Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Charlemagne]

And what, exactly, does "almost nothing" mean?

It means, er, "almost nothing". Philosophically, and strictly/rigorously, the only thing we can be certain of is that Objective Reality exists. We can suspect all kinds of things, and imagine many more, but we cannot knowingly possess certain knowledge other than OR's existence. Hence: "almost nothing".

But if you can possess certain knowledge of OR's existence, why do we have to stop there?

Because we have no means to proceed further. We have no senses, or equivalents attributes, that would/will allow us to perceive reality as it actually is. And so we guess, of course, and pretend to certainty...

I think certainty of "almost nothing" is still not plausible. Are you certain or uncertain that you are certain of almost nothing? On what grounds? We might be certain of a great many things, as well as uncertain of others. I am certain that the universe is much more vast than we used to think it is. I am certain that deliberately corrupting or murdering children is quite evil. I am certain that I am going to send you this post. I am uncertain that you will reply.

As I read your words, it seems to me that when you say "certain", you mean confident. You seem to mean that certainty is being 'sure enough' for your own purposes. That's a reasonable everyday use of the word "certain", but it isn't as meaningful or useful as it might be in a philosophy discussion. You even express certainty on moral issues...

Here, in this discussion, I use "certain" to mean 'undoubtedly certain'. In an everyday conversation, I would, like everyone else, accept a more dilute definition of 'certain'. But here, in this topic? No, I don't think that would be helpful.



P.S. you ask "on what grounds", when my preceding post describes these grounds:

Because we have no means to proceed further. We have no senses, or equivalent attributes, that would/will allow us to perceive reality as it actually is. And so we guess, of course, and pretend to certainty...

I DON'T DOUBT THAT ABOUT MANY THINGS WE ARE JUST PRETENDING TO CERTAINTY.

But about many other things we are not just pretending. We are absolutely certain.

I can be absolutely certain that fairly soon I will die.

Whether there is life beyond my death I cannot be certain unless I enter that life.

One can always hope, but hope is not certainty.

[Pattern-chaser]

I can be absolutely certain that fairly soon I will die.

I think anyone here, with a little time for consideration, could come up with reasons why you might live much longer than you, and the rest of us, expect. Such reasons would be speculative, of course, and maybe only just barely possible (in our estimation), but enough to cast doubt on your statement of absolute certainty, I think?



I find certainty, the very idea of it, to be a bit scary, philosophically speaking. Certainty closes down inquiry and curiosity. If we are certain about something, we will never question it. Why would we, when we know it's 'certain'? If we had been certain that Newton's 'laws' of motion were correct, why would Einstein ever have considered that they might be incomplete, and come up with something more accurate? The answer, of course, is that he would not. Intellectual progress is, at the least, hindered by certainty. And that's why I'm not keen on the whole idea.

I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain … In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.

[Dlaw]

I think the problem with almost all the reactions is that they assume more meaning into the concept of truth than is really there.

The Feyman quote is about perception but his work was different. There are facts. I just typed this and you just read it. There's really no serious philosophical stance that calls that into doubt. I just ate crackers. My daughter has a cough. Her mother just made macaroni and cheese. It would be silly to disagree that these are facts and we can find even more certain facts however mundane that might be.

The question Feynman was dealing with is whether, knowing a set of facts and having what we might reasonably call perceptions, do we then know a thing which is either truth or something very close.

There are facts, there are perceptions but truth is really just an approximation.

I think.

[Pattern-chaser]

The Feyman quote is about perception but his work was different. There are facts. I just typed this and you just read it. There's really no serious philosophical stance that calls that into doubt.

No need for philosophy, when simple common sense will do. For example, you claim to have typed the text above, but how do I know you even exist? And, if you do exist, how do I know that you didn't speak your words to an Alexa-dalek thing instead of typing them? And so forth. There is always some kind or level of doubt, and uncertainty.

It's as you said:

...truth is really just an approximation.

I think.

In other words, and in the spirit of the Feynman quote — probably my favourite philosophical quote of all — there is (almost) no certainty anywhere, anytime, anyhow. Recognise it, and be willing to embrace the reality of an uncertain world, scary though it may be.

Or delude yourself into believing that there is certainty, and that it's solid enough for you and your reasoning to lean on, and be supported by.

[Charlemagne]

If I say there is absolute truth, I am asserting an absolute truth.

