There are no absolutes... or are there?

[chilli]

I have noticed that a lot of people on this forum subscribe to the belief that there are no absolutes, and therefore truth is relative. Concomitantly, all beliefs should be tolerated, except those that claim absolute truth.

Here is a popular Realist/Christian response to these somewhat interconnected ideas, to which I have never really heard a solid rebuttal:

The statement that there are no absolutes is itself an absolute statement, and is therefore self-refuting: similarly, the statement that all truth is relative is a self-defeating and pointless statement. It is hypocritical to say all beliefs should be tolerated, except those which claim absolute truth, because this statement is itself a claim to an absolute truth.

I would love to hear people's responses to these problems.

Edited February 19, 2007 by Chilli

[Auxin]

I dont think there are 'no absolute truths', sure there are.

However with the possible exception of energy constants in sub sub sub sub atomic particle physics I think "truths", be they absolute or relative, are impermanent. 'Truths' are nothing more than intellectual constructs built up from numerous causes and conditions which will likely never recur in the same proportions. While some philosophical 'absolute truths' are highly common to a diverse group of systems of thought and can even come into being independently of each other while still resembling each other they will change over time and eventually die out and be replaced by others. If everything in the universe with the possible exception of quanta or something is impermanent how could we think that some "Thou shalt not.." is a universal absolute truth?

[komodo]

hi chilli

the argument you quote is semantic rather than metaphysical, if you rephrase to something like "i dont believe anything is absolute, and this has not been proven wrong" it is avoided and you are essentially making the same statement. i've never had the hots for that kind of philosophical quibbling but yes its rife in the christian traditions

whether or not there are any absolutes is another question... id suggest that change is a constant phenomenon, as is existence. following on from what you were saying auxin, i'm not so sure scale is important... microcosm/macrocosm.. personally i think there are no fundamental particles/energetic phenomena, but the cosmos wraps itself in some way as you descend/ascend through scale and magnification.

Edited February 20, 2007 by komodo

[chilli]

I dont think there are 'no absolute truths', sure there are.

However with the possible exception of energy constants in sub sub sub sub atomic particle physics I think "truths", be they absolute or relative, are impermanent. 'Truths' are nothing more than intellectual constructs built up from numerous causes and conditions which will likely never recur in the same proportions. While some philosophical 'absolute truths' are highly common to a diverse group of systems of thought and can even come into being independently of each other while still resembling each other they will change over time and eventually die out and be replaced by others. If everything in the universe with the possible exception of quanta or something is impermanent how could we think that some "Thou shalt not.." is a universal absolute truth?

Thanks for your response...

I hate to say it, but it sort of illustrates the very thing I'm referring to, because when you say

'Truths' are nothing more than intellectual constructs built up from numerous causes and conditions which will likely never recur in the same proportions. While some philosophical 'absolute truths' are highly common to a diverse group of systems of thought and can even come into being independently of each other while still resembling each other they will change over time and eventually die out and be replaced by others.

You are making an absolute philosophical statement, and thus undermining or contradicting the point you are trying to make. It is this problem that I find insoluble.

Also, it's interesting that you seem to be referring to quantum theory as perhaps the one true absolute, as many people use the uncertainties and randomness of the findings in this field to discredit the traditional material realist view of reality. Would you care to explain this a little further?

[No_One]

"religions are different roads converging on the same point. What does it matter that we take different roads so long as we reach the same goal?"...Gandhi

This is to say that the various religions have only one goal, which is Ultimate Reality. This is the transcendence of human nature and divine nature, the movement from a personal, differentiated God to a non-personal, undifferentiated reality. In Buddhism this is called Reality; in other religions it is called Absolute Truth. Gandhi saw that Reality has many sides, so he accepted that the differences did not contradict Absolute Truth. What the various religions argue over is the different aspects of reality. If they realized that a single reality underlies those aspects, they would cease arguing. Naturally, we don't have to completely endorse Gandhi's view, but it is something we can raise for consideration. - http://www.chan1.org/newscap/b092001a.html

[Auxin]

ou are making an absolute philosophical statement, and thus undermining or contradicting the point you are trying to make.

