The Absolute Truth. Both of them.
The Absolute Truth. Both of them.
I keep saying this, usually at the bottom of the page of a thread, so that it is quickly lost; or to people who may have me on their ignore list, but here it is in its own thread:
There is at least one ontological absolute truth. Identified by Parmenides, it is that there is not nothing. He over egged it and took it to mean that 'nothing', ie void/empty space, doesn't exist; although to be fair, the notion of 'nothing' understood by some physicists and mathematicians as the bubbling meeting point of positive and negative supports Parmenides assertion, if not the conclusion he reached. However, that is not the philosophical 'absolutely nothing' nothing.
There is also the epistemological absolute truth identified by Descartes: there is thinking/experience/sensation. Although derived from his famous "I think, therefore I am." it was Malebranche who pointed out that just because there is thinking that appears to be of 'you', it doesn't follow that the 'you' the thoughts are about exist. It's taking it a bit far, but we are talking about Absolute Truth.
In short, both the following are absolutely true:
There is not nothing.
There is thinking.
Feel free to challenge that without automatically confirming it.
There is at least one ontological absolute truth. Identified by Parmenides, it is that there is not nothing. He over egged it and took it to mean that 'nothing', ie void/empty space, doesn't exist; although to be fair, the notion of 'nothing' understood by some physicists and mathematicians as the bubbling meeting point of positive and negative supports Parmenides assertion, if not the conclusion he reached. However, that is not the philosophical 'absolutely nothing' nothing.
There is also the epistemological absolute truth identified by Descartes: there is thinking/experience/sensation. Although derived from his famous "I think, therefore I am." it was Malebranche who pointed out that just because there is thinking that appears to be of 'you', it doesn't follow that the 'you' the thoughts are about exist. It's taking it a bit far, but we are talking about Absolute Truth.
In short, both the following are absolutely true:
There is not nothing.
There is thinking.
Feel free to challenge that without automatically confirming it.
Re: The Absolute Truth. Both of them.
Thinking has to be moving or exists from a moving thing. Nothing doesn't move. Ha. Nothing is the relativity in thought and that is consciousness. Consciousness is the unmoving no thing which moves all things in existance thought included.
-
- Posts: 4332
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: The Absolute Truth. Both of them.
there is something - (there is not nothing sounds conflated)
senses, sensed things, things in themselves, senses in themselves, Brains in vats ... any/none - regardless, there is "something" (and not necessarily tangible)
I; therefore, I
justification?
the essence of the cogito is this: (let's leave the fact that is the basis for his argument for god out of it for now)
there is thinking; therefore, there is something that thinks
noun does verb; therefore, noun's existence is proven because verb is done
language is absolutely true by definition
belief in language is problematic... (god remains dead)
I; therefore, I
-Imp
senses, sensed things, things in themselves, senses in themselves, Brains in vats ... any/none - regardless, there is "something" (and not necessarily tangible)
I; therefore, I
justification?
the essence of the cogito is this: (let's leave the fact that is the basis for his argument for god out of it for now)
there is thinking; therefore, there is something that thinks
noun does verb; therefore, noun's existence is proven because verb is done
language is absolutely true by definition
belief in language is problematic... (god remains dead)
I; therefore, I
-Imp
Re: The Absolute Truth. Both of them.
Doesn't follow unless you assume that thoughts cannot exist without a thinker. I think that is true, but it isn't logically necessary. I take your point about I; therefore, I.Impenitent wrote:there is thinking; therefore, there is something that thinks
Re: The Absolute Truth. Both of them.
Yeah relativity is the nonmoving thinker via the brain. Think about it in between thoughts there is a nonmoving relativity or the thoughts would not relate to one onther. Thats what consciousness is nonmoving relativity of a action. And a thought is an action. God dont move but is relative.
- GreatandWiseTrixie
- Posts: 1547
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Re: The Absolute Truth. Both of them.
