Absolutism or Relativism?

[Willamena]

Is it the truth that I asked you for an example or is it the truth that I said I'd like an example? Is it necessarily true that they mean the same thing?

Is it true that a thing can be worded in two different ways and mean the same thing? Do the ends justify the means?

 

[Ðanisty]

Is it true that a thing can be worded in two different ways and mean the same thing? Do the ends justify the means?

Is it true that a thing can be worded one way and mean two different things. I don't think you're going to get it though, so we should probably agree to disagree.

 

[PureX]

Ahh... if you want to speak ony of the labels of these things, as if only the labels exist, and not the things themselves, then truth does become relative. Truth belongs to the things themselves, not the labels of them (which, yes, are relative because, with the introduction of a labeller (us), they become subjective). Then everything becomes a "relative thing", yes. But then you ignore objective reality (eliminate it from the picture).

It's clear to me that I have not made myself clear at all.

There are no "things". There is phenomena. Existence is phenomena. We are phenomena. We are a peculiar aspect of phenomena in that we are able to perceive some of the other aspects of phenomena relative to ourselves. We can't perceive all of it, but we can perceive some of it. And from what we can perceive, we invent an idea of the totality of phenomena that we call "reality". But our idea of reality is not an accurate idea of the whole phenomena because we can't percieve the whole. We can only percieve some percentage of the whole, and we don't know what percentage that is. Maybe we can only percieve a very small percentage of the whole phenomena that we call reality, and so our idea of reality is very inaccurate. Or maybe we're percieving enough of the whole phenomena that we call reality that our idea of that reality is fairly accurate and complete (this is doubtful considering the major questions we still have no answers for, yet). But the thing is that we have no way of knowing how much of the whole of reality we are percieving because we don't know how much of it we are structurally unable to percieve. We can't know what we've never experienced.

The "truth" is what is. But we don't know all of what is because we're not able to percieve all that exists. And we don't even know how much of existence we're missing. So we can't know the truth. Not absolutely, anyway. All we can know about the truth (what is) are the inter-related aspects of it that we're able to percieve (facts). But we know that what we can percieve isn't the whole, and so we also know that our idea of the whole truth or absolute truth is incomplete, and is relative to our own structural limitations in percieving and understanding it. Or we would know this if we were being honest with ourselves about our own limitations.

I'm not denying the reality of existence. And I'm not denying the phenomena that we call reality. What I am pointing out is that what we're able to percieve of that phenomena is incomplete, and so our ideas about how the phenomena is "real" or not is also incomplete. The aspects of the phenomena that we are able to percieve and call reality are limited by our own ability to percieve them, and our capacity for understanding them. So what we call "real" (or true) is just a limited and at least somewhat inaccurate idea of real. The pheomena itself is real, and is true. But because we can only percieve some aspects of it, our idea of it based on what we can percieve, is flawed. And it's flawed relative to our own physiological natures.

 

[Willamena]

Is it true that a thing can be worded one way and mean two different things. I don't think you're going to get it though, so we should probably agree to disagree.

Is it true that a thing worded in different ways means the same thing? I do think you can get it, though, if you try.

 

[Willamena]

It's clear to me that I have not made myself clear at all.

There are no "things".

Okay --that's where we differ. I believe in reality.

We can't perceive all of it, but we can perceive some of it. And from what we can perceive, we invent an idea of the totality of phenomena that we call "reality". But our idea of reality is not an accurate idea of the whole phenomena because we can't percieve the whole. We can only percieve some percentage of the whole, and we don't know what percentage that is. Maybe we can only percieve a very small percentage of the whole phenomena that we call reality, and so our idea of reality is very inaccurate. Or maybe we're percieving enough of the whole phenomena that we call reality that our idea of that reality is fairly accurate and complete (this is doubtful considering the major questions we still have no answers for, yet). But the thing is that we have no way of knowing how much of the whole of reality we are percieving because we don't know how much of it we are structurally unable to percieve. We can't know what we've never experienced.

How does this matter?

The "truth" is "what is[/i]. But we don't know all of what is because we're not able to percieve all that exists. And we don't even know how much of existence we're missing. So we can't know the truth. Not absolutely, anyway. All we can know about the truth (what is) are the aspects of it that we're able to percieve. But we know that what we can percieve isn't the whole, and so we also know that our idea of the whole truth or absolute truth is incomplete, and is relative to our own structural limitations in percieving and understanding it. Or we would know this if we were being honest with ourselves about our own limitations.

We obviously differ on ideas about "what is". I consider "what is" to be different from "what we percieve". When we make a statement of truth, it doesn't have to be the whole truth.

