What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


sanjay that is an excellent post.

Well thought out, Extremely well crafted.


I am humbled and appreciative of your input upon this thread.


Very well done.



.

[SpheresOfBalance]

quote="SpheresOfBalance" in blue
------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

Thanks for your valuable replies.

First of all I want to say sorry that I am not able to reply so promptly as others as I do not have much spare time; furthermore, I do not like to express myself in haste, unless and until, I am absolutely sure of anything. I have to convince myself prior to convince others. So, please bear with that but I will try.

To Lancek4-------

I am trying to reply what you posted up to now.
Yes lancek4, I do not have any idea of what Plato had said.

You said that my interpretation about his the statement is not with the accordance of the ideology of Socrates. So, before answering you, I tried to have a look at both, Socrates and Plato as well through the Wikipedia pages. I will discuss some of his quotes from the Wikipedia page of Plato those are in the context of our discussion.

1. Socrates floats the idea that knowledge is a matter of recollection, and not of learning, observation, or study.[33]
2. Socrates is often found arguing that knowledge is not empirical, and that it comes from divine insight.
3. More explicitly, Plato himself argues in the Timaeus that knowledge is always proportionate to the realm from which it is gained. In other words, if one derives one's account of something experientially, because the world of sense is in flux, the views therein attained will be mere opinions. And opinions are characterized by a lack of necessity and stability. On the other hand, if one derives one's account of something by way of the non-sensible forms, because these forms are unchanging, so too is the account derivm them. It is only in this sense that Plato uses the term "knowledge".
4. In other words, such people live without the divine inspiration that gives him, and people like him, access to higher insights about reality.
5. Socrates's idea that reality is unavailable to those who use their senses is what puts him at odds with the common man, and with common sense. Socrates says that he who sees with his eyes is blind

To my surprise and thankfully to you, by going through both pages, I sensed that Socrates is saying exactly as I understood.
The sense of both of them is very clear. They are saying that there are two types of knowledge.

One is about this physical world which we acquire through our physical organs. It goes to the mind routed through our physical brain. Then mind analyze it. This is thinking or, for our comfort, we can call it philosophy. They are categorically denying considering this as a true knowledge as it not eternal and changeable. The whole of this physical world is in a type of flux so we should not rely on it. If you remember, this was precisely the stance of Satyr. They are simply saying that, in real terms, knowledge is beyond this. This is exactly what I said that philosophy ends here.

Let me explain some of symbolic representations.
Recollection- he is pointing towards past incarnations and trying to reach his eternal consciousness as it has witness all of them.
Divine Light- this is a usual phenomenon which is witnessed by those are indulged in any form of spiritual practice.
Knowledge is always proportionate to the realm from which it is gained- it cannot be simpler than this. He is very clearly saying there are many spiritual realms and there are placed in some sort of order. The traveler has to go through them step by step and his knowledge tends to increase with each crossing step.
he who sees with his eyes is blind- this simply means that when he closes his eyes during the meditation, he is able to witness spiritual realms so it is like seeing with blind eyes.

Now about some of your points.-
It seems as if you are saying that philosophy is a process of one attempting to attain the 'ultimate'
No. On the contrary, you must read me as; spirituality or the journey to the ultimate begins from there, where philosophy ends. I clearly mentioned in my previous post that we need more tools besides thinking to advance further and those are all form of spiritual practices.
I am not totally sure of what you mean by 'analysis'. Or 'prequel' or 'sequel'. to what?
Let me put an imaginary situation first to clear myself.
Let us assume that we have invented time machine and during testing, accidentally, a human from past, say about 1000 years ago, transmitted here. Reaching here, even now in the machine, he sees one of us putting the light on as it was night. In the meantime, machine transmits him back to his time.
Now, let us try to visualize his explanation of light to his world. He will say that a man goes near the wall, a slight sound was heard by me and suddenly a child of SUN GOD appeared at the wall. My goodness, humans have enslaved Gods.
This is exactly happens when we try to predict phenomenon like ultimate. This is what I mean by prequel. We have to let the event happen first; first we have to experience, only then we will able to comment on the event in proper way. As we see, in our imaginary situation, that sometimes even experiences are not enough to draw a proper conclusion.
My intention was that there must be some distinction between imagination and philosophy. In my opinion, discussing about the ultimate is a bit like discussing the subjects of master’s degree in the class of bachelor’s. But perhaps, I may be wrong as philosophers are discussing these matters since ages.

