Objective Truth

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

:
A second context in which it can be debated is to ask: what does that mean?

Doesn't it mean that it (a statement) is true independently of what anyone believes? What else would it mean?

[boagie]

Caner,

If you want to continue in this dialogue you must get to the point of presenting something of the nature of the materials you intend to build a foundation out of, if an imaginary fairy godfather is part of said building plans, this dialogue simply will not fly. The foundation of most any philosophical dialogue comes down to the relation between subject and object, what to this duel formula do you intend to add, we really cannot do anything unless you present something.

[Resha Caner]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Doesn't it mean that it (a statement) is true independently of what anyone believes? What else would it mean?

Yes, I would agree with that ... as long as your "anyone" only means humanity.

[Resha Caner]

Originally Posted by boagie

If you want to continue in this dialogue you must get to the point of presenting something of the nature of the materials you intend to build a foundation out of, if an imaginary fairy godfather is part of said building plans, this dialogue simply will not fly. The foundation of most any philosophical dialogue comes down to the relation between subject and object, what to this duel formula do you intend to add, we really cannot do anything unless you present something.

Hmm. Though you didn't know me before this thread, that didn't stop you from jumping in and commenting without asking for my foundation. So, I only take this reply as a dodge.

If you don't want to discuss it, then don't reply. As I said earlier, I'll respect your decision to bow out. If no one replies to me, that will solve the problem, won't it?

But, as I said, I'm stubborn. So, I'll ask another question (and note that in no way do I invoke God).

Given that the term "fact" implies an ability to prove said fact, is your position that all truth is subjective a fact?

[iconoclast]

Resha Caner,

Ah, I see. You can't demonstrate objective truth, merely believe in the possibility. Well, yes, I agree. It does seem like it should be possible and yet somehow, every attempt falls short. Until an epistemological Wright brother comes along I'm content to leave it there. Considering the possibility impossible in no-way diminishes the desire to see it proved. It's reasonable that I should, just as it's reasoanable, on the basis of the evidence to consider it impossible. beliefe in the possibility is unreasoable, but I don't have to have faith in the possibility in order to examine means of doing so. Man didn't invent flight by girding his faith, R. Kelly style: I believe I can fly, I believe I can fly, and then jumping off cliffs - but by applying his reason to understanding the nature of the problem. And for me, until you demonstrate some understanding of the nature of the problem...i shall not be responding further.

iconoclast.

[boagie]

Caner,

"I don't have to have faith in the possibility in order to examine means of doing so. Man didn't invent flight by girding his faith, R. Kelly style:"


Yes, I do believe I understand, the means was what was asked of you. Your incompetence on the subject does not belong to me.

[Resha Caner]

Originally Posted by boagie

"I don't have to have faith in the possibility in order to examine means of doing so. Man didn't invent flight by girding his faith, R. Kelly style:"

Yes, I do believe I understand, the means was what was asked of you. Your incompetence on the subject does not belong to me.

I don't understand the purpose of this.

Originally Posted by iconoclast

Ah, I see. You can't demonstrate objective truth, merely believe in the possibility. Well, yes, I agree. It does seem like it should be possible and yet somehow, every attempt falls short. Until an epistemological Wright brother comes along I'm content to leave it there. Considering the possibility impossible in no-way diminishes the desire to see it proved. It's reasonable that I should, just as it's reasoanable, on the basis of the evidence to consider it impossible. belief in the possibility is unreasoable, but I don't have to have faith in the possibility in order to examine means of doing so. Man didn't invent flight by girding his faith, R. Kelly style: I believe I can fly, I believe I can fly, and then jumping off cliffs - but by applying his reason to understanding the nature of the problem. And for me, until you demonstrate some understanding of the nature of the problem...i shall not be responding further.

Fair enough. So, do you want to give me a test?

I'm not sure what standard you want me to meet. With respect to my last question, I realize it leads to asking someone to prove a negative. I also realize that can't be done, which is exactly the point I wanted to highlight.

Further, I realize it is common convention in logical debates that burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. Discussion is supposed to proceed as if something is false until proof is given that it is true. Otherwise, we must entertain every ridiculous claim of fairy godfathers.

So, I risk being called absurd by stating that in some cases, I think the opposite should occur. We should proceed by assuming something is true even if we can't prove it. I'm trying to say that this occurs much more often than people seem willing to admit, and it is called "making an assumption". But, if someone wants to say I'm being absurd, so be it.

