There Are No Absolute Truths

in #philosophy8 years ago




A hammer will strike a nail whether the handle is made of iron or wood. It will fulfill its purpose even though the materials that constitute it as a tool have been upgraded through time. Similarly, Religion, Philosophy, Physics, Chemistry, Math or any other human enquiry that helps us reach a degree of truth do not necessarily change fundamentally. They are merely tools for interpretation subject to improvement and even degeneration. A tool can be upgraded but also render others obsolete. One thing is for certain. The only thing that changes is the way we choose to use these tools to suit our own perception.


Let's take for example Newtonian physics and the way they differ from quantum physics. More or less they are they are based on similar principles, bounded under certain mathematical axioms. They can both make different predictions about the same thing (e.g planetary motion) and still differ vastly in the way they came to draw those very interpretations. Similarly, we use constants to explain the way the world works but those constants are locked within a perspective of unknown-unknowns. Change one slightly and the whole thing falls apart. Where do those constants come from you may ask. Nobody has a clue yet.

Science is not immune to democratic beliefs thus truths are also subjective. Schools of thought in academia do exist and maintain some versions of truth about how the world works. Although it is unlikely for concrete knowledge to be challenged (e.g Evolution) facets of the theory are constantly debated, often reaching entirely different conclusions. For example, we can take the endless debate of Group Selection developed by D.S Wilson vs The Selfish Gene by Dawkins. Both are interpreted from the same evolutionary point of view but differ vastly in their conclusions.


But let's put science aside for a while since these truths don't seem to bother the common folk all that much. Most people that disagree about suspicious matters of enquiry in their life such as about homeopathy, astrology, telepathy and acupuncture don't really examine the critically. In fact most people use the "what if" assumption to establish their own truths about the world, avoiding to take into consideration factors of statistics, logic and falsification that can distill for them a purer version of truth. Don't get me wrong even scientists seem to fall under this trap more often than they should.

We prefer to wrongly equivocate usefulness with truthfulness whether this applies to matters of religion, alternative medicine or psychology. We like to believe that if some people see something as true then it must be so. Even in the academic world that the general public gets their knowledge, there is a general assumption that if a form of study is popular then we must continue endeavoring whether its premises are true or not. String Theory and Gender Studies fall under this spectrum. Alchemy used to be in that realm as well. The search for the perfect material maintained the quest even if people had no idea what they were doing.

Most people are not bothered with scientific truths unless they debate online or have a casual talk at the coffee shop after a brake up or when they get fired. Truths that bother us the most are those who affect our relationships or deal with our well being. Contrary to common belief, we are not build for using logic and developing complicated thoughts. Humans have a brain that is entire purpose is to interpret narratives. We love stories and putting everything around us into a nice meaningful tale seems to be the end game. Logic and critical thinking belong outside the autopiloted realm of our primitive cockpit. We crave meaning in life and this only comes through emotional attachment to specific narratives. Truths? What truths. It is true only when it suits us.





Why on earth would any sane human being be attracted to the idea of chaos, nothingness and decay which is the raw ugly truth? Fantasy, delusions of grandeur and myths create a much more pleasant world. This is why we are so attracted in majestic paintings, elaborate rituals, religious stories, ludicrous Hollywood scenarios or even video games. Truth has no place in any of these realms other than the ones who decide to attach.

The average human being lives in a complete fantasy believing that they hold the absolute truth. The average inhabitant of this planet most likely worships a personal God or Gods, holds as main purpose in life values of love and procreation and performs a job based on a specific education/training much like a programmable robot. The rest of activities are based on cultural stereotypes, vague assumptions, and naive predispositions that stem from these three core beliefs. We use tools of deception and/or illusion like games, expensive cars, make-up, clothing, titles and fancy hats in order to communicate in narratives that are completely made up. Pure love always needs a little make-up. We summon our deity almost exclusively when we are in trouble. We want kids but mainly to see our shortcomings get fulfilled. We lie to ourselves openly and we don't mind a bit. Logic and critical thinking is simply cancer to our elaborate charade.