No, I wasnt saying it as an absolute truth. You'll observe that I said its the observed trend of all we know of and the expected trend of Almost all we can conceive of to be impermanent.

As for quantum physics, no.. I wasnt saying quantum physics is absolute truth. Really I think most of theoretical physics is nonsense and even that which is not is impermanentbecause out understanding will grow and change and we'll die and it'll be gone etc... What I was saying is that IF there is some absolute fundamental energy particle that recurs in the same form from one big bang to the other it may be permanent but all complex assemblies of those units, as far as we have observed or can conceive, seem to be impermanent.

[nabraxas]

the argument you quote is semantic rather than metaphysical, if you rephrase to something like "i dont believe anything is absolute, and this has not been proven wrong" it is avoided and you are essentially making the same statement.

totally agree.

"All propositions can be considered true in some sense, false in some sense, true and false in some sense, and neither true nor false in some sense,"

Edited February 20, 2007 by nabraxas

[chilli]

No, I wasnt saying it as an absolute truth. You'll observe that I said its the observed trend of all we know of and the expected trend of Almost all we can conceive of to be impermanent.

Perhaps I'm going even more insane, but I read your post very carefully, and I can't observe where you said that at all. I'm not trying to be impolite, but you did actually state it as an absolute truth, whether you believe it to be one or not.

As for quantum physics, no.. I wasnt saying quantum physics is absolute truth. Really I think most of theoretical physics is nonsense and even that which is not is impermanentbecause out understanding will grow and change and we'll die and it'll be gone etc... What I was saying is that IF there is some absolute fundamental energy particle that recurs in the same form from one big bang to the other it may be permanent but all complex assemblies of those units, as far as we have observed or can conceive, seem to be impermanent.

OK, I understand, and tend to agree, so let me rephrase my question in a less confrontational way: Don't you think it's ironic that quantum energy, which is touted as being in a constant state of unpredictable flux, is here being alluded to as possibly the one stable element of the universe?

Edited February 21, 2007 by Chilli

[chilli]

hi komodo, sorry I missed your post... you posted it at the exact time I posted my response to auxin.

the argument you quote is semantic rather than metaphysical, if you rephrase to something like "i dont believe anything is absolute, and this has not been proven wrong" it is avoided and you are essentially making the same statement.

When it is phrased in this way, it certainly sounds far less inconsistent... most people aren't nearly as careful though, and the irony of someone saying things like "All truth is relative, so don't let anyone else tell you what to believe" is beyond me.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but if it is as you say essentially making the same statement, then isn't it still essentially a claim to knowledge that is absolute? What I mean is, isn't the appeal to rightness or wrongness, and proof or lack thereof, itself an indication that the person making the statement adheres at least practically to the idea of absolutes?

I'd suggest that change is a constant phenomenon...

That's weird isn't it? Perhaps you can comment on my last question to auxin, if you can be bothered.

*edit* Hey, komodo, I just noticed you're from Perth... me too, except I'm stuck in NZ at the moment. It's nice to see a few more people from the west appearing on these forums.

Edited February 21, 2007 by Chilli

[husk]

im def not from the west.

but i think truth is relative even in the sense that one particular thing is more important to one person than it is to another so how true a statement is relative to how much you care about it. no?

thats why some alternate states of thought or being are great cos if somthn doesn't really matter to you at that point in time then it is irrelevant and all that is true is what you feel.

peace x

[Awaken]

Hi chilli,

You are using the christan apologetic fromulated by Cornelius Van til............

20 years ago I used this myself...........and it works..........

However, the truth is not 'out there' but 'within you' and has nothing to do with language or argumentation but on an expansion of consciousness.. As Jesus said , the truth is within you, the kingdom of God is within you ect............this has nothing to do with a book or a systematic theology........He was not even refering to christianity!

