Was tryin yesterday to explain to a guy about what I believe. Told him I believe there are no absolute truths, EXCEPT for this knowledge of there not being any other absolute truths. Knowing that there are no other absloute truths is, in itself, an absolute truth, the only one.

And I realized that he couldn't really hear what I was saying. In other words he didn't really consider the words I was using, but instead thought they sounded like some other words he had heard before, and figured it must be an idea he had heard before.

No amount of persuasion or whatever could get him to hear what the idea was. Even though it is only one brief sentence, he couldn't, at that time, hear it!

And so I thought, "This is what it is like on totse. You tell these guys this idea, and no one speaks to it, or answers. They just start talking about something else. They don't even argue against what you said, but against what they THOUGHT you said."

So, at any one time, are there only certain people that are able to hear this idea? It's only one idea, not the whole Bible or some book. Prior training in philosophy is not required.

Could someone paraphrase back to me what the simple idea is that I am talking about? The one that I stated above?

Ah, shut the fuck up please.

Am i right, or am i right.

(yeah im right)

"The only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths."

I disagree with that, I think even that doesn't cover it. Even that there are no absolute truths is not an absolute truth.



[This message has been edited by Schizophrenic Styrofoam (edited 06-09-2003).]

COGITO ERGO SUM

-Descartes

I think, therefore I am.

This is what Rene Descartes interpolated from anlayzing himself. He said that because he thinks and because he is *aware* of himself, he *is* This truth is self-evident, and thus disproves your horseshit.



quote:Originally posted by Schizophrenic Styrofoam:

"The only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths."

I disagree with that, I think even that doesn't cover it. Even that there are no absolute truths is not an absolute truth.



[This message has been edited by Schizophrenic Styrofoam (edited 06-09-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by CesareBorgia:

He said that because he thinks and because he is *aware* of himself, he *is* This truth is self-evident, and thus disproves your horseshit.





I don't see any proof in your disagreement.

quote:Originally posted by Schizophrenic Styrofoam:

"The only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths."

I disagree with that, I think even that doesn't cover it. Even that there are no absolute truths is not an absolute truth.



[This message has been edited by Schizophrenic Styrofoam (edited 06-09-2003).]

I appreciate your disagreement. At least it is clear what you are disagreeing with, and you stated the idea correctly,(the word "other" might need to be added) which is remarkable.

Can you explain why, or give an example of how, "even that doesn't cover it"?

not that i agree with you particularly, but you could have said:

The only thing im sure of is that im not sure of anything.

Maybe that works a little better in the way of not annoying the philisophy kids too.

I am sure of one thing only; that a person can be sure of nothing else.

What goes up must come down...

--------------------------------------

Descartes, as a result of the principles already established in his method, had first of all to seek out a solid starting point (a clear and distinct concrete idea), and from this opens his deductive process. To arrive at this solid starting point, he begins with methodical doubt, that is, a doubt which will be the means of arriving at certitude. This differs from the systematic doubt of the Skeptics, who doubt in order to remain in doubt.

I can doubt all the impressions that exist within my knowing faculties, whether they be those impressions which come to me through the senses or through the intellect. Indeed, I may doubt even mathematical truths, in so far as it could be that the human intelligence is under the influence of a malignant genius which takes sport in making what is objectively irrational appear to me as rational.

Doubt is thus carried to its extreme form. But notwithstanding this fact, doubt causes to rise in me the most luminous and indisputable certainty. Even presupposing that the entire content of my thought is false, the incontestable truth is that I think: one cannot doubt without thinking; and if I think, I exist: "Cogito ergo sum."

It is to be observed that for Descartes the validity of "Cogito ergo sum" rests in this, that the doubt presents intuitively to the mind the subject who doubts, that is, the thinking substance. In this, Cartesian doubt differs from that of St. Augustine ("Si fallor, sum"), which embodies a truth sufficiently strong to overcome the position of Skepticism. In Descartes, "Cogito ergo sum" is assumed, not only in order to overcome the Skeptic position but as a foundation for the primary reality (the existence of the "res cogitans"), from which the way to further research is to be taken.

This is the point which distinguishes the classic realistic philosophy from Cartesian and modern philosophy. With Descartes, philosophy ceases to be the science of being, and becomes the science of thought (epistemology). Whereas, at first, being conditioned thought, now it is thought that conditions being. This principle, more or less realized by the philosophers immediately following Descartes, was to reach its full consciousness in Kant and modern Idealism.

-----------------------------------

http://radicalacademy.com/phildescartes1.htm

Happy?



quote:Originally posted by bkc:

I don't see any proof in your disagreement.

René Descartes was a born again: in French, René means Re-Né, born again.

BTW I was just skimming thru, I can't give lots of attention to questions I've already resolved many times.

But if you read these topics, you know the shit I got in my coconut. I made it clear.

OK for nnoooooobeys: God is dead. Her name was silverlights, but it left our galaxy for a better star. So by now we are left with "nogod" as a god, until we take further action and president-elect a new god.

I will vote for Bakunine the well-known high-priest of anarcho-syndicalism made God.

So please stop non-posting sense.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

Could someone paraphrase back to me what the simple idea is that I am talking about? The one that I stated above?

Truth is relative.

You sound like a logic-chopping agnostic.

I am fortunate to be a gnostic, i.., I have direct experience with/knowledge of god.

quote:Told him I believe there are no absolute truths, EXCEPT for this knowledge of there not being any other absolute truths. Knowing that there are no other absloute truths is, in itself, an absolute truth, the only one. Prove it.

"Even presupposing that the entire content of my thought is false, the incontestable truth is that I think: one cannot doubt without thinking; and if I think, I exist:'Cogito ergo sum.'"

I am happy with your answer, but I think even the above truth is contestable. In fact, I would say even the idea of existence can be contested.

My point is that I think there is only one idea that cannot be contested. All others can be. This seems an appropriate position for God to occupy. (Do not think of God as being limited to being an entity).

quote:Originally posted by FuckOffandDie:

Prove it.[/QUOTE]

What does it mean to prove something? I think you can convince yourself that this idea is true by trying it on all questions and situations. Is that proof?

