What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Now I understand what you're having a problem with, You are confusing truth and knowledge. As that baby, the truth is that, at that moment, I have no knowledge of 'it,' other than my visual system has detected, what all functional eyes, old and young alike, have. The difference between myself and an adult is that the adult has a language which is a system of assigning labels to things. So they can talk about them. The truth is that what I see and they see are one in the same thing. That thing has certain truths about it that I as a baby do not know while the adults do, however those associated truths are just as true for me and them despite the fact that I do not know it!

Mark Question quote follows:
now i think i understand how you pictured truth and knowledge with all these words. with all these words you tell that you dont need them to see things and that without these words theres still the truth out there. remembering long stories about wordless world and its long history in libraries full of history books. near childrens section and fiction wing full of many kind of tales. and next time when you are pretending to be a baby, try harder. do babies talk like that? are we easily anthropomorphising even babies if adult dog is as smart as 2 years old children? is there anything without anything and is story named "this is not a story" also a story?

SpheresOfBalance response follows:
Mark maybe it's the language barrier but you seem to make no sense at all. For your information Mark you must not know what you're talking about because you're using a language. If language doesn't serve my purpose then it 'really' doesn't serve yours, because yous is apparently isolated from the truth of the universe. I tell you what Mark use you falsehood of a relative language when you're absolutely truthfully dead to tell me the universe is all just a human construct. You don't even know what anthropomorphize means, how could you possibly use in in a sentence? It's impossible to anthropomorphize a baby because I'm a human and was referring to a human baby, I guess you were thinking about you as a baby. By the way I'm 54 and have had 3 babies. I would say that you've had none. Either that, or you neglected them.

Change does not negate truth, if something changes then that's the truth!

so, do you know if that truth about trees has already changed? i was only questioning your knowledge that you use when you talk about truth. to be continued:

See here, the part before the question mark. You're confusing knowledge and truth. Of course knowledge is required to talk about truth.

Mark Question quote follows:
if truth changes then how would you know it? if your knowledge about truth changes, it is not truth that changes, or is it? forever?
SpheresOfBalance response follows:
The sun emits photons today. Each nanosecond the sun changes as it fuses hydrogen into helium as well as other elements. Some day it will burn out altogether. From its birth to its death is nothing but change. THAT IS THE TRUTH. I'm sorry you're unable to see it. I guess to you it's a giant flashlight. I hate to tell you this Mark but your body is doing likewise. From the moment you were born until the day you die your are nothing but change, GET USED TO IT. IT IS THE TRUTH! Knowledge 'about' truth (as a concept) never changes, knowledge 'of' specific truths always changes but what ever state they happen to be in at the time is the absolute truth. You got to be having a problem with translation. I can see it no other way.

Yes it's empirical. I look a philosophy from a "today's" base of knowledge perspective.

Mark Question quote follows:
empirical view is only one way of thinking. what do you mean "today's" base of knowledge?
SpheresOfBalance response follows:
The base of human knowledge started back in the primordial ooze when the chemicals first came together. Since then we've added to it up until this very second, no this second, no this second, I think you get the idea.

To which criterion of truth theories are you familiar? Personally I'm aligned with the substantive: correspondence theory of truth criterion.

Mark Question quote follows:
SpheresOfBalance response follows, intermingled in blue:
so, you are in the right section
Who are you to say, fallibilism says my current truth supersedes yours!
if you support naive realism and scientific realism as an ontological metaphysics. there's lots of other metaphysical theories or models too.
I have never said that I believe in any specific previously defined version of knowledge in it's totality. That would be a fools game! The totality of any particular construct of language, coined by any particular individual or group of individuals, is subject to their abilities of perception, understanding, questioning and solving, at that time, and as such does not necessarily indicate a complete idea, as to it supposedly representing truth. While truth in reality may chew up those that believe in the senses it chews up and spits out those that do not. Those that believe in an idea that opposes the senses are just imagining it.

why you believe just that kind of theory?
I never said I just. If you had been following the thread since I joined it, you would have seen, that I had said, that I tend to believe in the correspondence theory, but I'm not 100% loyal to any.

