Your Absolute Truths
I would like to hear the facts/things/ideas/rules(name it whatever you want) that you think that apply in universe/cosmos and that we (as humans) can be sure about them.
The absolute truths that if you remove everything "human-ish" from them, everything phenomenalogical etc they still apply also in universe .They are also true for the function of cosmos also. This is what I mean by absolute truths. Not anything mystique nor metaphysical.
For example. Mine are : 1.Everything is united.
2.Everything is in motion.
So I m really curious to see what others think as their universal truths.
According to what science has told us so far. What is the thing that an individual human can be sure that applies in universe's function also? What you think as indisputable fact?
The absolute truths that if you remove everything "human-ish" from them, everything phenomenalogical etc they still apply also in universe .They are also true for the function of cosmos also. This is what I mean by absolute truths. Not anything mystique nor metaphysical.
For example. Mine are : 1.Everything is united.
2.Everything is in motion.
So I m really curious to see what others think as their universal truths.
According to what science has told us so far. What is the thing that an individual human can be sure that applies in universe's function also? What you think as indisputable fact?
Comments (182)
2 It feels like it could be better. Sometimes it feels like it should be better.
Humans are as much a part of the universe as everything else. How's that for an "absolute truth"? Try to remove the "human-ish" from that.
No need.
Quoting Ciceronianus
It surely counts.
So let's say remove as much human-ish as we can.Since you object that nothing that human thinks can really be totally out of human and I agree.
I just object to the notion that humans aren't part of the universe, i.e. that we're apart from it in some sense. It's a view which I think fosters, among other things, the belief that we can't really know the universe (sometimes referred to as "the external world"), and so can't really know what's really true about the universe.
But nothing like that was mentioned in the OP. I see people as indeed part of the universe.
Quoting Ciceronianus
Well no, we can't really know exactly how the external world is.Only what senses tell us. And neither what is really true about the universe and what its actual form is.
But we can know and discover more and more things about the nature/external world/universe which appears to us. And by that way to make better guesses about the universal function and to expand our knowledge.
But that's a different discussion.i don't want to focus on phenomena/noumena problem here. Even with the knowledge that we humans can achieve about the external world via science, the things that we can actually be sure about universe isn't much at all. And I want to know what are some of these things that others take for granted about universe/cosmos.
Lets point out them:
you wrote in the title absolute, but then you wrote that you think: if they are things that we think, then they depend on our thinking, so they are not absolute. Absolute means not depending on anything or anybody.
All the same, you wrote mine are: if they are yours, they are depending on you, so they are not absolute.
their universal truths is like an oxymoron: their means depending on them, universal truths means not depending on them.
What you think as indisputable fact contains the same contradiction: if anybody thinks of anything, that thing is automatically disputable, because it depends on the person who thought of it. Anything depending on somebody is disputable, because it is automatically biased by their perspective.
The question you put is just an impossible question, like asking us to give you an example of frozen fire or of something eternal that doesnt exist anymore.
From the physical to the ethical to the metaphysical in scope ... philosophical realism.
Quoting Ciceronianus
:fire:
How do you figure other people were able to answer the question and have dialogue about it if its like impossible to answer?
Be less pedantic and try reading it again.
I think they actually have not been able to answer the question: all things mentioned in the answers as absolute things arent absolute at all.
One of my base axioms is that my sensory input is not a lie. If it was, then no knowledge of anything can be had, and there'd be no point in pondering anything. So I presume this despite the complete lack of any way to demonstrate it. I don't think my statement meets your criteria.
If they're yours, then they're not absolute.
This suggests you have different definitions of 'universe' and 'cosmos' that you feel the need to say both these things.
If it's not true in a different universe, then it hardly qualifies as an absolute truth, no? I see 180 has listed some things that seem true in this universe.
What does this mean? I can think of countless things that are not, so again, you're using a definition that hasn't been given.
Einstein's relativity theory suggests that time isn't something that is in motion, so this assertion is certainly subject to reasonable doubt.
Quoting Ciceronianus
Totally agree. Humans (via said sensory input mentioned above) put the 'the' into 'the universe', without which it would just be 'a universe'.
That's the exact reason that strict definitions doesn't play important role in that case. That's what I wanted it to avoid, the endless definition game. But from my experience here on TPF so far I was expecting it.
I just ask for each personal absolute truths. Truths about the universe that apply regardless of humans existence or not. Whatever someone thinks as such truths. Simply as that.
Quoting Angelo Cannata
They are absolute for the person who holds them. Simply as that. I don't expect a new ToE that everyone would agree. Just what someone thinks that can say for sure about universal function.
Quoting Angelo Cannata
Yeah they are absolute for me. Don't expect everyone to agree. I just wanna hear other's.
Quoting Angelo Cannata
Same as above.
Quoting Angelo Cannata
No it is just a simple clear question. You just make it unnecessary complicated. Everything is stated at the OP already. And the examples I gave are just to make more "practical" what I mean.
In short, it seems that, when you say absolute, you actually mean something like absolute, but not too much, absolute, but not too absolute, not absolutely absolute :smile: . Thats fine, it just needed to be clarified.
I wonder why you would understand such a thing but anyway I will pass it.
From the rest A and D sounds pretty logical as absolute truths for me. Though at A I m not sure that science has proven it surely that universe is a closed system after all.
B and C I don't find them relevant with the universal function though as statements might be true indeed.
It simply means what the title says "Your Absolute Truths". It was already clarified. No need for all these.
Quoting Angelo Cannata
Everybody else understood this without clarification. You didnt, or refused to, understand this because you are being pedantic.
My view is that 'truth' is the product of human cognition and imagination; it's provisional and perspectival. Mostly I'm interested in how people conduct their behaviours towards others and would hold to a version of the Golden Rule. While I'm not especially interested in scientific or metaphysical theories of everything, I generally hold that methodological naturalism is our most reliable pathway to useful knowledge.
Absolute for me. See my answers above if you wish.
Quoting noAxioms
No. I consider them the same. It had no such purpose to distinguish them. Just to cover more words that someone would use to describe the universe.
Quoting noAxioms
Yeah indeed. Supposing there are other universes, if a rule that applies to ours does not apply to other universes, then can't be considered as an absolute universal truth imo. It would be a truth only for our universe.
Quoting noAxioms
What isn't united with something else?Affecting and gets affected by others? What is totally isolated in the universe? Tell me one of your countless things. And to define what exactly? What I mean with the word "united"? Really?
Quoting noAxioms
We have no idea what actually time is in fact yet, as to consider it also as something stable. It might just be a human concept and nothing else as some scientists also support.
Its not pedantry, it is just philosophy. In philosophy the word absolute means really absolute, does not mean approximately absolute.
Well yeah true. But at the end all that universe must function in a specific way right? I mean despite human concept of "truth", it has to work in a certain way, no? And If we ever figure it out it would be the absolute truth. You get what I mean?
