Ask man in front of 'Hunk of a man' door - 'If I asked the other guard, would he say he has the hunk behind his door?
Then choose the opposite.
So, say you asked Hunk door and this has the liar - his response would be yes (because liar guard knows he has the hunk so he lies about truth guard's response)
If it were truth guard, his response would be yes as well (because he knows liar guard has the hunk but he is truthful about liar's intentions).
I'm pretty damned sure it's right (did see Labyrinth!) but can't explain it on a post - it's fine in my head!
...
Yup. The question being, "Is the other guard going to say the 'Lady' in behind that door (pointing to either door)?"
Since the Liar is always the negative and the Truth Teller is always positive... and label the 'No' answer as a negative (-), the 'Yes' answer as a positive (+). When you get a + and a minus combination, it is negative, thus, false. The answer that results in either 2 negatives or 2 positives are true.
Basically it is the principle that:
2 x 2 = 4
-2 x -2 = 4
-2 x 2 = -4
2 x -2 = -4
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
And that, Cosmo, can be considered an absolute truth.
...
Yeah.. I had to have that explained to me because I tried figuring it out. It was in an algebra class when we were working on logic or something and the instructor was trying to get us to label the plus and minus to things to figure out the logic employed.
And it was alot of fun trying to figure it out and a nice break from all that other equation junk.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I thought most here including me said truth is relative.
But you know if one remains cynical and skeptical it's pretty hard to recognize
THE truth when it finds it's way to you.
Perhaps it already has and you have dismissed it as bullshit ... too bad for THE truth
don't fret it will be around again.
...
No. Re-read it... people are saying that some truths are relative and acknowledge that absolute truths exist.
...
Just because a child, for example, really believes the lies of the parent that Santa Claus exists... doesn't mean Santa Claus truely exists, right? The child's relative truth is not the absolute truth because it is relative to the individual child, not to the world of reality.
...
And trust me... i'll know the truth when I find it... it will be the one that does not reek of bullshit.
I was speaking of THE truth ...
what you seem to forever be pursuing without luck. Many threads of your search.
Many circles back to if you don't know then no one can, which of course is ridiculous.
I presume there are many things you do not know or have not experienced.
Why you are searching.
So you feel THE truth is only found in what you perceive as reality?
That might be a problem for you in the future.
I was speaking of THE truth ...
what you seem to forever be pursuing without luck. Many threads of your search.
Many circles back to if you don't know then no one can, which of course is ridiculous.
I presume there are many things you do not know or have not experienced.
Why you are searching.
So you feel THE truth is only found in what you perceive as reality?
That might be a problem for you in the future.
...
Why is my pursuit any concern of yours?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
I believe that to be true.
Sometimes, the truth isn't the rosey way we want things to be. It is often times, cold, hard and ugly. Like the little kid learning the truth that his parents have been lying to him all of his life and that Santa Claus does not exist. But, we do find beauty in those things because they are truths.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I was speaking of THE truth ...
what you seem to forever be pursuing without luck. Many threads of your search.
Many circles back to if you don't know then no one can, which of course is ridiculous.
I presume there are many things you do not know or have not experienced.
Why you are searching.
So you feel THE truth is only found in what you perceive as reality?
That might be a problem for you in the future.
...
Why is my pursuit any concern of yours?
Why is my knowing God any concern of yours?
Something you feel compelled to dispel
How 'bout you keep pursuing and realize there are people who know God
and you may well be one one day if you so choose.
It is all about choice as you pursue THE truth.
...
I believe that to be true.
Sometimes, the truth isn't the rosey way we want things to be. It is often times, cold, hard and ugly. Like the little kid learning the truth that his parents have been lying to him all of his life and that Santa Claus does not exist. But, we do find beauty in those things because they are truths.
No, I hear you; it can be painful but builds resilience at times, not to mention clarity - like when you get an eye exam and can finally see all those details and intricacies (although did you really WANT to? Too late, buddy, they're there and always have been!)
I think sometimes I get irritated with the passive-aggressive bullshit...hence that post of mine up there.
