|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Truth Claims
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
From a discussion that started in Hell:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In your terms, I care about being pedantic. In my terms, I care about truth. Is this the way to win hearts or even minds? No. But I'm not here to do that either. I'm here to work out truth by talking about it, partly because I need to work out some truths, partly because I rather enjoy being right about things - in particular when other people are wrong about things.
Most truth is constructed within social interaction, so how you interact is integral to the truth you create.
Your ontological claims usually involve a belief in an unchanging externality that interacts in fundamentally inflexible ways - this is particularly problematic when you chose to debate and discuss topics that are predicated almost entirely on subjective experience.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Most truth is constructed within social interaction, so how you interact is integral to the truth you create.
Truth is neither created nor constructed. Truth is simply the accord of mental concept with actual reality. It is a kind of measure. Truth is hence essentially independent of provenance and circumstance. Arriving at mental concepts is not. This is unfortunate, because it taints the process of arriving at truth with inessentials. Any serious quest for truth hence leads to social constructs that precisely try to remove the influence of provenance and circumstance as much as possible.
(And yes, this includes religion in general and the Christian religion in particular. Christianity is from Christ, but that's not the "provenance" bit, that is the "truth" bit. The question is how one receives this truth. How one receives the truth of Christ without taint is one the biggest concerns for all Christians.)
However, SoF is not an institution dedicated to the pursuit of truth. It does not have the proper structure for that. It is a place of "free-for-all" discussion, which places no particular restriction on motivation, merely enforces some behavioral norms. If I decide to use this format for some truth testing, then I'm entirely within my rights to do so. If you do not profit from that, then you can complain to the extent that I have agreed to provide services to you, i.e., not ... at ... all.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Your ontological claims usually involve a belief in an unchanging externality that interacts in fundamentally inflexible ways - this is particularly problematic when you chose to debate and discuss topics that are predicated almost entirely on subjective experience.
In other words, you believe in a God and Christ of your own making, who will change with your moods and preferences. It is your prerogative to worship your imagination, as long as you are willing to die with the eternal consequences on your head. I have precisely zero interest in your kind of religion though. Never had, never will. And no, this is not a rejection of "experience". All science ("science" in the old sense of the word) is founded on experience. And my religious convictions are founded on my experiences. The question is however what one does with one's experiences.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I'm always surprised when people make claims about truth and reality; as far as I can see, science does not, except for 'truth' in a kind of intra-theoretic sense.
I would have thought that all views about reality are guesses really; this is not to impugn them though! There is simply no way of establishing what reality is.
Then truth is often defined as a kind of correspondence to reality, so the same problem arises.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Most truth is constructed within social interaction, so how you interact is integral to the truth you create.
Truth is neither created nor constructed. Truth is simply the accord of mental concept with actual reality. It is a kind of measure. Truth is hence essentially independent of provenance and circumstance. Arriving at mental concepts is not. This is unfortunate, because it taints the process of arriving at truth with inessentials.
This is precisely what I would dispute. I am not simply talking about religious ideas.
IngoB - first tell me something you consider to be true about the everyday physical world.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I suppose the question is what is truth supposed to be a property of? i.e. are we talking about true statements, true ideas?
ISTM obvious that there can never be a completely true statement or a completely true idea, at least among humans, simply because both are limited by the structure of language and the structure of the brain respectively.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Having said that I don't know what 'truth is socially constructed' means either.
My feeling is that people say a statement is true if it's good enough for their purpose. What their purpose is may depend on society, but I'm not sure if that's what's meant ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Immediate and simple experience helps. Get someone to punch in the nose. You will truly feel it. As we get beyond simple experiences, we begin to construct representations of what the experience is, whether a sensory experience, a thought or a feeling. If I recall, there is a huge world of philosophy that started the quest to understand this, followed by cognitive science and neuroscience.
We unfortunately appear to be devolving to the level that actual factual information can be disputed and get airtime. With statements like 'your truth is not my truth', and for example, ideas that civilizations and innovations arose in different places within different cultures than they actually did. We also have governments suppressing factual information due to excessive corporate pressure, e.g., re global warming,to attain short term economic goals. Truth is what will sell something in many instances.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
IngoB - first tell me something you consider to be true about the everyday physical world.
Sure. At the time of typing this, I am sitting on a chair at roughly half a meter distance to an LCD monitor, which is displaying your request. I find it to be written in the English language, and interpret it accordingly. My answer will be sent to you when I have moved a physical object called a "mouse" such that its graphical representation called a "cursor" rests on the "Add reply" button, and I press a button on this mouse that is to the left and front of it (relative to me holding it). The mapping consist essentially in tracking the physical location of the mouse on the table, in this case by changes in the optical reflection of red light from the "mouse pad" beneath it, and translating them to different locations on the screen. The mapping is performed by a vast array of machinery, central to which are objects called CPU and GPU, respectively. These objects manipulate electrical currents in intricate ways by virtue of a vast number transistors, which act as a kind of switch and are based on doped semiconductors. They implement something called binary logic. I move the mouse by moving my right arm. This movement is powered by muscles extending and relaxing in a complicated fashion, orchestrated by barrages of electrical impulses, so called "action potentials" that travel through nerve fibres as a wave of imbalances in ion concentrations. These originate ultimately in the so called primary motor cortex of the brain. I could go on, but there is a time shown to me on the bottom right of my LCD monitor, which is regularly updated by contacting an caesium fountain atomic clock, which ultimately detects the passing of time based on radiation emitted in transitions in caesium atoms. Caesium atoms have 55 protons in their nucleus. But I was trying to say that it would take a very long time indeed to list all the truths I know about reality, and I have been rabbiting on for far too long already. Rabbits are by the way a kind of mammal, and ...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
IngoB - first tell me something you consider to be true about the everyday physical world.