Quoting Tom Storm
I believe the same also. In fact the only path we have as to walk into the darkness of knowledge. But I still acknowledge that is limited due to our senses. The way we are "build". I can't deny that either.
The word absolute was combined with the word "Your" BEFORE it. Jesus!It is not that difficult.
I didn't want to adopt what Dingo said about pedantry, but damn the way you insist on this proves him right.
Whats pedantic is focusing on the word absolute instead of the clear intention of the OP. Again, everyone else understood what the OP meant and only the pedant choose not to in favour of belabouring the semantics of a single word.
Pedant doesnt mean wrong. We all know the strictest definition of absolute is as you say. Its just as obvious thats not how the OP was using the term, even offering examples to further clarify. Do you know why nobody else made the point you did? They weren't being pedantic.
Even after you admitted to understanding what was meant you didnt bother to answer the question. You were only interested in sharing your superior understanding of absolute (thanks champ!) with us regardless of any engagement of the OP. Pedantic.
Quoting DingoJones
So, you are both admitting that you are not giving the word absolute the meaning given in philosophy. This means that this discussion is not meant to be a philosophical discussion. If this is not a philosophical discussion, what kind of discussion is it? In other words: what are you talking about?
Quoting DingoJones
Alas!
Pfff. I rest my case.
No idea if what you say is correct. I have no real apetite for this line of thinking. I am not a scientist or a metaphysician. Personally, I doubt that humans will ever be able to do much more than hold up tentative models that endure for a time and are then displaced. To borrow from Richard Rorty - I think we can justify ideas, but I think there's not much we can say about truth. And what do we get by adding the word 'absolute' to truth? Is it like the final invoice which hits our desk? Or is it a god surrogate? :wink:
You're missing the forest for the trees (thus "pedantic"). :roll:
Respected.
Quoting Tom Storm
That it is.
Not sure to which point exactly you refer with that. But I can't see why providing proofs isn't the business of any science . Including natural science also. At the measure that proofs can be given of course.
I could say exactly the same, but I don't, because it looks like a way to avoid the responsibility of giving explanation.
It is easy to say "you don't understand". It reminds me the story of the emperor's new clothes.
It's physic's science work for sure though. And not any science can tell us more about universe than physics.
The discussion seems very clear. He is asking us:-
Quoting dimosthenis9
:up: Everyone seems to be rifling though Plato's cabinet...
Exactly. It was the main reason for starting that thread in fact, cause I was considering of the things that actually we can be sure about the universe, even following the most guaranteed humanity path for knowledge, science. And I couldn't find any except the 2 things that I mentioned.
It was kind of a scary thought when I first realize it I have to admit. That the things that we can actually be sure about aren't that many at all.
Time is infinite in the past and into the future.
Hmm.Why are you so sure time exists indeed as to be also infinite? It's a damn huge mystery yet for science what actually time is.
I don't say that your statement is wrong (cause I don't know either) but I just wanna know what is that makes you hold that belief as your absolute truth.
I am sorry. Everything is not proven to exist. Nothing is proven to exist, except the mind that thinks.
Quoting dimosthenis9
And unfortunately those two which we can be sure of that you chose nobody can be sure of. Sorry.
Fair question. The proof exists as you can't name any time in the past that had not been preceeded by five minutes, and can't name any time in the future that won't be followed by five minutes.
Well I m not into this line of thinking. Solipsism isn't my taste.
Quoting god must be atheist
Sorry I m not sure I got that.
This is not solipsism, my dear friend. This is philosophy. You are into fairy tales and fantasies. "What if", and "I see it, so it must exist." Some call that philosophy, true, but I don't.
I am not saying that everything does not exist. I am saying we can't be sure about that. Big difference.
I am stepping out. I don't care to argue about this.
I would have bet ahead of time that you don't.
And I say that we can be sure. Whatever you want to call it Solipsism or any other philosophical theory name I don't agree. I believe that except my mind other minds and things exist too. I respect your view but I don't agree. Simply.
. Quoting god must be atheist
Respected.
Quoting god must be atheist
Yeah sure you would.
If we're part of the universe, there is no "external world." There's just the world, and we're part of the world. If you seek absolute truths which aren't "human-ish" then you will have to find another world. We interact with the rest of the world as we must given our capacities and our place in it, and if that means there is no "absolute truth" so be it (so IS it, in fact). You put "absolute truth" beyond our reach in that case, making it insignificant. We cannot know it and have no reason to know it.
I am, but I'm not so sure about you.
This universe is in motion but there could be others.
All is physically connected but in a limited way.
Although it looks this way, it is likely neither true nor false because the universe is relative and multi-valued.
Without artificial things simple dialectic is worthless. Why would anything have identity or a name?
I don't see what changes to my question but ok let's just say world.
Quoting Ciceronianus
Thanks I think I like it here. I will stay. I just seek for the limits of the truth that human knowledge can reach. How dip can dig into the absolute truth. Is it clear?
Quoting Ciceronianus
How can that mean that there isn't absolute truth? Sure there is. It's another thing if we can ever reach it.
Quoting Ciceronianus
Not if you are curious.
Which would be totally stable? And not connected in some way with the others too?
Quoting magritte
What you mean with limited way?
Quoting magritte
True.
Quoting magritte
What you mean by that?
This is different from what you seem to be proposing, that our scientific knowledge of things external to our experience should form our most basic beliefs, but it's strange to me because there's so much to presuppose before admitting scientific facts. However, I do also agree that, if we take for granted our general experience and knowledge and such, we can construct truths that seem fundamental to the universe, beyond ourselves. Here are mine:
1. There is a reality (as shown by the reasoning above).
2. Reality is composed of relationships. That is to say, things exist in relation to other things, but the "things" are not fundamental necessarily, only the relations.
3. As such, there cannot be one thing.
4. I exist in a reality, hence other things exist too. I know this because the experiences I feel are the relationship that unite me with other things.
5. And more pragmatically, I feel emotion, most fundamentally the axis of good vs bad, things I desire vs things I avoid.
I am unsure of anything else I feel I know as absolutely. But there are many things I believe that, in conjunction with these truths, build the basis for a lot of my philosophy.
It's kind similar to mine that everything is united, connected. And as extension of it I do believe also that everything is related to others.
Nice notion that relations are more fundamental than things themselves. Never actually thought it before that way.
Quoting Jerry
Really strong argument against those who doubt of the certainty of any other existence except our own minds. Good.
I'm not sure anyone can do better than "I think therefore I am." I'll take a shot at something more in line with my way of thinking. This is Stephen Mitchell's translation of Verse 1 of the Tao Te Ching:
[i]The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.
Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.
Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.[/i]
It strikes me that what Descartes wrote in 1640 has a lot in common with what Lao Tzu wrote 2,000 years earlier.
I don't understand what this means, it needs context, Bret. Can you demonstrate what you mean by this is a couple of sentences. What is a potent force? And how is human consciousness an example of such? And can you show us how this potent force is more potent (what does potent mean in this context?) compared to, say, nature?
