This is a hotly contested topic of debate for many, and has been for centuries. Can you think of anything that would help shed light on this subject? Does absolute truth exist? Or if you prefer to answer this one, "does truth exist?" What are some ways this can be tested? Perhaps it isn't as hard as some make it out to be? Curious your thoughts on it, because its an idea that seems to matter, and some are so set in their belief one way or the other.
sort by best latest
You could try again or post in parts perhaps? Would love to see your answer too. There is option to do a hub too as a response for lengthier answers.
To answer now, I will have to "comment" on my own answer. Hubpages really does get a bit ridiculous with some of this stuff. Anyway, here goes:
Absolute truth is a slippery devil to get hold of. Absolutes, in general, are a mental construct that has
You know, we could start over, and I could delete this comment if that is the reason you post a longer one. A few have posted a longer comment, and this way you could answer again? Just let me know. It looks like you were cut off again.
Your position doesn't take into account universal distortions. For instance, many believe that "1+1=2" is an irrefutable knowledge, but in a room full of mirrors, any two objects will appear to be at least 4 or more; a truth to those unaware.
the mirror examples does not refute math. 1 of something plus another 1 of something is 2. in a room full or mirrors there's still only 2 objects. the mirrors show a reflection of the 2. they dont add to them. if they did , then its no longer 1+1
I am using analogy and metaphor to illustrate how universal distortion can create an illusion that would be impossible to discover while in a particular continuum. It's not a matter of refuting anything. It is a matter of perception.
im merely pointing out your analogy doesn’t work.
Apparently it doesn't work for someone who doesn't understand. All I can do is give you a road map. I can't take you there. You can give no valid reasons for your conclusion. Your reasoning is based on misinterpretation.
i can say apparently you dont understand, but where does that leave us? i gave a valid reason. 1+1=2. adding mirror doesnt add more objects , but images. if you count the images, its no longer 1+1 , but whatever the addition of the images
It is a metaphor for universal distortion. Our truth is not necessarily determined by what is, but by our perception. As such, all mathematical and scientific principles may only apply to this continuum.Hence, not a truth but an illusion.
why do you think truth is based on our perception and not what is?
I did not say that. I said "our" truth. Human perception is limited and subject to distortion. It is simply human arrogance to assume otherwise. It may very well take more than one to equal one. Thus, 1+1>2. Thus, a relative math; not absolute.
Fair point. If things are presented that create distortions, then we are speaking of something else added into the point being made. If someone is deluded by a trick , it doesn't change the actual facts of a matter, and adds another, into things.
On the contrary, my definition illustrates the impossibility of "knowing" by clearly showing that we can only know the uncertainty of knowing.
why is only knowing the uncertainty the exception to the rule?
Because the uncertainty can be applied to the plus, the minus, or the inbetween. Such a statement cannot refute itself, because when it appears to do so, it only strengthens or validates the original postulate. Thus, avoiding infinite regress.
it does refute itself. you say "ALL that we can know, is that a man cannot be certain of knowing ANYTHING for sure". That includes the statement we cant know anything for sure. its self refuting. also, if that true, why argue anything?
Taking a portion of my statement out of context does not prove your argument.I can say, "I don't believe murder is a good thing". This statement includes, as you might say, "Murder is a good thing". Now you will accuse me of advocating murder. LOL!
LOL. yep, i see. sorry. not intentional. i also just read your previous statement again to my question about why uncertainty is the exception. i see what your sayin now. i will give this some thought. thank you. recommended reading?
I think I'm in the same camp as wrenchBiscuit but not in the same tent. I'm not absolutely sure I'm telling the truth either.
Very interesting Chef, esp. the last sentence. Very honest! I have been paying attention to this conversation and appreciate everyone's comments. As for Wrench, I can understand his view as long as he is not certain of that view. For consistency.
It is your perspective that leaves you in constant confusion.