Truth is an absurdity

[Takaram]

Isn't the claim that there is no universal truth a claim for a universal truth?

[Person012345]

90 degrees is a completely arbitrary and non-existent metaphor that humans use for simplifying 'measurements' (something else that is completely arbitrary to the universe, I might add. There is no such thing as 'a kilometre', there is only the commonly accepted amount of space as observed by a human in its regular environment and at a certain temperature that all humanity has decided to agree on as being 'a kilometre' - simply a measurement that aids in communication between humans. A kilometre doesn't exist! It is no more true that a 'hobblegetkanme' - a unit I have now invented that designates the exact same space as a kilometre. Its just that everybody agrees that 'a kilometre' as opposed to a 'hobblegetkanme' is 'the truth')

In essence what I am saying is that the Truth ITSELF is subjective, and nothing more than what the majority of people at any given time agree on.

No. They don't agree it's the truth. It's a way of communicating. You can signify a kilometre without the use of the word kilometre. It doesn't change what it actually is. You can call it a hobblegetkanme if you want, and nobody will know what you are talking about, but as long as you mean some sort of spacial measure, it exists. As I just said, saying it's "true" is as meaningless as saying "purple tastes round".

[Free Soviets]

i am assuming no such thing. firstly because that wouldn't work under normal logic. but second, i have no need for such because all i have to do is assert that truth is objective and it is so under your non-rules. it is so regardless of anything you say. any attempt by you to argue against it is yet another performative contradiction - it would assume logic. and any attempt to deny it is merely met with my reassertion of it; remember, you've rejected both argument and the law of non-contradiction in favor of some bullshit subjectivist relativism. and so my say so makes it so. i'm the jean luc picard of universal truths.

you cannot touch the truth value of my claim. it is and always shall be true.

This works with normal logic all the time, people used to take it as a matter of fact that the atom was the smallest indivisible unit and the sole basis for this belief was that no one could prove otherwise, no one could go further, limitation of our capabilities, logic.

that wasn't the basis. the basis was that either there is a smallest particle or there is an infinite regress. and since it can't be turtles all the way down, there must be a smallest particle. and that particle they called an atom. it was probably given as something of a counter to zeno.

and in any case, the mere lack of disproof cannot be positive proof. it can be highly suggestive, but not 'strike me dead if i disagree' proof. no, for that we need something else. something like an argument that shows disproving it is impossible.

What you are doing is no different regardless of how you're rewording it. You are positing something you believe that I under my rules/outlook on life cannot disprove, you say it yourself that "any attempt to deny it is merely met with my reassertion of it" so your conclusion is that through this method you will always be right, therefore what you are positing must be objective truth. My obstacle to disprove you is my limitation, logic is at work here.

no. i am saying that your position makes it true that truth is objective. logic being gone means anything follows from anything. there being no objective truth means that no statements are false. in every direction, you find yourself facing the non-lemma. either there is objective truth or there is objective truth.

[Metaphysics (Ancient)]

Isn't the claim that there is no universal truth a claim for a universal truth?

Ooh! an interesting paradox ^_^ as such we should say that there IS indeed a universal truth.

[Salandriagado]

Isn't the claim that there is no universal truth a claim for a universal truth?

Ooh! an interesting paradox ^_^ as such we should say that there IS indeed a universal truth.

If ¬A => 0 (where 0 is a contradiction), A is true. QED. Thus, there exists some universal truth. Can't tell you what it might be, but it definitely exists.

[VogoLannd]

no. i am saying that your position makes it true that truth is objective. logic being gone means anything follows from anything. there being no objective truth means that no statements are false. in every direction, you find yourself facing the non-lemma. either there is objective truth or there is objective truth.

But maybe then ideas would have to prevail among society according to a different set of criteria? As was discussed before, convenience, utility,aesthetics etc, I'd rather an idea dominate society because we believe it would benefit us in the aforementioned categories then if a dominant idea was held to be true because we can't logically refute it.

[Free Soviets]

no. i am saying that your position makes it true that truth is objective. logic being gone means anything follows from anything. there being no objective truth means that no statements are false. in every direction, you find yourself facing the non-lemma. either there is objective truth or there is objective truth.

But maybe then ideas would have to prevail among society according to a different set of criteria? As was discussed before, convenience, utility,aesthetics etc, I'd rather an idea dominate society because we believe it would benefit us in the aforementioned categories then if a dominant idea was held to be true because we can't logically refute it.

if you could make it so that there was a coherent way to say 'there is no truth', criteria would be impossible.

[United Earthlings]

If truth is indeed an absurdity, what does that say about the truths Nietzsche himself believed and which you heavily based your dissertation here upon being expressed in this thread?

Taken further, since Nietzsche expressed those ideas of his, human society has had over a hundred years of development with just one those developments being Realism which states that reality can exist Independently of people’s thoughts and perceptions.

So, there’s your incontestable proof…thanks to Realism. X is now Y because the truth of consensus is independent of your beliefs.