Is there any Hope?

Humans have been developing their own evolution through mechanical means as of lately. In other words we started creating our fantasies like becoming Gods ourselves. We slowly replace biological parts with mechanical ones. We do desire to be Gods. In others words, we desperately follow our wildest fantasies and dreams and try to make them reality. Don't be fooled with the latest trends of singularity and transhumanism. It is pretty much the same concept as the one of religion even if the supporters claim to be non-believers. We want to live forever and we will do so by transferring our entity into another medium where we can live forever. Same ol' story, different packaging.

I don't think biologically-based human beings can get more "enlightened" as long as nature dictates the game. Simply, most people can't afford to take this road. Those who create our technological toys and talk about these issues are the minority, the 0.001% of what we call "weirdos". The rest just play along with the gadgets. Only few know how the most basic tools in their life work. Nonetheless, this never stopped us from building the entire meaning of our life around them. For any self respecting individual this should be a terrifying thought.

The movie Idiocracy got it right. Technology and innovation make people think less and less about the workings of the world due to the fact that so few people contribute to the process. The vast majority simply enjoys the ride through personalized narratives of relative truth. "Share your lie and I will share mine" seems to be the way to go.

There is a way out around this conundrum. If and when we reach the point upon which we become mechanical and or be able to transfer our minds into machines, then narratives of religion and family will go extinct and along with them the default programming of mother nature that fixates us into an illusionary spiral. The other hope is virtual reality. If people can experience their dreams in other worlds similar to ours then perhaps we will venture beyond this limited perception of the world. There can't be any absolute truths but that doesn't mean we need to live in the same perpetual lies.







Sort:  

If the statement "There are no absolute truths" is true, then wouldn't it be an absolute truth that there are no absolute truths.

I'm so confused 🤔

You can falsify the statement if you find something that is absolutely true.

Then your argument is self-defeating. If it is true, then it falsifies itself. If it is false, it does not falsify the counterargument for absolute truths.

The point of my title in relationship with the context of the article demonstrates that truths are relative and cannot be absolute — even my own

that is the thing with nihilists.. and their performative contradictions lol ^_^

There is no contradiction. My statement is of relative truth, not absolute.

You are clearly wrong. "Existence exist" Is an absolute truth. I can find lots more if you are interested.

How can you demonstrate this truth?

What kind of demonstration would satisfy you? I mean look. Think. There is something as opposed to nothing. If there was nothing you would not see or think anything.

Let's take your last statement. When you hold your hand open you can assume in the traditional linguist perception that you hold nothing. If we examine the matter from a more scientific perspective then you are holding molecules of oxygen, hydrogen and plenty of carbon since the surface of your hand will most likely be roaming with bacteria and other organisms.

As you can see nothing and something can shift meanings depending on the point of view examined. This is what the statement "There are no absolute truths" implies. There can't be any because there are always multiple perspectives.

You can't use the concept of existence in the process of denying existence. That would be the logical fallacy of the stolen concept.

If you accept that consciousness do exist then you also have to accept that existence exist.

"If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness." -Ayn Rand
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existence.html

You can't use the concept of existence in the process of denying existence. That would be the logical fallacy of the stolen concept.

I never claimed to deny existence. I simply gave you two possible interpretations about the nature of existence.

If you accept that consciousness do exist then you also have to accept that existence exist.

Define consciousness

Try to engage in the conversation based on the premises of the article rather than trying to find arguments based on quotes from authors that answered similar questions. I never even mentioned consciousness in the article or on in this thread.

There is not even a unified dictionary definition for the world. That actually demonstrates that consciousness cannot be absolutely true since it perceived differently :)

So you agree that "Existence exist" You are just unsure about the nature of it? I think we can all agree that existence exist is an absolute.

We can ask 10 people to define existence and you will see that their truths will be relative to each other and none will have sufficient evidence to provide an objective truth for all.