are you corresponding just words? does your corresponds correspond to your corresponds endlessly? do you define the truth from the correspondence theory for the correspondence theory, circular way?
Are you using a language, to discredit that which was created in language, because it was language? When humans argue truth and knowledge and attack language and senses almost all of them fail to realize that they've just shot themselves in the foot. Unless of course they are glukgluks posing as humans, because everyone knows that glukgluks use their wabomanuthophones which have no limitations at all. Additionally, they don't use a language, they merely project the truth into your head, as it unfolds.

also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism Some suggest that epistemological fallibilism claims absolute knowledge as part of an axiom.
I've never said anything about absolute knowledge, I have mentioned absolute truth though.

Essentially, the statement "This much is certain: nothing is certain" claims the knowledge that: there is no knowledge; thus arriving at a contradiction.
Karl Popper has suggested the methodological approach that the statement be provisionally taken as true until another statement is presented that, after surviving a critical discussion, is accepted as certain. The acceptance of this statement as certain would then be sufficient to reject fallibilism.
What ever one posits/finds to support/promote their agenda.

"This much is certain: nothing is certain." This dates back to Socrates!

[Mark Question]

If language doesn't serve my purpose then it 'really' doesn't serve yours, because yous is apparently isolated from the truth of the universe. I tell you what Mark use you falsehood of a relative language when you're absolutely truthfully dead to tell me the universe is all just a human construct. You don't even know what anthropomorphize means, how could you possibly use in in a sentence? It's impossible to anthropomorphize a baby because I'm a human and was referring to a human baby, I guess you were thinking about you as a baby. By the way I'm 54 and have had 3 babies. I would say that you've had none. Either that, or you neglected them.

i could be "absolutely truthfully dead" in many ways people use language. your way is one. another is my angry relatives, facebook buddies or gossiping like "broken phone" neighbors. etc.
you are apparently isolated from the truth of those universes. and if you think that babies are behaving like humans or scientifically labeled humans then its impossible to you to anthropomorphize them. theres many other views too. are you neglecting babies if you overpopulate their world? etc.

The sun emits photons today. Each nanosecond the sun changes as it fuses hydrogen into helium as well as other elements. Some day it will burn out altogether. From its birth to its death is nothing but change. THAT IS THE TRUTH. I'm sorry you're unable to see it. I guess to you it's a giant flashlight. I hate to tell you this Mark but your body is doing likewise. From the moment you were born until the day you die your are nothing but change, GET USED TO IT. IT IS THE TRUTH! Knowledge 'about' truth (as a concept) never changes, knowledge 'of' specific truths always changes but what ever state they happen to be in at the time is the absolute truth. You got to be having a problem with translation. I can see it no other way.

so, you are talking about two kind of knowledge. knowledge 'about' truth (as a concept) and knowledge 'of' specific truths. what if knowledge 'about' truth (as a concept) changes? are you absolutely sure that it cant change? are you talking about absolute knowledge? does shouting make it more true or absolute true? is your view consistent?

The base of human knowledge started back in the primordial ooze when the chemicals first came together. Since then we've added to it up until this very second, no this second, no this second, I think you get the idea.

i see. you use scientific models? does it mean that they are globally already the most popular tales in todays world or what? like religions have had in their known worlds ones the monarchical power to tell the truth?

I tend to believe in the correspondence theory, but I'm not 100% loyal to any.

ok. 99% is not 100%. or is it more like 50%? what you think about people who believe in astrology, santa claus or scientology like 75% loyal to it?

Are you using a language, to discredit that which was created in language, because it was language? When humans argue truth and knowledge and attack language and senses almost all of them fail to realize that they've just shot themselves in the foot.

many have shot themselves in the foot trying to get out of (even the scientifically modern total) killing of civilians and babies and all in wars. i am questioning our language too.

Some suggest that epistemological fallibilism claims absolute knowledge as part of an axiom.

I've never said anything about absolute knowledge, I have mentioned absolute truth though.

and thats why some did that suggest.

What ever one posits/finds to support/promote their agenda.
"This much is certain: nothing is certain." This dates back to Socrates!

yep. sounds like old times when people asked the oracle. now we have fortune cookies.

