Absolutes; Truth and Reality

LiptonCambell: The reason I made this topic is mostly because certain users seem to REALLY wanna talk about this, to the point of making several threads off topic.

So here we go- Absolutes. Do they exist?

Does Reality exist? Is it objective? Subjective? Can thoughts impact reality through will alone?

Does Truth exist? Is it an absolute? What about Good or Evil?


Quick Definations, Source Random House Dictionary(Dictionary.com);

Absolute
1.free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.
2.not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.
3.complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.
4.free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.


Reality
1.the state or quality of being real.
2.resemblance to what is real.
3.a real thing or fact.
4.real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs
5.something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.


Truth
the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2.conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3.a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4.the state or character of being true.
5.actuality or actual existence.

Objective
1.not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
2.intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
3.being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).
4.of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Subjective
1.existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2.pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
4.Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5.relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
6.pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.

StuckInTheSixties: Lipton, I can see one thing in your approach to these questions that is likely to cause problems:

The definitions for the words "absolute," "reality," "objective," "subjective," and "truth" are likely going to differ from person to person.

I would suggest an edit of your post, and the addition of dictionary defintitions of each of those words, so that the discussion can commence in relation to those specific definitions. Else people will be arguing that "reality" means something completely different than what you think it means, etc.

Even doing that, I'm guessing that semantics are going to be an issue here.

LiptonCambell: Done.

Thoughts on the topic?

StuckInTheSixties: "Does Reality exist?"

I'm pretty sure it does. I certainly have to go about my life as if it does, else I see no point in living.

"Is [reality] objective? Subjective?"

I think that depends. One thing that would increase the objectivity of reality is if it was shared. And I would say that the larger number sharing it, the greater degree of objectivity. For instance:

You could be on a train with someone, you both fall asleep, and upon waking, you both look out the window at the passing cityscape. You say, "I think we're passing through Albuquerque." Your friend says, "No, I think we're in Santa Fe." The town is real, but those are both subjective assessments. You get off the train, and ask someone, "What city is this?" They answer, "Albuquerque." And you look at your friend and say, "See? I said it was Albuquerque." That is a fairly objective assessment now, because it has been "shared." Not only that, but it's been verified. Of course, the stranger could be lying. But you see The First Bank of Albuquerque, which happens to be on Albuquerque Boulevard. Your assessment of this being Albuquerque is getting progressively stronger. Your insistence on that actually being Albuquerque is, I would say, objective. It's supported by evidence.

"Can thoughts impact reality through will alone?"

No. Maybe on TV, movies, books, etc. but not in real life.

"Does Truth exist?"

Yes, but the idea of truth is a bit slippery sometimes. Objectivity has a large bearing on that idea. Evidence lends itself to finding the truth. Opinion doesn't necessarily lend itself to finding the truth. This is why I like science so much. It helps you find the truth through the utilization of objective, tangible evidence.

"Is [truth] an absolute?"

No, I suppose not. Even with science, with evidence, newer, better evidence can sometimes be found. But pragmatically, the best bet for making a truthful (accurate, factual) assessment of a phenomenon is through using scientific method.

"What about Good or Evil?"

Oh my! I have dual feelings about this. On one hand, my intellectual, philosophical side says that Good and Evil are relative. And there is plenty of evidence to back that up. But in a pragmatic way, there are times when there are no doubts in my mind about whether something is good or evil, although I would also call this a totally subjective assessent. This presents little difficulty for me in life. I'm an agnostic, and the ambiguous nature of that stance, the sort of "having my cake and eating it too" stance, is much like my totally subjective stance on "good or evil." That subject is far too complex for me to adequately respond to in a format like this. It's almost too complex to adequately respond to in ANY format, other than in conducting myself the way I do as I go through life.

Those are difficult questions, Lipton.

Funky_H0m0sapien: Can I have a bash at these questions?

Does reality exist? Yes

Is it objective? Yes

Is it subjective? No, reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away - said by someone who is not me.

Can thoughts impact reality through will alone? Huh? Nope. Unless you mean how they affect our behaviour. I can affect physical reality with my thoughts by thinking about a beautiful girl

Does Truth exist? Yes, see 'reality' above.

Is it an absolute? Ultimately yes.

What about Good or Evil? Morals are merely quirks on the evolutionary trail. There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so - Shakespeare.

StuckInTheSixties: That was much more succinct than my post.

LiptonCambell: Damnit, I forgot the title question(although its implied with the objective-subjective talk); Is Reality Absolute?


