Looking at lawsuits, judge, jury, defended and prosecutor will usually have vastly different views on the very same case. From a local district court to supreme court, they will usually have different views.
Religious people will also have different interpetation of the same verse, even if they can recite it perfectly.
Art, be it music, paintings, events, or whatever, everybody has an oppinion that is individualistic, some will try to share same oppinion because of group think and sheeple.
That is not my words, you have made a misquotation!
Small kids who just learned philosophy could say the same. You need to say specific things that can lead to comprehend the nature of absolute truth, instead of being overly vague.
Many reasonable intelligent people will hesitate to claim abosolute truth about anything, since we rewrite our science books now and then, because we find new evidence contradicting previous knowledge.
Because it helps on preception? Because what James S Saint said can’t be used for anything. It’s like giving direction by saying: X place is located East of the Moon and West of the Sun, 2 specifics, yet very unspecific as it could be anywhere.
Isn’t 1 an absolute assertion about the true state of some part of reality? (minds, perceptions, subject object relations, etc.) Isn’t there a problem assertion both of these, given that we must apply number 2 to you, which means that perhaps number 1 is incorrect. Or correct in many circumstances, but not all, or not for all others in all cases, etc.
IOW it seems to me an absolute truth - or set therein - about all possible perceivers/knowers is asserted by A based on a model of reality. If we accept this model as absolute truth and setting an accurate limit on all perceivers knowers, we are contradicting this model.
I’m afraid you read my answer in a wrong way. My intend was to say that absolute truth hardly exist, since everybody will have their individually interpetation of reality. Why reasonable intelligent people will claim that there aren’t no such thing as “absolute truth”.
Disagree. On its own, the brain did not force a question upon itself for which it was expected to think up an answer. The demand comes from outside. The hard wired apparatus of the brain used to give a ‘reality’ to a self (that formulates questions) is memory cells. Knowledge is imposed on us and stored in memory. Questions arise from that sphere of given answers where assumptions also dwell. Without the knowledge and assumptions questions about those cannot arise.
How could a question about something as convoluted as reality be born were one devoid of any knowledge about it? The brain may be able to route information but the ability to create it, I doubt. Experiences are difficult to discuss unless we share knowledge about them so we can think about them while we are not having them. Someone had an experience of happiness before and can tell us that we are having that when we feel a certain way. And so on for unhappiness and thus we create a frame of knowledge for each. We experience the world as real, but when we use our knowledge and thoughts to experience something is that real?
What does dreaming have to do with you seeing those things? Whether you are dreaming or not, it is true that you had that experience. Whether you attribute that experience to a dream or “real life”, it does not change that that experience happened and it is true. Dream and reality do not change that.
I am not sure what ‘requiring something be true’ means for a non-deity, but as hypotheticals they have the problems I put forward to the extent they are moved towards being taken as truths. Which seems like the intent of hypothesizing. One is hypothesizing they are true. My response is to highlight a (some) problem(s) with taking the hypotheses as true, which is a common way of responding to hypotheses, since their use tends to be coupled with (potential) truth. pointing out that a hypothesis undermines itself need not, I suppose, require that the objection is true, but it can be just as damning as the hypothesis might be useful.
How quaint. If you have read more than one of my threads or posts you would know that I’m into biology and basic experiential knowledge. Thanks for the complement on my writing ability, even if you don’t understand a smidgen of what I say.
Does your writing display any understanding of neurology; importaint to this conversation? No? Does your writing display any deeper knowledge of psychology; also importaint to this conversation? No?
You only have beautiful rethorics explaining what some medival intellectual could with vague terms.
There I stated a hypothetical, as I pointed out to Moreno, but the punch-line of my OP was a question:
Oh, I see. Yes, that’s another take on the term “absolute” which I’m familiar with. There’s “absolute” as opposed to “fuzzy” (which is what I was getting at) and there’s “absolute” as opposed to “relative” (which seems to be what you’re getting at). It works.
Are you saying that the brain is not hard-wired to amass knowledge and conjure up assumptions?
I don’t know, but it sounds like you’re giving full credence to the “tabula raza” theory of mind, which is archaic and out-dated (not to mention scientifically disproven). I know this: when we bring to mind a concept or an instance of knowledge (about “reality”, for example), there is a specific neuro-chemical brain signature to go along with that. Why this neuro-chemical signature should be possible only after acquiring the right memories and knowledge rather than be genetically pre-packaged is something I see no reason to subscribe to. It’s like Hume’s treatment of “cause”: we never actually experience it per se, so there must be something inate within our brains that helps us to conjure up the concept. And sure, it may require the help of worldly experiences to come to full fruition (almost everything in the brain requires outside stimulation in order to develop properly) but this does not mean that the concept itself (be it of “cause” or “reality”) came from some outer experience or socially passed-down teaching (as though one had to be lucky enough to encounter such an experience or be raised in such a society just to imagine it).
Could be false memories of said experiences.
First, let’s treat truth as if it were something out there (i.e. mind-independent). Then if there are no absolute truths, neither 1) nor 2) (of my hypotheticals) could be absolutely true. 1) is still a possibility because we can say of it that it approximates the truth (whatever that might mean). 2) makes absolutely no sense in this context because the statement itself is something we comprehend and so whatever “truths” happen to be out there, it could not possibly qualify as a match for them. It must therefore be wrong, and any truths outside our minds must at least be potentially semi-graspable if only 1) is still a possibility.
Now if we treat truth as something that can only exist as an artifact of thought, then it makes little sense to talk about a truth “matching” anything in reality, and so 1) makes no sense in this context. The correspondence criteria for truth is essentially gone in this case. That leaves a few alternatives: coherence, in which case truths are true in virtue of their cohering with other truths (relative/conditional truths, not absolute), idealism, in which case truths are true in virtue simple of being believed (again, relative to a believer), or pragmatism, in which case truths are true in virtue of their utility (relative to usefulness). So I would venture to say that in the case where truths are mind-dependent, 2) is still a possibility if taken in a relativistic sense.
Could be, but there is no way to check if they are or not. So that is something you are adding on that is not known, but what is known is that you had a certain experience.
