Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 89 of 89

Thread: Truth

  1. #81
    Aikido is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,658

    Default

    well. As usual, I tend to side with Saizou in this one (sorry nataku and Jakko T-T). I completely agree with his assessment of reality.

    "In practice, it is very hard, if not impossible to be certain that a observation is completely perfect."

    yes. but we arent talking about practice here. if we ARE talking about practice, than your final conclusion is entirely reasonable.

    I think that, possibly beyond the realm of human udnerstanding (not necessarily into God), there is a completely perfect observation.

  2. #82
    nataku_0 is offline Senior Member Well Known
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    309

    Default

    It's ok aikido. you kinda took my side anyways with that post.

    I dunno how many times I've said it, but I don't mind: I am not telling people the secrets of the universe, every truth beyond a shadow of a doubt.
    What I did was simply examine the thought of those statements, and how if they were true and applicable to everything we know, they would have to indeed be the absolute truths that they aspire to defeat.

    Which is why I said an omnipotent being is needed, someone who is the standard of truth (and then that also ties in with the standard for absolute morals, but that's something else).

    Sorry, aallx, I didn't mean to say that you claimed a god existed. I was pointing out that it would have to lead to that as you say. But in anycase, we are trying to clear up the things before that, like statements of "there is no absolute truth" being absolute themselves.

    As for five balls, I would have thought Bamboozler had none.

  3. #83
    aallx is offline Senior Member Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Some island in Grand Line...
    Posts
    513

    Default

    "There is no absolute truth"... It's supposed to be an absolute statement right? But since there are "no absolute truths", then this statement isn't an absolute truth itself... meaning it could be wrong... lol. First time I actually tried to analyze it. Nataku's right, it does defeat itself. Oh, and there's nothing to apologize for, I was just being silly .

    Anyway, if there is no absolute truth, we will have nothing to base our relative truths upon. It's like, if no such event happens, then there would be no interpretations for said event. No input, no output.
    Daijoubu! Saa, mae ni susumou taiyou wo itsumo mune ni...

    Tsunaida te tsutawaru Power negai wo tsukamaeyouyo!
    http://s44.photobucket.com/albums/f9/aallx/

  4. #84
    Jakko1234 is offline Senior Member Respected Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    North Carolina, US
    Posts
    441

    Default

    Halleluiah! Halleluiah! Brothers and sisters, he haaas seeeen the light!


    "Let us cross over the river, and rest beneath the shade of the tree." - Last words of Stonewall Jackson

  5. #85
    Saizou is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    1,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakko1234
    Let me see if I can understand your response to nataku:
    Denying an absolute is an absolute statement.

    de·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-n)
    tr.v. de·nied, de·ny·ing, de·nies
    To declare untrue; contradict.<------
    To refuse to believe; reject. <------
    To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.

    To decline to grant or allow; refuse: deny the student's request; denied the prisoner food or water.
    To give a refusal to; turn down or away: The protesters were determined not to be denied.
    To restrain (oneself) especially from indulgence in pleasures.

    So, denying something is to declare it untrue. That is an absolute statement. Period. There is no other way to see it than the way Nataku saw it. Therefore, Nataku is absolutely right. And the existence of God is an absolute, because he is a being, just like you and I, though greater than us. Just like we either exist or do not exist(an absolute truth), so does God.
    And don't give me that "the world is an illusion, you are an illusion" crap(I'm not saying you will, its just annoying), if everything is an illusion, then it could be an illusion that everything is an illusion(this has nothing to do with the topic in the main body of the post, that crap just pisses me off).
    Yes there is another way to see it. If we define truth as relative by definition (as I have), the statement becomes a relative one, and is therefore not self-contradictory.
    And no, I'm not saying that the world is an illusion. In fact, I explicitly stated that the existence an objective reality is one of my underlying assumptions.

    @nataku: Stop being dishonest. You've simply decided that God did it without even bothering to think about differing points of view. Your opinion is that a supernatural being must exist, right? If so, prove that a supernatural being is a prerequisite for truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by aallx
    "There is no absolute truth"... It's supposed to be an absolute statement right? But since there are "no absolute truths", then this statement isn't an absolute truth itself... meaning it could be wrong... lol. First time I actually tried to analyze it. Nataku's right, it does defeat itself. Oh, and there's nothing to apologize for, I was just being silly .