Sure. At the time of typing this, I am sitting on a chair at roughly half a meter distance to an LCD monitor, which is displaying your request. I find it to be written in the English language, and interpret it accordingly.
"But," as my grandmother used to say, "wellbut."
What you claim you consider to be true -- about where you're sitting, etc. -- isn't verifiable for those not present in the room with you as you type. You could, unlikely as it seems, consider the above to be true when in fact you were standing over the keyboard and were only a third of a meter away, etc. And all that before we even get to identifying Doublethink's words as a "request" (How do we know it's not an order or demand?), or identifying the language as English.
And then we get to the real troublemaker: interpreting (the language) accordingly . . .
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
The problem here is that any truth claims need a context within which they are considered true. That is the ontological framework in which your claims can be considered to be true. The basis of the framework cannot be considered to be true or false because you would have to define another ontological framework to argue for their truth.
Your ontological framework is based on faith and belief, and nothing else. This is not to disparage it at all, or imply that the truths that you argue within the framework are not true, the point is that your definition of "truth" is also ontologically defined (usually involving being demonstrable within the framework).
In the end, there is no objective truth. What there is, critically, is truth claims that work and can relate to the context in which you are making them. In other words, rather than making "objective" claims for truth, it is fair to say "if you accept this ontological framework, then this can be true". And yes, ontological frameworks are cultural, that is, they do not always cross cultural boundaries.
The thing is, that is how everything in life works. Accepting this, and working with other peoples ontologies is the way we normally cope with life, and how we will continue to cope with life. It is not a problem, until you start making universal objective claims. this has become more of an issue in the last few decades, because the range of consistent ontological frameworks that we experience has rocketed. This means that ignoring the cultural differences is no longer possible.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Porridge
What you claim you consider to be true -- about where you're sitting, etc. -- isn't verifiable for those not present in the room with you as you type. You could, unlikely as it seems, consider the above to be true when in fact you were standing over the keyboard and were only a third of a meter away, etc
That would just make Ingo's statements false rather than true. It wouldn't mean that they had a truth constructed by social interaction.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What 'eternal consequences' IngoB ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus
ISTM obvious that there can never be a completely true statement or a completely true idea, at least among humans, simply because both are limited by the structure of language and the structure of the brain respectively.
Is the above statement true or not?
How exactly are you expecting us to respond to your comment, if "there can never be a completely true statement"?
If it is obvious that "there can never be a completely true statement or a completely true idea", then it follows logically that we can never even assert such a thing without self-contradiction!!
Or are you making a special exception of your insight?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Sez ingob
quote:
All science ("science" in the old sense of the word) is founded on experience. And my religious convictions are founded on my experiences. The question is however what one does with one's experiences.
Science is ultimately experience repeatable and verifiable by anyone. No religion as yet meets rigour. It is all subjective, while there indeed might be a TRUTH, it as yet has not manifest itself in a manner verifiable.
[ 06. December 2012, 18:27: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
Science is ultimately experience repeatable and verifiable by anyone. No religion as yet meets rigour. It is all subjective, while there indeed might be a TRUTH, it as yet has not manifest itself in a manner verifiable.
It depends what you mean by 'science', because certainly not all supposedly scientific claims are repeatable and verifiable by observation and experimentation (e.g. the conjectures concerning every stage of the putative evolutionary process).
It depends what you mean by 'religion'.
It depends what you mean by 'subjective' (if all our thoughts and ideas originate in nothing more than biochemical reactions, then they are all subjective anyway - including absurdly even the idea of 'objectivity').
It depends what you mean by 'verifiable', because there are different theories and methods of verification. The empirical is only one such method.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
IngoB - first tell me something you consider to be true about the everyday physical world.
Sure. At the time of typing this, I am sitting on a chair at roughly half a meter distance to an LCD monitor, which is displaying your request. I find it to be written in the English language, and interpret it accordingly. My answer will be sent to you when I have moved a physical object called a "mouse" such that its graphical representation called a "cursor" rests on the "Add reply" button, and I press a button on this mouse that is to the left and front of it (relative to me holding it). The mapping consist essentially in tracking the physical location of the mouse on the table, in this case by changes in the optical reflection of red light from the "mouse pad" beneath it, and translating them to different locations on the screen. The mapping is performed by a vast array of machinery, central to which are objects called CPU and GPU, respectively. These objects manipulate electrical currents in intricate ways by virtue of a vast number transistors, which act as a kind of switch and are based on doped semiconductors. They implement something called binary logic. I move the mouse by moving my right arm. This movement is powered by muscles extending and relaxing in a complicated fashion, orchestrated by barrages of electrical impulses, so called "action potentials" that travel through nerve fibres as a wave of imbalances in ion concentrations. These originate ultimately in the so called primary motor cortex of the brain. I could go on, but there is a time shown to me on the bottom right of my LCD monitor, which is regularly updated by contacting an caesium fountain atomic clock, which ultimately detects the passing of time based on radiation emitted in transitions in caesium atoms. Caesium atoms have 55 protons in their nucleus. But I was trying to say that it would take a very long time indeed to list all the truths I know about reality, and I have been rabbiting on for far too long already. Rabbits are by the way a kind of mammal, and ...