Now let us take knowledge. I understood your point. You mean to say that common sense should not be considered as education or knowledge. I do not think you are right in your perception.

Any materialistic knowledge, no matter how advance and sophisticated it may be, is just an extension of common sense. This is the very way in which our science has been evolved. If there was any instant formula of knowledge then it would have been happened in a day. In my opinion, it is as simple as that. All types of complicated scientific knowledge were initiated from a simple idea. Then either the originator or someone else adds one more common sense to it. This process is go on and on and after many additions the sum of them became complex. But, still it is nothing more than the sum of some common sensed ideas. Though on the surface it may looks different.
I really like this, it is something I've already recognized. I've said that our knowledge of today is merely the accumulated knowledge since the dawn of our time which is one of the reasons it's so hard to abandon a portion of it when it yields negative results. Because of it's long lived formation of varying permutation, it becomes integral to the whole of the culture, thus being difficult to eradicate, for fear of disturbing other interrelated aspects upon which our selfishness relies such that we only apply apathy to the wound. Civilization requires radical restructuring.

To make issue clearer, I am quoting myself from the thread; artificial intelligence, as I saw it.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=8041

There are two different phenomena; knowledge and information. I feel that sometimes we tend to overlap both of them. There are two types of knowledge; borrowed and earned. The former could be named as information. Information means that type of knowledge which is not learned by the owner. Owner receives it from any other source; other than himself. On the other hand knowledge has to be learned by the owner. It is all about the process. Process of learning is the phenomenon that distinguishes knowledge from the information. Process enables the owner of knowledge to feel and experience it. We generally rely on information in general as it easy attain.

I want to make this issue clearer by using very common and easy example. There are many cases in our daily life in which we experience knowledge even without noticing it. Let us take colors for instance. If we ask a five year child to explain the blue color, what will be his answer? We all know that he has the knowledge and understanding of blue color but he would not be able to explain it. The explanation of blue color is equally difficult for adults just because it needs to be seen or experienced. There is no other way of knowing it. Furthermore, it is one of those types of knowledge that do not have any counterpart in our world so one would not be able to explain it to anyone else through an example. This is what I would like to call knowledge. It is not transferable because words cannot describe it.

A blind man by birth cannot understand how blue color looks even if the wisest person in the world spends his whole life explaining because due to the lack of visibility, the blind man will only get information not knowledge. Knowledge is complete phenomenon while information is only an abstract of end result.

This is type of knowledge which is possessed by Socrates. His words are giving a mere glimpse of it. They are not the end result but only the byproduct of the process.

There are numerous examples of this phenomenon in our daily life. Without experiencing the whole process one can get only information and we generally misunderstand information with knowledge in day to day life. Books or the formal education are informative in general sense but, by no means, I am not saying that they are not useful as they carry the right information.

Let me take one more example. The great Einstein formulated general theory of relativity first but he was not able to explain gravitation at that moment. Sometime later he tried cope it with the concept of cosmological constant but could not succeed. Then, after 15 years since general relativity, he became able to come up with the solution in the form of curved spacetime and general relativity. In that span of 15 years, Einstein must have thought of numerous solutions, would have examined them from different angles and then negated them for one reason or the other. At last he gave the right version. Now, one can think that he or she knows relativity by reading it but it is not true as they have not gone through the process. We do not know those endless ideas those used to pop up in the mind of that great scientist. We do not know on which grounds he rejected all of them. We are only familiar with the appropriate version but he knew all the unfit versions also besides the right one so his understanding and knowledge had covered much more space in comparison of a person who knows the end result only.

A truth, even if it is truth, is never complete for the sake of knowledge, until and unless one does not know what is not truth.

Let us assume that we know that a work could be done or a problem could be solved in a certain way and we can say that is a truth or fact. So, it could be said for sure that for each and every way other than aforesaid right one is not the appropriate way and this saying is also truth or fact.

