I'm having trouble understanding your case for absolute truth.

I don't understand your point about pizza. And I don't understand the point about stealing.

If a person has no means of income and the only way they might have to feed a hungry child is to steal, does doing so make it right? Does the idea of Robin Hood, stealing from the rich to give to the poor, make the idea different?

Absolute truth only exists in an absolute world. And absolute does not equal utopia or heaven.

The only positive way to live in a world of absolutes is if forgiveness, mercy, and peace are the things which we follow absolutely.

aaronkortze said:

I would like to make a case for absolute truth. This may be difficult so please bear with me...
Much of truth today is based on context. A word can change meaning over time. Truth may also be based on what each person personally believes or adheres to. I love pizza, that's a truth. Someone else hates pizza, that is also a truth. Is pizza good or bad? Well, we can't really put a true/false label on that.

Agreed. I like using the example of a hammer. A hammer is neither good or bad. A hammer can be used to build a house for a family to grow and be loved in.
A hammer can also be used to commit murder; an evil act.
However, the hammer itself – outside of any sort of context – has no intrinsic moral value.

aaronkortze said:

It is on this basis that many people make a case for a relative truth. But what if we go further? I think stealing is wrong. Someone else thinks stealing is okay. However, stealing is against the law almost everywhere and you can go to jail for it. Is that absolute? Is it relative? Even those people who may steal frequently will most likely turn around and complain when something of THEIRS goes missing.

In your example of theft, there is an unaccounted for illusion; the assumption and understanding of ownership. The truth in this example supersedes the question. The Law does not define what is and isn't truth.

”Stealing implies ownership.” V is for Vendetta

Is stealing wrong?

I'm not sure whether to call this a Western-paradigm or not, but it is definitely a Dichotomy-paradigm.
Here's a simple example. We have two people in a car involved in a discussion about the nature of the car's occupants.

The first says, ”There are only two categories of people in this car. Me, and not-Me”.
The second occupant isn't impressed by this sort of categorization and disagrees. The second occupant sees the categories in terms of Him and not-Him, much to the first person's dismay.
Both argue that they are dealing with cold, hard fact and therefore won't back-down because they hold the truth and are unarguably in the right!

I believe this is how most Westerners think and function; in dichotomies.

However, both occupants in the car having their argument miss several facts.
First, that their truths they cling to, are only “facts” from a certain point of view and are conditional truths at best.
Secondly, they miss the point that they are actually agreeing with one another in the sense that they both agree that there are 2 occupants in the car. They just can't (won't) agree on how to categorize them.

A Harmonious-Dicotomy-paradigm can accept both seemingly contradictory facts as true. No, not contradictory, but harmonious facts.
What are the nature of the car occupants?
a) Me and not-Me
b) Him and not-Him
Answer: Yes.

The Japanese have an expression – a single word really. Mu. Unask the question. The error is not within one's answer, but within the question be asked itself. When you pose the question of whether stealing is an absolute, you are asking the wrong question. Is ownership absolute? What is ownership? How exactly do we define ownership? What can I claim that I truly own?

aaronkortze said:

What if we go even further. How did the universe come into being? I think God created it. Someone else thinks it emerged from the Big Bang and that God is a figment of my imagination. Now, we can't both POSSIBLY be right. Doesn't there need to be absolute truth in this? There are 6 billion people in the earth, and they could very well all have their own ideas on where the universe came from. But the universe did not come into being 6 billion different ways.

Dichotomy-paradigm (Western) deals with “truth” often exclusively function with knowledge only.
The need for truth in certain circumstances is irrelevant and unnecessary, especially once we introduce Wisdom (and Wisdom cares.

I have my thoughts and opinions and beliefs as to how the universe came into being, but I don't need to be right. Ultimately, we will never know this one 'truth'. Okay, let's go even further. Let's beat up those who disagree with us. Let might be right, shall we?

One core tenet of Buddhism is that when we attempt to force our beliefs into facts is the genesis of human suffering. This truth supersedes any other.
Creationism or a Secular-Atheist Evolution?
Mu.

aaronkortze said:

Man has been searching for truth for many years. Relative truth is an easy way to satisfy the need for answers, but I don't think we can use it to solve all our problems and mysteries.

A Problem does not need a truth but a solution (and a truth and a solution are not the same thing). And Mysteries by their very definition evade obvious truths.

"Tao gave birth to One,
One gave birth to Two,
Two gave birth to Three,
Three gave birth to all the myriads things of the universe".
Excerpt from Tao Te Ching, verse 42, by Lao Tzu

This basically says that Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. But this in itself is somewhat useless. I like calling this the Purple Plasticine Problem.
In the Purple Plasticine Problem, I have a piece of red plasticine in one hand and a piece of blue plasticine in the other. I mix them and work them into each other. In the end, I end up with a large piece of purple plasticine. Few would argue this point. However, it means little by itself. ( Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis).
So, let's look at it from another perspective:
I believe the sky is blue. So, I go around 'preaching' to everyone and anyone who'll listen why and how the sky is blue. (I can prove it too!) On my proselytizing journeys I stumble across another who's 'preaching' to anyone and everyone how they believe the sky is paisley.
The two of us sit down and have a nice long discussion and come to the agreed conclusion that the sky is really paisley-blue (or maybe sometimes bluish-paisley). Then, the two of us part ways spreading the word of the newly discovered Bluish-paisley sky!
The problem is, it's simply not true.

