• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Truthful but not thinking you know the truth?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bruce: I'm sorry it seems that I made an initial moral assumption, but I didn't. Typically a human's first idea of how to prevent bad things happening to them is to agree that they will not perform those actions on others. It is a concept of equality rather than initial moral basis. I don't want to die, so it is only fair that I do not kill. If I kill someone, then what if I was the other person and they were me? Then I would be dead.

Now obviously the concept of equality is not the only one applied, it is simply the easiest to see and use. That is likely why the golden rule is accepted by ALL religions - because it makes sense to EVERYONE. So I did not base my ideas of how to begin making a fresh morality on some moral assuption, rather I am suggesting that the golden rule is actually a product of people making a moral system with nothing but logic.

But we should continue the experiment further of course. The big ones such as murder, rape, theft and the like are easily solved through equality morality, but what about subjective morals? It is rude to belch in public. Who made up that lousy rule? I enjoy belching. It's fun. But while I cannot be punished legally for belching, I do receive a kind of social punishment for doing it. Our society has accepted certain unwritten rules like these. They are not giving up their freedom to belch in order to not hear you belch. Honestly, if people enjoyed belching, they would not have a problem with others doing it. Thus, the equality morality would have no effect here. But people who dislike belching are those that have no desire to do it themselves. Because there is a certain expectation of maturity within society, a once enjoyed past time is now considered low class and frowned upon. Many 'morals' begin this way as well. Obviously I have no intention of grabbing your butt and caressing it, so I'm not giving anything up by saying that guys grabbing guys' butts is bad.

There are even more ways that morality came about. Some morals (especially religious in nature) came about as a means of staying healthy and being productive. Morals regarding what food to eat for example. There are many Biblical laws regarding things that have now become technologically outdated (review Leviticus on the treatment of mildew). Ultimately, there were no means of solving some unhealthy problems thousands of years ago, so rules were made to deal with it. Now, in our technologically advanced society we can do away with some of these 'morals' because we don't need them anymore.

So, so far I have suggest at least three different types of moral creation: (1) equality morality, (2) subjective social morality and (3) practical morality (health and technology lacking assistance)

I'm sure there are other ways to define morals strictly from a logic foundation of invention, but those three tend to cover a vast majority of popularly agreed upon morals. So Bruce, what are your thoughts? Perhaps a year of philosophy in university? =)
 
No, I have a philosophical sort of problem with studying philosophy! I don't see how you can, logically, decide to use logic. Tricky to explain that further, if it doesn't make sense. Basically, you're just saying it's obvious? It was 'obvious' to the Nazis that Jews were an inferior race! For instance. I don't think anybody thinks belching is THAT serious a problem or that it's such an inconvenience not doing it publicly. I said there were lots of opinions about morality, that's not the same as saying morality is ONLY subjective. When did philosophers give up on truth?
 
Bruce: If there is no God or other being to noticeably and provably hand you the truth (and even in that case) how can you know that what you have is the truth? You ask why philosophers gave up on the truth? They didn't. It is your perception (incorrect one) that they gave up. Rather, what they've done is consider all possible truths in the search for the right one. Approaching philosophy without considering all possibilities is like blindfolding yourself before you head out to work - even if you somehow manage to get there, you won't even know it!

I take it you are religious. Personally, I cannot comprehend a non-religious person having a philisophical issue with philosophy. The only group of people I've seen the study offend are people who like the idea of absolutes and God. Unfortunately, since you can't even prove God exists, you can't prove any of His 'commandments'. Thus, even morality handed down by God is questionable at best. It may very well be the ultimate truth, but we have no way to verify this. This basically relegates that form of morality to a 'faith' basis, and since the difference between a follower of God and someone recently committed to an insane asylum is hard to tell, we can't simply take the word of someone who says that "God told me." - especially when so many people make that claim while simultaneously saying different things than one another.