I haven't found any areas where it doesn't work.

Give me a definition of proof. It will involve an outside authority or witness. Then you have to prove the authority or witness, and so on. Where does this process eventually take you?

quote:Originally posted by DgenR8:

What goes up must come down...

Which way is up?

quote:Originally posted by MoonTalker:

Truth is relative.



Relative truths, of which there are many, are relative. Absolute truth is not, of which there is one.

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

You sound like a logic-chopping agnostic.

I am fortunate to be a gnostic, i.., I have direct experience with/knowledge of god.

I do believe in God. I am relating my direct experience and knowledge of God to you.

[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 06-11-2003).]

2+2=4.

truth or not?

& what is relative about it?

quote:Originally posted by IzzyReele:

2+2=4. truth or not? & what is relative about it? It is true in base 5, in base 8, in base 10. Yet those are different systems. They can have a consensus, that doesn't mean they have to agree on just everything.

quote:Originally posted by IzzyReele:

2+2=4.

truth or not?

& what is relative about it?

Been over this one many times as Spirit can tell you, and he has disagreed with my answer.

If you are just talking about the idea of 2+2 you are assuming, or believing, without saying so, that there is only one answer to it. In other words, 2+2=4 is a model based upon many, many observations of experience, that describes the average outcome of these observations.

However, it you just look at one of these observations, you will never find one that matches your average of the multiple observations. Because the observations are based upon "real" objects, such as apples.

How can you say you have two apples when no two apples are the same, and subatomic particles are leaving, and arriving, the apple at any moment? There is no watertight definition of what an apple even is, even though we usually know what a person means when they use the word.

So the theoretical equation 2+2=4 is a way we have of dealing with experience, but it can never completely describe experience.

The equaion is true in that it helps us deal with experience, and false in that it cannot absolutely describe experience.

Engineers are very familiar with this characteristic of formulas.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

Told him I believe there are no absolute truths, EXCEPT for this knowledge of there not being any other absolute truths.

I don't quite get this, or at least I'm not overly comfortable with the idea.

Is it not an absolute truth that consciousness exists?

quote:Originally posted by Beany:

Is it not an absolute truth that consciousness exists?

Is it? Can we even prove that matter exists? This is getting into theoretical physics, which I don't study, but I have heard various ideas that would call this into question.

When we look at molecules it is found they are more space than substance. And what is the substance made of?

What does it mean for consciousness to exist?

Theres nothing remarkable or profound about saying nothing exists or that there is no proof of anything.

You and I both know that we will go through life believing many different things exist, tomorrow you will wake up and go down to breakfast, you will not sit there questioning whether the cereal you put into your mouth actually exists.

You will also at some point in the future ask somebody to prove something for your own wishes at the time.

quote:Originally posted by The Crusader:

Theres nothing remarkable or profound about saying nothing exists or that there is no proof of anything.



Yes, of course, I agree with everything you say about the cereal, etc., but still all of these things that "exist" do so only from a certain point of view dependent on conditions that we may not be able to change at the moment, but that at some time will change.

So what you are talking about is conditional reality, which is fine, but we all have to go beyond that sometime. If we believe absolutely in things that are conditional, then we are doomed to be unprepared for change (and sameness for that matter).

And there is proof of one thing, but nothing else. That is very different from saying there is proof of nothing.

Your challenge was to paraphrase what you just said or argue about its' authenticity. The absolute truth you refer to is an objective truth or something that holds true regardless of an external force. You are saying that no other objective truth exists other then the only objective truth... but this is simply your subjective philosophical view. You cannot know the absolute truth if there is only one...the one would be the only truthful thing, or the creator of the viewers or external that looks inside the absolute view.

What you have done then is try to prove the existence of a higher power by claiming simply that nothing is true except the ultimate truth, aka for you God. Objective truth exists however regardless of belief or single objectivity.. We as unactualized beings can see it, like a magic eye I suppose, but they are hard to identify..Christians might claim the commandments as objective...mb...

Objective truth cannot be told by anyone...thats my only point....I can't claim something is objective because as a subjective being...I destroy it. You just have to know.....In the bible know=experience.

Never Clever.

quote:Originally posted by Nvrclvrb4:

. You cannot know the absolute truth if there is only one...the one would be the only truthful thing, or the creator of the viewers or external that looks inside the absolute view.

You're right that I can't completely know the truth, I can only see that it is there and work towards it. To know it I would have to be "God"

What you are saying after this though is not exactly clear to me. Can you explain more?

[I'm out for 5 days in case anyone cares]

[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 06-12-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

Was tryin yesterday to explain to a guy about what I believe. Told him I believe there are no absolute truths, EXCEPT for this knowledge of there not being any other absolute truths. Knowing that there are no other absloute truths is, in itself, an absolute truth, the only one.

And I realized that he couldn't really hear what I was saying. In other words he didn't really consider the words I was using, but instead thought they sounded like some other words he had heard before, and figured it must be an idea he had heard before.

No amount of persuasion or whatever could get him to hear what the idea was. Even though it is only one brief sentence, he couldn't, at that time, hear it!

And so I thought, "This is what it is like on totse. You tell these guys this idea, and no one speaks to it, or answers. They just start talking about something else. They don't even argue against what you said, but against what they THOUGHT you said."

So, at any one time, are there only certain people that are able to hear this idea? It's only one idea, not the whole Bible or some book. Prior training in philosophy is not required.

Could someone paraphrase back to me what the simple idea is that I am talking about? The one that I stated above?



Paraphrase:

You are saying that YOU BELIEVE that there are no absolute truth and because of someone's perceived knowledge that there are no absolute truth, you therefore believe that there are no absolute truth.

You are also saying that no one is hearing you...they hear the words, but not the essence of what you are saying.



Now my belief:

Truth is Truth! There IS absolute Truth! Truth is defined within a certain parameter for each person's consciousness. Each person preceives Truth according to their own level of soul evolution. Is this incorrect? No! What a person perceives as Truth at their stage of evolution is Truth and to them it is perceived as absolute Truth. Yet, absolute Truth transcends man's interpretation or understanding of what Truth really is. As man raises their consciousness, Truth is revealed in various stages to them.

