- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
08 Jun 05
2 edits
As I see it TRUTH is an absolute. Thus TRUTH is the same for all people. People may have different interpretations of TRUTH, but that does not change the TRUTH.
Does the phrase "What is true for you is not true for me" not imply that TRUTH is relative? If so, is there anyone that believes that truth is relative?
08 Jun 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerHuman "truth" is relative, for to formulate such a truth each and every one of us makes assumptions. This is not complete truth, for somewhere in it there is an undefinable object of faith. The only complete truth is God, a truth incomprehensible to pathetic man.
As I see it TRUTH is an absolute. Thus TRUTH is the same for all people. People may have different interpretations of TRUTH, but that does not change the TRUTH.
Does the phrase "What is true for you is not true for me" not imply that TRUTH is relative? If so, is there anyone that believes that truth is relative?
... --- ...
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
08 Jun 05
Originally posted by thesonofsaulSo you believe that God exists?
Human "truth" is relative, for to formulate such a truth each and every one of us makes assumptions. This is not complete truth, for somewhere in it there is an undefinable object of faith. The only complete truth is God, a truth incomprehensible to pathetic man.
... --- ...
08 Jun 05
Originally posted by eagles54Truth is propositional. The single term "house" is not a proposition, so it has no truth value. "All houses are green" is a proposition with a truth value.
Does a "house" reflect relative or absolute truth? Does a house exist in a relative way or in an absolute way? Or both? It may be helpful to look at a mundane example before we wade into deeper waters.
08 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiIf you look at my post again, you'll see that I asked if a house exists in a relative or absolute manner, or both. It does have truth value.
Truth is propositional. The single term "house" is not a proposition, so it has no truth value. "All houses are green" is a proposition with a truth value.
08 Jun 05
Originally posted by thesonofsaulYou are conflating 'truth' with 'formulation of truth'. Of course our beliefs about what is true will be relative to each of us; they are our beliefs, after all. Buth this entails nothing about the nature of truth itself. If you think that some beliefs are true and others false, then you are committed to truth being an objective matter. Further, even if you deny that truth is objective, you will thereby be committed to the claim that it is an objective matter that truth is relativistic, which means that there is at least one objective truth. Hence, your view is self-refuting.
Human "truth" is relative, for to formulate such a truth each and every one of us makes assumptions. This is not complete truth, for somewhere in it there is an undefinable object of faith. The only complete truth is God, a truth incomprehensible to pathetic man.
... --- ...
08 Jun 05
Originally posted by eagles54Does a house exist? The proposition "a house exists" is only half a proposition. You have a logical subject, and no predicate. "A house exists" is eqivialent to "A house is." -- Is what? A house is what?
If you look at my post again, you'll see that I asked if a house exists in a relative or absolute manner, or both. It does have truth value.
08 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiNo. "A house exists" is a complete proposition. It is translated in first order logic as:
Does a house exist? The proposition "a house exists" is only half a proposition. You have a logical subject, and no predicate. "A house exists" is eqivialent to "A house is." -- Is what? A house is what?
There is some X such that X is a house.
or, symbolically, as:
(Ex) Hx
Where E is the existential quantifier, x is some object in the domain of discourse, and H is the property of being a house.
08 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiUm, I asked if a house exists in a relative or absolute manner, or both. I'm not defining a house. Do you see the difference?
Does a house exist? The proposition "a house exists" is only half a proposition. You have a logical subject, and no predicate. "A house exists" is eqivialent to "A house is." -- Is what? A house is what?
08 Jun 05
Originally posted by bbarrIt is not I who combines "'truth' with 'formulation of truth'" as you put it, but humanity itself. If you truly read my post you would see that I am not claiming that truth is not objective, but rather that what we humans call truth is not actually truth but only a belief based, somewhere along the line, on a very convincing (at least to the individual involved) assumption. Perhaps my wording was not clear.
You are conflating 'truth' with 'formulation of truth'. Of course our beliefs about what is true will be relative to each of us; they are our beliefs, after all. Buth this entails nothing about the nature of truth itself. If you think that some beliefs are true and others false, then you are committed to truth being an objective matter. Further, even i ...[text shortened]... tic, which means that there is at least one objective truth. Hence, your view is self-refuting.
... --- ...
08 Jun 05
Originally posted by bbarrYour translation that "a house exists" means "there is some X such that X is a house" is extending the logical meaning of "a house exists" to " X is a house." But there is no "X" in "a house exists".
No. "A house exists" is a complete proposition. It is translated in first order logic as:
There is some X such that X is a house.
or, symbolically, as:
(Ex) Hx
Where E is the existential quantifier, x is some object in the domain of discourse, and H is the property of being a house.
If you want to say X is a house then you have a complete proposition, and you are saying more than "a house exists".
08 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiX is just a variable signifier - like the x in x+3=5.
Your translation that "a house exists" means "there is some X such that X is a house" is extending the logical meaning of "a house exists" to " X is a house." But there is no "X" in "a house exists".
If you want to say X is a house then you have a complete proposition, and you are saying more than "a house exists".
08 Jun 05
Originally posted by eagles54Maybe you should spell it out. The terms are indefinite. You need to add some sort of framework in order to know if it is relative or absolute. In other words - relative to what?
Um, I asked if a house exists in a relative or absolute manner, or both. I'm not defining a house. Do you see the difference?