Great spirits meet in the crossroads of all the great questions. Nice quote what you presented here.
Quoting Jerry
I agree with Jerry here. I think variety/diversity is a "law of nature;" it is absolutely necessary that there exists more than one thing (it cannot be the case that there exists only one thing, as Jerry said). However, I do not think relations are strictly fundamental in the sense that they depend on variety while the opposite I think is not logical; this is metaphysics though, sorry (although thinking about it, I understand that there cannot be interactions between objects beyond the cosmic horizon and us EDIT: I am not sure about fields; their value is supposed to approach zero as distance approaches infinity, but do they expand with space?).
cogitatio fit, ergo cogitatio est, not that "I exist".
The political parties of the USA are not united for the benefit of the USA. The wheels on my car are not united since they turn at different rates sometimes.
OK, neither of these examples seems to meet your definition, which seems to have to do with both objects affected by the other.
A couple better examples then: The iceberg that sank the Titanic was not affected by me, but I was affected by it.
Similarly, the fairly distant galaxy EGSY8p7 can be seen from Earth, but Earth cannot be seen by it. No light or other signal sent from Earth at any time will ever reach EGSY8p7 regardless of the time you give it to get there.
Not sure who 'we'; is here, but the science community has a pretty good idea about what it is, and it isn't something that moves, at least per the only classic theory of the universe (relativity) that has made any decent predictions. We don't know if the postulates of the theory are correct of course, but there has been no alternative proposed that I know of in the 20th century.
I wouldn't dare to commit to this one by the way:
Have you heard of Poincaré's recurrence theorem? In short: a closed system in thermodynamic equilibrium will (if you wait long enough) randomly reach a state of lower entropy, And then increase again, so you get fluctuations in entropy. Moreover, if I may refer to one of my favourite little books "The Character of Physical Law" Feynman makes a good case for physical laws to be symmetrical and therefore in theory allowing for objects to fall upwards, time to flow in reverse and entropy to decrease.
Yes, I'm familiar with some of Poincaré's and more of Feynman's works, and while I won't quarrel with these scientific geniuses, I'll point out that these are (no doubt, highly informed) speculations at best and, as far as I know, have no experimental / applied bearing on non-equilibrium statistical mechanics, physical cosmology or information science.
Sure it is.
Quoting noAxioms
Everything you mentioned here is still united with each other. I didn't say that everything is connected immediately with each other. I m not connected with Galaxy EGSY but both me and it are part of the huge universal chain. Nothing I can think of is totally isolated.
Something doesn't need to have immediate connection as to be considered united with something else.
If I tight myself with a rope and tight the other end of the rope at a tree, I might not be immediately connected with the tree but me, the rope and the tree are all still united.Same with a chain.
We are part of a united system (universe), i can't understand why you see unity as that everything immediately attached to each other. Same with your wheels,they are part of your car, they connect with the road as you speed up, with the molecules of the air etc etc.
Quoting noAxioms
By we, I mean humanity. Scientific community. And no we are farrr from being sure what time is and if it is stable. We have different speculations about that among scientific community and it is a great mystery. Relativity considers time as stable? Hmm.. Not sure about that. Waves of the spacetime when huge stars exploding isn't that a motion??
Quoting noAxioms
Check LQG.
Could you explain that a little more? You mean that as relations to exist, it first presupposes "things" to exist as to get related? That's why you think variety of things more fundamental?
Yeah it is at best a very good speculation, but still that doesn't make it certainty.
So you think that we are condemned to uncertainty about the general picture? I don't want to admit it but it might probably be the case.
Truth is I haven't really done my homework on the subject to make any definitive claims; so cum grano salis with regard to my statements. Agrippa's/Münchhausen's trilemma are knockout punches to any and all forms of dogmatism. I'll leave it at that for now. Still working on it; all in good time I suppose!
What you do matters.
You mean in relation with others as society or that our actions matter even in universal function? If yes in what way?
Ok got it now where you stand.I can't say that I m in agreement with your statement, though consciousness fascinates me the most.It is a great mystery and as to be honest I would really wish consciousness to play some universal feedback role as you mention.
I have thought about that too and it's my "secret hope" but I have to be honest with myself and admit that there isn't any evidence at all for that. So far at least. So it's far from considering it as a sure thing.
If there is "evidence" for anything (i.e. evidence has a cognitive and empirical value) then evidence is evidence of the naturalistic role of consciousness....
Do you really think that if we're not absolutely certain about something we're uncertain about it, i.e. that we can't rely on it, that we're doubtful about it, that it's unknown? I wonder how you live if that's the case. Are you God, or perhaps a good friend of His, to invoke absolutes?
That is the case indeed, either you like it or not.
Quoting Ciceronianus
I just try to learn how to swim into chaos.That's all. Not easy though.
Or else I would have to grab tightly from a lie, which I don't want to do so, nor developing any close relationship with God and His friends is in my plans either.
Yet still though isn't an evidence for its universal feedback role.
I think, therefore my thought exists (Is that right?)
If my thought exists, I exist
Cogito ergo sum
Cogito ergo sum
If a person with Cotard's syndrome doubts she exists, she thinks
Therefore, if I think I don't exist, I exist.
But consider the idea that our experience might be illusory, that is, everything we know about the world we live in isn't reality proper (for example a hologram or mischievous devil or whatnot). Does that mean we don't know anything, what we experience is false or that nothing truly does exist besides our minds? I don't think so. Even if that's all true, I think that the very fact that we experience the illusion makes the illusion as real as any other reality. I'll suffice to say that it's because existence isn't isolated to one notion of ultimate reality, but baked into the relationships between things. So the very fact that there is an illusion I experience makes us "real".
That's kind of a mouthful, so I'll stop before my reasoning becomes (more?) convoluted.
1. There are no Absolute Truths
2. There are no Absolute Truths
Yeah we might not know for sure what is the exact form of what is presented to us by our senses but we can be sure St least that there is "something" indeed.
The form that this something is presented to us is one of the forms indeed that it can be presented. But what other forms it can take or what is the actual form of it (if there is only one) or if there is something more in it, we can never be sure about it.
No? Are you really sure?
I think death is an absolute truth. Sooner or later it comes to us and is unstoppable. So, we can consider the act of born, live and die as absolute truths.
Fair enough. Though it could also count for an absolute truth itself
Something that can't be doubted. That is an undeniable fact and can be totally sure about it. But cause such kind of truths with universal application are extremely debatable. I wanna know what each person individually consider as "absolute truths".
An absolute truth is a thought that accords with reality. I guess a solipsist wouldn't have truth, but if there is more than oneself, truth is when you know something about it. I guess it's also true that truth about yourself, even if you are sovereign, and all alone, is possible in that the thought would accurately understand the self, instead of having a delusion of some sort
If someone is evil, he can be sure about that even if he tries to hide it from himself. Sartre on bad faith
Instinctually he knows it indeed. I agree.
