Truth Absolute?

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Winter wind Wait wait....so different languages make different truths? If thats you definition then I completely agree with you. My definition is facts. That there are a certain set of facts to everything that are unchangeable. How you describe them can be different without effecting the facts.

Language is not a medium between the "mind" and the "real world". There is no medium. There can't be facts waiting in homeostasis for us to discover them, truths are MADE not found. It is language with which we

Quote by: Winter wind I beg to differ. I think humans are versitile thinkers to the point that we can accept other things that we weren't brought up with. (ie I'm learning to speak Chinese. I have a conversational level of speaking. I've escaped my own language of English fairly well.)

Yes, you can learn new words or another language. But you still can't escape your own personal vocabulary.

Quote by: Winter wind No English word? no but you were able to describe it in English. Just cause we didn't condense it into a few letters doesn't mean it is impossible to translate. Plus, you still haven't shown me a language without the symbol for truth.

That is not the point. The point is that with the addition of a unique word into a vocabulary you have an entirely new way of evaluating existence. Yes, I was able to explain the word to you. Now, think back, if you can, to the last time you felt litost, where the ball in your throat choked you. At the time, you WERE NOT ABLE to describe the event to yourself in the same was a Czechoslovakian would be able to easily recognize his emotional standing. Side note: We've actually recently come up with an English equivalent, I've been hearing it around more and more recently, its "Butt Hurt".
So we have a Czech and yourself, experiencing the same event (the same set of "facts" as you call it), and yet leave with entirely different interpretations because one was better capable of describing the event. The thing was, the czech guy had already turned the metaphor "litost" into something literal, it is second nature to think "litost" in that situation for him, and as a result he is combining different words with different meanings in an effort to understand the event, and to extrapolate truths from it, like "I'm feeling litost". You couldn't have thought that.
Now, let me say, this applied to ALL WORDS, without fail, 100%. If you don't have the word for gravity, you can't study it, but it doesn't mean you're not creating little mini-truths in your head about existence none the less.

Also, I can't site examples, I don't want to spend the time looking it up, sorry.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Objectivist Well isn't it absolute? Everything in the universe is existence. Existence is not an antecedent. Existence is not a product of supernatural forces or a God (because God and anything supernatural is subsumed under existence).

Descartes says the only thing we can know is that "I think therefore I am"

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Suburbanite Descartes says the only thing we can know is that "I think therefore I am"

This may seem rather immature but: "So?"

Instead of one lined quotations maybe refer to my post and challenge and/or contradict it.

Ayn Rand actually reversed that common Descartes line to say "I am therefore I'll think."

Existence exists independent of any thought process. Reality exists and an independent absolute. And a human perceives that existence and is conscious of it.

The very first absolute truth any human is born into is that existence exists. And "thinking" or reason is not involved with discovering it. When we perceive existence we are not thinking about it. Perceiving is not thinking. Perceiving is an automatic function of our sense organs and our minds. We cannot escape perception. We perceive before we develop concepts (reason/thinking).

[Winter wind]

Language is not a medium between the "mind" and the "real world". There is no medium. There can't be facts waiting in homeostasis for us to discover them, truths are MADE not found. It is language with which we

??? I slept through my existentialist class, so could you dumb it down enough for my feeble intellect?

Yes, you can learn new words or another language. But you still can't escape your own personal vocabulary.

Again, I don't quite follow. I know I'm not too bright, but please bare with me. What is my personal vocabulary in relation to my linguistic vocabulary.

. At the time, you WERE NOT ABLE to describe the event to yourself in the same was a Czechoslovakian would be able to easily recognize his emotional standing.

But you said it yourself. We experience the same emotion. My confusion does not change the facts. The facts say I was feeling XXX caused by YYY. That doesn't make several truths does it?

So we have a Czech and yourself, experiencing the same event (the same set of "facts" as you call it), and yet leave with entirely different interpretations because one was better capable of describing the event.

