Philosophy Now Forum

Hello. I am new here to this forum. The reason why I'm here is because I thoroughly enjoy discussing philosophy and thinking critically. Now without further adoo I'll start my first topic.

Exactly what is absolute truth and how can we gain this knowledge? I'm curious to see your opinions.

Welcome!

I'm not sure it lives up to your absolute truth, but here is: http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3831!

You can also check this out: http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1841.

My comment to brains in vats type of truth is: Why shouldn't I be able to gather knowledge beyond the speculation of God or brain-in-a-vat? Given life's premises, we have no other choice for real! So what if we die and find ourselves in a brain-in-a-vat, still, given our (likely) past and our development in human history this far, I see no reason to not keep going the way we've used to, ie. develop science and enjoy knowledge of life!

Another point, if we end up in Heaven, are we really less justified to speak of knowledge! Of course not! Then Brains in Vats" enters the same... Also, even then, hypothetically and by an extremely charitable interpretation, can we really consider the value of these "illusionary experiences" null. My answer is, even in this absurd situation, NO because it relates to being in a certain state of mind, almost as if you retrieve stories or art from people who have been on LSD or other psychotic drugs. So even then we have to admit that what these beings we have left behind as we're now in this "true" state of being a brain in a vat or in Heaven, are in fact living lives according to the premises and consequently determine knowledge also accordingly. The premises give knowledge, undeniably, in the most extreme situation and by an extremely charitable interpretation.

Both paragraphs are from http://t-lea.net/philosophical_notes.html#CBV.

I hate to bother much with truth in the religious sense because I think that kind of speculation has strict limitations and is mostly useless!

Wow, I see you have all ready thought about this and come up with an answer. In short you say that things can only be predicted, they cannot be known with certainty. Am I right in saying this?

Virus? How can a search for wisdom be viral?

Assuming that you are presenting 'a search for wisdom' as a definition of what constitutes philosophy, I would argue that this is one of the very first and most misleading symptoms of the virus. I do not consider philoosphical activity to be a search for anything; rather, it is an attempt to prevent 'truth'. Put more simply, the obligation of the philosophical thinker is to set up obstacles to dogma. So, a search for wisdom can be 'viral' insofar as it is a manifestation of the belief in wisdom as a virtue, as something worth pursuing. The 'virality' of it consists in the speed at which it has spread and the damage it has caused.

Does not the word philosophy mean a love of wisdom? Is not wisdom knowing what is right and what is wrong? You say a search for truth is bad? This is very discouraging. Fortunately I have learned not to believe anything someone says unless they can support it logically.

So support your statment otherwise what you say is meaningless.

Ok.


1/. Who have you learned this from? Or ... have you come to it yourself? If it is latter, disregard the former (or question the notion of 'self' which would be far more relevant in this context)

2/. What do you mean by 'logically'? Are you prepared to question such logic?




No. It is a frightening trend to attribute such 'meaning' to it. This is simply a linguistic root. Philosophical activity is the attempt to prevent dogma (or 'truth'). If truth - or 'a correct answer' prevails, philosphical activity has failed. However, wherever 'truth' is claimed, philosophical activity finds itself called back into action.




Yes. You are right. This is 'not wisdom'.




Yes, I do (and I stand by it). We should not search for truth. We should try to prevent truth. Truth operates dogmatically unless it is questioned; such questioning must be ceaseless. Nothing must ever be accepted as 'truth'. We can accept something as being 'relevant', 'worthwhile', 'useful' but never, ever, 'true'. The point at which we accept something as being true is the point at which we not only cease to engage in philosophical activity, but the point at which we should and must be ashamed to call ourselves 'philosophers' (not merely because there is no such thing ... there are thinkers who engage in philosophical activity but no thinker has ever operated purely philosphically).




Consider my statement, otherwise what you say is trivial.

I have learned it from myself.

In order to question logic one must use logic. Therefore logic cannot be questioned.


Why does this word have such a linguistic root then?



So wisdom is the ignorance of right and wrong?
Your statement is a little vague.

Philosophy is a tool. We should not cling to such a tool when it loses its value. When someone is done building a house he does need his tools for building anymore. When someone crosses a river he does not carry the boat with him unless he knows there are more rivers to cross. It seems that you are not trying to build anything with philosophy. You are simply using your tools to tear down other people's houses. This is good if the person is building their house on sand. You are doing them a favor. But what if someone is building their house on a rock? Do you tear their house down too? What will happen when the floods of life come? There will be no house for you to take shelter in. You will be washed away with the others; the rabble that you wasted your time tearing down when you should've been building your own house on the rock.

Is the demad to ceaselessly attempt to prevent dogma not a dogma itself ?

woof

-Imp

It can be; because of this it must also be questioned. My point is that nothing must remain unquestioned; however, I'm not claiming that nothing can be accepted as being true. The force of dogma manifests itself in uncritical acceptance. However, acceptance during an ongoing critical project does not restore any dogmatic power it may have either previously held or aspired to.

Put simply, if the claim that philosophcial activity must operate in order to prevent 'truth' (or perhaps 'Truth' is a better way of writing this) is followed, then it must also be included as a potential 'truth' which is to be prevented. However, if we act in such a way as to do this then we give it more, not less, significance (as we are maintaining it through its own prescribed critical activity - at any point it could be rejected).

Lastly, let's not forget that when we attempt to disprove a statement by showing that it is somehow self-defeating (e.g. by being logically self-contradictory) we unquestioningly accept the principle of non-contradiction, along with the connecting wires and cables of logic which support and maintain such principles. In doing this, we are not preventing, but rather enabling, dogma.

I respect you for saying this. We should question every dogma that is presented to us, but we cannot honestly question logic itself. You must be in agreement with this.

Exactly.

Shall we accept the principle of non-contradiction as always true ?
Or is it already an unacceptable dogma and has also to be put into question ?

Any examples of contradiction sounding "right" (I do not say "true" ) to you, Mr. Ala ?

P.S. Shall we pronounce more like L.A. or more like Allah ?

duszek wrote:


You don't need to pronounce it. This is all happening in writing, not speech.

Meanwhile, Jason K wrote:


Not entirely. I would question the idea that there is such a thing as 'logic itself' (this, in fact, would be consistent with the idea of philosophy as a constant attempt to prevent truth). The only understanding of a sort of 'essential logic' would be nebulous at best and rhetorical at worst, neither of which could claim the absolute status in which 'logic itself' would attempt to reside. So no, I am not really in agreement with you on this.

In order for us to determine what logic is perhaps we should determine first what it is not. Logic is not blind in that it is always has viewable evidence. Logic is not a belief in that it always has provable evidence. Therefore logic cannot be false, ever.

Is this not a logical statement?