Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12/14/02 10:39pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Good." on 12/13/02 1:43pm
>>>Is there any objective truth to begin with?
>>
>>Yes. 2 + 2 = 4 is an example.
>
>I don't think one can even say this is definitively,
>and the reason is that a) mathematics are merely
>symbols to represent what humans consider reality. and
>b) since we are limited to our memory and our senses
>to gather information about reality, we really don't
>know what is objective other than at a particular
>second we are experiencing something through our
>senses and memory.
2 + 2 = 4 is true by definition, and for this reason one need not look to the outside world to confirm this truth, though adducing examples is often useful for elucidating such concepts.
I could see this going into a long philosophical debate about the a priori epistemological nature of mathematics, so I’ll use a different example. How about this objective truth: hairless men have no hair.
>>>It is one thing to suppose that because you've stepped
>>>out in front of a car in the past, and you got hurt
>>>you shouldn't do it again. It's quite another when
>>>someone asserts moral truisms.
>>
>>True, but you seem to be missing the point of what I
>>wrote here. I was talking about the fundamental basis
>>of beliefs. Suppose you are hurt right now and your
>>memory tells you it was the result of getting hit by a
>>car. Well, how do you know you’re memory is
>>ever reliable (confer the link)? Is the basis for
>>that belief the same foundation for the belief in
>>moral truths? Methinks so. Now if you don’t agree
>>with what I believe to be the basic principle of
>>belief, I’m welcome to suggestions.
>
>It isn't a problem of the basis of belief that I'm
>attacking. I'm saying that if it be the case that our
>memory and our senses dictate truisms for morality as
>well as beliefs, then any person who has both senses
>and a memory can assert whatever it is they think to
>be true about reality and be equally valid about
>reality, nullifying the notion of objective truth by
>contradiction
Well, I’m not saying that our senses dictate truisms for morality, though I do claim that one can perceive moral truths through mental perceptions.
It may be that one’s mental perceptions seem to conflict, but that doesn’t negate the existence of objective truth. I find it rather interesting that a creationist and evolutionist can look at the exact same set of data, with the evolutionist honestly thinking that the data overwhelmingly support his theory, and the creationist also honestly believing that the data overwhelmingly support his theory. Should we forgo the notion of objective truth on this matter? Should we just throw up our arms and say, “You’re both right,”? I don’t think so, and I think the same sort of thing is true for moral truths. Disagreement doesn’t entail the nonexistence of objective truths. This is a classical fallacy that many cultural relativists made.
As for what to do, sometimes the best solution is to discuss the issue using logical arguments and see if the conflict can be reduced to disputable points.
>>>The logical extension
>>>of your argument is that we should admit every and any
>>>belief as a possible truism.
>>
>>That is not the logical extension of my argument at
>>all. I think you may have misconstrued me. What
>>exactly do you believe my argument is?
>
>I believe your argument to be that ultimately beliefs
>are justified according to the mechanisms of memory
>and sensory input.
Nope, though I do believe that many beliefs should be based on those sorts of things. What justification, for instance, would one have for memory and sensory input?
>You have used this to suggest that
>perhaps human life being sacred is a moral truism
>because you happen to think it is true based on these
>things.
Well, that’s not quite true. I gave the reason why I believe it. I’m aware that there’s a logical possibility that I could be wrong, but this is the best and most rational way to go.
>However, anytime it is asserted that the
>ultimate constituents are sensory imput and memory we
>have a problem. Different people believe different
>things intuitively. If the justification is that that
>memory and sensory input vindicate irreducable truths,
>then there are many sets out there of "irreducable
>truths" that are not compatible with one another.
That argument doesn’t logically follow (there is no logical inconsistency with having both irreducible truths and people in disagreement on what these truths are), but I’ll agree with the notion that what many people believe is disagreed upon.
>Something has to give. Either there is no objective
>reality, or sensory input and memory aren't the only
>ways of gathering information about "reality".
Methinks this is a false dichotomy. Another possibility is that there is an objective truth, but that not every fallible mortal perfectly perceives them all, just as there is an objective reality in science but we scientists don’t always get it right.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 