Hence, we must understand that there are two types of facts; positive facts and negative facts. The number of negative facts will always much larger than the positive facts as we all know that there could be endless ways of doing a work wrongly while the proper way is only one but one could not know the all wrong ways unless and until he tries for the right way. Knowing the wrong ways is equally important otherwise we miss almost all other facts and left with only one which is the right version. So, we see that knowledge is not just a single truth but it comprises of endless facts and those could be acquired only if we go through the process. Hence, the process is more important than the result even if it (process) is not fruitful. Knowledge is long event instead of an instant type phenomenon.
So there is absolutely no comparison between the information and the knowledge. Information is just a drop of the ocean of knowledge.
This really blew me away because I read this after talking with my wife on the phone about one of many things that this bit here could be said to answer. As I read it, I playfully entertained with her causation of it, after reading and thinking this, she calls to speak of the particular item this addresses and says that which parallels this. Coincidence??? That was a doozie! WOW! That was the most extreme coincidence that I have ever experienced, or was it?

Yes lancek4, I have some personal experiences. You may call it spiritual or paranormal or something likewise. I am not hesitant mentioning them but I avoided just because I feel that it will be altogether different subject. If you and other members wish then I will post them in a new thread.
But, my interpretation of Socrates does not seem to be unwarranted. Correct me if I am wrong.
I wrote about Satyr what I felt honestly and as well as for SOB.

To SOB-

You got is absolutely right. English is a second language for me but I have mastery in my mother tongue. Furthermore, my vocabulary is not good enough to tackle a difficult subject like philosophy as it has a bad habit of roaming around the words. I tell you honestly that more often than not, I have to consult thesaurus to understand the meaning of words. But, I do not see any harm or shame in it. Nobody knows everything but my understanding is keeping me alive and I hope that it will continue to do so. And, most importantly, I am learning from all this.

From you comment about the statement of Socrates, it appears that you mean that he is trying to hide behind the words. I do not feel so.
Not hide, just using his mind at being effectual at making change. The problem with a head-on approach to engagement is defensive posturing, sometimes yielding retaliatory offense. This not only can be detrimental to health as you've alluded, but can be ineffectual in terms of change. From the evidence of his method, I believe he was too clever to think that a frontal attack was wise and preferred a side by side approach.

I want to draw your attention towards a different aspect. Just look at the character of Socrates. He sacrificed his life without a hint of hesitation for his ideology.
It was a catch 22. He was falsely accused as being responsible for the troubles of Athens, he had to make a statement, he had no other choice.

A man of such strong character could not say something in confusing manner just to enable him to take back his words in the future or manipulate his intentions in front of others. He was brave and man of his words. We should not expect a weak posture from him.
I see it only as a weak posture of the body, but an extremely strong (clever) posture of the mind.

As I said my reply to lancek4, he is not certain about the status of his journey. I am trying to visualize his mental state in these words-

Though travelled far enough according to him, having crossed many stages, still travelling and finding hard to go on, yet unable even to estimate the remaining distance as there is not even a hint of final destination.

I see a hint of tiredness and even frustration in him by going through Wikipedia page. It is bound to happen. But, nevertheless, he admits it because he was honest and brave as a true philosopher should be. I want you to have a look at quotations I mentioned above. The problem is that we try to see him as a philosopher and form our opinion. But he simply refuses to pay attention towards what we call thinking or philosophizing. He is talking about entirely different phenomenon. He is talking about spiritual realms, guides and seeking directions from them. He is talking about the things what he is able to see when he closes his eyes. He was a spiritualist. The philosophic proportion of his personality is derived from his spiritual experiences not from thinking.

I am not a Buddhist but I believe in it in a broad sense as in all other prominent religions.
My perception is that all religions and many other spiritual schools walk parallel almost holding hands of each other on the way to the ultimate. Although it is possible that the distance covered by them may be different but I am very sure that the direction is the same. So, sitting at the bottom of the pyramid, we can choose anyone. If one is able to cross some stages, then the time comes when directions are shown in one form or another to show the way.