It is true that man is made and aligned in the patterns and flows of the Universe, therefore when man move out of alignment with the Universe man becomes unbalanced and consequently ill. Is this perception of Truth or is this knowledge of Truth? Bearing in mind that man's knowledge is based on his perception. This is absolute Truth.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

Which way is up?

It doesn't matter which way is up, whatever went up must still come down.

Can you prove to me that the entire human race wasn't replaced in one instant with indentical clones?

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

Was tryin yesterday to explain to a guy about what I believe. Told him I believe there are no absolute truths, EXCEPT for this knowledge of there not being any other absolute truths. Knowing that there are no other absloute truths is, in itself, an absolute truth, the only one.

Could someone paraphrase back to me what the simple idea is that I am talking about? The one that I stated above?

You want me to paraphrase it.

"there are no absolute truths" - u are saying: there is no truth to anything.

"EXCEPT for this knowledge of there not being any other absolute truths" - u are saying that THIS knowledge is the only truth.

Am I right? Just wondering.



[This message has been edited by Virus (edited 06-14-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

Is it? Can we even prove that matter exists? This is getting into theoretical physics, which I don't study, but I have heard various ideas that would call this into question.

What does it mean for consciousness to exist?

You and I both know very well that consciousness exists.

You have to be a consciousness to be able to think and write that message. If you aren't a consciousness then you can't know what it means to be a consciousness.

I do! I think therefore I am. It is an absolute truth that I exist as a consciousness. You can't know that, but if you are a consciousness yourself then you know that it's an absolite truth that consciousness exists, consciousness being that which thinks.

[This message has been edited by Beany (edited 06-14-2003).]

Yet again,

COGITO ERGO SUM



quote:Originally posted by RnNhyde:

Can you prove to me that the entire human race wasn't replaced in one instant with indentical clones?

quote:Originally posted by Silver Lights:

Paraphrase:You are saying that YOU BELIEVE that there are no absolute truth and because of someone's perceived knowledge that there are no absolute truth, you therefore believe that there are no absolute truth.

No. I believe the knowledge that there are no other absolute truths, is the only absolute truth, and there is no weakness in this knowledge.

quote: Yet, absolute Truth transcends man's interpretation or understanding of what Truth really is.

I agree.

quote:It is true that man is made and aligned in the patterns and flows of the Universe, therefore when man move out of alignment with the Universe man becomes unbalanced and consequently ill. Is this perception of Truth or is this knowledge of Truth? Bearing in mind that man's knowledge is based on his perception. This is absolute Truth.

Even when we are more balanced than now, we will still be unbalanced in comparison with absolute truth. So our pursuit is both vain and glorious.

[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 06-17-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by DgenR8:

It doesn't matter which way is up, whatever went up must still come down.

What if it goes up and lands on a moutaintop and can't get down?

quote:Originally posted by RnNhyde:

Can you prove to me that the entire human race wasn't replaced in one instant with indentical clones?

I am willing to accept, from an as yet unspecified point of view, that it was.

quote:Originally posted by Virus:

Am I right? Just wondering.

That is what I was saying, except where you add "there is no truth to anything". Everything has a certain amount of truth in it, but not complete truth. Everything has untruth in it, but not complete untruth.

[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 06-17-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by Beany:

I think therefore I am.

You weren't able to consider the point I was making. Because you are unable to consider another viewpoint to this question, you think there is no other viewpoint to look at it from. That's why I used what seems to be an even more indisputable fact, that mass exists. If one can dispute that mass exists, then the same argument is easily extended to something as intangible as thought processes existing or not existing. Allow yourself to consider this.

"Yet again,

COGITO ERGO SUM"



Cogito Ergo Sum - I think therefore, I am. Only proves that YOU exist, Not I or HIM.

It doesn't even prove you exist physically, just "mentally".

Therefore, You can only prove that YOU were not "replaced with an identical clone". Thus you cannot "prove" to HIM that "the entire human race was not replaced by clones".

CES proves nothing.

"CES proves nothing."

It proves my existence for me, and it proves your existence for YOU.

Try this: Prove to yourself that you do not exist.......

Well you can't, you have to exist in order to even doubt your existence. So by thinking, you automatically have to exist (atleast "mentally"). Thus "I think, therefore I am".

The Cogito was a breakthrough in philosophy, that's why it is so important. You could say it cannot be disproven.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

What if it goes up and lands on a moutaintop and can't get down?

Time erodes all things, so in years to come, that mountian will be no more and the ball will arrive back down.

Nothing exists without its opposite. Through the opposite, the first becomes fact.

For example, there is no color white without the color black, to affirm the white is not black. Truth is existance the opposite of nonexistance. Existance is a state of being.

Just because we don't see, feel or touch all that exists, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

We exist whether we think or not. Matter is existance and truth.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



The Cogito was a breakthrough in philosophy, that's why it is so important. You could say it cannot be disproven.

That's the only thing you can be sure that everyone that maintains some semblance of rational thought agrees with. All solipsist/ Matrix-esque theories that doubt reality aside, the one thing you can be positively sure of is your own thoughts existing.

^^

Exactly, thats why I said mentally...

quote:Originally posted by DgenR8:

Time erodes all things, so in years to come, that mountian will be no more and the ball will arrive back down.

Good answer. Also in time the mountain will blow up or the earth will disappear and then which way will be up?

If my thoughts cannot prove something else exists or doesn't exist, how do my thoughts prove I exist.

How do you define existence? Seriously.

Your definition is going to be dependent on some other concept, which will also be questioned.

I understand the reasonableness of your argument ("you have to exist in order to even doubt your existence"), but it is not impervious.

If I exist now, will I exist in 500 years? If not, when does my existence stop? Do I exist if I am brain dead? When I'm not thinking?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Try this: Prove to yourself that you do not exist........

I can't. And I can't prove the opposite. Thats the point of this thread. There is only one thing that can be proven, and that is the idea that nothing else can be proven.