...
And trust me... i'll know the truth when I find it... it will be the one that does not reek of bullshit.
I don't believe there is just the one truth. It's all the absolute truths you have found through your journey that will complete your pursuit. The answers you seek to the questionS you have. Obviously, if you just have the one quest, hopefully you will find your one absolute truth. And because quests are individual, it does not mean the truth is relative. It can be absolute.
But the one truth (and I have a feeling I know what is implied here) to encompass all the quests - don't think so. That would entail omniscience, which, we know, is not possible.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,090
I'd like to suggest that this thread is not focused completely on the subject of "truth". I think most of us would agree that 1+1=2 is true and that there truly is no Santa Claus that lives on the North Pole and delivers present to children all over the world in one night. I'm not so sure that all of us would agree about anything being true or no true with regards to the concept of God or god or gods. Are we talked about truth as being that which is proven or are we talking about truth in including that which is both proven and that which is speculative? I especially question whether it really makes sense to talk about God and truth in the same sentence unless we are talking about some form of speculative truth. To my way of thinking that confuses "truth" with "belief".
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
I'd like to suggest that this thread is not focused completely on the subject of "truth". I think most of us would agree that 1+1=2 is true and that there truly is no Santa Claus that lives on the North Pole and delivers present to children all over the world in one night. I'm not so sure that all of us would agree about anything being true or no true with regards to the concept of God or god or gods. Are we talked about truth as being that which is proven or are we talking about truth in including that which is both proven and that which is speculative? I especially question whether it really makes sense to talk about God and truth in the same sentence unless we are talking about some form of speculative truth. To my way of thinking that confuses "truth" with "belief".
We're talking both brianlux. Relative truth - ie what YOU see as truth because of who and what you are or because of other variables, such as culture, where you live on the planet (eg. here in the UK, it's nightime but in California it's daytime). So MY truth is relative (and a belief) - this truth would include Santa and gods.. Absolute truth which is has no 'counter-argument) (once it has been qualified such as 1+1=2).
I don't think the idea of the thread was to figure out if god was truth or not, or THE truth but it seems it may have taken a turn.
I think the general idea was on a more philosophic and general point of view on 'truth' itself, what constitutes truth? Is there absolute truth? Universal truth? Not being omniscient, can we contemplate universal truth(s) (unalterable, absolute, permanent truth for all, all the time, everywhere - no exception).
I mentioned truth is in the heart early on and it all went to God ...
get it ... God ... instead of hell ... Ha!
I think when people think of truth they immediately go to that truth.
Not many question math or the absolutes at least not now.
But in years to come maybe as we learn there is no time space etc
when we learn reality is not what we think.
And proof is not at all.
Why is my knowing God any concern of yours?
Something you feel compelled to dispel
How 'bout you keep pursuing and realize there are people who know God
and you may well be one one day if you so choose.
It is all about choice as you pursue THE truth.
...
Don't place so much worth on yourself. I really don't care what you believe and don't try to dispell your 'beliefs'. Yeah, I call bullshit on it (just like I call bullshit on Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps whom also claim to 'know' God) because I have heard your very same story from other people, so to me, it is just a re-hashed religious views that is modified to fit the individual. But, if it works for you... it works for you and why should you care what I or anyone else have to say about it?
...
My belief is that you, just like every other person alive and all whom have ever walked the planet Earth, do not 'know', with absolute uncertainty, of God.
If you need me to provide an explanation for my belief... here it is:
IF... you did indeed, 'Know' God... you would be... well, enlightened. At the very least, more enlightened that you portray yourself. But, since you provide us everyday with written messages, based upon your words that describes the world and the people in it as you see it... that this is certainly not the case. If you were to truely know God... you would see the worlds and people in it, through His eyes. What you type tells me... nope.
Now... from the Moses story... well, Moses make a great case on his knowledge of God. Moses was greatly enlightened by his contact with God. Somehow... from your very words... you are not Moses-like.
