@KellyJay saidScriptures talk about having eyes that see and ears that hear, so this points to being able to understand what is going on with clarity, not through illusions of our own making or by buying into what someone or a group thinks. I believe this was the point that Jesus was making with Nicodemus: a spiritual rebirth is required. This is not a matter of politics, denominationism, right or left, sexual identity, wealth, or the lack thereof, nationality, skin color, or even human morality, even our own warm and fuzzy feelings, but only with God in us.
Is it no small wonder today, as people look at the present, let alone history, they call out their views on current events as if they know why others are doing what they are! If they like those involved in current events, they are virtuous, and if they are not well regarded, they are always the scum of the earth; both assume reality coincides with their feelings. That real ...[text shortened]... horrent reality that must be fought against in order to maintain the self-generated view of reality.
So it isn’t a self-generated thing; we cannot learn enough, be pious enough, do enough good works, and so on. This must be a one-on-one work of God within us; everything else will be less than by comparison. We cannot compel God to do anything; we can only come to Him due to His mercy and grace under the blood of Jesus.
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
This isn’t like a secret decoder ring we can make! It clearly shows us that only with God are all things clearly seen, as only He sees all things as they are in truth. We can look at devices of our making and see this type of thing play out in reality: oscilloscopes can show waveforms at different frequencies, and some are sensitive to certain frequencies while others are not.
So when confronted with the truth, if our worldviews are getting it wrong, we will do one of two things: acknowledge and correct how we view things, or build an explanation around why reality looks different than it should, creating our own illiusions to make the disjointed views of reality make sense even if we truly cannot square our thoughts with reality itself.
@KellyJay saidIt could be argued (and has) that "reality" is but a collective delusion. Metaphysically speaking, the universe may be a so-called consensus reality—something like the participatory universe of physicist John Archibald Wheeler, which holds that the universe is not some thing that's "out there" to be observed, but is actively created by its denizens through the act of observing. So consciousness and interaction (which I might construe as experience—the contents or "doing" of consciousness) are what give rise to what we call reality. This viewpoint does not contradict known physics.
If I understand you correctly, you are wisely recognizing that our opinions, our worldviews, and reality are not the same. Which, in my opinion, means that the closer to reality our views are, the more correct we are, and the further away from it, the more error we have. Which should, in my opinion, concern us so that we do not fool ourselves when we think we cannot be wrong about something.
Where does that leave the idea of absolute truth? My intuition (not to mention mathematical training) tells me there are absolute truths, but they are generally not to be found in sensory forms (sights, sounds, tastes, etc.), whether individually or in combination. It is up to each conscious subject (such as a person) to assign a narrative to a collection of sensory forms, usually informed by cultural norms, memories, and expectations. Morality and ethics emerge from individual narratives that weave into a social tapestry with its own unique patterns of thought.
Only in thoughts and feelings outside time and space, and wholly divorced from sensory forms, may one find an absolute truth. But language and mathematics cannot express such truths, so they are transcendent in nature, and can only be pointed to with myths (expressed using sensory forms metaphorically rather than literally), or else apprehended by purging all myths and experiencing the "emptiness" of the Mahayana Buddhists (i.e. all things and the self are void of independent, inherent, or permanent existence).
What I take to be absolute truths are that the self is a delusion, and all things are connected in a unitary Whole.
6 edits
@Soothfast saidThe flaw in that argument is that if we never apprehend anything except through our "cultural norms, memories, and expectations", then we cannot know that the absolute, beyond cultural norms, memories, and expectations, is either unific or static. It might be plural &/or constantly changing. In other words, not a WHOLE universe at all, but a hotchpotch of schizo-verses.
It could be argued (and has) that "reality" is but a collective delusion. Metaphysically speaking, the universe may be a so-called consensus reality—something like the participatory universe of physicist John Archibald Wheeler, which holds that the universe is not some thing that's "out there" to be observed, but is actively created by its denizens through the act of observ ...[text shortened]... be absolute truths are that the self is a delusion, and all things are connected in a unitary Whole.