"how do my thoughts prove I exist"

Again, You have to exist in order to think and doubt. Do not try and get around this, its a fact. Tell me one scenario where you could think and not exist...

"If I exist now, will I exist in 500 years?"

I personally don't care, because the point of my argument (and the Cogito) is proving I exist when I think. Which I did.

" when does my existence stop? Do I exist if I am brain dead? When I'm not thinking?"

Again, I don't care. My point = I think therefore I am.

"And I can't prove the opposite"

The opposite is: Prove to yourself that you exist. To do that, just think... There! you just proved that you exist!

"There is only one thing that can be proven, and that is the idea that nothing else can be proven."

Nope, that you exist, can be proven by you.

Your "logical" string of thoughts only proves that you proceed from one thought to the next and because of customary thinking, feel that you have proved something.

Because two things are proximal in time and/or space does that prove one causes the other? Why?

So, are you saying that you don't exist, are not real, of fact and reality?

ok

Nothing is true, other than the idea that there is no truth.

thats a lie.

LOL

Originally posted by Silver Lights:

Paraphrase:You are saying that YOU BELIEVE that there are no absolute truth and because of someone's perceived knowledge that there are no absolute truth, you therefore believe that there are no absolute truth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. I believe the knowledge that there are no other absolute truths, is the only absolute truth, and there is no weakness in this knowledge.

----------------------------

It is still YOUR BELIEF!

It is true that man is made and aligned in the patterns and flows of the Universe, therefore when man move out of alignment with the Universe man becomes unbalanced and consequently ill. Is this perception of Truth or is this knowledge of Truth? Bearing in mind that man's knowledge is based on his perception. This is absolute Truth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even when we are more balanced than now, we will still be unbalanced in comparison with absolute truth. So our pursuit is both vain and glorious.

------------------------

This is a supposition on your part. One can only understand absolute truth from the vantage point of where one is at in the present time. I don't believe that our pursuit is vain...glorious for some, yes...for others, the natural progression of GROWTH! Is either wrong or right? No! Just different.

"that you proceed from one thought to the next and because of customary thinking, feel that you have proved something. "

AGAIN, in order for me to "proceed from one thought to the next... blah blah blah", I have to _________ ? It's not that difficult... It was already discussed in my last post, something you completely ignored it seems...



P.S. the answer is: EXIST.

If I don't exist, then what is this input I am experiencing? It is something, whatever it may be, and I have to exist to personally experience something.

Absolute Truth:

My handel on TOTSE is currently dagnabitt.

Absolute truth:

I have parents (convince me otherwise).

Or if you prefer ontological and epistemological references,



Absolute Truth:

There exists something, and not nothing.

Absolute truth:

All things experienced are experienced in time and space. There are no experiences that are not had through the mechanism of time and space.

Absolute truth:

There is no knowledge outside of experience. Man cannot trandscend the senses to explain reality.

Or Biological,

Absolute truth:

All living things must attain sustinence or they will die.



BKC, your like a broken record. You've been singing the same song over and over despite that people give you good responses. The history of philosophy has addressed your issue time and time again, from Sophistry to Hume, to Derrida. How can you be so arrogant to presume that philosophy, as a tradition encompassing vast amounts of human understanding, has somehow missed your little thesis. By your own admittance you've never even studied philosophy. You should give the discipline the benefit of the doubt before you decide youre qualified in being so arrogant. READ A BOOK. TAKE A CLASS. Your thesis could be much better. Right now it is little more than pot head philosophy.



I challenge YOU BKC, again, if you are so certain you have an original thought, write it down, take it to any philosophy professor, and take your grade. Otherwise, think of something new or shut up.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 06-22-2003).]

As I said earlier, I see "Truth" as relative to the beholder. And I have seen no "Absolute Truth" that is otherwise. The idea that you would have to be God to know Absolute Truth sets both on a platter of assumption: your idea of God, your idea of Absolute Truth. What is "Absolute Truth" anyway, as if there were degrees of "Truth"?

You can play with words, but in the end, it can only be absolutely true or it isn't. A half-truth is not truth and an absolute truth is no more than truth.

Interesting thought: "Will you still exist 500 years from now?"

Did "You" exist 500 years ago? And who the hell is this "You" if not this experience?

"You" are housed in this conglomerate of elements, not much different 500 years ago and 500 years from now. Same elements, same life force...only a different "You." In some form or another every element of you will exist in some form or another. There is no escape, change is the only option.

The relativism people are obsessed with is simplly narrow minded. Is all truth relative to the obsevrer? Yes! Is all truth relative within observation? No, There are plenty of constants. Ther trick is is to adress the issue that we cannot transdscend the senses to address metaphysics (ie substance, or mind-independent matter), and when people first acquire this phenomenalism they ardain as well this skeptism as if simply nothing is true. But when we ignore extra-experiencial reality, and look within what we actually do experience, we find plenty of truth. Now as to whether that truth can be used for the better of man, that depends on how one views science, technology, medicine etc..., which all operate according to the ruths we find. Now Will anything we find within experience give us any intuitive knowledge that will ultimately justify religion, morals, or ethics? No. Those things are relative because they textual in nature and interpreted by those in power. We will never have the foothold to necessarily convince anyone of anything, if they desire to believe something (BKC). But there is plenty of truth within the reality we expereince, even if we cant make sense of it beyond. The fact that all experience is garnished in time and space is not a "half truth" or a "relative truth" (relative to the observer yes, but can be preumed for all others as well, unless we have a solipism, in which case it is still valid). Kant layed out many other synthetic a priori propositions as well, that referred to the universal and innate operation of the brain to lay tghe structure for his epistemology. The "absolutes" are not the particular phenomenon, but the way our brain is to interpret any phenomenon at all. When you realize that the dualty between observer and observed is philosophically rather absurd, you are force to look at your own experience for truth, and you will find plenty.

quote:Originally posted by CesareBorgia:



In the vaccum of space direction of up and down are irrelevent, because they are relative. On earth up simply means away from the earth and down means towards the earth. Also in the vaccum of space there is no gravitational force (actually, I take that back. Everything with mass has gravitational force) I meant to say that unless an object comes into the range of an object with more mass than itself, it will not be affected by gravity and thus will continue in the direction it set forth in until it does.

