Senate Does "Absolute Truth" exist?

You sure he needs your protection, Ten? He seems pretty unflappable.

And for what it's worth, I have no desire to mess with him on a personal level. He seems happy in his faith, and that's a fortunate position to be in. I don't begrudge him that at all. Moviefan2k4, to make sure he sees that.

 

*posts so hard the posting machine breaks*

 

*Vivec denounces Ender Sai, warning the rest of the world that he is not to be trusted!*

 

Christ, in 60 turns his cavalry will be in position. WHAT TO DO?

 

That title was awarded to Suzuki Akira a half decade ago, and is his until he relinquishes it. You have done many admirable things in your time, but you do not and cannot compare on this score. It is laughable to suggest otherwise.

 

lol @ Nigeria.

 

S'her brittanic majesty the queen's job, that is. In her job title. Defensor fidelis.She'll 'ave the unions onto you.

 

Yeah, um, the Pope is still waiting for that title back, Harry the Eighth.

 

The new Pope, Jim Bowen, is British. He said she could keep it.

 

On topic:

1. I agree with Vivec that it's really rather silly to try to give any logical arguments because it's completely vague with no real way of getting a clear answer, so, as a (not really needed) disclaimer, I'm just gonna give my opinion. It will have my own logical reasoning, but it's still ultimately subjective and I won't argue otherwise.

2.I more or less agree with Ophelia that we are unable to know absolute truth, though I do have the somewhat more hard-line stance that absolute truth, at least in a scientific sense, absolutely exists. I don't think it's possible for us to be certain of it because of our fallible and subjective tools and experiences, but it's there. And some truths can be taken for granted, not out of any real certainty, but for the sake of everyday convenience (e.g. our planet has a gravitational field that keeps things from floating away). Due to the nature of a fluid universe, no truth will ever necessarily have to remain a truth (gravity could stop working at any moment), but for the most part these are things that we can't predict and generally can't do anything about, and so we shouldn't trouble ourselves with them and carry on believing in the (supposed) truths until further notice. I also believe that the scientific method is generally a good methodology for trying to obtain knowledge, though this mostly faith-eschewing system does have some fundamental and inescapable assumptions of its own, and so cannot be completely trusted.

As for the matter of "revealed truth"... well, honestly it's not something I think about much, conceptually, though I suppose that the idea behind it put forth in the OP is acceptable. I would extend the concept, however, from a higher power giving information to mortals to any being, mortal or not, who is able to obtain information and give it to others. That said, since I don't think we can obtain absolute truth to begin with, this point is rather moot.

As for the final point, of course we're all fully capable of misinterpreting things and thinking we have obtained absolute truth. I don't see how this can be disputed, as it seems self-evident to me. This in itself is obviously one of those "truths" that I can't be certain of but think makes sense to believe for practical reasons.

Will probably contribute more later when I feel like it. Not feeling terribly up to it right now, but I think I should post this at least.

 

Completely agreed with you there. Our limitations may prevent us from knowing the absolute nature of what we're reacting to, but that doesn't change the fact that we're reacting to something. Even if we're brains in vats with electrodes simulating our experiences, the electrodes are still there.

 

Sure. I tend to say there's no real reason to assume we're not the flesh and blood constructs we seem to be, and that the world is probably more or less how we perceive it to be (the fallibility of the senses aside), though. Any thoughts about it not being that way without evidence is just intellectual masturbation, which, contrary to how I might sometimes seem, I don't care for. It's why I care a lot more about moral and political philosophy, and psychology, than some other areas of philosophy. I love thinking about the "deep" subjects, but I generally prefer there to be a pragmatic reason to.

EDIT: Perhaps I should say, though, that while I don't really believe we can know truth for certain, I am a bit obsessed with finding it out anyway, especially for certain subjects. And I of course am as bad as the next person when it comes to taking my own ideas for granted, though I at least admit it.