First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Truth Relativism
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Online
Posted 2/8/08

p1491625 wrote:


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.


Yes I know, and that in itself is an absolute truth. (its true to us because of our frame of reference, but may not be to others because they are not of the same frame.) If we cannot perceive absolute truths, how can we perceive this?
6212 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / US
Offline
Posted 2/8/08
The question you raise is if relativism is inconstant, or self-refuting.

Something to keep in mind...
"lack of consensus about exactly what relativism asserts is one reason for the unsatisfactory character of much of the debate about its coherence and plausibility." (iep)
...and as such, realizing there are various forms of relativism, it will take significantly more discussion and detail than a few lines to get anywhere worthwhile.


Though, briefly I may roughly present my position. Obviously there is a difference between the way things are and the way we might suppose things to be. Again, reality and the facts of the matter (for example, the sun is bigger than the earth) do not depend on us. But, I don't have much of a problem admitting that we can only think or state truths in our own frames of reference.
This post seems to expound on my position:
http://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/07/truth-and-relativism.html


If you would like to look into the self-refutation matter further here are some resources:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/cog-rel.htm#SH5a
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/#5.9
1834 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / U.K
Offline
Posted 2/8/08
Truth is strange, can anything be true if we don't see it with our own eyes? If someone tells you 'the sun is bigger than the Earth' you know, based on information you already know, that it is true. But you don't know its true. You haven't seen, with your own eyes, that the sun if bigger. Indeed, from Earth it appears smaller. So who says its bigger? Science? Is science not theory based on information that was already percieved to be 'truth' it would be possible for me, typing at this computer, to say that nothing else exists except what I can see now. Do I have proof otherwise? I can't see anything else, so does it exist? Do I even know that this message, which I'm typing, is seen by others, when there's no proof I'm that I'm not the only person alive?
955 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / MA
Offline
Posted 2/8/08

excalion wrote:


p1491625 wrote:


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.


Yes I know, and that in itself is an absolute truth. (its true to us because of our frame of reference, but may not be to others because they are not of the same frame.) If we cannot perceive absolute truths, how can we perceive this?


thats the point tho, its not an abosolute truth because our frames of reference can change, and others may not be of the same frame, so it may only be true to us, and only during a certain time, meaning that its not an absolute truth, yet still applicable
Posted 2/8/08
Well it's all subjective.

I believe but to a certain extenct.

You can live your life
thinking that way but questioning
the truths will get irritating after a while.

So yeah
bottom line,
good post.

Really made me think.
What's your view on existentialism?

20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Online
Posted 2/8/08

Jozephz wrote:

Truth is strange, can anything be true if we don't see it with our own eyes? If someone tells you 'the sun is bigger than the Earth' you know, based on information you already know, that it is true. But you don't know its true. You haven't seen, with your own eyes, that the sun if bigger. Indeed, from Earth it appears smaller. So who says its bigger? Science? Is science not theory based on information that was already percieved to be 'truth' it would be possible for me, typing at this computer, to say that nothing else exists except what I can see now. Do I have proof otherwise? I can't see anything else, so does it exist? Do I even know that this message, which I'm typing, is seen by others, when there's no proof I'm that I'm not the only person alive?


Read Descartes:
Here's a link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes#Philosophical_work
1028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Singapore
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?


If you put it that way, then yes, it would violate itself.

But joke aside, no. The conclusion does not necessirily violate itself to be true.

And yes, I believe it. I also believe there's no such thing as objectivity in this world. I have two eyes, I can only see and feel through them. Other people eyes are not mine and I can't see with them. I can sympethize and empathize (damn my spellling), but they too have limits.
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 2/9/08

bruevitz wrote:

And yes, I believe it. I also believe there's no such thing as objectivity in this world. I have two eyes, I can only see and feel through them. Other people eyes are not mine and I can't see with them. I can sympethize and empathize (damn my spellling), but they too have limits.


