Pure metaphysical claims

[quatona]

We must say there is absolute truth because it cannot be denied without making an absolute truth claim. It is an attempt to deny the undenialbe.

I have a clear concept of the state that´s meant to be described, and I´m pretty sure you have at least a faint idea of what it points to. The fact that one can avoid discussing the concept by defining it out of existence by false equivocations, doesn´t make it nonexistent or unthinkeable.
But, as said before, it´s easy to formulate: The only absolute is that there are no other absolutes besides this one. (Not that I necessarily believe this, but this would be the escape from your semantic fallacy).

Language has nothing to do with shaping reality; rather, language describes reality.

Unfortunately, this is not always so. We can form grammatically correct but completely nonsensical sentences without problems, and on the other hand language can be limited in describing reality.

 

[JBrian]

I have a clear concept of the state that´s meant to be described, and I´m pretty sure you have at least a faint idea of what it points to. The fact that one can avoid discussing the concept by defining it out of existence by false equivocations, doesn´t make it nonexistent or unthinkeable.
But, as said before, it´s easy to formulate: The only absolute is that there are no other absolutes besides this one. (Not that I necessarily believe this, but this would be the escape from your semantic fallacy).

It's not a fallacy. Please show me what fallacy you are talking about. Name it. To say there is no other absolutes other than this one means that there are absolutes-at least one. Which would make truth knowable and objective. To deny it would to say that it is objectively true that truth is not objective, which is clearly self-defeating.

Instead of saying "it's just a semantical fallacy," please point out which fallacy you are referring to.

Unfortunately, this is not always so. We can form grammatically correct but completely nonsensical sentences without problems, and on the other hand language can be limited in describing reality.

But this proves that language does not determine reality, it can only describe it.

 

[David Gould]

It would not make truth knowable and objective. All it would do is make one particular truth knowable and objective.

In other words, if I say, 'There is only one objective truth: and that is that there are no objective truths except this one,' what I am saying is that in this area, truth is knowable and objective - this question can be anwered. I am also saying that no other questions can be.

Such a position does not suddenly open up the rest of the universe to objective examination; neither does it create truth elsewhere. It is a function limited to a particular domain (I am reviewing some calculus at the moment ).

It is not illogical in any way. Me using the statement, 'There are no objective truths,' is simply shorthand for this, and should be readily understandable.

 

[quatona]

It's not a fallacy. Please show me what fallacy you are talking about. Name it. To say there is no other absolutes other than this one means that there are absolutes-at least one. Which would make truth knowable and objective. To deny it would to say that it is objectively true that truth is not objective, which is clearly self-defeating.

Instead of saying "it's just a semantical fallacy," please point out which fallacy you are referring to.

False equivocation, as mentioned before.

I think David has explained it quite well.

Besides: If it helps, we can reword the statement as follows:
I don´t believe that there is an objective absolute truth (other than that there is none).
In which "I believe" is again an absolute statement....

Do you think people who say such things are trying to communicate an idea? If so, how would you describe this idea?

But this proves that language does not determine reality, it can only describe it.

Actually, it shows that language does not necessarily describe reality, but
- can also be used in a nonsensical way
- can also be used to describe that which is not reality
- can be uncapable of describing reality.

 

[JBrian]

False equivocation, as mentioned before.

What is being equivocated?

Besides: If it helps, we can reword the statement as follows:
I don´t believe that there is an objective absolute truth (other than that there is none).
In which "I believe" is again an absolute statement....

Do you think people who say such things are trying to communicate an idea? If so, how would you describe this idea?

I believe people who say they don't believe in objective truth other than that one cannot prove their case. In order to do that they must show that it is true. However, it is a claim to know truth and reality. It is an idea . . . of reality.

Actually, it shows that language does not necessarily describe reality, but
- can also be used in a nonsensical way
- can also be used to describe that which is not reality
- can be uncapable of describing reality.

I agree with this. My only point is that language does not shape reality, which structuralits claim.

 

[JBrian]

It would not make truth knowable and objective. All it would do is make one particular truth knowable and objective.

In other words, if I say, 'There is only one objective truth: and that is that there are no objective truths except this one,' what I am saying is that in this area, truth is knowable and objective - this question can be anwered. I am also saying that no other questions can be.

Such a position does not suddenly open up the rest of the universe to objective examination; neither does it create truth elsewhere. It is a function limited to a particular domain (I am reviewing some calculus at the moment ).

It is not illogical in any way. Me using the statement, 'There are no objective truths,' is simply shorthand for this, and should be readily understandable.

However, this statement purports to say that it is objectively true that truth is / is not knowable. Truth is still knowable. If you say you cannot know it, you are making a truth claim about reality that it is not known. This attempts to say something about reality, namely that it is not knowable.

 

[quatona]

What is being equivocated?

Positive claims concerning objective purposes, intentions, rules, laws, a mastermind, a masterplan and such (exactly that which people who insist there to be absolutes means) with the claim that there are no such.

I believe people who say they don't believe in objective truth other than that one cannot prove their case.

Sure they can´t, but that´s not the point we discuss. We are discussing whether this idea can be conceptualized.

In order to do that they must show that it is true. However, it is a claim to know truth and reality. It is an idea . . . of reality.[/quote ]
So you acknowledge that they do not refer to "absolutes", but to other ideas like the ones you have now introduced: "objective truth", "absolute truth", "reality".