If I say there is no absolute truth, I am asserting an absolute truth.

One cannot avoid saying there is absolute truth either way.

[Pattern-chaser]

If I say there is absolute truth, I am asserting an absolute truth.

If I say there is no absolute truth, I am asserting an absolute truth.

One cannot avoid saying there is absolute truth either way.

...then perhaps the asserting is the problem here?

Clarification: Absolute truth is unchallengeably true and correct. An absolute truth is universally true, without limits or bounds. And an assertion is a claim to the world — i.e. anyone/everyone who will listen — that some proposition is factual, true, and correct.

Your post resembles a paradox, or something like that, but I think that would be a misperception. Your words illustrate a common human mistake: they assert absolute truth without foundation, support or justification of any sort. One can "say", in your words, anything one wants to, but if one asserts absolute truth without a good reason for doing so, one's words become meaningless.

I can say that it is an absolute truth that King Crimson are the best band in existence, the best band ever to have existed. I can say it, but that doesn't make it an absolute truth. Being true and correct does that, and I have no way of showing that King Crimson occupy the throne I have placed them on ... and I knew that when I said it. So my grandiose claim of universal, limitless and unchallengeable truth is reduced to exaggeration-for-effect: "I've told you a million times!".

So the words you post seem to be contradictory, but they aren't. Both claims are in perfect agreement: they are equally unverifiable.

[Greatest I am]

I am, is an absolute and irrefutable true statement.

So I guess that yes is the absolute true answer.

Regards
DL

[Charlemagne]

If I say there is absolute truth, I am asserting an absolute truth.

If I say there is no absolute truth, I am asserting an absolute truth.

One cannot avoid saying there is absolute truth either way.

...then perhaps the asserting is the problem here?

Clarification: Absolute truth is unchallengeably true and correct. An absolute truth is universally true, without limits or bounds. And an assertion is a claim to the world — i.e. anyone/everyone who will listen — that some proposition is factual, true, and correct.

Your post resembles a paradox, or something like that, but I think that would be a misperception. Your words illustrate a common human mistake: they assert absolute truth without foundation, support or justification of any sort. One can "say", in your words, anything one wants to, but if one asserts absolute truth without a good reason for doing so, one's words become meaningless.

I can say that it is an absolute truth that King Crimson are the best band in existence, the best band ever to have existed. I can say it, but that doesn't make it an absolute truth. Being true and correct does that, and I have no way of showing that King Crimson occupy the throne I have placed them on ... and I knew that when I said it. So my grandiose claim of universal, limitless and unchallengeable truth is reduced to exaggeration-for-effect: "I've told you a million times!".

So the words you post seem to be contradictory, but they aren't. Both claims are in perfect agreement: they are equally unverifiable.

Your example of King Crimson is not valid. Music is a matter of taste as much as quality.

The assertion of an absolute truth cannot be a matter of taste.

To say there are no absolutes is not a matter of taste, but an assertion of absolute fact, which is a contradiction.

To say there are absolutes is to say so absolutely, which is not a contradiction.

[Pattern-chaser]

If I say there is absolute truth, I am asserting an absolute truth.

If I say there is no absolute truth, I am asserting an absolute truth.

One cannot avoid saying there is absolute truth either way.

...then perhaps the asserting is the problem here?

Clarification: Absolute truth is unchallengeably true and correct. An absolute truth is universally true, without limits or bounds. And an assertion is a claim to the world — i.e. anyone/everyone who will listen — that some proposition is factual, true, and correct.

Your post resembles a paradox, or something like that, but I think that would be a misperception. Your words illustrate a common human mistake: they assert absolute truth without foundation, support or justification of any sort. One can "say", in your words, anything one wants to, but if one asserts absolute truth without a good reason for doing so, one's words become meaningless.

I can say that it is an absolute truth that King Crimson are the best band in existence, the best band ever to have existed. I can say it, but that doesn't make it an absolute truth. Being true and correct does that, and I have no way of showing that King Crimson occupy the throne I have placed them on ... and I knew that when I said it. So my grandiose claim of universal, limitless and unchallengeable truth is reduced to exaggeration-for-effect: "I've told you a million times!".

So the words you post seem to be contradictory, but they aren't. Both claims are in perfect agreement: they are equally unverifiable.

Your example of King Crimson is not valid. Music is a matter of taste as much as quality.