We are living in an explosion, expanding at near-light speed. Everything is in flux--even stars eventually die and dissipate. What we take to be solid things are merely arbitrarily selected arcs from the flux which are changing more slowly than we are able to perceive. Hence, truth applies only to an arbitrarily selected temporal sequence within the greater flux.
The only thing that stays the same is change.
I would add that truth pertains to the map, not the territory. Truth is a property of language, not of things. A chair is not true, a statement about a chair can be true. Truth is therefore necessarily bound by "cultural norms, memories, and expectations" and cannot be absolute, if by "absolute" one means beyond all cultural norms, memories, and expectations. Of course, the assertion that there is no such thing as absolute truth is itself formulated in a specific language, and cannot be taken to be an absolute truth. It's not a paradox or a contradiction; it's just a limit of language.
As Wittgenstein says, you can't describe the aroma of coffee... That's not a paradox or contradiction, just a limit of language. The mind-cramp disappears once you stop confusing the map for the territory and just smell the coffee instead of trying to capture it in 'truths.' This is where @kellyjay and I always part ways--because he's fixated on truths, doctrines written down in scriptures. He's constantly confusing the map for the territory and taking metaphors and allegories for literal facts.
1 edit
@KellyJay saidDoes anyone buy into the notion/narrative that we actually live in a post-truth universe
Does anyone buy into the notion/narrative that we actually live in a post-truth universe, meaning there isn’t a meta-narrative, or to say it another way, there is no truth that is true for everyone, absolutely?
This topic can get rather abstract in a hurry, since the definition of "what is truth" has been a subject of heated debate for centuries.
In the Gospel of John 18:38, when Pontius Pilate asks Jesus the question "What is truth?" Pilate does not wait for an answer and instead goes out to tell the Jewish leaders that he finds no guilt in Jesus.
As Indiana Jones once said: "If it's truth your looking for Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. 😏
@mchill said"What is truth?" is equivalent to "How long is a piece of string?"
Does anyone buy into the notion/narrative that we actually live in a post-truth universe
This topic can get rather abstract in a hurry, since the definition of "what is truth" has been a subject of heated debate for centuries.
In the Gospel of John 18:38, when Pontius Pilate asks Jesus the question "What is truth?" Pilate does not wait for an answer and instead goes out ...[text shortened]... s once said: "If it's truth your looking for Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall. 😏
Show me a piece of string, and I'll tell you how long it is.
@Soothfast saidAll truth is absolute, or it isn’t truth; all truth will not conflict with any other true thing. A conflict can arise from our opinions, and when they run into reality, we either dismiss them and move on as if nothing happened or change our opinions to adapt to what we were once wrong about. You cannot have science correcting itself if all it is is a bunch of opinions, then it isn’t truth, it is after only a majority opinion.
It could be argued (and has) that "reality" is but a collective delusion. Metaphysically speaking, the universe may be a so-called consensus reality—something like the participatory universe of physicist John Archibald Wheeler, which holds that the universe is not some thing that's "out there" to be observed, but is actively created by its denizens through the act of observ ...[text shortened]... be absolute truths are that the self is a delusion, and all things are connected in a unitary Whole.
@moonbus saidYou expand our discussion to not being able to know anything as can be known. Either there is a meta-narative that encompasses the whole, or nothing but opinions from several points of view. This makes every opinion right and wrong at the same time, as they conflict with other opinions. Either we are in reality and are trying to understand it, or we paint it the way we want to see it, as we live in it.
The flaw in that argument is that if we never apprehend anything except through our "cultural norms, memories, and expectations", then we cannot know that the absolute, beyond cultural norms, memories, and expectations, is either unific or static. It might be plural &/or constantly changing. In other words, not a WHOLE universe at all, but a hotchpotch of schizo-verses.
We ...[text shortened]... onstantly confusing the map for the territory and taking metaphors and allegories for literal facts.
@mchill saidIt's a notion only applicable to a very narrow socio-political context. I take it merely to mean that, these days, a relatively large number of individuals discount empirically established facts and live in a state of near-constant cognitive dissonance.
