I, for one, don’t believe in absolute truths, and I find in my encounters with people over this question, that not many do either. But among these encounters, I’ve found at least a couple different reasons for why people doubt in the existence of absolute truths. Let’s discuss these different reasons to see if we can gain some insight into the nature of truth and to understand our epistemic relation to reality.
There are no such things as absolute truths because either…
in the transfer of information from the world into our minds, there will will always be distortions, mistakes, noise, etc. This is just as true of how we interpret, analyze, and conjucture truth as much as it is for how information enters the mind. In forming copies of the true state of reality, the mind will never create an absolutely perfect replica.
Using quantitative measurement as an analogy, we can compare this with the inability to ever get a perfectly accurate measure of any quantity (I’m willing to debate counting whole numbers of objects). Even if you measure, let’s say, the volume of a glass of water to the millionth decimal place, there will always be some fuzziness in the millionth and first decimal place.
That, or…
the true state of reality is totally incomprehensible. It is much like how the mind conjures up perceptions and beliefs in things like colors or moral values. Sure, at first the experiences of these things seem to be of things actually existing in the world, but a moment’s reflection on the nature of how the mind perceives/thinks about these things reveals their obvious subjective underpinnings. The conlusion that these things can only exist in the mind is seductive, and the accompanying conclusion that reality not only doesn’t, but can’t, consist of these things follows. Sure, there may be things that correspond to these things (for example, different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation corresponding to our perception of color), but that doesn’t mean that without the experience of human color perception, things can go on bearing the qualities of color as such experiences reflect them. It is often argued, therefore, that anything mental/subjective can only exist in a mind, and that it is plain nonsensicle to talk about these things as having an existence outside a mind, and this includes belief and knowledge. So if belief and knowledge can only exist in a mind, what does that say about truth? It says that truth, as depicted by our knowledge and belief in such truths, cannot, as such, reflect anything real or any actual state of reality.
Returning to our mathematical analogies, this argument is much like the point that the answer to a mathematical problem can never accurately–not even approximately, not even remotely–answer a non-mathematical question (such as, for example, “What is your favorite flavor of pizza?”). At least in the former mathematical analogy, one could talk about having an approximate numerical measurement to an actual quantity, but here one must ask whether the number 5, for example, is any more an accurate answer to the question “What is your favorite flavor of pizza?” as 1,000, or 4,875,230.239. No matter what number we have, it seems, we aren’t getting any “closer” to the right answer to this question.
So what is the real reason absolute truths don’t exist? Is it a matter of impossible accuracy, or is that the true nature of reality is incomprehensible to the human mind? Or is there another reason? Or am I completely wrong to dismiss the existence of absolute truths?
Forget absolute truth because this adjective does not provide any more information, while truth appears to be just fine. And your whole idea of absolute reality, which is what absolute truth is suppose to be about.
If you were somehow freed of the knowledge you have of it, the question of reality is not there anymore. The question arises from this knowledge, which is still interested in finding out the reality of things, and what that reality is all about. When that is not there, the question is also not there. Then there is no need for finding any answer. This question is born out of the assumption that there is a reality, and that assumption is born out of this knowledge you have of and about the reality. … The knowledge is the answer you already have. That is why you are asking the question. The question automatically arises.
What is necessary is not to find out the answer to the question, but to understand that the question which you are asking, is born out of the answer you already have, which is the knowledge. So, the question and answer format, if we indulge in it for long, becomes a meaningless ritual. … If you are really interested in finding the truth, what has to dawn on you is that your very questioning mechanism is born out of the answers that you already have. Otherwise there can’t be any question.
First of all, there is an assumption on your part that there is a reality, and then, that there is something that you can do to experience that reality. Without the knowledge you have no experience of reality, that is for sure.
You are asking the question. The question goes with the answer. So there is no need to ask questions and there is no need to answer.
I wonder if you would (or do) find Armstrong’s defence of state of affairs in a truthmaker ontology as an example of how any “absolute” truths are not as implausible (on atleast a conceptual level) as I think you may suggest? Armstrong holds that state of affairs; entities in the world possess “intrinsic” qualities of size, width, depth and extension(or volume). So it would follow that in theory a human being can incorrectly measure one of these qualities - but could never change them. And any misdiagnosis would only be a disclarity of an a priori, external truth. A cup possesses a very specific, determinate volume which is built into the very image of the cup.
Despite the collateral noise of perception, if there is no identity between us and what we perceive, we could neither eat nor have sex. Without an accurate internal representation of what is external, we could not adapt to any environment. The possibility of adapting is probably the nearest we can get to anything absolute. Ideas are like spiderwebs, built to capture what we need. Truth is what works.
OK, but you still have the question of what it means that we can never grasp a perfectly accurate truth.
No, I sometimes have my doubts.
Yes, it is automatic, and quite inescapable. I would think the concept of “reality” is one of the most hard-wired concepts that the human brain comes with.
“The knowledge is the answer you already have.” So then what is the question? The question is: Why are there no absolute truths? If the answer is born from my knowledge of reality, then this must be another way of saying that my reason for disbelieving in absolute truths is why there are none. Idealism 101?
Why is it necessary?
I’m not. I’m interested in provoking a discussion and seeing what comes out of it.
Very nice metaphors, but it doesn’t sound much related to the actual world, least not the one i reside in.
Most western people won’t overcome and adapt, but rather complain and try to make others do the dirty work for them. It doesn’t seem that you know much about psychology, else you would know that people’s preception of the external are heavily dependant of their group think values.
And ofcause we can eat and have sex without any significant identity bewteen us, that is a very unusua expression which seems to belong in an imaginary area of thought.
What is this suppose to even mean? Are you telling me that you cannot grasp that you are reading a sentence on a computer screen? If you cannot grasp this then I do not know what truth would even be.
They do give it a different theoretical interpretation, but they do see the computer screen and a string of symbols across it. What it means is something else. An aboriginal, who has a good memory, can re-write what they saw even if they do not know what it means.
If the universe is flexible and fluid, rearrange-able, etc. There can still be solid parts which wont rearrange.
The solid parts of reality include things such as the boiling point of water.
There are some things that are always true in a given situation.
These don’t need to be called absolute truths, they are just dependable.
Absolute truths do exist but only with abstract concepts. There are only four abstract concepts. They are: unit, object, subject and relation. (There is also another, entity, but entity means either subject or object so it doesn’t count.)
Units and relations is mathematics. Units have no attributes, properties or emotional ramifications. This is why anything can be combined with units. This is also why mathematics is an absolute truth.
Objects and relations is engineering. Objects do have attributes and/or properties but they do not have emotional ramifications. For example, a whole is composed of parts.
Subjects and relations is philosophy. Subjects do have attributes and/or properties and they can have emotional ramifications. For example, everyone has (or had) family members and family members are called relatives. Also, all of the information in the subject of a conversation are related (also known as relevant).
Thus is the power of the abstract concept. It is absolutely true.
People gets in major lawsuits because they interpet the same contract in very spetacular different ways, just look how many different interpetations there are of the bible, vitnesses to a crime will tell you different stories, never the excat same.
You should study the science of observation, there you would know that people often fail hard at remembering excat colors, which side things were placed, etc.
You lash out against me, because you don’t what psychology is, you only think that beautiful rethorics and metaphors can solve problems and overcome the lack of undestanding of basic factual knowledge.
