Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

universal truth?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

I'm having an argument with my friend about whether or not universal truths can exist. I am saying they can. This was my argument:

What happened, happened. You can't change that. What happened cannot be changed. What is, is. You cannot change what is, only what it can become. Truth is the accurate and precise reflection of what was and what is. What may come is something entirely different. We cannot use universal truth to figure out what will happen, because we don't know.

He kept saying that a lie can be truth and truth can be a lie.

Any input?

@kplax,

kplax;165505 wrote:

I'm having an argument with my friend about whether or not universal truths can exist. I am saying they can. This was my argument:

What happened, happened. You can't change that. What happened cannot be changed. What is, is. You cannot change what is, only what it can become. Truth is the accurate and precise reflection of what was and what is. What may come is something entirely different. We cannot use universal truth to figure out what will happen, because we don't know.

He kept saying that a lie can be truth and truth can be a lie.

Any input?

What happened, happened is certainly true, just like, all husbands are males is true. The trouble is that both are true "by definition", so their truth derives from the meanings of words exclusively, and has nothing to do with facts. Philosophers call them, "tautologies" or trivial truths. The trick is to get what you call a universal truth that isn't also just true by definition, and trivial. Has your friend an example of one of those?

@kplax,

kplax;165505 wrote:

I'm having an argument with my friend about whether or not universal truths can exist. I am saying they can. This was my argument:

What happened, happened. You can't change that. What happened cannot be changed. What is, is. You cannot change what is, only what it can become. Truth is the accurate and precise reflection of what was and what is. What may come is something entirely different. We cannot use universal truth to figure out what will happen, because we don't know.

He kept saying that a lie can be truth and truth can be a lie.

Any input?

Something to consider, Is what was also what is?
Ergo in vitro; the only universal truth could be, the only thing that has not as yet happened?
(will try to expend if asked)

@kplax,

here is the conversation we had:

7:44 PM - kplax: truth is the accurate and precise reflection of what was and what is. what may come is where truth has no reign.
7:45 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: nope
7:45 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: sorry but that is dumb
7:45 PM - kplax: why
7:45 PM - kplax: elaborate
7:45 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: truth is not what was or what is
7:45 PM - kplax: what is truth
7:45 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: exactly'
7:45 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: i could tell u a lie
7:45 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: and u could believe it as truth
7:45 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: that makes it true
7:45 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: so its not what is or what was
7:45 PM - kplax: no, that still makes it a lie
7:45 PM - kplax: you believe it to be true
7:45 PM - kplax: doesnt make it true
7:45 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: if everyone believes a lie
7:45 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: it becomes true
7:46 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: artists use lies to tell the truth
7:46 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: booOM
7:46 PM - kplax: nope
7:46 PM - kplax: i disagree
7:46 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: well thats why its philosophy
7:46 PM - kplax: because once we find out it isnt the truth, it is acknowledged as a lie
7:46 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: yeah and if u dont find out
7:46 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: u will believe it as truth
7:46 PM - kplax: and that is it
7:46 PM - kplax: it still will not be truth
7:46 PM - kplax: truth is universal
7:46 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: in ur eyes
7:47 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: it will be truth
7:47 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: if i told u i had a 10 pairs of sneakers
7:47 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: when i really only have 5
7:47 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: and u told other poeple
7:47 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: i had 10 pairs of sneakers
7:47 PM - kplax: seeing and believing are very dangerous - McNamara
7:47 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: and everyone believed u
7:47 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: all those people believe i have 10 pairs of sneakers
7:47 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: making a lie into truth
7:47 PM - kplax: but its not the truth
7:47 PM - kplax: no, it makes it a lie
7:47 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: why are u so dense

7:54 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: 1. There will NEVER be a universal truth
7:54 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: 2. lies can be truth n' truth can be lie
7:55 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: ok u go believe truth is universal
7:55 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: and ill be over here
7:55 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: with rational thought

@kplax,

kplax wrote:

7:54 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: 1. There will NEVER be a universal truth

You could have tweaked out this a little more. Do you think in his negation, watso is in fact trying to establish a big T truth?

@kplax,

The conversation went from this to a lot of name calling and hostility towards me =[ so I couldn't tell you

@kplax,

kplax;165511 wrote:

7:54 PM - watsoNs2Rosa: 1. There will NEVER be a universal truth

If we take this to be a universal truth, then your friend has put himself in quite a pickle. It is like saying, "there are no absolutes." to which you kindly reply, "thats an absolute." In essence, he has established the negation of truth as a universal. Assenting to it asserts an express contradiction, and I do think fallacy as well.