In this way it is both relative and absolute at the same time...........

No substitute for personal growth.........everything grows just look at nature.

You have not found the truth (even though you think you have in a book) cos you have not started your journey until 'you yourself' are the reference point.

I know, I know I am claiming absolutes...........as I have said the truth is not to be found in lingustics, language, argumentation and debate but it is already there inside you but you cant see it because you are to busy defending the truth..........

Cheers

Awaken

[chilli]

Hi chilli,

You are using the christan apologetic fromulated by Cornelius Van til............

20 years ago I used this myself...........and it works..........

However, the truth is not 'out there' but 'within you' and has nothing to do with language or argumentation but on an expansion of consciousness.. As Jesus said , the truth is within you, the kingdom of God is within you ect............this has nothing to do with a book or a systematic theology........He was not even refering to christianity!

In this way it is both relative and absolute at the same time...........

No substitute for personal growth.........everything grows just look at nature.

You have not found the truth (even though you think you have in a book) cos you have not started your journey until 'you yourself' are the reference point.

I know, I know I am claiming absolutes...........as I have said the truth is not to be found in lingustics, language, argumentation and debate but it is already there inside you but you cant see it because you are to busy defending the truth..........

Cheers

Awaken

Hi Awaken, yay! another WAlien! We should all get together and have a powwow!

Um, you seem to think that I personally hold these beliefs, let me assure you I don't... in fact, I don't hold strongly to any beliefs at the moment, I guess I'm what you'd call a weak agnostic, although not in the strict sense of the term (I think if there is a God, he can probably be known in some way). although I spent some years in the church, I am becoming increasingly convinced that something has gone horribly wrong, and that the God many Christians believe in is probably Satan dressed up, or an idol of their own making, a projection of their own beliefs.

I have read VanTil and many other presuppositionalists, and I remain unconvinced, although I think some of the points they make are worthy of consideration. Particluarly the way we need to constanly recognize and evaluate our biases, and try to calibrate interpretations accordingly. One of my main problems with these guys is that they try to apply these methods to everyone else, but will never turn it around and use it to analyze their own belief systems.

I think most human philosophy is important and interesting, but generally is bankrupt and feeding on itself. Nevertheless, I think that lingustics, language, argumentation and debate are vital pursuits if people are to truly understand one another. I don not think thet they contain "the truth" though.

For the record, I don't think I have "found the truth", and certainly not in a book. I mistrust the Bible now more than I ever have, unfortunately, I really don't believe that the truth is "inside" me either... probably the opposite, if anything. The human capacity for self-deception is unsurpassed and slippery.

Despite your accusations, it's interesting that in fact you seem to think that you have found the truth, although I'm not sure it is a kind that would be worth defending.

Ha ha, reminds me of tghe Simpsons...

Lionel Hutz - "There's 'the truth' [shakes head, frowning], and... "THE TRUTH!" [nods head vigourously]"

[Awaken]

Hi Chilli,

As I have said the truth is already witihn you, however you are to busy looking for it to recognise it.

The first thing that you must experience is a sense of 'connection to all things' which will not come through any philosophy that you engage in. The reason for this is that this is an experience that you are experienceing from moment to moment that is beyond mind and the thought process. As it is beyond the 'ego' and 'thinking mind' logic, debate, or any other construct of the thinking process will NOT reveal what is already there.

My suggestion is that you start to spend some time 'just sitting' and observe what is floating through your mind like birds in the air. Watch them arise (thoughts, feelings,emotions) hang around and look to be picked up and when observed and left alone disappear as quick as they came.

The more you do this you may start to get the sense that you are the one that is watching the thoughts that are arising and as this occurs you may have a perceptual shift of identification.

