Question about truth

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Question about truth

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sun Nov 17, 2019 8:35 am

Ultimate Truth is physically impossible for this reason and this reason alone:

It changes too fast. By the time you or I write one L E T T E R, the whole universe changed. And so I wanted to make a point at letter "L" but that point was lost between letter "R". So humans cannot type fast enough for Ultimate Truth. And furthermore, humans are not evolved enough, not sharp and fast enough thinkers, not intelligent enough to get at "Ultimate Truth". We need to increase the speed and power of our brains a million times, and then, probably still not be "fast enough" to get at it.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Question about truth

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Nov 17, 2019 8:52 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Ultimate Truth is physically impossible for this reason and this reason alone:

It changes too fast. By the time you or I write one L E T T E R, the whole universe changed. And so I wanted to make a point at letter "L" but that point was lost between letter "R". So humans cannot type fast enough for Ultimate Truth. And furthermore, humans are not evolved enough, not sharp and fast enough thinkers, not intelligent enough to get at "Ultimate Truth". We need to increase the speed and power of our brains a million times, and then, probably still not be "fast enough" to get at it.

Not really.

Ultimate truth is absolute and unconditional truth, e.g. truth-by-itself, God's truths or the truth God exists as real and unconditionally.
Since truths are always conditioned by Framework of Truths operated by humans, thus by definition, ultimate, absolute and unconditional truths are an impossibility.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2673
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Question about truth

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sun Nov 17, 2019 9:02 am

"Not really" but you agree? Interesting.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Question about truth

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Nov 17, 2019 9:12 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:"Not really" but you agree? Interesting.

You stated,

    Ultimate Truth is physically impossible for this reason and this reason alone:

I agree in principle but not with the sole reason you claimed.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2673
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Question about truth

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:02 am

Prismatic567 wrote:I agree in principle but not with the sole reason you claimed.

It doesn't really make sense to talk about Absolutes or Unconditioned without knowing the state of the entire universe first.
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Question about truth

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:18 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:I agree in principle but not with the sole reason you claimed.

It doesn't really make sense to talk about Absolutes or Unconditioned without knowing the state of the entire universe first.

There is no way limited human beings can know of the ENTIRE universe at all.
So there is no question of knowing the entire universe first.
What human beings are capable of via Science to know parts of the universe, then SPECULATE on what it beyond the known universe but there is no way Science [the only tool we have] can ever know the whole-universe.

So my point, yes, I agree it makes no empirical sense to talk about the Absolute or Unconditioned or the Entire Universe as an absolute whole.

But there are people who are not satisfy with merely the known universe and the other parts of the universe that are possible [empirical] to be known, they extrapolate and speculate to the extreme, there is a Whole Universe but done without any solid empirical grounding but merely based on thinking alone.
Thus when they claim and insist there is the truth of a real absolute and unconditional, I argued as above, this claim is an impossibility.

I agree with your earlier point in the sense that humans are always one step behind 'reality' in terms of time thus can never grasp what is really real. By the time, one cognize 'what is', it is already a ' what was' in real time.
Some spiritual alecs will argue there is the concept of being in the 'now' thus one can realize absolute reality in that sense.

However if we rely on the justified argument that absolute in an impossibility as real as I had argued, there is no room for anyone to claim the absolute can exists in whatever sense.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2673
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Question about truth

Postby Anomaly654 » Sun Nov 17, 2019 3:07 pm

Meno_ wrote:Hi

A last shot here. I do not think one has to go to philosophy even, to find truth.
Although it would be useful to start teaching philosophy in junior high, we have to apply our individual takes on what truth is, because lets face it, the decisions we make in our teen age years that need truth to be considered, will pre-empt in most cases the university years, if we ever get there.

We must pick and choose the truthful ways of perceiving our reality at that time, and try to project that toward the ends we see as appropriate for ourselves.
Some if it comes from parent's teaching, some from our friends and neighbors, our early work environment, some from basic intuitive gut level feelings.

Lastly , we suddenly realize the need for change, irrespective what the truth is, of acting more in behalf of others then ourselves, that is the most profound rebelation ever. and it is really not a contingency at all, it dictates categorical necessity. When it is not considered in this way, the other, for whom usually, one feels and owes compelling responsibility , may be hurt, and by that token it becomes a debt, a sin of omission which comes back and hurts the owner of the debt.

This post rings true for me (no pun intended). I've felt for years that a national requirement for obtaining a HS diploma should be to read and be tested on Harry Frankfort's "On Truth" or some similar work. Find myself wondering in my old age if I would have had a more intellectually more productive youth if I'd have met someone who would at least have taught me the principles laid out by the ancient Greek philosophers.

