Absolute/Objective Truth = Intellectual Laziness?

[Steezie]

I'm curious about the idea that we hold to the idea that absolute or objective truths exist because we don't want to deal with, philosophically or intellectually, the idea that there aren't any objective truths.

If you start saying "There are no absolute truths" that in and of itself is an absolute truth so we have to deal with that philosophically and I think the use of absolute or objective truth is a way to circumvent that.

What do you think?

 

[bricklayer]

I am left to believe that, God knows His creation apart from its being.
This is a sovereign point of view. God is not an objective observer of His creation.

I am left to believe that we are not necessary, we are not sovereign, we are utterly subject. We can only have a subjective point of view.

I am left to believe that the idea of objectivity is as non-sensible as is the idea of chance.

 

[Penumbra]

I think that, conforming to logic, there must be some absolute truths. As you pointed out, even if it were stated, "there are no absolute truths", then that in itself is claiming to be an absolute truth.

Some things like morals are relative, but I can't see how some facts wouldn't be absolute. I think it's more an issue of logic than laziness.

-Lyn

 

[bricklayer]

There is quite a difference between an absolute truth and an objective truth.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I'm curious about the idea that we hold to the idea that absolute or objective truths exist because we don't want to deal with, philosophically or intellectually, the idea that there aren't any objective truths.

If you start saying "There are no absolute truths" that in and of itself is an absolute truth so we have to deal with that philosophically and I think the use of absolute or objective truth is a way to circumvent that.

What do you think?

It sounds like what you are suggesting is that we say 1+1=2 because we don't want to deal with the math where 1+1=3 (and some mathematicians actually study math where they take one rule of math, throw in away, and see if the entire system collapses (as it would in the above case), or if it is still stable). I honestly don't think that is the reasoning they are using. I really think that for most people, there are things which they can not bear to comprehend as not being always wrong.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I'm curious about the idea that we hold to the idea that absolute or objective truths exist because we don't want to deal with, philosophically or intellectually, the idea that there aren't any objective truths.

If you start saying "There are no absolute truths" that in and of itself is an absolute truth so we have to deal with that philosophically and I think the use of absolute or objective truth is a way to circumvent that.

What do you think?

Whereof we cannot speak, thereon we must remain silent.

I don't see how one would go about establishing that some proposition is in fact an "absolute truth".

Is it even meaningful to talk about "absolute truths"?

 

[bricklayer]

There are three relative positions proposed:
Necessary
Objective
Contingent

Truth is that which coresponds to its predicate.

God knows truth necessarily, that is apart from its being.
To know truth objectively is too know what is.
God does not need it to be, for Him to know it.

Only God is necessary.
Only God exists necessarily.
Everything else exists contingently.
Our existence is contingent upon God. (our coming into and sustained existence)

We are contingent, subjective. we have not become necessary.
We can only maintain a contingent position, a subjective point of view.

There is therefore no objective position.
God is not an objective observer of His creation. He is the active sustainer.
We have not become independant of God's provision.

One must employ presuppositional reasoning to deny presuppoistional reasoning.
It is literally undeniable.
If God has no sequence of ideas, then all of God's ideas are presuppositions.
Even God's IDEAS exist necessarily ( not objctively and not contingently).
God does not need a thing to exist to know it completely.
He calls what is not, as if it were.

So who maitains this esteemed objective position?

I am left to believe that the idea of objectivity is as preposterous as the idea of chance.

By The Way:
The words necessary and and sovereign are absolutely interchangeable.
The words contingent and subject are absolutely interchangeable.
Necessary means not-contingent.
Sovereign means not-subject.
I only add this because it was the linch pin fact point that God used to begin revealing His sovereignty to me.

 

[The Nihilist]

If you start saying "There are no absolute truths" that in and of itself is an absolute truth so we have to deal with that philosophically and I think the use of absolute or objective truth is a way to circumvent that.

Bah! This is a mere game of linguistics that, at its best, is completely unrelated to a discussion about whether or not absolute truths exist. What Penumbra says is a great example (don't worry Lyn, we all still love you):

I think that, conforming to logic, there must be some absolute truths. As you pointed out, even if it were stated, "there are no absolute truths", then that in itself is claiming to be an absolute truth.

Some things like morals are relative, but I can't see how some facts wouldn't be absolute. I think it's more an issue of logic than laziness.