Does anyone buy into the notion/narrative that we actually live in a post-truth universe
@KellyJay saidSince no truth can contradict another truth, in a perfect system, when viewed holistically, we will see harmony in cultures where love is the main moral goal, and what is not loving becomes painfully obvious. Well-formed groups centered on Jesus Christ, who care for each other, will align themselves because love in truth will act as a gravitational force pulling us together.
You expand our discussion to not being able to know anything as can be known. Either there is a meta-narative that encompasses the whole, or nothing but opinions from several points of view. This makes every opinion right and wrong at the same time, as they conflict with other opinions. Either we are in reality and are trying to understand it, or we paint it the way we want to see it, as we live in it.
There will always be a pulling away, a fight against love and truth, even among members who strive to do it all right. Which is why living in Grace is so important here, as we received it in full, we need to give it in full. Those who oppose this relationship will always find reasons for division, justifications for acts of strife, hateful rhetoric, holding grudges, and failing to forgive, as they also reject the forgiveness offered to all.
Without the head, without Jesus Christ, our nature will refuse that harmony; being self-centered, we will resist and oppose Christ as Lord. Not having Him as the head means a divided people, each setting their own agendas, each crafting their own measure of good and evil. Those who wish no restraint upon themselves will be like people floating in outer space; they will have nothing to stand on outside of their own desires, no gravity there.
@KellyJay saidThe thing about applying our tests to a universe governed by laws, laws are not a product of confusion, chaos, unguided principles, or undirected focus. Absolutes are required for any testing for causal results; if absolutes are not present, nothing could be predictable, and nothing could be known. All certainty would be lost; there could be no science done. Science can only be done with tested, repeatable results, impossible in a universe where there are no absolutes; no test would yield the same results in any lab.
Since no truth can contradict another truth, in a perfect system, when viewed holistically, we will see harmony in cultures where love is the main moral goal, and what is not loving becomes painfully obvious. Well-formed groups centered on Jesus Christ, who care for each other, will align themselves because love in truth will act as a gravitational force pulling us together ...[text shortened]... g in outer space; they will have nothing to stand on outside of their own desires, no gravity there.
In a universe without absolutes, could our minds grasp anything at all? Even coming up with a single right answer would be impossible, no matter how limited the scope of the queries are, even 1+1=2 could not be counted on, pardon the pun. To know any truth requires there to be truth, a mind that can recognize it and set it apart from error. This is not the product of chaos but intelligence, God creating a universe that reflects His nature.
@Soothfast said"Only in thoughts and feelings outside time and space, and wholly divorced from sensory forms, may one find an absolute truth. But language and mathematics cannot express such truths, so they are transcendent in nature, and can only be pointed to with myths (expressed using sensory forms metaphorically rather than literally), or else apprehended by purging all myths and experiencing the "emptiness" of the Mahayana Buddhists (i.e. all things and the self are void of independent, inherent, or permanent existence)."
It could be argued (and has) that "reality" is but a collective delusion. Metaphysically speaking, the universe may be a so-called consensus reality—something like the participatory universe of physicist John Archibald Wheeler, which holds that the universe is not some thing that's "out there" to be observed, but is actively created by its denizens through the act of observ ...[text shortened]... be absolute truths are that the self is a delusion, and all things are connected in a unitary Whole.
Our thoughts and feelings are all internal; they can be swayed by a good or bad meal, a kind or hateful word, or something we experience that wasn’t what we thought was right but was evil. We grapple with everything around us and our internal struggles, trying to sort out what is and is not important. Bumping up against an absolute truth, as I have said, leaves us only two options: adjust our thinking in a corrective manner or create our own excuse, an illusion to avoid what we do not want to be true.
I recall I believe it was Dawkins who said life only looked designed, but that was simply an illusion. If you don’t like what’s right in front of you, deny it and move on. People do this all of the time. Avoiding absolute truth is self-deception, creating a "wall of glass of denial" that hems us in, which is difficult to see because we are always trying to avoid looking at it.