This is the start

Cheers

Awaken

[komodo]

well chilli it's not making the same statement because the version you put forth asserts prior knowledge of an absolute condition while the one i put forth is softer, a recognition of the most likely conclusion based on the relative evidence at hand.

and to answer your other question, i find any philosophy which requires a fundamental in order to be valid a little desperate. usually results from having to fill in the blanks created by a previous misconception.

as far as change being a constant, thats an observation i've made about the universe we are in. you might also call it 'time' or 'life'.

awaken, something you said in the last post didnt sit so well with me, maybe i misunderstood:

The first thing that you must experience...

must? isn't that a bit formulaic? a goal you desire may dictate certain things, but that doesn't apply to others who may have quite different goals in mind.

[Awaken]

Hi Komodo,

Desire or looking with a goal in mind will prevent you experiencing what is 'already here' as you are looking into the future. Everything is already right in front of you. So it has nothing to do with desire/goals or any other seeking.

The seeker is already what is sought, You are already what you seek.

Enjoy your journey.

cheers

Awaken

[chilli]

Awaken, sorry to be the one to have to say it mate, but you sound totally full of yourself.

You don't know anything about me, you've just read a couple of questions I asked, and you think you can tell me what I am and what I need?

First you said I can't see the truth 'cause I think I've found the truth in a book and I'm too busy defending it, then when I corrected your wrong assumption about me, you change your mind and decide the reason I can't see the truth is because I'm too busy looking for the truth.

What the fuck, mate?

I'm not even going to waste time explaining how totally off track you are in your assumptions about me, because it sounds like you have a problem with listening to people.

If having the truth makes me sound anything like you, you can keep it.

[chilli]

Hi komodo,

well chilli it's not making the same statement because the version you put forth asserts prior knowledge of an absolute condition while the one i put forth is softer, a recognition of the most likely conclusion based on the relative evidence at hand.

Sorry mate, but I was quoting you when I said it is "essentially making the same statement", so I'm not sure what you're current point is, but I agree that it is a softer rendering of a similar sentiment... and I'm much more comfortable when people talk like that.

All I'm saying is that no matter how we phrase the statements and claims to knowledge we all make, I'm yet to meet a sane person who doesn't adhere to absolutes in the most important areas of their lives, wouldn't you agree with this?

and to answer your other question, i find any philosophy which requires a fundamental in order to be valid a little desperate. usually results from having to fill in the blanks created by a previous misconception.

I think you misunderstood my question... I'm not trying to find a fundamental starting point for a philosophy, I'm just having an epistemological workout.

I don't have anyone to 'spot' me though.

Just don't take too many psychedelics gentlemen, you might end up like awaken.

[Awaken]

Hi chilli,

" I really don't believe that the truth is "inside" me either... probably the opposite, if anything. The human capacity for self-deception is unsurpassed and slippery.

Mystical traditions and all Eastern Meditative traditions are of no value to you then.

"it's interesting that in fact you seem to think that you have found the truth, although I'm not sure it is a kind that would be worth defending."

There is no need to defend nor can you communicate an expansion of consciousness. Only point the way to the 'Way' and in walking the sights will be seen.

"Just don't take too many psychedelics gentlemen, you might end up like awaken"

Entheogens are an aid to realise your true nature. However, Awakening was proir to any experience of entheogens.

"If having the truth makes me sound anything like you, you can keep it."

I am only trying to help, there is no need for personal insults though.

Enjoy your journey ..............

cheers

Awaken

Edited February 27, 2007 by Awaken

[chilli]

"If having the truth makes me sound anything like you, you can keep it."

I am only trying to help, there is no need for personal insults though.

Awaken

I take it as a personal insult when people I don't know and have never even met or held a conversation with make snap judgments about me.

And if you think all mystical and eastern traditions and meditative techniques are solipsistic or pantheistic, you don't know nearly as much as you think you do.

Edited February 27, 2007 by Chilli

[Salviador]

If the entire world were coloured blue, there would be no blue. You need the other colours to contrast blue for it to exist. Similarly for something to be relative you must have something absolute, otherwise relative could not exist. Everything i know of changes, however for this to be true, there must be something that remains the same. I would argue that the observing self is the thing that remains the same. Its the same process in everyone, and its the sense of continuity of consciousness despite molecular, philosophical, social and biological changes in your identity.