I'm not denying the reality of existence. And I'm not denying the phenomena that we call reality. What I am pointing out is that what we're able to percieve of that phenomena is incomplete, and so our ideas about how the phenomena is "real" or not is also incomplete. The aspects of the phenomena that we are able to percieve and call reality are limited by our own ability to percieve them, and our capacity for understanding them. So what we call "real" (or true) is just a limited and at least somewhat inaccurate idea of real. The pheomena itself is real, and is true. But because we can only percieve some aspects of it, our idea of it based on what we can percieve, is flawed. And it's flawed relative to our own physiological natures.

Objectivity is a way to circumvent the problem you propose: a way to comprehend the truth.

Neither we nor it are "flawed".

 

[PureX]

We obviously differ on ideas about "what is". I consider "what is" to be different from "what we perceive".

I thought that this is what I've been trying to point out. Reality (what is) is a holistic phenomena. What we perceive of this reality is only a fraction of the whole of reality that exists. Therefor, our idea of reality (based on our limited perception of it) is incomplete, and therefor inaccurate (though how incomplete and inaccurate, we don't know).

When we make a statement of truth, it doesn't have to be the whole truth.

I agree, but then we can't logically call our statement an absolute truth, either, as it's only a statement of truth relative to the limitations of our own knowledge.

Objectivity is a way to circumvent the problem you propose: a way to comprehend the truth.

I don't see how. Imagination does not make us know what we don't know. If anything, it deceives us into pretending that what we think we know, is all there is to know, so that we forget our natural limitations and we forget that our idea of reality is not actual reality.

 

[Pah]

I thought that this is what I've been trying to point out. Reality (what is) is a holistic phenomena. What we perceive of this reality is only a fraction of the whole of reality that exists. Therefor, our idea of reality (based on our limited perception of it) is incomplete, and therefor inaccurate (though how incomplete and inaccurate, we don't know).
I agree, but then we can't logically call our statement an absolute truth, either, as it's only a statement of truth relative to the limitations of our own knowledge.
I don't see how. Imagination does not make us know what we don't know. If anything, it deceives us into pretending that what we think we know, is all there is to know, so that we forget our natural limitations and we forget that our idea of reality is not actual reality.

I was searching for those words. Frubals coming

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Objectivity is a way to circumvent the problem you propose: a way to comprehend the truth.

Neither we nor it are "flawed".

The problem lies in the OP: the counterposition of "Absolutism or relativism" is flawed when applied to "truth".

 

[joeboonda]

I believe in absolute truth. There was a professor who said there is no such thing as absolute truth, a student asked him, "Are you sure?" The professor replied, "Absolutely."

 

[Willamena]

Backtracking a bit, you had said:

The "truth" is what is. But we don't know all of what is because we're not able to percieve all that exists. And we don't even know how much of existence we're missing. So we can't know the truth.

All we are denied here is the truth about the whole, not the truth itself.

I thought that this is what I've been trying to point out. Reality (what is) is a holistic phenomena. What we perceive of this reality is only a fraction of the whole of reality that exists. Therefor, our idea of reality (based on our limited perception of it) is incomplete, and therefor inaccurate (though how incomplete and inaccurate, we don't know).

Yes, our idea of reality is incomplete, but it is only inaccurate in terms of the whole; and we agreed that the whole isn't necessary to express truth. It doesn't have to be truth about the whole to be truth.

I agree, but then we can't logically call our statement an absolute truth, either, as it's only a statement of truth relative to the limitations of our own knowledge.

Of course we can: a statement about the truth of a thing is either a statement of truth or it isn't. The object's relativity to us or to other things is irrelevant, because it introduces a third element to the scenario: an independent perspective. Is it a separate scenario that doesn't impact the objective truth.

I don't see how. Imagination does not make us know what we don't know. If anything, it deceives us into pretending that what we think we know, is all there is to know, so that we forget our natural limitations and we forget that our idea of reality is not actual reality.

Imagination is the tool that takes our perceptions and constructs them into a conscious mind; it "projects" them in an understandable form, an image (hence the name, imagination). It only deceives us as far as we expect that what is projected actually reflects something "really out there" --we accept that most of the time it is accurate, however limited it may be. If we accept that there are "things" out there (that reality exists) then we can talk truth about them regardless that our idea of them is incomplete.

Now (and this is for Danisty's as well as the sake of my own explanation) we have the option to view that projected image in two ways: with ourselves as an observer of the picture (as a 'self' looking at the projected image), or putting ourselves into the picture as one of the things of reality in relation to other all things in the bigger picture. The latter is the objective perspective; it imagatively "removes" the person looking by looking at him/her as one of the things being looked at. In this imaginative picture, we are either looking or being looked at --observer or observed --regardless that we are the ones who perceive. We cannot be both objective and subjective at the same time, but we can (and do) switch quickly between them.