I will pick three principle questions to be going on with:
How do you know it is a chair ? (As opposed, for example, to a stool or a table.)
You say that 'you' moved the mouse, given that we have a current scientific consensus that brain activity to enact a movement often precedes the consciousness of choosing to move - how are are you constructing your understanding of 'you' and does it vary dependent on the conversation you are engaged in ?
To what extent do you accept that theorising about sub-atomic particles (which can also be conceptualised as waves) is a social constructed endeavor and how does that effect its status as truth in your view ?
[ 06. December 2012, 19:31: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
What you claim you consider to be true -- about where you're sitting, etc. -- isn't verifiable for those not present in the room with you as you type.
That is true (<-- did you notice the word?), but I was not talking about "verifiability". I was talking about "some things I consider to be true about the everyday physical world," in response to Doublethink's request.
There is a completely misguided industry of projecting academic difficulties with determining truth on everyday truth. In particular, the attitude appears to be that if something cannot be demonstrated to everybody beyond every conceivable (not reasonable) doubt, then it is not "properly true". That is ridiculous bullshit. And as I said on the Hell thread, I refute it simply by brewing a cup of coffee. Now, our truth doubters can of course doubt everything about that process. It is highly involved, requiring all sort of physical, chemical, biological, technological, cultural, experiential, ... truths to hold. But then I doubt that the doubters deserve my coffee. They can just piss off and buy one in the nearest coffee shop, by momentarily overcoming their doubts about the financial and social truths involved in paying for such services.
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
In the end, there is no objective truth.
There obviously is objective truth. It is for example an objective truth that human beings exist. There exists no valid human "framework" that denies the existence of human beings. Where somebody declares that there are no human beings, he shows himself to be insane. But it goes further than this, we can even judge "frameworks" according to how they incorporate this objective truth. When a Nazi declares that Jews are not human beings, then this is objectively false. It is not merely a case of opinion against opinion. And while it is obviously useful for me in defending this claim against a Nazi, if I have a clear definition of what a human being is (e.g., "a rational animal"), this is not the first step. Rather such a definition is a cognitive derivative from a prior realization, which as such can be quite vague and yet objectively true. One can know "these Jews are humans" without being able to formulate a water-tight definition of what one means by that. And still this is an objective truth one holds, however vaguely.
The core problem here is that there is a "mental atom" involved in "seeing truth". We rely fundamentally on a human capability. One cannot, ever, mechanistically prove truth. (Even computer systems working with axioms and rule sets to automatically construct mathematical proofs require an acceptance of their axioms and rule sets, as well as of their intact workings, in order to have their proofs seen to be true.) In the end there will always be this gap that asks "See?" and a human response that answers "Yes, I see."
The whole postmodernist and subjectivist nonsense arises from just this. The idea is that because one cannot mechanize the human person out of this truth realizing process, and because humans are error-prone, truth somehow is fundamentally indeterminate, subjective, and so forth. What rubbish. That is like saying that because windows can be dirty and scratched, and some can be very dirt and very scratched, one can never really see anything through a window. Rather, one can see plenty through windows, and much of it quite easily and clearly, even through badly scratched and rather dirty windows. However, if there is something which is really very hard to see, then obviously it helps a lot to have many windows to look at it, and by a process of systematic comparison and elimination, to determine which window presents the clearest and best view. One such process for human truth is the scientific method.
Postmodernism and subjectivism are attacks on a core dignity, perhaps the core dignity of the human being. They belittle human understanding drastically. They pretend that universal truth based on humans is fundamentally "not good enough". By what standards? Says who? Humans claim this, and as a truth! It is self-contradictory dehumanizing nonsense. It has no intellectual value, because it denies all intellectual value. It is immoral, because it arbitrary. It would require combating as a deadly ideology, except that nobody actually believes in it. It is totally sterile, and apart from the artificial propagation in the academe has no life. Nobody, but nobody, lives by this nonsense. Not even the insane.
I will now have to walk home through shit weather. How I wish that this was just a truth according to some arbitrary mental framework that I have constructed. Unfortunately, the wind and the rain do not give a shit about postmodernism, they will be objectively in my face. Reality sucks, but steadfastly refuses to be non-actual.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The problem here is that any truth claims need a context within which they are considered true. That is the ontological framework in which your claims can be considered to be true. The basis of the framework cannot be considered to be true or false because you would have to define another ontological framework to argue for their truth.
Your ontological framework is based on faith and belief, and nothing else. This is not to disparage it at all, or imply that the truths that you argue within the framework are not true, the point is that your definition of "truth" is also ontologically defined (usually involving being demonstrable within the framework).
I am not sure what you're using the word 'ontological' to mean, but I feel it's not what I expect it to mean.
I think you're confusing two sets of questions here, which can be summarised as questions about the sense of assertions and questions about the reference of those assertions. Everything you're saying is probably true about the sense of the assertions that we make. However, our sentences are also about something, and they are true or false or good enough for purpose etc depends upon the world as is. (Whether you count mongooses as cats or not depends upon your cultural reference, but given that whether there's one in the room with you is up to the world.) Cultural frameworks propose; the world disposes.