The different interpretations make other absolute facts.
I feel litost but can't explain it
He feels litost ane can explain it
We both feel litost.
These set of facts are absolute and do not change. If you want to call that one truth or something else, facts are absolute. If facts equate to truth is something I don't know.

Also, I can't site examples, I don't want to spend the time looking it up, sorry.

Fair enough, but if any one could a tribe or culture that does not have a concept of truth, please post it.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Winter wind ??? I slept through my existentialist class, so could you dumb it down enough for my feeble intellect?

I'm saying that metaphysicians, scientists and philosophers, believe that truths are found, that we come upon them. For example, to a scientist, there has always been gravity. But, in terms of the history of humanity, gravity is a relatively new concept. Lets say an apple falls from a branch. That act takes place before Newton and after Newton. In the before Newton, no one could say that the reason the apple fell from tree was gravity, that metaphor (that description) of the action did not exist yet. After Newton, when an apple falls, one can point and say "that is an example of gravity".
Of course, the guttural sound "gravity" has no direct relation to the act itself, the word gravity could as easily be any other sound. So how is it that the word gravity gets assigned to the concept? First, it comes from the word gravitas, which means attraction. When the word was first used by the romans, it was a word which was used to describe the attraction of people. Then, Newton adopts the word gravity, and creates the metaphor. The metaphor is gravity as defined as a reason why object fall.
Now, I don't mean to sound too side tracked, but this is important. This process of metaphors becoming literal is how we come upon new words and discard old ones (dead metaphors). The cycle of new metaphors has been occurring to humans since we first started speaking.
When a tribesman cooks milk before drinking it because he believes it will kill the demons in the milk, and when we pasteurize milk, its for the same purpose. The tribesman doesn't have a scientific vocabulary, but does that mean it isn't "true" that his process removes what he made describe as demons from his milk? Certainly. With his collection of metaphors saying things like that makes sense. Now, tell him that there aren't anything called Demons (which he will claim to have seen first hand), but instead microscopic bacteria. The tribesmen isn't going to think you're telling him the truth because your metaphors are incommensurable with his. No one has the "Truth" which transcends all words and time, truth is as temporal as the vocabulary speaking it.

Quote by: Winter wind Again, I don't quite follow. I know I'm not too bright, but please bare with me. What is my personal vocabulary in relation to my linguistic vocabulary.

By personal vocabulary, I just mean your own words and their definitions, which are bound to be highly idiosyncratic. It is the same as your linguistic vocabulary. The distinction I'm trying to make is your personal vocabulary vs. the public lexicon.

Quote by: Winter wind But you said it yourself. We experience the same emotion. My confusion does not change the facts. The facts say I was feeling XXX caused by YYY. That doesn't make several truths does it?

I did make a mistake by talking about it like an emotion instead of just reaction to an event. What I meant to say was while we experience the same events, the understanding of the events is different. To feel litost comes with connotations you don't know about, hell I don't even know them. But, when I think of litost I have referential information I can draw from, which you don't have and I can use that information to construct or describe my world in a way you can't describe it. Now, this extends beyond litost to every single word you know. And the words you know can vary to a degree enough to make your opinions different from other people's opinions. To a Bible Belt Christian "Liberal" just isn't the same word as "Liberal" is to Elaine Scarry.

The different interpretations make other absolute facts. I feel litost but can't explain it He feels litost ane can explain it We both feel litost. These set of facts are absolute and do not change. If you want to call that one truth or something else, facts are absolute. If facts equate to truth is something I don't know.

Yeah, a fact is a truth. Think of two kinds of truths. Truth and truth. One with a capitol "T". The one with the capitol "T" means absolute truth, truth which transcends to all humans. This kind of truth is fictional. The other kind, with the lowercase "t", this one means your own idiosyncratic personal truths. To me, it is true that George Bush is a douche. To another person, he is a genius. There is no "Truth" about George Bush though. I believe things can match up in your own head, but really my point is don't expect it to match up in other people's heads no matter how "logical" you think it is.