[This message has been edited by lady_dw (edited 06-24-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by crunked:

So, are you saying that you don't exist, are not real, of fact and reality?

ok Nothing is true, other than the idea that there is no truth.thats a lie.

LOL

Yes I am saying there is some truth in the statement you make above, but not that I absolutely don't exist. All answers are dependent upon the point of view they are looked at from.

Nothing is absolutely true, other than than the idea that there are no other absolute truths.

There are plenty of non absolute truths, such as "I exist". But they can all be looked at from alternate points of view in which they won't be true.

There is only one truth that can only be looked at in one way.

quote:Originally posted by Silver Lights:

It is still YOUR BELIEF!

The question is, I guess, does this truth "exist" outside of my belief. What is your take on it?

quote:Originally posted by Silver Lights:

Is either wrong or right? No! Just different.

So is there no wrong or right? How are actions judged?

[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 06-24-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

P.S. the answer is: EXIST.

What you have been saying is clear and presented well. But I don't completely agree with it, although it definitely has validity.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

If I don't exist, then what is this input I am experiencing? It is something, whatever it may be, and I have to exist to personally experience something.

If you exist, what permanent evidence will you leave to show it?

No response for me? BKC, you are so in love with your thesis you cant defend it properly. You are no different than any other zealot.

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

Absolute Truth: My handel on TOTSE is currently dagnabitt.

TOTSE of one second ago no longer exists. As the river flows it stays the same and changes, both concurrently (unexpected pun). You are no longer current.

quote:Absolute truth: I have parents (convince me otherwise).

Your parents borrowed their DNA from your grandparents, so really they are your parents,... but the same is true of them.



quote:Absolute Truth:There exists something, and not nothing.

You are defining "existence" here. In other words a simple statement of belief, which only establishes itself, but doesn't make it true.

quote:Absolute truth: All things experienced are experienced in time and space. There are no experiences that are not had through the mechanism of time and space.

That is true, but do time and space exist?

quote:Absolute truth: All living things must attain sustinence or they will die.

What happens when they die?

quote:BKC, your like a broken record...

I challenge YOU BKC, again, if you are so certain you have an original thought, write it down, take it to any philosophy professor, and take your grade.

The professor probably isn't as well read as you. Why would I listen to them?

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

No response for me? BKC, you are so in love with your thesis you cant defend it properly. You are no different than any other zealot.

Eat your words, we crossed.

I have other work.

"What you have been saying is clear and presented well. But I don't completely agree with it, although it definitely has validity."

Is that a nice way of saying you can't get around what I said?

The fact still remains, you said "I am sure of one thing only; that a person can be sure of nothing else." Yet you can't

disprove the Cogito...

You dont understand what you're trying to say. You think you're being all mystical by saying "how do you know that exists", or "how do you know that is true", each time something contradicts what your trying to say. The fact theat something exists is demonstrative. You can say its made up, but what are you talking about. You can pretend my fist isnt there, but it will hurt when i punch you. Listen, just because you cant explain reality, doesnt mean its not there. Just because you can doubt the specific tenets of matter and mind, doesnt mean that nothing exists. Doubt doesnt imply absence.

The fact that dagnabitt is my user name is ans absolute truth. All one needs to do to affirm it is understand the terms involved and look for themselves. It is an a posteriori fact. It doesnt matter that it wont be around tomorrow, that fact that it exists now, to me, probably to others, and will be remembered, even if differently, makes it a truth. It absolutely happenned, in some form, even if ungraspable or meaningless ultimately. Relative to the ultimate nature of the universe, such facts take on only personal value, but thats specifically value is, and has always been.



How do I know time and space exist. Give me one example of any experienced thing that does not utilize time and space as a prerequisite for that experience.

If your just going to be stupid and negate everything said, you're not actually refuting anything.

I can simply tell you, your thesis about only one absolute (blah, blah) is wrong because how do you know you exist, if you cant know you exist how can any thesis you make have any credibility, even if it does make sense to you?

But philosophy doesnt work that way, it works by engaging active coversation, using precise definitioins and giving legitimate examples and counter examples. It takes for granted that we exist to do this, and its rules, while pragmatic, allow some sense of credibility to be attained. You are not engaging in this way.

You pull at hairs, give labored, unrealistic, and tired rebuttals. You are so interested in knowing you are right that you are ignoring time tested and true objections to the dated and underdeveloped concept you think you invented.

some terms you need to learn and know.

a priori knowledge (analytic/synthetic)

a posteriori knowledge

Transcendental knowledge (synthetic a priori)

Basic Logic - Paradox of self reference, tautology,

Idealism (working within it)

Phenomenalism ( ditto)



There are soooo many thinkers and disciplines that take precedence in such discussions.

BTW

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolute truth: All living things must attain sustinence or they will die.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What happens when they die?

It doesnt matter what happenns, the absolute is that they will die.

Same with my parent example. It doesnt matter what you saym there is still a sense in which I have parents. That has a meaninf far removed from your labored analysis.

Stop being such a fucking know it all teenager and learn about these things you shoot your mouth off about so much.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 06-25-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Yet you can't

disprove the Cogito...

I'm not tuying to be real nice. It doesn't go over very well on totse. This is an arguing place.

I think, therefore I am. I understand the logic behind it. Or you could say, Because I think, I know I exist. Is that right?

That is valid, but can't this concept be questioned? Maybe I just think I am thinking, but maybe it is just "God" thinking and letting me think it is me thinking. If you believe in god, just for argument's sake, then your individuality from god is a matter of belief.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

I'm not tuying to be real nice. It doesn't go over very well on totse. This is an arguing place.

I think, therefore I am. I understand the logic behind it. Or you could say, Because I think, I know I exist. Is that right?

That is valid, but can't this concept be questioned? Maybe I just think I am thinking, but maybe it is just "God" thinking and letting me think it is me thinking. If you believe in god, just for argument's sake, then your individuality from god is a matter of belief.