It has to be this way. Otherwise, there's no way to translate between cultural frameworks. The only way in which cultural frameworks can be translated at all is if there is something common to both and part of neither that can be used as a point of comparison.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Most truth is constructed within social interaction, so how you interact is integral to the truth you create.
The word 'truth' there should set alarm bells ringing. 'Truth' is an abstract noun formed from the adjective 'true'. Talking about 'truth' as if it is constructed or created, as if it's obvious what that means is tricky. (*) There's a risk that the reason you're not finding something that corresponds to what you're calling 'truth' is that you're setting up the problem so that you're looking for the wrong kind of thing.
(*) And aren't 'constructed' and 'created' somewhat incompatible metaphors? The one implies building something out of preset parts, while the other implies a lot more flexibility in both materials and outcome.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If it is obvious that "there can never be a completely true statement or a completely true idea", then it follows logically that we can never even assert such a thing without self-contradiction!!
Or are you making a special exception of your insight?
Bingo. This is what philosophers who reject post-structuralism call "the performative contradiction." In other words, performing the speech-act "there is no objective truth" is a contradiction.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But it goes further than this, we can even judge "frameworks" according to how they incorporate this objective truth. When a Nazi declares that Jews are not human beings, then this is objectively false. It is not merely a case of opinion against opinion. And while it is obviously useful for me in defending this claim against a Nazi, if I have a clear definition of what a human being is (e.g., "a rational animal"), this is not the first step. Rather such a definition is a cognitive derivative from a prior realization, which as such can be quite vague and yet objectively true. One can know "these Jews are humans" without being able to formulate a water-tight definition of what one means by that. And still this is an objective truth one holds, however vaguely.
[...]
Postmodernism and subjectivism are attacks on a core dignity, perhaps the core dignity of the human being. They belittle human understanding drastically. They pretend that universal truth based on humans is fundamentally "not good enough". By what standards? Says who? Humans claim this, and as a truth! It is self-contradictory dehumanizing nonsense. It has no intellectual value, because it denies all intellectual value. It is immoral, because it arbitrary. It would require combating as a deadly ideology, except that nobody actually believes in it. It is totally sterile, and apart from the artificial propagation in the academe has no life. Nobody, but nobody, lives by this nonsense. Not even the insane.
It's one of the very strange quirks of late-20th-century academia that people who purport to be quite progressive (i.e., the variety of post-structuralists found in the average group of literary theorists) end up with radically conservative or even reactionary views in most cultures. It becomes impossible to condemn moral wrongs, because, well, they're moral rights in some discourse.
Political philosopher Martha Nussbaum has very interesting discussions of this in some of her papers. She could be described as roughly a left-wing Aristotelian, which is why much of what she says conforms to where you're coming from, IngoB. I don't often agree with you, I have to say, but you've absolutely nailed it in this context.
A classic anecdote from one of Nussbaum's papers: "The same French anthropologist now delivers her paper. She expresses regret that the introduction of smallpox vaccination to India by the British eradicated the cult of Sittala Devi, the goddess to whom one used to pray in order to avert smallpox. Here, she says, is another example of Westernneglect of difference. Someone (it might have been me) objects that it is surely better to be healthy rather than ill, to live rather than to die. The answer comes back: Western essentialist medicine conceives of things in terms of binary oppositions: life is opposed to death, health to disease. But if we cast away this binary way of thinking, we will begin to comprehend the otherness of Indian traditions. At this point Eric Hobsbawm [a Marxist historian, for those wondering], who has been listening to the proceedings in increasingly uneasy silence, rises to deliver a blistering indictment of the
traditionalism and relativism that prevail in this group. He lists historical examples of ways in which appeals to tradition have been used to support oppression and violence. His final example is that of National Socialism in Germany. In the confusion that ensues, most of the relativist social scientists—above all those from far away, who do not know who Hobsbawm is—
demand that he be asked to leave the room."
At least real leftists and real conservatives can agree that there is a content to moral claims, even if they disagree on whether the content of various claims is true.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
How do you know it is a chair ? (As opposed, for example, to a stool or a table.)
A chair is an object invented, designed and manufactured by humans to serve a particular purpose. In consequence, it has particular features that distinguish it from a stool and a table, which are objects with different purposes and hence different features (though obviously a stool is fairly close in purpose to a chair). My actual chair for example does have armrests, as well as a back and a raised sitting surface which are contoured to fit the human body well in sitting. All this makes my chair well suited for its purpose. You can of course use my chair as a makeshift table. But it will be a lot less suitable for this purpose than actual tables. That is an objective truth, which is easily verifiable in practice. Hence it is a chair that can serve as a makeshift table, not a table that can serve as a makeshift chair.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
You say that 'you' moved the mouse, given that we have a current scientific consensus that brain activity to enact a movement often precedes the consciousness of choosing to move - how are are you constructing your understanding of 'you' and does it vary dependent on the conversation you are engaged in?