The four men concept was nice and interesting.
Thank You, to my professor goes the kudos.

By the way, I live in India and Hindu by religion.
(Sorry to change the subject, but do you know of a dish (food) called Chicken Shazlik (spelling is incorrect, I tried phonetic), I'm not sure if it's of India or not. I'm looking for its origin in order to track down a recipe. )

To Arising_uk-------

Although in general behavior it is difficult to carry on the burden of third person all the time but, when you sit down and trying to think deeply, it is achievable. It is not a god like state. If one use to think deep and honestly and convert it into a habit then mind uses to come in this state almost by default. The approach of a judge is must for a philosopher.

I am not against questioning. All I want to say that it should be reasonable.

If Bill has done as you said then I must say sorry to him but I used it just an example to explain my point.

I see belief as a mother and experiences/witnessing as a father. If the semen of father is strong enough to make the mother pregnant and then, if the mother is strong to carry the child in her womb for long time enough so the child would mature before coming into existence, the child of faith is born. Even after taking birth, it needs to be cared properly by his parents otherwise it will die or became ill. It should he looked after until he becomes able to walk and talk.

I simply do not know that there is singularity of the ultimate or ultimate entities. But I feel that one of these must be true. The problem is we cannot know it by philosophy. It could be known only when experience it in person.

I want to thank all of you.

with love.
sanjay

[SpheresOfBalance]

I am sorry for your bit of rough road.
Yes; absolutly I agree with your post.
I too am cought in denial of what I don't know.
In this spirit, since you offered, I would like a chance to clear up what you have seen of my contradictory-ness.
I absolutely value our exchange. Don't ever think I resent it or you. Such exchange is what I need and what I enjoy. Thank you.
I shall work at their assemblage. The way in which you were in conflict was the actual argument opposed to your stated position. I blew it off as though you had gotten confused and stated the opposing view by mistake, but in the back of my mind I saw the possibility of deception.

They go back quite a few pages so it shall take me a little bit of time to complete, bear with me!

If you will see, in the post from me just prior to yours, that I feel I have argued an example of your proposition. And I have said as much earlier, I understand what you are saying about Abolute Truth, and indeed, I use such 'position' to make arguments myself.

[lancek4]

One cannot step into the same stream twice - but not even once!

But hey SOB, that's why I gave you the quote I have. And it is jowitt. More soon...

[sideshow]

"Men are four.
He who knows not, and knows not he knows not
He who knows not, and knows he knows not
He who knows and knows not he knows
He who knows and knows he knows"

This is worth a bit of reflection, because its implications seem to reveal much more than what meets the eye. I agree that your professor correctly characterized Plato's idea of knowledge. But he did not characterize ours. There seems to be a large gap between what we consider knowledge and what Plato would accept. We will accept various types of knowledge, and various degrees of knowledge. Plato would not.

To Plato, either one has knowledge or one does not. Similarly, what we seek to know is strictly formal to Plato, unique, and everlasting, like Justice or Virtue. Thus we arrive at a bivalent I do/do not know that X. It is for this reason, that only the professor's version of the Arab maxim is valid. We cannot follow "He who knows and knows he knows" because we can't know that he knows without knowing ourselves that we know. Meaning that we'd have to follow ourselves.

There are some unfortunate consequences, one of which is that we cannot possibly know ourselves, unless we are unique and everlasting, which we are not. Last time I looked in the mirror, I didn't look anything like the nude baby on the bear rug. One cannot step into the same stream twice - but not even once. Plato of course realized this, and based his entire philosophy on eliminating the problem. And Socrates? Probably not. Aristotle? Apparently not.

[SpheresOfBalance]

SpheresOfBalance responded in blue
----------------------------------------------

One cannot step into the same stream twice - but not even once!
What can I take away from this metaphor? Are you saying that you're tired and want to quit, feeling that you are spinning your wheels?
But hey SOB, that's why I gave you the quote I have. And it is jowitt. More soon...
Now these final two words sound in opposition to the first sentence above. I look forward.

As far as Jowett is concerned, if I remember correctly, It's been quite a while, my professor was partial to that particular version.