[lancek4]

Perhaps these recent posts are revisiting 'the enlightenment' period, when they set the question of the essential 'why' aside and moved into relative 'how' qustions of truth, such as "how, in what way do things interact' like what occurs with water and oats to make oatmeal.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Perhaps these recent posts are revisiting 'the enlightenment' period, when they set the question of the essential 'why' aside and moved into relative 'how' qustions of truth, such as "how, in what way do things interact' like what occurs with water and oats to make oatmeal.

Lance are you trying to say that our conversation is like a grain of oats in an endless sea of water or that, what we are saying is not unlike the breakfast of champions? Or are you just determined to place the word 'relative' in the same sentence as truth?

[lancek4]

Perhaps these recent posts are revisiting 'the enlightenment' period, when they set the question of the essential 'why' aside and moved into relative 'how' qustions of truth, such as "how, in what way do things interact' like what occurs with water and oats to make oatmeal.

Lance are you trying to say that our conversation is like a grain of oats in an endless sea of water or that, what we are saying is not unlike the breakfast of champions? Or are you just determined to place the word 'relative' in the same sentence as truth?

Lol ! Soggy oats - that's what I got to say! Where is the rasins! The Wheaties have sat for too long in this conversation! Or, perhaps you've rrerad Vonnegut?

No, merely that the enlightenment is characterized by leavinng off the question of 'how does the universe establish with God' or 'the sensibility of God' and begins to just try to figure by experiment how things work in the universe.

[SpheresOfBalance]

If language doesn't serve my purpose then it 'really' doesn't serve yours, because yous is apparently isolated from the truth of the universe. I tell you what Mark use you falsehood of a relative language when you're absolutely truthfully dead to tell me the universe is all just a human construct. You don't even know what anthropomorphize means, how could you possibly use in in a sentence? It's impossible to anthropomorphize a baby because I'm a human and was referring to a human baby, I guess you were thinking about you as a baby. By the way I'm 54 and have had 3 babies. I would say that you've had none. Either that, or you neglected them.

i could be "absolutely truthfully dead" in many ways people use language. your way is one. another is my angry relatives, facebook buddies or gossiping like "broken phone" neighbors. etc.
you are apparently isolated from the truth of those universes. and if you think that babies are behaving like humans or scientifically labeled humans then its impossible to you to anthropomorphize them. theres many other views too. are you neglecting babies if you overpopulate their world? etc.
Finally some common ground, but you have assumed as is common in humans.
First I'd like to apologize for getting a bit punchy, I'm extremely emotional and easily frustrated. So much emotional baggage with this one, my friend! At >70% H2O , sometimes I believe my molecules shift with the tide. We are equal, you and I, in that we are searching! At least I, can absolutely attest to the fact that I have, no other than an honorable, agenda and merely spend my time here to broaden my horizons.
Thanks for your time, my friend. It's the best gift you can give, as it's usually the one thing we all want more of when we're at it's end. But I digress!

You, my friend are not "absolutely truthfully dead." Of course my point was absolute truth! I know that if I point to the one that all men fear, they must concede, at least in their own minds. Because the fear of it, unfortunate for some, is what compels us to hurt one another. Human minds are not necessarily more advanced!

I agree and luckily have not over populated. Actually I've underpopulated because at my generational mate level there are actually a total of four(4) associated children with six(6) parents. We've shorted us by one third in achieving equilibrium. I say luckily, because as a young man, I was a raging hormone, that of testosterone, of course. Unfortunately, I'm still under it's spell, though as luck would have it, there shall be no more children for this two(2) of six(6) parents. Yes, you got it, no thanks to me! <-my shame.

My point was that I once was, and had three(3), babies, and paid very close attention to them, thus giving me an extremely close perspective. My third child, I could kind of talk with, before he could talk; without verbal language, simply with visual cuing/body language. I continually tried to get inside his head, to better serve his needs. I believe that all good fathers understand this. Because of this, at two(2), he actually loved me more than his own mother, and was the reason he was ahead of his developmental milestones, set by the average, as reported by his pediatrician.