See, and I thought that is exactly what my statement describes.
So you doubted you were posting your response to my post when you responded? You were unsure you were doing so--perhaps because you were uncertain you were typing on or using whatever device you used? Or is the fact you responded, and used whatever you used to do so, examples of absolute truths?
Do you doubt you're reading this, or that there is something to be read?
Isn't that kinda shooting yourself in the foot?
The negation of there are no truths is an absolute truth! :snicker:
No I don't doubt at all to any of all these you mentioned and I wonder how you get that idea. Weird. All these though are human concepts that have nothing to do with universal function.
I just doubt that we can have any kind of certainty so far about the function of the universe. And if we ever be able to actually see the bigger picture.
All of what is stated already from the very first post of that thread.
Would I have claimed it otherwise? :grin:
Quoting javi2541997
Right. You think. Isn't that subjective? An "absolute truth" --if it existed-- would be objective, wouldn't it? "Truths" are created by humans. Hence they are always subjective. Even if most people agree to something, i.e. there is a consensus, a common agreement abiut it, this something will still be subjective, simply because it has been created someone.
Yet, there's a paradox in my previous reply. Can you find what? (It's easy now that I have pointed it out,)
No I don't see it that way at all. Each of us has his own truths which consider them as undeniable. I don't see any harm at sharing them with others.
Yes, I guess I found the paradox in your reply.
A truth, if it ever existed, needs to be objectively. But, paradoxically, the nature and sense of truths depend on humans's perspective and consensus.
So, a truth would need to be subjective to exist.
Right! You almost got it! :smile: It's a paradox. Or, a self-contradiction, if you prefer. Of the kind, "I'm lying" (Liar's paradox) :grin:
Moreover, it cannot stand for another reason: How you can prove that someting does not exist --an "absolute truth"-- if it doesn't? It's like trying to prove that God does not exist! Well, you can. By reductio ad absurdum. My favorite way is by asking: "If there were an absosute reality, who will be out there to tell?" Whoever would claim that, it would be an opinion, something subjective --not objective, i.e. absolute.
So, we can restate "There are no Absolute Truths" so that it does not contain a self-contradition, as follows: "Truth is always subjective". Which also applies to and agrees with the statement itself. The statement is subjective, alright, but it does not mean that there is an absolute truth! :wink:
Nice! Yet, the paradox I was referring to is a little more simple. It's a self-contradiction: The statement "There are no Absolute Truths" is used as an absolute truth itself! :smile:
(See my reply to @dimosthenis9 at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/727595 for how to "remedy" this.)
Yeah but despite human existence or not,universe has to have a function no? Well that function has to work in some way. Right? Not necessarily have purpose at all, but there must be still a function.
That function remains the same despite if there are humans or any kind of thinking existence as to observe it . It was there even before human species appear to Earth.
That is what I would call the absolute truth for universe. If we were ever able to fully understand its function. The way "it works".
I get what you mean that every thought that mind produces(like the one I just made here) is subjective to that mind itself. But imo human mind has the ability to form some crisis that can be absolute ideed.Not many at all and surely limited but still there are some I think. Such statements for example like "we humans are part of the universe" or even "universe has to have a certain function" I consider them as undeniable facts. Anyway that is the way I see it at least.
Thanks! Your thoughts and comments are so interesting, indeed! :up:
:pray:
The speed of light in a vacuum
The mass and charge of an electron
The direction of conduction is from hot to cold
etc.
Certainly.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Yes, I undestand what you mean. You could also call that an "absolute reality". But see, discussions like these, based on concepts like "truth" and "reality", are like walking in a mine field. There are a lot of traps. Or like walking on ice, where you can easlily slip.
These terms, and the concepts they represent, like any other term, are created by humans. They do not exist in and have no meaning for the Universe. The Universe is what it is and does what it does. It is Man who creates "truths" and "realities" by trying to undestand, explain and describe how it functions and what it consists of, since the beginning of civilization. And the proof that this knowledge is subjective --i.e. there's no absolute knowledge-- is that during all that time until today and for the days to come, this knowledge has changed, is chamging and will change: new theories are added and old ones are modified or even vanish.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Absolute means unchangeable and unqualified. It cannot even be measured or determined exactly, "exact" being also an attribute of "absolute".We say "absolute zero". Can we really measure such a thing with certainty? Absolute is unmeasurable. Like eternity. I don't think that "absolute" even exists at all. We can only use the word in figures of speech like "I'm absolute on that", "with absolute certainty", "I have absolute faith on him" and so on. The more examples come to my mind, the more silly they sound to me! :grin:
Thinking (happens), therefore thinking exists.
But humans are of the universe, we are an aspect of the universe made manifest, what we think, invent, debate, kill, save, disassemble, assemble is all in and of the universe. You seem to imply that humans and the universe are separate in some sense, are you suggesting that is so.
Tottaly agree. That's why I ask for each person's individual truths cause of the exact uncertain nature of the search for absolute truths. It is a mine field indeed.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
It is subjective but at the end, doesn't it dig in deeper in the basic ultimate knowledge of the function of the universe. It is a limited knowledge, sure it is. But still except for humans it must represent something from the bigger picture also, no?Even a tiny percentage of it if you want.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Yeah I got what you mean. But don't stick so much to the word itself. Just wanted to emphasize things that someone thinks that are undeniable facts about the function of universe.
So it is safe to state that thinking is a phenomenon that appears in universe. That universe enables the existence of the phenomenon of thoughts. Right?
That statement for me for example is an undeniable universal truth. If that helps to make my point even clearer.
So you're saying these are absolute truths?
Quoting Pantagruel
What does this mean?
Just playing the paradox card.
The only absolute truth is there are no absolute truths.
The only true fact is there are no true facts.
That I am in a dialog with the universe by way evidence, I guess would be one way of characterizing it.
I think you are responding to my first question. Self-refuting axioms are some of my favorite things.
Quoting Pantagruel
I'm, not trying to be a dick but I don't understand this either. What is a dialogue with the universe? And how is it a feedback loop? :smile:
Could you explain that a little more? You mean that as relations to exist, it first presupposes "things" to exist as to get related? That's why you think variety of things more fundamental?
Ok. First, to be honest with you, I cannot say I completely understand what I am trying to say; lest's just say it is work in progress. Second, I am equating a relation to a transfer of information (an interaction - a change/deviation from the ground state/behaviour/nature/properties/form of an entity/particular/object/thing/individual due to an external effect*). That said, imagine a scenario in which information is being transferred. The mere action of transferring information disturbs the environment/space in which the transfer takes place; this disruption requires the possibility of variation. If no change, either in the environment or that which is affected by the transfer of information - which is ultimately part of the environment -, can take place (for x or y reason), I do not see how there can be a relation, at all. Again, change requires the possibility of variation, for change is between two different states. If relations depend on change, then they depend on variation.