Now, that is my belief and I admit... I may be wrong. You may be describing exactly how God sees the world and all of us in it and everyone who has ever been in it... but, I am guessing, 'Not so much'.
Sorry... but, as I have stated, the truth isn't all about what you would like to hear and often times, the things you don't want to hear. That is why so many people never see the lies they believe in.
Post edited by Cosmo on
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I'd like to suggest that this thread is not focused completely on the subject of "truth". I think most of us would agree that 1+1=2 is true and that there truly is no Santa Claus that lives on the North Pole and delivers present to children all over the world in one night. I'm not so sure that all of us would agree about anything being true or no true with regards to the concept of God or god or gods. Are we talked about truth as being that which is proven or are we talking about truth in including that which is both proven and that which is speculative? I especially question whether it really makes sense to talk about God and truth in the same sentence unless we are talking about some form of speculative truth. To my way of thinking that confuses "truth" with "belief".
...
Yes... But... there is ONE absolute TRUE answer to the question:
Does God Exist?
It is either, YES... or NO.
We cloud the answer by applying our individual (relative) truths to the answers we arrive at.
...
And honestly, I don't care about individual's relative truths... if you belive Christ is the Answer or Islam is the true religion or that there is no God because there is no proof of God... I really don't care what others believe.
It still does not answer the question. That's what I'm looking for.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
We're talking both brianlux. Relative truth - ie what YOU see as truth because of who and what you are or because of other variables, such as culture, where you live on the planet (eg. here in the UK, it's nightime but in California it's daytime). So MY truth is relative (and a belief) - this truth would include Santa and gods.. Absolute truth which is has no 'counter-argument) (once it has been qualified such as 1+1=2).
I don't think the idea of the thread was to figure out if god was truth or not, or THE truth but it seems it may have taken a turn.
I think the general idea was on a more philosophic and general point of view on 'truth' itself, what constitutes truth? Is there absolute truth? Universal truth? Not being omniscient, can we contemplate universal truth(s) (unalterable, absolute, permanent truth for all, all the time, everywhere - no exception).
Edit: does that make you even dizzier Jeanwah?
...
That's basically it. We know truths exists... and we know beliefs are embedded pretty deep.
As for the God question... it is merely an example because that belief is the prime example (I have run into) where the truth/belief line is blurred to the point of oblivion. Many people take their belief in God so profoundly, the two (belief/truth) are the same.
That is how and why people will kill (and die) for their God.
Question being, Is that what God wants... for us to kill/die in His name?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I would argue that there must be absolute truth for all things. In terms of social sciences, however, truth can be subjected to individual intentions. A person might think it's true that a very capitalistic system isn't the most effective system for the people as a whole, but is a very effective system for himself. One truth can be more valuable than the other, but it doesn't negate either truth. Therefore, in politics, intentions can often hold more currency than truths.
I would argue that there must be absolute truth for all things. In terms of social sciences, however, truth can be subjected to individual intentions. A person might think it's true that a very capitalistic system isn't the most effective system for the people as a whole, but is a very effective system for himself. One truth can be more valuable than the other, but it doesn't negate either truth. Therefore, in politics, intentions can often hold more currency than truths.
So maybe truth is just worthless.
...
I think the problems arrise when we try to apply 'our (relative) truths' as absolutes.
Like back in the early 2000s, 'Spreading Democracy in the the Middle East is a good thing'.
Yes, it is a good thing... depending on where you stand.
YES... if you are an Arab that gets to elect people that represent the people of a nation, rather than having to follow the edict of a dictator.
NO... if you were gaining favor from a dictator that ruled over the country.
...
But, even THAT has an absolute truth tied to it... if we remove our relative perspectives from the equation.
YES... it IS a good thing for Arab peoples to live in a Democracy where they get to determine who runs their country. There are going to be negative outcomes, such as civil wars and bloodshed, but in the overall greater picture... the absolute truth is free people are much better off than oppressed people.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I would argue that there must be absolute truth for all things. In terms of social sciences, however, truth can be subjected to individual intentions. A person might think it's true that a very capitalistic system isn't the most effective system for the people as a whole, but is a very effective system for himself. One truth can be more valuable than the other, but it doesn't negate either truth. Therefore, in politics, intentions can often hold more currency than truths.
