Truth

[Scheherazade]

After reading this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4460673.stm) :


What is relativism?

Shortly before he was elected pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger delivered a withering denunciation of relativism. For those unfamiliar with even the blunter points of philosophy, what was he driving at?
Moral relativism is the idea that moral principles have no objective standard, so states its dictionary definition.

In its extreme, the view that there are no hard and fast rules on what is right and wrong, on which values are set and should be fought for.

It is in contrast to absolutism, that there is one truth.

One man's meat...

Relativism is "Different opinions, no one authority, and as many 'truths' as there are people or societies or cultures advancing different ways of doing things," says Simon Blackburn, Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge University.

It is easy, he says, "to give relativism a slogan: Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. One man's meat is another man's poison." And when that is applied to ethics, then goodness, virtue and duty also lie in the eye of the beholder.

So, for the western liberal, living under western liberal influences, with western liberal opinions, he says, contraception and abortion are in, but for the Catholic Church, they are out.

In his sermon ahead of the conclave to choose a new Pope, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger warned of the need to preserve the Church's traditional Catholic tenets against modern trends, against the "dictatorship of relativism".

Moral standards, Catholic conservatives believe, should be perfect and unchanging.

At the same time, relativism was being attacked in the British general election campaign. Under it, said Michael Howard, leader of the Conservative Party, traditional British values are "being trashed" as "the victims have become the aggressors and the aggressors have become the victims"

Plato's problem

On education, much is made of a lack of discipline in schools at a time when parents can challenge the teachers who used to be a figure of absolute authority.

The arguments' theme is not new. Two and a half thousand years ago, Professor Blackburn points out, Plato opposed relativism in his Dialogues when he sought "one true opinion, real knowledge, real authority" and wanted to establish the error of other opinions.

In the Reformation, Martin Luther argued authority came from each believer, from the bottom up, not from the top down, as Church heads would have it.

As Julian Baggini, editor of The Philosopher's Magazine, highlights, relativism grew under "early globalisation" when explorers discovered other cultures had different standards and morals, a catalyst to reconsider their own.

In the late 20th Century, postmodernism had academics arguing that there is no one truth, just many interpretations. And in politics, some cast the impeachment of President Clinton as an absolutist attempt to establish right over wrong.

Crude picture

But philosophers warn against painting a crude black and white contrast between one absolute truth and the rest - bagging together all "relativists".

"The problem is that it's not just a contrast to absolutism," says Baggini.

Relativism, he says, gets "a bad name" from opponents like the church who cast it only as "an anything goes" approach to moral questions. The reality has a much more diverse set of views, he says.

That bad name, he believes, is "perhaps the biggest example of philosophical illiteracy".
I have been wondering whether the truth is 'in the eye of the beholder' or there is one unchanging universal truth...

Any thoughts?

[Bandini]

Moral relativism does get a bad name, but it is, for better or worse, the way things are, and the only way they can be, in a world of myriad reality tunnels. At work now, so no time to elaborate! Will talk later!

[atiguhya padma]

I know of no universal truth. I know of no method of determining universal truth. And as for absolute truth.....

[Scheherazade]

And as for absolute truth.....
*holds her breath*

Yes?????? :p

I mentioned 'universal' truth because, going along with the example of the Church in the article, there are Christians all around the world;they all come from different cultural/social backgrounds but they all believe in the same thing regardless: Church's teachings...

[Bandini]

I'm too tired to wax lyrical, but I'll say a liddle bit for now! You can guess from my tag line that I am a big subjectivity fan! Perhaps there are some morals that we would wish were absolute, but 'Needs must when the devil vomits in your lunch box'. The Ik tribe (foe an account of this tribe read 'The Mountain People' by Colin Turnbull), have a moral system that we would consider abhorrent. They rae quite casual about the horrendous deaths of close relatives and will steal food from the sick and elderly. They also live in one of the worlds most inhospitable habitats. Impeccable morals are probably the preserve of the privileged. As I say though, catma not dogma. Please argue against this!

[Basil]

As I say though, catma not dogma. Please argue against this!
I'd like to take your catma, tie it in a sackma, and throw it in the lakema.

[Bandini]

Very droll!

[Bandini]

Ooh! That got my heart beating.

[Bandini]

...............

[Scheherazade]

Impeccable morals are probably the preserve of the privileged.
Are you suggesting that people who live in less favorable conditions lack morals?

[subterranean]

Is it the same with right or wrong?


I mentioned 'universal' truth because, going along with the example of the Church in the article, there are Christians all around the world;they all come from different cultural/social backgrounds but they all believe in the same thing regardless: Church's teachings...