Ultimately we must conclude this: Those that simply assume that morality should be some static or unchangeable thing are nothing more than stubborn idealists. While ideals are all nice and fine, they don't help in this case. Let's take some examples:

(1) Marriage and Divorce: Is divorce wrong? Most would agree that in MOST cases yes. What exceptions are there? Infidelity, abuse and neglect, are there others? What about all these people that get divorced because they don't like each other anymore? The real question is: In cases where people do get divorced, perhaps there were moral actions they could have intelligently lived by to avoid marriage to the wrong person in the first place. Somehow, this 50%+ divorce rate seems just a tad high to me. Especially when all the older married couples seem to have had all the same social problems but managed to stay married. Why? Well teenage pregnancy is kinda new, so is the fad that safe sex is the kind that incorporates birth control (as supposed to saving it for the right person). And people seem to be in more of a rush these days. Perhaps the divorce isn't wrong (circumstances granting) but the actions done leading up to the divorce were not moral. I think marriage would be approached in a vastly different way if the only way to divorce someone was to kill them (or execute them, in the case of a fair divorce reason like infidelity). Think about it: How many people would be getting married at young ages to someone they've only know a year if they weren't allowed out of marriage without a death certificate? Perhaps we should institute that... wait, no society wouldn't like that one... oh well, let's just keep being immoral.

(2) Gay Marriage: Obviously this became a hot issue quick, but is it immoral? It certainly used to be. Why? Well, reproduction used to matter. Back in the day, people needed to reproduce to maintain the population and grow families - "Go forth and multiply". But now that the Earth is so populated that we really could afford to kill a ton of people off, we are in a situation where reproduction doesn't mean a dang thing. So suddenly it is ok for gays to marry. Interesting, a moral changed due to circumstancial reasons. I believe I mentioned that possibility earlier.

(3) Robin Hood: Do I even need to go into this one? Theft is obviously wrong, but we all root for Robin Hood... are we ok with his reasons then? Well perhaps we could then justify pretty much any action possible. Murder? We kill enemy soldiers, so yup. Lying? White lies are socially acceptable, so yup. Jealousy? As long as you don't act on it right... so yup again. Oh, I know, how about rape? As a matter of fact, that one is justifiable too - in some locations of war, an army will rape the local women as a means of lowering moral. If that lowered moral brings a quicker end to the war (and less innocent deaths and destruction) then it's ok right? Hmmmm...

There really is no shortage of examples that can be drawn to show that morality is neither static and unchangeable, nor is it absolute. And that is very nearly a logical proof. Ultimately, morality is, at best, a creation of man which can be solidly defined only by majority agreement. By any other method, morality becomes unverifiable and unfortunately reliant on faith.

I don't suppose you could attempt to indicate a reasonable reason why you have a philisophical problem with philosophy? According to Wiki, "Philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom". So I really don't think that there is a reasonable reason to have a philisophical problem with philosophy. You can find an additional definition of philosophy here
 
Isn't THE method of philosophy logic? How was that decided? How has logic been tested? You're welcome to use it, of course; I'd need answers to questions like those if I were to take it seriously enough, though.
 
Bruce: I guess the reason I am nearly convinced you are a religious person is that there really are only two ways of approaching things: Logically and by Faith. Logic really is just a series of statments that either agree with each other or do not agree with each other. Here are a few rules of logic:

(1) For something to be logical, it cannot contradict itself.
(2) Just because two statements do not contradict, does not mean they are fact. There may be alternate possibilities not yet considered. "The sky appears blue, therefor it is blue" - the sky does not actually have a color itself, it merely bends light depending on the angle of the sun to our perspective.
(3) You cannot use something as the basis for proving that it exists. "God exists because He said so"...

There are many more 'obvious' rules to logic but you can easily learn what all these are by taking a philosophy course in college or university. Ultimately, there isn't a single illogical thing about the rules of logic (which should be an obvious inherit quality of the system) so to have a problem with it would simply be illogical. The only group of people I've met that tend to reject logic are people who like to rely on faith (religious people mostly).

