TRUTH

Originally posted by lucifershammer
X is just a variable signifier - like the x in x+3=5.

Then all we have: x = house.

There is some x such that x is a house - therefore x is a house.

Originally posted by Coletti
Maybe 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?

Okay, does house exist in relation to non-house or is house an enduring, unchanging entity?

Originally posted by eagles54
Okay, does house exist in relation to non-house or is house an enduring, unchanging entity?

How would you answer that without defining "house?"

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
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.

... --- ...

Are you saying that it is impossible for man to know the truth?

Originally posted by Coletti
How would you answer that without defining "house?"

Fair enough, let's go with the most common usage:

house n. pl. hous·es (houzz, -sz)

A structure serving as a dwelling for one or more persons, especially for a family.

Now, does this construct named house exist in a relative or in an absolute way? Or both?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Are you saying that it is impossible for man to know the truth?

Now if I were to say yes then I would be claiming to know the truth and thereby contradict myself. So with that in mind I will have to say I don't know, but in my observations it seems a likely conclusion. Of course, in order to test any such hypothesis first we would need to find a human who was actually interested in knowing the truth and not in merely trying to convince others that his particular assumtion is the right one. If such a person existed he would probably just be staring out into space, thinking but never getting anywhere. Just like in chess: in a complicated position a player can never be 100% sure that his attack or defence will work, even if he can see 14 moves in, because of the elusive 15th move. To be a human means to never be sure but to take that leap anyway. As a Christian you should understand that behavior.

... --- ...

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Now if I were to say yes then I would be claiming to know the truth and thereby contradict myself. So with that in mind I will have to say I don't know, but in my observations it seems a likely conclusion. Of course, in order to test any such hypothesis first we would need to find a human who was actually interested in knowing the truth and not in me ...[text shortened]... ut to take that leap anyway. As a Christian you should understand that behavior.

... --- ...

Are you saying that no one can be absolutely sure about anything?

Originally posted by eagles54
Fair enough, let's go with the most common usage:

house n. pl. hous·es (houzz, -sz)

A structure serving as a dwelling for one or more persons, especially for a family.

Now, does this construct named house exist in a relative or in an absolute way? Or both?

I'm not sure what you mean. The definition is relatively true, as it does not speak of a specific house. As for it being an abstract concept, it is may be tautologically true - and so absolutely true. But I'm not sure what you asking so please carry on.

Originally posted by Coletti
I'm not sure what you mean. The definition is relatively true, as it does not speak of a specific house. As for it being an abstract concept, it is may be tautologically true - and so absolutely true. But I'm not sure what you asking so please carry on.

A house can only exist in a relative sense. A house exists because a human being or beings acquired the skills to build it, obtained and managed the materials for the job, and then by various processes completed the work necessary. A house cannot exist apart from elements that are not house. It is a construct dependent on many causes. Remove any single cause and a house cannot exist as we define it.

Thoughts and emotions are the same. They have no absolute reality yet all good and evil in the world is based upon these transient appearances.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Are you saying that no one can be absolutely sure about anything?

Define being sure. If I used this term in a previous post I must apologise. Some one can certainly have the confidence of feeling right and thereby escape all doubt. That of course does not preclude error. If one were to have a truly open mind with no fear of being wrong, then certainty would be a hard thing to come by, and in the end even that person would probably stoop to assumption and call it intuition.

... --- ...

Originally posted by eagles54
A house can only exist in a relative sense. A house exists because a human being or beings acquired the skills to build it, obtained and managed the materials for the job, and then by various processes completed the work necessary. A house cannot exist apart from elements that are not house. It is a construct dependent on many causes. Remove any single caus ...[text shortened]... o absolute reality yet all good and evil in the world is based upon these transient appearances.

I have a different concept of what exists. Abstract ideas, like "house" or "cat" exist as concepts. And in some senses, they are more real then the things we perceive and categorize as "house" or "cat". The concept is what we use to identify what we perceive - and without the concept - we can not reason about our perceptions. What we see is really just an ever changing sensation - we do can not have knowledge based on sensation itself. The reality of the objects we see is due more to the concept of the object, than our physical perceptions of the object.

One reason I insist that this is correct is that in order for us to contemplate meaningful things like love, freedom, truth, reality - we must first grasp abstract ideas. So I say that anything that can be the object of reason, has existence, and can be used for obtaining necessary truths (knowledge).

Concepts and ideas like trust, compassion, freedom, mercy are real. The idea of "house" is more real and absolute than a house seen because we can not "know" what a house is when we see one without first having the concept of "house".

Think of it this way. When you wrote "house," everyone had a concept in mind instantly - and could include that concept of house in thinking. But if I go outside now a look at a structure for the first time, it may take minutes or hours of examination before I could say if what I saw was a "house." And possible I may not be certain if what I saw is really a house if it does not easily fit the concept of house.

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
Define being sure. If I used this term in a previous post I must apologise. Some one can certainly have the confidence of feeling right and thereby escape all doubt. That of course does not preclude error. If one were to have a tru ...[text shortened]... probably stoop to assumption and call it intuition.

... --- ...

So you don't know whether what you are saying is the truth? Why then sould I believe what you are saying?

Originally posted by Coletti
I have a different concept of what exists. Abstract ideas, like "house" or "cat" exist as concepts. And in some senses, they are more real then the things we perceive and categorize as "house" or "cat". The concept is what we use to identify what we perceive - and without the concept - we can not reason about our perceptions. What we see is reall ...[text shortened]... ot be certain if what I saw is really a house if it does not easily fit the concept of house.

Yes, abstract ideas exist, relatively speaking. They have no existence outside the values we assign them.

When you say "The reality of the objects we see is due more to the concept of the object, than our physical perceptions of the object." I agree, in that we do not utilize a pure perception but one based on previous incidents and one's attachment/aversion/neutrality to the perception being experienced. The fact remains that these concepts, no matter how useful in everyday life, are only mental constructs and subject to one's own biases. They are only "real" in the sense that they are the common experience of human beings in general. They still lack an ultimate reality.

Originally posted by eagles54
Yes, abstract ideas exist, relatively speaking. They have no existence outside the values we assign them.

When you say "The reality of the objects we see is due more to the concept of the object, than our physical perceptions of the object." I agree, in that we do not utilize a pure perception but one based on previous incidents and one's attachment/ ...[text shortened]... are the common experience of human beings in general. They still lack an ultimate reality.

But what you are left with is less real than the abstract concepts. Perceptions are merely physically sensations, stimuli to the brain, with no objective truth. If that is what you consider real, then reality does not include reason or knowledge or language.

Ultimate reality (to mean anything) should be based on knowledge, and knowledge is propositional - it is abstract. The physical world is nothing more than sensation with no objective truth, no knowledge that we can know.

I'd rather say that ultimate reality is knowledge - it is in fact, those mental concepts that we reason about and communicate by language.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you don't know whether what you are saying is the truth? Why then sould I believe what you are saying?

I never said that. If you are going to twist people's words you should get better at it. I certainly believe what I say is true. However, I come to that conclusion though assumtion/intuition, so I certainly can't be sure about it on an intellectual/logical level. In other words, I believe that what I say is true, I just don't know that what I say is true. Can you understand that difference?

As for why you should believe what I am saying, I would urge you not to unless you can come up with the same conclusions as I do. Just as I do not follow anyone blindly, I would not want anyone to follow me blindly.

... --- ...