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

[AmericanKestrel]

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.

[AgentSmith]

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, absolute truth, needs to be unchanging & eternal. For that reason it must be beyond the reach of any change-inducing power/environment like causality, time, space, unborn & deathless.

Since we're beings bound to time, space, and causality, the universe itself being thus limited, absolute truth transcends the very cosmos itself.

[Elephant]

Hi AgentSmith. First post here.

That's why the ancient philosophers reduced reality to indivisible uhr stuff. The atoms. That's unchanging and the building block of everything.

[Pattern-chaser]

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?

I'm pretty sure that "absolute truth" is the same thing we often call 'objective truth' on philosophy forums. Yes, there is such a thing. I understand that humans have only one objective truth: that objective reality exists, and that I* am all or part of it. I don't believe that a human can - knowingly and justifiably - have any other objective truth. Objectivists disagree, of course.

It's qualities? That it corresponds with, and describes, all or part of Objective Reality without contradiction.

* - any individual can verify this for themselves, but they can't communicate it to someone else, who must work it out for themselves if they are to verify this truth objectively.

[stevie]

Is absolute truth only a concept, an idea?

A speculative idea, yes. And a paradoxon at that because how should a conditioned consciousness have knowledge of a truth that would have to be unconditioned?

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.

An absolute, i.e. unconditioned truth would have to be independent of all conditions, yes.

[Greatest I am]

Absolutely, it is demonstrable that there are absolute truths.

All who read this will know as an absolute truth, --- that they have read it.

The fact that no one will ever refute this, makes this statement, another absolute truth.

Regards
DL

[JackDaydream]

@AmericanKestrel

The idea of absolute truth would need to be one which exists outside of experience, and the problem which I see is that even such 'truth' does exist it is experienced through the grasp of human consciousness. This means that the understanding of it is relative and dependent on the perception and understanding of the observer.

One other problem is that some people may argue that there understanding of 'truth' is the absolute one which is more of an assertion of superiority of their viewpoint. On the other hand, some may argue that all truth is subjective and relative, which is the other extreme, which can end up implying that there is no such thing as any truth of any kind at all.

[Raymond]

Of course there is absolute truth. But it differs per person or creature.

[Pattern-chaser]

Of course there is absolute truth. But it differs per person or creature.

If "it differs per person or creature", then it isn't "absolute", is it?

[Raymond]

Of course there is absolute truth. But it differs per person or creature.

If "it differs per person or creature", then it isn't "absolute", is it?

Why not? My theory, cosmology, or theology are an objectively true story for me.

[Pattern-chaser]

Of course there is absolute truth. But it differs per person or creature.

If "it differs per person or creature", then it isn't "absolute", is it?

Why not? My theory, cosmology, or theology are an objectively true story for me.

Objectivity is universal, or absolute, isn't it, not just for you personally?

[Raymond]

"Objectivity is universal, or absolute, isn't it, not just for you personally?"

Yes. I think my cosmology or theology is universal and holds for everyone. Isn't that the right thing to believe? Why else you have them? To say they are just fantasies?

[Pattern-chaser]

I think my cosmology or theology is universal and holds for everyone.

If you are convinced you're right, you won't hear that fellow in the corner when he says something that is more valuable and useful than what you currently have.

[Raymond]

I think my cosmology or theology is universal and holds for everyone.

If you are convinced you're right, you won't hear that fellow in the corner when he says something that is more valuable and useful than what you currently have.

That guy in the corner might have a cosmology or reality that he thinks holds for anybody just like me. I don't think my story is of greater value than his. To me it has, to him it hasn't. Which is not to say he can't influence my story or I can't influence his. If he offers good stuff to influence my story I can change my story.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think my cosmology or theology is universal and holds for everyone.

If you are convinced you're right, you won't hear that fellow in the corner when he says something that is more valuable and useful than what you currently have.

That guy in the corner might have a cosmology or reality that he thinks holds for anybody just like me. I don't think my story is of greater value than his. To me it has, to him it hasn't. Which is not to say he can't influence my story or I can't influence his. If he offers good stuff to influence my story I can change my story.

In the first quote, above, you state an opinion, clearly and unequivocally. But in the final quote, above, you seem to say that your opinions vary with the prevailing wind, so to speak. If you are so unsure of your opinions - probably a very wise position to occupy - why do you assert them with such certainty?