So maybe truth is just worthless.
I like your "truth" I am a social scientist and I find it difficult to see absolute truths only relative truths because everything is tempered by shades of gray. What is a truth for me may not be truth for anyone else. Does that diminish my truth? If you state that truth is worthless maybe another question would be is (absolute) truth even necessary?
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I would argue that there must be absolute truth for all things. In terms of social sciences, however, truth can be subjected to individual intentions. A person might think it's true that a very capitalistic system isn't the most effective system for the people as a whole, but is a very effective system for himself. One truth can be more valuable than the other, but it doesn't negate either truth. Therefore, in politics, intentions can often hold more currency than truths.
So maybe truth is just worthless.
I like your "truth" I am a social scientist and I find it difficult to see absolute truths only relative truths because everything is tempered by shades of gray. What is a truth for me may not be truth for anyone else. Does that diminish my truth? If you state that truth is worthless maybe another question would be is (absolute) truth even necessary?
Maybe absolute truth isn't necessary, but it can still exist. It seems to me that even if social science had facts that were absolutely proven to be true, people will still value their own truths and debate the value of these truths millennium after millennium. But that doesn't mean they aren't worth debating. I guess it's about which truth is more popular... and that's what gives truth it's worth?
I majored in social and political philosophy... I'm pretty sure my degree is worthless.
I would argue that there must be absolute truth for all things. In terms of social sciences, however, truth can be subjected to individual intentions. A person might think it's true that a very capitalistic system isn't the most effective system for the people as a whole, but is a very effective system for himself. One truth can be more valuable than the other, but it doesn't negate either truth. Therefore, in politics, intentions can often hold more currency than truths.
So maybe truth is just worthless.
I like your "truth" I am a social scientist and I find it difficult to see absolute truths only relative truths because everything is tempered by shades of gray. What is a truth for me may not be truth for anyone else. Does that diminish my truth? If you state that truth is worthless maybe another question would be is (absolute) truth even necessary?
Maybe absolute truth isn't necessary, but it can still exist. It seems to me that even if social science had facts that were absolutely proven to be true, people will still value their own truths and debate the value of these truths millennium after millennium. But that doesn't mean they aren't worth debating. I guess it's about which truth is more popular... and that's what gives truth it's worth?
I majored in social and political philosophy... I'm pretty sure my degree is worthless.
Not so sure that degree is worthless but then that is your truth not mine I think, especially in the social sciences, that debating the relative truth or worth or popularity is definitely worthwhile. As an historian, I would argue that truth can change over time even though most would argue that history is set in stone and facts are absolute truths. The debating of these topics is certainly worthwhile - I think that is why I have been so interested in this thread. I like that there are no hard and fast truths only a quest FOR the truth - whatever that may be
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I think without a source of truth (God for example), truth is defined by the golden rule.
For example, if there are two people on earth, and there is no God determining right from wrong, would it be wrong for person 1 to kill person 2 for person 2's land? Whose to say it is wrong? If there was a creator of those two individuals, that creator could say that it is wrong and it would be absolute truth.
Without a creator, then humans are left to figure truth out on their own. A lot of that is through the golden rule. THey don't want to be killed, so they aren't going to kill someone else. They would want to be helped out if they are homeless, so they provide help for the homeless. This kind of truth changes though as public opinion changes, so I don't know if there is real truth in the world without it coming from a Creator. Otherwise, the will of the people will determine truth as it works for them at the time instead of it being a constant truth.
Slavery was once a truth in the USA. Thankful it is not anymore, but at one point in time public opinion supported slavery.
I think without a source of truth (God for example), truth is defined by the golden rule.
For example, if there are two people on earth, and there is no God determining right from wrong, would it be wrong for person 1 to kill person 2 for person 2's land? Whose to say it is wrong? If there was a creator of those two individuals, that creator could say that it is wrong and it would be absolute truth.