We are the universe experiencing itself, for the universe to experience itself, it needs something to observe and something to be observed. Thus you need a yin and a yang, you need relativity. However the universe itself is absolute.

[komodo]

hi salviador

thats interesting man. i think there is something which is constant at the core of consciousness also. i think this isness is the infinite within changing qualitative forms; a universal state at the core of all things. when expressed within living beings, it becomes the movement of the tao, which is unchanging because there are no qualities to change. i'm not sure this is the same as claiming the universe is absolute though, as in order for some'thing' to be absolute it needs to be a 'thing', and i dont consider infinity a 'thing'.

chilli

ok but note i removed the word 'essentially' in the requote, i was trying to clarify that there was in fact a logical difference in the statement beyond phrasing or sentiment. most people talk in terms of absolutes because it is more convenient, if you quiz them at length they may well freely admit that their fundamentals are "just what i believe" so therefore not really claims of absolutes.

as far as your q. of who is going through life without basing their values on absolutes, i endeavour to do that. my strongest values, which drive my actions and decisions, are chosen by me based on my individual appreciations, they are not the outcome of doctrinal fundamentals, personal or otherwise. i dont claim absolute authority in order to justify my values, i simply choose them for myself. i'm sure there are other insane persons like me out there

Edited March 3, 2007 by komodo

[chilli]

chilli

ok but note i removed the word 'essentially' in the requote, i was trying to clarify that there was in fact a logical difference in the statement beyond phrasing or sentiment. most people talk in terms of absolutes because it is more convenient, if you quiz them at length they may well freely admit that their fundamentals are "just what i believe" so therefore not really claims of absolutes.

as far as your q. of who is going through life without basing their values on absolutes, i endeavour to do that. my strongest values, which drive my actions and decisions, are chosen by me based on my individual appreciations, they are not the outcome of doctrinal fundamentals, personal or otherwise. i dont claim absolute authority in order to justify my values, i simply choose them for myself. i'm sure there are other insane persons like me out there

Fair enough, but based on this last post, I think we may be thinking of different things when we refer to absolutes. I am speaking about the possibility of a 'moral compass' that may be inherent in human consciousness across space and time, whereas you seem to be thinking of a set of doctrinal beliefs that form the basis for an individuals beliefs.

Before you tear me apart by pointing out how different people have different moral frameworks, let me refer to that dusty old theologian C.S. Lewis, who says that what is remarkable about the moral sense across cultures and ages is how similar they are fundamentally. For example, although you and I might share different ideas about what is fair or unfair, we both have as our basis a sense that things should be done fairly.

What do you think of this?

[komodo]

...C.S. Lewis, who says that what is remarkable about the moral sense across cultures and ages is how similar they are fundamentally.

i think lewis was being a big old romantic i dont see a universal morality in human behaviour, but maybe i'm a cynic! i think there is a similarity in moral ideals espoused by different civilisations or organisations.. but that just means they had common goals, and common means of achieving them. the actual behaviour of the people within those structures is often wildly immoral!

i follow what you say about a moral compass... if there were such a thing i'd put it down to genetics and culture, rather than a cosmic rudder steering the way to the blessed isles or somesuch. i dont think the universe has any built in values, but definitely our monkey bodies and brains do, and especially in tribes, which is where they get ridiculously complicated and arbitrary.

so if we do share a intra-species sense of fair play, it's probably so we'd be better at sharing food when we were fighting it out with neanderthals, or something like that. i'm reasonably sure its not a given as well, there are plenty of opportunists out there who have no moral sense of fairness, and they wouldnt have to be insane, just not pro-social. i suspect there would be equally as many exceptions for any moral absolute you could think of.

Edited March 6, 2007 by komodo

[Rev]

this is all interesting

but ive lived by this since i heard it said

Reality is that which if ignored will kill you

everything else? its not real enough to lose sleep over

[komodo]

what about love rev?