More importantly, it is entirely possible to argue morality without using the word philosophy. The only reason I am using it is because it simplifies things. In the world of philosophy, so many people make so many different arguments that at some point it becomes tedious to reiterate the whole thing. So what they do is start referring to arguments made by others. In some cases, a series of well-thought out arguments that span 100 pages could be conveyed in a 5 page essay by simple referral and allusions. So when I mention philosophy, I'm not necessarily trying to force a field of study down your throat. It is simply that pretty much EVERYTHING that has been mentioned so far has been talked about EXTENSIVELY by tons of other people. So a quick visit to some of these sources could greatly improve the understand of things I'm saying and of the topic in general.

Naturally, if you wish, we can avoid using the word 'philosophy' entirely. But if you truly wish to do so, you need to remain logical and open to all possibilities. Simply ranting about how something just 'seems' to be some way is no way to convey a point. Instinct and emotion are very nearly useless in debate.
 
It isn't a choice between faith and logic. It's a question of what you wish to believe in. You're welcome to use logic! Just trying to point out that, if there's a choice about doing so or not, it can't be made with logic. If, on the other hand, there isn't a choice, it's not possible to insist I do choose! Nor can any credit then be claimed by those who do so, as they don't have a choice. Etc!
 
Bruce: I will not say that any part of what you said is incorrect. But let's assume that you are correct and move on to the (logical) results of your statements:

(1) If it is NOT a choice between faith and logic --AND-- it is a choice of what you believe in, then you must be assuming their are alternatives that include either neither faith and logic --OR-- both faith and logic. I accept this possibility (as do most people)

(2) If having the ability to choose whether to use logic or not cannot involve a logical process (which is debatable - see below), then you are merely stating an obvious fact that everything boils down to choice. However, another assertion needs to be made: Choosing NOT to use logic means that absolutely nothing within the belief can be validated or reliably passed onto another person. Of course, this works as a refutal to your statement, as a person would like to be able to validate their beliefs in a way that makes sense, but to do so would require logic since nothing makes sense without logic as logic is the fundamental building block of all that makes sense. So we have arrived at a contradiction. The statment that logic cannot be used to choose whether or not to use logic is self-defeating and therefor wrong - it IS possible (and preferred) to use logic to determine whether or not to use logic.

(3) If there is no choice, then insisting you make a choice is indeed a poor idea. I have not asked you to make a choice where none is available. There is nothing in life that is without your ability to pick options. What you believe, how you act, your philosophy on life - all things allow for choice (theoretically, if you do not believe in fatalism). So my insistence that you make a choice is predicated on the idea that there is a choice. However, I believe that it is a poor choice to pick not to use logic, this is logically deduced by the fact that no valuable arguments can be made and no solutions found without some form of due process (logic) and that would ultimately lead us all to blindly stating our opinions and moving on. What is funny is the topic title relative to this behaviour...

(4) If we ultimately assert that there is a choice to use logic or not to, and that this choice does not affect a person's choice to use faith as well, then we can conclude that there are four possibilities (three real ones) in which a person can rely:
-- No Faith, No Logic: I don't see anyone fitting into this category
-- No Faith, Pure Logic: Typically athiests, people rely purely on factual evidence and such to make sense of the world
-- Pure Faith, No Logic: Typically religious, people rely purely on religious doctrine and what they are told but do not challenge it logically
-- Pure Faith, Pure Logic: Typically spiritual, people have a background in theology and try to determine how spirituality works by logically finding the best answers and paths without blindly taking the advice of all that try to teach them, but also without ignoring it.
Due to the fact that only members of the Pure Faith, No Logic group could possibly be convinced of anything without logic, we arrive at the conclusion that to have any meaningful discussion, that does not consist entirely of opinion, we must use logic. Now oddly enough, both athiests and spiritual people can use logic (since we agreed earlier that faith has no effect on the choice to use logic) and so there really should be no logical reason to despise the use of logic. If we had previously agreed that faith and logic are exclusive, then there would be a valid reason. But as you have made clear - faith can operate alongside logic if a person chooses to use both. Thus the idea of having a philisophical problem with philosophy is ... illogical =)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given all that wonderful hoo-wah, I present the following idea:

We believe (because someone told us) that the Earth spins. We have jobs, money changes hands, we will have food for tomorrow. Seems to me that all of these statements require the use of faith for someone to honestly go through their day-to-day lives without going nuts. Thus, a No Faith approach seems illogical.

Alternatively, without logic a person could be easily confused about his gender if two people told him different things and refused to point out his anatomy. A person could told it is night time in the middle of the day and have no means to prove that statement wrong. Thus, logic is essential to the operation of people within society. Without it we would be a bunch of flailing children. Thus, the No Logic approach is similarly illogic.

Given that both these assertions eliminate all the categories except the one involving Pure Faith, Pure Logic, we should realize that a mentally sound and operational member of society is one that uses a combination of faith and logic. There is a choice, but it is about as unreasonable to pick otherwise as it would be to choose whether or not to touch a hot stove. So, since the choice to use logic or not is seemingly so obvious I hold no pride in picking what I believe to be the right choice - as you eloquently pointed out that no credit is due to those that make an obvious choice (or a 'choice' where there was none)

In the end, I think I have satisfactorially provided ample logic to indicate that logic (and faith) is a required tool for a functional person. Given that statement, I would like to convey to you the fact that philosophy is not just an art of athiestic garble with the interest of making 'God' not make sense. Philosophy is "the love of wisdom" which is to be sought by anyone regardless of their spiritual preferences. Those that hold a personal preference for religion can study Apologetics - the art of philisophically defending the Bible (possibly other religions too). Apologetics is essentially a religious subdivision of Philosophy, and so if you are religious (I think you are) then you really should enjoy this branch of philosophy quite a bit. But as someone wise once said, "Know thy enemy". So if you wish to understand the arguments being present against you, you must understand what they are thinking. It is then necessary to study ALL forms of philosophy so that you can best argue against your opponents.

What you might find ultimately interesting in all this is that my mother is a pastor. I have had a religious upbringing and I do believe in the existence of God. While I often present ideas without any indication of the existence of God (and sometimes arguments that suggest he doesn't exist) I simply do so to exercise my mind and allow it to consider ALL the possibilities without walking around completely blind.
 
It must be a choice to use logic. Thus, as there must be other ways we can choose, there are other ways to communicate and think about these things. Too many of your points rely, specifically, on logic. So, they only work if I agree the use of logic. Perhaps now you see why I didn't goto uni to do philosophy?
 
Bruce: Your failure to use logic is why you haven't seen my point yet. When you do not use logic (a system of statements that work almost like math) you are left with a system that has no internal workings and solutions. Basically, when logic is not applied, all you can do is guess or use opinions.

For example, if you have a handful of objects, and someone else has a handful of objects, and you want to know the total number of objects, you can use math, or you can guess. Guessing is an option, but totally unreliable and there is no way anyone has any reason to believe that your guess is correct. But if you use math (by counting what is in each hand and adding it together) then you can achieve a reliable and believable answer that can be conveyed to others. Do you see my point yet? Using logic is a choice, but it is pretty dumb (in my opinion) to NOT use logic. I can use logic to internally agree with the concept of using logic - so it essentially self-supports. But NOT using logic is both illogical and impossible to use within argument and debate.

Basically what I am saying is this: You have to choose between (1) Logically creating assumptions as a base platform, using logical tools to manipulate those assumptions to reach an end solution that be validated and agreed upon --OR-- (2) you can ignore logic and simply state your opinion.