* In my opinion, an interaction requires a change in something due to the interaction, a change that would be absent in the absence of the interaction. In other words, an interaction occurs when a change in some point of space causes a change in another point of space, or spacetime if you want, and considering objects as properties of space.
Now, I want to apologize for the very vague language, I guess I am trying to generalize as much as possible, which might be a huge mistake; nevertheless, I'll do it once more just for the fun of it and say that a relation cannot occur between the exact same thing(s), and the possibility for variation must exist before a relation can take place. So, even if things exist, if they do not change in any of their properties relative to each other simply because they cannot vary (they cannot adopt other conformations other than their ground conformation) and hence cannot be affected, there won't be a relation between them. I am gonna stop here cause I am sure I am making it more complicated, but if you'd like to continue the discussion on the necessity of variation, I am glad to do it with you or anyone else. I think is an overlooked phenomenon in metaphysics for its ubiquity and our habituation to it as a result, and I think it should be looked at more seriously, better than how I do it, for sure.
Leaving Descartes aside. You, 180proof hold as an absolute truth your existence, your mind's existence and universe's existence too? . Do you have enough "proofs" for that or you are skeptical?
Personally I strongly do.
I think it's not an imaginary scenario at all. It is transferred indeed. The great question though is what actually information is?!
Quoting Daniel
Wow that was mind-fucking my friend I have to admit! Apologies accepted.hahahh
But you do have a point here I think. So to sum up you say:
1. As a relation to happen between 2 "things" there must be a change occurring to at least to one of these things as a result of that interaction-relation. No change then no relation. Right?
2. As change to happen it presupposes the ability of the variation of these "things" from the very beginning.
3.Therefore relations presupposes the "things" to have variation ability already.
Did I do my homework right? Is that your line of thinking? If yes I have to admit it is really interesting. It has surely a point and worths to be considered.
The only thing I m skeptical about is this
Quoting Daniel
I don't know if that stands as to be honest. Which in fact leads me into a doubt about your first premise.About relation and the need of change. But I can't tell for sure it is wrong either. I need to think about it.
Interesting. I personally don't see how the word 'absolute' placed in front of some words does anything useful. It's often a way of rhetorically exaggerating or reinforcing something. Surely zero needs no absolute. To my thinking absolute zero is no different than zero.
I think I can say I am not 'absolutely certain' about something because in this context absolute is a way of describing a continuum of certainty and doubt. But there is no continuum of zero. But there may be a continuum of 'empty'. E.g., the box was mostly empty vs the box was absolutely/completely empty.
I really can't understand why you have to make things so complicated. I understand that is your type of writing but really I find it totally unnecessary sometimes. Anyway.
Quoting 180 Proof
Demonstrated or not the question is simple.
a. is your existence a truth(true fact) for you? or b. You aren't sure about it as to consider it truth since you can't prove it?
A simple a. or b. would be more than enough and highly appreciated.
Well, if you receive data (which for you is "evidence") as an input, which is generated as a function of your actions, then that is a feedback loop. You know, cybernetics, systems theory, neural networks, all of that good stuff.
How can you presuppose existence? What presupposes must exist or it could not presuppose. It is more of a transcendental condition, don't you think?
edit: It is more like a syllogism with the major term omitted. That which thinks exists. Not so much a presupposition as an instantiation. Like a truth-functional truth. If x is red then x is coloured. If I think, I must be.
I think this is one of those cases where a comma would be handy. Although I think slightly differently about these "things" and "relations", which goes back to me claiming relations to be more fundamental than things.
Quoting Daniel
In my reasoning, a relation isn't any sort of change, it's a description of existence. Relations are the rules by which "things" are produced. The simplest relation is a pure binary relation, in which the relation is simply that the relata are differenti.e. relata A is not relata B, and relata B is not relata A. This may seem silly, but I think it's the grounding for some of the most fundamental ideas in philosophy. In propositional logic, we can construe truth and falsity as this binary relation. There's nothing about a false truth value that makes it false, other than that it's not true, and vice versa. More contentiously, I'd argue that this principle could be applied to a metaphysics, that the very idea of being requires that there is not being as well. I could (and would, in a separate thread) argue that this principle explains the reason there can't be nothing, or, more precisely, only nothing. Could "nothing" still exist, despite existence? Maybe. Anyway. . .
Quoting Daniel
Correct, except we have it at opposites. For me, it's not that a variety of things must exist for there to be a relation between them, it's that the variety in the things is composed by the relation, or that it is the relation that makes them varied in the first place. It seems like you might be imagining a universe in which there are things, varied things, but they don't interact in any way, so there are no relations between them. But I would continue on to say, if there are no relations between them, and they are just these disembodied things, then this is the same as if they exist alone, and as we agreed, there cannot be one thing.
Lastly, I would ask, how can things be varied if there is no commonality between the things upon which they vary?
May as well ask which truths are pink.
Quoting Jerry
Excellent question. I am thinking about it, and it makes me wonder if you are asking if it is possible for two things to have nothing in common.
You didn't point out anything at all neither explained why it doesn't make sense. It makes perfect sense since it's a simple question.
"Is your existence and universe's existence true facts for you?". Nothing complicated or mystical about it as you try to present it. But you just avoid to answer it. No problem.
You take for granted your existence but you don't wanna say that you consider it as truth for you. What is the actual difference between these 2 only you know. You just go in circles here.
You say "taking your existence for granted" presupposes your existence already but that doesn't make it still true for you. That sounds logical to you aw?
As something to presupposes something else then that something must exist .No?
Anyway you just play games and I m sure you are aware of it, cause I consider you a clever person.Hiding behind some "philosophical authenticity" as you usually do. So be it then.
Let us, the humble folks, go on with the barstool conversation then and you are free to go to your academic conference.
Sorry I don't understand what you wanna say.
Hard to talk about such abstract and foundational things, it's as if we don't have the proper language to describe it
Fine!
Just that "absolute truths" is as clear as "pink truths"... that is, not very clear at all. I know what a truth is, but what a pink truth is, I've little idea; same for an absolute truth.
In your explanation, your 'remove everything "human-ish"' you seem to be asking something like "what are the most basic physical principles", which would be a good question for physicist, not for we lay philosophers.
I ask for personal absolute truths that can be as much "free" as they can from everything human-ish. As much as that is possible of course cause totally I don't think they can be.
Things that someone personally thinks as undeniable facts for the universal function. Simple as that. No need to be a physicist to answer that. A simple philosopher would do I think.
Thank you for the response.
Human consciousness is the most potent force in the known Universe because it is (we are) capable of overcoming anything. Our species is quite impressive like that, IMO. Human consciousness, however relatively infantile when considering the greater trajectory of our long-term evolution as a species, can approach any/every object and integrate/assimilate said thing into our understanding of what's possible.