I think you make a good point here. Thats why, a more truthfull statement is "something exists". However, the words of the cogito per se make no reference to God Taken on its own, as was Decartes's intent (god came later) in that particular meditation, it simply means that even if only thinking exists, and I am nothing but thought, noone can convince me that I do not exist. Which is valid.

"maybe it is just "God" thinking and letting me think it is me thinking"

Wouldn't you have to exist in order for God to "let you think you are thinking"?

Please try again.

As far as I know "Absolute Truth" is basically some meatball religious concept.

It adds no value to "Truth." What is, is what is. What is not, is not.

How can anyone question if they actually exist? What's the point in that? I am aware

that I exist. But I am not quite sure of the bounds of this "I" that I am.

Sure, we have a narrow band of perspective and our reality is limited. Yet without Man and his Mind is there even such a concept as "Truth" or "Reality"?

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

The question is, I guess, does this truth "exist" outside of my belief. What is your take on it?



Yes, Truth exists outside of your belief.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

So is there no wrong or right? How are actions judged?

[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 06-24-2003).]

Its a learning experience. What we create, we are responsible for and must take responsibility for at some point in time. This is really what judgement is... we are shown the situations that we create that have negative impacts on society and this planet as a whole. When we create a situation that has a negative impact on others, that situation returns to us...we in turn experiences the negative situation. Therefore, it is in our own interest to change that situation to a positive one. We are given that opportunity to make the necessary changes.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Please try again.

Maybe you are just an extension of god that is thinking.

quote:Originally posted by MoonTalker:

As I said earlier, I see "Truth" as relative to the beholder. And I have seen no "Absolute Truth" that is otherwise. The idea that you would have to be God to know Absolute Truth sets both on a platter of assumption: your idea of God, your idea of Absolute Truth. What is "Absolute Truth" anyway, as if there were degrees of "Truth"?

You can play with words, but in the end, it can only be absolutely true or it isn't. A half-truth is not truth and an absolute truth is no more than truth.

"Truth is relative to the beholder" But what I am saying is there is a truth that is not relative to the beholder. And this truth is that there are no other truths (if you want to take the word "absolute" out of it). The meanings of the word "truth" are changing in this discussion, as they must, but this does not change The Only Thing That Is One.

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

.. and when people first acquire this phenomenalism they ardain as well this skeptism as if simply nothing is true.

I am NOT saying "nothing is true" but that all ideas have in them truths that are dependent on points of view. But there is one idea that does not have this dependency.



quote:We will never have the foothold to necessarily convince anyone of anything, if they desire to believe something (BKC).

A very true statement about your belief also, that there are many truths.

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

just because you cant explain reality, doesnt mean its not there. Just because you can doubt the specific tenets of matter and mind, doesnt mean that nothing exists.

I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm saying their existence is not independent of a "higher power". That Higher Power being the idea I am explaining(?).

I'm saying they can be seen to exist or not exist, both viewpoints valid and different. And each viewpoint not lessening or contradicting the other.

quote:Originally posted by dagnabitt:

Same with my parent example. It doesn't matter what you say there is still a sense in which I have parents. That has a meaning far removed from your labored analysis.

Yes, you are very right! It doesn't matter what I say there is still a sense in which you have parents.

And the meaning I gave the question about parents which was far removed from your meaning, is also true, in a sense.

Its no big complicated deal. But it is always true.

quote:Originally posted by Silver Lights:

Therefore, it is in our own interest to change that situation to a positive one.



You have to provide a measure to decide what is positive=good=moral=desirable.

"Maybe you are just an extension of god that is thinking"

Thus you exist. As an extension, as a human being, as a dog, as a concious spirit; it doesn't matter, the point is you exist.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Thus you exist.

And how does this belief help you decide how to live?

"And how does this belief help you decide how to live?"

Another lame attempt at dodging my reply...

Try again.

Your feeling of victory is more imagined than real. You need to "try again" to answer the etiological challenges to your explanation.

"Your feeling of victory is more imagined than real. You need to "try again" to answer the etiological challenges to your explanation."

My set goal on this thread is proving that, "that you know nothing" is not the only "absolute truth".

You exist and can't deny it. For some reason you have taken it upon yourself to ask other questions, that have no point in this discusion, like :

"And how does this belief help you decide how to live?"

"If I exist now, will I exist in 500 years? If not, when does my existence stop? Do I exist if I am brain dead? When I'm not thinking?"

Now I say to you, keep trying to prove that you don't exist, you haven't accomplished it, and asking other questions isn't going to help.

Hence the "Try again".

By saying there is no such thing as an absolute is an absolute

First, in my opinion, time and truth are ideas in our minds as a means of measure.

They are not the things they try to measure, which is real. Time, which is not a real thing, measures "Change"...which is real. 8:30 am Monday morning June 26th, 2003

is not a reality but a man made marker for it. It exists in the mind only.

We can only measure Time, and Truth in our relation to it. We are not "Absolute Beings"

but "Relative Beings" with a "Relative Mind." The only "Absolute" I know in "Life" is "Change." But then again, this "Constant Change" is relative to me.

Basically, I agree with bkc. Any claims of any "Absolute Truth" are most likely religious in theme...faceless assumptions based upon the idea of an "Absolute God" that supports their idea of Absolute Truth.

bkc claims "There is no Absolute Truths and this is the only Absolute Truth." He claims there is no Absolute Truth but suddenly his claim is one. So, he ends it here: no other. Yet I doubt that train of thought. I think I can claim there are no Absolute Truths known and I don't think that makes this an Absolute Truth in itself. Truth exists, but for human beings not without any relation to them. To me, even bkc's one Truth is relative to his relative thinking and outside of human beings' perception there may be some Absolute Truth. But I see

what he means and can't disprove it.

The truth of our minds is kinda like the trees of the earth...It grows and grows and grows. Surely there is one "Absolute Tree" in the forest.

[This message has been edited by MoonTalker (edited 06-26-2003).]

"There are no Absolute Truths."