Over egged it. While it may be true there is not nothing, one could have sentience with no thought, but pure feeling.uwot wrote:I keep saying this, usually at the bottom of the page of a thread, so that it is quickly lost; or to people who may have me on their ignore list, but here it is in its own thread:
There is at least one ontological absolute truth. Identified by Parmenides, it is that there is not nothing. He over egged it and took it to mean that 'nothing', ie void/empty space, doesn't exist; although to be fair, the notion of 'nothing' understood by some physicists and mathematicians as the bubbling meeting point of positive and negative supports Parmenides assertion, if not the conclusion he reached. However, that is not the philosophical 'absolutely nothing' nothing.
There is also the epistemological absolute truth identified by Descartes: there is thinking/experience/sensation. Although derived from his famous "I think, therefore I am." it was Malebranche who pointed out that just because there is thinking that appears to be of 'you', it doesn't follow that the 'you' the thoughts are about exist. It's taking it a bit far, but we are talking about Absolute Truth.
In short, both the following are absolutely true:
There is not nothing.
There is thinking.
Feel free to challenge that without automatically confirming it.
Re: The Absolute Truth. Both of them.
Thoughts come from feelings(something) . Feeling come from consiouse awareness(nothing). The relativity between thoughts is unmoving consciousness. And thats the absolute trurh no bout bout a dout it.
Re: The Absolute Truth. Both of them.
The first is meaningless unless you can tell us what a nothing could consist of - and don't say 'nothing,' that's circular. Can't say 'something' either or you contradict yourself, so your hands are tied. 'There's nothing that isn't either 'something' or 'nothing' is there?' = 'Everything is either something or nothing' - therefore, 'Everything.'uwot wrote:I keep saying this, usually at the bottom of the page of a thread, so that it is quickly lost; or to people who may have me on their ignore list, but here it is in its own thread:
There is at least one ontological absolute truth. Identified by Parmenides, it is that there is not nothing. He over egged it and took it to mean that 'nothing', ie void/empty space, doesn't exist; although to be fair, the notion of 'nothing' understood by some physicists and mathematicians as the bubbling meeting point of positive and negative supports Parmenides assertion, if not the conclusion he reached. However, that is not the philosophical 'absolutely nothing' nothing.
There is also the epistemological absolute truth identified by Descartes: there is thinking/experience/sensation. Although derived from his famous "I think, therefore I am." it was Malebranche who pointed out that just because there is thinking that appears to be of 'you', it doesn't follow that the 'you' the thoughts are about exist. It's taking it a bit far, but we are talking about Absolute Truth.
In short, both the following are absolutely true:
There is not nothing.
There is thinking.
Feel free to challenge that without automatically confirming it.
I think Parmenides was limited to saying 'The one is one' for similar reasons.
Re: The Absolute Truth. Both of them.
Would you be happy with the minimalist claim there is thinking in the world?uwot wrote:Doesn't follow unless you assume that thoughts cannot exist without a thinker. I think that is true, but it isn't logically necessary. I take your point about I; therefore, I.Impenitent wrote:there is thinking; therefore, there is something that thinks
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
As I see it: truth is what is true (real, factual, actual), so...
"There is not nothing", that is, 'there is something'. Sure...obvious...unremarkable.
"There is thinking" Sure...obvious...unremarkable.
I'm not sayin' that 'something' is not remarkable, or that 'thinking' is not remarkable.
I am sayin' assessing these two as 'real' (true/truth) is unremarkable.
er...what's the point of the thread again?
"There is not nothing", that is, 'there is something'. Sure...obvious...unremarkable.
"There is thinking" Sure...obvious...unremarkable.
I'm not sayin' that 'something' is not remarkable, or that 'thinking' is not remarkable.
I am sayin' assessing these two as 'real' (true/truth) is unremarkable.
er...what's the point of the thread again?
Re: The Absolute Truth. Both of them.