The sun emits photons today. Each nanosecond the sun changes as it fuses hydrogen into helium as well as other elements. Some day it will burn out altogether. From its birth to its death is nothing but change. THAT IS THE TRUTH. I'm sorry you're unable to see it. I guess to you it's a giant flashlight. I hate to tell you this Mark but your body is doing likewise. From the moment you were born until the day you die your are nothing but change, GET USED TO IT. IT IS THE TRUTH! Knowledge 'about' truth (as a concept) never changes, knowledge 'of' specific truths always changes but what ever state they happen to be in at the time is the absolute truth. You got to be having a problem with translation. I can see it no other way.

so, you are talking about two kind of knowledge. knowledge 'about' truth (as a concept) and knowledge 'of' specific truths. what if knowledge 'about' truth (as a concept) changes? are you absolutely sure that it cant change?
Absolutely, by the definition that I told Lance that I would agree to, i.e., Truth: All that actually exists. Because its meaning requires no interpretation by any language, by any species in the universe.
are you talking about absolute knowledge?
No!
does shouting make it more true or absolute true?
Not at all! FYI, the netiquette of old, of which I am a member, dictates that 'some caps' is emphasis and that 'all caps' is shouting, But I don't expect you post GUI users to understand this, and sometimes it's hard for old dogs to learn new tricks.

is your view consistent?
Of course, we're just trying to establish your understanding of it. But I never would expect you, nor should you, necessarily buy into it. So thanks for giving me the opportunity in attempting to share my view of truth so that you may hopefully understand at least one other humans ideas such that it may lead you to understand humanity that much better and thus somehow enriching your own life.

I do not profess to know, merely believe that my version is true to us as us!

The base of human knowledge started back in the primordial ooze when the chemicals first came together. Since then we've added to it up until this very second, no this second, no this second, I think you get the idea.

i see. you use scientific models? does it mean that they are globally already the most popular tales in todays world or what? like religions have had in their known worlds ones the monarchical power to tell the truth?
I do not believe in Kings & Queens, I accept all peoples, From Socrates to Leonardo da Vinci, Louis Pasteur, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan and especially all the laborers of the world. I despise those that would rule, by any means, that places more wealth in their pockets, by any measure, for easing their lives at the expense of another. We should pool all our accumulated knowledge into one place as we are one people. Just because someone is unaware doesn't mean that it doesn't apply, assuming it's aligned with truth. There is nothing wrong with science, which philosophy is the father of. The truth benefits all people as it's absolute, we just have to get to the bottom of it.

I tend to believe in the correspondence theory, but I'm not 100% loyal to any.

ok. 99% is not 100%. or is it more like 50%? what you think about people who believe in astrology, santa claus or scientology like 75% loyal to it?
They can believe in what ever they want. The only life over which you have complete dominion is your own. So as long as what you do has no unwanted bearing on another, you're good!

Are you using a language, to discredit that which was created in language, because it was language? When humans argue truth and knowledge and attack language and senses almost all of them fail to realize that they've just shot themselves in the foot.

many have shot themselves in the foot trying to get out of (even the scientifically modern total) killing of civilians and babies and all in wars. i am questioning our language too.
Always continually question everything! As to the shooting of oneself in the foot: the point was that one cannot argue 'anything' when they call into question and deny that which we use to perceive and to define. You can call it into question to further refine it, but you can never deny it, as it's all you got to consider it. I'm opposed to killing. There is no reason in killing.

Some suggest that epistemological fallibilism claims absolute knowledge as part of an axiom.

I've never said anything about absolute knowledge, I have mentioned absolute truth though.

and thats why some did that suggest.
Like I've said, there is a big difference between truth and knowledge. Truth is all that actually is. Knowledge is the answer which man proclaims he's found at the end of finding competing beliefs as in fact falsehoods and is thus aligned with truth, but any particular bit of knowledge is subject to debate, and rightfully so, because the answers are only as good as the questions allow.

