First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Truth Relativism
20263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / The centroid of a...
Online
Posted 2/8/08
To start things off, let me first explain what I'm talking about. This isn't Einsteins theory of relativity, this is a philosophical one.
Formally named "Truth relativism" is it a doctrine that states:
"There are no absolute truths, truth is always relative to some other frame of reference."

According to this, all of our human beliefs and what we hold to be 'true' are only true under our own frame of reference.

It works quite well with the world, and explains many things, but it doesn't explain one thing. If this doctrine was 'absolutely true' would that not violate itself?
------------

Do you believe in Truth Relativism, and if you do, how would you resolve the problematic paradox above?
9584 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / In Memphis, with...
Offline
Posted 2/8/08
Obviously we would only answer that under our own frame of reference. It is easy to agree with it, but if we go deeper in detail, and thinking about it objectively, it would make much of a difference.Truth relativism applies to itself, due the fact that we are following it, without knowing, or actually follow it completely. It violates itself as a law, yet not as a fact from the points of view.
1185 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 2/8/08

excalion wrote:

To start things off, let me first explain what I'm talking about. This isn't Einsteins theory of relativity, this is a philosophical one.
Formally named "Truth relativism" is it a doctrine that states:
"There are no absolute truths, truth is always relative to some other frame of reference."

According to this, all of our human beliefs and what we hold to be 'true' are only true under our own frame of reference.

It works quite well with the world, and explains many things, but it doesn't explain one thing. If this doctrine was 'absolutely true' would that not violate itself?
------------

Do you believe in Truth Relativism, and if you do, how would you resolve the problematic paradox above?


Was this supposed theory of "truth relativism" made a paradox on purpose? Obviously if somebody is going to proclaim something that challenges millions of other truths then they should at least know to back up its own contradiction.
-_-

Easy as putting "This is the only real truth" however, that is taking the easy route out.
16241 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/8/08
Personally, I believe in that theory. Though in a sense, you can say truths and lies are like the colour black and white...they're a shade. Same applies to truth and lie. Its a shade. theres' never 100% of one, and there's never "100"% of another. Meaning, there will always be black in white, and white in black.

as for that theory being "true" or not. Its really depending on /what/ its not like you can decline the fact that "1+1=2" unless you're saying 2 is lying?

much alike to what the theory is saying; which is "everything is relativity". This "theory" is also the same. you can't label it /just/ truth, but of course, you can't label it /just/ lie.

in a way, all you have to do, is only look at the truth but ignore the /lie/ and thus "truth". Though there's no such thing as "truth" nor "just" because its very relative.
20263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / The centroid of a...
Online
Posted 2/8/08

HayatellAyasaki wrote:

Obviously we would only answer that under our own frame of reference. It is easy to agree with it, but if we go deeper in detail, and thinking about it objectively, it would make much of a difference.Truth relativism applies to itself, due the fact that we are following it, without knowing, or actually follow it completely. It violates itself as a law, yet not as a fact from the points of view.


Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying:

It's logically incoherent yet realistically applicable?
9584 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / In Memphis, with...
Offline
Posted 2/8/08

excalion wrote:


HayatellAyasaki wrote:

Obviously we would only answer that under our own frame of reference. It is easy to agree with it, but if we go deeper in detail, and thinking about it objectively, it would make much of a difference.Truth relativism applies to itself, due the fact that we are following it, without knowing, or actually follow it completely. It violates itself as a law, yet not as a fact from the points of view.


Correct me if I'm wrong but you're saying:

It's logically incoherent yet realistically applicable?


Certainly yes.
20263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / The centroid of a...
Online
Posted 2/8/08

Omok wrote:

Personally, I believe in that theory. Though in a sense, you can say truths and lies are like the colour black and white...they're a shade. Same applies to truth and lie. Its a shade. theres' never 100% of one, and there's never "100"% of another. Meaning, there will always be black in white, and white in black.

as for that theory being "true" or not. Its really depending on /what/ its not like you can decline the fact that "1+1=2" unless you're saying 2 is lying?

much alike to what the theory is saying; which is "everything is relativity". This "theory" is also the same. you can't label it /just/ truth, but of course, you can't label it /just/ lie.

in a way, all you have to do, is only look at the truth but ignore the /lie/ and thus "truth". Though there's no such thing as "truth" nor "just" because its very relative.


The..shady region of 'truth' you are referring to is called 'contingent truths' they are things that may or may not be, and can be right of wrong, we are not sure. An example of this would be like..."there is a teapot in orbit around the sun." Is it true? Probably not. But is it possible? Indeed it is.