Absolute nonsense.Impenitent wrote:there is something - (there is not nothing sounds conflated)
senses, sensed things, things in themselves, senses in themselves, Brains in vats ... any/none - regardless, there is "something" (and not necessarily tangible)
I; therefore, I
justification?
the essence of the cogito is this: (let's leave the fact that is the basis for his argument for god out of it for now)
there is thinking; therefore, there is something that thinks
noun does verb; therefore, noun's existence is proven because verb is done
language is absolutely true by definition
It makes no sense to say "language is true by definition", what is true about it? ..ramblings! ......the rest of the post is also mad rablings.
Re: The Absolute Truth. Both of them.
Then 'nothing' is meaningless. Personally I don't see the logic in insisting that nothing has to be anything, but since the point is that there isn't nothing, it's moot anyway.Wyman wrote:The first is meaningless unless you can tell us what a nothing could consist of - and don't say 'nothing,' that's circular.
I'm happy with a lot of claims about the world, but not as absolute claims.Ginkgo wrote:Would you be happy with the minimalist claim there is thinking in the world?
That, remarkably, those two things are the only things which are true absolutely. There are no other absolute truths that I am aware of; all other facts are contingent: they happen to be true but could be otherwise; or tautological: they are true by definition. It is self-refuting to proclaim (absolutely) nothing exists, or to think there is no thinking.henry quirk wrote:I am sayin' assessing these two as 'real' (true/truth) is unremarkable.
er...what's the point of the thread again?
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: The Absolute Truth. Both of them.
Got it now...
Re: The Absolute Truth. Both of them.
For something to be true, it must be believed to be true.uwot wrote:That, remarkably, those two things are the only things which are true absolutely. There are no other absolute truths that I am aware of; all other facts are contingent: they happen to be true but could be otherwise; or tautological: they are true by definition. It is self-refuting to proclaim (absolutely) nothing exists, or to think there is no thinking.henry quirk wrote:I am sayin' assessing these two as 'real' (true/truth) is unremarkable.
er...what's the point of the thread again?
And certainly most people would believe your two points to be true.
However I am not sure how one progresses from 'true' to 'absolutely true'.
That said those two 'truths' make an excellent foundation for philosophy. The task is then to build upon those in a rigorous fashion to create a picture of the world.
Too much of philosophy is based upon fantasies and opinions that have no firm foundations. Discussions about those fantasies and opinions create a lot of hot air, but without sound foundations, that is all they produce.
- SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5688
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: The Absolute Truth. Both of them.
As to thinking, I would go so far as to say that it's not necessarily you doing the thinking. That just because it seems to originate in your head, does not mean it doesn't come from somewhere else. Until science absolutely nails down consciousness, I find myself wondering otherwise. Mind you, it's just a fanciful thought, considering that we are children of the universe, that the universe is humankind's parents. Or should I say, "Earth-Life's parents." Just wondering how far removed we actually are from that which caused us to exist, you know, electromagnetic energy, electricity, synapses, motor movement, stars of elements of positive and negative potentials and all universal stuff of invisible forces that remain to be fully understood.uwot wrote:I keep saying this, usually at the bottom of the page of a thread, so that it is quickly lost; or to people who may have me on their ignore list, but here it is in its own thread:
There is at least one ontological absolute truth. Identified by Parmenides, it is that there is not nothing. He over egged it and took it to mean that 'nothing', ie void/empty space, doesn't exist; although to be fair, the notion of 'nothing' understood by some physicists and mathematicians as the bubbling meeting point of positive and negative supports Parmenides assertion, if not the conclusion he reached. However, that is not the philosophical 'absolutely nothing' nothing.
There is also the epistemological absolute truth identified by Descartes: there is thinking/experience/sensation. Although derived from his famous "I think, therefore I am." it was Malebranche who pointed out that just because there is thinking that appears to be of 'you', it doesn't follow that the 'you' the thoughts are about exist. It's taking it a bit far, but we are talking about Absolute Truth.
In short, both the following are absolutely true:
There is not nothing.
There is thinking.
Feel free to challenge that without automatically confirming it.
Grandiose, I know, but so is the universe.