What ever one posits/finds to support/promote their agenda.
"This much is certain: nothing is certain." This dates back to Socrates!

yep. sounds like old times when people asked the oracle. now we have fortune cookies. How could you possibly know that the oracle didn't secretly consult Confucius

[lancek4]

In reading these recent posts, I came up with this:
Color.
I'm sure you know guys know this one. Blue. What is it? We could define it with reference to common things like the, say, a light on an emergency vehicle, orwe could use scientific description, frequency and light waves and such. But niether these nor anything I might reference tells us what the color blue is. We rely upon an assumption of human experience to refer to the 'truth' of 'blue'.

Like wise with any object we might indicate. The Absolute Truth that SOB indicates above is like this. The relative truth is any description I use to speak about the object. The absolution of the object between us relies upon an assumption that we are having a common experience of the object. Like a table. This is the idea of Plato, of the Ideal Forms.

My point has been that such an Absolute cannot be conveyed, it cannot be described to an extent or significantly enough to convey to me what a chair is. Eventually the individual in the attempt to convey what the object is to the other person must rely upon a faith of the common human experience in order to convey the object in its certainty. Where this faith, this commonality that cannot be breached,is still questioned, the former person insisting on the conveyability of such absolute will get frustrated because he feels the latter is just being obstinate, and the former will resort back into the faith and begin to describe the object in a way that to him is obvious and true, and will soon get tired of the other's density and blatent contrarity.

But the fact rermains - even as I attempt to describe this absolute, it will be denied, because it deals with a basic feature of discourse and so appears contradictory in it positing. That is, if this feature is absolutely true then it cannot be argued with, since it reflects the absolute truth of the object, but inevitably it will be disputed. Hence the paradox of discourse.
The default is relativity, but then this relativity, which is absolute, will allow discussion as if some truth of the matter is being gained, as a progress, but the fact is that discourse argues it self as it posits what objects may be discussed and in what manner: and thus posits in its activity The Absolute Truth. But then we return to the beginning of this post. And we go again through the absolute relativity to the absolute truth to relativity again. And this process is absolutely true, but then is relative, which is absolute ... Where do we stop? Where does the Absolute Truely exist? Only and exactly at faith in the Absolutely True Object.

[Mark Question]

thanks again. dont take my bad humor or bad questions too offensive. my learning curve is flat as earth. here we go again:

Absolutely, by the definition that I told Lance that I would agree to, i.e., Truth: All that actually exists. Because its meaning requires no interpretation by any language, by any species in the universe.

seems like you have built all your thinking about truth, starting from that definition of yours? is it your axiom, its truth is taken for granted and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths?
what you mean by "its meaning requires no interpretation by any language, by any species in the universe"? tell that to any baby or dog and see what happens. tell that to any philosopher and see what happens. do you think that translating foreign fiction or ancient texts is that simple or fully possible?

are you talking about absolute knowledge?

No!

absolutely not? did you start one of your previous sentences like: "Absolutely, by the definition that.."? is that absolute knowledge or what? a joke? some old school way of emotional talking? you did not mean absolutely when you said: "absolutely"? way of the confucius or confucing?

There is nothing wrong with science, which philosophy is the father of. The truth benefits all people as it's absolute, we just have to get to the bottom of it.

nothing wrong with scientific technology improving mass destruction weapons, consuming, industrial meat production or pollution, overpopulation,..more new and bigger problems to come. nothing wrong with the ancient tales, fathers of philosophy? theres more to find from the bottom of pandoras box? lets hope so. nothing wrong with your truth model when you look your truth model, science, people and all trough your truth model? have you heard "rose-colored glasses"?

They can believe in what ever they want. The only life over which you have complete dominion is your own. So as long as what you do has no unwanted bearing on another, you're good!

can they? they can sacrifice and mutilate childrens too? they can kill all the jews too? as long as they think that what they do has no unwanted bearing on another human(by their definition), human member of the community or humans god or gods, you are good!? do you see only black and white or shades of gray too? what interpretation context is the best for the truth of this:
http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelso ... usion.html

one cannot argue 'anything' when they call into question and deny that which we use to perceive and to define. You can call it into question to further refine it, but you can never deny it, as it's all you got to consider it.

i am not denying, just questioning. why i can never deny "anything"? what you mean about "anything"?