Does reality exist? Yes
Is reality absolute? Absolutely.
Is it objective? Yep
Is it subjective? We veiw it subjectively, but it doesn't change from person to person- just our perception of it.
Can thoughts impact reality through will alone? Nope!
Does Truth exist? 'Course.
Is it an absolute? Yep, but again, we veiw the world subjectively, so its difficult to veiw the world accurately in this manner.
What about Good or Evil? Good and evil are moral concepts- some of them can be absolutes, but that can change through, in all reality, popular vote. You can believe something(such as murder) is completely immoral- but if the majority think its perfectly moral, then I believe techniquely thats what it is..

On the other hand, morality isn't simply a popular vote....it has to be more than that...I dunno for sure if good and evil are absolutes, but at least I can agree that our observation of it is mired by our subjective veiw.

StuckInTheSixties: I agree. Reality is absolute. We don't live in "The Matrix."

But that "good and evil" stuff is really hard to pin down, isn't it? People have been unsuccessfully hashing that out since we had the mental capacity to consider it.

LiptonCambell: Well I couldn't go and make a topic about absolutes without at least touching on that, now could I?

StuckInTheSixties: No, I suppose not. And it is the Philosophy Forum. It would seem empty if "good and evil" were left out.

LiptonCambell: I just wish the people who wouldn't shut the f^~x up about these concepts would actually appear on a thread about it, rather than playing misdirection and bringing it up in unrelated topics.

MrSteveA67: I think it's unavoidable that some truth is assumed to exist simply to make some statement regarding anything.

For example, if someone stated that no truth exists, and that statement was to be assumed true, then it would be a paradox to assume that there is a truth that there is no truth.

So at some foundational level, there would appear to have to be a truth that is always assumed to exist, even if it's not explicitly stated.

I believe things are inherently subjective though and even objectivity is a subjective creation. Most references to objectivity don't actually regard truth but instead consensus, though that seems a poor measure of truth to me.

Notice that the perception of agreement is subjectively determined. For example, someone might say "Yeah, right" but this could be interpreted to be sarcastic. Ultimately, even what's assumed to indicate agreement is still dependent upon ones own interpretation of it.

Notice that objective reality could be verified to be nothing more (and it would typically be less) than the totality of ones experience, knowledge etc.

For example, if someone witnessed two events and one was determined to be subjective and the objective, both events were still witnessed. The "objective" version of reality is only a subset of (smaller than) the subjective version and that the subjective view is what's real.

Also, in order to denote something as subjective versus objective, some other piece of information must be available that decides this and that's a 3rd component in this (once again, this would be something not necessarily "objectively" visible and the "first person" experience of reality is really where everything arises from.)

Yes, it could be believed that something exists external to subjective reality, but even that belief would be a subjective component (though I do believe there is truly an 'external' reality for which nothing much can be said, but it most closely resembles the entropy presented by events in time and isn't something that can be specifically pointed to or referenced).

Also, the subjective view is verifiable and "true" in the sense that it reflects all the direct/first person experiences ... you don't have to assume any beliefs from textbooks or religious documents or take statements of truth by others as anything other than what they are - simply information.

There is also, in many ways, no true uncertainty as presented by quantum mechanics. Uncertainty is optional and not directly verifiable.

For example, it might be considered that tomorrows high temperature for the day is uncertain/unknown and in a sense it's true, but notice that tomorrows high temperature is something that doesn't actually exist - can anything in the past or future be pointed to? Even a historical log of daily high and low temperatures is something giving information "Now" and not something truly referencing the past, except to whatever extent someone beliefs it references the past.

Notice that if someone said tomorrows high temperature would be 75 degs F, this statement itself could be seen as a true/first person experience. That person said tomorrows high would be 75 degs F, but whether or not this ever correlates with some temperature tomorrow is questionable (even ignoring the fact that there's no direct way to measure tomorrows temperature except relative to various expectations).

The closer you get to 'true reality' the more direct/first person/immediate and "Here and Now" the view is (though, of course, that view can also include perceptions that include past memories as well as future expectations, but those always occur or are constructed "Here and Now".

So yes, there's truth, it's subjective it can contain uncertainties and beliefs regarding what objective reality might be

StuckInTheSixties: Lipton, those people you're referring to don't have any interest in a philosophical exercise such as this thread.

Their interests are only prosthelitizing, or condemning anything, or anyone, that would be contrary to that which they prosthelitize.

I'd have so much more respect for them if they could only just say something like, "Hey, my beliefs are based on faith, not science. They're irrational, but they work for me."

MrSteveA67: If there was a single truth and it could be known, then could it exist as someone elses truth or could it only be the version known by oneself?

Is there a way for you to know what's true for someone else or is the only available truth your own?

I simply put some thought and honesty into my posts.

For example, did you put thought into your comment on the 2012 thread about paying $800 for insurance and the effects of having a federal mandate for insurance?

