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

[Raymond]

"If you are so unsure of your opinions - probably a very wise position to occupy - why do you assert them with such certainty?"

Because opinions is all we got. They are therefore important.

[Sculptor1]

Is absolute truth only a concept, an idea? Will we recognize it when we see it or understand it? What would it be like, what are its qualities? Do we have any absolute truths? Can there be more than one truth?
Advaita asserts that for truth to be absolute it should transcend time and space, cause and effect, fill all spaces, have no birth and death to be truth. Such a thing it names Brhman, bigness, because there is nothing bigger than it.

Truth cannot be absolute, since it has to refer to something. Truth is the relationship between your perception of a thing and the perception of the thing in the eyes of others, and in its own right (if such a thing is possible). Since truth is a description of this relationship it cannot ever exactly match the object of interest, but can only represent it.
In this light it cannot be absolute since another person's truth shall have different connotations even if the statement is literally the same.

[Raymond]

Is absolute truth only a concept, an idea? Will we recognize it when we see it or understand it? What would it be like, what are its qualities? Do we have any absolute truths? Can there be more than one truth?
Advaita asserts that for truth to be absolute it should transcend time and space, cause and effect, fill all spaces, have no birth and death to be truth. Such a thing it names Brhman, bigness, because there is nothing bigger than it.

Truth cannot be absolute, since it has to refer to something. Truth is the relationship between your perception of a thing and the perception of the thing in the eyes of others, and in its own right (if such a thing is possible). Since truth is a description of this relationship it cannot ever exactly match the object of interest, but can only represent it.
In this light it cannot be absolute since another person's truth shall have different connotations even if the statement is literally the same.

You say though that there is an objective truth, but that our perception is always out of touch. This can be questioned. And you speak of the objective world science refers to. That the Platonic idea of a reality we can never know. The difference though is that you situate this reality not in an extramundane realm but in the world around us.

[Sculptor1]

Is absolute truth only a concept, an idea? Will we recognize it when we see it or understand it? What would it be like, what are its qualities? Do we have any absolute truths? Can there be more than one truth?
Advaita asserts that for truth to be absolute it should transcend time and space, cause and effect, fill all spaces, have no birth and death to be truth. Such a thing it names Brhman, bigness, because there is nothing bigger than it.

Truth cannot be absolute, since it has to refer to something. Truth is the relationship between your perception of a thing and the perception of the thing in the eyes of others, and in its own right (if such a thing is possible). Since truth is a description of this relationship it cannot ever exactly match the object of interest, but can only represent it.
In this light it cannot be absolute since another person's truth shall have different connotations even if the statement is literally the same.

You say though that there is an objective truth, but that our perception is always out of touch. This can be questioned. And you speak of the objective world science refers to. That the Platonic idea of a reality we can never know. The difference though is that you situate this reality not in an extramundane realm but in the world around us.

What is the problem here?
There might be an objective truth but we are only subjects, and may not know what that it; nay we cannot know it. We have a POV no more no less. And "truth" whatever that might be can only be relative and subjective. It can only satisfy ourselves and we might hope to satisfy others. But satisfying others does not indicate an adherence nor a proximity the the objective truth since that is always obscure and theoretical only.
Plato is dead wrong. There are no ideal forms. It's just bunkum. Theistic fantasy.

[Raymond]

Is absolute truth only a concept, an idea? Will we recognize it when we see it or understand it? What would it be like, what are its qualities? Do we have any absolute truths? Can there be more than one truth?
Advaita asserts that for truth to be absolute it should transcend time and space, cause and effect, fill all spaces, have no birth and death to be truth. Such a thing it names Brhman, bigness, because there is nothing bigger than it.

Truth cannot be absolute, since it has to refer to something. Truth is the relationship between your perception of a thing and the perception of the thing in the eyes of others, and in its own right (if such a thing is possible). Since truth is a description of this relationship it cannot ever exactly match the object of interest, but can only represent it.
In this light it cannot be absolute since another person's truth shall have different connotations even if the statement is literally the same.