Without a creator, then humans are left to figure truth out on their own. A lot of that is through the golden rule. THey don't want to be killed, so they aren't going to kill someone else. They would want to be helped out if they are homeless, so they provide help for the homeless. This kind of truth changes though as public opinion changes, so I don't know if there is real truth in the world without it coming from a Creator. Otherwise, the will of the people will determine truth as it works for them at the time instead of it being a constant truth.
Slavery was once a truth in the USA. Thankful it is not anymore, but at one point in time public opinion supported slavery.
...
What about all of that coming from our humanity? Did God end slavery or did men bearing humanity end slavery?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Not so sure that degree is worthless but then that is your truth not mine I think, especially in the social sciences, that debating the relative truth or worth or popularity is definitely worthwhile. As an historian, I would argue that truth can change over time even though most would argue that history is set in stone and facts are absolute truths. The debating of these topics is certainly worthwhile - I think that is why I have been so interested in this thread. I like that there are no hard and fast truths only a quest FOR the truth - whatever that may be
Your students are fortunate to have you as their teacher.
For some we see the world in the way it IS. For others they see they world in which they would LIKE it to be!
We can hear the truth in many different ways and the context in which it is heard is the way we interpret it. Also, many of us absorb it differently as well. There are absolute truths other than math, science, objects, etc. Words are truth.....if someone says something....its absolutely true that they said it. How its interpreted is an individual concept and inner working of our "wiring". It is absolutely true that the sky is blue and its absolutely true that George Bush quit golfing after we went to war. Its absolutely true that our media lies to us! Its absolutely true that we have a very large debt of over 16 trillion dollars. Whether you want to believe it or not, is up to you! Its all in how we absorb what comes across the air waves! We all have a filter.....and some are working well, while others need a good dusting off!
Theres no time like the present
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
As an historian, I would argue that truth can change over time even though most would argue that history is set in stone and facts are absolute truths.
As is science - new discoveries may override 'older' theories (though I don't think completely debunk them).
But I would say that as long as these truths have been qualified (which they are in science), I would consider them absolute. But is that not 'true' for all truths then? Also, if we have to qualify them, are they then not just all 'relative' as conditions have to be met?
Riotgrl - these metaphysical debates are always interesting and worthwhile. Seems to bring up more questions than answers!
The sky is blue - absolute truth. Not really - the sky is perceived blue by a group of people at a given time.
Words are absolute? Not really as the meaning of a word can be multiple and the expression of a string of words can have different meanings depending on how they are perceived. Also language is organic. Words may be perceived as absolute truth by the one speaking them but they are still relative.
But... as I said before: "Not being omniscient, can we contemplate universal truth(s) (unalterable, absolute, permanent truth for all, all the time, everywhere - no exception). That, I'm not so sure.
Comments
Yup. The question being, "Is the other guard going to say the 'Lady' in behind that door (pointing to either door)?"
Since the Liar is always the negative and the Truth Teller is always positive... and label the 'No' answer as a negative (-), the 'Yes' answer as a positive (+). When you get a + and a minus combination, it is negative, thus, false. The answer that results in either 2 negatives or 2 positives are true.
Basically it is the principle that:
2 x 2 = 4
-2 x -2 = 4
-2 x 2 = -4
2 x -2 = -4
Hail, Hail!!!
Yeah.. I had to have that explained to me because I tried figuring it out. It was in an algebra class when we were working on logic or something and the instructor was trying to get us to label the plus and minus to things to figure out the logic employed.
And it was alot of fun trying to figure it out and a nice break from all that other equation junk.
Hail, Hail!!!
Yes... it is from that equation:
3(76x - 5xy + 17y) / 2x(-37y) = Obama is Hitler
Hail, Hail!!!
what you seem to forever be pursuing without luck. Many threads of your search.
Many circles back to if you don't know then no one can, which of course is ridiculous.
I presume there are many things you do not know or have not experienced.
Why you are searching.
So you feel THE truth is only found in what you perceive as reality?
That might be a problem for you in the future.
Why is my pursuit any concern of yours?