I'm not sure about you, but when someone says, "I think..." and does NOT proceed to back it up in any way, I have little or no respect for the opinion - even if I think it is right. Why? Because opinions are like illusions - we don't have any idea whether it is real or not. Logic offers us the ability to deduce what cannot be right and leave us with only the possibilities that can be right (which does not mean there will only be one answer remaining)

To be honest, I'm not sure I've ever approached anyone who had such an adverse reaction to logic that they'd go through two pages of posts battling against the idea. I would have thought that using logic was common sense. Just because there is an option to NOT use logic, does not mean that the other option is a good one. So while you have a choice, in this particular case, choosing anything except logic is ... unwise. You can't argue without logic. You can't debate. You can't even inform or teach anyone anything without relying on their willingness to not challenge your information. Ultimately, it is impossible to find truth without logic unless God exists and He gives it to you... but then we enter a whole new level of conversation. At that point, intelligence becomes meaningless, but I'm pretty sure that every religious text encourages the adventure of seeking wisdom (philosophy = love of wisdom...)
 
Bruce: Ok, before I frustrate myself on this question, perhaps you could just answer it for me: Why do you not like logic? I think I can understand why you might dislike the field of philosophy (although I may not agree that your reasons are reasonable) but I'm of a state of mind that cannot even comprehend the idea of living without logic. I know that it is possible, but it is messy. The only kinds of people I know of that live without logic are those found in mental facilities or they are incapable of living as useful members of society. The moment you try to be a productive person you must incorporate some form of logic on some level. Why do you go to work/school? Logically, because you want the money/education. Without logic, how could you answer that question? More importantly, even if you could answer it, what would be the value of the answer? A logical answer allows another person to understand you and perhaps use the information for some purpose - like giving you more money to work harder. But an illogical answer leaves everyone unable to do anything except what they are still doing and gives no one any useful information.

One of my old roomies has a wife that is rarely logical. At times she will assume things that don't make sense at all. Random uses of emotion and trains of thought that follow no logical path whatsoever. What results is an extremely frustrated husband and the inability for him to properly plan things. He can't guage what time he has for friends, and can't even be sure what his finances will be like each coming month because he doesn't know for sure what might arise out of the blue. As a result, he uses external circumstances to his advantage. When his wife goes to work, he knows there isn't a darn thing she could do to interfere with his hanging with friends... errr, wait a sec, even that isn't accurate. Because when she found out he tried to hang with friends while she was at work she became upset that he hadn't informed her of his plans. Now, he got even more clever with the finances - he has separate accounts with which he does many things. The accounts he uses for various business functions are completely out of her control so that there is no way she can have an effect on it.

The basic gist of this explanation is simple: you take ONE non-logical person and insert them into society and you make the world around them a miserable place. I barely ever get a chance to hang out with my friend anymore because of this nasty situation. So do I condone the lifestyle of a non-logical approach? Never!
 
It's not about liking or not liking logic. That'd be an illogical way to choose. Logic can't say that EVERY person has the ability to do it. There's so many built in assumptions it's impossibile to deal with them! At best, logic doesn't seem able to decide most things that I need to deal with in life. And it's about how it was decided to be THE method. Either it's so obvious you can't help seeing it or it's impossible to explain. When it was chosen to be THE method, it can't have been chosen by logic. Since it hadn't been chosen until it was! What was it chosen by? Instead of answers to such, there's all the assumptions about it! You have to tell logic that schools educate, etc. It wouldn't know such things otherwise.
 
Bruce: This is precisely why I say that you should take a course at university in philosophy... you continuously make arguments that lack accurate understanding of the concept of logic. Not that I should be surprised of course. Someone who generally dislikes logic should have a problem with it. Let's see if I can break something down a little and make it simple:

Remember my math example? Well, math exists whether we make it or not. Math is not invented, it is found. We find ways to solve systems equations. We find solutions and methods. We do not create them. Math is a numerical system of logic. Thus, the same can be said of logic. We find logic. We find ways to solve systems of thought. We find solutions and methods. Simple as that. Logic existed before we decided to choose to use it. It was a tool that was available to us from beyond our design and we took it and used it. The logical rules and philosophy that exist today is not some creation of our own ideas, but rather a refinement of our knowledge of logic and philosophy. We keep getting better and better at it.