Since you cannot know the nature of existence saying "existence exists" is similar to saying "water is wet". You are being descriptive based on the subject matters premises. You are not defining it based on other constituents.

Water in a frosen state is dry (dry ice). It's an absolute. Water in liquid state is wet. It's an absolute. We know it because we have senses to tell us facts about the objective reality. All our knowledge rests on the axiomatic concepts of existence and consciousness. They are absolute.

Try to reason logically with the premise of my argument instead of your predispositions about this.

I reject your premise. It's false. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself. You reject identification so you reject the need for logic. I uphold logic as an absolute.

Water in a frosen state is dry (dry ice). It's an absolute. Water in liquid state is wet. It's an absolute. We know it because we have senses to tell us facts about the objective reality. All our knowledge rests on the axiomatic concepts of existence and consciousness. They are absolute.

Based on your point of view, this is again a relative truth because water holds that state in that point in time. In another point in time it might not hold that state. You cannot guarantee it will stay forever dry or wet. Therefore it cannot be absolute. The state of matter is depended on time and time itself is relative.

I reject your premise. It's false. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself. You reject identification so you reject the need for logic. I uphold logic as an absolute.

There is no contradiction. There is a parallel state of viewing something. Check the first picture. The cylinder casts two shadows. For you only one can be true. Not only that it is the absolute truth.

I do not reject identification. I expand it
An atom is not just itself. An atom is the relationship it has with subatomic particles that pop in and out of existence. It can be itself from one point of view and it can be something else from another point of view.

Ayn Rand is not ketchup to apply it everywhere mate. Learn to listen and expand your knowledge. I am demonstrating to you your close-mindedness and you still insist.

You uphold logic as an absolute because you reject to see other perspectives. That's just an opinion. You are not saying anything

I never claimed to deny existence. I simply gave you two possible interpretations about the nature of existence.

So you agree that "Existence exist" You are just unsure about the nature of it? I think we can all agree that existence exist is an absolute.

We can ask 10 people to define existence and you will see that their truths will be relative to each other and none will have sufficient evidence to provide an objective truth for all.

If we can ask people surely that must presuppose existence and some people conscious of it that can communicate. What people think or feel about existence is irrelevent to the facts of reality. "Existence exist" is an absolute no person can attemt to deny without invoking concepts resting on existence and consciousness as true and absolute.

Since you cannot know the nature of existence saying "existence exists" is similar to saying "water is wet". You are being descriptive based on the subject matters premises. You are not defining it based on other constituents.

Try to reason logically with the premise of my argument instead of your predispositions about this.

There is no contradiction. There is a parallel state of viewing something. Check the first picture. The cylinder casts two shadows. For you only one can be true. Not only that it is the absolute truth.

I think what you are refering to is the contextual nature of knowledge. When rational people share their context conflicts are resolved.

I do not reject identification. I expand it
An atom is not just itself. An atom is the relationship it has with subatomic particles that pop in and out of existence. It can be itself from one point of view and it can be something else from another point of view.

So you have faith that something can come from nothing? Is that an absolute for you? It's not possible.

Ayn Rand is not ketchup to apply it everywhere mate. Learn to listen and expand your knowledge. I am demonstrating to you your close-mindedness and you still insist.

I disagree. You seem to be open to contradictions. It's not a virtue.

You uphold logic as an absolute because you reject to see other perspectives. That's just an opinion. You are not saying anything

You seem to not understand the difference between objective reality and the contextual nature of knowledge.

I think, therefore I exist.

Q.E.D.

I prefer: Existence exist. I am conscious of it, therefore I choose to think. I operate on the primacy of existence premise as opposed to the primacy of consciousness premise.

This is a relative truth. Does an A.I that pops up left and right in different data sets exists because it thinks?

Your argument is predicated on the existence of such code, but duration of consciousness is irrelevent to its existence.

Duration of existence is everything. This is what makes everything relative. Time itself is relative thus no existence can be absolute.

I think I get what your saying. It sorta is like describing the pretty girl/ugly crone picture. Depending on what we want to perceive is what we will perceive? By the way I always see the pretty girl.

