|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total) |
| |
Skylink | |
Total: 919,420 Year: 6,677/9,624 Month: 17/238 Week: 17/22 Day: 8/9 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Truth is Relative | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
It is argued in these forums, and in other places, that morality is a concept based on relative perspectives; a subjective not rooted in any one supreme belief, nor maintained by a grand master keeper of right and wrong. Arguments for this often include pointing to the stark differences between moralities in different cultures, that there is no one supreme being on Earth that could dictate such morality, and that any reference to a supreme supernatural being capable of dictating morality has fallen apart”due, I would guess, to the inability to show that such a being as believed to exist in one culture is any more likely to exist than a being believed to exist in another culture, or the inability to ultimately show that this supreme being's morality is ever enforced by him/her or his/her subjects and is thus irrelevant to us and not worthy of concern, debate, or even mention.
Now, I would propose similar arguments to be usable in showing truth to be relative”no, not Truth, but simply truth. I find it difficult to place a high standard on 'truth' as being something objectively verifiable. First, I would like to introduce an example: John. John is a good, if often lazy, little boy, who, hungry one day for a small snack from the local convenience store, sneaks his little hands into mom's purse to pull out a $5 and make his way to the convenience store. John returns home, eats his snack(s), and goes on about the day like usual. Later at night, whilst his mother, in all her meticulous nature, is managing her finances”down to the penny”, she finds missing from her purse $5. Interrupting John at the television set, she begins questioning him about the missing money, knowing that he seemed a little disinterested in his food at suppertime. What really happened to Mrs. John's Mom's money? I have given you my version of the story. John is likely to give his mother his version, which will undoubtedly be different. The purse, if it could talk, would tell you what it thinks happened. The clerk at the convenience store could recount her day to you. Even John's mother has her own version of discovering the missing money, and the thoughts that went through her head when she did. Who is to be believed? John? The purse? The clerk? Me? Alternatively, are all these stories somewhat biased in the sense that they are limited to a single reference frame? Is there a reference frame outside of this where exists the 'actuality of events', the 'truth' to what really happened? Can we believe in a findable, knowable truth unlike morality? My answer: no; and let me explain why . From our good friend Webster:
quote: That should do; I think we've gone deep enough into the definition. Now, my problem with the idea of 'truth' is that it is only as good as the body determining the conformity of a statement to the reality. It is also subject to the biases of those determining the conformity. This is the case, unless we are to believe that there is an ultimate authority capable of determining the conformity of a statement to reality. Consider a green triangle. Now, I can see it is green, and pretend you see it to be green. Mr. Ecks says, "The triangle is green." From our perspective, we might say he speaks truth. Other people might be unable to see the triangle, and cannot determine the truth. The triangle, it would have a great deal of trouble telling us its colour, and if it were able to, it could be biased on the subjective quality of the mirror into which it may look. Is the triangle green? I can't tell you; all I've got is the unreliable testament of my subjective eyes. But, I think such subjectivity of truth is no ways limited to simplistic situations such as the colour of shapes. It can come down to the very principle parts of any situation, and calls into question whether there ever is a truth. Is evolution truth? Is Creationism truth? For many centuries, the latter was so virtually across the board. Today, the former is in some areas, and the latter in others. Some might say that to worry about the possibility that what we take for knowing might not be true, is somewhat of a waste of time, but I find it significant enough, when we consider under who's truth we send a man to prison for life by convicting him of murder. Is the truth of everything relative? Jon__________ The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary, 3rd. Ed. In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
Because I talked with you and resolved this matter in chat, I will open this topic even though it seems similar to your other one.
Edited by AdminPhat, : changed mind Edited by AdminPhat, : clarification
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
There is no absolute truth
Is this statement truthful or not? No matter how you phrase it, you'll end up committing a fatal flaw. You can't deny an absolute without asserting another. Even if someone were to say, truth is relative. That would mean that its sometimes true, depending on the circumstances, but not at other times. Because even if truth were relative, then that its always relative. And that's an absolute phenomenon.
Is evolution truth? A great question. Well, is it? Is it true some of the time, but not at other times? Is that coherent? I think the answer is overwhelmingly obvious, don't you? "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17907 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
You're missing some important aspects of the arguments about morality.