You say that you can't choose logic using logic since we had no logic to use until we chose it? I already pointed out to you that logic is self-supporting. At some point in our rational minds the idea of NOT using logic was inconvenient and problematic so we decided that we should simplify things and use systems of thought. But while this seems to be a decision of emotion, it is actually a decision of logic - the logic being that we wanted to operate more efficiently. Imagine a whole society of people like my roomie's wife. It would fall apart. There would be no way for it to continue existence. There wouldn't be marriage, there wouldn't be full time jobs, harvests, production, etc. We'd never have become anything except cavemen without logic. What defines us as humans is the ability to think rationally (logically) and not instinctively. Basically the alternative to logic is to act like an animal. Logic and Instinct - those are your two options. That is a choice. However, you really can only make that choice on a subconscious level because as soon as you start thinking about it you begin using logical reasons to decide. So the subconscious decision to use logic is not made using logic, but any attempt to choose logic or instinct on a conscious level is a purely logical one. That is essentially because the subconscious represents our instinct, and our conscious represents our logic.

Now obviously there would be people who ask "What about emotion?". Emotion is technically a use of both. Instinct obscures the 'vision' and logic is left with less choices. Imagine you have a dollar and you are at a vending machine with 2 items in it. A friend has a dollar in front of a machine with 30 items in it. People who act emotionally typically do so because there are far less options to them. They think that acting sudden is the only thing they can do. They typically only perceive a single path and it seems logical to them so they take it. Technically they are right, their decision is logical. However, it is only logical from a perspective that is limited to a small amount of information and options. Instinct provides everyone with a basic option for every circumstance, so those that act emotionally have something to choose. Learning to use logic is essentially the concept of increases one's options. Logic is the function of perceiving multiple paths and picking the best one. Logic is the SOLE provider of the concept of objectivity.

So you can continue to act instinctively, or you can add logic. Subconsciously you have chosen logic, that is why you attempt to argue. It is impossible to even attempt to argue without having chosen logic. But whether you'd like to let your logical conscious choose logic or not is up to you. It would seem rather unusual for a logical function to choose against logic. Personally, what I think you are avoiding is open-mindedness. The most logical and open-minded ways are typically attributed to athiests who will only believe what they can prove and see. But the truth is that believing God does not exist takes the same amount of faith as believing that He does not.

So to conclude: We all have Instinct, it generates a solution to every circumstance we have. We also all have Logic, it makes use of our creativity and the creativity of others to generate multiple solutions to every circumstance we have. You can choose subconsciously (without logic) whether or not to use logic, but I'm pretty sure it is impossible to choose consciously (logically) to NOT use logic. The real question is: If we choose to acknowledge the use of logic, how shall we proceed? What are the rules, how do things work? That is answered within philosophy.
 
Well, we seem a bit stuck. It's claimed, then, that logic actually exists? Not just in maths, where I'm certainly not disputing it's use but in wider usage. Perhaps the problem is that of definitions? For maths, I don't think there's much debate about which numbers are which, etc. For the subjects I'm interested in, now, unfortunately, that's, effectively, the problem. One person has two meaning 2 but the next has three! Logic, presumably, needs to work with definitions of words. How do you sort out which to choose, then?
 
Well logic is just like math, except far more broad. Consider: the number 5 is the number 5 because we say it is. It could be the number 4, but we all agree that it is the number 5. Once we have collectively determined that it is the number 5 we can move on and use this number in mathematic calculations. Without an agreement, a valid mathematical process cannot be used. The same is true with logic - before any arguing is done, assumptions must be set and agreed upon. Once the assumptions have been agreed upon, you may move ahead and begin using logic to determine the answer that best uses those assumptions.

