Is There An Absolute Truth? (moral, America, experience, moral)

[Truth101]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

I've been avoiding the topic primarily because most discussions about "absolute truth" suffer from definitional issues - 'truth' is a problematic term. Nevertheless, it should be obvious that the claim "there is no absolute truth" is kin to the liars's paradox.

Well said. Honestly, I just stumbled onto it and thought I'd add to the confusion

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Although conditional truth (i.e. a property of the relationship between a descriptor and the thing described) is fairly well defined in philosophy and science, the notion of unconditional, or absolute, truth seems to me to be much less investigated and defined.

For instance, if it is claimed that such a thing as absolute truth exists, then how do we know of it? How is it even possible to know an unconditional truth or whether one exists? I have never found positive answers to those questions. Have you?

Absolute truth is an ideal.

In another context, all truth is absolute: something either is true or it is not.

[sahra-t]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Absolute truth is an ideal.

In another context, all truth is absolute: something either is true or it is not.

What about propositions about the future?

"It will rain tomorrow". At this moment, is that true or not?

[stemann]

Originally Posted by sahra-t

What about propositions about the future?

"It will rain tomorrow". At this moment, is that true or not?

Truth cannot be bound temporally, so outside of time, it is either true or not.

That is, if one can "step out" of time and view it all, then it will be fixed as to whether or not it rains on [specified date]. So objectively, it is either true or false. Or drizzle.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by sahra-t

What about propositions about the future?

"It will rain tomorrow". At this moment, is that true or not?

The truth of a prediction is not determined unless or until the event happens, or fails to.

On the other hand, it is true that that is a prediction.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Willamena

Absolute truth is an ideal.

In another context, all truth is absolute: something either is true or it is not.

Yes. But for us to establish it's truthfulness, we have to apply some criteria to the question. "X" is true or false compared to what? The moment "X's" truthfulness becomes dependent upon this external criteria, it can no longer be an absolute truth. It's become a relative truth (it's true relative to the external criteria).

And when we try to remove the relative comparison, the result tends to become a meaningless tautology. "This is a true statement" is a true statement within itself. But it doesn't mean anything to us because it's not relatable to anything that matters to us.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by PureX

Yes. But for us to establish it's truthfulness, we have to apply some criteria to the question. "X" is true or false compared to what? The moment "X's" truthfulness becomes dependent upon this external criteria, it can no longer be an absolute truth. It's become a relative truth (it's true relative to the external criteria).

X is true or false compared to the ideal that is reality. For us to establish its truthfulness is us comparing what we know of reality to what we observe of reality. That is not truth, that is understanding. Understanding is relative to the external criteria.

"X is true or false" is a statement of understanding, a statement about truth. "X is or is not" is truth.

Originally Posted by PureX

And when we try to remove the relative comparison, the result tends to become a meaningless tautology. "This is a true statement" is a true statement within itself. But it doesn't mean anything to us because it's not relatable to anything that matters to us.

A statement about truth is not truth.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Willamena

X is true or false compared to the ideal that is reality. For us to establish its truthfulness is us comparing what we know of reality to what we observe of reality. That is not truth, that is understanding. Understanding is relative to the external criteria.

I think we're falling into semantics, here. We use the process of reasoning to try and determine the relative truthfulness of a given proposition. I say the relative truthfulness of the proposition because we're only able to establish the probable truthfulness of a proposition by comparing it (relating it) to other information that we think we know to be true.

As far as I know, we have no way of determining that a proposition is absolutely true, as we are limited and finite creatures and a state "absoluteness" would be beyond the scope of our limited experience.

Originally Posted by Willamena

"X is true or false" is a statement of understanding, a statement about truth. "X is or is not" is truth.

"X is true or false", and "X is or is not", are empty statements. They don't contain enough information to present us with a coherent proposition.

My example: "This is a true statement" is at least a complete proposition, even though it's a meaningless tautology. But it's not a statement about truth, as you are implying, it's a statement about itself, that is apparently true.

Originally Posted by Willamena

A statement about truth is not truth.

I agree, "truth" is a quality assessment, not a proposition. And as with any quality assessment, it requires a criteria of some kind. And that's why "truth" is always relative (relative to the criteria being used to assess it's quality).