    Anyway, if there is no absolute truth, we will have nothing to base our relative truths upon. It's like, if no such event happens, then there would be no interpretations for said event. No input, no output.
    Not necessarily. "There is no absolute truth" is not an absolute statement if truth is not absolute. Nataku is simply claiming that his opinion is correct by default.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aikido
    well. As usual, I tend to side with Saizou in this one (sorry nataku and Jakko T-T). I completely agree with his assessment of reality.

    "In practice, it is very hard, if not impossible to be certain that a observation is completely perfect."

    yes. but we arent talking about practice here. if we ARE talking about practice, than your final conclusion is entirely reasonable.

    I think that, possibly beyond the realm of human udnerstanding (not necessarily into God), there is a completely perfect observation.
    Maybe, maybe not. The way I see it is that we have to analyze the matter from a practical point of view. Truth isn't a purely theoretical concept after all.

  6. #86
    Anael is offline Junior Member Newbie
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nataku_0
    well, first off, sorry aikido, i am going to have to start repeating myself again for Anael here.

    now Anael, putting lots of "..." now make me realize that it is not your fault you are retarded, but you must be a hippie, high on life...or meth.

    but all that aside, i will now demonstrate how contradictive you are to yourself. note now that I will use your words to show you that you make no sense.

    "I allow lots of things to exist...it's your right to think whatever you want"
    and
    "I'm not saying your statements are wrong or right"

    then you bluntly say

    "BUT that doesen't mean that your belief would "override" mine, as you said"

    well, if my belief is that what i said overrides what you said, you surely did not let that belief "exist" for very long. for you to say that there is nothing right or wrong, BUT i'm wrong (in thinking that my belief overrides yours), you just kind of made a nice little exception there for yourself. how convinient.

    "you didn't understand....the nothing is absolute part...it means there isn't anything absolute...(there are no such things as absolute things)"

    perhaps YOU, my dear friend, are missing a few screws in this sentence. the nothing is absolute part....i don't care what it MEANS, all i am saying is that to say that, it would HAVE TO BE ABSOLUTE itself to make any sense, and then from there, it has self destructed.

    thanks for the input tho

    now Anael, putting lots of "..." now make me realize that it is not your fault you are retarded, but you must be a hippie, high on life...or meth.--->you do like to offend people don't you?
    kinda agressive...it looks to me that you're defending from something...
    You're trying to impose your oppinion on me...
    You picking on me makes me think that I hit a sensitive corde.All I did was post something that I thought was funny and, not mention MY personal oppinion
    here's something interesting I found: (feast your eyes eith it, and leave me alone)
    What do we mean by calling something true? Most obviously we mean according with or corresponding to "the facts" — whatever those facts might be, or how we arrive at them. Logicians, however, would insist on being more specific, and in two ways. Given a sentence, they would first strip out the context, and then ensure that the remaining propositions could be simply true or false. Two simplifications, therefore. First the context is set aside: the who, when, how, why that every journalist covers is removed. Then the proposition itself is made to conform to a simple assertion of fact: expressions of belief, hope, wish, intention, etc. are ruled out of court. Such an approach may be remorselessly simplistic, reducing sentences to their simplest components, but the sentences then rest on assured foundations and can be built upon in logically sound ways.

    So runs the theory, entirely necessary if logic is to prevail. If sentences (rather than propositions {2}) are to be made the carriers of truth then a statement true today may not have been so a year ago, or if spoken by someone else. A sentence like: he believed her makes its appeal not to logic but the common understanding of the human heart, the novelist's province. But he believed p, where p is some proposition that is either true or false, does make itself amenable to treatment.

    Many philosophers dislike the correspondence theory — that truth is something that corresponds to the facts — precisely because of this naive acceptance of "the facts." Even at its basic level, things in the world are not directly given to us: we make interpretations and intelligent integrations of our sensory experience, as Kant claimed and extensive studies of the physiology of perception show all too plainly. Scientists make observations in ways guided by contemporary practice and the nature of the task in hand.

