[RioRico]

This raises questions like, "What is truth?" and "What is the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" And you'll get different answers from lawyers and philosophers and propagandists. I'm not going to bother with that.

I have a better grip on reality than on truth. My definition: "Reality is whatever bites your ass." That is, if it affects you, it's real, whether or not it's "true". For instance, any specific belief might be total horsesh!t, totally untrue. But if a believer can f*ck with you because of that belief, then it's real.

The ancient Jain sect of India has an interesting logic system. Because reality is partially hidden, and because reality is constantly changing, then any statement one can make about reality may be partly true, and may be partly false, and may be partly unknowable. I like to add a couple more terms: It also may be partly trivial (like 1=1), and it may be partly irrelevant (if it can never affect you).

So to answer the question, "Is there absolute truth?" I would ask, "Compared to what?"

[joodiespost]

But 1+1 *isn't* always 2. Numbers are just shapes. (Not unlike the Platonic solids) While I'm making meatballs, I take one meatball, I add it to another meatball, I get one bigger meatball. 1+1=1.

Oh, but it's a bigger meatball, right? OK. If I add 1 meatball diameter to 1 meatball diameter, how big is my meatball? Two meatball diameters? Nope. Again, 1+1 is not 2. Or 1.

In fact, you could *pulverize* this meatball, and sift through every atom, but you would never find *this:*

1+1=3. Meatball 1, Meatball 2, and the third meatball that came about when I mushed them together.

As we say in my kitchen, 'Thatsa spicy meatballa!'



They're numbers, but 'Absolute Truth?' Not convinced.

I don't know if... if you double something, you're doubling something and it's going to double. that's never going change.

[Ratmagiclady]

I don't know if... if you double something, you're doubling something and it's going to double. that's never going change.

But that doesn't make the *statement* an 'absolute truth.'

These are just shapes. Just like words are. They're only 'absolute' by their own definition. Just like the word and idea 'absolute' itself.

People who want us to think in absolutes are really asking us to do something else. With that word 'Absolute.'
Understand? They want you to look at the meatball so you accept the equation... the assertion of the absolutes, themselves, the shape 'Absolute,' itself, without question. Moreover, for you to think they possess the power to say a meatball is a number. Dig?


Kind of like 'Numbers don't lie,' but words saying so often do.

[jimH]

Truth must be absolute. It is only the interpretation of its meaning that is relative.

Who decides? Each person decides what is true for them in their own life. So while there is absolute truth each person perceives it through their world view and additionally must decide whether he accepts this truth and the perception, or rejects it outright and replaces it with some fallacious fantasy.

Untrue! Truth is Truth, no in between! Certain things are absolute!

[Ratmagiclady]

Untrue! Truth is Truth, no in between! Certain things are absolute!

But it seems we've established that 1+1=2 doesn't apply to meatballs. (at least depending how you look at them, which, kids, is an 'absolute? No, it's relative.) So we're still short an example. There's a reason for that.

[jimH]

But it seems we've established that 1+1=2 doesn't apply to meatballs. (at least depending how you look at them, which, kids, is an 'absolute? No, it's relative.) So we're still short an example. There's a reason for that.

So what difference does that make? Some things are absolute and some are not. I guess that we aren't measuring meat balls, we are determining that some things are absolute, others aren't.

[joodiespost]

a triangle always has 3 sides. that's absolute ^_^

[Ash]

I can't believe how simple truths are being twisted around somehow into some philosophical debate in an attempt to disprove the truth.

Clearly, as I've said, if there is no agreement on such a fundamental level (like if I have one FA ltd, and I go ahead and buy another, I then have TWO FA ltds!) then there is no point in arguing on about whether there are absolute truths or not.

This is not rocket science, it's not even a debate about whether the IQ of the DA 70 is better than the FA 77 ltd. There are tangible, concrete aspects in life that can be absolutely defined. And if so, they can exhibit absolute truths.

[joodiespost]

I can't believe how simple truths are being twisted around somehow into some philosophical debate in an attempt to disprove the truth.

Clearly, as I've said, if there is no agreement on such a fundamental level (like if I have one FA ltd, and I go ahead and buy another, I then have TWO FA ltds!) then there is no point in arguing on about whether there are absolute truths or not.