In your example there is a series of events that happened in the shop. There will be a good deal in common among the accounts and the differences between them can be accounted for by known human behaviour and known human limitations. In short we know that there is a truth. The problem of getting at the events is due to limited evidence - in an ideal case we could do it. In the case of morality things are different. There aren't any cases when we can show an absolute moral claim to be true. None. There are even arguments over what morality is. As I argue in the threads about morality we have to accept that in practical terms "relativism" (in the sense of non-absolutism) is true since we are never in a position to say that one perspective or another is demonstrably incorrect. Adding to the practical problem the theoretical problem that nobody has a good model or understanding of an absolute morality (In the sense that none can even be agreed to be acceptable models of morality) and the position that morals are not absolute truths looks to be pretty solid. In the more general case, truth can have the same practical problems associated with it (indeed if absolutism were true then the problems with morality would be examples !). However there are cases where they do not apply. Nor do we have the same theoretical problems. Either point is sufficient to invalidate the comparison.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9011 From: Canada Joined: |
No matter how you phrase it, you'll end up committing a fatal flaw. You can't deny an absolute without asserting another. Nope, the problem here isn't logic or philosophy. You are dealing with self referential statements. English doesn't seem to handle them well. You don't prove anything beyond that even if you think it is ever such clever philosophy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4359 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
No matter how you phrase it, you'll end up committing a fatal flaw. You can't deny an absolute without asserting another.
its a paradox and a meaningless one at that a better one would be To say that there are no absolute truths is the closest possible thing to an absolute truth. we live in cultures that believe in absolutes, i believe we exist, funny that there are people who don't of course i don't believe moral absolutes exist which is different, than what you seem to like to bring up as a red herring
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4742 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
truth is based on the accumilation of all the facts and then use of those facts to construct a model of the reality ...
morality is referance system ... is it good ,is it bad , any reasoning is shaped on how one obtained that moral code , a limited number of facts will be looked for .. in most cases only one or two , other facts will be excluded by the code stating they are irrelavent , reality is told to go take a running jump . truth says if a book is a good read by reading the book analysising style , grammer , plot,charcterisation , atmoshpere et al and considering the readers tastes .. then offer it verdict.. that you might like this book , as morality say its a book is a good read if it has a green cover , and the title does not contain the word sex. the problem with everyday truth is we do not have the time for truth ..only opinon / personal view , and we take that as our shorthand for truth and get on with life .. even simple truths like john /cash /mother /snack .. take more time and more skill than we have to find truth , the nessary objective analysis is beyond us most of the time .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member (Idle past 124 days) Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: |
No matter how you phrase it, you'll end up committing a fatal flaw. You can't deny an absolute without asserting another. Not really. It's a different level of philosophy - a metaphysics rather than a physics. The statement 'There is no absolute truth' is a metaphysical statement about the physics of the world, not a statement about the metaphysics of a world. It is quite possible to construct this in a logical consistent manner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member (Idle past 124 days) Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: |
The body confirming conformity is reality itself. If you choose to believe things that are counter to reality it will always show. Belief cannot will anything into being; believing fervently that humans and dinosaurs lived together will not bring fossil evidence into being. Believing you can fly will not stop you falling to your death if you leap off a building.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: Nope, the problem here isn't logic or philosophy. You are dealing with self referential statements. English doesn't seem to handle them well. You don't prove anything beyond that even if you think it is ever such clever philosophy. That's the next assault that automatically comes-- that a language is fluid, and therefore, terms are sometimes indistinguishable. The concept of absolutes and relativity are understood well Ned (look, we seem to be understanding ourselves just fine). You cannot deny an absolute without asserting another, Ned. That's just the plain fact about it. Examples: 1. There is no truth. 2. Truth is relative. 3. There are no absolutes. And so on... "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2228 Joined: |
Jon writes: Is the truth of everything relative? No, some truths are relative, others are absolute. An example of a relative truth is your coloured triangle. Colour is a private mental experience, and it makes a difference whether the experiencer is a human, a dog, or an ant. In the outside world colour does not exist, so anything you say about colour is at most a relative truth. An example of absolute truth is the fact that there are infinitely many rational numbers. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18633 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.4 |
Mr.Jack writes: So are you saying that reality is a matter of perception? The body confirming conformity is reality itself. If I ceased to exist, would reality thus cease to exist? Edited by Phat, : No reason given. Convictions are very different from intentions. Convictions are something God gives us that we have to do. Intentions are things that we ought to do, but we never follow through with them. * * * * * * * * * * “The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”--General Omar Bradley * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Homer Simpson: Sometimes, Marge, you just have to go with your gut! Marge: You *always* go with your gut! How about for once you listen to your brain?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2419 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Your particular perception of reality would cease to exist, yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
its a paradox and a meaningless one at that There is nothing paradoxical or meaningless about it, DG. Better yet, is what you said absolutely true?
a better one would be To say that there are no absolute truths is the closest possible thing to an absolute truth. But by saying it, you are using one, in which case, if there really were not, then what you've just said is meaningless. Saying there are no absolutes is employing an absolute in order to deny it at the same time. "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024