I'm sure you're aware that I was just attempting to point out the frailty of knowledge, that it isn't necessarily so in the absolute sense, which I believe defies it's goal. What tangled webs humans weave.

I am getting better at interpreting meaning in your and others words, but it's slow in coming. On the whole, it's not that I don't understand the individual words. It's just that in particular unfamiliar gropings their meaning does not leap off the screen into my head and thus require analysis and research. It might be because I've been in a self imposed solitary confinement for almost two years. OK, not exactly, I do visit the store to get food, gas, and a haircut every once in a while, and I have been on a few job interviews.

[lancek4]

More soon. Usually means I'm on my blkbry and am kinda busy

I read Socrates as I put it earlier:
I am intact; what I 'know' is me; it is all there is. The entirety of that which is me cannot be communicated, yet somehow it is Absolute. What ca be 'known' is 'out there' can be communicated and thus in Its entirety is mitigated by the individuals communicating, so it is relative, since no everyone else is like me in the ability to communicate at max only partly the Absolute.

Rough and somewhat vague but I'm on my blkbrry.

We cannot possibly say that Socrates didn't know anything if he was a human being, thus we read him and say "ah he was neing deceptive or was moveing with some sort of agenda". Perhaps; but when we read of him I, at least, get the queer (no pun intended) feeling that something else was going on.

When we say S is the father of modern philosophy it is because he was the first we come upon as 'opening the possibility that is the Subject'. Not so much as he proposed the object. The prior greeks, heraclitus, zeno, other schools, were already beginning to investigate and consider the natural world. It is only in the possibility found within the posited Subject that we have 'our' world now.

Considering absolute truth, we cannot be one sided. We cannot consider the object only, we cannnot reduce the Subject to that of an object amoung other natural objects. We can, but the we have negated the possibility of the Subject and relied only upon the object . This negation, I see, is where the problem lay. The problem that is "the Subject as a point of 'nil' in the conflation of objects".

[SpheresOfBalance]

More soon. Usually means I'm on my blkbry and am kinda busy

I read Socrates as I put it earlier:
I am intact; what I 'know' is me; it is all there is. The entirety of that which is me cannot be communicated, yet somehow it is Absolute. What can be 'known' as 'out there' can be communicated and thus in Its entirety is mitigated by the individuals communicating, so it is relative, since not everyone else is like me in the ability to communicate at max only partly the Absolute.

Rough and somewhat vague but I'm on my blkbrry.

I don't agree with your assertion: I don't believe that anyone's necessarily intact. Because to say so would indicate they are able to rationalize thus come to terms with the first 5 years of their life when their psyche is formed, which is, pretty much, impossible, because during that time we don't know that which is required in order to reason the implications of the particular inputs we are exposed to, such that later we cannot remember what those inputs were. Memory then it would seem is a function of psyche formation. We cannot internally adjust our psyches formation, it is a product of external forces beyond our control and reason. He cannot see and/or communicate his entirety for this reason, yet he 'supposes' it is absolute (a leap of faith).

I would argue that what one knows of anything is only partial, nothing is known by anyone as complete. Considering this, can knowledge be incomplete or does it's incompleteness lend better to belief? Belief is what there is prior to truth testing. If knowledge is incomplete how could it have really passed truth testing to be called knowledge? Some of the incompleteness could change it's understanding such that you'd have to ask if that incompleteness disqualifies it as truly knowledge. What do we actually know? It could be illusion born of limitation.

Unless you're unusually interested in what this tired old mind comes up with next. I don't mind a slower pace as dictated by your access to a Computer Workstation. I don't know how you do it. i couldn't use one of those little things to write all this. Each to their own, what ever you're comfortable with.

[SpheresOfBalance]

More soon. Usually means I'm on my blkbry and am kinda busy

I read Socrates as I put it earlier:
I am intact; what I 'know' is me; it is all there is. The entirety of that which is me cannot be communicated, yet somehow it is Absolute. What ca be 'known' is 'out there' can be communicated and thus in Its entirety is mitigated by the individuals communicating, so it is relative, since no everyone else is like me in the ability to communicate at max only partly the Absolute.

Rough and somewhat vague but I'm on my blkbrry.

