and now for something completely different...

[Shad0hawK]

perhaps we can have a discussion that promotes thought rather than a partisan political battle.

let's discuss the idea presented in my sig

is truth absolute? or relative?

i am of the position that truth is absolute and what many try to define as "relative truth" is actually opinion, which would be VERY relative. i base my idea on the fact that truth is not relative because it is not dependent on perception.

Mr. Moderator, i know this probobly belongs in the "off topic" section but i think we all need a bit of a break from the partisan bickering, plus some that may be on the opposite ends in the political arena may find something in common and be shocked.

 

[DoctorGordon3]

I propose that all facts exist physically.

 

[Shad0hawK]

I propose that all facts exist physically.

i would agree with that, in that "reality" seems to be objective since inanimate objects have no opinions.

 

[Spartan]

Some things are absolute. If you say that rape is wrong, it's an absolute truth. If you say that killing is wrong, it's a relative truth.

 

[Phisionary]

meh. metaphysical discussions on concepts of truth and reality. yay.

there are no absolutes.

 

[Shad0hawK]

meh. metaphysical discussions on concepts of truth and reality. yay.

there are no absolutes.

that is the problem with that position, the idea that "there are no absolutes." is presented as an absolute and is self contradictory.

time for bed, gnight

 

[DoctorGordon3]

meh. metaphysical discussions on concepts of truth and reality. yay.

there are no absolutes.

I beg to differ. I find that time is absolute.

 

[Shad0hawK]

I beg to differ. I find that time is absolute.

that is interesting, could you elucidate?

i really am going to bed this time.(no pun intended BTW)

 

[Spartan]

I beg to differ. I find that time is absolute.

Something called Einstein's theory of relativity might contradict that.

 

[Korgoth]

well first of all we are discussing "truth" in the politics forum...
methinks this is ironic....

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Something called Einstein's theory of relativity might contradict that.

DoctorGordon believes Einstien to have got it wrong.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Something called Einstein's theory of relativity might contradict that.

actually the theory of relativity is based on absolutes if you really study it.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Some things are absolute. If you say that rape is wrong, it's an absolute truth. If you say that killing is wrong, it's a relative truth.

ahh, moral absolutes. think i will play devil's advocate for fun.

if a person of the darwinian sort were to argue that there is nothing really wrong with rape since it is merely another way the strong overcome the weak and that objections to this practice were cultural rather than moral what would you tell him?

 

[Spartan]

if a person of the darwinian sort were to argue that there is nothing really wrong with rape since it is merely another way the strong overcome the weak and that objections to this practice were cultural rather than moral what would you tell him?

It doesn't matter what I would tell him, because he can't argue againts absolute moral values.

 

[Shad0hawK]

It doesn't matter what I would tell him, because he can't argue againts absolute moral values.

why not? particularly if he/she were the sociopathic sort that believed the only rules that apply to them are the ones they make up for themselves.


just when it gets interesting my lunch is over.

 

[Spartan]

why not? particularly if he/she were the sociopathic sort that believed the only rules that apply to them are the ones they make up for themselves.

I guess I'd punch him in the face, then.

 

[Gray Fox]

It doesn't matter what I would tell him, because he can't argue againts absolute moral values.

So so you believe there are absolut moral values.

 

[el Chi]

perhaps we can have a discussion that promotes thought rather than a partisan political battle. ...i think we all need a bit of a break from the partisan bickering, plus some that may be on the opposite ends in the political arena may find something in common and be shocked.

Well, I wouldn't bet on it But well done you - this place needs some relief from the endless torment it usually ignites.

Meanwhile, on-topic:
Time is, arguably, completely unimportant and any emphasis to the contrary is just a construction of mankind and as such, nonsensical. Animals' sense of time is completely different ot that of humans, if they even have a sense of time at all.
You leave the house to see your friend, as you go you say goodbye to your dog. When you return later that day, your dog is very happy to see you.
You leave your house to go on holiday, but when you return after a fortnight, say, your dog may be equally happy to see you. The dog displays little to no sense of time.; surely that shows that time can be relative?
Imagine living as a goldfish where the furthest back you could remember is three seconds ago - that's not even long enough to have a sentient thought.
When not looking at a watch, we may not notice time opassing by and it may seem as if three hours simply vanish into thin air, for example if we get engrossed in a converstaion, book, film, computer game, etc. However for another person, even if they're watching the same film, the time could seem to drag. This might be because they don't enjoy the film but ultimately this comes down to someone's perception of the world around them. Time can be completely relative.