It is the latter that allows us to speak truth about things, because our language accurately reflects these perspectives --it has been built that way. We can say, "I suck!" with 'me' as observer, and it's an opinion; or we can say, "I took the straw and sucked my slushee with it," which removes the 'me' observer and leaves us only with things of reality that are talked about.

 

[Pah]

I believe in absolute truth. There was a professor who said there is no such thing as absolute truth, a student asked him, "Are you sure?" The professor replied, "Absolutely."

I don't know why you are smiling. "There are absolutely no absolutes" is not contradictory. "Absolutely" is a adverbal adjective (perhaps, an abjective adverb?) and denotes the is a concent of absolute but does not prove and absolute. My ex-brother-in-law, an English proffesor, did not understand it at first so don't feel lonely.

 

[PureX]

Backtracking a bit, you had said:

The "truth" is what is. But we don't know all of what is because we're not able to perceive all that exists. And we don't even know how much of existence we're missing. So we can't know the truth.

All we are denied here is the truth about the whole, not the truth itself.

Yes, but this is what defines the difference between relative truth, and absolute truth. I agree that we can know something to be true in an incomplete and relative way. But I don't see how we can logically claim to know such a truth to be absolute.

Yes, our idea of reality is incomplete, but it is only inaccurate in terms of the whole; and we agreed that the whole isn't necessary to express truth. It doesn't have to be truth about the whole to be truth.

No, but by definition, an absolute truth can't be relative. The terms "absolute" and "relative" are essentially antonyms to each other. The state defined as "absolute" is defined essentially by it's not being conditioned by or dependent upon (relative to) forces or criteria external to itself. While the term "relative" in this debate means specifically 'conditioned by' or 'dependent upon' some external force or criteria.

... a statement about the truth of a thing is either a statement of truth or it isn't. The object's relativity to us or to other things is irrelevant, because it introduces a third element to the scenario: an independent perspective. Is it a separate scenario that doesn't impact the objective truth.

Well, this is the crux of our disagreement, right here. You are refusing to recognize the difference between relative (conditional) truth and absolute (unconditional) truth.

I can't make you recognize these concepts. All I can say is that they do exist, and this is why we're misunderstanding each other.

Imagination is the tool that takes our perceptions and constructs them into a conscious mind; it "projects" them in an understandable form, an image (hence the name, imagination). It only deceives us as far as we expect that what is projected actually reflects something "really out there" --we accept that most of the time it is accurate, however limited it may be. If we accept that there are "things" out there (that reality exists) then we can talk truth about them regardless that our idea of them is incomplete.

But by this method of reason you are saying that it was true that the world was flat when by our perceptions, it appeared flat, and so we imagined it to be flat and spoke of it as flat to each other.

Yet the world was not flat regardless of how we perceived it, or of how truly flat we imagined it to be. Our imagination did not make the untrue, true. All it did in this instance was help us to fool ourselves into believing in an untruth.

Now (and this is for Danisty's as well as the sake of my own explanation) we have the option to view that projected image in two ways: with ourselves as an observer of the picture (as a 'self' looking at the projected image), or putting ourselves into the picture as one of the things of reality in relation to other all things in the bigger picture. The latter is the objective perspective; it imaginatively "removes" the person looking by looking at him/her as one of the things being looked at. In this imaginative picture, we are either looking or being looked at --observer or observed --regardless that we are the ones who perceive. We cannot be both objective and subjective at the same time, but we can (and do) switch quickly between them.

Pretending that we are not the "observer" when we clearly are, seems like an act of deliberate dishonesty, to me. What value could possibly come from such a practice, except to create an illusion of wisdom based on a fantasy? I could understand using our imagination to place ourselves as observers into situations that we can't actually experience. Doing this would increase the likelihood of error but could still be useful to us as a way of stretching our intellects beyond our immediate experiences. But I don't see how pretending that we don't exist as observers or participants at all can be of any use to us.

It is the latter that allows us to speak truth about things, because our language accurately reflects these perspectives --it has been built that way. We can say, "I suck!" with 'me' as observer, and it's an opinion; or we can say, "I took the straw and sucked my slushy with it," which removes the 'me' observer and leaves us only with things of reality that are talked about.

But this example isn't removing an observer, it's only changing what's being observed, and why. In the "I suck" example, the observer is observing him/her self, and making an unexplained value judgment. In the "I sucked my slushy" example, the observer is simply relating a past experience, without making any value judgments.