I wouldn't consider the rather lively and definitely ongoing debate since Libet as a "consensus". Personally, I'm not a materialist but a hylemorphic dualist, and zero problems arise for my concept of the human mind from this. But anyhow, we were not discussing consciousness. It is totally irrelevant for the objective truth that I did in fact move my mouse to click the "Add reply" button that there are uncertainties about the "neural implementation" of this "I". That simply happened. It is also totally irrelevant for my experience of deciding to click the mouse button. That experience, while obviously not "shareable" other than in description, also simply happened. That I had this subjective experience is an objective truth. You can find matters in which I am not sure about the objective truth. And how consciousness relates to neurons is definitely among those. But I have never declared to be in the possession of all truth. Indeed, I have not even made any claims about what truths are knowable. I merely stated that some truths can be known, and I've given examples.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
To what extent do you accept that theorising about sub-atomic particles (which can also be conceptualised as waves) is a social constructed endeavor and how does that effect its status as truth in your view?
This would require a lengthy discussion to do it justice. However, to simplify: modern science constructs models, and only models. Models never make "total truth" claims. By design, models captures specific aspects in the world, within a specific range of phenomena. Furthermore, by design models map this to a conceptual space that we find easier to manipulate (in many cases, but certainly not in all, to mathematics). The claim of some quantum mechanical prediction of transitions of an atom is hence not really that there is such a transition, but that whatever may actually be there can be usefully described as such a transition.
So in some sense, modern science is more like the act of designing a chair for the purpose of sitting on it. One is merely designing a model for the purpose of predicting nature with it. By the same logic of functional purpose as above, one hence can make objective truth claims about such models. For example, it is objectively true the Einstein's theory of gravitation is better than Newton's, simply because the former provides more and better predictions of what happens in nature than the latter.
I think this basically takes the sting out of your question. Yes, we can talk about all sorts of social processes that shape how people go about designing models of nature. But this simply adds some additional objective truths, namely about social determinants of model construction, it does not invalidate the objective truths about the functionality of the models that exist.
However, I do believe that one can push objective truth based on nature beyond what modern science attempts. I do believe that metaphysics makes valid truth claims. Furthermore, I even believe that based on the raw material of models that modern science provides, we can realize objective truths about nature that one would normally associate with natural science rather than metaphysics. For example, whatever else one might say, it is clear that at the level of photons and electrons phenomena occur, that cannot be captured by thinking about them as just a wave or a ball in our everyday experience. We at least know, for sure, that extraordinary things happen at these scales. That is an objective truth in the older sense of "natural science discovers truths about the world".
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat
In the end, there is no objective truth.
And that includes the above comment.
C S Lewis hit the nail on the head about subjectivists:
quote:
We are always prevented from accepting total scepticism because it can be formulated only by making a tacit exception in favour of the thought we are thinking at the moment - just as the man who warns the newcomer 'Don't trust anyone in this office' always expects you to trust him at that moment.
(From 'De Futilitate', Christian Reflections)
If objective truth doesn't exist, then we could never logically say such a thing, because if truth is an illusion then so is the assertion that truth is an illusion - otherwise we would be expected to believe a statement to be true in a universe in which truth does not exist!
This for me is the strongest proof that total subjectivism is total nonsense.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So why do you believe things that by no meaningful criteria are true, or necessary for salvation IngoB ?
110 marks out of 10 as usual for rhetoric mate, but, er, it's not the truth, is it ?
Your truth is HIGHLY personal, completely subjective, non-transferable, like anyone else's.
Beyond trivia like sense experience and reason and a smidgin of faith.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
Others have alluded to the inherent self-contradiction of a philosophy which states as a fact that objective truth cannot be known, or does not exist - I won't labour the point. But it may be worth considering the implications of that postmodern viewpoint when applied to Christianity - as it is increasingly widespread in the church.
I would suggest that a key function of the Holy Spirit is to lead us into 'all truth' - primarily, the truth of the gospel message. It is very much an objective truth, and it is essential that we grasp it.
Like the other postmodernists, churchgoers of the 'Emergent' persuasion assert that objective truth cannot be known. Interesting one: the only logical conclusions of such a belief is that God is unable or unwilling to reveal objective truth to us….or that he has created us with an inability to grasp it. The Emergent God is therefore limited or obstructive when it comes to ‘truth’ (something we may have previously thought he was big on) or he’s just unreasonable - expecting us to respond to the objective truth about himself, even though he’s fully aware that we cannot comprehend it.
Superficially, at least, this would represent a serious departure from orthodoxy. The implications are far-ranging – especially in terms of how people understand God, and how they relate to him. But I don’t suppose many of them have thought the issue through. I expect this strange view of God is merely an inescapable outcome of what they subscribe to, rather than part of a ‘joined-up’ theology.
The rejection of the objective truth concept may be attractive or fashionable, but it is also self-contradictory and pretty-much impossible to square with a self-revealing God.
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Like the other postmodernists, churchgoers of the 'Emergent' persuasion assert that objective truth cannot be known. Interesting one: the only logical conclusions of such a belief is that God is unable or unwilling to reveal objective truth to us….or that he has created us with an inability to grasp it. The Emergent God is therefore limited or obstructive when it comes to ‘truth’ (something we may have previously thought he was big on) or he’s just unreasonable - expecting us to respond to the objective truth about himself, even though he’s fully aware that we cannot comprehend it.
Nah, that god is just a recyled demiurge from the gnostics. A semi-divine secondary god, like a Brian, "He's not God, he's just a very naughty boy", or maybe like Q
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I have to admit, I don't understand what is meant by objective truth. Does 'objective' mean something that would be true, even if there were no conscious beings? Or something that everyone agrees is true?