The assertion of an absolute truth cannot be a matter of taste.

To say there are no absolutes is not a matter of taste, but an assertion of absolute fact, which is a contradiction.

To say there are absolutes is to say so absolutely, which is not a contradiction.

You miss my point entirely. This is my point:

Anyone can say anything, and claim it to be absolute truth. But a claim to be saying absolute truth is very different from saying that which is actually absolute truth. That is my point.


So, back to your original words: the first two sentences claim to be expressing absolute truth, but do they? Just by saying so? I think not. The apparent contradiction in those words, is down to my point here. At least one of those sentences is not expressing absolute truth. There seems to be no more to it than that.

[Charlemagne]

If I say there is absolute truth, I am asserting an absolute truth.

If I say there is no absolute truth, I am asserting an absolute truth.

One cannot avoid saying there is absolute truth either way.

...then perhaps the asserting is the problem here?

Clarification: Absolute truth is unchallengeably true and correct. An absolute truth is universally true, without limits or bounds. And an assertion is a claim to the world — i.e. anyone/everyone who will listen — that some proposition is factual, true, and correct.

Your post resembles a paradox, or something like that, but I think that would be a misperception. Your words illustrate a common human mistake: they assert absolute truth without foundation, support or justification of any sort. One can "say", in your words, anything one wants to, but if one asserts absolute truth without a good reason for doing so, one's words become meaningless.

I can say that it is an absolute truth that King Crimson are the best band in existence, the best band ever to have existed. I can say it, but that doesn't make it an absolute truth. Being true and correct does that, and I have no way of showing that King Crimson occupy the throne I have placed them on ... and I knew that when I said it. So my grandiose claim of universal, limitless and unchallengeable truth is reduced to exaggeration-for-effect: "I've told you a million times!".

So the words you post seem to be contradictory, but they aren't. Both claims are in perfect agreement: they are equally unverifiable.

Your example of King Crimson is not valid. Music is a matter of taste as much as quality.

The assertion of an absolute truth cannot be a matter of taste.

To say there are no absolutes is not a matter of taste, but an assertion of absolute fact, which is a contradiction.

To say there are absolutes is to say so absolutely, which is not a contradiction.

You miss my point entirely. This is my point:

Anyone can say anything, and claim it to be absolute truth. But a claim to be saying absolute truth is very different from saying that which is actually absolute truth. That is my point.


So, back to your original words: the first two sentences claim to be expressing absolute truth, but do they? Just by saying so? I think not. The apparent contradiction in those words, is down to my point here. At least one of those sentences is not expressing absolute truth. There seems to be no more to it than that.

You are right there. It is the second of the two sentences that is asserting (not expressing) and absolute truth.

"If I say there is no absolute truth, I am asserting an absolute truth."

But it is not asserting an absolute truth. It is asserting a contradiction, which cannot be a truth.

[Sculptor1]

Definitions.

1. not qualified or diminished in any way; total:

2. viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative:
"
3. PHILOSOPHY a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things:

Response.

1. THis exists only by definition.

2. Since you cannot perceive, describe or communicate without relating to it, then this definition is impossible. My point here is absolute given definition 1.

3. Again, by definition only. But since the claim is viewed without relation then the concept is moot.

[Pattern-chaser]

You are right there. It is the second of the two sentences that is asserting (not expressing) and absolute truth.

"If I say there is no absolute truth, I am asserting an absolute truth."

But it is not asserting an absolute truth. It is asserting a contradiction, which cannot be a truth.

It is not asserting an absolute truth. It is claiming to do so. And the contradiction is not asserted, it is intrinsic to your sentence. It says: If I assert X, I am asserting NOT(X). A simple contradiction, nothing more.

[Baby Augustine]

Truth is a person say the followers of Jesus, the LOGOS

But if we just start with God the Creator then all that is originates in a Divine Idea and that would be the Truth of things that exist.

the divine ideas as causal principles. Thomas Aquinas's philosophical doctrine of the divine ideas

According to Thomas, the ideas in the mind of God are not only principles of his knowledge, but they are productive principles as well. In this role, God's ideas act as exemplars for things that he creates.This theory of exemplarism is an integral part of Thomas's account of the existence and order of the created universe. It also accounts in part for the freedom of God's creative act. Exemplars can be causes of natural things without compromising the causality of natural agents