You say though that there is an objective truth, but that our perception is always out of touch. This can be questioned. And you speak of the objective world science refers to. That the Platonic idea of a reality we can never know. The difference though is that you situate this reality not in an extramundane realm but in the world around us.

What is the problem here?
There might be an objective truth but we are only subjects, and may not know what that it; nay we cannot know it. We have a POV no more no less. And "truth" whatever that might be can only be relative and subjective. It can only satisfy ourselves and we might hope to satisfy others. But satisfying others does not indicate an adherence nor a proximity the the objective truth since that is always obscure and theoretical only.
Plato is dead wrong. There are no ideal forms. It's just bunkum. Theistic fantasy.

All very true. But that doesn't have to prevent one to give an objective ontological status to their theory idea, concept, model, etc.

How do you know Plato was wrong? Maybe there is such a mathematical heaven of pure eternal forms. Maybe after his death he saw this pristine realm in its shimmering and shining splendor.

[Sculptor1]

Truth cannot be absolute, since it has to refer to something. Truth is the relationship between your perception of a thing and the perception of the thing in the eyes of others, and in its own right (if such a thing is possible). Since truth is a description of this relationship it cannot ever exactly match the object of interest, but can only represent it.
In this light it cannot be absolute since another person's truth shall have different connotations even if the statement is literally the same.

You say though that there is an objective truth, but that our perception is always out of touch. This can be questioned. And you speak of the objective world science refers to. That the Platonic idea of a reality we can never know. The difference though is that you situate this reality not in an extramundane realm but in the world around us.

What is the problem here?
There might be an objective truth but we are only subjects, and may not know what that it; nay we cannot know it. We have a POV no more no less. And "truth" whatever that might be can only be relative and subjective. It can only satisfy ourselves and we might hope to satisfy others. But satisfying others does not indicate an adherence nor a proximity the the objective truth since that is always obscure and theoretical only.
Plato is dead wrong. There are no ideal forms. It's just bunkum. Theistic fantasy.

All very true. But that doesn't have to prevent one to give an objective ontological status to their theory idea, concept, model, etc.

How do you know Plato was wrong? Maybe there is such a mathematical heaven of pure eternal forms. Maybe after his death he saw this pristine realm in its shimmering and shining splendor.

Plato's idea might have seemed interesting 2400 years ago but its absurd for the simple reason that it is a theory based on no evidence, and a theory that does no work being utterly redundant. It simply poses too many questions without really answering any problems.

[Pattern-chaser]

If you are so unsure of your opinions - probably a very wise position to occupy - why do you assert them with such certainty?

Because opinions is all we got. They are therefore important.

Yes, but: why do you assert them with such certainty? Importance of itself does not justify certainty. Nor does being "all we got".

[Raymond]

If you are so unsure of your opinions - probably a very wise position to occupy - why do you assert them with such certainty?

Because opinions is all we got. They are therefore important.

Yes, but: why do you assert them with such certainty? Importance of itself does not justify certainty. Nor does being "all we got".

"why do you assert them with such certainty?"

Well, I just stand for my opinion. Which doesn't mean it's unchangeable. Articulating them can change them. And my opinion isn't the only one. All views can learn of each other. All stories of reality can influence one another. There is not one and only objective reality. This idea was introduced in ancient Greece and is still with us today. It's taught to us already when small children and at school where it's called the scientific reality. Which IS objective, of course, but its not the one and only. It's hard to get rid of that idea.

[Raymond]

"Plato's idea might have seemed interesting 2400 years ago but its absurd for the simple reason that it is a theory based on no evidence, and a theory that does no work being utterly redundant. It simply poses too many questions without really answering any problems."

What's the difference between "redundant" and "utterly redundant"? Why should a theory be redundant if there is no evidence? It is redundant for you. The shadows in Plato's theory can be taken as evidence.

[Albertus]

Could the discovery of essential (absolute) truth require the absence of any possible hinderance. After all, any stimuli received affects our brain and as such, on whatever level, perception. However, when we think, if at all possible, that we discovered absolute truth, how can we know?