I just can't get outside the subjective point of view of all these statements; I can't utter something objectively; I can't experience something objectively; I can't live in the third person.
Well, I must be missing something.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
the first definition
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I suppose I see declarations of truth as performatives - I hereby state that this is the truth. Hence, this cannot be stated, without a performer, who is a subject.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I have to admit, I don't understand what is meant by objective truth. Does 'objective' mean something that would be true, even if there were no conscious beings?
Yes, unless you're counting God under the heading "conscious beings," in which case I'm not sure.
But if I were to say "it is an objective truth that the speed of light is constant, in the sense that it has not changed, either before or after the existence of conscious beings," would that answer the question? Our knowledge of the speed of light has changed, the numbers and words we use to discuss and define it are human creations, but the actual speed of light has not changed.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I have to admit, I don't understand what is meant by objective truth. Does 'objective' mean something that would be true, even if there were no conscious beings?
Yes, unless you're counting God under the heading "conscious beings," in which case I'm not sure.
But if I were to say "it is an objective truth that the speed of light is constant, in the sense that it has not changed, either before or after the existence of conscious beings," would that answer the question? Our knowledge of the speed of light has changed, the numbers and words we use to discuss and define it are human creations, but the actual speed of light has not changed.
So you are saying that this is true, even if no-one knows it to be true? I find that weird.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fëanor
Shipmate
# 14514
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Like the other postmodernists, churchgoers of the 'Emergent' persuasion assert that objective truth cannot be known. Interesting one: the only logical conclusions of such a belief is that God is unable or unwilling to reveal objective truth to us….or that he has created us with an inability to grasp it.
This is not, strictly speaking, true. It could be argued that our inability to grasp objective truth is a consequence of the fall. Given this, the rest of your comments on the "Emergent God" and "orthodoxy" don't hold a lot of water.
Posts: 177 | From: Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I have to admit, I don't understand what is meant by objective truth. Does 'objective' mean something that would be true, even if there were no conscious beings? Or something that everyone agrees is true?
A statement is objectively true or false if its truth or falsity depends upon the thing it is about rather than upon the state of the one making the statement.
(It is hard to see what 'subjectively true' means - if you can't be wrong about something then you can't be right either.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Is the above statement true or not?
How exactly are you expecting us to respond to your comment, if "there can never be a completely true statement"?
If it is obvious that "there can never be a completely true statement or a completely true idea", then it follows logically that we can never even assert such a thing without self-contradiction!!
Or are you making a special exception of your insight?
I would suggest reading the post immediately after the one you quoted.
I think absolute truth, in the sense of a statement that corresponds exactly, point-for-point to the world, is unobtainable simply by the nature of language and the brain, but that doesn't mean you can't have better or worse approximations to the truth.
There is a short story by Borges about an empire that insists on absolute accuracy in cartography, and therefore creates a map of the empire that is the same size as the empire, and corresponds to it point for point. The point being that a completely accurate map is impossible. However, for most purposes an A to Z at a scale of 1:(something big) is good enough, and can be called true for the purpose for which I am using it.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
To address EE's question directly: the hypothesis a.) "There can never be a completely true statement" is more likely to lead to useful results than b.) "There can be a completely true statement".
Evidence: a.) is the basis of Karl Popper's principle of falsifiability in the scientific method.
Ergo it is true in a pragmatic sense. Whether or not it's true in an 'absolute' sense is irrelevant because it's a pragmatic concept of truth that I'm arguing for.
[ 07. December 2012, 07:50: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I have to admit, I don't understand what is meant by objective truth. Does 'objective' mean something that would be true, even if there were no conscious beings? Or something that everyone agrees is true?
A statement is objectively true or false if its truth or falsity depends upon the thing it is about rather than upon the state of the one making the statement.
(It is hard to see what 'subjectively true' means - if you can't be wrong about something then you can't be right either.)
So would you say that something can be true, even though no-one knows that it is?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
The problem I have with discussions like this is when people start off arguing that their chair has objective existence, but then go on to argue that this means everything they believe in is objectively true.
The thought process appears to be along the lines of "the existence of my chair is objectively true = objective truths exist = everything I say about God is objectively true (= you should be made to do what I say God wants you to do)"
There seem to be a few logical steps missing between the second and third statements. Even if some truth claims are objective, that does not mean all truth claims are objective.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Like the other postmodernists, churchgoers of the 'Emergent' persuasion assert that objective truth cannot be known. Interesting one: the only logical conclusions of such a belief is that God is unable or unwilling to reveal objective truth to us….or that he has created us with an inability to grasp it.
quote:
This is not, strictly speaking, true. It could be argued that our inability to grasp objective truth is a consequence of the fall. Given this, the rest of your comments on the "Emergent God" and "orthodoxy" don't hold a lot of water.
Sorry - but it is indeed, strictly speaking, true. God's redemptive plan actually relies on our ability to grasp the objective truth about Christ, and on our response to that objective truth.
To say that we were robbed of the facility to comprehend objective truth by the fall, is to say that God's solution is unworkable - as it depends on precisely that facility.
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
God's redemptive plan actually relies on our ability to grasp the objective truth about Christ, and on our response to that objective truth.
Justification by knowledge has replaced justification by faith?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The problem I have with discussions like this is when people start off arguing that their chair has objective existence, but then go on to argue that this means everything they believe in is objectively true.