    So what other approaches are there? Two: the theory of coherence and that of pragmatism. The first calls something true when it fits neatly into a well-integrated body of beliefs. The second is judged by its results, the practical "cash value" of its contribution. Theories of coherence were embraced by very different philosophies, and pragmatism is currently enjoying a modest revival in the States.

    Stated more formally, the coherence theory holds that truth consists in a relation of coherence between beliefs or propositions in a set, such that a belief is false when it fails to fit with other mutually coherent members of a set. Though this concept of truth may seem more applicable to aesthetics or sociology, even a scientific theory is commonly preferred on the grounds of simplicity, experimental accessibility, utility, theoretical elegance and strength, fertility and association with models rendering such processes intelligible, on the very attributes of the coherence theory.

    But if the set of beliefs needs to be as comprehensive as possible, what is to stop us inflating the system with beliefs whose only merit is that they fit the system, to make a larger but still consistent fairy-tale? Appeal to the outside world — that these new beliefs are indeed "facts" — is invalid, as our measure of truth is coherence within the set of beliefs, not correspondence with matters outside.

    What then of the third theory of truth: pragmatism? In its crudest form, that something is true simply because it yields good works or congenial beliefs, the theory has few adherents. But its proponents put matters more subtly. Reality, said C.S. Pierce, constrains us to the truth: we find by enquiry and experiment what the world is really like. Truth is the consensus of beliefs surviving that investigation, a view that includes some correspondence theory and foreshadows Quine's web of beliefs. William James was not so committed a realist, and saw truth as sometimes manufactured by the verification process itself, a view that links him to relativists like Feyerband. John Dewey stressed the context of application, that we need to judge ideas by how they work in specific practices. But that makes truth into a property acquired in the individual circumstances of verification, perhaps even individual-dependent, which has obvious drawbacks.

    and P.s: do not offend me again.I didn't offend you.

  7. #87
    aallx is offline Senior Member Respected Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Some island in Grand Line...
    Posts
    513

    Default

    @Anael
    Too long, I'll probably read that some other time...

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou
    Quote Originally Posted by aallx
    "There is no absolute truth"... It's supposed to be an absolute statement right? But since there are "no absolute truths", then this statement isn't an absolute truth itself... meaning it could be wrong... lol. First time I actually tried to analyze it. Nataku's right, it does defeat itself. Oh, and there's nothing to apologize for, I was just being silly .

    Anyway, if there is no absolute truth, we will have nothing to base our relative truths upon. It's like, if no such event happens, then there would be no interpretations for said event. No input, no output.

    Not necessarily. "There is no absolute truth" is not an absolute statement if truth is not absolute. Nataku is simply claiming that his opinion is correct by default.
    You just agreed with Nataku and me...
    Daijoubu! Saa, mae ni susumou taiyou wo itsumo mune ni...

    Tsunaida te tsutawaru Power negai wo tsukamaeyouyo!
    http://s44.photobucket.com/albums/f9/aallx/

  8. #88
    Saizou is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    1,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aallx
    You just agreed with Nataku and me...
    And how exactly did I agree with you?

    You say that truth is absolute, I say that it's not. This is not agreeing no matter how you put it.

    Anyway, what I mean is that your argument is based upon the assumption that truth must be absolute.

    As I explained, I define truth as the most reasonable explanation that matches our observations of reality. Invoking supernatural beings and demanding that truth must be absolute are both unnecessary from my point of view.

    On the other hand, if we assume that there are absolute truths we open up a whole new can of worms, because we then must have access to perfect observations of reality to know the truth. Therefore, I see my definition as much simpler and more reasonable, since absolute truths are basically unknowable. And what good is an unknowable truth?

  9. #89
    child_of_serenity's Avatar
    child_of_serenity is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    In the depths of a vast swamp...
    Posts
    2,321

    Default

    I say that truth is absolute.

    But what is true?

 

 
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
vBulletin Skin by: ForumThemes.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162