Yes, this topic is very broad but it has been the question that MANY people have tried to slove, but could not. Let's see who tried and came close... Socrates, Aristotle , and Plato. Plato had is allegory of the cave, but I am putting this debate up here so we could possibly brainstorm what truth might be and how to possibly find it! May the truth be with you :P ~
-Brooke "Alexios I" Curto
^yes Alexios I was the king of Byzantium during the crusades XD
**bad grammar may cause bleeding, narsissem, excessive laughter , unexpected Charlie horses, addiction to Dr. Who, strange affinity to fluffy pillows, seeing water talk to you, think that Kony is your best friend, pains in your neck, bloating, and voices telling you that you are the son of God... Please contact your doctor immediately if you suffer from any of these symptoms !**
Do imaginary numbers represent quantity?
What quantity is null? Is the average a quantity, or does it represent something else, like the aggregate of a quantity, but not the quantity itself?
Depends what truth is. We have the laws of physics which govern the things we see in uniform predictable patterns that we observe. But then we have our morality laws to dictate how we act and make sure we act properly.
A univeral truth is hard because it depends on what area of life you are talking about. In certain areas it is a matter of opinion dependant on your environment and what has impacted on your life.
All you are doing is saying that it is true within constraints. I am saying that because you have placed constraints on it that it is not an absolute or universal truth, it is relative to the conditions defined.
Alfred Korzybski covers Non-Aristotelian Systems in his book Science and Sanity.
All you are doing is saying that it is true within constraints. I am saying that because you have placed constraints on it that it is not an absolute or universal truth
I think what he's doing is more clearly defining what "2" means in the context of the question "2+2=4". It's universal.
Well allow me to give you a little more definition to which this truth applies. The above is true for any system in which distinct bodies can be determined and which can maintain their properties. i.e. are unchanging.
Of course, because if "2" were to change midway through the "+" or "=" phase, then it wouldn't really be 2.
You are using aristotelian logic to wrap up non-aristotelian systems. You confirm what I say in one instance by recognising that truth is relative but then say it is unscientific to say something is not universal or absolute because it has constraints or well defined conditions. I would remind you that we aren't debating science, we are debating universal/absolute truths. I don't think science supports absolute or universal truths, it supports over-defined systems that can be reliably proved through experiment- something I don't ascribe absolute or universal truth to.
I am happy in the knowledge that 1 mole of gas measured at standard pressure will take up 22.4 liters of space but I see no need to go on to say it is universal or absolute. Perhaps our divergence is here, where you are happy to use absolute truth or universal truth as meaning a defined experiment being proven no matter where it is carried out so long as it maintains the conditions defined, I am not happy to say that.
For humans... what about Elephants, Dolphins or other animals we abuse? Wouldn't mean anything to them.
I don't see why killing people needs to be a universal truth in order for us to recognise we shouldn't do it... Why would its universality affect whether or not it is wrong?
Maybe you are missing the point but we aren't talking about whether information is provable and useful we are debating whether the label we attach to it is justifiable and the level of tunnel vision you are displaying only illustrates why we shouldn't be using absolute terms.
If it isn't absolutely wrong, then someone can just kill and say to them, it is not wrong, since it is not absolutely wrong, no one can challenge them.
Well there you have it, why the need for a universal truth when everything needs to be taken in context?
Unfortunately universal or absolute truth is most commonly understood to be what you called one dimensional truth and therefore for me is something dangerous that shouldn't be encouraged or supported. That is why I take the stance of universal truth or absolute truth not existing which makes it impossible for me to believe something absurd like and homeless person taking left over food from a restaurant as stealing.
For your question why do those truths have to be universal in order for you to take them seriously? I'm not saying they aren't true or irrelevant, I'm saying there is no need for them to be thought of as universal in order for them to be useful. From my perspective those reasons you gave, labelling them as truths, are as valid thought of rationally as bad outcomes as they would be when thought of as truths. Again I'm not trying to argue that you should do away with those valid reasons you ascribe to universal truth, I am saying we need to do away with the label we attach to them because the label is unnecessary.
I apologise for the tunnel vision comment, it was uncalled for.
You havn't answered his question.
The truth is when you don't live a lie.
but when do we know when we don't have a lie; what about white lies? Those are not truth, nor lies!
i dunno. white lies are actually lies, but may be told without malicious intent. like when my butt really does look big in this, and my friend says, no. it stops me from going into a needless rant about my butt and we just go out and have fun. sure my butt looks big. the bigger question though is why should i care that my butt looks big? maybe that's culture. and maybe the lie in the culture is that butt size matters, and it is malicious because it makes me, in this example, worry over nothing, and lead my friend to tell me a white lie. lies upon lies...:)