Nature of "truth?"

[Tsyal Makto]

Clarke - Yes, in Na'vi logic basic algebraic functions would still work the same way, but differences in writing can still cause major differences in higher mathematical and scientific methods. A Na'vi metric system would likely be based around base-8, thus leading to differnt forms of measuring states in the universe (which I already said I believe can be absolute). Let's go back to the wavelength of blue. When trying to measure the wavelength of blue light (which, itself, moves at an absolute physical wavelength), a different measurement system would lead to that wavelength being given a different numerical value. Thus, again, our non-exact ways of measuring exact states in the universe, and how it can vary for different species. Have you ever seen the movie "Contact"? This is a pretty good example of this. The aliens had to translate the schematics for the teleporter into a very basic number system that would be almost universally understood, because their higher mathematical systems were entirely different.

Arguments can be relative, too. How one forms arguments is all how people interpret evidence. The London riots are a perfect example. The Right believes they were caused because of people being lazy in the face of program cuts, the Left believes they were caused by desperation in the face of austerity. In fact, this describes all of history. People always complain about "historical revisionism," but all history is revisionist! An event occured, all history is is how this event is interpreted by those who go on to tell the tale of it (thus making the history). The Nazi Regime was simply a time in Germany (Godwin's Law, I know, but I don't care, this is relevant). For Aryans, and today modern white supremacists, it was a glorious time. However, for Jewish people, homosexuals, unionists, etc., and their modern descendants, it was a horific nightmare. One event, two viewpoints, two completely different worldviews.

The physical world and things that occur in it, are absolute. The world IS. I AM. Etc. The world exists, that is fact. Events are a fact. However, IMO, the only objective truth is when these things are taken for face value (1 = 1, that is fact, etc. Or the "Contact" schematics). However, I think higher objective truth does not exist (or higher mathetical or scientific methods). When values are given to the world and events, and they are interpreted, that is when truth becomes relative. Though TBH I think we're talking past each other a lot.

In other words, think Ayn Rand's 3 axioms: existence, identity, and consciousness. To me, existence IS objective. However, the higher axioms (identity and consciousness) are relative, and it is by these higher axioms that we define our world the most, how we define ourselves the most.

*goes back to sidelines, ices temples*

Fkeu/Icu - I think that's one of the downfalls of the linguistics of debate. In a debate, people pick a side and choose to make an opinion their "fact," and thus they will likely use language that reflects this. TBH trying to use that as an example of evidence of objective truth is pushing things a bit too far.

[Pa'li Makto]

Truth is different to everyone, what one person thinks is true might be completely unreasonable to you. So no it doesn't.
Anyway, that's just my opinion. I'm not saying that my opinion is any better than yours. It's just what I personally believe.
I might be the only postmodernist here.

[Banefull]

Originally Posted by Pa'li Makto

I might be the only postmodernist here.

You ought to take this little fun semi-serious quiz and find out where you stand in the spectrum of things: HelloQuizzy.com: The Find Your Philosophical Era! Test

Originally Posted by Pa'li Makto

Truth is different to everyone, what one person thinks is true might be completely unreasonable to you. So no it doesn't.
Anyway, that's just my opinion. I'm not saying that my opinion is any better than yours. It's just what I personally believe.

I will not pursue this any further. But I suspect that your heart seems set on this particular idea also. Would you care to explain why?

[Icu]

Originally Posted by Banefull

I will not pursue this any further ... Would you care to explain why?

Something tells me this is going to be pursued further.

[Pa'li Makto]

I'm not going to expand on this much..I just learned postmodernism through historiography years ago and that was how it happened.
I don't really want to talk about this.

[Banefull]

Originally Posted by Pa'li Makto

I'm not going to expand on this much..I just learned postmodernism through historiography years ago and that was how it happened.
I don't really want to talk about this.

Fair enough.

[Pa'li Makto]

Thanks for respecting this.

Anyway, I think that a lot of us have some very interesting ideas regarding truth.

[Banefull]

I know I said I would not pursue this any further but if I do not say the following, it will gnaw at me and bug me for a long time. I must say it.

I do not like post-modernism because I think much harm will come from it. Much more harm than good. I can truly speak in place of postmodernists but from what I have observed, its ideas and ideals render people unchangeable. They hide behind this curtain of you cannot infringe on my opinion. "It is my opinion." And already I have caught glimpses of what it can do. Already on various philosophy boards and debate forums I have seen people bring up previously unthinkable topics. There are people out there who bring up claims such as "we should kill the mentally retarded for the sake of the economy" and one cannot hope to stop or hope to convince them because you lose all moral claims against it.