Yeah and sorry about those tribesmen, think of tribesmen as your hypothetical plaything when studying linguistics, just always imagine a tribe without a word and think about if they still were able to eat food and survive in the wild.


Fair enough, but if any one could a tribe or culture that does not have a concept of truth, please post it.[/QUOTE]

[Jack]

Very concise summery, Suburbanite. You've nicely illustrated why words, ideas and contexts have always fascinated me.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Objectivist Existence exists independent of any thought process. Reality exists and an independent absolute. And a human perceives that existence and is conscious of it.

The quote was to back you up, it is a metaphysical claim, one I reject. The statement above I quotes is not true. Let me help you to work out this problem like the philosophers before you. Right now, you're at stage Plato. This is the first mistake, and it is really really hard to avoid. The problem is, when Plato first invented the ocular metaphor, that we perceive reality, it became huge. Everyone in Greece started talking like Plato, acting like Plato, using Plato's new words. These words and concepts did not exist before Plato, that humans perceive reality. However, after Plato, the metaphor for humans as eyes unto the world became literal. Literal means, basically, we take the concept for granted. Its like God to a Christian. A Christian doesn't think "If God, therefor..." By this time the "If God" part is implied. In that same way, you're assuming what you're saying is actually implied.
I mean, be honest with me, you think what you just said is actually incredibly simple and obvious don't you? The reason you think what you say is so obvious is because your language has a lot of concepts derived from this ocular metaphor. Words like "mind" and "existence" have evolved out of Plato's original statement. The language game is skewed to think in your way, sir.
My point is simple, YOU DON'T HAVE TO THINK LIKE THAT!
Here are some claims I can make which make a lot of sense to me, and seem obvious. Firstly, Existence is never independent of any thought process, in fact, existence is entirely subjected to language, seeing as this and all sentences which describe the world require language. Secondly, the word "perceives" implies a medium, a process with which we are one thing and reality is another and we relate to it. Its the whole subject object distinction thats fucked us up. We're just as much of existence as anything else.

The very first absolute truth any human is born into is that existence exists. And "thinking" or reason is not involved with discovering it. When we perceive existence we are not thinking about it. Perceiving is not thinking. Perceiving is an automatic function of our sense organs and our minds. We cannot escape perception. We perceive before we develop concepts (reason/thinking).

You're right to an extent. Living things, as we describe them, can exist without being able to describe its existence, like plants or animals. But this is not the first absolute truth any human is born into. This is a way you've come up with to describe the world which I don't have to use, and frankly makes no sense to me personally. I never got the "this is your first truth" memo, but I did eventually learn English and come up with ways to talk about things like this. That I remember.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Isherwood Very concise summery, Suburbanite. You've nicely illustrated why words, ideas and contexts have always fascinated me.

Thanks, I'm really into arguing this point, because it is hard to explain accurately and I'd like to get good and summarizing it easily to people conversationally.
oh, and check out Contingency Irony and Solidarity by Richard Rorty, really good stuff about metaphors.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Suburbanite Existence is never independent of any thought process, in fact, existence is entirely subjected to language, seeing as this and all sentences which describe the world require language.

In order for us to use language to describe existence or anything in it, existence or that thing has to exist.

Language is a result of us being entities that are perceptual and conceptual--of us being able to perceive the independent existence and to make concepts based on our percepts.

Existence is independent of our thought processes because all the atoms of the universe are going to exist with or without us thinking, describing, or studying them.

Secondly, the word "perceives" implies a medium...

The medium would be our senses. Our senses our integrated subconsciously and automatically into percepts by our perceptual mind. We have no control over that integration. We can ignore and evade our percepts, but we cannot escape the perceptual mechanism of our senses and bodies.

We're just as much of existence as anything else.