Can truth be relative? Of course it can. "Truth" could be considered the amalgamation of certain facts or snippets of knowledge and the interpretation of these by our emotions or presupposed opinions.
If one wanted to be very pedantic, one could go down to a metaphysical level and claim that one can't prove anything ever, and all reality is is your thoughts and perceptions, however these perceptions need not translate into "truth".

 

[Shad0hawK]

Well, I wouldn't bet on it But well done you - this place needs some relief from the endless torment it usually ignites.

Meanwhile, on-topic:
Time is, arguably, completely unimportant and any emphasis to the contrary is just a construction of mankind and as such, nonsensical. Animals' sense of time is completely different ot that of humans, if they even have a sense of time at all.
You leave the house to see your friend, as you go you say goodbye to your dog. When you return later that day, your dog is very happy to see you.
You leave your house to go on holiday, but when you return after a fortnight, say, your dog may be equally happy to see you. The dog displays little to no sense of time.; surely that shows that time can be relative?
Imagine living as a goldfish where the furthest back you could remember is three seconds ago - that's not even long enough to have a sentient thought.
When not looking at a watch, we may not notice time opassing by and it may seem as if three hours simply vanish into thin air, for example if we get engrossed in a converstaion, book, film, computer game, etc. However for another person, even if they're watching the same film, the time could seem to drag. This might be because they don't enjoy the film but ultimately this comes down to someone's perception of the world around them. Time can be completely relative.

i think you nailed it in the last sentence....perception(s) which i would agree are very relative. however does our perception affect time itself? or are our perceptions an effect of time? i tend to think the latter.

Can truth be relative? Of course it can. "Truth" could be considered the amalgamation of certain facts or snippets of knowledge and the interpretation of these by our emotions or presupposed opinions.

truth in the first case would be a different thing than truth in the second...objective truth being not dependent on perception and subjective(relative) "truths" being dependent upon perception.

If one wanted to be very pedantic, one could go down to a metaphysical level and claim that one can't prove anything ever, and all reality is is your thoughts and perceptions, however these perceptions need not translate into "truth".

i suppose, but i am too much a realist and cannot get past the inherant logical contradiction.

im off to play a bit of generals, later

 

[Spartan]

So so you believe there are absolut moral values.

Well duh.

 

[Revisedsoul]

there are no absolut moral values, or everyone would have the same moreal values. there will always be someone who has morals that one thing is good or bad.

and truth is absolute, but is diluted by opinion and thought

 

[Tr0n]

there are no absolut moral values, or everyone would have the same moreal values. there will always be someone who has morals that one thing is good or bad.

and truth is absolute, but is diluted by opinion and thought

Wow...One of the best post I have ever read on this site. (being serious) You get a cookie.

 

[Spartan]

there are no absolut moral values, or everyone would have the same moreal values. there will always be someone who has morals that one thing is good or bad.

Some moral values are absolute, whether or not you agree with them.

 

[el Chi]

however does our perception affect time itself? or are our perceptions an effect of time? i tend to think the latter.

Well what that all boils down to (as much as things can boil down, when considering metaphysical/existentialist philosophy, which isn't all that much ) is how you view reality of course - does time even exist without our perception of it? If I don't perceive the world, does that mean the world and everything in it, including time, don't exist?

suppose, but i am too much a realist and cannot get past the inherant logical contradiction.

What inherent logical contradiction is that? I think it can be quite difficult to argue against Descartes, for example, on the relation between perception and genuine existence. I'm not saying I agree with it, but still...

truth in the first case would be a different thing than truth in the second...objective truth being not dependent on perception and subjective(relative) "truths" being dependent upon perception.

