right, some people join a forum just to fight and argue prove how smart they are and how stupid we are, this is not sensible debating or dialogue. I use the ignore option on such people it is a great invention the ignore option

Is it so hard for some people to be polite and still hold to their position in a debate?

Hi Alan,

Thanks. I tend not to use the ignore button, since I always want to leave open the possibility for change. But I understand your point of view.

BTW, thanks for he Alex Gray image on the other thread. I have both of his books. I find them amazing and I use them in my private classes to illustrate the consciousness/energy/mass continuum of the human body.

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;72308 wrote:

You are so right, some people join a forum just to fight and argue prove how smart they are and how stupid we are, this is not sensible debating or dialogue. I use the ignore option on such people it is a great invention the ignore option

Is it so hard for some people to be polite and still hold to their position in a debate?

Peace and light to you Rich

Well, there just might be another explanation. Some people tend to say silly things because they think it them profound. In fact, they think them profound in direct proportion to their silliness. As a consequence, other people think they should point out how silly these things are, lest other people actually think that those silly things are true. So, they post objections. Now, the people who post those silly things resent these objections because somehow they believe that objections are offensive just because they are objections. And they also find argument offensive because they find is very hard to follow or produce and argument. But the history of philosophy is a history of thrust and parry, for in that way, truth can best come out. And those who cannot thrust and parry had better take up another hobby. There are all kind of forums for pleasant agreement. Try meditation. That's placid.

Philosophy Forum

Absolute Truth is Unobtainable

Quick Links

My Account

able2know