NotConvinced

Well, do ya, punk?

NotConvinced

I believe that's a hard thing to wrap my mind around Shaun. If you give me some examples of absolutely true statements I think I could reflect on whether they're true or not. What if they're not? Hmmmm.....relative truth?


Let's try this one:

Prototype-Answer: I believe that something can't always be true.

Now I believe that, for something to be something, you have to believe it to be something, thus it's a belief. So changing it slightly...

Answer: I believe that beliefs can't always be true.

Then I would add something for good measure:

Answer: I believe that beliefs can't always be true.
I believe that beliefs always change.

bobleplask

If something can be viewed from more than two angles, it can't be trusted as an absolute truth. So what can be viewed from only one angle? The answer is Nothing. So Nothing is an absolute truth. But does that mean that nothing is true or that we just can never find it?

If you take away everything you have something (in this example you don't get something - you get nothing (but as a something)) that can only be viewed one way and it's impossible to be mistaken by it. But to see it you need:

• Something to see from.
• Something to see with.
• Something to interpret what you see.

And if you put these things into Nothing you get something - alas you can never observe it.

Everything is relative - Nothing is true

Not exactly the first time I've thought of this and for now I think the theory is bulletproof. Twist it please

AB517

Tough question.

Love all life forms. But I am HUNGRY

Ok so we show respect to them, while we carve the heart out.

Well now.

Wrap it up in a ritual to make ourselves feel better

Thank the universe for the food.
Carve it up.
Eat it.

Live.

shaun

Sure. Let me first state that I am not arguing that everything is absolutely true in the sense that if I say, "Shaun is 6 feet tall" that every Shaun in the world is 6 feet tall. I am saying in more of the sense of axioms, such as First Principles, that are necessarily true by their very definition. Here are some First Principles, defined a priori:

1. A is A (law of identity)
2. A is not Non-A (law of contradiction)
3. Either B or Non-B (law of excluded middle)


We're not talking about beliefs here. We're talking about axioms. Again, you're confusing perspective with context. I am saying that certain things are always, absolutely true no matter what we think about them.

Just because you think something is not true does not inherently define its truth. Truth is exclusive. To say that it is not is to state an exclusive truth to prove all truths are relative, ie: "I believe that all truths are relative" is using an absolute truth claim to try and say there are no absolute truth claims. It fails because it contradicts itself.

Just because you believe something to be true or false does not make that thing true or false. If I believe that my $1 bill in my pocket is worth ten million dollars, and go tell that to someone and tell them to give me ten million dollars in change, does not mean I will get that ten million dollars - nor do I act as if I believe this to be real.

The law of non-contradiction, which states that something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time, proves this - a tree cannot be both a tree and a giraffe at the same time, no matter what I believe about it. A common example is when someone says, "All religions are the same," they are using a vague generalization, and what they should say is that "I believe that some religions are similar to others in certain contexts." What they cannot mean is that all religions are the very same in every respect and context - such thinking is absurd, because the very idea of difference and the implication of the word "all" disproves this.

The law of identity is similar - if I say I am Shaun, that means (regardless of what anyone else says) that I mean I am Shaun. That is absolutely true. (think "I think therefore I am" descartes) If I define something to be an orange, I am not meaning it is an apple - I am meaning it is an orange.

Without these laws and concepts, communication is impossible. There have to be absolute truths that are exclusively true and are a priori, otherwise we fall into a reductio ad absurdum infinitum fallacy.

shaun

Bobleplask, I'm just going to show you where you've used absolute truth to try and prove relative truth, to show you the contradictory nature of your argument.

This is an absolute truth claim.

This is an absolute truth claim.

You're playing with semantics now. Sounds good, means absolutely nothing.

No, if you remove everything you have nothing. Nothing is not something by definition - 0 is not 1, no matter how much you try and state it.

This is an absolute truth claim.

Non sequitur fallacy. It does not lead you to believe you can never observe it (again an absolute claim) by any means.

That's an absolute truth claim you just used to say everything is relative. Your argument fails in its attempt to define itself.

I think you should think again.

bobleplask

Hello Shaun!
Thank you for your reply - I like it very much and it has good points

I am not sure what you mean by a "absolute truth claim" to be honest because if it is a claim it has no valid wight? Could you define it for me please?

[quote=shaun;21173]You're playing with semantics now. Sounds good, means absolutely nothing.[quote]
I agree here. This here is me claiming "Nothing" for being an absolute truth, even though all we've done is removed everything.

We can talk about Nothing and it is not something. I had hoped that I covered it with the parentheses.

A sidetrack however: Your statement that "0 is not 1, no matter how much you try and state it" can be proven with mathematics which never seem to fail us. On the other hand We do not have anything that verifies mathematics to be correct.

Why does it not mean that I can never observe it?

The sentence "Everything is relative - Nothing is true" is just a nice sentence. It does not prove anything.

