P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 2:07 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 5:44 am
popeye1945 wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 5:29 am

Advocate,
Explain if you would.
"Truth can be understood in relation to biological experience"
possible but that is too loose a statement.

What is truth or fact must be conditioned to a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] which is fundamentally entangled with the human conditions.
What is scientific truths or facts must be conditioned to the Scientific FSK.

The next question is whether these conditioned truths or facts are credible [in what degrees] or false.

Scientific (& mathematical truths are the most credible at present. Legal facts, economics, social, political, fiscal, sports, etc. are of lesser credibility than scientific facts.
If not then that would be pseudo-science.

Therefore one cannot simply claim a fact or a statement is a true or false without any reference [implicit if not explicit] to its specific FSK.

The problem with Peter Holmes, et. al. is they will not or are unable even to qualify on what FSK or grounds their facts and truths are grounded upon. Their only claim of what is fact is what we English Speakers said 'what a fact is.' :shock:
1 There is no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices.
2 What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. That's how we use the word fact. Suck it up.
Your ground is merely what is fact is fact grounded on what we English speakers said it is so!
3 Whether what we call features of reality actually exist is an ontological question. The claim that they don't incurs a burden of proof, unmet so far, to my knowledge - so the claim is or seems irrational.
It is never an ontological question, that is veering toward the illusory, e.g. the ontological God.

The most credible claim of what we call features of reality are scientific facts and they are grounded on a scientific FSK.
Do you dispute this?
4 If what we call reality exists, it exists independently from any way it can be described. The claim that it doesn't incurs a burden of proof, unmet so far, to my knowledge - so the claim is or seems irrational.
5 Mistaking what we say about things (see 1) for the way things are is the original mistake in and of philosophy.
Yes what is reality grounded on scientific FSK which is the most credible and that in one perspective is independent of individuals' opinion and belief but it cannot be absolutely independent of the FSK it is grounded upon.
Since FSKs are constructed and sustained by humans, whatever are facts cannot be absolutely independent of any human conditions.

I anticipate you will merely make noises to the above without any rational justifications but merely claim [English speaking] 'I say so!'
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 12:16 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:54 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 12:11 am

"there is only conditional truth or fact" is an absolute truth as conditionality contains only itself, ie other conditions, therefore referencing nothing.
I did not claim it is an absolute truth, "there is only conditional truth or fact" has to be entangled with humanity [how else?], thus it is a conditional truth.

Therefore it reference nothing, i.e. nothing absolute, so there are only conditional truth or fact.

Btw, you need to note there is absolutely-absolute [God] and conditional-absolute [absolute temperature, monarchy, etc.]
The fact that there is an entanglement is absolute.
"The fact that there is an entanglement is absolute" is conditional upon a specific framework, i.e. a community of humans of your likes or only yourself.
There is no fact that can standalone independent by itself without entanglement with the human conditions.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 12:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 6:10 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 10:10 am If what you mean is that there's no such thing as absolute truth, ......
I agree, "there's no such thing as absolute truth, ..."

If there is no absolute truth [or fact] then there is only conditional truth or fact.
What you failed here is you stop short of what are these conditional truths or facts conditioned upon?
This is why you have been cowardly avoiding despite my many requests that you state what your conditional truths or facts are conditioned upon.

All you could to was to throw dictionary definitions of 'what is fact' at me.
If that is the best you can do, then you have to accept what is fact as conditional fact is conditioned upon the specific dictionary you quoted or the specific FSK of that dictionary or dictionary in general.

But we know the purpose of etymology [dictionaries] is merely to represent what is the common usage of a word at present and over time, its intention is not to represent reality at all.

So far, you have cowardly avoided to explain what your conditional facts or truths are conditioned upon. If you cannot do so, then such facts or truths are baseless, groundless and delusional.
Of course there's absolute truth.

absolute [ ab-suh-loot, ab-suh-loot ]

adjective
1) free from imperfection; complete; perfect

noun
1) something that is not dependent upon external conditions for existence or for its specific nature, size, etc. (opposed to relative).

truth [ trooth ]
noun, plural truths [troothz, trooths].
1) the true or actual state of a matter

Only humans can deny/change/corrupt truth, thus without human fabrication, truth is always absolute.
Throwing dictionary meanings [popular use] without justification is not of philosophical standard.