I know the majority of its advocates mean well but I am not so sure that they fully understand its implications. If you seek a more open minded society, you will only raise its walls. These ideas will keep people isolated from one another, render them unapproachable, and unreachable. In a world where all ideas are regarded as equal, it is impossible to take a stand on anything or against anything. Your mind is now limited, constrained into accepting only what you want. Your freedom to choose what you want in such a world is an illusion.

If you seek freedom through postmodernism, you will only find slavery. Because if all morals are relative, then there is no ultimate reason why one should be toleratant of other ideas to any degree. On the battlefield against the oppressor, the free will dsicover that they have lost their greatest weapon: their moral claim.

But here is why I am convibnced that the path of post modernism is wrong:
I am active on other debate forums and after countless debates and time spent arguing point and counter points, I am just now only beginning to realize that armed with logic alone, I can never hope to truly convince someone else to turn away from what is near and dear to someone's heart. Once a person's mind has latched onto something, the only thing that can break those bonds are direct experiences themselves.

I know from experience that people can change. If someone thinks war is beautiful and you think otherwise, do not just throw up your hands and leave it be as just an opinion. Take that person to the sites of past battles, visit the graves, visit, the veterans, visit the dieing. You can change his mind. There is truth in experiences, not in what you want to believe. Don't hide from it. Absolute tolerance is a big trap of thinking into which many fall.

Some things are experiences like the language we grew up with, the culture in which we were born, etc are indeed relative. But there are still things every human being on this earth shares. And that is why some absolute truths exist.

[Tsyal Makto]

I think it's a little rash to say that open mindedness has been detrimental (what of the Enlightenment and Renaissance? Of any period of social change that threatened the status quo?). A bit doublespeakish to be honest.

We live in a marketplace of ideas. If you want to state your case, and how to define existence, then do it. Just as it is the right of others to state their own cases as well. Lay it all out there, and let the people decide what they want to believe. It is the right of all to hold the worldview that they please. If they find another that better fits their beliefs, than so be it. However, their right to state and believe their own worldviews shouldn't be infringed. Sure, there will always be some bad apples who hold believes that many would find offensive, but better to simply put up with them than risk stiffling other beliefs that could be a net positive for the world. To attempt to define what people should and should not believe is a risky predecent.

No philosophy is perfect, but there is strength in numbers, and ideas are no different IMO.

[Banefull]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

I think it's a little rash to say that open mindedness has been detrimental (what of the Enlightenment and Renaissance?). A bit doublespeakish to be honest.

Not open mindedness, absolute open mindedness which in turn can be blinding.

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Banefull

Not open mindedness, absolute open mindedness which in turn can be blinding.

Well, that goes back to my argument about the marketplace of ideas. Sure, that can breed some ideas that most people would consider bad, but why sacrifice the bushel because of a bad apple or two? Better to accept and tolerate the bad than make an attempt to stifle it, while possibly compromising the good in the process. Like I said, it's a risky precedent.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

It is the right of all to hold the worldview that they please.

But not their right not to be taunted for it. You are allowed to say anything you like; similarly, your critics are allowed to say anything they like.

[Banefull]

I am confused as to what your position is Tsyal Makto. Are you defending postmodernism or simply freedom?

I should clarify mine: I can't force people to accept a view. I wasn't implying that we should. But this growing notion that one cannot even attempt to convince others strikes me as a bit dubious. "To simply leave it as someone else's view, their opinion," its an excuse to avoid rational debate. I respect the fact that someone may not want to be bothered and will honor those wishes but I am up in arms against the notion that tolerance in and of itself is somehow a justification for their ideas.

[Tsyal Makto]

Exactly. That's the nature of the marketplace of ideas. Freedom for all to speak and be heard.

[Tsyal Makto]

I don't know if I would consider myself a postmodernist, per se. I accept the objectivity of states of existence and in the physicality of the universe (in Ayn Rand's terms again, my hate for the woman aside), but I believe in the relativity of identity and consciousness, or how we define and rationalize the universe. So...I don't know what I would call myself. A relativist? Must I follow a label?

I'm all for openness of opinion, and questioning the universe around us in our examination of it, and that we should all speak our beliefs and findings about this openly and freely, as well as criticism of these ideas. The more the merrier IMO. With that said, I support postmodernists' ability to speak their worldview.