Is truth relative?

[John Scott]

I guess I'm trying to say that I believe truth to be relative because it is ultimately up to us to define it.

I'm sincerely confused. A minute ago I would have swore you stated that truth was affected by perception. So if somebody believed 2+2=349 to be true, reality would change and his 4 dollars would become $349.

I misunderstood your position?

[Zap]

I think so. Maybe I didn't state it clearly.

His reality would change. Not mine or yours, but truth for him would change, yes.
In the same manner, we collectively decide what truth is. So, in that respect, I believe truth to be relative.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Zap

I think so. Maybe I didn't state it clearly.

His reality would change. Not mine or yours, but truth for him would change, yes.
In the same manner, we collectively decide what truth is. So, in that respect, I believe truth to be relative.

So you are saying that you wish to define truth as "opinion" or "somebody's opinion"?

Because, obviously, reality doesn't change just because opinions of it change. And if we define "truth" as "an attribute that attaches to a statement which is representative of actual reality", then your statement would become false. Surely you don't think that the physical world is physically altered by psychokinesis?

[chicgeek]

Politics?

[John Scott]

We need a philosophy forum.

[chicgeek]

You have the powa.

Just change it to poltics & philosophy.

Or "let's argue here".

[John Scott]

Sounds like a plan.

[robert s.]

[quote=John Scott;765050]Can you give me an example of truth being changed by knowing?

if your child would have asked you in the year 1066: "is it true that our earth is the center of the universe and that the sun revolves around the earth?" your answer would have been - "yes, that is true!"

same question today - your answer would be very much different.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by robert s.

if your child would have asked you in the year 1066: "is it true that our earth is the center of the universe and that the sun revolves around the earth?" your answer would have been - "yes, that is true!"

same question today - your answer would be very much different.

The truth is that the earth was not the center of the universe. Simply believing something to be true doesn't make it true, unless you define "truth" as "an opinion".

For the statement that the earth is the center of the universe to be true, the earth would in fact have to be the center of the universe.

[robert s.]

Originally Posted by John Scott

The truth is that the earth was not the center of the universe. Simply believing something to be true doesn't make it true, unless you define "truth" as "an opinion".

For the statement that the earth is the center of the universe to be true, the earth would in fact have to be the center of the universe.

but then again - all truth as we know it today - like 2+2=4 - must be relative, because in the year 3454 somebody might proof it is actually 6...

we just do not know, what future brings or proofs, so we have to go with the "truth" as we know it at the moment = today!

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by robert s.

but then again - all truth as we know it today - like 2+2=4 - must be relative, because in the year 3454 somebody might proof it is actually 6...

we just do not know, what future brings or proofs, so we have to go with the "truth" as we know it at the moment = today!

Confusing "knowing" with "truth".

That's like the 6th time in this thread.

Truth is an attribute that attaches to statements that accurately represent reality. Thus defined, reality being one, truth also can only be one.

I would suggest, if you want to argue a relativist position, that you re-define truth to mean "a statement which is considered to be accurately representative of reality". It's really the only way any relativist has made an argument.

And also, I was cheating when I was using mathematical truths. Those are most often excluded in relativist arguments.

[robert s.]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Confusing "knowing" with "truth".

That's like the 6th time in this thread.

Truth is an attribute that attaches to statements that accurately represent reality. Thus defined, reality being one, truth also can only be one.

I would suggest, if you want to argue a relativist position, that you re-define truth to mean "a statement which is considered to be accurately representative of reality". It's really the only way any relativist has made an argument.

And also, I was cheating when I was using mathematical truths. Those are most often excluded in relativist arguments.

i am sorry - but my language abilities are too limited, to really step in a philosophical discussion. but can you give an example for "absolute truth"?

[John Scott]

Define absolute truth.

I don't know what an absolute truth is. The term I would use would be "truth". An objectively true truth would be "2+2=4". Whenever you make statements about your surroundings, you can't really call them truth with 100% certainty, because you are relying on imperfect senses to perceive that truth.

[Atom]

Gravity is an example of absolute truth.

[Brian]

truth is ABSOLUTELY RELATIVE


try and figure that one out, huh




*bows*

[Atom]

"The earth is spherical. If all the four billion people in the world think it flat, they are in error. That is an absolute truth, and all the arguing in the world will not change it. Weights will not suspend themselves in the air, but when released will fall earthward. The law of gravity is an absolute truth. It never varies. Greater laws can overcome lesser ones, but that does not change their undeniable truth."

[Atom]

Originally Posted by Brian

truth is ABSOLUTELY RELATIVE


try and figure that one out, huh




*bows*

"If truth does not exist, it would certainly be true that truth does not exist. That is the quality of absolute truth."