Well, my point was how can we be sure what an objective truth is? I'm not sure we can. There are no issues on which 100% of people agree on 100% of the time. That especially applies in terms of morals. As for other "facts" or issues? Well, we've all seen how much you and Stern bicker

 

[Eg.]

actions are absolute. thought and opinion is subjective to the human mind, which is inherintly insane and highly unstable

 

[falconwind]

This is something Obi-Wan should have asked himself.

"From a certain point of view" my ass.

 

[Absinthe]

there are no absolut moral values, or everyone would have the same moreal values. there will always be someone who has morals that one thing is good or bad.

and truth is absolute, but is diluted by opinion and thought

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Well what that all boils down to (as much as things can boil down, when considering metaphysical/existentialist philosophy, which isn't all that much ) is how you view reality of course - does time even exist without our perception of it? If I don't perceive the world, does that mean the world and everything in it, including time, don't exist?

What inherent logical contradiction is that? I think it can be quite difficult to argue against Descartes, for example, on the relation between perception and genuine existence. I'm not saying I agree with it, but still...



Well, my point was how can we be sure what an objective truth is? I'm not sure we can. There are no issues on which 100% of people agree on 100% of the time. That especially applies in terms of morals. As for other "facts" or issues? Well, we've all seen how much you and Stern bicker

i am sorry i have been away, getting ready for a move to Fort Worth from Fort Hood has been tkaing up my...time.(again no pun intended...) but i do have...time...for a quick reply.

i think we can be sure truth can be objective from the physical evidence, i myself am an example. you did not know of my existence before i started posting here but the fact remains i existed for well over 3 decades before any of you knew(perceived) my existence. through this board. perception is irrelevant regarding objective truth, something is either true, or it is not, a statement which is in iteself an absolute.

desacrtes is easy to disprove, what did he use to postulate his ideas? existence and reality. it is like standing up in the mioddle of a crowded room and saying "i do not exist" but in standing up in the middle of that room and making that proclamation, existence has been proved. the logical contradiction is that to deny existence and reality, existence and reality must be used to put forth the denial.

back to work for me!

 

[el Chi]

i think we can be sure truth can be objective from the physical evidence, i myself am an example. you did not know of my existence before i started posting here but the fact remains i existed for well over 3 decades before any of you knew(perceived) my existence. through this board. perception is irrelevant regarding objective truth, something is either true, or it is not, a statement which is in iteself an absolute.

Ah but is it? For all I know you and everyone else on these boards are just a figment of my imagination. And vice versa. This view - that only you truly exist - is called solipsism and persoally I think it's a big pile of bollocks. However it is a bit of a tough question. The point is it's difficult, on a metaphysical level, for me to prove that you exist. I believe you exist, but can I prove you exist? Well, you post on these forums, so in that way I am aware (I have perceived) some form of existence, perhaps. Possibly in the same way that I have never been to China, but I believe it exists because I have knowledge of it.
Of course even if we'd known each other for years in real life, then solipsists would say that, as soon as you leave the room (and hence my perception) you cease to exist until I perceive you again. Like I said, it's a bit shoddy, not to mention some strange twisted place between paranoid and egotistical.

desacrtes is easy to disprove, what did he use to postulate his ideas? existence and reality. it is like standing up in the mioddle of a crowded room and saying "i do not exist" but in standing up in the middle of that room and making that proclamation, existence has been proved. the logical contradiction is that to deny existence and reality, existence and reality must be used to put forth the denial.

Well Descartes never said "I do not exist" after all: "I think, therefore I am." What he said was that "existence" or "reality" such as they are, is really only our perception. For example, if I was colour-blind but no-one had ever guessed, then as far as I'm concerned the world is composed of shades of grey. This I hold to be truth, reality and existence until the day I die.
The man made some very interestring arguments, but I'm still not entirely convinced.

 

[Ennui]

Some moral values are absolute, whether or not you agree with them.

No, morals are subjective. Society sets the morals but they aren't necessarily absolute.

existentialism pwns.

 

[Absinthe]

The only absolute morals are those dictated by religion. But not everybody follows the same religion (or any religion, for that matter). So even moral absolutes differ for many people. It's all subjective.