Right. What we call objectivity is just a strong majority of a collection of subjective views that seem to be the same. Perhaps I see blue when you see green, but it doesn't matter; the systems still function effectively even without individual differences, provided the individual labels his perceptions consistently. What we can't have is certainty in this objective system, since it excludes difference (as does any system) that may be equally legitimate, though the very idea of granting "legitimacy" to something we perceive is arrogant in itself. In other words, there's no absolute objectivity... of which I'm currently aware. If we refrain from arguing that absolutes cannot exist (arguments could be made), we can state at best only that "I" do not perceive absolutes "at this moment." The Self and the Present - after all, who's to say that someone else doesn't know an absolute, or that I won't in the future?
1834 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / U.K
Offline
Posted 2/9/08

excalion wrote:


Jozephz wrote:

Truth is strange, can anything be true if we don't see it with our own eyes? If someone tells you 'the sun is bigger than the Earth' you know, based on information you already know, that it is true. But you don't know its true. You haven't seen, with your own eyes, that the sun if bigger. Indeed, from Earth it appears smaller. So who says its bigger? Science? Is science not theory based on information that was already percieved to be 'truth' it would be possible for me, typing at this computer, to say that nothing else exists except what I can see now. Do I have proof otherwise? I can't see anything else, so does it exist? Do I even know that this message, which I'm typing, is seen by others, when there's no proof I'm that I'm not the only person alive?


Read Descartes:
Here's a link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes#Philosophical_work


That's damn interesting, but it seems to me there are a few flaws in his argument on the existence of the external world. Obviously I've only read the article, so I don't know how deep the theory goes, but looking at it he seems to base his argument on the assumption that the external world 'comes to him involuntarily' and is not 'willed by him' and thus, something else exists. This argument seems fine, but what if I ask this question:

What if *you* are God?

By 'you' I mean Descartes himself, but also myself and every other human. What if you are the creator, and have created the world as an escape from your own mind? This sounds pretty abstract, but its a simple concept.
Lets say, Descartes is God. He is all powerful, and decides to create something that will stop his boredom (it dosen't have to be this reason, this is just the easiest to understand) He decides to create a world within his own mind, splitting his own conciousness and locking a small part of it within different areas of this imagined world. Therefore, the senses Descartes feels are not 'willed by him' because he is only one small part of God's mind, the rest is seperate from him and so he does not know that what he feels is created by the greater whole of himself.
7281 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Mars
Offline
Posted 2/9/08
First glance Einstein but then again his discovery was E=mc2 ....anyways we as a people living in the earth must face the fact taht anime exist....hehehehe
336 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / City of Hearts
Offline
Posted 2/9/08
truth as relative.

where you stand, so you see. we call it perspective. In perspective, each participant has grasped certain manifestation of reality, but not the whole truth of that reality.It is when these participants share what they "grasped" that their knowledge of such a reality is enrich. "Relativity of truth" does not necessarily deny a reality called truth. It simply points out that any form of "totalization" is dangerous and divisive.

in the history of philosophy we study the giant thinkers like Kant and Hegel who attempted to (re)construct epistemological systems.
likewise we listen to the lectures of Ryle on the Ghost of the Machine, Rorty's contingecy of language, selfhood, and community, and other post-modernists like Derrida and Habermas and their historic debate.




Posted 2/9/08

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

Scientific method flatly refutes this. I think that you'll find that the laws of science hold up regardless who's "frame of reference" is involved in the experiments.

Additionally, what sort of moral beliefs people have do have measurable effects on society. Therefore there is absolute truth.

This relativistic stuff is just a bunch of crap made up by people in a lame attempt to justify their amoralism.
962 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / dgs
Offline
Posted 2/9/08
this will mean my response exist in relativity to other threads.

if the majority dictates it as truth, is the truth really true?

after all, the world is once flat.

Or, tall only exist if there is short.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Online
Posted 2/11/08

shibole wrote:


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

Scientific method flatly refutes this. I think that you'll find that the laws of science hold up regardless who's "frame of reference" is involved in the experiments.

Additionally, what sort of moral beliefs people have do have measurable effects on society. Therefore there is absolute truth.

This relativistic stuff is just a bunch of crap made up by people in a lame attempt to justify their amoralism.


How do you define laws of science? You mean like how people thought the world was flat?
Posted 2/11/08

excalion wrote:


shibole wrote:


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

Scientific method flatly refutes this. I think that you'll find that the laws of science hold up regardless who's "frame of reference" is involved in the experiments.


How do you define laws of science? You mean like how people thought the world was flat?

I mean physical properties discovered and proven using experiments that are reproducible. For example, chemical reactions. These things don't change depending on your "frame of reference." The same two chemicals will react the same way and produce the same results regardless of who mixes them together.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.