Is truth relative?

[Atom]

My mind is torn in attempting to define "truth", because the ultimate truth, to me, is the unknown, and not the known. Here, things such as faith are introduced.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Atom

My mind is torn in attempting to define "truth", because the ultimate truth, to me, is the unknown.

Of course.

Truth, as we define it, is hard to know.

But the fact is, we accept as truth a lot of things even while we doubt the knowability of truth. The floor beneath you. Is it possible to know that it is there? Hard one, but when you got to take a pee you don't hesitate to step forward. If you really had any doubts, you couldn't put one foot in front of the other.

[Atom]

I'm having a difficult time finding a solid position. Facts can be very confusing.

[John Scott]

Write your thoughts down on paper. It helps.

[Atom]

Ok, I'll try that.

[robert s.]

Originally Posted by John Scott

That's quite obvious. I do understand his position, but his position redefines truth.

According to his statements, "truth" is not an attribute that attaches to statements that are accurately representative of reality, but to statements that the person believes to be accurately representative of reality. Big difference there.

sorry - but i have to say something again....

how can you be so sure that "the earth is not....." is accurately representing the reality and not just what the scientists and you believe to accurately represent reality?

how do you know, that not 1000 years from now, the people(if there are any left) will laugh about us, for being so stupid, to actually believe "the earth is not the center"?

(bloody hell - there are times where i honestly wish that i would have listened more to my teachers and parents....my english would be a lot better!! "attribute that attaches to statements accurately representing reality" - thank god i just have to type it and not say out loud!)

[John Scott]

how can you be so sure that "the earth is not....." is accurately representing the reality and not just what the scientists and you believe to accurately represent reality?

Again, you are addressing theory of knowledge. How can we be sure? Each person reaches certainty on his own, with his own set of criteria.

So, one person may be sure that they are in fact not a person, and indeed a peanut, and they may base this certainty on nothing more than an intuition.

Other people base certainty on observation, collaborative observation, and scientific method. Still others refuse to be sure of anything, although that doesn't stop them from acting like they are sure of things.

how do you know, that not 1000 years from now, the people(if there are any left) will laugh about us, for being so stupid, to actually believe "the earth is not the center"?

If you're asking me personally, I am sure that won't happen for the same reason you exert energy to type the messages you type.

Your whole life has confirmed the empirical method. You see keyboard in front of you, your other senses confirm the keyboard, so you are certain that it is there, and that certainty allows you to type. Indeed, if you didn't trust your senses, you wouldn't be able to walk.

Does that mean that knowledge is infallible? Hell no. Even with science, knowing is best done in degrees of certainty, not absolute certainty.

[robert s.]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Again, you are addressing theory of knowledge. How can we be sure? Each person reaches certainty on his own, with his own set of criteria.

So, one person may be sure that they are in fact not a person, and indeed a peanut, and they may base this certainty on nothing more than an intuition.

Other people base certainty on observation, collaborative observation, and scientific method. Still others refuse to be sure of anything, although that doesn't stop them from acting like they are sure of things.


If you're asking me personally, I am sure that won't happen for the same reason you exert energy to type the messages you type.

Your whole life has confirmed the empirical method. You see keyboard in front of you, your other senses confirm the keyboard, so you are certain that it is there, and that certainty allows you to type. Indeed, if you didn't trust your senses, you wouldn't be able to walk.

Does that mean that knowledge is infallible? Hell no. Even with science, knowing is best done in degrees of certainty, not absolute certainty.

ok - can you give me then an example for something which is "the truth", which is not based on knowledge or believe? a statement which is accurately representing reality, but has nothing to do with knowledge?

[John Scott]

ok - can you give me then an example for something which is "the truth", which is not based on knowledge or believe? a statement which is accurately representing reality, but has nothing to do with knowledge?

For a classic question, a classic answer:

I am.

For the inquisitive minds, "I" is defined as "self" and "am" can be defined as "exist".

[robert s.]

Originally Posted by John Scott

For a classic question, a classic answer:

I am.

For the inquisitive minds, "I" is defined as "self" and "am" can be defined as "exist".

ok - i should have seen that coming..... (although: according to the wachowski brothers - our being is just a dream implemented by a veery large computer, which operates "the matrix")

but other than the obvious "i am" i honestly cant think of many "truth´s" without any relation to knowledge or believe....

[John Scott]

but other than the obvious "i am" i honestly cant think of many "truth´s" without any relation to knowledge or believe....

Truth, some would argue, is like perfection. Nobody knows of a perfect human, but it's still a worthy goal to strive for. Truth, likewise, is a worthy goal, even if we do not reach it.

[robert s.]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Truth, some would argue, is like perfection. Nobody knows of a perfect human, but it's still a worthy goal to strive for. Truth, likewise, is a worthy goal, even if we do not reach it.

so your initial question should actually be "Is there truth?"....

and as far as perfect humans go: halle berry must be veeeeeery close!

[John Scott]

so your initial question should actually be "Is there truth?"....

No, some people actually believe that truth is relative. Like some people in this thread expressed, they think that truth and reality exist only in the mind of the speaker. (Subjectivists)

[robert s.]

Originally Posted by John Scott

No, some people actually believe that truth is relative. Like some people in this thread expressed, they think that truth and reality exist only in the mind of the speaker. (Subjectivists)

i will not even start to touch that subject - i don´t want to have a headache for the rest of the week. looks like i really am the village idiot here....

btw: since your "good john" thread - it is actually a lot more fun talking to you!

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by robert s.

looks like i really am the village idiot here....

Not at all. You do fine, and I appreciate your contributions to the discussion.

Originally Posted by robert s.

btw: since your "good john" thread - it is actually a lot more fun talking to you!

There should be a betting pool on how long it will last.

[Atom]

random thought..

If truth was relative, would it necessarily be a worthy goal simply because it allowed us to exist?