But then, this is premised on the condition that I would have even listened; wasn't very open to authority.
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: Question about truth

Postby Anomaly654 » Sun Nov 17, 2019 3:21 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Truth is a value, most philosophers have estimated it as the highest value, Nietzsche did the incredible thing of questioning this rank, yet in doing so he merely liberated truth from being only the highest value.

I'm going to have to read more Nietzsche. Can you tell me where (name of the work) he liberated truth from being only the highest value and what your interpretation of this is? I hold truth to be the only obvious absolute....can't imagine any world in which it would be intelligent, proper, right or of benefit of any kind to abandon truth and embrace falsity.
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: Question about truth

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:21 pm

Anomaly654 wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Truth is a value, most philosophers have estimated it as the highest value, Nietzsche did the incredible thing of questioning this rank, yet in doing so he merely liberated truth from being only the highest value.

I'm going to have to read more Nietzsche. Can you tell me where (name of the work) he liberated truth from being only the highest value and what your interpretation of this is? I hold truth to be the only obvious absolute....can't imagine any world in which it would be intelligent, proper, right or of benefit of any kind to abandon truth and embrace falsity.

I recommend that you do, read Nietzsche. Not to be convinced of anything - this is not why philosophers read philosophers - but to learn of his way of thinking.
His placing the value of truth in question occurs at the outset of his earth-shaking Beyond Good and Evil.

I think it makes more sense for me to simply point you the way here and not interfere. Two philosophers is a conversation, three is a crowd.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:Beyond Good and Evil
Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future.

1886.

On the Prejudices of Philosophers.

1

The will to truth that still seduces us to take so many risks, that famous truthfulness of which all philosophers so far have spoken with respect: what questions this will to truth has already laid before us! What strange, wicked, questionable questions! That is a long story even now—and yet it seems as if it has scarcely begun? Is it any wonder that we should finally become suspicious, lose patience, and turn away impatiently? That we should finally learn from this Sphinx to ask questions, too? Who is it really that puts questions to us here? What in us really wants "truth"?— Indeed we came to a long halt at the question about the cause of this will—until we finally came to a complete stop before a still more basic question. We asked about the value of this will. Suppose we want truth: why not rather untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance?— The problem of the value of truth came before us—or was it we who came before the problem? Who of us is Oedipus here? Who the Sphinx? It is a rendezvous, it seems, of questions and question marks.— And though it scarcely seems credible, it finally also seems to us as if the problem had never even been put so far—as if we were the first to see it, fix it with our eyes, risk it? For it does involve a risk, and perhaps there is none that is greater.

http://www.thenietzschechannel.com/work ... e/bge1.htm
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9312
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Question about truth

Postby promethean75 » Sun Nov 17, 2019 6:08 pm

pedrocrates wrote:fuck you, ludwig


no, fuck you!

"Philosophers are often like little children, who first scribble random lines on a piece of paper with their pencils, and now ask an adult 'What is that?" - W
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Question about truth

Postby Anomaly654 » Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:34 am

Urwrongx1000 wrote:Ultimate Truth is physically impossible for this reason and this reason alone:

It changes too fast. By the time you or I write one L E T T E R, the whole universe changed. And so I wanted to make a point at letter "L" but that point was lost between letter "R". So humans cannot type fast enough for Ultimate Truth. And furthermore, humans are not evolved enough, not sharp and fast enough thinkers, not intelligent enough to get at "Ultimate Truth". We need to increase the speed and power of our brains a million times, and then, probably still not be "fast enough" to get at it.

But mutation doesn't prove truth can't be an absolute. I see the material universe operating in a simple compatibilist format that illustrates this. Matter that constantly changes only does so under the supervision of the presumptively absolute non-contact forces. I'm aware the NC forces aren't accepted as absolutes. Fluctuations have been recorded a couple times in the past, though the reason is unknown; could be an anomaly somewhere in the universe exerted some affect. Also, someone argued that the NC forces were likely created in the first few nanoseconds of the big bang, i.e., there were no such forces until they were thus created and therefore couldn't be 'absolute' in a strong sense. But perturbations and something that happened unimaginable years ago don't change the model. The NC forces have been steadily doing their jobs for long enough to establish the compatibilist pattern which shows how the absolute can be harmonized with mutation.
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: Question about truth

Postby Anomaly654 » Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:08 pm

Correction to last post: I meant to say fluctuations IN GRAVITY.
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users