@kplax,

For humans there is one universal truth, and that is life...Other than that, truth is only a moral form...That is the reason we can fight and die over truth when, as an infinite it has and can have no definition...I think before you can answer your question you should work on a definition, and I say that in truth, knowing it is impossible....Because when you understand that life, our life, anyone's life determines their view of truth, you will see why people disagree, why they fight, and kill and die... It is in our moral perspectives that we conflict...Physics by comparison is a piece of cake...

@Fido,

If there only were lies, all would be True...:bigsmile:

@kplax,

Isn't, all mammals have livers, a universal truth? If not, then why not? It is a truth, and it is universally true of mammals. That is, having a liver is true of all mammals.

So why would anyone say that there are no universal truths?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165544 wrote:

Isn't, all mammals have livers, a universal truth? If not, then why not? It is a truth, and it is universally true of mammals. That is, having a liver is true of all mammals.

So why would anyone say that there are no universal truths?

Could that not change at some point?
Isn't it greater truth to say, all known mammals have livers?

@wayne,

wayne;165552 wrote:

Could that not change at some point?
Isn't it greater truth to say, all known mammals have livers?

All right. I don't mind. Let's switch it to that question. Then, isn't it a universal truth that known animals have livers? So that is a universal truth. So what is the problem?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165556 wrote:

All right. I don't mind. Let's switch it to that question. Then, isn't it a universal truth that known animals have livers? So that is a universal truth. So what is the problem?

I don't see one, yet.

@wayne,

wayne;165557 wrote:

I don't see one, yet.

Apparently there is some controversy about whether there are universal truths. But if I have come up with one so easily, I wonder why there is that controversy. If there obviously are universal truths then why are people debating whether there are?

By the way, this seems to relate to Deckard's thread, What causes philosophical questioning to stop? since it raises the question, what causes philosophical questioning even to begin? Do you think that now that I have shown that there are universal truths that people will stop asking whether there are any?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165558 wrote:

Apparently there is some controversy about whether there are universal truths. But if I have come up with one so easily, I wonder why there is that controversy. If there obviously are universal truths then why are people debating whether there are?

I think that it is difficult to state a lasting universal truth in a world that is based so completely on change as ours. Any truth we may state seems, to me, to be based only in the present moment and cannot be stated with absolute certainty.

Of course, my opinion may change and should not be taken as truth.

I don't think they will stop asking. I also think that all known mammals having livers is only true until we discover one without a liver.

@wayne,

wayne;165560 wrote:

I don't think they will stop asking. I also think that all known mammals having livers is only true until we discover one without a liver.

Why would that be so? Wouldn't it still be true that all known mammals have livers up until that time? Is a universal truth a truth that can never stop being true? I don't know. But let's suppose so. But can it ever stop being truth that all known mammals have livers up to the time when and if we find one that does not? I don't think so.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165565 wrote:

Why would that be so? Wouldn't it still be true that all known mammals have livers up until that time? Is a universal truth a truth that can never stop being true? I don't know. But let's suppose so. But can it ever stop being truth that all known mammals have livers up to the time when and if we find one that does not? I don't think so.

May be that there is some difference between a universal truth and an eternal truth.
All known mammals have livers is universal truth at the present moment, I must agree.
I suppose now the issue would be eternal truth, but that's not the question the OP apparently had in mind.

@wayne,

wayne;165575 wrote:

May be that there is some difference between a universal truth and an eternal truth.
All known mammals have livers is universal truth at the present moment, I must agree.
I suppose now the issue would be eternal truth, but that's not the question the OP apparently had in mind.

I wonder what he did have in mind. One big trouble in philosophy is that when people ask philosophical questions they often do not have anything clear in mind; and that is, I think, to be generous. But yes, "eternal truth" is a good suggestion. What kind of truth is that?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;165581 wrote:

I wonder what he did have in mind. One big trouble in philosophy is that when people ask philosophical questions they often do not have anything clear in mind; and that is, I think, to be generous. But yes, "eternal truth" is a good suggestion. What kind of truth is that?

Good question. I think it would be a truth that could be certain never to change. One that is not effected by circumstance or time.

Forgiveness. Might be an example of an eternal truth. I have heard that referred to as a fixed point before. It is always right, no need to think about it, it is always the right thing to do.

@wayne,

wayne;165587 wrote:

Good question. I think it would be a truth that could be certain never to change. One that is not effected by circumstance or time.

Forgiveness. Might be an example of an eternal truth. I have heard that referred to as a fixed point before. It is always right, no need to think about it, it is always the right thing to do.

How can forgiveness be a truth? A truth is a proposition or a statement, isn't it?

But then isn't it an eternal truth that up to the present time (2010) all known mammals have livers?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

universal truth?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know