 

[Spartan]

No, morals are subjective. Society sets the morals but they aren't necessarily absolute.

Certain morales are absolute, whether you like it or not.

 

[Absinthe]

Certain morales are absolute, whether you like it or not.

Can you back that up in any way? Or explain how that is?

If the entire world condoned rape, then who is to say it's a moral issue?

 

[bliink]

I take the postmodernist standpoint on the matter. Truth is relative to ones environment, perspectives and its own context.
Truth itself is highly difficult to even define, and if it was definable as relative, then you could even argue that because truth was true, it is untrue. (yeah.. confusing)

 

[Spartan]

Can you back that up in any way? Or explain how that is?

As long as you can't find a single reason to justify rape, I don't have to.

If the entire world condoned rape, then who is to say it's a moral issue?

That's a paradox. If the entire world condoned it, it wouldn't exist.

 

[Absinthe]

As long as you can't find a single reason to justify rape, I don't have to.

Two-way street here. I'm not speaking about rape specifically. I just don't see any evidence to support the idea of absolute morals. Morals are human creations and we are a subjective species.

Not to say that I condone it, but some would argue that rape is part of natural selection for the human species, in which the strong ensure that their genes are passed on.

That's a paradox. If the entire world condoned it, it wouldn't exist.

Bad example, I agree. You should, however, understand what I mean by it. What makes a moral absolute if everybody or even a sizable majority disagree with it.

Either way, one cannot prove or disprove the existence of absolute morals, so it really comes down to picking what you want to believe.

 

[Spartan]

Two-way street here. I'm not speaking about rape specifically. I just don't see any evidence to support the idea of absolute morals. Morals are human creations and we are a subjective species.

Math is also a human creation, but can you deny 1+1=2?

Not to say that I condone it, but some would argue that rape is part of natural selection for the human species, in which the strong ensure that their genes are passed on.

That's not a justification nor is it a valid or logical reason.

 

[Absinthe]

Math is also a human creation, but can you deny 1+1=2?

Mathematics itself is based on a couple of assumptions, my friend. And it's also a whole different ballpark to morals. One is cold hard logic.

That's not a justification nor is it a valid or logical reason.

Actually, it is.

 

[Spartan]

Mathematics itself is based on a couple of assumptions, my friend. And it's also a whole different ballpark to morals. One is cold hard logic.

My argument is also hard logic, unless you can prove otherwise.

Actually, it is.

And how is that?

 

[Shad0hawK]

Ah but is it? For all I know you and everyone else on these boards are just a figment of my imagination. And vice versa. This view - that only you truly exist - is called solipsism and persoally I think it's a big pile of bollocks. However it is a bit of a tough question. The point is it's difficult, on a metaphysical level, for me to prove that you exist. I believe you exist, but can I prove you exist? Well, you post on these forums, so in that way I am aware (I have perceived) some form of existence, perhaps. Possibly in the same way that I have never been to China, but I believe it exists because I have knowledge of it.
Of course even if we'd known each other for years in real life, then solipsists would say that, as soon as you leave the room (and hence my perception) you cease to exist until I perceive you again. Like I said, it's a bit shoddy, not to mention some strange twisted place between paranoid and egotistical.

i have met some like that. they get mad when you ask them why they keep arguing with themselves.

Well Descartes never said "I do not exist" after all: "I think, therefore I am." What he said was that "existence" or "reality" such as they are, is really only our perception. For example, if I was colour-blind but no-one had ever guessed, then as far as I'm concerned the world is composed of shades of grey. This I hold to be truth, reality and existence until the day I die.
The man made some very interestring arguments, but I'm still not entirely convinced.

if you think about it, objective truth is not limited to perception, and the position actually has physical evidence to verify it. a color blind man never knowing color does not stop the rest of the people who can perceive color from seeing it, nor stop the electromagnetic waves that we see as different colors from existing. his perception is just that, his perception.

a person taking the position that what he only perceives is real only has a philosophical argument, while a realist has the advantage of physical evidence to support his position. this is usually countered by the argument that all is perceived unconsciously while awareness is limited by the conscious mind.