We cannot possibly say that Socrates didn't know anything if he was a human being, thus we read him and say "ah he was neing deceptive or was moveing with some sort of agenda". Perhaps; but when we read of him I, at least, get the queer (no pun intended) feeling that something else was going on.

When we say S is the father of modern philosophy it is because he was the first we come upon as 'opening the possibility that is the Subject'. Not so much as he proposed the object. The prior greeks, heraclitus, zeno, other schools, were already beginning to investigate and consider the natural world. It is only in the possibility found within the posited Subject that we have 'our' world now.

Considering absolute truth, we cannot be one sided. We cannot consider the object only, we cannnot reduce the Subject to that of an object amoung other natural objects. We can, but the we have negated the possibility of the Subject and relied only upon the object . This negation, I see, is where the problem lay. The problem that is "the Subject as a point of 'nil' in the conflation of objects".

You know it's funny how we tend to merely skim over what the other has said thus negating it's full understanding. I never said he didn't know. Here I'll quote myself:

Because in truth you don't know what you don't know.

I believe that in this phrase he spoke of an approach to the seeking, and something to always keep in mind.

In other words the only way you can actually get to the 'bottom' of anything is to 'constantly' ask questions as if you don't know. Never fall into the trap of believing that just because you asked 'a' question and believe you got 'the' answer that you're done. Not only should you ask the initial question but then question that answer and thereafter each one in turn. In addition you should incite others to ask questions of your answers as it can only serve to strengthen your final resolve, as if it's ever final.

"I only know that I know nothing." to me thus translates to: "Be humble and always question, never be full of yourself because all you can ever 'truly' know is that you don't 'truly' know, because the subject is actually isolated from the object making knowing extremely difficult, so question everything!" I believe that's pretty much what I've always taken it to mean in it's entirety.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



"I only know that I know nothing." to me thus translates to: "Be humble and always question, never be full of yourself because all you can ever 'truly' know is that you don't 'truly' know, because the subject is actually isolated from the object making knowing extremely difficult, so question everything!" I believe that's pretty much what I've always taken it to mean in it's entirety. -SpheresOfBalance -



I really like that.


Well stated.



.

[lancek4]

More soon. Usually means I'm on my blkbry and am kinda busy

I read Socrates as I put it earlier:
I am intact; what I 'know' is me; it is all there is. The entirety of that which is me cannot be communicated, yet somehow it is Absolute. What can be 'known' as 'out there' can be communicated and thus in Its entirety is mitigated by the individuals communicating, so it is relative, since not everyone else is like me in the ability to communicate at max only partly the Absolute.

Rough and somewhat vague but I'm on my blkbrry.

I don't agree with your assertion: I don't believe that anyone's necessarily intact. Because to say so would indicate they are able to rationalize thus come to terms with the first 5 years of their life when their psyche is formed, which is, pretty much, impossible, because during that time we don't know that which is required in order to reason the implications of the particular inputs we are exposed to, such that later we cannot remember what those inputs were. Memory then it would seem is a function of psyche formation. We cannot internally adjust our psyches formation, it is a product of external forces beyond our control and reason. He cannot see and/or communicate his entirety for this reason, yet he 'supposes' it is absolute (a leap of faith).

I would argue that what one knows of anything is only partial, nothing is known by anyone as complete. Considering this, can knowledge be incomplete or does it's incompleteness lend better to belief? Belief is what there is prior to truth testing. If knowledge is incomplete how could it have really passed truth testing to be called knowledge? Some of the incompleteness could change it's understanding such that you'd have to ask if that incompleteness disqualifies it as truly knowledge. What do we actually know? It could be illusion born of limitation.

Unless you're unusually interested in what this tired old mind comes up with next. I don't mind a slower pace as dictated by your access to a Computer Workstation. I don't know how you do it. i couldn't use one of those little things to write all this. Each to their own, what ever you're comfortable with.

Yes blkbrry can ne annoying

So, I would have to ask, going slower pace thank you - what is 'more' true: the subject or the object ?

And , yes, on this forum we tend to 'preach' our sides. I agree, the more slower tact is better, more mutually engaging.

