Is 'No Explanation' Good Explanation? (agnostic, God, Zen)

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Willamena

What is relative truth?

I think it's when sociologists assert that science is no more valid for attaining truth than other cultures methods. Science is our myth. I imagine the reproducible results and reliability of scientific discovery are considered coincidental.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

I think it's when sociologists assert that science is no more valid for attaining truth than other cultures methods. Science is our myth. I imagine the reproducible results and reliability of scientific discovery are considered coincidental.

Okay, then "relative truth" is not about truth, but methods of attaining truth.

Similarly, if someone were to suggest that relative truth is one person's opinion over another --then "relative truth" is not about truth, but about perceptions of truth.

In any case, truth itself is a different beast.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Okay, then "relative truth" is not about truth, but methods of attaining truth.

Similarly, if someone were to suggest that relative truth is one person's opinion over another --then "relative truth" is not about truth, but about perceptions of truth.

In any case, truth itself is a different beast.

I'm sure Fluffy will have something interesting to say on the subject.

[Fluffy]

What is relative truth?

Something that is true given something else.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Something that is true given something else.

That sounds more conditional than relative. Can you elaborate?

[Fluffy]

That sounds more conditional than relative.

It is conditional but it is also more than that. Afterall absolutism is conditional as well so this cannot be the defining feature.

Lets consider the statement "the death penalty is right". Lets also say that we have 2 societies the first of which has high crime rates and a very harsh way of life whilst the second is the exact opposite in those respects. We could say that the statement is true relative to (or given that we are in) society 1 but it is false relative to society 2.

All truths are relative to some other factor which contrasts with absolutism which argues that some or all truths are true regardless of these factors. An absolutist would say that the death penalty is either right or wrong, not both depending on the society.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

It is conditional but it is also more than that. Afterall absolutism is conditional as well so this cannot be the defining feature.

Lets consider the statement "the death penalty is right". Lets also say that we have 2 societies the first of which has high crime rates and a very harsh way of life whilst the second is the exact opposite in those respects. We could say that the statement is true relative to (or given that we are in) society 1 but it is false relative to society 2.

Keeping in the context of relativity, it is more accurate to say that the death penalty is right to Society 1, but that Society 2 is wrong to Society 1. (Otherwise, you are stepping outside of relativity and simply comparing two individual societies objectively.)

"Truth" is not the thing that is relative in the example you give: the societies are relative, one to the other, and the rightness of the death penalty is relative. In keeping with relativity, let's evaluate the statement of "right" and "wrong" for each society from the standpoint of one of them.

For any society the death penalty is either right, or it is not right. We look at Society 1 and find that the death penalty is right for Society 1, and that what Society 2 does is not right for Society 1. The truth is absolute in the context in which we have used it, here: it is either true that "the death penalty is right," or it is false. Truth is absolute; there is no inbetween.

Being in Society 1 and saying, "Society 2 is wrong by my beliefs," is a statement of absolute truth if it is correct. The only condition of the truth is "it (objectively) is."

Originally Posted by Fluffy

All truths are relative to some other factor which contrasts with absolutism which argues that some or all truths are true regardless of these factors. An absolutist would say that the death penalty is either right or wrong, not both depending on the society.

I'm not addressing absolutism, an ideology I know very little about; I'm just addressing the concept of truth.

That the statement is true for one society and false for another society does not make it "relatively true." It is either absolutely true for each society, or it is isn't.

[Fluffy]

Keeping in the context of relativity, it is more accurate to say that the death penalty is right to Society 1, but that Society 2 is wrong to Society 1. (Otherwise, you are stepping outside of relativity and simply comparing two individual societies objectively.)

I am not comparing the two societies objectively since objectivity is not possible. However, that does not really matter since objectivity and relativism are not mutually exclusive. Given that objectivity is possible, I can objectively state that all truths are relative, including this sentence.

Absolute truth is not attainable. If you make any statement then in order to make that statement absolute, you must justify it. Then you must justify each justification. Then each of those justifications. This goes on into infinity.

The example you give of an absolute truth:

The truth is absolute in the context in which we have used it, here: it is either true that "the death penalty is right," or it is false. Truth is absolute; there is no inbetween.

is either not a truth or not an absolute truth depending on your meaning.

You are either saying:
1) given X, X is true or false. This would not be a truth.
2) "X can only be true or false" is true. This is not absolute since it is dependent on the justification of that statement (ie the assumption that a statement can only be either true or false).