Truth is an absurdity

[VogoLannd]

As I understand it, the word objective is defined as an attribute which signifies incontestable reality towards the idea or thing that it is attached to. This means that if I claim X to be objective then X is a reality beyond my perspective and other perspectives cannot alter this X. The problem with ascribing anything objective to X is that all my faculties of evaluation are subjective in essence. I will use language and an apple as examples to demonstrate the impossibility of transforming our subjective beliefs into objective facts.

How is it that anything is properly labeled in language? or more specifically why is an apple regarded as an apple? Some may claim that the word apple is derived from the word aplaz which is from an older proto-Germanic language but then I retort why was an apple labeled aplaz? let's regress to the zero level, before any language existed as a precedent, how is it that humanity labeled the apple? here I claim as in everything else the chasm between human subjectivity and the true essence of the thing being observed is impossible to breech. When humans utter the word apple it is a sound and nothing more and when humans write the word apple it is a scribbling which is felt to be appropriate to the utterance. Neither the sound nor the scribbling brings us any closer to the essence of the thing in question. Would it be any more or less accurate to label an apple a schmaple or a durkato? And what if we were to draw two bent lines with an exclamation point at the end? How is this any less accurate than the word apple? What transpires at the origin of an object's labeling is devoid of any truth, what actually occurs is the conjuration of a belief. The man labeling the object with his particular version of the word apple is fostering a conviction that X from now on shall be called Y but there is no basis in objective reality for this connection! No incontestable proof whatsoever!

What is this if not faith? For faith is defined as a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Mankind observes phenomena, cannot possibly fathom it's objective essence, and yet a word is assigned to it with no actual insight gained. Now we see the abyss hidden beneath everything we've ever held to be true. There is no idea more genuine or favorable than another if truth is factored into our evaluations. Neither scientist nor priest has a more accurate grasp on reality since both are human and in possession of subjective faculties. The proud claim to truth of the scientific community is no less an article of faith than the Christian belief in the Holy Bible as the word of God.

There is no truth, there are only perspectives based solely on faith. Therefore,as far as humanity is concerned, all is faith. One should never be dissuaded from their beliefs because others claim they are "inaccurate" or "not based on fact" for this type of criticism emanates from an absurd and impossible demand to be assured of the truth behind an idea before holding it as one's own and acting upon it. If such a criteria was to be existentially forced on our species then all vestiges of language, philosophy, art, time, music, religion, science, politics, etc would be promptly removed from human history. Truth is an absurdity that man ought to throw overboard.

Heavily influenced by Nietzsche's Perspectivism. I would appreciate any thoughts or constructive criticism.

[Ostroeuropa]

The truth exists.
Either something is true, or not true, but SOMETHING must be true.

COGITO ERGO SUM is a true statement (one of the only ones we have, as it happens.)
We halve the distance between us and the truth by investigation and inquiry, and logical statements. Yes, it may not be possible to ever get there, but near as as makes no difference.
To say the sky is light frequency X-X-Y may be off by a small factor, and thus not true, but we are ALMOST there and near enough as makes no difference.

Then there is truth in a subjective sense.
"The sky is blue."

Well, what is blue other than a perception of light which our brains have codified a particular way?
Is the sky INHERENTLY blue? No, ofcourse not. It's inherently a particular frequency of light waves.
But that doesn't make the statement "the sky is blue" any less true, because we are describing our perception of the sky. Blue ONLY exists in perception, so it is perfectly justified to say it's a true statement.



Then there are areas where it gets grey.

"The word blue describes light frequency X-X-Y."
This is also a TRUE STATEMENT. since blue describes that frequency. We may have assigned the WRONG frequency, but that doesn't make the description wrong.

[Rudie]

Just read Nietzsche, then?

[Wikkiwallana]

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, 'I refute it thus.'

[Christian Democrats]

Cogito ergo sum.

[Yankee Empire]

Everything comes down to faith, I think, only because we are not omniscient.

But we think some things are more likely than others and so clarify it as being a reasonable belief rather than pure faith.

But even Rationalism puts faith it peoples ability to reason, and Empiricism put's faith in the correctness of the senses, but claim it is not faith, based on the consitency of results that they find, even when talking to others, so they believe that it can't be merely subjective because of this.

[Adventus Secundus]

Strongly appreciate this. Well put, OP.

The statement "Cogito, ergo sum" is not something that is innately true, it rests upon certain presuppositions (I would encourage you to read Descarte's meditations, it is quite clear there, especially in the third meditation), namely, that we are not somehow created to think fallaciously, or that thought itself is not a phantasm and an illusion.