The thought process appears to be along the lines of "the existence of my chair is objectively true = objective truths exist = everything I say about God is objectively true (= you should be made to do what I say God wants you to do)"
There seem to be a few logical steps missing between the second and third statements. Even if some truth claims are objective, that does not mean all truth claims are objective.
I don't even get the first step. I could introduce you now to people who would say that the chair is an illusion. I'm not saying that they are correct, since I don't know.
Maybe I don't know objectively.
A lot of these arguments seems to consist of people asserting very firmly, that X is objectively true, and then if you contest that, they assert it even more firmly, so it must be true, since I am being very very adamant.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The problem here is that any truth claims need a context within which they are considered true. That is the ontological framework in which your claims can be considered to be true. The basis of the framework cannot be considered to be true or false because you would have to define another ontological framework to argue for their truth. snip
In the end, there is no objective truth. What there is, critically, is truth claims that work and can relate to the context in which you are making them. In other words, rather than making "objective" claims for truth, it is fair to say "if you accept this ontological framework, then this can be true". And yes, ontological frameworks are cultural, that is, they do not always cross cultural boundaries.
This is clearly an alteration of the word ontological, which through most of its history has been taken to refer to 'what actually is' - in other words, what is true regardless of what I/we perceive.
While I think your argument is actually self-referential, I think it does reflect a fairly current view of truth, where it can be taken to mean something if you refer to 'your truth' and 'my truth'.
The problem is that any such dialogue derives its meaning from the same axiomatic assumption that something really exists (something really 'is'), whatever distance you may wish to retain from this assumption when conducting the dialogue.
The same issue exists in natural science. There can never be any ultimate coherence in any theory unless in the context that there is an ultimate truth toward which the theory may bring us.
To define reality/truth purely in terms of useful self-referential codifications such as mathematics and forms of language simply does not work, because it always leads back to some form of solipsism.
This is where the conventional meaning of ontological helps, pointing as it does to a reality which we may not easily express, but which must be there, else the rest of it makes no sense at all.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
While I think your argument is actually self-referential, I think it does reflect a fairly current view of truth, where it can be taken to mean something if you refer to 'your truth' and 'my truth'.
The problem is that any such dialogue derives its meaning from the same axiomatic assumption that something really exists (something really 'is'), whatever distance you may wish to retain from this assumption when conducting the dialogue.
The same issue exists in natural science. There can never be any ultimate coherence in any theory unless in the context that there is an ultimate truth toward which the theory may bring us
I think I would query your use of the word 'truth'. ISTM that truth is a property of statements and ideas, not of 'stuff' (for want of a better word). The universe is not true, regardless of whether it exists.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Justification by knowledge has replaced justification by faith?
No. Last time I looked, it was still justification by faith. Faith, of course, comes from hearing the message of God....as someone once said. That message is God's self-revelation - most particularly, as encapsulated in the work of Christ. If we were incapable of assimilating that objective truth, in what, exactly, would our faith reside?
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
While I think your argument is actually self-referential, I think it does reflect a fairly current view of truth, where it can be taken to mean something if you refer to 'your truth' and 'my truth'.
The problem is that any such dialogue derives its meaning from the same axiomatic assumption that something really exists (something really 'is'), whatever distance you may wish to retain from this assumption when conducting the dialogue.
The same issue exists in natural science. There can never be any ultimate coherence in any theory unless in the context that there is an ultimate truth toward which the theory may bring us
I think I would query your use of the word 'truth'. ISTM that truth is a property of statements and ideas, not of 'stuff' (for want of a better word). The universe is not true, regardless of whether it exists.
And science does not set out to describe reality. Scientists make observations about appearances. If you want to argue that those appearances are reality, that is fine, but it is not a scientific argument, but a philosophical one.
This may seem petty, but it's not, as science several centuries ago made the brilliant step of divesting itself of such metaphysical arguments, and concentrated on empirical study, or as Bacon said, the senses.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
No. Last time I looked, it was still justification by faith. Faith, of course, comes from hearing the message of God....as someone once said. That message is God's self-revelation - most particularly, as encapsulated in the work of Christ. If we were incapable of assimilating that objective truth, in what, exactly, would our faith reside?
I take the Catholic line on invincible ignorance myself, insofar as I have any firm opinion on the matter.
I presume, on your premises, invincible ignorance is not a phenomenon that could ever exist?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This may seem petty, but it's not, as science several centuries ago made the brilliant step of divesting itself of such metaphysical arguments, and concentrated on empirical study, or as Bacon said, the senses.
Interesting that you refer to 'science' as if there were an universal approach to these matters. There isn't (not after 'A' Level/Matric/Bacc or whatever the school-leaver's certificate is in your country). Scientific practice - as in all real life investigation and dialogue - is predicated on the existence of a reality that makes sense of the dialogue and gives purpose to the investigation.
As to Ricardus, I would suggest that the attempts by analytical philosophy to isolate and control truth claims led to a reduction in the perception of what can be true or not. For most of history, and in most ways of looking at the world, truth is present when perception and reality are at one. This means that truth is founded in reality, and that real things are true.
What we are looking at here is a re-definition (a reduction) of words like 'ontological' and 'true' to suit a particular point of view. I would support IngoB wholeheartedly in the integrity of his argument, even though I share the view that deplores the manner of its expression.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
AberVicar - I think it's more that if you believe that that point can never be reached - that is, that perception and reality can never be as one - then you need different words to describe each 'half' (so to speak). Reality can be described as 'real', so 'true' can be used of perceptions.
