|
Post by Heron on Aug 16, 2009 15:51:28 GMT -1
Absolute Truth for me would not be the same as yours, because we cannot see, hear, smell taste and touch through the one set of senses, but each through his or her equivalent ones. I don't believe any one person perceives the world in exactly the same way as another. Cheers, Midori Then is that not Relative Truth? I'm not sure that we can talk of "my" absolute truth and "your" absolute truth in any meaningful way. As I understand the term absolute in relation to truth, it suggests an objective, external truth which may or may not be accessible to mortal awareness (and I believe not, in it's entirety). Something that remains true irrespective of my existence or my awareness of said truth? In that sense, I guess I am talking about an objective, external reality that is not dependent on my perspective in order to be "real". I suspect/believe such a thing exists and suggest that I can never truly know it. Adam (who believes such conversations always work much better face to face and over a glass or two of something or other ;-) ) It has been argued that the necessity for absolute truth in this sense to be perceived by someone also make it necessary for there to be an all-seeing God. If we choose not to believe in such a thing, the alternative is to believe that Science will one day explain everything. But if, instead of either of these, we choose only to take account of 'our' relative truth, it seems to me also necessary that we must acknowledge other truths to avoid intolerance and the development of closed minds. So an alternative definition of 'absolute' truth that saw it as the (inaccessible) sum total of relative truths might be a useful working definition although it probably isn't fully logically coherent. Or we could just regard the notion of the pursuit of truth as a 'witch's dream' either, in the usual meaning of that phrase in Welsh, of something unattainable or, if we think witches can make dreams come true, as a magical rather than a scientific quest. But someone else's magic might, of course, be better than ours.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Aug 17, 2009 8:49:04 GMT -1
Then is that not Relative Truth? I'm not sure that we can talk of "my" absolute truth and "your" absolute truth in any meaningful way. As I understand the term absolute in relation to truth, it suggests an objective, external truth which may or may not be accessible to mortal awareness (and I believe not, in it's entirety). Something that remains true irrespective of my existence or my awareness of said truth? In that sense, I guess I am talking about an objective, external reality that is not dependent on my perspective in order to be "real". I suspect/believe such a thing exists and suggest that I can never truly know it. Adam (who believes such conversations always work much better face to face and over a glass or two of something or other ;-) ) It has been argued that the necessity for absolute truth in this sense to be perceived by someone also make it necessary for there to be an all-seeing God. If we choose not to believe in such a thing, the alternative is to believe that Science will one day explain everything. I have to disagree with you there <*cracks open another bottle of something, whether it be wine or elderflower cordial > I've been trying to unpack "absolute" in respect of "truth"... as I'm certain you are aware, it's a real bastard of a job... either one of those words alone is so ill-defined without context... that said, it does seem that the general consensus when combining them is to view them as referring to the "truth" about the divine or the divine nature of all that is. In that sense (in an "core" animistic sense maybe), it is surely sufficient unto itself (language failing rapidly here since we are using the language of distinction to discuss totality) and an all-seeing God is unnecessary. Anyway, why should the alternative be to believe that Science will one day explain everything? On one level (and admittedly by extension), Kurt Gödel's work suggests that is not possible, but on another it is simple enough to believe an alternative, namely that the sum total of all there is is itself infinite and thus science will only ever understand or explain an infinitesimal part of it. But if, instead of either of these, we choose only to take account of 'our' relative truth, it seems to me also necessary that we must acknowledge other truths to avoid intolerance and the development of closed minds. So an alternative definition of 'absolute' truth that saw it as the (inaccessible) sum total of relative truths might be a useful working definition although it probably isn't fully logically coherent. Or we could just regard the notion of the pursuit of truth as a 'witch's dream' either, in the usual meaning of that phrase in Welsh, of something unattainable or, if we think witches can make dreams come true, as a magical rather than a scientific quest. But someone else's magic might, of course, be better than ours. Now, that whole paragraph I just love. Makes me want to clap my hands... kind of trancey, too... that is a world I can live in :-)
|
|