I suppose that's more appropriate to be called Christians' universal truth..
I work in a multinational company with offices in almost 100 countries..different nations, languages, local policies, etc...BUT, same vision, mission, goal, and basic principals. I suppose we have our own universal "truth"

[baddad]

Okay.........Imho........Any 'universal truths' (a damn vague term:metaphysical? concrete? Moral/Ethical? Climatological?) that may exist must be innate to all human beings in order to represent what they claim. Now morality is a judgement call, and so any moral dictate is no more an innate part of being human than is the ability to fly by flapping our arms. Morals, ethics, are dictates (belief based, whether political, religious, etc.), whether from within or without ourselves. If the Roman Catholic church decides to attack philosophies that disagree with its' own approach to life....well.... it is only continuing its' milleniums old approach to control of the masses. The reality that there is more than a single reality seems to escape (purposefully) fundamentalists no matter what their stripe...........

[imthefoolonthehill]

there are no universal truths, truth comes from the eye of the beholder. We all make our own truth. in fact, i it is now true that you are all pussycats. I say so. Its true for me.

In fact, you are also all serial killers...and you walk upside down inside the subway tunnels.

2+2=22 ...or 12, or 443, or 4342

reality must conflict with itself, because of, like, dude, myriad reality tunnels.



don't mock me, i'm enlightened.

[imthefoolonthehill]

universal truths:

A is A

reality does not conflict with itself

when you see a contradiction, check your premises... one will be incorrect.

[imthefoolonthehill]

therefore, any truth is a universal truth, or it is opinion. there is no such thing as truth that is not truth for everyone.

if there is, it is being too vague, such as saying "the statement 'i'm wearing a blue shirt' is true for me, not for you"

this doesn't prove relativism, it merely shows the absurdity.

The person the statement is refering to either is or is not wearing a blue shirt. this is true for everyone, blind, colorblind, or crosseyed.

even if they speak a different language, and call blue by another name, it is still true for them. If its true, it is universally true.

Nothing can be true for me but untrue for you.

[atiguhya padma]

Is A is A a truth that stands of its own accord? Some might say it is a pyramid standing on stilts. Others might say it is a symbol of anarchy, and others might say it is tautological or meaningless altogether. I imagine for A to be A, we might need some form of consensus.

Truth.... is this not a concept we have created? Would it have existed if there were no minds to create it?

[kilted exile]

IMHO the only universal truths are those which deal with quantities, e.g there are 100 centimetres in a metre, 60 seconds in a minute etc.

[imthefoolonthehill]

Is A is A a truth that stands of its own accord? Some might say it is a pyramid standing on stilts. Others might say it is a symbol of anarchy, and others might say it is tautological or meaningless altogether. I imagine for A to be A, we might need some form of consensus.

Truth.... is this not a concept we have created? Would it have existed if there were no minds to create it?


A is A

sure sure sure some might say A is something different than what it is, but it is what it is, no matter who says it is something, or whatever people think. It exists.

Besides, i wasn't talking about the letter, i was talking about it as a variable.

as in ... a Horse is a horse, of course.

of course, this works for the letter A. A frigging pyramid on stilts? It is A. I could call you a pyramid on stilts, but it wouldn't make you one.

A pyramid on stilts is a pyramid on stilts. To say otherwise is folly.

Truth is not a concept we have created.

For something to be true, it corresponds with reality.

Reality is not something we have created. It will exist after i die, and existed before i was born.

To be all quasi-intellectual and ask "how do you know this" is ridiculous.

Deserving of Ridicule.

If we all died, reality would go on without us.

If a tree fell in the forest, and no one was around to hear, it would still make a sound.

To say otherwise is merely a joke to try and trip people up who cannot articulate the self-evident principle of reality.

again, i go back to math. 2+2=4

there is absolute truth in the world. All truth is absolute.

For something to be false, it only has to be not completely true. If one tiny part of an otherwise true statement is false, the entire statement must be considered false.

Example: Billy was the greatest piano player in his third grade class.

If Billy was the greatest piano player in his class, but was in the 5th grade, that would not be a true statement.

[Bandini]

Are you suggesting that people who live in less favorable conditions lack morals?

No Schez (going back a bit!), just that those who live in conditions like The Ik have their work cut out being 'good'.

[imthefoolonthehill]

Are you suggesting that people who live in less favorable conditions lack morals?


i am not.

i have no idea where you got that idea.

added below in edit:

oh... maybe this wasn't directed to me

oops

[imthefoolonthehill]

oh, by the way guys... truth exists as often as reality exists.

this is because "true" is only the attribute of corresponding with reality.

if nothing corresponds with reality, then nothing is true. If there is no truth, then nothing corresponds with reality.