For example, due to the fact that God cannot be proven or disproven, to argue anything that would include God as a basis would require the initial assumption that God exists. If this is not agreed upon, the argument will never end because the argument has nothing to do with the conclusion as it has to do with the premise. So in the field of philosophy there are requirements to first set the assumptions. When dealing with morality (touchy touchy) one must first decide whether to argue from the perspective of God's existence or lack of it. If deciding to use God as a reality, then one must establish which one. So naturally, before any realistic arguing can take place, there are often a dozen assuptions made just to begin.

Language is an assumption, or collectively agreed upon thing, just like mathematical numbers and operators. Before one can argue using language, one must define the words being used. Typically a disagreement of a word's definition causes major problems in many arguments. It is therefor necessary to visit the dictionary or Wiki or Google or some such in order to obtain a somewhat official definition in order to progress. Without an agreed upon definition, it is like trying to add the number 5 to something when someone else thinks you are using a 4 - of course you'll get different answers.
 
Sadly, that doesn't seem to be generally understood. Of course, there can be a problem defining some terms. Probably about the end of this discussion?
 
Yeah, I truly wish that such a concept were more generally understood. Same as common sense - I wish it were common. In a way, common sense really is just a simplified version of Logic. It is a smaller scale of smart thinking that should be possible for all people regardless of intelligence. But so many people seem to occasionally discard logic because they realize that in using logic they deny themselves of certain pleasures. For example: unprotected sex. We all know it is unsafe, that is just common sense. Yet so many people do it.

As per defining terms, yes it can be a pain. Especially for us Aspies. Language can be such an abstract thing at times and changing from country to country even when maintaining the same language. But that is what the Wiki/Dictionary/Google is for. You can force a person to understand your terms (and have a means of knowing the exact definition of terms)

I suppose this could be the end of the discussion, but don't you want to have more fun? =)
 
Well, I'm trying to find how to get on with people offline. It's still, basically, weird to talk about 'truth' if we're not believing we can tell what that is. I can't force people to agree definitions or even that they're needed!
 
Well perhaps you can pretty up my shpeel when telling someone why they need to be specific with definitions and such. I had a really ugly roundabout way of finally getting there but I eventually came across the point that pretty much everything in life is first assumed (like the letter 'r' or the number '5') and then we work with those assumed things using logic as the tool.

In its ultimate sense, truth is purely what we decide it is. Since all things are initially assumed, and then manipulated, everything is dependant on our assumptions and perceptions. Since those are both not absolute, we cannot make a claim that truth is absolute, but neither can we absolutely claim that truth is not absolute. We can either perceive truth as changing, or realize that we can only attempt to perceive an absolute truth that we will never fully grasp due to our inability to see all things.

For example, our solar system. You can perceive the possibility that since all objects move that the 'truth' is always changing. Earth is here at one moment and elsewhere at another, thus there are different truths for different moments in time. Of course, we can eliminate the dependance on time by asserting that the earth is orbiting the sun. This is true (based on certain assumptions) but no matter how many variations of orbital patterns we draw around the sun, none would match earth's orbit. Why? Because the sun is not the only other gravitational force in our system. The correct solution then is that the earth is orbiting within our solar system. But even that is only a partial truth, as we have not defined much other than the words 'orbit' and 'earth'. We also have no defined boundaries on the solar system. So we run into a situation where attempting to define an absolute is impossible due to the number of details - and the natural fact that we will not know all those details. Additionally, while we might accumulate a large number of details, such a task is completed only be using a number of perceptions: Satellite images, telescopes, gravitational sensors, spaceships, etc. Thus, even with a wide range of perceptual tools we still cannot find the absolute truth. So man is left to simply accumulate what information is most needed.

So ultimately we are left with options: (1) Truth is relative to perception or (2) Perception affects our understanding of truth, and so we'll never truly know what it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Threads

Top Bottom