[Ostroeuropa]

Strongly appreciate this. Well put, OP.

The statement "Cogito, ergo sum" is not something that is innately true, it rests upon certain presuppositions (I would encourage you to read Descarte's meditations, it is quite clear there, especially in the third meditation), namely, that we are not somehow created to think fallaciously, or that thought itself is not a phantasm and an illusion.

This objection can be dismissed by the bastardization
"Cogito ergo sumthing"

There must be something to cause the phantasm or illusion.

[Typhlochactas]

Truth exists. Anything else is wildly self-contradictory.

[Korintar]

Strongly appreciate this. Well put, OP.

The statement "Cogito, ergo sum" is not something that is innately true, it rests upon certain presuppositions (I would encourage you to read Descarte's meditations, it is quite clear there, especially in the third meditation), namely, that we are not somehow created to think fallaciously, or that thought itself is not a phantasm and an illusion.

Agreed, the implicit assumption of cogito ergo sum is that a unified self, an I, is truly real and not merely a fragile construction. Indeed, every aspect of our life is built upon a series of useful assumptions that we take on faith to be true, even though they may not be. It is this framework that guides our every action. While I am certain an objective reality exists, it is beyond any mortal's comprehension in regards to ascertaining the truth. That is not to say we are incapable of detecting apparent patterns that approximate the truth enough to be useful, but I'd say reality is, in many ways, unknowable.

[VogoLannd]

The truth exists.
Either something is true, or not true, but SOMETHING must be true.

Well here I present the initial problem with language that I did in the case of the apple. Your very formulation of that statement is an act of faith in my opinion. You believe that those words mean what they mean but as with the apple you can go to the zero level of everyone of those terms and once again you are faced with the human being labeling an idea or thing, human subjectivity is again face to face with phenomena it can in no way gain any objective insight into. At this point it seems to me that groundless belief begins no matter what we say or write.

I believe this also applies to your statements about Descartes and light frequencies. Thank you for your input!

[Furious Grandmothers]

You may be interested in the philosophy of language and which type of chirp different birds make are labels for "oh look, teh predator iz coming". And you need to justify your incredibly far logical leap from language to suddenly, faith, and that there is no truth.

[The UK in Exile]

As I understand it, the word objective is defined as an attribute which signifies incontestable reality towards the idea or thing that it is attached to. This means that if I claim X to be objective then X is a reality beyond my perspective and other perspectives cannot alter this X. The problem with ascribing anything objective to X is that all my faculties of evaluation are subjective in essence. I will use language and an apple as examples to demonstrate the impossibility of transforming our subjective beliefs into objective facts.

How is it that anything is properly labeled in language? or more specifically why is an apple regarded as an apple? Some may claim that the word apple is derived from the word aplaz which is from an older proto-Germanic language but then I retort why was an apple labeled aplaz? let's regress to the zero level, before any language existed as a precedent, how is it that humanity labeled the apple? here I claim as in everything else the chasm between human subjectivity and the true essence of the thing being observed is impossible to breech. When humans utter the word apple it is a sound and nothing more and when humans write the word apple it is a scribbling which is felt to be appropriate to the utterance. Neither the sound nor the scribbling brings us any closer to the essence of the thing in question. Would it be any more or less accurate to label an apple a schmaple or a durkato? And what if we were to draw two bent lines with an exclamation point at the end? How is this any less accurate than the word apple? What transpires at the origin of an object's labeling is devoid of any truth, what actually occurs is the conjuration of a belief. The man labeling the object with his particular version of the word apple is fostering a conviction that X from now on shall be called Y but there is no basis in objective reality for this connection! No incontestable proof whatsoever!

What is this if not faith? For faith is defined as a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Mankind observes phenomena, cannot possibly fathom it's objective essence, and yet a word is assigned to it with no actual insight gained. Now we see the abyss hidden beneath everything we've ever held to be true. There is no idea more genuine or favorable than another if truth is factored into our evaluations. Neither scientist nor priest has a more accurate grasp on reality since both are human and in possession of subjective faculties. The proud claim to truth of the scientific community is no less an article of faith than the Christian belief in the Holy Bible as the word of God.