I am very fond of saying "a is a" in this thread. what that means is that something equals itself. always.

this is why 'is' can be substituted for equals in word problems.

reality exists. truth exists. Truth must be true for everyone.

today's absolute truth claim: foolonthehill is wearingi black cargo pants and is eating a cough drop as we speak

truth claims do not have to be profound.

[Bandini]

I think the only truth is the old 'Cogito ergo sum' - the moiling, toiling sands (to nick a bit of Neitzsche) of subjectivity make sure of that.

[Asian-American]

After reading this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4460673.stm) :


I have been wondering whether the truth is 'in the eye of the beholder' or there is one unchanging universal truth...

Any thoughts?

My perspective:

It comes down to the Scientific Method. If someone says that prostitution is immoral, I would ask him to use the Scientific Method to prove it. If he can, then I will accept his claim as an absolute truth. If he can't, then I will conclude that his claim is purely subjective.

Also, consider how morals change every generation. For example, consider Early American culture: "War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race" by Edwin Black, 2003 http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/Unfit.htm Early Americans had a very different set of moral beliefs than today's Americans, and each generation claimed absolute moralism. How can morality be absolute, yet each generation, each society, and each individual differ in moral beliefs, yet claim moral absolutism?

[imthefoolonthehill]

its very simple. if people make conflicting truth claims, someone is wrong.

maybe both.

This by no means points to the lack of truth. For them to be wrong, there must be truth somewhere.

I repeat: A is A

Truth is true for everyone. All truth is absolute truth, or it isn't truth at all

[atiguhya padma]

<Truth is true for everyone. All truth is absolute truth, or it isn't truth at all>

So there is no truth at all then. Someone will always disagree. Truth is true for everyone could be a relativist position, a claim that therefore there is no truth, other than consensual truth.

[atiguhya padma]

imthefoolonthehill,

when you say that reality is not something we create, are you talking about subatomic reality or macroreality?

[atiguhya padma]

Also,

saying A is A tells us nothing more than consensual truth does it? whether A is a pyramid or a camel or whatever. We can only talk about A when it is unanimously agreed what A is. And then all we have is a consensus. Truths about A are a totally different matter.

[imthefoolonthehill]

If there is no truth at all, there is no reality.

This is because of the definition of truth: corresponding with reality.

I am talking about all reality when i say that truth is not something we create.

We don't make reality, on a subatomic level or on an astronomical level.

Sure, we can change reality by manipulating our surroundings, but we never create our own reality Alice-in-Wonderland or Matrix style.

Truth is not what we make it.

LOL unanimous consent does not dictate reality. Nor does it dictate existence.

We can all say that a square has three sides, but it doesn't.

Sure, we can change the meanings of the words, but the four sided figure will never have three sides.

People's opinions do not change whether I am going to come back to earth if i jump or whether the earth will rotate a certain direction.


A is A meanigs that whatever A is, it is itself, and nothing can ever ever change this.

This is the foundation of all logic. Something is itself. It is truth. From there you can discover truth through reason.

[atiguhya padma]

What on earth is 'all reality'? Is this not something abstract that you're talking about?

[atiguhya padma]

imthefoolonthehill, you say we do not create reality matrix-style. How do you know this? How does one know anything about reality?

[atiguhya padma]

Furthermore, doesn't absolute mean in tine as well as space? in which case how can tyou ever determine something absolute?

[imthefoolonthehill]

if you define absolute to mean in time as well as in space, then no there are no absolute truth, there is only momentary truth.

However, most people that i've known mean absolute truth is simply true for everyone... and that's their definition of truth

How do I know I don't create my own reality?

Its simple. I've tried.

Try and create your own reality - one where someone who doesn't love you, does love you. Not only can you not do it, you become delusional.


If you can create your own reality - then do it. The burden of proof isn't on me, no one can prove that you can't do it.

[imthefoolonthehill]

oh, to answer your earlier question - reality is everything that is real... everything that exists is part of reality. Reality consists of everything that exists - and nothing else.

[atiguhya padma]

There's a big difference between creating a reality and controlling it.

It seems to me knowledge is little more than metaphor, and metaphor is hardly truth.

[Scheherazade]

oh, to answer your earlier question - reality is everything that is real... everything that exists is part of reality. Reality consists of everything that exists - and nothing else.
But wouldn't what exists change from one person to another? I.e., I believe God exists and you don't... Is God a reality in this case or not?