Exactly. It relates to the top picture of the post as well. Now lets see how many others will get it :)

The truth of perspectivism. The word "absolute" is often ill understood and people confound indirect representations (information) with direct representations (physical manifestations). This leads to "level" confusion as in the responses to this post. I share yr pov. Good article.

The top picture should give it out but not many bothered to read or check beyond the title.

It may be true that any truth someone thinks they have is subjective and is not an absolute truth, but this does not prove that there is no such thing as absolute truth.

I don't believe in "proofs". In the realm of science we can only demonstrate some relationships. We can never prove anything.

ok, I'll say it like this. It does not mean that there is no absolute truth. In fact your title defeats itself in that way. Or was that a joke?

You need to read the article, not just the article. My point is that even my own perception cannot be absolutely true. There are only relative truths.

"@kyriacos will never admit a flaw in his logic. He will evade and deny before opening his mind to reasonable arguments. He continues to do this and write in this way. It surprises me that anybody reads it. I'm not sure why I have wasted my time. I guess I can't help but try to continue to explain it to him."

You need to understand the concept of relative vs absolute truth. You also need to read he article. From your responses, I think most of you just read the title.

since you've saved my reply here, I am going to delete my comment up there so maybe @mughat can reply. I didn't mean to hijack @mughats argument

Of course I understand relative vs absolute truth. You are missing my point entirely. In your title and the body of your post you say that there are no absolute truths. In your ramblings, you do nothing to make a strong case for your position. But, I can't even imagine what that case would be, because your premise seems to be a joke to begin with.

Take your illustration for example. There a 3 different view points all looking at the same thing and seeing it different ways. The illustration and the article make the point that we all see things differently. However you have not even began to make the case that there are an infinite amount of dimensions to see whatever it is that you're looking at. That is the only logical path I can see to go down to try to make your point, but that will still not give any weight to your premise even if you can show that there are an infinite amount of dimensions or depths when observing something, it still wouldn't be enough to make the claim that there are no absolute truths.

It was not my intention to give an "infinite" amount of views. Infinity is a joke in a linguistic conversation.

You can assert and you will be correct that my point of view in this article is based on relative truth. Same applies about the shadows who are casted by a light in a specific point in time, which itself (time) is relative.

You are correct that I might have given it another twist to chew the concept in people's mouth but I wanted to see how many people will get it. Only a few did and actually that was the main argument of my entire article.

People believe in absolute truths because it suits their narrative. You fell in the same trap. Check all the comments again of this thread to see how easy people made the same mistake over and over again

Failure to gain a complete understanding of a matter is not proof against its existence or truth.

Most certainly. Could one though gain absolute understanding of any given concept?

This post has been ranked within the top 50 most undervalued posts in the second half of Jan 06. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $6.85 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.

See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Jan 06 - Part II. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.

If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.

It's very interesting post :)
Great job..I follow you now :D

Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it.

You infidel! Don't you know krnel has the absolute truth and the Right Path to it? You just don't grasp reality!
Heehee.

Whenever I see his charts explaining it I want to shoot myself

Can you explain me how quantum physics can be used to explain planetary motion? Because it actually can't. :)

Each theory has its own domain of application.

And as I already said many times, there is no such thing as a truth in science.

Here is a publication about the subject

http://journalofcosmology.com/Planets100.html

Domains intersect each other more often than we would like to think

This 'journal' is very questionable and not really reliable, on top of being known for promoting fringe and speculative viewpoints...

Quantum mechanics as such cannot be applied to a macroscopic system like a planet. However, the old quantum theory was inspired by planetary motions, and not vice versa...

I am well aware. Astronomy based on my scientific standards is pseudoscience to begin with. Only planetary science applies.

This is not the point though. In the post I was trying to explain how both can be used whether the method is true or false.

I know, don't worry. I reacted to a first detail irrelevant for the rest of the post :)

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.17
TRX 0.13
JST 0.027
BTC 59889.02
ETH 2673.12
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.46