But I don't see what any of this has to do with absolute or relative truth, though.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, but this is what defines the difference between relative truth, and absolute truth. I agree that we can know something to be true in an incomplete and relative way. But I don't see how we can logically claim to know such a truth to be absolute.
No, but by definition, an absolute truth can't be relative. The terms "absolute" and "relative" are essentially antonyms to each other. The state defined as "absolute" is defined essentially by it's not being conditioned by or dependent upon (relative to) forces or criteria external to itself. While the term "relative" in this debate means specifically 'conditioned by' or 'dependent upon' some external force or criteria.
Well, this is the crux of our disagreement, right here. You are refusing to recognize the difference between relative (conditional) truth and absolute (unconditional) truth.
I can't make you recognize these concepts. All I can say is that they do exist, and this is why we're misunderstanding each other.

Ah, my bad. I'm not well versed in the philosophers. Do you have a source where I can read about these concepts?

But by this method of reason you are saying that it was true that the world was flat when by our perceptions, it appeared flat, and so we imagined it to be flat and spoke of it as flat to each other.

Not at all; all it does is redefine "the world" to be "that which I precieve" rather than "the whole planet." The whole planet is more information than they had back then. We don't create truth, just observe it.

But this example isn't removing an observer, it's only changing what's being observed, and why. In the "I suck" example, the observer is observing him/her self, and making an unexplained value judgment. In the "I sucked my slushy" example, the observer is simply relating a past experience, without making any value judgments.

But I don't see what any of this has to do with absolute or relative truth, though.

Hm... maybe not the best examples, sorry. I can certainly see how it has nothing to do with absolute or relative truth as you've defined them.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

In a general sense, absolutes do exist. 2+2=4 and e=mc2 no matter how you slice it, or what perspective you think you have.

As far as morality goes, I am also an absolutist, and therefore, a hypocrite.

 

[PureX]

We don't create truth, just observe it.

We definitely do agree on this. It's just that for me, the fact of my being the observer, and of my being a limited and biased observer, can't be excused or dismissed. I can't not view "reality" through the lens of my physical and intellectual limitations. And that being understood, I can't know whether an apparently universal truth is absolute or not. All truth, for me, remains true relative to my own perceptual/intellectual limitations. And the same goes for us all.

 

[PureX]

In a general sense, absolutes do exist. 2+2=4 and e=mc2 no matter how you slice it, or what perspective you think you have.

Those aren't absolutes, those are ideals.They're only absolute AS ideals.

 

[Quiddity]

Those aren't absolutes, those are ideals.They're only absolute AS ideals.

Perhaps I missed it, but isn't that what we are talking about (ideals)?

 

[PureX]

Perhaps I missed it, but isn't that what we are talking about (ideals)?

Hmmm, that's a good point.

But I was assuming that we're also discussing the "reality" of these ideals. The concept of mathematical equality is perfect as an ideal, for example, but in actual reality there is no thing as absolute equality. Things can only be equal in actual reality relative to the lack of specificity of the criteria being used to assess the values. The more specific that criteria becomes, the less possible equality becomes. Ultimately, absolute equality is impossible to achieve in the real world.

 

[Willamena]

We definitely do agree on this. It's just that for me, the fact of my being the observer, and of my being a limited and biased observer, can't be excused or dismissed. I can't not view "reality" through the lens of my physical and intellectual limitations. And that being understood, I can't know whether an apparently universal truth is absolute or not. All truth, for me, remains true relative to my own perceptual/intellectual limitations. And the same goes for us all.

The observer doesn't have to be "excused or dismissed"; the subjective perspective doesn't go away just because the objective perspective "eliminates" or "removes" it from its picture --it's just not there, in that picture, the objective picture. The subject has his own picture. The subjective perspective is complementary and concurrent to the objective perspective.

We cannot view the totality of reality, but we can view reality, however limited that view may be. Reality is apart from us, to be viewed; the limitation is ours, in our viewing. If we accept that reality exists, whatever its totality may be, then, by your definitions, are not we not also accepting that "universals" or "absolutes" exist?

 

[Quiddity]

Hmmm, that's a good point.

But I was assuming that we're also discussing the "reality" of these ideals.

For absolutist, reality doesn't even come into the equation with regards to defining it. No doubt, we hope it does. For our lives are getting the subjective and making it objective. That's what it's about for some of us. Making it a reality is subject to a medium, which is every single one of us. The medium is flawed, imperfect, and pervious to errors. Trying to capture any absolute in reality is going to be difficult with such mediums.