[imthefoolonthehill]

Lol, yes you believe God exist and for the sake of argument, lets say i don't.

He doesn't exist for you and then not exist for me... he either exists or he doesn't exist, our opinions don't change his existence.

opinions do not determine reality.

[atiguhya padma]

<opinions do not determine reality.>

Today, in the UK, opinions will definitely determine reality. Try telling Tony Blair that opinions don't determine reality.

[Scheherazade]

he either exists or he doesn't exist, our opinions don't change his existence.

opinions do not determine reality.
But how do we decide what the reality is in this case? When options like these available?

PS: Shouldn't you be in bed sleeping? Unless you have moved to the UK recently. :)

[blp]

A couple of things, Iamthefoolonthehill - you talk about a square being something that has four sides. There's a lot more to a square than that. It's two-dimensional for a start - which means it is invisible to us. All we have are representations of squares, not actual squares. Your approach is empricist - you believe truth is what you can see or what is self evident - but how many of those things are simply representations of truths you cannot see, things you can only ever have described to you? And as for what you really can see, don't forget you've got a different type of eye from other creatures. Assuming you're not colour blind, your vision is very different from that of someone who is. It's different again from that of a cat and even more different from that of a bumblebee. Which of you is seeing things exactly as they are? What is the true nature of those things independent of these conflicting visions of them, of A for example, and how can it ever be known? Taking this to its logical conclusion, how do you know that space and time are not simply products of the way you perceive? You have only the mind and eyes you were born with. It's all you'll ever have, most likely.

[imthefoolonthehill]

Alright BLP... lets say there is all this truth i cna't detect, lets say i'm missing 7/12 senses or something outrageous like that...

It doesn't matter. Perception doesn't change reality. Whether I know something or not, it still is... Whether a square has 4234 sides or just 4, it can't have both at the same time. A is A Something IS itself... its the bloody definition of is, people. Every object, by definition, is itself.

alright?

can you at least concede that? or are we going to try to get all quasi-philosophical on the word is now?

[imthefoolonthehill]

and antiquah... opinions aren't going to elect Tony or someone else, the actions of voting will.

Scheherezade: How do we determine reality is your question. We begin with the foundations of logic, and build up from there. The assumption of logic is that truth exists... if truth doesn't exist then things aren't always themselves and physical laws can be broken and for some reason earth could stop spinning if it felt like it and jupiter could come over and have some tea, and talk about how the neighbors are driving him up the wall by kicking the shooting stars over the fenceor some such nonsense.

[atiguhya padma]

<The assumption of logic is that truth exists>

Precisely. Its an assumption.

<if truth doesn't exist then things aren't always themselves>

But they could always appear to be themselves.

[imthefoolonthehill]

if something isn't itself then the world isnt always the world and none of your words can mean anything.

If something isn't itself then declaring something to be something has no meaning.

[Scheherazade]

Scheherezade: How do we determine reality is your question. We begin with the foundations of logic, and build up from there. The assumption of logic is that truth exists... .
Are you suggesting that logic is based on faith? Ie the belief that truth exists?

[imthefoolonthehill]

Yes. Logic is based on the belief that truth exists.

However, truth is merely the quality of corresponding to reality.

If one says that there is no truth, then either nothing corresponds to reality, or there is no reality.

Can you not look at the consequences of your relativism?

If there is no truth, why does math work 100% of the time?

If there is no truth, why is there science?

[imthefoolonthehill]

Also: why does science change?

Is it because 200 years ago, bleeding people out actually helped them?

Is it because 500 years ago, the world was really flat?

[atiguhya padma]

The New Scientist in its publication last week, had a cover story saying more or less that physicist's have come to the conclusion, based on experiments at CERN, that either reality has to go or freewill has to go. This is the kind of statement that modern physicists are frequently making.

Was it not Bell's Theorem that suggested that reality, locality or quantum theory had to be wrong? Rather than look at the consequences of modern relativism, you might look at its origins.

<why does math work 100% of the time?>

Does this statement mean anything more than: we will always perceive maths to work? Is that as a result of an external reality or our perception?

[imthefoolonthehill]

lol, i have problems with quantum theory too, but won't say anything definite about it until I have taken at least College Physics... my high school physics / Encarta based understanding of quantum physics is inadaquate.

"<why does math work 100% of the time?>

Does this statement mean anything more than: we will always perceive maths to work? Is that as a result of an external reality or our perception?"

lol... we all trust our lives to math and the science it supports. Math always works, whether we think it does or not. It must be external reality, not internal perception.