Who said this? A God or a man? If a man says it, beyond the mere words, isn't he really saying, "I believe there are no Absolute Truths"? Thus saying, does this make that an Absolute Truth which he doesn't believe exists?

I don't think so. A man saying, "There are no Absolute Truths," is only an opinion.

And if he is right, Absolute Truth doesn't exist, does that make it in itself an Absolute Truth or just a Truth?

Isn't the Absolute, Absolutely Useless?

Look up Time as a transcedental category of mind (Kant). The fact that time arises in the subject (as a precondition for the experience of all phenomena) is precisely what makes it "absolute". Same with space. The idea is to get away from the dulaity between mind and matter. What you guys are doing is saying "there are no absolutes in reality", when what you want to say is we can not say anything with any certainty beyond perception, or experience of reality(which is a false dichotomy, as experience truly is reality if all is subjective), which is accurate. But experience is precisely what should be addressed. It is only in "objective metaphysics" (so to speak) that this "no absolutes thing" comes into play. It's juvenile philosophy the way its being treated here. Once you look solely at experience, and stop thinking about "what" you are experiencing, you find plenty of universals or "absolutes". Its only when you try to "explain" that experience with reference to "extra-experiential" or metaphysical entities (substance, god, spirit etc...) that one is left with uncertainty. You need to simply change your point of reference. If you want to harp about subjectivity, then talk about subjectivity - which is consistent in many ways, and contains within it several undisputable "truths".

Your guys problem is that you have the deconstruction down but you have not found the buddha yet - the part of reality, the focus unification of the manifold. What keeps every descriptive thing in your experience, color, shape, form etc...form falling away into oblivion. It doesn't, that's where david hume went wrong. Reality is as constant as it is changing, otherwsie this conversation would not exist. Your problem is you fail to see there is another focus available, that negates the skepticism you are implying and fiils experiential reality with each and every truth that keeps you sane. You cant even imagine the chaos of existence without it. To talk of shape and color would make no sense at all.

http://www.parenthese.qc.ca/images/illusion.gif (http://www.parenthese.qc.ca/images/illusion.gif)



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 06-27-2003).]

^ As I understand, you say there must be "Time" as a precondition for all "Experience." As I noted, in my mind, Time is but a marker for Change. "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Yet this change is the constant in the sameness. If "Change" does not exist, then "Time" does not exist.

I would say "Awareness/Consciousness" is a "Greater" precondition for "Experience."

I am not saying there are no "Absolutes" in "Reality." I am saying there are no "Absolute Rules" (Religions concept)for humans to live life by. Like the old writers said: "Truth is a sharp two-edged sword." It cuts for good, it cuts for evil: It cuts both ways. But always, it cuts to the way of life. There is no "Absolute Truth" where good or right is the victor. There is no "One Right, One Good, or One Evil." It is about survival more than morals.

The idea of "Absolute Truth" where it is free from imperfection, free from restriction or limitation, completely independent of human thought does not exist for human beings. Truth and its concept is a product of reasoning and only exists in the mind. It is a product of human beings and relative to them.

In general, if the claim is that anything is an "Absolute Truth" that will never change, even if all the conditions change...if the universe changed, even if reality changed, it would always remain the same...I doubt it.

[This message has been edited by MoonTalker (edited 06-27-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by alkimmi:

By saying there is no such thing as an absolute is an absolute

The idea is that there is no other absolute. This is different than what you say here. You were trying to point out that there was a contradiction in the idea. If I said simply "There are no absolutes" you would be right. I am saying there is only one absolute, and that is that there are no other absolutes.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You exist and can't deny it.

"If I exist now, will I exist in 500 years? If not, when does my existence stop? Do I exist if I am brain dead? When I'm not thinking?"

Now I say to you, keep trying to prove that you don't exist, you haven't accomplished it,



Just as you cannot prove that someone does exist.

And I'm not trying to prove I don't exist, but instead am trying to prove one thing only; that questions, such as the question of existence, when looked at from one viewpoint have one answer, and when looked at from another viewpoint have a different answer.

I can both deny and affirm that I exist, but neither one in an absolute, unassailable, manner.

If you think you know when someone exists, then you must also claim to know when they don't exist.

If the molecules in my body are changing continuously, then how am I the same person I was a minute ago? I know both that there are perspectives from which I am the same, and there are perspectives, such as the molecular one, from which I am not the same. If I am not the same from that perspective, how do you say that I still exist, from that perspective, and that I have not been reincarnated?

There are many ways to attack the idea of existence, or any idea.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

The idea is that there is no other absolute. This is different than what you say here. You were trying to point out that there was a contradiction in the idea. If I said simply "There are no absolutes" you would be right. I am saying there is only one absolute, and that is that there are no other absolutes.

Okay then, what makes you think "Change" is not an absolute?

"Just as you cannot prove that someone does exist"

Thats is NOT my point. I don't care if you, my mom, my dad or my dog exists. I just care I exist. The Cogito does that. It proves my existance for me, just as it proves YOUR existance for YOU.

"I can both deny and affirm that I exist"

Please tell us how you could deny your existance, uptill now you've failed each time.

"If the molecules in my body are changing continuously, then how am I the same person I was a minute ago?"

Your physical body has nothing to do with existance, so keep it out of this. You can exist with out a body, moreover the cogito only proves you exist as a concious mind.

quote:Originally posted by MoonTalker:

bkc claims "There is no Absolute Truths and this is the only Absolute Truth." He claims there is no Absolute Truth but suddenly his claim is one. So, he ends it here: no other. Yet I doubt that train of thought. I think I can claim there are no Absolute Truths known and I don't think that makes this an Absolute Truth in itself.

This sounds pretty absolute, "I think I can claim there are no absolute truths".

quote:Truth exists, but for human beings not without any relation to them. To me, even bkc's one Truth is relative to his relative thinking and outside of human beings' perception there may be some Absolute Truth. But I see what he means and can't disprove it.

I don't understand "but for human beings not without any relation to them". I wouldn't be able to paraphrase this.



