This should be a no brainer. Any bets on how many fools try to deny absolute truth?
Hello Grugore,
No."Is there such a thing as absolute truth?"
Each of us perceives the world in a different way. And each of our perceptions is constantly changing. The first time you see something you form a mental picture of it. The longer you study it, the more details are filled in. Your first impression of something is not the same as your modified one. Sometimes, due to shortness of allowed time to gather details perhaps, we fill in details which are not there. Later, if we notice the difference, we correct the error with more accurate information. If we never notice the difference, we believe the incorrect detail is 'the truth.'
When two humans look at the same thing, they notice different details. The perception each has, thus differs.
If they both subsequently add the missing details, they both have the same perception. Generally, this rarely occurs.
Each individual's perception of the world is unique.
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
Controlled Opposition (09-07-2018), Cypress (09-10-2018), Guno צְבִי (09-07-2018)
Controlled Opposition (09-07-2018)
You are attempting to use the same argument that Giuliani was referring to, and Atheist Humanists believe. Philosophy defines Absolute Truth as ""Inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares."
You want to use the three blind men describing an elephant by touching three different parts of the elephants body argument. All are correct for the particular part they are touching (perspective), and yet all are wrong.
"2Timothy 3 "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away"
Jack (09-07-2018)
"2Timothy 3 "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away"
No, Giuliani's attempt was superficial, right up there with the bogus "alternate facts" arguments
Your latter example is based upon inductive reasoning, not deductive, which indirectly leads to the point you are making, but to return to the opening post, the question was asked if absolute truth existed, which the answer is no, philosophically, the tree falling in the woods thing is accurate
Bookmarks