Is truth relative? - Page 11

Atom · 12-22-2007, 04:40 PM

I don't know .. seems to me there's something awfully spiritual about this whole life business I seem to be experiencing here. I refuse to resign the cause of this strange exhilaration that seems to accompany life, to cumulative experience.

DarthMall · 02-05-2008, 02:35 PM

This is a tough one.
If I have a blue colored pen, I can say it is TRUE that the pen is blue.
But If someone else learned that the color blue is called Red, then they would say that it is not Blue, it is Red.
I guess that truth can be relative, but for the most part is it absolute and independent of the speaker.

John Scott · 02-05-2008, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarthMall

This is a tough one.
If I have a blue colored pen, I can say it is TRUE that the pen is blue.
But If someone else learned that the color blue is called Red, then they would say that it is not Blue, it is Red.
I guess that truth can be relative, but for the most part is it absolute and independent of the speaker.

You're talking about semantics, not truth.

Changing definitions of color attributes doesn't change the color attributes themselves.

BradP · 02-05-2008, 09:32 PM

Seeing is believing but we all know how the eyes can play tricks on us. Also, the truth only holds as far as those who are willing to believe in it. If a person refuse to see the truth for what it is, then absolute or relative truth doesn't matter.

sitetutor · 02-06-2008, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradP

Also, the truth only holds as far as those who are willing to believe in it.

That's like people saying that whatever religion you choose to believe in, is right for you. But the question is what the truth is, the truth not dependant on your opinion, but the truth that determines where you are going.

**Rankenstein** · 02-07-2008, 03:53 AM

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that truth can be described ultimately by reference to wavelengths, if you think string theory holds any water that is. Blue or red? Nah, what's the wavelength?

(LOL, I just thought of "What's the frequency, Kenneth?")

StrongInTheArm · 02-07-2008, 08:21 AM

So if I said I was a blond babe, by giving you a short wave it would make it true?

Damn, that string theory is powerful stuff! I better keep my hands in my pockets.

DarthMall · 02-07-2008, 02:34 PM

This whole post is about semantics. If truth is relative, then what is defined as true depends on how the individual perceives it. If it is not relative, then there are universal truths that exist independent of the observer. This is hard to argue because we are all observers. We can only say what is true based on observances. Make sense Johnny?

DarthMall · 02-07-2008, 02:36 PM

haha...i meant to say observations not observances.

BradP · 02-07-2008, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarthMall

This whole post is about semantics. If truth is relative, then what is defined as true depends on how the individual perceives it. If it is not relative, then there are universal truths that exist independent of the observer. This is hard to argue because we are all observers. We can only say what is true based on observances. Make sense Johnny?

that is right, truth ultimately is a matter of perceptions. If someone says he is saying the absolute truth, then most likely, he is not.

Atom · 02-08-2008, 05:30 AM

An observer's truth is relative to the fact that truth is absolute.

Absolute truth must come first.

Atom · 02-08-2008, 08:22 AM

I believe that the very basis of the argument is a shift from the reality that truth is absolute. This shift causes a division producing a basis for argument, but this will never alter the singularity of truth, which is absolute (always was and always will be). I submit that the argument stems from a shift from a true, singular, seemingly unknowable reality, whether that reality is perceived by us or not. I realize that we can only assume that the sound waves from the dead tree falling in the forest with no life still exist, but I would call it a safe assumption.

Atom · 02-08-2008, 08:35 AM

I submit to you that truth must exist before relative truth, or any variation thereof.

DarthMall · 02-08-2008, 08:46 AM

But how do you know that the truth existed before you observed it? Could it not have been just created by your brain? It is interesting to see how everyone feels about this issue, but really, we are all just sharing opinions. There are no absolute answers.
SAFE ASSUMPTIONS....... YES.
100% rock-solid absolute truths, NO, or at least none we can prove to be.

This will give you a headache if you think about it too much. If 2 different observers have 2 separate ideas of what is true, then there must be 2 absolute truths? This does not make sense due to the definition of absolute. ANYWAY.......there is no way for me or for anyone else to me 100% certain.

I'm 100% certain that no one can be 100% certain of anything.

Atom · 02-08-2008, 08:49 AM

You may say, truth cannot exist without lies, so lies are equally important in truth, but I submit to you that the complete opposite is the only reality. Simply put: Truth is first. Lies come after.

We do not know the origin of this truth. That pisses us off.

DarthMall · 02-08-2008, 09:07 AM

YES!

By the way, I love the smoky mountains. Only been there once, and thats the TRUTH!

Atom · 02-08-2008, 09:14 AM

The Green Mountains of Vermont are spectacular.

Atom · 02-08-2008, 09:38 AM

I'm a bit biased though, New Hampshire's White Mountains are just as spectacular if not more so. The northern Adirondacks ain't no slouches either. These are all relatively high for their relatively small bases, relative to Western mountains. But the absolute truth of it is, all mountains are spectacular. Why? I don't know. How? Don't know that either. Makes me wonder how I can make such a claim.

Atom · 02-08-2008, 09:43 AM

I am reasonably certain that they would exist in their state of spectacularism with or without our acknowledgment.