It is also important to recognize that human consciousness is Nature, herself. We are not separate from the Universe we inhabit. We are an expression of "it". We (as Carl Sagan implied, in one way or another) are the Universe reflecting upon itself. This is a basic contemplation of the potency and sheer significance of human consciousness.
I don't know how to explain it, really. Suffice to say I don't agree with arguments that the human mind is limited, such that it could (even in theory) never answer answerable questions or never solve solvable problems.
Divine fallacy. If you havta make a mistake, do it in god mode! :up:
Life forms (microbes) appeared in the Universe a billion of years ago. And from that primitive life animals and humans have been developed. In that sense, life may be said to be part of the Universe.
At the same time, however, we are separate units, independent of the Universe. And the Universe is independent of us. (It existed before us and if we never existed, it would still exist. And it will most probably continue to exist, even if the human race or even all the life in it is extinct.)
But the essential point here is that we are "thinking" units, with a mind. And we create concepts, which exist only for us. The Universe, as we know it, and independently of us, doesn't "think" and doesn't have or care about concepts. It is what it is and does what it does. That's all.
Don't know how that relates to be honest.
Try harder! Either you're lazy or I'm a fool! :snicker:
Yes, I see this. And you did well. It is very interesting and something valuable to know!
Quoting dimosthenis9
Yes, it does.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Yes, unfortunately I have this habit, sticking to words! :grin:
So, maybe we can agree on using the word/term "belief" or "opinion" instead of "absolute truth"?
Besides, all philosophy is made of, is opinions! So, I think that "strong beliefs" can be considered as "undeniable facts", that you mentioned and are the closest to "absolute truths" for a person.
There. I now got unstuck from "absolute truths"! And I can also walk safely, without mines around! :grin:
Are you insinuating that this is a self-contradiction? Because it you do, you are right! :grin:
(OK. I have already talked about that in two previous posts. You can check the first one if you like, at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/727595)
That's not a dichotomy. But I suppose you think I'm saying humans are so exceptional that there can't be a natural explanation for it? Not quite, I'm happy to say that the human mind is a natural, even material thing. However, I do admit the quote-on-quote power of the mind does raise questions about our purpose and why we're here and such. I do consider supernatural explanations to those sorts of questions in a very particular sense.
So maybe you're right.
Exactly. :ok:
Quoting Tom Storm
Yet, "certain" implies "absolutely". Otherwise, we would say "almost certain", which lies somewhere on the continuum that you mention. But that continuum has "certain" at one end. We can't go past it.
Quoting Tom Storm
No, there certainly isn't. Although, zero can be considered an "absolute" only if we take into consideration the conditions under which temperature is measured and only under these circumstances. E.g. the precision of and therefore the indications on the thermometer with which we measure a temperature may differ from those of another thermometer. Or the themometer itself might not function well. And so on.
Quoting Tom Storm
In the box example you mentioned, I consider the word "empty" as an absolute. "Mostly empty", which you mention, is relative, and certainly different from just "empty". Besides, what does "emptiness" mean, other than a state of containing nothing?
Yet, there are other occasions where we use the word "empty" in a relative sense, or figuratively, if you like. E.g. We say "This place is empty (in a party, with some disappointment)" to mean too few people in it, not what we expected and wished to be the case. Or "My glass is empty (calling for a refill)", although there's still some liquid in it.
Ah, ok, I understand your viewpoint better now. I agree based on the reference frame you are describing but I favour another reference frame based on the law of conservation of energy or energy is neither created or destroyed and the totality of energy in the universe has remained unchanged since it was 'concentrated' as a singularity. Only the form of energy changed as variety combined in every way random happenstance allowed. That's how life, and eventually we, arrived. Lifeforms simply disassemble back into the spare parts they came from after death. Such spare parts then become available again for reuse. There is no stage imo, when a human and the universe become separated. Not at conception, during life or after death. Due to entropy(ageing), we will disassemble and dissipate but our component subatomic constituents are not destroyed. Our individuality is lost as it also disassembles and dissipates (again imo) but newborn humans are a variety of all possible human characters and personalities.
I tried to think of a good example for consideration. I decided to try using one often cited to try to improve common understanding of the concept of quantum entanglement. I have added little bits to it.
Consider someone who has knitted a pair of gloves for themselves so they created a left hand and right hand glove. A relationship is then established between the gloves based on utility or purpose. (left hand, right hand warmth, protection). No information physically passes between the gloves at any point in time except via an observer or observational system that has knowledge of the relationship established by the system which created the gloves.
If one day the owner of the gloves goes to the other side of the world on holiday, opens their suitcase and notices that one glove is missing (lets say it was left in a drawer at home). When the observer confirms that they have the left hand glove, they instantly know, via the relationship between the gloves, that the missing glove (or glove state) is 'right hand'. This knowledge can therefore be known at 'faster than light speed' (quantum entanglement) and the state of the missing glove can be known instantly, regardless of the distance between the two gloves. Information cannot travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum but the system of entanglement means a quantum state can be known instantly based on the concept of relationship or RELATIVITY.
So, could we say that the 'logic state' of the 'left glove, right glove binary relationship is an absolute truth? If you know or can know one state then the state of the other is an absolute truth. I think it is.
The charge of an electron is also an absolute truth from the standpoint that it is negative. All electrons ( or excitations in the electron field) are identical. The charge is -1.602 x 10^ -19 Coulombs but with better measuring equipment that quantity could be even more precise.
I think this is the valid point being made by @Alkis Piskas, no measurement can ever be an absolute and perhaps even the speed of light in a vacuum can be measured more precisely but to me, that is irrelevant as that does not mean an absolute value does not exist, it just means we will never be able to measure it.
I also don't see what relevance the 'paradox card' has.
All paradoxes seem to me to be mathematical stretches of propositional logic, and little more than that.
'The only absolute truth is there are no absolute truths' is just a propositional logic statement it is no evidence at all, than absolute truths don't exist. In the same way that the liars paradox does not prove that a liar or lie's don't exist or the barber's paradox prove that barbers don't exist.
This unfortunately also means that the omnipotent god paradox also does not disprove god exists, but hey ho, the universe does allow for whimsy!
Yes, I understood this to be the entire point of your OP. For me, what you are describing as absolute truths translates to "fundamental beliefs". Collingwood calls them absolute presuppositions. Whatever the name, those things which are essential to one's being. I personally think that such constitute the very fabric of what we mean by consciousness (which I guess would be "the" fundamental belief for me). Consciousness is what it commits to believing. I have always called this the "ontological gamble," we stake our existence on the veracity of what we choose to believe.
That's an interesting and quite scientific viewpoint. (I'm not good though in Physics to judge.)
So, according to this viewpoint, and if I undestood well, since humans belong to the Universe, or better, since humans and the Universe are One, human concepts belong to the Universe and the Universe contains only absolute truths, right? OK.