Want Proof of Realism in action; see the case of the planet Pluto. For decades the scientific community had designated Pluto as the 9th planet {X}, but then after a consensus was taken due to the advancement of scientific knowledge of similar bodies in the Inner and Outer Solar System, Pluto was reclassified as a Dwarf Planet {Y}. Did people’s thoughts and perceptions change about Pluto? No, in fact many still consider Pluto the 9th planet. Did the reality of Pluto no longer being the 9th planet in our solar system change? Yes.

There was no perception based solely on faith, there was only truth. The truth of reality independent of one’s subjective beliefs.

All that stated, considering Nietzsche’s contemporaries themselves at the time considered him unbalanced or even insane and that Nietzsche’s views at the time were neither read nor much respected it is easy to do less than justice to his work. Still, his ideas should be taken in context like everything against the backdrop of the wider world of ideas and the world events unfolding that influenced Nietzsche’s ideas.

One final constructive thought, Nietzsche’s ideas were his responses to the evolutionary philosophies such as Darwinism & Positivism which were being wildly embraced, acknowledging those influences in your OP is worth considering.

[Wisconsin9]

If truth is absurd, and your argument is true, then it is also absurd. According to the definition of the word absurd, the terms "truth" and "absurd" are virtually mutually exclusive. Therefore, your argument cannot be true.

[Page]

I tend to believe there is an objective reality but our perceptions of it are not necessarily valid. Indeed we are limited. However, from a rational standpoint, we have to accept our perception for what it is. If, hypothetically, the human race was incapable of seeing the color red, we'd still have to define the universe and our existence without it. And that wouldn't mean the color red doesn't exist at all in the eyes of a hypothetical human species that did have the type of eyesight to see it, it just means the species that can't see red really would be wasting their time pondering the color they'll never see.

[Christian Democrats]

It is impossible to prove whether a square truly exists and has four sides. You see something which seems to have four sides and I see that this thing has four sides but what that means is that this thing has the semblance of having four sides according to our subjective faculties and nothing more. If the entire human race agreed that this thing we were looking at has four sides then it would only prove the semblance of the thing having four sides according to human beings. Semblance is not essence.

It has nothing to do with semblance (or the accidents to be more philosophical) because the form of a square exists independently of all human senses. The essence of a square itself is being a geometric figure with four sides and four right angles.

Prove this statement to be wrong, or give me a good reason to doubt this statement:

It is true that all bachelors are unmarried.

This is known as an analytic proposition (see, for example, Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant).

1. This still has not been addressed by the OP.

2. Everyone keeps talking about Friedrich Nietzsche. It is also quite possible that the OP has been reading too much Albert Camus.

[Wikkiwallana]

Everyone keeps talking about Friedrich Nietzsche. It is also quite possible that the OP has been reading too much Albert Camus.

Heavily influenced by Nietzsche's Perspectivism.

[CVT Temp]

if you could make it so that there was a coherent way to say 'there is no truth', criteria would be impossible.

The OP is basically like "Hey guys, I found this brand new idea no one's ever thought of before called epistemological relativism. Whaddya think?"

[VogoLannd]

I'm interested to know if anyone can prove that logic does not use our limitations and inabilities as means to establish objective truth?

In other words: I believe that in logic whatever is considered to be objectively fallacious is so because we can not comprehend it or accomplish it. So logic is the belief that human limitation helps us determine what is objective truth. How is this not so?

Even if I think that logically I will walk up the staircase I am about to encounter, this seems to stem from my memories of myself going up a staircase a countless amount of times before. Logically those instances seem similar to me because essentially each one of those instances involves me walking up a staircase, my inability to decipher any significant difference from those instances results in my conviction that in all likelihood I will walk up this staircase because I believe I was in the same kind of situation many times before. My inability to detect much difference from my prior experiences walking up staircases has resulted in my belief that objectively I will probably walk up the staircase I am about to encounter. Limitation has lead to truth.

[Trotskylvania]

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.

Your argument against "truth" not only fails to grasp the Nietzschean position, but since it relies upon logic and truth statements, is self-refuting.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

I'm interested to know if anyone can prove that logic does not use our limitations and inabilities as means to establish objective truth?

In other words: I believe that in logic whatever is considered to be objectively fallacious is so because we can not comprehend it or accomplish it. So logic is the belief that human limitation helps us determine what is objective truth. How is this not so?

Even if I think that logically I will walk up the staircase I am about to encounter, this seems to stem from my memories of myself going up a staircase a countless amount of times before. Logically those instances seem similar to me because essentially each one of those instances involves me walking up a staircase, my inability to decipher any significant difference from those instances results in my conviction that in all likelihood I will walk up this staircase because I believe I was in the same kind of situation many times before. My inability to detect much difference from my prior experiences walking up staircases has resulted in my belief that objectively I will probably walk up the staircase I am about to encounter. Limitation has lead to truth.

Logic is the process of using assumed data to reach a conclusion about unknown data.

Therefore, logic is only as viable as the data used to reach the conclusion.

So something can be logically true, yet factually wrong.