Is 'perfection' even a possibility in the real empirical world?

When I state "there's no such thing as absolute truth, ..." I meant there absolutely absolute not relatively absolute.
  • Note Absolute: Google Dictionary
    1. not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
    2. viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
    PHILOSOPHY
    3. a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
There are two perspectives to the term absolute, i.e.

1. the relative absolute
2. absolutely absolute

A relative absolute is, e.g. absolute monarch, absolute power, absolute temperature, and so on.
Such an 'absolute' is qualified and relative to something.
Since the above are qualified and relative to something, they are relative absolutes but they cannot be absolutely absolute.

Truth or fact is always conditioned, relative and qualified to a specific FSK.
Therefore there are no absolutely-absolute truths.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6211
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 3:05 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 2:07 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 5:44 am
"Truth can be understood in relation to biological experience"
possible but that is too loose a statement.

What is truth or fact must be conditioned to a specific framework and system of knowledge [FSK] which is fundamentally entangled with the human conditions.
What is scientific truths or facts must be conditioned to the Scientific FSK.

The next question is whether these conditioned truths or facts are credible [in what degrees] or false.

Scientific (& mathematical truths are the most credible at present. Legal facts, economics, social, political, fiscal, sports, etc. are of lesser credibility than scientific facts.
If not then that would be pseudo-science.

Therefore one cannot simply claim a fact or a statement is a true or false without any reference [implicit if not explicit] to its specific FSK.

The problem with Peter Holmes, et. al. is they will not or are unable even to qualify on what FSK or grounds their facts and truths are grounded upon. Their only claim of what is fact is what we English Speakers said 'what a fact is.' :shock:
1 There is no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices.
2 What we call a fact is a feature of reality that is or was the case. That's how we use the word fact. Suck it up.
Your ground is merely what is fact is fact grounded on what we English speakers said it is so!
All these times you have referenced Wittgenstein.... it's pretty obvious you were posing and have never read him.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 8:36 am All these times you have referenced Wittgenstein.... it's pretty obvious you were posing and have never read him.
Is that like how you keep referencing Rorty, while also insisting on privileged vocabularies?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 3:11 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 12:16 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:54 am
I did not claim it is an absolute truth, "there is only conditional truth or fact" has to be entangled with humanity [how else?], thus it is a conditional truth.

Therefore it reference nothing, i.e. nothing absolute, so there are only conditional truth or fact.

Btw, you need to note there is absolutely-absolute [God] and conditional-absolute [absolute temperature, monarchy, etc.]
The fact that there is an entanglement is absolute.
"The fact that there is an entanglement is absolute" is conditional upon a specific framework, i.e. a community of humans of your likes or only yourself.
There is no fact that can standalone independent by itself without entanglement with the human conditions.
Conditions depend upon further conditions as all phenomena are conditions. This makes the phenomena of "condition" as referencing itself therefore it stands alone as absolute.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 6:28 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 3:11 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 12:16 am
The fact that there is an entanglement is absolute.
"The fact that there is an entanglement is absolute" is conditional upon a specific framework, i.e. a community of humans of your likes or only yourself.
There is no fact that can standalone independent by itself without entanglement with the human conditions.
Conditions depend upon further conditions as all phenomena are conditions. This makes the phenomena of "condition" as referencing itself therefore it stands alone as absolute.
If whatever is 'referencing' either to something else or itself, it is still conditional.

For example, the emergence of the different types of psychological states of a person is in a way referenced to the internal conditions of oneself, it is still 'conditional' and not absolute.