But there exists a set of truths that are logically necessity/impossible. Like my example in another thread, there can logically be no such thing as a round square, based on the definitions we give what is 'round' and a definition which we give 'square'. (like your example of 1 + 1 = 2)

So we have to think carefully. Is Truth relativism a logical contingency or a logical necessity/impossibility?

If it is indeed a logical contingency however, then we do not know of its truthfulness. Therefor believing in such a thing is having faith. Now, the parallel I wish to draw is with faith in various other things. Many atheists believe in relativism. Would that not be contradictory?

So point I wish to make: Do we really THINK about all the information we're fed? Or do we just assume it correct if it sounds good, like mindless sheep?
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 2/8/08
You could resolve it by adding the exception of itself, i.e. 'There are no absolutes but this one.'

But it seems more accurate to say that no absolutes are personally known at the moment. Perhaps you or someone else is aware of them, but I am not. Thus it becomes "absolutes may exist, but I do not know them," which is essentially the same as "there are no absolutes" when it comes to the individual. If I don't know them or even that some exist, why should I follow one in particular? The only thing that might change is an attempt to determine an absolute versus an abandonment of the whole affair.

You could also argue that the very notion of an absolute is flawed or that the problem you raise is purely linguistic in nature, like "This sentence is false." Language isn't perfect.
9584 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / In Memphis, with...
Offline
Posted 2/8/08
You will have to seriously think first, what kind of person you are. Frankly, there are two kind of person for me -and I say, 'me.'- The one that believes in what he knows, proven facts usually, and the one that believes in what he thinks is correct.

It is easy to come up, and describe a philosophy. Everybody would agree, and mostly everybody I correct myself. But even if the majority agrees, that doesn't mean it is necessarily absolute. For what I can tell, Truth relativism is a contradiction, and a possibility. I don't know who came up with it. But as a matter of the fact, it is more like a theory, than a law, or something absolutely possible, since it is not concrete if we analyze well.
3824 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / atlantis
Offline
Posted 2/8/08
um im not really understanding this (ne1 wanna clarify :sweatingbullets:) but goin by the post by HayatellAyasaki the first instance im guessing would be like the earth is round, but based on our perception its flat. i mean its not really that stupid that people used to think that the world is flat, its common sense after all.

correct me if im worng here, and sum1 please explain whats goin on here. this sounds like a realy ineresting topic but kinda hard 2 follow
1352 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/8/08
this is actually quite conusing but i sort of understand.

so basically the truth is only true because it fits around what we already know. eg: we know gravity is holding us down because we are not floating off into space.

so long as i'm not getting this completely wrong, truth relativism sounds true to me.

we draw the truth from what we already know, but because everybody is different and percieves everything differently, the 'truth' will vary from person to person, so there cannot be an absolute truth.

as for the paradox, what about a person who doesn't believe in truth realtivism [there's bound to be someone], then it's not an absolute truth anymore, it becomes something that many people hold to be true because of their own experience.

955 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / MA
Offline
Posted 2/8/08
the clear up what hayatehyasaki said, its not a paradox because one can say that the theory is only true in our frame of reference, but not necessarily others, making it true.
20263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / The centroid of a...
Online
Posted 2/8/08

phillia wrote:

as for the paradox, what about a person who doesn't believe in truth realtivism [there's bound to be someone], then it's not an absolute truth anymore, it becomes something that many people hold to be true because of their own experience.



Yes but just because someone doesn't believe 1 + 1 = 2 doesn't meant 1 + 1 =/= 2. As I pointed out before, the important part is figuring out whether this doctrine is Contingent or Necessary. (Read my previous post to find out what those mean.)
20263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / The centroid of a...
Online
Posted 2/8/08

p1491625 wrote:

the clear up what hayatehyasaki said, its not a paradox because one can say that the theory is only true in our frame of reference, but not necessarily others, making it true.


In other words, because humans cannot perfectly perceive 'truths' we state that in our frame of reference, there is no absolute truth.

^ That statement is still an absolute truth if indeed we cannot perceive 'truths'
955 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / MA
Offline
Posted 2/8/08

excalion wrote:


p1491625 wrote:

the clear up what hayatehyasaki said, its not a paradox because one can say that the theory is only true in our frame of reference, but not necessarily others, making it true.


In other words, because humans cannot perfectly perceive 'truths' we state that in our frame of reference, there is no absolute truth.

^ That statement is still an absolute truth if indeed we cannot perceive 'truths'


thats not true, its basically saying that its true to us because of our frame of reference, but may not be to others because they are not of the same frame.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.