Objective Truth

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Mind Over Matter, Feb 25, 2012.

  1. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    You are his argument and he has made his point clear. I would not say this except I believe it can only be said from an outside prospective.

    He said at the heart of all objective truth there is something in reality you can "look at"/"experience". You asked what it was and he basically told you to go find it.

    Nevermind him telling you how to ascertain a state of mind in which to perceive this objective truth objectively...

    Is that about right MoM?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ughaibu Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    224
    I am not an argument, I am a reader. If he doesn't produce an argument withing the next six hours, I will take the liberty of attempting to construct one from what he's written.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    That's very subjective of you... I, I, I, he...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Agreed.


    On principle, yes.

    An atheist who were to have rational ground for adopting one philosophical position over another, or be able to make legitimate judgments on issues of morality or ethics,
    would have to have epistemic autonomy in order to do so.

    As we have discussed before, epistemic autonomy, although very much desired by many, is a highly problematic concept.
     
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    This is where you (repeatedly) go wrong (read: become atheistic).
    I've addressed this before, but you keep avoiding the topic.


    Descartes' arguments were meant to be used as ready-made tools against atheists, Protestants and other "heathens," not for Catholics to justify their Catholic position.
     
  9. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I submit that it is rational to believe that a basis for morality can be derived simply from a consideration of the nature of who and what we are. Specifically, that we are creatures that can experience pain and suffering, and that that is something that we all want to avoid.

    Demonstrate that this is not a rational philosophical position.
     
  10. Mind Over Matter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    You're missing the point of my retort. If you desire reading material on the subject, I suggest Last Superstition by Feser which deals with this subject in the chapter "Greeks bearing gifts" under the subsection "Realism, nominalism and conceptualism."
     
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    It may be a rational philosophical position - but it is not one that can be defended with reductionist empirical science.
     
  12. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @wynn --

    Why not? Support your claim.
     
  13. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    For starters, because the "I" and the "you" are mere epiphenomena, with no real substance.
     
  14. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    And how does that prevent empirical science from addressing ethical questions on the basis of what does and doesn't cause suffering?
     
  15. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    That people don't want to experience pain and suffering can easily be established empirically (and you know it), but WTF does reductionism have to do with this?
     
  16. ughaibu Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    224
    So, no argument.
    Here's the post to which I responded:
    I assume that your first argument is something like this:
    1) relativism and the principle of non-contradiction, are incompatible
    2) any argument offered in support of relativism will need to rely on the principle of non-contradiction
    3) therefore, any argument offered in support of relativism will be inconsistent.
    First, you will need to demonstrate that your premises are plausible, and that will be difficult, because on the face of it, they're both false. Certainly, in order to defend premise 1, you'll need to explicate the notion of relativism that you're addressing. After all, it might turn out to be a notion that nobody has any interest in defending. Second, you will need to be clear about the nature of the incompatibility, mooted in premise 1, and state the inference by which this incompatibility entails your conclusion.
    About your second "argument":
    As this is your first mention of indifferentism, there is no "this is why" about it, and on this occasion, I have no idea what the argument is supposed to be.
    You will need to explain what "indifferentism" is and defend a premise, which in conjunction with your first argument, entails your second conclusion.
    So, as things stand, you haven't shown that relativism is indefensible and you haven't shown that it it were, this would entail indifferentism.
     
  17. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    An interesting angle on objective truth is, if you read and accept a socially acceptable objective truth, it is not necessarily objective truth to you, since you may not fully understand how it is derived (objectively) but your acceptance is based on some form of subjectivity; prestige.

    Let me give an example, science has many arguments and data to support the big bang theory. For the sake of argument say this is considered objective truth by the experts. The layman reads and learns some of the bottom lines about the big bang. Although these bottom-lines may be objective truth at the level of astral physics, since the layman can't derive any of them, he does not exactly have objective truth. Rather he has a subjective version, of the objective truth, based on the prestige of the scientists who he assumes, know the truth. Unless you can derive truth yourself, reading does not always lead to objective truth, even when you are reading about objective truth.

    Knowing the talking points of objective truth is not the same as understanding them when it comes to objective truth. One might be able to define the objective truth, but when one is asked to support that claim, a lack of full understanding adds subjectivity to the explanation, so what is transferred to others, is no longer based on the objective truth. If one is not called upon to explain anything to anyone including themselves, we can create an illusion of objective truth with objective truth talking points.
     
  18. Mind Over Matter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    This is the branch of philosophy called epistemiology, and maybe half of all philosophy books are about it.

    To get to the truth associate with the best thinkers.
    Aquinas if the most respected of all philosopher for a billion Catholics and many others.
    Other philosophers, like Kant, Spinoza and others are remembered mostly for historical reasons rather than the public's bellief that these guys got it right.

    Off anybody's list of best thinkers are the atheists. Ever hear of an atheist's book taught in college? Well, Karl Marx, maybe.
     
  19. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Why deal with things that aren't exactly real?
     
  20. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Since when are human desires for how things should be, relevant to scientists?


    In that it reduces humans to mere matter - and matter isn't something to concern oneself with seriously.
     
  21. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @wynn --

    Suffering is completely real, in fact we can measure just how real it is by measuring the effects it has on our bodies. We can also measure what things cause the most suffering. So your answer is invalid and your scientific knowledge is way out of date, you should spruce it up a bit.

    I'll ask again, how does that prevent empirical science from addressing ethical questions on the basis of what does and doesn't cause suffering?

    Since we became able to address issues like what does and doesn't cause suffering in humans and other species.

    Why do you say "mere" matter? Matter is a phenomenal thing that can act in millions, perhaps billions, of different ways.

    I disagree. Given that every single thing we interact with in our lives is made of matter, from the person down the block to the sandwich you eat, I'd say that it's a very serious thing indeed. That you don't take it seriously just shows that you don't understand what you're talking about here.
     
  22. Mind Over Matter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    Before going into it, are we to use absolute objectives to arrive at a conclusion? Are we to assume truth exists and not just within each our minds but universally observed? Seems you're begging the question of objectivity to prove subjectivity, a catch 22 on you're part.
     
  23. ughaibu Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    224
    What do you mean? I'm asking for an argument, as you can see by reviewing my posts.
    What the hell is "universally observed" and how is it relevant? If it is not the case that relativism is indefensible, then the statement that it's not indefensible is true. Is that the kind of thing that you mean?
    Does it? I imagine that would depend on what you mean, which yet again appears to be anybody's guess.
     

Share This Page