No man is an island and no thing can be by itself unconditionally.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 4:40 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 6:28 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 3:11 am
"The fact that there is an entanglement is absolute" is conditional upon a specific framework, i.e. a community of humans of your likes or only yourself.
There is no fact that can standalone independent by itself without entanglement with the human conditions.
Conditions depend upon further conditions as all phenomena are conditions. This makes the phenomena of "condition" as referencing itself therefore it stands alone as absolute.
If whatever is 'referencing' either to something else or itself, it is still conditional.

For example, the emergence of the different types of psychological states of a person is in a way referenced to the internal conditions of oneself, it is still 'conditional' and not absolute.

No man is an island and no thing can be by itself unconditionally.
And conditions are subject to conditions thus conditions reference conditions and we are left with a thing in itself as it, the condition, references nothing other than the same phenomenon it is.

Condition is absolute.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 11:25 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 4:40 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 6:28 pm
Conditions depend upon further conditions as all phenomena are conditions. This makes the phenomena of "condition" as referencing itself therefore it stands alone as absolute.
If whatever is 'referencing' either to something else or itself, it is still conditional.

For example, the emergence of the different types of psychological states of a person is in a way referenced to the internal conditions of oneself, it is still 'conditional' and not absolute.

No man is an island and no thing can be by itself unconditionally.
And conditions are subject to conditions thus conditions reference conditions and we are left with a thing in itself as it, the condition, references nothing other than the same phenomenon it is.

Condition is absolute.
What is left is always conditions and conditions can never be absolute.

What you are trying to sneak in it the idea of a "first cause" and insist it is absolute.

You drive to insist 'condition is absolute' is very psychological arising from a desperate cognitive dissonance from an existential crisis.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 6:58 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 11:25 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 4:40 am
If whatever is 'referencing' either to something else or itself, it is still conditional.

For example, the emergence of the different types of psychological states of a person is in a way referenced to the internal conditions of oneself, it is still 'conditional' and not absolute.

No man is an island and no thing can be by itself unconditionally.
And conditions are subject to conditions thus conditions reference conditions and we are left with a thing in itself as it, the condition, references nothing other than the same phenomenon it is.

Condition is absolute.
What is left is always conditions and conditions can never be absolute.

What you are trying to sneak in it the idea of a "first cause" and insist it is absolute.

You drive to insist 'condition is absolute' is very psychological arising from a desperate cognitive dissonance from an existential crisis.
1. All conditions share the quality of condition thus condition is absolute as it references only itself, it is dependent only on itself thus stands alone. All that exists is condition(s) thus condition is absolute.

2. Reducing things to FSKs is a result of "a desperate cognitive dissonance from an existential crisis."
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 11:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 6:58 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 11:25 pm

And conditions are subject to conditions thus conditions reference conditions and we are left with a thing in itself as it, the condition, references nothing other than the same phenomenon it is.

Condition is absolute.
What is left is always conditions and conditions can never be absolute.

What you are trying to sneak in it the idea of a "first cause" and insist it is absolute.

You drive to insist 'condition is absolute' is very psychological arising from a desperate cognitive dissonance from an existential crisis.
1. All conditions share the quality of condition thus condition is absolute as it references only itself, it is dependent only on itself thus stands alone. All that exists is condition(s) thus condition is absolute.

2. Reducing things to FSKs is a result of "a desperate cognitive dissonance from an existential crisis."
As I had stated what you are arguing is leading to a claim the 'first cause' exists.
Can you verified and justified the first cause exists as real?
2. Reducing things to FSKs is a result of "a desperate cognitive dissonance from an existential crisis."
How so?
Reducing things to FSKs [constructed and maintain by humans] is based on empirical evidences, i.e. objective.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by promethean75 »

"Reducing things to FSKs [constructed and maintain by humans] is based on empirical evidences, i.e. objective."

We biggian stirnerite nihilists believe that the individual cannot be fully comprehended, and that any such FSK would be just another intellectual contraption of assorted spooks (an involuntary commitment to a false idea) rooted in dasein.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 6:08 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 11:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 6:58 am
What is left is always conditions and conditions can never be absolute.