[SpheresOfBalance]

In reading these recent posts, I came up with this:
Color.
I'm sure you know guys know this one. Blue. What is it? We could define it with reference to common things like the, say, a light on an emergency vehicle, orwe could use scientific description, frequency and light waves and such. But niether these nor anything I might reference tells us what the color blue is. We rely upon an assumption of human experience to refer to the 'truth' of 'blue'.

I've been hoping someone would bring up this one! It's a label for a complex process.
This is an example of our taking beliefs and finally seeing them as falsehoods because of new evidence that points to a much better 'possible' truth. Lance the answer to your point of a relative blue is in fact that of it's truth. Today knowing what I know, I would say that the truth of blue is as follows: What humans call blue, is a product of a particular frequency of electromagnetic energy, in the human visible light range, that a particular surface, due to it's pigment, reflects towards the human eye, striking the cornea (lens), where it gets flipped upside down, before it finally hits the retina, effecting its rods and cones, which converts the light to a particular electrical signal, which is transmitted along the optic nerve, to a particular part of the brain, where it's compared to the data, of the previous blue signature, as originally taught. So how is that any different than saying that glass is silicon that is heated at a particular temperature until it becomes a viscous liquid, which is extruded/rolled, etc, etc. An asteroid is a body of matter that is made of 'whatever' that has a certain relative path put into motion by event x, etc.

Everything is the same, knowledge is nothing more than a definition (label) of language associated with certain qualities, conditions, etc. While it's true that some things don't depend on humans, some are fundamentally human, it would be absurd to think otherwise. How can you describe a human heart without a human. Explain the psychosexual phenomena without humans. And finally explain blue without humans. You can't, they're fundamentally human. Remember that our senses are one reason we call truth into question. Which is also why we've built some machines to compensate.

I would liken colors to that of the optical phenomenon of a mirage in that they both are illusory. They depend on external conditions that effect our sense of sight and are not what they appear to be. I have another freaky possibility dealing with color. The truth is that maybe you and I don't see the same thing (color) that we each call blue. And if we didn't there would be no way of knowing. Color blindness is easy to detect, because two colors are seen as the same and thus would be reported as such. But what I'm talking about, basically that colors are switched, or probably more correctly, subtle shade/hue/saturation differences, and no one would be the wiser, because we can't see through each others optical system.

Like wise with any object we might indicate. The Absolute Truth that SOB indicates above is like this.
OK, I'm with you lance but I would word it more appropriately as to my understanding.

The relative truth is any description I use to speak about the object.
During the verbal sharing of knowledge that any particular individual may formulate, note that it's relative to their understanding of the absolute truth of the object in question
The absolution of the object between us relies upon an assumption that we are having a common experience of the object.
Our ability to faithfully convey the specifics of a particular object depends upon our commonality in terms of both vocabulary and life experience (possible associations).
Like a table. This is the idea of Plato, of the Ideal Forms.

My point has been that such an Absolute cannot be conveyed,
The absolute is extremely difficult to know, let alone convey,
it cannot be described to an extent or significantly enough to convey to me what a chair is.
While it is possible to convey what a chair is, it can take an extreme amount of time and effort to do so, depending upon the knowledge gap between the individuals in question.
Eventually the individual in the attempt to convey what the object is to the other person must rely upon a faith of the common human experience in order to convey the object in its certainty.
To ensure your message is understood with certainty, much patience, reiteration and query must be considered to reduce misconception.
Where this faith, this commonality that cannot be breached,is still questioned, the former person insisting on the conveyability of such absolute will get frustrated because he feels the latter is just being obstinate,
based upon their differences during this process those involved can jump to conclusions about the others intent and thus display emotional content, quite possibly unfounded.
and the former will resort back into the faith and begin to describe the object in a way that to him is obvious and true, and will soon get tired of the other's density and blatent contrarity.
See the previous as it applies equally to this one, they are one in the same, a particular manifestation matters not. Neither side is right nor wrong, just different. (It would seem that you're pointing fingers at specific people, naaahh you wouldn't do that, you're too courteous.)