If insurance companies had the opportunity for people to be forced into having insurance, do you believe this would encourage lowered prices or raising prices? How about the quality of service? If people are forced into possessing some "service" what's the motive to keep customers satisfied?

Why not raise the price to $1,200 a month and drop the quality of service if someone is legally required to have it.

I see it the other way around and that the reason why insurance costs are high is because of both federal regulations (i.e. FDA) raising the costs of providing medical services as well as restricting competition and many state policies that pressure people to have insurance (which means the costs can be raised artificially high).

But it's more than that ... do you see any justifiable reason to use force in having someone else acquire insurance? It's a simple rights issue and it shouldn't be a crime to not have insurance (what if someone simply decided it was too expensive?)

Anyway, I know you don't like in depth comments and prefer to take quick jabs at people but do you think you're doing others or yourself a service by doing that?

Go ahead and complain that my post is too long and express your personal opinions that my comments are somehow misleading etc. and then fail to put any thought behind your statements etc. It's a predictable form of 'dialogue' that I've seen before.

MrSteveA67: Sixties,

Let's me list some of what was most aggrevating to me about your comment:

1) The subject is on philosophy. Philosophy means "love of logic" (Philo = love, Sophy = logic). The thread is specifically asking about how logic applies to 'absolute' concepts.

2) I spent some time and energy to make statements that are very precise and accurate and I even specifically made statements regarding your comment that effectively "everything is opinion", which you either failed to read, comprehend or bother to acknowledge.

3) You go further and post hypocritical insults (as is COMMON for you).

... if your comment is actually valid, back it up please or I'll assume that you simply desire to be (irritatingly) immature.

*******-*******-*******-*******-*******-

If you say it's all opinion, then are you claiming this to be a fact? If you're claiming it to be a fact, then (as I already pointed out) you're claiming that, no it's not all opinion because the fact/truth is that (everyone else's) statements are opinions. (See the paradox?)

If you don't claim that your statement is a fact/truth then you're not really stating anything but your own opinion and that doesn't deny that there remain fundamental truths that you aren't addressing.

Practically by definition, as I've already pointed out, if we're trying to place the comments into a philosophical discussion then it's already implicitly true that logic can be applied to the subject. Even asking the question of whether or not truth exists appears to already imply that there is a truth as to whether or not the question could be answered.

Also I pointed out that if there's a singular truth that can be known, it would have to be ones own (at least for me because I don't know anything other than my own knowledge ... that's not even optional for me. It's simply fact. Any form of 'external'/unknown/unobserved "truth" is something I don't have access to and can't act relative to etc. ... in fact, I couldn't even know if it's true, so I can't even logically state that there exists such unless I'm suppose to simply take it on faith)

Do my comments make sense to you?

Funky_H0m0sapien: Hey Steve, I'm afraid that I find it quite hard to understand your way of writing. I'd like to discuss this topic with you, but could you perhaps just list the questions in the original post in the original order that they appeared and then write down semi-simple answers, at least to begin with. We can take it from there. Otherwise it's a lot of work for me to follow exactly what you saying.

StuckInTheSixties: MrSteve, your comments directed at me are very strange. My previous comment had NOTHING whatsoever to do with you. It specifically referred to two guys, mainly one of two, that Lipton, myself, and others had been interacting with in a different thread.

Note Lipton's last statement in this thread:

"I just wish the people who wouldn't shut the f^$x up about these concepts would actually appear on a thread about it, rather than playing misdirection and bringing it up in unrelated topics."

Lipton was referring to those two, mostly one, guy in that comment. I was replying to Lipton, referring to them, as well. Neither Lipton, nor I, were referring to you or anyone else. Just those two guys.

For reasons that I'm sure you're familiar with (mainly because you're a self-absorbed, masturbatory know-it-all that craves nothing more than to clog threads with long-winded demonstrations of your encyclopedic knowledge every subject known to man ... oh ... and you're a crushing bore, too), I was ignoring your comments, and replying to Lipton about his.

So take the twist out of your panties, dude.

Have fun.

StuckInTheSixties: Funky_H0m0sapien says:
"Hey Steve, I'm afraid that I find it quite hard to understand your way of writing."

That's because he has no interest in clarity, nor brevity. He's more concerned with long orations of verbal fluff meant to show everyone how much he knows about every subject known to man. The topic at hand is never an obstacle to MrSteve as he pontificates on any unrelated, irrelevant subject.



MrSteve buys a quart of milk:

Clerk: A dollar seventy nine. Would you like a bag for that?

