Goddamn it!
I'm sick of people claiming that truth is mutable and relative. Get it through your thick little skulls that experience is a constant, and truth cannot change. And try remaining congruous with your own logic too
( Read more... )
Do you remember a few months ago when I was pure subjectivist, and considered all else irrational (and hated absolute beliefs)? Well, I figured somethings out.
The very fact is, in any given period, there is only one truth. And it exists as a constant in the (one) human mind, changing the respective values it represents, but still stays as what it represents, something that is "not incorrect" or "not false" as time moves on. You cannot take multiple times and compare them either, for it is much like comparing apples and oranges. The truth you have in your head now is absolute in what it represents, "something positive". Temporal constructs are valid distinguishers.
Tell me John, can you, at this moment in time, believe in something not-true? (The answer is no) Why? Because if you believed in something that is not-true, then you are no longer doing what is referred to as "believing". Thus, beliefs have the predisposition of being at all times absolute, in conjunction with the truth value that is also an absolute at such a given time. Same concept as "Think something unthinkable." or "Do something un-do-able". It is not merely a semantical (language-based) limitation. It transcends it. You simply cannot do it John, regardless of whether words are used.
The greatest problem with relativism is that it calls itself into question. Can you not be relative with relativity? The fact is, relativism is ultimately a form of speaking from outside the individual. The fact is, we are individuals, and there are only absolutes when it comes to "truth" in regard to individuals. Referring to society's truth is non-sense because there is no way of speaking about "outside the human individual"/"me" truth. (So in a way, I agree with what you say, but only as much as I consider Santa Claus has a sleigh, where it is true of what you say, but if the over-all picture (or structure of the empiricality of truth) is observed, the whole thing can be seen as only in so far as a fiction goes)
Great argument though, and it really made me think (like I had wanted it to); I would like to hear more from you....or just call me on where-ever I was being unclear.
Reply
1 you state that a constant truth changes the respective values it represents. Wouldn't that make the truth subjective since people are only seeing their own view of it? plus, if you're seeing different values then you're not seeing the truth. I'm guessing what you mean is the various types of truth on different subjects (thus different forms) and if that's the case then yes I see where you're coming from.
2 unfortuntely, I disagree on your viewpoint on believing something not-true. People still do it for various reasons (often justification for effort, excellent subject for social psych :) ). take for example a doomsday cult that predicted the end of the world as a specific date. The date came, and lo and behold we're still alive in one piece. Did the people disband and get all pissed? hardly. Instead, they pleged an even stronger alliegence to the cult due to justification of effort. (this is a true story btw). So, they were clearing believing in something that wasn't true.
3 It seems that you're impling that the ultimate truth cannot be obtained. If truth does have such a nature, I'd have to agree with you on that. in my eyes it'd be similar to the concept of infinity or perfection, something you can try to get a grasp on but never truly obtain. If that's the case, then isn't all our views of the truth just a lesser version of the ultimate truth? (assuming it exists). If that was the case, which I won't deny it a solution I'd entertain, even then there's still a fine line of subjectivity. After all, if you cannot fully obtain the ultimate truth, all you have is your grasp of the matter. Since you only have one piece of the puzzle, your view is still subjective and thus there's still the subjectiveness of the truth to be dealt with. So basically what I'm saying is even if there is one ultimate truth on matters we'd never be able to obtain it and subjectiveness would still play a large part in people's views. Let the refutations begin ;)
Reply
2) "social psych"....well, there's an oxymoron....lol
but anyway, what you said makes sense, except it doesn't refute or address what I had said. Does the doomsday cult believe they themselves are wrong? (No) That's precisely my point. "I am never wrong" not "I was never wrong" or "You are never wrong" or "You were never wrong" or "Everyone is never wrong" or any other permutation....just the first....
3) John, what I'm implying is that the ultimate truth is very real, but in so far as they exist solely within our minds. But then again, SO DOES EVERYTHING ELSE. Thus the ultimate truth is of the present and present only. John, think about it, the word "truth" itself means only one thing. Truth cannot be false. It's values change corresponding the time. But it means just one thing. So once again, I know what you are saying, but all my argument is based off of is this: believe something false (only you, and no one else, AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME) If you can, and ever if it were the most minuscule belief in all the world, you would have just shot my argument to pieces. (Of course, I also expect you to explain of this false belief of yours). =P
Great argument though John. I have never argued with anyone this persistent. And you know what, I have to say that I have never been more appreciative of anyone else either. Now bring on the refutations....(because there is one point I'm waiting for you to throw at me....and I've made myself weak of this point multiple times now...........think in terms of the way I presented time...)
Reply
Leave a comment