This is close to my viewpoint but needs some tweaking. I concur with everything except 'The universe contains only absolute truths.' No, the universe probably does contain absolute truths but since we still don't know enough about the detailed structure and working of the universe and we can't make an 'absolute measurement,' then we can only talk about 'relative' absolute truths imo.
The most accurate measure for the speed of light in a vacuum is published as 299 792 458 metres per second but I am sure amongst the science community they have a much more accurate value. I might randomly guestimate it (for fun) at 299 792 458.14159 meters per second. Perhaps new tech equipment will improve this in the future. Could we ever reach an absolute? well, maybe?
We would need to identify some 'change' instant.
At what exact moment will the balance tip?
Can we add one more microgram, picogram, atom, quark(3x10^-30 kg)
How close do we need to get before we can declare a value or property an absolute truth?
I understand your position of 'how can we ever declare anything an absolute, if it has not been tested under every possible condition the universe can present?' At least I think that is your position and I agree but the universe also allows you to 'round measurements up' and declare relative absolutes.
Perhaps we can find common ground there. I think you accept 'relative' absolute truths and I think you suggest we can never do any better. I think we can always get more and more accurate.
Astrophysicists seem pretty sure that if you go smaller than a Planck length then you instantly get a black hole, so the Planck length may be an absolute limit of how small spatial extent can be before a black hole forms.
It is also my view that every thought that has ever formed in the brain of any lifeform which has ever existed or ever will exist is a consequence of the ways in which quanta can combine or interact and all such quanta is of and exists within the universe. In accordance with the OP, I would be prepared to label such a statement as one of my personal absolute truths.
I would like to hear more about that. So you think mind function is a quantum procedure like Penrose suggests?That quantum mechanic phenomena are going on inside the brain as to produce what we call "thinking"? And when you say that such quanta is of and exist within the universe, you mean that they could carry some kind of information also?
Quoting universeness
I agree on that.
Well, I am intrigued by his hypothesis and that of his partner Stuart Hameroff. Did you view my thread on the topic? Consciousness, microtubules and the physics of the brain.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Not as 'fundamental quanta' but yes, when fundamental quanta is combined/processes into information.
IPO (input-process-output) is a CYCLE, which I do think exists at a very base level in the brain as well as at macro levels. I do think phenomena such as superposition, entanglement and quntum tunneling are likely to be employed within human consciousness despite the current unpopularity of Penrose and Hameroff's hypothesis.
After all, they have found examples of quantum phenomena being used in the animal kingdom
Well you can call it that way too. I made on purpose that thread as expression of personal beliefs/truths (or any other word you choose) first cause I m really curious to know what others beliefs are and second as to avoid the strict definitions (a loving game here on TPF) which in that particular case aren't necessary at all since we talk about personal truths. The concept of the question remains the same.
Beliefs/statements/crisis/etc that someone holds as truths/fundamental/undeniable/absolute etc about universe .In general exactly what you mentioned here :
Quoting Pantagruel
And yeah I think you are right. For sure such kind of beliefs play a crucial role to our shaping and developing of our consciousness. It's like a gun where we turn its barrel towards the fundamental beliefs we hold and focus there. Which leads us here:
Quoting Pantagruel
I want to be careful here. I do raise a small eyebrow of interest towards those who posit a universe in which humans may be components of a future 'universal mind,' a kind of panpsychist style emerging existence. I can envisage a future transhuman state where humans can connect and communicate and perhaps even act as a collective but I am now in the world of pure projection and perhaps even just sci-fi. I am not suggesting that information can be carried from human to human by some yet untapped telepathy, which would be possible if we only understood the quantum mechanics of human consciousness. But if QM is a fundamental part of the universe then it seems intuitive that it would be part of human consciousness. I have to temper this however as cosmologists are forever warning of the dangers of using intuitive thinking when trying to understand the workings of the universe.
No but I will check it. I have read about though how Penrose thinks that Quantum phenomena are possible to take place in brain's microtubules and I found it really interesting.
Quoting universeness
I do find it possible also. It surely has a logic base but we know that just logic in that cases isn't enough as to consider something like that true.
Quoting universeness
Ok I think I got what you mean.
Quoting universeness
I raise both in that cases. Hahaha
You are Mad and Fool!! :wink:
Now I could be wrong so then my statement isn't an absolute truth
Exactly. Showing that something is relative, doesn't mean that there is no absolute. That's why I re-phrased the self-contradictory, self-refuting "There are no absolute truths" to "Truth is always subjective", which also agrees with itself, since it is itself a subjective statement, Buut it does not mean that there is an absolute truth.
As for the term "paradox", I agree that it is quite overrated, but it still serves a good purpose as a reference point covering cases of arguments, statements, descriptions, problems --e.g. "Bertrand's Paradox", which is also a problem-- etc., containing or consisting of logical inconsistencies --like self-contradition and self-refutal-- as well as cases that are inconsistent with facts or physical laws, etc. Inconsistencies that most of the times can be very easily detected. A classic example are the famous Zeno's paradoxes "Achilles and the Tortoise" and "Arrow paradox". They are based on a fallacy: that time and space are discontinuous, and thus (infinitesimal) divisible, whareas they are continuous (in nature). So, they are only "apparent" paradoxes, since their inconsistency can be easily detected. Yet, the word "paradox" seems to always create some magical attraction. :smile:
(As a lot of ancient Greek words do ... In this case, "paradox" comes from "paradoxos" = "para-" (= distinct from or contrary to or parallel to) + "doxa" (= opinion).)
:lol:
Yes, I thought so! :smile: (I only tried to connect the subject of "concepts" with that of the topic, i.e. "absolute truths", before it goes out of sight, as it is usually is the case in these discussions! :grin:)
Quoting universeness
This is certain. But then, even if we arrive at a perfect measurement, we must not forget the "Relativity Theory". If this still holds --I'm ignorant as far as developments in Physics are concerned!-- then any precision of measurement and talk about absolute values have no much meaning anymore, do they?
As for the subject of quanta, I plead innocent. I have nothing to do with it! :grin:
I don't think that helps as the word 'always' means at every moment in time, past, present and future which could make 'truth is always subjective,' an objective truth and thus absolute. Also If 'truth is always subjective' is itself subjective then it may not be true.
I agree with your points on paradox.
:up: fair enough, but I suspect that it has everything to do with you!
Oh, they absolutely do, especially when it comes to developing new tech. There are many many examples of 'very precise settings' that will allow a large complicated system to work and any deviation either way and the system fails. Theists even call some such settings 'fine tuning' arguments for god. :roll:
A setting of 6.9999999999998 and the system fails but at 6.99999999999999999992, ITS ALIVE!
Just my own musings, don't panic, no Frankenstein monster on the loose around the hoose quite yet.
Hmm, never mind.
Holly shit. This is exactly how a strict definition game always ends up. Like a dog chasing its own tail. At the end not being able to talk about anything at all.But people have to talk! That divine/universal/natural(you name it) gift of speech is what grows our spirit as humans bigger and bigger and we have to make the most of it.Exchanging ideas, feelings, fears, everything. So let the people talk.