[Mark Question]

if "There were no beliefs at all, as beliefs were born of humans" then was there "absolute truth" as true belief?
is "absolute truth" humans words? is there any "truth" without any englishman? if i write in stone the "truth". how long it will remain there? forever? ten thousand year? one hundred?

[SpheresOfBalance]

if "There were no beliefs at all, as beliefs were born of humans" then was there "absolute truth" as true belief?
is "absolute truth" humans words? is there any "truth" without any englishman? if i write in stone the "truth". how long it will remain there? forever? ten thousand year? one hundred?

There was no belief whatsoever!

Example: John Buck asks John Doe: What is the moon made of? John Doe replies green cheese. John Buck says No, it's a man, see the eyes, its flesh. John Doe says, no it's like Swiss cheese, those are the air pockets.
Neither story is absolute truth, both are falsehoods because many years later man goes to the moon and analyzes, measures and samples it and finds that it is like that of rock and dust, they are able to find what it actually is in it's totality; it's absolute truth. It is now, it was when the two Johns argued it's truth, and it was before man ever existed. In fact it always existed as absolute truth, but wait a minute, this just in: we still don't know it's absolute truth, that which has existed long before us, because man never really went to the moon, it was just a hoax, all just a special effects movie.

And that's the difference between absolute truth and mans truth. At any particular time they do not necessarily agree, but the absolute truth sits there and waits to be discovered and understood, yielding mans knowledge.

You've apparently missed it, I've already defined truth as per the dictionary in a much earlier post: 'Truth' = That which 'actually' exists.

In order to speak any language one must abide by the true meaning of it's words or else they are not speaking any language at all.

[lancek4]

if "There were no beliefs at all, as beliefs were born of humans" then was there "absolute truth" as true belief?
is "absolute truth" humans words? is there any "truth" without any englishman? if i write in stone the "truth". how long it will remain there? forever? ten thousand year? one hundred?

There was no belief whatsoever!.

So the question is begged, in two ways: how do you know this? Or. How is it that you are able to know this statement reflects an Absolute Truth of the matter?

Does a lion have a 'false belief' of the universe?

if there were no belief at that time, how did it so happen in this Truely Actually Ocurring universe that we were separated from it in order to have false belief? Or better yet: how were/are we able to come to a belief that is True and so not merely a belief?

[SpheresOfBalance]

if "There were no beliefs at all, as beliefs were born of humans" then was there "absolute truth" as true belief?
is "absolute truth" humans words? is there any "truth" without any englishman? if i write in stone the "truth". how long it will remain there? forever? ten thousand year? one hundred?

There was no belief whatsoever!.

So the question is begged, in two ways: how do you know this? Or. How is it that you are able to know this statement reflects an Absolute Truth of the matter?

Does a lion have a 'false belief' of the universe?

if there were no belief at that time, how did it so happen in this Truely Actually Ocurring universe that we were separated from it in order to have false belief? Or better yet: how were/are we able to come to a belief that is True and so not merely a belief?

Beliefs, opinions and theories are born of humans in the quest for knowledge and are not necessarily either truth or falsehoods, but they are one or the other. Once truth testing is applied and they are found to be true then they are knowledge and are no longer beliefs or opinions. If truth testing is applied and they are found to be falsehoods then they are shown to be lies, outright or born of ignorance and cease being beliefs or opinions. Truth is the qualifier in both instances and as such is absolute. Truth is the state of actual existence which is to say that it is not dependent upon human interpretation. Humans either uncover somethings absolute truth yielding knowledge or they don't remaining in the dark whether it's realized of not!

If lance says that the earth is shaped like a tetrahedron, that is a belief. If Mike says that the earth is shaped like a cube, that is a belief. Because the 'absolute truth is that the earth is shaped like a sphere. It is now, it was before us and it will be after us. If you then say that in the distant past it morphed into a sphere from a tetrahedron and that it will one day morph into a cube and this is what 'actually' happened/happens then that is the absolute truth regardless if some yahoo says otherwise. If it's actually true then it's absolutely true, what ever that truth might be. Now that I think of it I believe that your problem is 'time' (change) related. All things change with time, that is the absolute truth!