MrSteve: The etomolgy of the word "dollar" interesting. On the 15th of January, 1520, Count Hieronymus Schlick (Czech: Jeroným Šlik z Passounu) of Bohemia began minting coins known as Joachimsthaler, named for Joachimstal (modern Jáchymov in the Czech Republic), where the silver was mined. (In German, thal or tal refers to a valley or dale.) "Joachimsthaler" was later shortened in common usage to taler or thaler (same pronunciation), and this shortened word eventually found its way into Danish and Norwegian as (rigs)daler, Swedish as (riks)daler, Dutch as (rijks)daalder, Ethiopian as talari, Italian as tallero, Flemish as daelder, and into English as dollar.

Francis Wolle (1817 - 1893) invented the paper bag- making machine in 1852 in the United States. Francis Wolle, botanist, born in Jacobsburg, near Nazareth, Pennsylvania, December 17, 1817, was educated in the Moravian parochial school in Bethlehem, and then became a clerk in his father's store. Subsequently he taught, first at Nazareth hall and then in the higher departments of the Moravian parochial school in Bethlehem. He became in 1857 vice-principal of the Moravian seminary for young ladies, and in 1861 principal of that institution, which place he held until 1881. He was ordained a clergyman in the Moravian church in 1861. In 1852 he patented in the United States, and later in France and England, a machine that he devised for making paper bags. It was the first of its kind, and covers the fundamental principle of the many similar machines that are now used. Further advancements during the 1870s included glued paper sacks and the gusset design, producing the types of paper bags used today. In 1869, Wolle and his brother and other leading paper bag makers founded the Union Paper Bag Machine Company. Union Bag and Paper Co.'s decision to open a plant in Savannah was great news to depressed Savannah in 1935. The company, founded by paper bag machine inventor Francis Wolle, opened its $4 million plant with 500 workers the next year. Savannah citizens streamed through the plant on opening day to ooh and ahh at the production of a thousand feet of paper per minute. The plant is still in operation today and is owned by International Paper.

Clerk: Shut the f~x& up, you boring aw@*#&^! Get outta my store!

Funky_H0m0sapien: Ouch, remind me not to get on your bad side!

But yeah, Steve, if you can summon up the courage to post on this thread after that, I would still like to discuss the original questions with you. Just, for my sake, please order your answers like the original questions were and write clearly.

StuckInTheSixties: Yeah, that was a little harsh, wasn't it?

MrSteveA67: Hiya, Funky.

I could try to repost things but maybe to keep it simple, how about I just list one thing at a time and you can see if the logic makes sense.

Regarding "Is there truth?":

If someone tries to state that there is no truth. The statement itself isn't necessarily true. It would be a paradox to believe that the truth is that there is no truth.

And if someone tried to believe there is no truth, then there's not even an ability to believe there is no truth ... the statement that there is no truth would itself be untrue.

The only non-paradoxical version is to state that there is truth (and the statement is implicitly true).

If you want me to comment more on something else in my posts, just copy a paragraph and I'll try to explain the logic behind my statements in more detail.

the real slim DEEPy: there are other definitions of truth other than the ones given, such as being sincere, and in good faith, not neceserrily factual. for something to be fact, it has to be verified- and some of science is seemingly unverifiable.

MrSteveA67: "there are other definitions of truth other than the ones given, such as being sincere, and in good faith, not neceserrily factual."

Is this a factual statement?

"for something to be fact, it has to be verified- and some of science is seemingly unverifiable. "

Can this statement be verified as true?

My questions are directed at showing that underneath your statements here there are assumptions regarding the truth of them.

(Sidenote: I agree there are areas where "science", as a social institution has limits, though fewer limits exist for individuals. Individuals are the foundation upon which science, as an institution, is built).

If there was no such form of (self-assigned) truth, I don't even think it would be possible to have any coherent form of communication because there would be no manner to interpret things as having specific meanings.

I recognize this is a "Deep" insight, but then again, that matches your username so I'll assume you have some interests in such subjects.

Consider that most any statement is potentially sarcastic or a lie. If there was no manner to select a specific interpretation and use that as a foundation for what (the truth of) the meaning was, there would be no way to being to communicate because statements could exist within different contexts even diametrically opposed to each other.

It's implicit that there are truths and that assumption is the foundation of learning or actions etc. The ability to communicate in English assumes that there are truths regarding the meanings of words and the subject of Philosophic itself relies upon an assumed truth that there is something applicable/valuable/desirable to logic.

Even if someone is not sincere or lying, there's still an implicit assumption that it's true that there's insincerity or deceit etc., otherwise there would be no way to determine truths, falsehoods or equivocations etc.

What one believes is true, is true, and that's unavoidable, even if that truth contains within it the existence of future unknowns. What more could be said/known/acted upon/conceived of etc.? It would appear nothing more could be rationally worked with, because nothing specific regarding it could be determined.

What could be said about something for which no truth existed?