For her to make this kind of claim requires that the concept of "absolute truth" be treated as utterly empty. In only this way can be it logically manipulated thus. That being said, she hasn't missed the problem of just how broadly the term is being bandied about, as she remarks that facts must be absolute.

"Absolute truth" is a sort of blanket term referring to metaphysical claims. When we're talking about absolute truth, we're talking about gods, or Plato's forms, or Kant's noumena, or some other metaphysical business.
The word truth is the indicator. Truths and facts are not the same (at least not when truth is used plurally, as in this discussion). It is a fact that I have a glass of soy milk on my desk. But when the Sufi Ib Arabi declared that "I am the truth!" he hardly meant "I am that there is a glass of soy milk on the desk of The Nihilist!"

So, is it the case that any wacky metaphysical claims are true? (Because that is what this discussion is about, really.) Probably not.

 

[Penumbra]

Bah! This is a mere game of linguistics that, at its best, is completely unrelated to a discussion about whether or not absolute truths exist. What Penumbra says is a great example (don't worry Lyn, we all still love you):

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Bah! This is a mere game of linguistics that, at its best, is completely unrelated to a discussion about whether or not absolute truths exist.

Well "absolute truth" consists of words, so it is a linguistic question as to what those words mean, and whether we can clearly pin down that meaning.

If you aren't going to pin down the meaning you might as well be talking about whether "flabbity flimflangs" exist.

 

[bricklayer]

There is a world of difference between absolute truth and objective truth.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

There is a world of difference between absolute truth and objective truth.

Would you care to elaborate on this difference?

 

[bricklayer]

An objective truth is affained to be what it is.

Absolute truth is what it is.

Objective truth is an accurate inference.

Absolute truth is an accurate implication.

 

[bricklayer]

I would like to add that, God knows absolute truth necessarily.


To know objective truth is to know what is.
God does not need it to be to know it.
He knows absolute truth apart from its being.
It does not need to exist for God to know it completely.
God knows what He knows necessarily.

We know what we know contingently.
For we are contingent, by nature.
We are not necessary.
We are not objective.

God is necessary, everything else is contingent.

Those who do not hold God to be sovereign rarely hold themselves to be necessary.
Most often they believe themselves to be objective.
This appears to be error.

There exists a necessary Creator and a contingent creation.
Who then holds this position as objective observer?

I am left to believe that the idea of objectivity is as absurd as the idea of chance.

Chance and objectivity are excellent examples of what the bible calls, "the futility of their thinking."

 

[ArnautDaniel]

An objective truth is affained to be what it is.

Absolute truth is what it is.

Objective truth is an accurate inference.

Absolute truth is an accurate implication.

You'll have to define "affained" for me as my search of the web didn't seem to yield any results.

But I have to ask.

How do you know whether and inference or implication is "accurate"?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I would like to add that, God knows absolute truth necessarily.

There may or may not be a "god" and that "god" may or may not "know absolute truth necessarily"...

...but none of that has any bearing on whether "absolute truth" can have any meaning to you, or me, or anyone.

The issue is how you can know something is "absolutely true", or if it is possible for you to know something is absolutely true.

Even if "god" knows and tells you, there is still the matter of you're ability to know that god has in fact told you and that what god told you is true.

 

[bricklayer]

To affain is to intellectually absorb in entirety.

Truth is that which corresponds to its predicate.

Assessment is done one step at a time:
existence
identity
non-contradiction
exclusion
causality
necessity
contingency
Existential: causality, necessity and contingency
analogy

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Truth is that which corresponds to its predicate.

Assessment is done one step at a time:
existence
identity
non-contradiction
exclusion
causality
necessity
contingency
Existential: causality, necessity and contingency
analogy

That was a nice tour through greco-latin.

Could you provide an example of an "absolute truth" or "objective truth", and how that process yields the knowledge of such?

 

[bricklayer]

I do not believe in objective truth.
That would be truth affained from a perspective that I do not believe exists.

Some absolutes truths:

Being exists
Being is being
Being is not non-being
Either being or non-being
Non-being cannot produce being

Get the drift?

If an object is not reducible to the subject, it is not true.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Some absolutes truths:

Being exists
Being is being
Being is not non-being
Either being or non-being
Non-being cannot produce being

Get the drift?

If an object is not reducible to the subject, it is not true.

I have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean.

What exactly is "being"?