Okay. Let's start again.

I believe the sky is blue. So, I go around 'preaching' to everyone and anyone who'll listen why and how the sky is blue. (I can prove it too!) On my proselytizing journeys I stumble across another who's 'preaching' to anyone and everyone how they believe the sky is black (And this time they can prove it too!!)

The two of us sit down and have a long discussion and discover a previously unknown truth! Night and Day. It isn't so much that we were both right (or both wrong) but that there was a larger truth we've both missed. Then, the two of us part ways spreading the word of the newly discovered Night-and-Day!

To fundamentalists, the first example (The Paisley-blue Sky Doctrine) is why we cannot enter discussions because, ultimately, the truth - their truth – can only ever suffer being watered-down. Thesis + Antitheses = Synthesis is always a derogatory thing and a movement away from the truth. Ultimately, they are not looking for the truth, but are looking to defend the truth as they know it. This only works assuming that their position is completely and absolutely valid and true.

On the other side of the coin. The Night-and-Day Doctrine people, do not believe they know or hold the entire truth, and are searching for it, rather than defending what little they know.

Truth is progressive now, isn't it?

I'll quote what I believe is the most important quote in the entire bible.
"What is truth?" Pontius Pilate (John 18:38)

In mathematical terms 2 + 2 always = 4.
However, 2 + 2 does not always = 4.
In a gestalt 2 + 2 equals 5, or 6, or 7, or any number greater than the sum of its parts.

Is truth synonymous with fact?
Is doubt synonymous with faithlessness?
No.

I guess I should have brushed up on my philosophy before I came here...in all seriousness though both these comments were enlightening

@MJG791
I had not considered the adding the issues such as poverty to the theft example. That does put a new spin on everything.

@Seph
I have considered the idea of progressive truth but it made a lot more sense after your examples and explanations. I must confess I am not a student in this area at all so each of your stories or examples really got me thinking. "Unasking" the question was also something that really helped me to further analyze the types of questions I would ask about truth

Seph,

As I ponder your Night and Day idea, I wonder if there is, at some point, a place at which we fully understand something.

I mean, you wrote that there is synthesis of two truths... but once the synthesis is agreed upon and understood and believed, is there anywhere else to go? Is the day/night combo the absolute truth then? Or are we simply waiting till we reach a planet which has 2 suns and the dynamic is out of wack?

MJG791 said:

Seph,

As I ponder your Night and Day idea, I wonder if there is, at some point, a place at which we fully understand something.

I mean, you wrote that there is synthesis of two truths... but once the synthesis is agreed upon and understood and believed, is there anywhere else to go? Is the day/night combo the absolute truth then? Or are we simply waiting till we reach a planet which has 2 suns and the dynamic is out of wack?

I love the Day-Night synthesis example!

No, even this "truth" is only valid from a certain point of view; it is only "true" under certain conditions.

Day and Night are in themselves also an illusion.
Just take a step off the planet. They no longer exist - or, they only exist as a man-made construct.
It's no different than the two guys in the car arguing about is it "Me and not-Me" or "Him and not-Him"?
In the ladder example, the fact is that there are two guys in a car.
In the first example, the fact is our planet spins on its axis and revolves around the sun.
But facts aren't truths. We interpret these facts into our (subjective) truths.



(However, on a side note, the entire examples of the Paisley-Sky-Doctrine vs. the Day-and-Night-Doctrine is meant to demonstrate methodologies rather than actual facts and/or truths. I think it is very important how come to the truths we claim to hold, regardless of whether they're illusions or not).

aaronkortze said:

I guess I should have brushed up on my philosophy before I came here...

@Seph
I have considered the idea of progressive truth but it made a lot more sense after your examples and explanations. I must confess I am not a student in this area at all so each of your stories or examples really got me thinking. "Unasking" the question was also something that really helped me to further analyze the types of questions I would ask about truth

Neither am I a student of philosophy.

You might like to read the book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". (He makes some pretty good use of Mu - unask the question).

Hi Aaron and welcome! Yes, we have some very 'deep' thinkers here, don't we? But we have learned a lot from each other over the years. (Maybe, in the quest for 'truth', i should say 'i have learned a lot', since i don't know if that's true of anyone else.) :)
If Truth exists - and i believe it does - it does not exist in a form that can be articulated by human expression. It simply is what it is, or maybe i mean it is what ... is.
@Seph; i notice in your quote of Pilate from the book of John, that Jesus makes no reply to the question. Is this significant?

ringnut said:

@Seph; i notice in your quote of Pilate from the book of John, that Jesus makes no reply to the question. Is this significant?

Yes, I think it is significant that he didn't answer.
I'm open to ideas and suggestions as to what that means and why.

Correspondence truth would be the truth of science; of physical reality.

Coherence truth would be the truth of rationalist philosophers as it relates to human reality.

Pragmatic truth would the truth of the pragmatic philosophers and it would relate to human reality and what works.

Kierkegaard's truth: An objective uncertainty held fast in an appropriation process of passionate inwardness.