Don't get me wrong I don't say that your conversation with Alkis(who by the way i consider him very good in definitions) is meaningless or even actual definitions are useless. For Hell no!It is indeed important but as long we don't lose the forest for the tree.
If a post could express my feelings for the endless definition game here on TPF it would be exactly that. That's why I wanted to comment about it.
And the crazy thing is that whatever you wrote there, it is indeed the case. It's absolutely right. Hahaha.
I would name them your "way of living" absolute truths. They might not be relevant to universe but damn I liked these 2.
The strange thing though is that the way you wrote it, I get the sensation that you do want to keep/maintain your insanity.And I really wonder why. You do love it a little aw?
It helps, it helps a lot. :smile: Because it doesn't say anything about "absolute truth". That is, it doesn't follow that there is or there is no "absolute truth". And if one brings up such a thing, it means that he assumes it. In which case, he adds something to it. He adds something arbitrary. Moreover, if he brings up the possibility of an absolute or objective truth, he must be able to prove it. Which he can't.
BTW, the word "always" is superfluous. I used it only for emphasis. You can remove it.
Reality is subjective. If you claim that reality is objective or absolute, that would be also subjective, except maybe if you are able to prove it beyond doubt. But doubt is also something subjective. Also, if you are able to do that, then anyone could. Which it doesn't happen.
See the impass we are led to by trying to introduce objectivity? The only way out is to get back to subjectivity! :smile:
Quoting universeness
I know. You, yourself, talked about that before me, only with different words. :smile:
I was just talking about relativity ...
Human consciousness is quite special, and worth nurturing to its fullest potential. Glad to see others agree.
:lol: Ok, fair enough. We are not trying to create a cold fusion system here so I will relax on the ABSOLUTE details if you wish. It's your thread!
Btw Quoting dimosthenis9 I typed, I didn't write :rofl: SORRY! I couldn't resist. :halo:
It's fun debating with you regarding accurate terminology, you defend your positions well. I might also complain about your constant use of the 'he' gender as well :lol: but not now! I am certainly no wordsmith or an example of PC perfection. These can be important issues and absolutely essential (or perhaps subjectively essential) sometimes, but for now, I will take my foot off the pressure build, as requested by @dimosthenis9
Well no need. If you wish to debate about that go on. No problem. Just seeing your post triggered my feelings as I described above.
Quoting universeness
You little bastard!! :grin:
Hey! I'm 10 ft tall and mean! :lol: and I'm gonna tell my dada you called me a b******! :naughty:
OK. It was fun too talking with you. And with you too, @dimosthenis9.
Well, we weren't 'talking,' we were typ.... :yikes: OKAY OKAY! put down your guns guys! Stop pointing them at me :scream: Let's get back to the OP. We have many members who still haven't typed their own personal absolute truths yet! or explained why they don't have any. We have only had a few flavours so far!
Same here.
I think sane people are less happy than insane, and "real" people duped by reality.
I try to do the opposite of everything good and moral, as I think the good and moral are evil. The rule is, that the mind reverses everything. So that everything the mind believes is exactly the opposite of the way things really are.
To stay safeI try to act dangerously.
To succeed I am to fail.
Well I am a bit surprised here. It is a strange rule.Why you think mind reverses things? In what way you mean it? And why things are opposite of what mind believes? Except if you mean it metaphorically.
For example you say you think good and moral are at the end evil. So if for example my mind says "don't kill Joe . it's immoral and evil" is wrong? Should at the end go and kill Joe cause that's the real moral thing to do?
I know too many questions,but your rule intrigued me. Never heard such a thing before. Though I tend to agree with that
Quoting Yohan
Why not kill Joe? What have you got to lose?
For start compunctions. Feeling guilt that I caused such a suffering to Joe's family and people who loved him.Also that ended Joe's life and the potential moments that he would love to enjoy. Contributing to the evil among society, making it justified everyone else to come and kill me.
But If any of that bad feelings could affect me, then prison. Deprived of my freedom. Social condemnation that I would be considered as a killer and everyone would treat me like that.
So at at end is it ok/moral to go and kill others?
The theme of your thread is absolutes.
I don't know of an absolute way to measure right and wrong.
So I can't give any absolute answer.
My point is that moral absolutes are evil because they encourage abiding by rules rather than using your own conscience. For example, how many people perpetuate evil policies with the bland excuse of "I was just following orders"
Quoting Jerry
That's very true. Do you (or anyone) have by any chance writings on the kind of metaphysics we are talking about? I understand many ancient philosophers deal with this kind of stuff, but it is so spread on their works that it can be a bit hard to find... do you have any sources, modern or ancient?
Also, if you want you should read some of my discussions (not posts). I think we have a somehow similar thinking and you would probably enjoy them; they are not very organized or clear but I think you still might like them.
Hi there ! Fun OP.
I don't see how you can remove everything humanish from a truth which is a sentence in a human language. The very idea of some stuff on the other side of everything humanish seems (humanishly) "mystique nor metaphysical."
Within those new constraints, I suggest that the beliefs we can be most confident about are those that it makes no sense to deny...because denying them is incoherent. Here are a examples:
There is a world 'external' to us in the minimally specified sense that we can be right or wrong about it. It's a world and not us because we can be wrong about it. Proof ?
Consider the negation: "It's wrong to think there is something we can be wrong about."
We share a language, and meaning is 'public.' Proof ? Consider the negation. "We do not share a language. Meaning may be private." This is spoke as a truth with the assumption of the very intelligibly it denies. It's like "communication is impossible." We might therefore rephrase the original statement as "there is communication." One fine point here is the difference between a contingently available listener and the potential listener implicit in any language-as-shared-code.
This can be summed up as 'we are together in a world we can make true and false statements about.' As far as I can tell, to say otherwise is absurd. There is a primacy of the social here that sets this starting point or 'given' apart from other versions.
Hey man, congrats..you used all the keywords of the literati here :lol:..language public..just throw in some Philosophical Investigations quotes, talk about Wittgenstein and youre in! Chad it up!
You are basically correct. I bring the theology of Chad. I speak therefore as an insider, shamelessly elitist in my normative rationality. I am sufficiently magnanimous to tolerate the delusions of others who stay out of my way. Does the hale young man on two strong legs resent the brittle old man's crutch ?
I wrote many times "as possible".
Quoting Pie
It does not have to be" on the other side".
Quoting Pie
I agree. That's why for statements like: "I exist", "my mind exists", "universe exists" (or better if you want "something exists" etc. me, personally, I have all the proof I need. And I find it a total "waste of thinking" to actually deny or doubt about that.
Well yeah, there are some grey zones in moral issues but there are some absolutes also, imo. "Not killing Joe" is one of these for example.
And if conscience of some people isn't enough as to understand it, then better for the rest of us that there is a "rule" making that absolute immoral.