Hail, Hail!!!
I believe that to be true.
Sometimes, the truth isn't the rosey way we want things to be. It is often times, cold, hard and ugly. Like the little kid learning the truth that his parents have been lying to him all of his life and that Santa Claus does not exist. But, we do find beauty in those things because they are truths.
Hail, Hail!!!
Something you feel compelled to dispel
How 'bout you keep pursuing and realize there are people who know God
and you may well be one one day if you so choose.
It is all about choice as you pursue THE truth.
I think sometimes I get irritated with the passive-aggressive bullshit...hence that post of mine up there.
I don't believe there is just the one truth. It's all the absolute truths you have found through your journey that will complete your pursuit. The answers you seek to the questionS you have. Obviously, if you just have the one quest, hopefully you will find your one absolute truth. And because quests are individual, it does not mean the truth is relative. It can be absolute.
But the one truth (and I have a feeling I know what is implied here) to encompass all the quests - don't think so. That would entail omniscience, which, we know, is not possible.
Ain't that the truth!
Otherwise, this thread makes me a bit dizzy.
I don't think the idea of the thread was to figure out if god was truth or not, or THE truth but it seems it may have taken a turn.
I think the general idea was on a more philosophic and general point of view on 'truth' itself, what constitutes truth? Is there absolute truth? Universal truth? Not being omniscient, can we contemplate universal truth(s) (unalterable, absolute, permanent truth for all, all the time, everywhere - no exception).
Edit: does that make you even dizzier Jeanwah?
get it ... God ... instead of hell ... Ha!
I think when people think of truth they immediately go to that truth.
Not many question math or the absolutes at least not now.
But in years to come maybe as we learn there is no time space etc
when we learn reality is not what we think.
And proof is not at all.
Kind of like what BJ said, humor but truth.
Don't place so much worth on yourself. I really don't care what you believe and don't try to dispell your 'beliefs'. Yeah, I call bullshit on it (just like I call bullshit on Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps whom also claim to 'know' God) because I have heard your very same story from other people, so to me, it is just a re-hashed religious views that is modified to fit the individual. But, if it works for you... it works for you and why should you care what I or anyone else have to say about it?
...
My belief is that you, just like every other person alive and all whom have ever walked the planet Earth, do not 'know', with absolute uncertainty, of God.
If you need me to provide an explanation for my belief... here it is:
IF... you did indeed, 'Know' God... you would be... well, enlightened. At the very least, more enlightened that you portray yourself. But, since you provide us everyday with written messages, based upon your words that describes the world and the people in it as you see it... that this is certainly not the case. If you were to truely know God... you would see the worlds and people in it, through His eyes. What you type tells me... nope.
Now... from the Moses story... well, Moses make a great case on his knowledge of God. Moses was greatly enlightened by his contact with God. Somehow... from your very words... you are not Moses-like.
Now, that is my belief and I admit... I may be wrong. You may be describing exactly how God sees the world and all of us in it and everyone who has ever been in it... but, I am guessing, 'Not so much'.
Sorry... but, as I have stated, the truth isn't all about what you would like to hear and often times, the things you don't want to hear. That is why so many people never see the lies they believe in.
Hail, Hail!!!
Yes... But... there is ONE absolute TRUE answer to the question:
Does God Exist?
It is either, YES... or NO.
We cloud the answer by applying our individual (relative) truths to the answers we arrive at.
...
And honestly, I don't care about individual's relative truths... if you belive Christ is the Answer or Islam is the true religion or that there is no God because there is no proof of God... I really don't care what others believe.
It still does not answer the question. That's what I'm looking for.
Hail, Hail!!!
That's basically it. We know truths exists... and we know beliefs are embedded pretty deep.
As for the God question... it is merely an example because that belief is the prime example (I have run into) where the truth/belief line is blurred to the point of oblivion. Many people take their belief in God so profoundly, the two (belief/truth) are the same.
That is how and why people will kill (and die) for their God.
Question being, Is that what God wants... for us to kill/die in His name?
Hail, Hail!!!