But I think that the truth that I am trying to explain maybe can't be completely explained, since, for one reason, the words we use are subject to this truth, if that makes any sense.

quote:Originally posted by MoonTalker:

^ As I understand, you say there must be "Time" as a precondition for all "Experience." As I noted, in my mind, Time is but a marker for Change. "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Yet this change is the constant in the sameness. If "Change" does not exist, then "Time" does not exist.



Change does exist, time does exist. Which remains more fundamental is an intereting thought, but not really relevant. It's sort of a "chicken and egg" concept. My point is that there is truth in these concepts because, while there nature is uncertain, their existence is irrefutable. They just dont exist "out there". You cannot deny that time is a condition of experience. Simply name one experience that does not occure in time. People mistake existing (wherein lies the truth) with "having a reasonable explanation. Just because there is no good explanation, doesnt mean there is no truth. The propositions merely need to be phrased differently.

quote:I would say "Awareness/Consciousness" is a "Greater" precondition for "Experience."

No argument there. But that does not mean my other statements are innacurate. The "challenge" was to give propositions that contained certain (absolute), or uncompromisable truth. It is easy to do this once the mind/matter duality is overcome.

quote:I am not saying there are no "Absolutes" in "Reality." I am saying there are no "Absolute Rules" (Religions concept)for humans to live life by.

Again, i couldnt agree more, but nobody has said this topic is limited to ethics. This is about absolute propositions in general. The examples I'm harping on have to do with epistemology (knowledge), and metaphysics. These are different fields than morality and ethics.





quote:The idea of "Absolute Truth" where it is free from imperfection, free from restriction or limitation, completely independent of human thought does not exist for human beings.

Agreed, but who defined absolute as "independant of human thought". These are different topics.

quote:Truth and its concept is a product of reasoning and only exists in the mind. It is a product of human beings and relative to them.

When you have ONLY mind, then their is no relation. Understand. It is only when we posit some external reality that we can "relate" the concept of "mind" to something. I agree wholeheartedly we cannot make any statements about mind-independent things. So why posit them to exist at all? Follow? There is only no truth when you rely on this external "relation" to validate experience. It requires a vital change of perspective.

quote:In general, if the claim is that anything is an "Absolute Truth" that will never change, even if all the conditions change...if the universe changed, even if reality changed, it would always remain the same...I doubt it.

Dont pull at straws, work with what you have. Be empirical, other wise your just negating for its own sake. It is impossible to imagine any human experience ever being independent of time and space. You could simple say, "well one day maybe", but that is demonstrating nothing. I could simply say no to anything. The fact remains, there are truths about the nature of experience that are constant, and we can presume to always be there, because our understanding cant concieve of things any other way.

The existence of "categories" is a good example. Nothing, no thought, can exist without categorical thinking. This is an absolute truth, because noone can give a valid rebuttal to it. (although some religions claim to trandscend categorical thought, they speak of this experience as "outside" of experience anyway, and noto subject to normal explanation or description, which to me is the philosophical equivilent of merely disagreeing.



[This message has been edited by dagnabitt (edited 06-27-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by MoonTalker:

Okay then, what makes you think "Change" is not an absolute?

If you examine what we call changes from whatever perspective we are using, depending on the specific example, another perspective can be found in which these changes can be seen not as change, but as the same. This gets a little involved, and of course you can find examples that I can't handle at this time, but that is the idea.

Perspective, point of view is everything, and though we would like to think we can define exactly the point of view, we can never control all the variables.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Your physical body has nothing to do with existance, so keep it out of this. You can exist with out a body, moreover the cogito only proves you exist as a concious mind.

Okay, I at least get this point that you're limiting your definition of existence to the mind thinking, or more simply, just thinking, regardless of if there is a mind or not. And the thinker thinks, "I exist", and so it does.

So it comes down to thinking = existence? But isn't this just a definition? And you won't like this, but that leads me again to ask,"What have you accomplished by believing this?". So what if you believe that? What do you conclude from this?

You are still a prisoner of your thinker, as I am. But I believe my thinker is leading me out of its prison, But your thinker is telling you that all you are is your thinker. And what does that get you?

"What have you accomplished by believing this?"

No I don't like it, cause I don't care.

"You are still a prisoner of your thinker, as I am. But I believe my thinker is leading me out of its prison, But your thinker is telling you that all you are is your thinker. And what does that get you?"

I don't care where it gets me, I proved my point: The Cogito is right. You must exist to even doubt your own existence. You must exist to even come up with the idea, that "there is just one absolute truth blah blah".

So I guess you where right and wrong.

There is one absolute truth, but it isn't that there is none, it's that you exist. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

And even that is debatable.

another absolute truth: I typed this post.

To say that something is absolute truth, you deny it the capacity for change.

And I put it to you that the only truth is 'things change'

quote:Originally posted by Communicus:

To say that something is absolute truth, you deny it the capacity for change.

And I put it to you that the only truth is 'things change'

Absolutes regarding your statement: Things must exist before they can change. For "things" to exist, categories, at least one, is necessary as a mode or modes of that existence. Whether those categories change at some time into other categories does not undetermine the need for categories in general. For categories to exist, and/or change, Time and Space are necessary preconditions.

Or like the person above says, "i just typed this post" The past tense is not subject to change, only agreement and disagreement.

quote:Originally posted by PsychoticMyth:

another absolute truth: I typed this post.

Did you type this post?

One answer; yes, you pushed the keyboard buttons and typed this post. I think that is what you are saying. And you had to think about what you were going to say, of course.

Another viewpoint: We never do anything by ourselves. Everything we do is based upon what has been done before us. You didn't necessarily type the post anymore than Einstein thought of the Theory of Relativity. Your part in typeing the post was very small and took little effort from you.

So it is a relative truth that you typed the post.

quote:Originally posted by Communicus:

'things change'

For every way in which it can be seen that something is changing, another way can be seen in which it is staying the same.

quote:Originally posted by Communicus:

To say that something is absolute truth, you deny it the capacity for change.

The absolute truth that began this thread is sameness that contains change. In other words, it is bigger than change/sameness.