The effect, though, I think, is that a lot of these debates consist of philosophical echo chambers talking past each other.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Others have alluded to the inherent self-contradiction of a philosophy which states as a fact that objective truth cannot be known, or does not exist - I won't labour the point. But it may be worth considering the implications of that postmodern viewpoint when applied to Christianity - as it is increasingly widespread in the church.
I would suggest that a key function of the Holy Spirit is to lead us into 'all truth' - primarily, the truth of the gospel message. It is very much an objective truth, and it is essential that we grasp it.
Like the other postmodernists, churchgoers of the 'Emergent' persuasion assert that objective truth cannot be known. Interesting one: the only logical conclusions of such a belief is that God is unable or unwilling to reveal objective truth to us….or that he has created us with an inability to grasp it. The Emergent God is therefore limited or obstructive when it comes to ‘truth’ (something we may have previously thought he was big on) or he’s just unreasonable - expecting us to respond to the objective truth about himself, even though he’s fully aware that we cannot comprehend it.
Superficially, at least, this would represent a serious departure from orthodoxy. The implications are far-ranging – especially in terms of how people understand God, and how they relate to him. But I don’t suppose many of them have thought the issue through. I expect this strange view of God is merely an inescapable outcome of what they subscribe to, rather than part of a ‘joined-up’ theology.
The rejection of the objective truth concept may be attractive or fashionable, but it is also self-contradictory and pretty-much impossible to square with a self-revealing God.
I'm driven to the conclusion that God isn't actually that bothered about us getting the objective truth about him exactly right. I can only assume he has bigger fish to fry.
As I've said before, quote:
Originally blogged by me:
I’ve known a lot of people who believe this, and sometimes it’s the only thing they agree on. Some are preterist, some look forward to a great tribulation. Some are fiercely Calvinist. Others vigorously Arminian. Some hold to a strong paedobaptist tradition. Others insist on believer’s baptism. Some insist that the dramatic gifts of the Spirit are for today; others equally that they died out with the Apostles.
And every one of them is convinced that the Scriptures prove that they are right and going against them requires a failure to believe God’s Word.
So there’s a problem. If the Scriptures are God’s Word and inerrant, nevertheless those who believe this to be the case can’t actually agree what God’s Word says
I have to conclude that to whatever extent the Bible is God’s message to humanity, then God isn’t desperately worried about us getting our theology right.
I would also tend towards the view that God is sufficiently "other" from our experience that it is not unreasonable to think that any objective statements about him are provisional and partially metaphorical in nature.
Given the impossibility of knowing the objective truth for certain (the JWs could actually be right. Or the Muslims. Or the Atheists for that matter. I don't think they are, but I have no absolute reason for knowing they aren't) I try not to let it worry me too much. It does, but I try not to let it.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I take the Catholic line on invincible ignorance myself, insofar as I have any firm opinion on the matter.
I presume, on your premises, invincible ignorance is not a phenomenon that could ever exist?
I'm no expert on Catholic doctrine, Ricardus. My (limited) comprehension of invincible ignorance (please correct if wrong) is that persons are not held accountable for 'wrongdoing', if they lack the capacity to understand their actions as wrong. Insofar as that pertains to God's provision for redemption, I believe there is a passage in Romans 2 which may be pertinent. It speaks of Gentiles who don't know God living in accord with the dictates of their conscience - and perhaps an implication that they may judged on that basis. Not sure if that's the kind of thing you mean. Personally, I wouldn't want to be judged on that basis, and for me - and others like me - the revelation and work of Christ is very necessary.
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
AberVicar wrote:
Interesting that you refer to 'science' as if there were an universal approach to these matters. There isn't (not after 'A' Level/Matric/Bacc or whatever the school-leaver's certificate is in your country). Scientific practice - as in all real life investigation and dialogue - is predicated on the existence of a reality that makes sense of the dialogue and gives purpose to the investigation.
Don't agree. Scientists make observations about appearances. You might want to argue that they represent or constitute or reflect reality, but that is not a scientific argument, but a philosophical one.
Thus, 'scientific practice ... is predicated on the existence of a reality that makes sense of the dialogue' is not a scientific claim. You might argue that it is foundational to science, I'm not sure, but then it is a philosophical foundation.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
If we were incapable of assimilating that objective truth, in what, exactly, would our faith reside?
In belief. Specifically, the belief that what the Bible tells us about God and the work of Christ is true.
It doesn't have to be objectively true for us to have faith in it. If that were so then surely it would be impossible to have faith in anything other than the one thing that's objectively true.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
AberVicar - I think it's more that if you believe that that point can never be reached - that is, that perception and reality can never be as one - then you need different words to describe each 'half' (so to speak). Reality can be described as 'real', so 'true' can be used of perceptions.
The effect, though, I think, is that a lot of these debates consist of philosophical echo chambers talking past each other.
Agree with that. And they are philosophical echo chambers, not anything else.
They also seem to depend on fierce assertions a lot - I really really really assert in as adamant a way as is possible, that there is objective truth.
Are you convinced? OK, if not, then I really really really really assert it. Ah, that's better. Well, I feel convinced. All those reallys must be good for something.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