[Pattern-chaser]

If you are so unsure of your opinions - probably a very wise position to occupy - why do you assert them with such certainty?

Because opinions is all we got. They are therefore important.

Yes, but: why do you assert them with such certainty? Importance of itself does not justify certainty. Nor does being "all we got".

"why do you assert them with such certainty?"

Well, I just stand for my opinion. Which doesn't mean it's unchangeable. Articulating them can change them. And my opinion isn't the only one. All views can learn of each other. All stories of reality can influence one another. There is not one and only objective reality. This idea was introduced in ancient Greece and is still with us today. It's taught to us already when small children and at school where it's called the scientific reality. Which IS objective, of course, but its not the one and only. It's hard to get rid of that idea.

Our discussions have centred on your vocabulary, specifically on your use of the word "objective".

If this was a scientific forum, not a philosophy forum, it would be reasonable and necessary to consider the much milder scientific meaning of "objective": "we try to carry out our scientific work with the absolute minimum of bias and partiality". But this is philosophy, and in philosophy, Objectivism is a school of thought, and the meaning it takes is more absolute.

In an everyday context, you might write "I've told you a million times that X", and that would be fine. But in the context of serious thought and thinking, such exaggeration-for-effect is inappropriate and unhelpful. In this vein, it is also inappropriate and unhelpful to characterise your own unfounded opinions as undoubtable and unchallengeable: "objective". It is nothing more or less than exaggeration-for-effect.

There is not one and only objective reality.

But that's what the term is defined to mean. I don't think I want to consider the possibility that any person lives, or could live, in more than one 'reality'. That's one fantasy too far, for this topic, anyway.

The concept of Objective Reality is that there is only one 'reality', and that it is: that which actually is, regardless of our opinions, beliefs or fantasies. I am not saying here that there might not be multiple realities, as your words seem to imply. I respond only to your use of vocabulary to artificially enhance the credibility of your opinions, without any justification.

Oh, and in a philosophical context, science is not Objective, nor does/should it strive to be. On the contrary, such speculations lie outside of science, in philosophy and metaphysics, where they probably belong. Truly, science strives to be impartial and unbiased, but that's a different thing; a scientific (not philosophical) thing. Objectivity is, among other things, quite dogmatic. Science shies away from dogmatism, being open to abandon any and all of its theories just as soon as new and contradictory evidence comes to light. This is the opposite of dogmatism, I think.

[Pattern-chaser]

[W]hen we think [...] that we discovered absolute truth, how can we know?

Ho Albertus! Welcome to our dance!

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Even if we should coincidentally stumble upon some absolute truth, how would/could we know it to be absolute? We can't/couldn't, as you imply. If there is Absolute Truth, and I think there probably is, there is no way we could knowingly recognise it as such. Thus, to answer the question posed by this topic's title: in practice, there is no Absolute Truth for humans, as we have no way/means to recognise it.

[Pattern-chaser]

What's the difference between "redundant" and "utterly redundant"?

So now you wonder about someone else's inappropriate and unhelpful use of vocabulary?

I'm sorry if I shouldn't've said that, but the entertaining irony of it made my observation irresistible.

[Pattern-chaser]

There might be an objective truth, but we are only subjects, and may not know what that it; nay we cannot know it. We have a POV, no more, no less. And "truth" whatever that might be can only be relative and subjective. It can only satisfy ourselves, and we might hope to satisfy others. But satisfying others does not indicate an adherence nor a proximity to the objective truth, since that is always obscure and theoretical only.

I'm sorry, I missed this when it was posted. I am surprised and impressed. Well said!

[Raymond]

What's the difference between "redundant" and "utterly redundant"?

So now you wonder about someone else's inappropriate and unhelpful use of vocabulary?

I'm sorry if I shouldn't've said that, but the entertaining irony of it made my observation irresistible.

"So now you wonder about someone else's inappropriate and unhelpful use of vocabulary?"

That's a seriously, blatantly, utterly superfluous comment!