I agree with this. My only point is that language does not shape reality, which structuralits claim.

It does shape perception. E.g. thinking about the question "What sound comes from one hand clapping?" is only possible because of the assumption that grammatically correct sentences composed of meaningful words point to something that must be real.
Language is often a filter for that which can be perceived and comprehended. Thus, if speaking about the reality as we (can) perceive them (and any other idea of reality is defined to be beyond our reach, anyways, thus irrelevant for our discussions), language has indeed a great influence on it.

 

[David Gould]

However, this statement purports to say that it is objectively true that truth is / is not knowable.

Truth is still knowable. If you say you cannot know it, you are making a truth claim about reality that it is not known. This attempts to say something about reality, namely that it is not knowable.

A truth is knowable. One single truth. This is not the same as saying, 'All truths are knowable.'

I will try to explain it a different way.

Imagine a list of questions. For example:

1.) Is it possible to know for sure where Mars is?
2.) Is it possible to know for sure whether John is conscious or not?
3.) Is it possible to know for sure whether or not we are living in the Matrix?
4.) Is it possible to know for sure that we cannot know anything for sure?

To the first three questions, we can answer 'No' and to the last question we can answer 'Yes' without there being any contradiction. If we extend the list indefinitely, we can keep answering 'No' while still having answered 'Yes' to question 4 without there being any contradiction.

No contradiction. One knowable truth, plus an infinite number of unknowable truths.

 

[variant]

The definition of a metaphysical claim makes the fact that when you determine that something is a pure metaphysical claim it is therefore unevaluateable. It would be a tautology T=T, you win the argument by having someone agree to your definition.

Another problem with metaphysicis is that metaphysical means it is beyond your physical experience and thus beyond your logical apparatus (which is also based upon your physical existence, and thus experience).

There is no way to evaluate a purely metaphysical claim, or to even know you are making one. Even stating that a claim is purely metaphysical entails a partial metaphysical claim.

The real problem is that our ideas are also understood through our experience, so no claim, which must be an idea, could possibly be purely metaphysical in the absolute sense, because of the assumptions you make about the possible states of things.

So the claim:

Hell exists, and hell dosen't exist.

Is free to be true.

There is no way to possibly know whether your logic, based on your experiences in a physical universe, holds, in a non-physical universe. They are not naturally equivalent, and there is no way to determine whether they are equivilant..

I doubt a "pure" metaphysical claim is even possible. All claims are parsed in physical based terminology. We often make what you call purely metaphysical claims based on opposites we can not possibly know even exists.

Perfection is "without flaws"

Spirits are "non-material"

Hell is a "non-physical" state of existence where "non-living entities" who don't believe in God go.

Metaphysical claims are claims that go “beyond the physical”.

So, David Gould, are these even claims at all? Or, are they a sort of physical logic anti-claim?

Your real issue here is that people make claims which can not be evaluated, all of which fall into the same class.

Once you have no way of determining if something is true, it falls into its own category. Statements about physical realities can only be evaluated to a certain extent, because all knowledge is inherently limited to what can be tested, experienced, or reasoned out/extrapolated. If there is no way to do any of these things, you simply have a claim which can not be verified.

Which I believe is as far as we can go with with knoledge.

 

[JBrian]

A truth is knowable. One single truth. This is not the same as saying, 'All truths are knowable.'

I will try to explain it a different way.

Imagine a list of questions. For example:

1.) Is it possible to know for sure where Mars is?
2.) Is it possible to know for sure whether John is conscious or not?
3.) Is it possible to know for sure whether or not we are living in the Matrix?
4.) Is it possible to know for sure that we cannot know anything for sure?

To the first three questions, we can answer 'No' and to the last question we can answer 'Yes' without there being any contradiction. If we extend the list indefinitely, we can keep answering 'No' while still having answered 'Yes' to question 4 without there being any contradiction.

No contradiction. One knowable truth, plus an infinite number of unknowable truths.

I think I am trying to answer an objection that has not been given, namely that truth is not knowable. My point is simply that any claim that says one cannot know truth is a claim that purports to know truth.

 

[happygrl35]

Pure metaphysical claims are those claims that do not have a grounding in the world we can detect.

For example, 'Hell exists and all non-Christians will end up there after death,' is a pure metaphysical claim.

The question I am interested in is this: by what methodology do we evaluate the truth or otherwise of pure metaphysical claims?

For example, imagine these two claims sitting side by side:

'Hell exists and all non-Christians will end up there after death.'

'Hell exists and all non-Moslems will end up there after death.'

Imagine that one of these claims is true.

How do I tell which one it is?

I don't think the doctrine of eternal hell can be reconciled with an all-loving God who is full of grace. The God I worshiped is all-loving and full of grace.I think as Christians we can use our sense of reason to do away with doctrines that are contradictory.

 

[JBrian]

I don't think the doctrine of eternal hell can be reconciled with an all-loving God who is full of grace. The God I worshiped is all-loving and full of grace.I think as Christians we can use our sense of reason to do away with doctrines that are contradictory.

You are teaching that God is love and excluding the fact the he is also just. If he is just, he cannot leave sin unpunished.