This is not rocket science, it's not even a debate about whether the IQ of the DA 70 is better than the FA 77 ltd. There are tangible, concrete aspects in life that can be absolutely defined. And if so, they can exhibit absolute truths.

Exactly. I don't understand why all this sensational talk is even necessary. Lincoln once asked a child if you call the tail of a dog a leg, how many legs does it have. The kid said, 5. Lincoln answered back saying, it doesn't matter what you call the tail, there are only 4 legs.

[Blue]

Untrue! Truth is Truth, no in between! Certain things are absolute!

Then who is the greatest poet of all time?

[Boris]

Absolute truth can exist in a given context. Say, math. However, anything that is imprecise or cannot be measured or has to do with people-to-people relations is of course relative. Or am I missing a point here, 'cause to me it looks pretty trivial an issue.

[Boris]

Untrue! Truth is Truth, no in between! Certain things are absolute!

Like in "Pentax is the best photo-gear company in the world and whole history of humankind"?

[Ratmagiclady]

a triangle always has 3 sides. that's absolute ^_^

We're back to 'shapes' again, aren't we? A lot of things we call 'absolutes' are really just that. Definitions. Of shapes. Concepts.

Do triangles have three sides when you look at them edge-on?

Maybe they have two sides, when they're a novelty-shaped record: then they have side A and side B.

To say 'A statement is absolute truth' is so far, neither complete nor accurate. We may *define* some things as absolute truth, (Don't argue with your geometry teacher like this, too much, or they'll make you write the definition of a triangle in geometry before every proof, ) but that's by definition. Part of our own perception.

Words are shapes and concepts, too, some self-define as 'absolutes' but that doesn't mean the 'Absolute Truth' statement really exists.

And, see, Ash, Your example was 1+1=2, not 'two FA Limiteds.' So I supplied my meatball example as a way that statement, however axiomatic in many respects, isn't 'absolute truth.' Often under the most common of circumstances.

Yes, we can *count* things. Of course, this works much better with precise definitions of counting more concrete shapes. Still, the *statement* might not be 'absolute truth,' "if I have one FA ltd, and I go ahead and buy another, I then have TWO FA ltds!" but we'd have to be increasingly picky about 'As long as you didn't trade in your first one in the process,' or lose one on the way home, or encounter the vanishingly-unlikely but non-zero possibility that your first lens falls out of the universe. (I wouldn't wait for that one, while it's possible, odds are you'd have to wait longer than the age of the universe to see it happen. )

The point is we may *speak in and define* absolutes, but that doesn't make them always the case. ie, mean they 'exist.'

It's part of our consciousness, and a necessary one at that, when it comes to how we set order to experience, and all. (Part of why Plato talked so much of 'shapes' to begin with: looking for some conceptual 'implicit order,' ) And that's why people find the idea 'there are no absolute truths' to be, well, *alarming,* really. And probably why when someone's 'absolute truths' conflict with someone else's views, there's often so much trouble.

Particularly when they start trying to *apply* these ideas to others, where things really *are* a matter of point of view. And whose 'givens' you accept. After all, when some talk about 'Absolute Truth,' it's usually not about quite such abstract assertions in practice.

So, really, Ash:

Clearly, as I've said, if there is no agreement on such a fundamental level .... then there is no point in arguing on about whether there are absolute truths or not.

If the question *is* 'Are there absolute truths,' then we're *discussing* the 'fundamental level.' You can't expect people to accept your assertion as proof of your assertion.

[Blue]

a triangle always has 3 sides. that's absolute ^_^

Maybe you can answer who the greatest Poet in history was.

[joodiespost]

Maybe you can answer who the greatest Poet in history was.

hehe ^_^ you see, I have no problems with some things being relative and subjective. These are open for personal debates. But I believe Truth is not relative. It's actually redundant to call truth absolute because truth is absolute. Francis Schaeffer once called it true truth and found that to be redundant as well. Let's not get Truth mixed up with a personal standard of measurement.

PS - Not into poems.... er.. 2Pac?






The Rose That Grew From Concrete by 2Pac

Did you hear about the rose that grew from a crack in the concrete?
Proving nature's law is wrong it learned to walk with out having feet.
Funny it seems, but by keeping it's dreams, it learned to breathe fresh air.
Long live the rose that grew from concrete when no one else ever cared.