In my defense, I'll give what may be the most famous example in mathematics where someone proceeded by assuming something true. It is Euclid's Parallel Postulate. Euclid has given us one of the most beautiful logical systems ever created by man. But, the thorn in his side was the Parallel Postulate, which is stated thus:

"Through a given external point there is only one parallel to a given line."

Euclid wanted desperately to prove this, but never could. Armies of other people tried to prove it, because it felt natural that it should be true, but no one ever did. Some "proofs" involved exchanging this postulate for a different postulate, which is no proof at all.

Then, along came a Russian mathematician named Lobachevsky. He asked, what would happen if there were more than one parallel line through the given point? The result was non-Euclidean geometry, the forebear of Riemann (who laid the mathematical foundation that Einstein needed). And, he was heavily criticized for publishing his results. The lore speaks of rants that his idea would cause people to go insane.

It's an interesting historical side note that Gauss discovered the same thing about the same time, but was afraid to publish the result. He feared it would damage his reputation. That happens too often. It seems only we who have no reputation to damage are willing to buck the trend.

So, who was right? Well, both and neither. Lobachevsky is actually the one who followed the supposed rules. He did not assume the positive of what he could not prove. But what does it really matter? Both are logically consistent mathematical systems, and both have their uses. Why would we want to throw one of them out?

But, to close this post, I'll repeat the question. What is it I am supposed to demonstrate?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

Resha Caner,

Ah, I see. You can't demonstrate objective truth, merely believe in the possibility. Well, yes, I agree. It does seem like it should be possible and yet somehow, every attempt falls short.

Just what would you consider "demonstrating objective truth"would consist of? Scientist, I suppose, can demonstrate that it is objectively true (or just true) that Mars is the 4th planet from the Sun. Don't you think?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Fido, you have a mind that seems to wander and muddy up issues. I think you may be a little too fond of the abstract.

Common defense of rights is not what makes a community, at least not in the sense that boagie is referring. Community is simply the amalgamation of "relationships" that is the context of most of your thoughts, with "form" not entering into the equation. This forum, for example, is a community with no collective or mutual defense of rights.

First of all, we all abstract reality to know it. We do not know reality, but our abstractions of it, which, if correct, will add to our ability to build and manipulate reality. So, I am not more fond of abstraction than anyone else. I am aware of forms, and even the word form which is invariably used correctly even by people who have no theory of forms. Let me give you an example I read yesterday. It is a quotation in a book called the Greeks, by The World Publishing Company, and is a series of nine highly informative articles by various authors. Now, the Quote was from the historian Thusydides, who said this of his work. "I shall be content if my work is judged useful by those who want a clear picture of what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future, Mankind being what it is, in essentially similar form." This is absolutly correct. Objectively, human beings have changed little except for being more diseased, because our technology can support more disease. We progress when we progress when we manage to change one form for one better. And they will inevitably be similar. And economy of honor will supply many of the same needs as a money economy. Government, when it works will work for the people in any given time, but since the needs from government are based upon human needs, the form will always be similar, and when one form is dumped for another, it is like a snake shedding its skin because the parasites go with the old skin, and the people supporting only their relationships find they have plenty enough. So, forms are one objective truth of human existence. And not a particular form; but all forms. A community is a form. When it works, what does it do exactly? I think it defends rights, and I see this from primitive communities, and I see it in modern communities as well.

[nameless]

A thought on 'objective reality' (the (contentious) term 'truth' might better be limited to a 'believer's convention'... I'm willing to equate 'Reality' with 'Truth');

If, as the mystics and the sages claim (along with 'scripture'), that the notion of a seperate 'self' (an egoic self 'image') is a 'fantasy'; 'ego' as something to be 'transcended' (not believed), then all there is must be objective 'reality', as there is no 'subject' of 'substance'.

If as they say, 'All is One', the universes 'complete' as Perceived, then all there can be is 'objective reality', of which we, in all our forms and permutations of Perspective, are an integral 'part' (in 'that' with no 'parts').

But as there can be no 'Perspective' without the existence of it's polar opposite, the very term 'objective' becomes meaningless as well.
All there can be is 'Reality', but the words again fail as the polar opposite of the word/notion 'reality' must synchronously arise with the notion of 'Reality'.
'Logic' (all rational discourse) is too flawed a tool to be of much use in the more 'metaphysical realms' of exploration and existence.