I never said we weren't. We are an entity living as a part of existence.

Existence does not depend on us to perceive it in order to exist--that is what I mean when I say: Existence is an independent absolute.

[Winter wind]

I'm saying that metaphysicians, scientists and philosophers, believe that truths are found, that we come upon them. For example, to a scientist, there has always been gravity. But, in terms of the history of humanity, gravity is a relatively new concept. Lets say an apple falls from a branch. That act takes place before Newton and after Newton. In the before Newton, no one could say that the reason the apple fell from tree was gravity, that metaphor (that description) of the action did not exist yet. After Newton, when an apple falls, one can point and say "that is an example of gravity". Of course, the guttural sound "gravity" has no direct relation to the act itself, the word gravity could as easily be any other sound. So how is it that the word gravity gets assigned to the concept? First, it comes from the word gravitas, which means attraction. When the word was first used by the romans, it was a word which was used to describe the attraction of people. Then, Newton adopts the word gravity, and creates the metaphor. The metaphor is gravity as defined as a reason why object fall. Now, I don't mean to sound too side tracked, but this is important. This process of metaphors becoming literal is how we come upon new words and discard old ones (dead metaphors). The cycle of new metaphors has been occurring to humans since we first started speaking. When a tribesman cooks milk before drinking it because he believes it will kill the demons in the milk, and when we pasteurize milk, its for the same purpose. The tribesman doesn't have a scientific vocabulary, but does that mean it isn't "true" that his process removes what he made describe as demons from his milk? Certainly. With his collection of metaphors saying things like that makes sense. Now, tell him that there aren't anything called Demons (which he will claim to have seen first hand), but instead microscopic bacteria. The tribesmen isn't going to think you're telling him the truth because your metaphors are incommensurable with his. No one has the "Truth" which transcends all words and time, truth is as temporal as the vocabulary speaking it.

OK, I'm now certain that my definition of truth is absolutely different then your definition of truth.
My definition of truth is facts. Everything boils down to facts.
However you define truth as perception (I think). There are many perceptions and meanings for facts, which can make many truths.
Therefore I agree with many perceptions as many truths. But there is always and only one absolute fact. Ever. (I think...)

[noisome]

I was referred here by "Morgan_Freeman" and I just looked around a little bit. I just wanted to post this in here. So yeah.

Take a look at this:

(10:20:39 PM) evilheartedme: "Descartes says the only thing we can know is that "I think therefore I am""
(10:21:03 PM) evilheartedme: i love it when people quote people they know nothing about.
(10:21:19 PM) evilheartedme: did descartes say the only thing we know is that "i think therefore i am"?
(10:21:27 PM) evilheartedme: is that the true context of the quote?
(10:21:43 PM) morgan: I dont think thats the context of the quote
(10:22:31 PM) evilheartedme: it's a statement about the nature of being
(10:22:43 PM) morgan: right
(10:22:51 PM) evilheartedme: not a statement about the futility of knowledge.
(10:23:07 PM) evilheartedme: as it is so depicted by this person on your "volconvo"
(10:23:19 PM) evilheartedme: unchecked, i might add.
(10:23:30 PM) evilheartedme: spreading his lies and you just sit there and let him.
(10:23:39 PM) evilheartedme: you're a horrible person morgan.
(10:23:44 PM) evilheartedme: you sick bastard.
(10:23:55 PM) morgan: who said it?
(10:24:24 PM) evilheartedme: someone with over two thousand posts.
(10:24:28 PM) evilheartedme: that goes by the name "suburbanite."
(10:24:34 PM) evilheartedme: which is a clever handle.
(10:24:48 PM) evilheartedme: a guy below him in the thread named himself "objectivist."
(10:25:00 PM) evilheartedme: clearly this is forum..
(10:25:08 PM) evilheartedme: ..contains the best minds of the internet.
(10:25:31 PM) morgan: its the best debate site you'll find
(10:25:34 PM) morgan: I guarantee
(10:25:57 PM) evilheartedme: such an insanely MIGHTY collection of masterminds could only be called "volconvo"
(10:27:12 PM) evilheartedme: i know that it's hard to detect sarcasm
(10:27:14 PM) evilheartedme: over the internet
(10:27:21 PM) evilheartedme: so i'm just going to let you know
(10:27:29 PM) evilheartedme: i *am* being sarcastic
(10:27:34 PM) morgan: it you think they're dumb, then pwn them
(10:27:52 PM) evilheartedme: i am in a constant state of pwning them
(10:27:55 PM) evilheartedme: merely by existing
(10:28:03 PM) morgan: wel let them know, then
(10:28:28 PM) evilheartedme: fine i will.