I would argue that there must be absolute truth for all things. In terms of social sciences, however, truth can be subjected to individual intentions. A person might think it's true that a very capitalistic system isn't the most effective system for the people as a whole, but is a very effective system for himself. One truth can be more valuable than the other, but it doesn't negate either truth. Therefore, in politics, intentions can often hold more currency than truths.
So maybe truth is just worthless.
I think the problems arrise when we try to apply 'our (relative) truths' as absolutes.
Like back in the early 2000s, 'Spreading Democracy in the the Middle East is a good thing'.
Yes, it is a good thing... depending on where you stand.
YES... if you are an Arab that gets to elect people that represent the people of a nation, rather than having to follow the edict of a dictator.
NO... if you were gaining favor from a dictator that ruled over the country.
...
But, even THAT has an absolute truth tied to it... if we remove our relative perspectives from the equation.
YES... it IS a good thing for Arab peoples to live in a Democracy where they get to determine who runs their country. There are going to be negative outcomes, such as civil wars and bloodshed, but in the overall greater picture... the absolute truth is free people are much better off than oppressed people.
Hail, Hail!!!
I like your "truth"
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
Maybe absolute truth isn't necessary, but it can still exist. It seems to me that even if social science had facts that were absolutely proven to be true, people will still value their own truths and debate the value of these truths millennium after millennium. But that doesn't mean they aren't worth debating. I guess it's about which truth is more popular... and that's what gives truth it's worth?
I majored in social and political philosophy... I'm pretty sure my degree is worthless.
Not so sure that degree is worthless but then that is your truth not mine
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
For example, if there are two people on earth, and there is no God determining right from wrong, would it be wrong for person 1 to kill person 2 for person 2's land? Whose to say it is wrong? If there was a creator of those two individuals, that creator could say that it is wrong and it would be absolute truth.
Without a creator, then humans are left to figure truth out on their own. A lot of that is through the golden rule. THey don't want to be killed, so they aren't going to kill someone else. They would want to be helped out if they are homeless, so they provide help for the homeless. This kind of truth changes though as public opinion changes, so I don't know if there is real truth in the world without it coming from a Creator. Otherwise, the will of the people will determine truth as it works for them at the time instead of it being a constant truth.
Slavery was once a truth in the USA. Thankful it is not anymore, but at one point in time public opinion supported slavery.
What about all of that coming from our humanity? Did God end slavery or did men bearing humanity end slavery?
Hail, Hail!!!
This has been - still is - a damn nice thread.
We can hear the truth in many different ways and the context in which it is heard is the way we interpret it. Also, many of us absorb it differently as well. There are absolute truths other than math, science, objects, etc. Words are truth.....if someone says something....its absolutely true that they said it. How its interpreted is an individual concept and inner working of our "wiring". It is absolutely true that the sky is blue and its absolutely true that George Bush quit golfing after we went to war. Its absolutely true that our media lies to us! Its absolutely true that we have a very large debt of over 16 trillion dollars. Whether you want to believe it or not, is up to you! Its all in how we absorb what comes across the air waves! We all have a filter.....and some are working well, while others need a good dusting off!
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
All people need to do more on every level!
As is science - new discoveries may override 'older' theories (though I don't think completely debunk them).
But I would say that as long as these truths have been qualified (which they are in science), I would consider them absolute. But is that not 'true' for all truths then? Also, if we have to qualify them, are they then not just all 'relative' as conditions have to be met?
Riotgrl - these metaphysical debates are always interesting and worthwhile. Seems to bring up more questions than answers!
The sky is blue - absolute truth. Not really - the sky is perceived blue by a group of people at a given time.
Words are absolute? Not really as the meaning of a word can be multiple and the expression of a string of words can have different meanings depending on how they are perceived. Also language is organic. Words may be perceived as absolute truth by the one speaking them but they are still relative.
But... as I said before: "Not being omniscient, can we contemplate universal truth(s) (unalterable, absolute, permanent truth for all, all the time, everywhere - no exception). That, I'm not so sure.