[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.

Your argument against "truth" not only fails to grasp the Nietzschean position, but since it relies upon logic and truth statements, is self-refuting.

Oh are you the grand orthodox Nietzschean that decides who has a grasp of his ideas and who does not? Regardless, heavily influenced=/= me claiming to have fully grasped his position regarding truth.

Yes, according to logic my arguement is self-rufuting. This was already stated and I have already stated my ideas regarding logic. Read the last couple of pages oh great one.

[Person012345]

In other words: I believe that in logic whatever is considered to be objectively fallacious is so because we can not comprehend it or accomplish it. So logic is the belief that human limitation helps us determine what is objective truth. How is this not so?

Well then you're wrong. That's simply not the case. Science has lots of concepts that the human mind cannot grasp, it's why science is so mathematical. A lot of the concepts can only truly be represented to us mathematically.

If you're talking about things like causality, those are by no means logically established as true, they're just accepted as axioms not by logic, but by the people who employ the logic. Because they hold in every case we know of and because it simplifies everything.

Logic demonstrably leads us to the truth.

[Person012345]

Yes, according to logic my arguement is self-rufuting. This was already stated and I have already stated my ideas regarding logic. Read the last couple of pages oh great one.

No, you're missing the point.

If your argument were correct, then your argument would be invalid.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

In other words: I believe that in logic whatever is considered to be objectively fallacious is so because we can not comprehend it or accomplish it. So logic is the belief that human limitation helps us determine what is objective truth. How is this not so?

Well then you're wrong. That's simply not the case. Science has lots of concepts that the human mind cannot grasp, it's why science is so mathematical. A lot of the concepts can only truly be represented to us mathematically.

If you're talking about things like causality, those are by no means logically established as true, they're just accepted as axioms not by logic, but by the people who employ the logic. Because they hold in every case we know of and because it simplifies everything.

Logic demonstrably leads us to the truth.

With proper assumptions beforehand, of course.

[Person012345]

Well then you're wrong. That's simply not the case. Science has lots of concepts that the human mind cannot grasp, it's why science is so mathematical. A lot of the concepts can only truly be represented to us mathematically.

If you're talking about things like causality, those are by no means logically established as true, they're just accepted as axioms not by logic, but by the people who employ the logic. Because they hold in every case we know of and because it simplifies everything.

Logic demonstrably leads us to the truth.

With proper assumptions beforehand, of course.

With true premises, applying logic leads us to the truth. Of course, with untrue premises you can prove anything. But if said untrue premises were in fact true (as is assumed when making a premise) then the conclusion WOULD be true. So it's no fault with logic in that regard.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

With proper assumptions beforehand, of course.

With true premises, applying logic leads us to the truth. Of course, with untrue premises you can prove anything. But if said untrue premises were in fact true (as is assumed when making a premise) then the conclusion WOULD be true. So it's no fault with logic in that regard.

I know, it's just that some people think that just because they thought really hard on something for a long time that they are irrefutable.

[VogoLannd]

In other words: I believe that in logic whatever is considered to be objectively fallacious is so because we can not comprehend it or accomplish it. So logic is the belief that human limitation helps us determine what is objective truth. How is this not so?

Well then you're wrong. That's simply not the case. Science has lots of concepts that the human mind cannot grasp, it's why science is so mathematical. A lot of the concepts can only truly be represented to us mathematically.

If you're talking about things like causality, those are by no means logically established as true, they're just accepted as axioms not by logic, but by the people who employ the logic. Because they hold in every case we know of and because it simplifies everything.

Logic demonstrably leads us to the truth.

The very way in which you wrote your response proves me right. The sentence "Science has lots of concepts that the human mind cannot grasp" was stated so assuredly and authoritatively and human limitation was the cause, since there exist concepts that you cannot grasp and no one you know or ever heard of can grasp them either then it is objectively the case that there are concepts that the human mind can't grasp. Limitation has led to truth.

The sentence "Because they hold in every case we know of and because it simplifies everything" compliments my example with the stair case, to hold true in every case is to be unable to decipher any significant difference between the cases, therefore the cases are similar and the outcome will be similar, inability/limitation has led to truth.

[Trotskylvania]

Your argument against "truth" not only fails to grasp the Nietzschean position, but since it relies upon logic and truth statements, is self-refuting.

Oh are you the grand orthodox Nietzschean that decides who has a grasp of his ideas and who does not? Regardless, heavily influenced=/= me claiming to have fully grasped his position regarding truth.

Yes, according to logic my arguement is self-rufuting. This was already stated and I have already stated my ideas regarding logic. Read the last couple of pages oh great one.

No, but considering I've studied under some people who are respected authorities on the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, I do think that I have a pretty good grasp on what he actually thought.

As for the rest...

[Free Soviets]

Your argument against "truth" not only fails to grasp the Nietzschean position, but since it relies upon logic and truth statements, is self-refuting.

Yes, according to logic my arguement is self-rufuting.

indeed. of course, it is also self-refuting according to not-logic as well. fun times.