There is no truth, there are only perspectives based solely on faith. Therefore,as far as humanity is concerned, all is faith. One should never be dissuaded from their beliefs because others claim they are "inaccurate" or "not based on fact" for this type of criticism emanates from an absurd and impossible demand to be assured of the truth behind an idea before holding it as one's own and acting upon it. If such a criteria was to be existentially forced on our species then all vestiges of language, philosophy, art, time, music, religion, science, politics, etc would be promptly removed from human history. Truth is an absurdity that man ought to throw overboard.

Heavily influenced by Nietzsche's Perspectivism. I would appreciate any thoughts or constructive criticism.

to love truth for the truths sake is the seedplot of virtue and the font of all human happiness.

[Ostroeuropa]

Suppose we grant everything you said, so what?
What do you propose we do about it? Stop trying to find the truth?

[Typhlochactas]

Suppose we grant everything you said, so what?
What do you propose we do about it? Stop trying to find the truth?

Let's stop trying to find the truth because he's correct about truth not existing. Wait a minute! That implies he is correct, and anything that is correct is truthful!

[Ostroeuropa]

Suppose we grant everything you said, so what?
What do you propose we do about it? Stop trying to find the truth?

Let's stop trying to find the truth because he's correct about truth not existing. Wait a minute! That implies he is correct, and anything that is correct is truthful!

That too, but i'm granting his premise regardless to point out how useless his proposal is.

[VogoLannd]

Suppose we grant everything you said, so what?
What do you propose we do about it? Stop trying to find the truth?

I suppose I would like people to do what they want, for everything we hold to be true is a fiction. But let's be proud of our fictions and wear them as badges of honor! I think philosophers like Socrates who held something to be genuinely true had a negative effect on people with different values, his type of outlook on life made many forsake the pursuit of X or Y because no incontestable proof could be found for either but I say there is no incontestable proof for anything so why limit ourselves on the basis of this criteria? as Aleister Crowley stated "Do what thou wilt."

[Gauntleted Fist]

I suppose I would like people to do what they want, for everything we hold to be true is a fiction.

Your proposal cannot be correct. Otherwise it would not be correct.

But let's be proud of our fictions and wear them as badges of honor! I think philosophers like Socrates who held something to be genuinely true had a negative effect on people with different values, his type of outlook on life made many forsake the pursuit of X or Y because no incontestable proof could be found for either but I say there is no incontestable proof for anything so why limit ourselves on the basis of this criteria? as Aleister Crowley stated "Do what thou wilt."

This is a really shitty argument for free will.

[CVT Temp]

I'll forgo the self-contradictory nature of your idea to simply ask you this. If you jump off a 12 story building, is your falling toward the ground merely a matter of "perspective"? If so, does that mean that there are equally valid "points of view" where you don't fall? Therefore, you fall or you levitate in the air, and which one happens depends upon who you ask and not upon what actually happens? Do you fall and not fall at the same time? Do you fall or not fall depending on the majority opinion of society?

[Yewhohohopia]

Yer maw's an absurdity.

Checkmate.

[VogoLannd]

I suppose I would like people to do what they want, for everything we hold to be true is a fiction.

Your proposal cannot be correct. Otherwise it would not be correct.

But not correct based on what? Is knowing the truth behind a phenomenon a necessary prerequisite for reacting to it or acting upon it?

[CVT Temp]

But not correct based on what? Is knowing the truth behind a phenomenon a necessary prerequisite for reacting to it or acting upon it?

If your proposal is correct, then it means that no such thing as truth exists, i.e. that no statements can be made which are true. Thus, the statement that nothing is true itself cannot be true because no statements exists which is true.

In other words, your idea being true automatically implies that your idea is false.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

I suppose I would like people to do what they want, for everything we hold to be true is a fiction.

Your proposal cannot be correct. Otherwise it would not be correct.

But let's be proud of our fictions and wear them as badges of honor! I think philosophers like Socrates who held something to be genuinely true had a negative effect on people with different values, his type of outlook on life made many forsake the pursuit of X or Y because no incontestable proof could be found for either but I say there is no incontestable proof for anything so why limit ourselves on the basis of this criteria? as Aleister Crowley stated "Do what thou wilt."

This is a really shitty argument for free will.

Did someone say free will?

Let me break out ma duelin' monocle.

[Kubrath]

There's a good quote I saw someplace I don't clearly remember, it goes a little something like this:

"I wonder how many lives were wasted pondering over the reality of the world they lived in."

[Gauntleted Fist]

Your proposal cannot be correct. Otherwise it would not be correct.

But not correct based on what? Is knowing the truth behind a phenomenon a necessary prerequisite for reacting to it or acting upon it?

If it was true, it would literally not be true. Cannot co-exist.