I would like to thank you for your input. That my argument fails in its attempt to define itself is a valid statement as I find it hard to say that truth can not be found and expect it to be taken as truth. Does it mean that what I said is not true?

If everything on the planet points to something being true - how does that actually make it true? Most likely the moon is the moon, but we do not have anything but our senses to verify it?
Could be?
Why not?

These statements we more or less take for granted and it's hard to find reasons for them not to be true. But can it be doubted that A = A? Or does there exist something that tells with out doubt that A = A?

shaun

No problem. Absolute truth is one of my favourite things to study.

An absolute truth claim is a statement by someone where they claim something is always true, all of the time, in itself. (that sentence was an absolute truth claim; so is this one)

For example: A giraffe is a giraffe is an absolute truth claim.

Sure we do, we know first principles, the very basis for mathematics as we know it.

If 1 does not equal 1, then mathematics fails. But since it is self-evident that 1 = 1, we can then assume and go forth from there using inductive logic proofs. This is all basic stuff you learn in a philosophy of logic class.

If you are going to say "never", you are thereby required to prove to me that in all possible cases that you can never observe it. You have not done so - you simply stated you could, and left it there. That's a jump in logic, also called a non sequitur fallacy.

Yes, by its very nature. A cannot be non-A.

Forget senses - you're still thinking that truth is defined by perception. I am arguing that it is not; that truth is exclusive. You can use logic to prove such without using physical senses. Knowing truth is a whole other topic that is unrelated to absolute truth.

A = A is a tautology - a propositional formula that is true in any possible valuation or context.

Could be what? No, A cannot be Non-A. If you want to say it can, you must prove otherwise. I have shown that A is A, and therefore cannot be non-A.

The proof is: ~(P v ~P)

Because of the law of non-contradiction that says that A is not non-A, and therefore by deductive reasoning it logically follows that it is either A or non-A.

These laws are a priori - they are self-evident and self-proving. If you doubt First Principles, then all knowledge and philosophy breaks down and you cannot deduce anything. The statement that A = A might not always be true without First Principles, specifically the law of identity.

bobleplask

Quick answer



Understood

I actually took philosophy of logic but I failed it. I am starting to understand why now

in the man made system called mathematics 1 = 1 and if not then as you say, mathematics will fail. We not do really know if the same rules applies to the real world. We just take it for granted. It could be that 1 really, really, really is 2, but we just have not figured it out yet.

What if I say "Why does it mean that I can not observe it?" instead?

Within "a system" called logic based on claims, you have proven that "A = A". Also to say that "A = not A" you say I have to prove it. These are rules from Logic101.

I say that we can't know if "A = A" or if "A = not A" and we can not prove either of them.

These laws are a priori because we say they are. They can be doubted by many things, for instance Descartes deceiving god and his evil demon for all we know. On the other hand they might be true. It just can not be known.

I doubt First Principles and do not think we can deduce anything. I do see First Principles as helpful for making decisions and basic living, but I see a big room for error if we use something that might be false to find something that is true.

shaun

Doesn't matter if 1 is actually "2" or "643" or "whoozie". The numbers are abstract representations of physical entities. They represent ideas in reality - entities - and therefore what they actually *are called* does not matter. The principle is the same.

You might enjoy this quote from the philosopher Avicenna:

"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned."

If I am sitting in a chair, I am therefore by necessity not not sitting in a chair.
If I am eating an apple, I am therefore by necessity not not eating an apple.
If I am typing this reply to you to get you to understand first principles, then I am therefore by necessity not not typing this reply to you to get you to understand first principles.

If you're going to deny First Principles and our knowledge of them, then I suggest seeing how the very way you live - even your post to me - relies on First Principles.

When you said that you "say we can not prove either of them", you assumed the law of non-contradiction that states that something is either proven or not proven. You also assumed that "them" is "them", and not "not-them".

We can simply "say" things are not knowable, but unless you show me any sort of evidence why First Principles are unknowable, you're just spouting off at the wind. Let's be reasonable, here.
Straw Man fallacy - I did not say they are a priori because we say they are. I said they are a priori on their own self-evident nature. Whether or not we percieve that A = A is irrelevant. A is still A. The truth of the statement exists outside of your perception, but yet can still be percieved but not defined by that perception.

To simply say "they might be true" is nonsense. Either they are or they are not. And if they are not, then you have run into an impossibility, for to have something be "not", it must have an opposite "be", which implies that to "be not" is not to "be". Ergo, the law of non-contradiction.

No offense, but that's a lie. You deduced that very statement, even if it was an incorrect one.

You can either live in doubt of everything and eventually go mad because of living in intellectual contradiction, or accept basic foundational principles that are logically sound and coherent.

You can believe whatever you want, doubt whatever you want, but that does not change that A = A and A is not non-A. In fact, it even reinforces it.