[J. Askiloupos]

(10:25:57 PM) evilheartedme: such an insanely MIGHTY collection of masterminds could only be called "volconvo" (10:27:12 PM) evilheartedme: i know that it's hard to detect sarcasm (10:27:14 PM) evilheartedme: over the internet (10:27:21 PM) evilheartedme: so i'm just going to let you know (10:27:29 PM) evilheartedme: i *am* being sarcastic (10:27:34 PM) morgan: it you think they're dumb, then pwn them (10:27:52 PM) evilheartedme: i am in a constant state of pwning them (10:27:55 PM) evilheartedme: merely by existing (10:28:03 PM) morgan: wel let them know, then (10:28:28 PM) evilheartedme: fine i will.

It's certainly a good thing that you have kept your arrogance to a minimum, my friend, or I may have been tempted to think you possibly might in some way be the most microscopic bit full of yourself.

[noisome]

Quote by: some unimportant mundane It's certainly a good thing that you have kept your arrogance to a minimum, my friend, or I may have been tempted to think you possibly might in some way be the most microscopic bit full of yourself.

on the contrary, i'm fairly discontent with myself but somehow you are all just.. so much worse...

it's terrifying in a way... it.. it... makes me want to die...

..you.. you people.. (all of you..)

you make me want to die...

[Rainbow]

Quote by: J. Askiloupos It is fact that absolute truth must exist somewhere, and also that it (in its sum total) can reside only in one place.

I think that you are on quest that goes beyond Homo Sapiens' perception, since a subjective form of truth is the only one we accomodate within ourselves.

Absolute Truth ?
It could dwell within an Absolute and/or Pure Environment, I guess.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Objectivist In order for us to use language to describe existence or anything in it, existence or that thing has to exist. Language is a result of us being entities that are perceptual and conceptual--of us being able to perceive the independent existence and to make concepts based on our percepts. Existence is independent of our thought processes because all the atoms of the universe are going to exist with or without us thinking, describing, or studying them.

I'm sure no such thing as "atoms" will exist after humans disappear.

Quote by: Objectivist The medium would be our senses. Our senses our integrated subconsciously and automatically into percepts by our perceptual mind. We have no control over that integration. We can ignore and evade our percepts, but we cannot escape the perceptual mechanism of our senses and bodies.

But look, you're making up things to prove your point. Mind? This is my whole point, and I cant keep repeating it, so this is the last chance: the REASON you're thinking what you are thinking is because of the word your know, not because you've discovered the truth of the universe.


I never said we weren't. We are an entity living as a part of existence.

Existence does not depend on us to perceive it in order to exist--that is what I mean when I say: Existence is an independent absolute.[/QUOTE]

Quote by: Objectivist Existence does not depend on us to perceive it in order to exist--that is what I mean when I say: Existence is an independent absolute.