But the fact rermains - even as I attempt to describe this absolute, it will be denied, because it deals with a basic feature of discourse and so appears contradictory in it positing.
If you believe that you can or that you can't, you're correct. So always approach a topic from a positive point of view, as you're only as effective as you believe you are. Always remember that language has much to be desired and thus can allude to contradiction, so never give up.

That is, if this feature is absolutely true then it cannot be argued with, since it reflects the absolute truth of the object, but inevitably it will be disputed. Hence the paradox of discourse.
Absolute truths are understood on a per individual basis, relative to their particular totality of accumulated knowledge, such that inevitably someone shall dispute it. Again never give up because not only are you helping your fellow man come to an understanding but are helping yourself to better formulate a method of conveying information.

The default is relativity, but then this relativity, which is absolute, will allow discussion as if some truth of the matter is being gained, as a progress, but the fact is that discourse argues it self as it posits what objects may be discussed and in what manner: and thus posits in its activity The Absolute Truth.
There is an absolute truth that can be conveyed if in fact you understand it. The only thing relative is our abilities for one reason or another. So again and again, never give up, never give up and never give up. I mean why be interested in philosophy if you always want to throw in the towel. By definition it's about the struggle of truly understanding all that is, which is an extremely monumental task and requires those not faint of heart.

But then we return to the beginning of this post. And we go again through the absolute relativity to the absolute truth to relativity again. And this process is absolutely true, but then is relative, which is absolute ... Where do we stop?
Sometimes it's difficult in a thread where someone comes into the middle without reading all previous posts and causes the need to cover already covered data such that those that have been there following since the beginning become bored and frustrated so we have to always keep in mind those that are also worthy of our time, much like that of a musician that plays his songs over and over and over again. It builds character, helps people and allows you to know it inside and out.

Where does the Absolute Truely exist? Only and exactly at faith in the Absolutely True Object.
Everywhere by definition, but it takes a sturdy heart of serious resolve to endure the quest of tackling humanities shortcomings.

[lancek4]

This is great. Its like tennis.

When ever I ask the question 'how do you know ___' , the response I get is a situating of knowedge. If I say 'what is blue' you give me your knowledge of what blue is or how it might manifest to individual humans and describe how vibrations hit the eye and the nuerons and the brain and etc...and you even point out that whether any of this constitutes 'blue' we cannot really know.
What does that say about your knowledge?
Any and every object has the same limitation
I would say that it means that what ever I'm saying is not absolutely true, even when i propose that there is an absoolutly Actual truth. Maybe there is, it seems like its apparent, but what is it?
As you may be inclined to reiterate your knowledge reasoning thoughts about it you are confined by the same limitation as when you attempt to find 'blue'.

Thus what is occurring when you say 'but there is an absolute' is you are segregating what essentially is Your knowledge, entirely situated by you, into 'that' knowledge which is True because it has some 'absoluteness' and then 'your' knowledge which is somehow a distortion - which is 'actually' the distortion occurring in you not recognizing the totality, the absolution, of your situation of positing an absolute that is 'not you'

[lancek4]

Referencing SOB statement :"There is an absolute truth that can be conveyed if one understands it"

First. Is there something you absolutely understand?

If so, convey it to me.
Any thing that you want.
I will wager that you will do one of two things:
You will refuse. That is, you will say there is nothing which you absolutely know right now, but hopfully someday you will or we will.
Or
You will present me something. And in the process of coveying it to me, by my replies, you will either think I am being obstianate or stubborn , and or, you will think I am attempting to lead you into a position you think is untannable or argumentative and will stop and resort to reiterating your truth of the matter, aguing your position.

( But I submit that if you do the former that then you are doing the latter)

I challenge you to convey to me something which yoy understand until I understand it in its total absolute truth.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Referencing SOB statement :"There is an absolute truth that can be conveyed if one understands it"

First. Is there something you absolutely understand?

If so, convey it to me.
Any thing that you want.
I will wager that you will do one of two things:
You will refuse. That is, you will say there is nothing which you absolutely know right now, but hopfully someday you will or we will.
Or
You will present me something. And in the process of coveying it to me, by my replies, you will either think I am being obstianate or stubborn , and or, you will think I am attempting to lead you into a position you think is untannable or argumentative and will stop and resort to reiterating your truth of the matter, aguing your position.