What you are trying to sneak in it the idea of a "first cause" and insist it is absolute.

You drive to insist 'condition is absolute' is very psychological arising from a desperate cognitive dissonance from an existential crisis.
1. All conditions share the quality of condition thus condition is absolute as it references only itself, it is dependent only on itself thus stands alone. All that exists is condition(s) thus condition is absolute.

2. Reducing things to FSKs is a result of "a desperate cognitive dissonance from an existential crisis."
As I had stated what you are arguing is leading to a claim the 'first cause' exists.
Can you verified and justified the first cause exists as real?
2. Reducing things to FSKs is a result of "a desperate cognitive dissonance from an existential crisis."
How so?
Reducing things to FSKs [constructed and maintain by humans] is based on empirical evidences, i.e. objective.
1. Being is cause for other being thus only one cause exists and that is being. Being is the first ever-present cause that exists through time and space (being) but is beyond it (it is rooted in nothing).

2. Evidence is an FSK thus not only does the FSK reduce to another FSK, resulting in an obscure self-referentiality, but evidence results in further evidence (ie 1 evidenced by a single apple resulting in 1+1=2 as evidenced by two apples, one evidence results in another evidence).

3. Evidence is an abstraction as it is an interpretation, as such the empirical is useless without the abstract. To further justify this point all empirical phenomenon when observed result in memory, this memory is an abstraction that allows us to localize a part (an individual phenomenon) from the whole (all phenomena).
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12242
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 12:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 6:08 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 11:52 pm

1. All conditions share the quality of condition thus condition is absolute as it references only itself, it is dependent only on itself thus stands alone. All that exists is condition(s) thus condition is absolute.

2. Reducing things to FSKs is a result of "a desperate cognitive dissonance from an existential crisis."
As I had stated what you are arguing is leading to a claim the 'first cause' exists.
Can you verified and justified the first cause exists as real?
2. Reducing things to FSKs is a result of "a desperate cognitive dissonance from an existential crisis."
How so?
Reducing things to FSKs [constructed and maintain by humans] is based on empirical evidences, i.e. objective.
1. Being is cause for other being thus only one cause exists and that is being. Being is the first ever-present cause that exists through time and space (being) but is beyond it (it is rooted in nothing).

2. Evidence is an FSK thus not only does the FSK reduce to another FSK, resulting in an obscure self-referentiality, but evidence results in further evidence (ie 1 evidenced by a single apple resulting in 1+1=2 as evidenced by two apples, one evidence results in another evidence).

3. Evidence is an abstraction as it is an interpretation, as such the empirical is useless without the abstract. To further justify this point all empirical phenomenon when observed result in memory, this memory is an abstraction that allows us to localize a part (an individual phenomenon) from the whole (all phenomena).
see
viewtopic.php?p=574869#p574869
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: P_Holmes: There is NO Absolute Truth ..

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 4:23 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 12:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 6:08 am
As I had stated what you are arguing is leading to a claim the 'first cause' exists.
Can you verified and justified the first cause exists as real?


How so?
Reducing things to FSKs [constructed and maintain by humans] is based on empirical evidences, i.e. objective.
1. Being is cause for other being thus only one cause exists and that is being. Being is the first ever-present cause that exists through time and space (being) but is beyond it (it is rooted in nothing).

2. Evidence is an FSK thus not only does the FSK reduce to another FSK, resulting in an obscure self-referentiality, but evidence results in further evidence (ie 1 evidenced by a single apple resulting in 1+1=2 as evidenced by two apples, one evidence results in another evidence).

3. Evidence is an abstraction as it is an interpretation, as such the empirical is useless without the abstract. To further justify this point all empirical phenomenon when observed result in memory, this memory is an abstraction that allows us to localize a part (an individual phenomenon) from the whole (all phenomena).
see
viewtopic.php?p=574869#p574869
Being is absolute as only being exists; it is a thing in itself as it is without comparison considering "being relative to being" leaves us only with "being".
Post Reply