And what I am saying is the subject object distinction, the Existence vs Mind, or Me vs World concept, is as fabricated by language as any other concept, and if we could only describe the world in a way where the self and everything else were talked about as the same thing, we would see them as the same thing. The ocular metaphor of perception is wrong, it is description, we describe things in relation to other things, we don't discover anything, we only re describe it.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Winter wind OK, I'm now certain that my definition of truth is absolutely different then your definition of truth. My definition of truth is facts. Everything boils down to facts. However you define truth as perception (I think). There are many perceptions and meanings for facts, which can make many truths. Therefore I agree with many perceptions as many truths. But there is always and only one absolute fact. Ever. (I think...)

Yes, your definition is different. I'd like to entice you to start thinking about it like this though. I don't define truth as perception, or even as relative points of view. I am viewing truth as word which describes language. A sentence can be true, but a vocabulary can not be true, and all sentences are within a vocabulary.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: noisome on the contrary, i'm fairly discontent with myself but somehow you are all just.. so much worse... it's terrifying in a way... it.. it... makes me want to die... ..you.. you people.. (all of you..) you make me want to die...

can you please stop posting then? No one really cares about your logs. The thing is, Descartes agrees with Morgan, I wasn't posting to refute him, but actually to assist him, which has gone way over both of your seemingly insecure heads. I'll spell it out, Descartes believed in the ocular metaphor, that humans perceive reality. "I think therefor I am" is the beginning of a train of thought in which he demonstrates what Morgan is saying, which is that what you perceive is the truth. Way to PWN ME N00B!

[noisome]

Quote by: mindless forum troll The thing is, Descartes agrees with Morgan, I wasn't posting to refute him, but actually to assist him, which has gone way over both of your seemingly insecure heads. I'll spell it out, Descartes believed in the ocular metaphor, that humans perceive reality. "I think therefor I am" is the beginning of a train of thought in which he demonstrates what Morgan is saying, which is that what you perceive is the truth.

1. Did he or did he not say that the only thing one can know is that "I think therefore I am." Because that is what you said he said. Which is not what he said, regardless of who you were assisting. (What he hell? Do you think I'm on Morgan's "team" or something? I'm not upset because I thought you were attacking Morgan, I'm upset because you misquoted Descartes. I mean, I understand that you're familiarity with him starts and stops with a textbook excerpt you read in some academic program, but come on. We're on the internet. It's not difficult to be semi-accurate here.)

2. Nothing you have ever said has come anywhere *close* to my head. Unlike yours, my mind is picky about what it digests.

3. Descartes maintained that sense perception is unreliable, so your statement that he believed that "what you perceive is the truth" is inaccurate. (Go figure.)

[Ken Carman]

"I find it extraordinarily unlikely that any intelligent life would have no concept of singular and non-existent. To test my theory, try as hard as you can to use any logic without using non-existent and singular. It doesn't work. (I think. It might just be I can't think of any way it can work.)"

I am neither being patronizing or flippant when I type, "Of course you do." On another thread someone used this saying to explain this line of thinking, (anthropic principle- paraphrased) "The puddle would feel the shape of the hole it is in so natural it must have been made for it." We feel our way of thinking fits us so well it is the only way. This makes it difficult, indeed impossible for most, to imagine it being otherwise. How ever, I believe it to a logical fallacy to assume it has to be that the only way all intelligent beings/creatures/entities do things. Any "puddle" in a quite odd hole probably could never imagine us and how we do things either.

[Suburbanite]

First of all, cogito ergo sum, I think (cogito, cognition, cognitive) therefor (ergo) I am (sum, "be", "essence").
On your third point, you're right. He does argue against perception as a direct method of attaining knowledge, especially with the wax candle. However, he does go on to assert the because he doubts, he is imperfect, existing solely in contrast to the perfection of God. And God being good and perfect he does not deceive the senses.
Descartes, however, is a metaphysician and is entirely wrapped up the ocular metaphor game Plato had established. He is meditating on the subject/object distinction, and presumes concepts like "mind" and "truths" like your boy Milton. Descartes is making statements or claims with absolute truth as something implicit.
Now, seeing as you don't know me, if we can return the arguing about "absolute truth" instead of my Descartes qualifications.