( But I submit that if you do the former that then you are doing the latter)

I challenge you to convey to me something which yoy understand until I understand it in its total absolute truth.

I saw what you and arising_UK <--(spelling sorry) did with the cube. Lance you can't un-know what a cube is so that someone can re teach it to you all over again. So your little experiment was a bust. Even if I could come up with something you didn't know, you'd be compelled to answer it in a way that behooves you and your point. You my friend, have a conflict of interest in this matter. We would have to conduct an experiment using the scientific method in order for your idea to work.

OK, I have something in mind, let me refine it to ensure it's what I want. I'm thinking of having you do a few things in real time. It's the only thing I can think of. It's a shame this place doesn't feature a chat room. Give me a little time to think about it. You're going to have to be honest with your findings though, what ever I come up with, no BS! Maybe we could use an Instant Message App. Any ideas?

[keithprosser2]

Forgive me for joining in a debate that is 60 pages long without having read all of it!

But it seems to me the debate as it stands centres on 3 questions:

1 - does an object (such as particular chair or a quark) have a "true nature" in the first place?
2 - if so, can its true nature be ascertained by a human mind (so it can be said that mind 'knows' the true nature of said chair or quark)?
3 - and if so, can such knowledge be communicated to another human mind?

Or it might be that 1) is not so much about objects but abstractions like 'the absolute' or 'the platonic form of chair' - or have I got the wrong end of the stick? It wouldn't be the first time.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Forgive me for joining in a debate that is 60 pages long without having read all of it!

But it seems to me the debate as it stands centres on 3 questions:

1 - does an object (such as particular chair or a quark) have a "true nature" in the first place?
2 - if so, can its true nature be ascertained by a human mind (so it can be said that mind 'knows' the true nature of said chair or quark)?
3 - and if so, can such knowledge be communicated to another human mind?

Or it might be that 1) is not so much about objects but abstractions like 'the absolute' or 'the platonic form of chair' - or have I got the wrong end of the stick? It wouldn't be the first time.

No, from my understanding of Lance's query, that just about sums it up.

I'm simply stating that there is an absolute nature or reality (truth) to everything. And that mankind's knowledge of it is dependent upon his abilities at seeing past his nose, which can be quite difficult, such that often he merely has beliefs of these things, that he sometimes asserts are bonafide truths that give way to true knowledge, when the don't necessarily do so.

Initially the argument started because someone stated that truth was relative, in that 'one man's truth is another mans untruth.' In regard to this, I've said that what he was referring to was beliefs, faith, opinion and not truth. In the beginning I stated that Truth is: All that actually exists. And felt that this definition defies human interpretation and says that these things actual nature, reality (truth) is independent of our ability to understand (know) them. For instance, the things of the cosmos: their composition, relative position, relative speed, relative trajectory, relative origins, ultimate origin, casual's, effects, etc., while not necessarily known by humans have a truth to them despite our ability to trace or recognize them, not that we won't be capable, 13 billion years from now, if we don't kill ourselves off first, and become capable of hopping from habitable planet to habitable planet.

In other words from my perspective the: "if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound" philosophical thought experiment that raises questions regarding observation and knowledge of reality, does nothing for me, no questions are raised, and I consider it an absurd notion, because human knowledge does not negate the actual occurrence (truth) of physical happenings.

[Arising_uk]

... In the beginning I stated that Truth is: All that actually exists. And felt that this definition defies human interpretation ...

Don't you have a contradiction here, as you've just defined it?

In other words from my perspective the: "if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound" philosophical thought experiment that raises questions regarding observation and knowledge of reality, does nothing for me, no questions are raised, and I consider it an absurd notion, because human knowledge does not negate the actual occurrence (truth) of physical happenings.

But it does raise the issue of what a 'sound' is, which was its point I thought? As its fairly obvious that without the human ear present it would not make the 'sound' that it does when we are present, i.e. does the worm, squirrel or bird 'hear' the tree fall in the same sense?