NationStates Jolt Archive

Is there such thing as absolute truth?

you mean like facts?

I mean like all this nonsense that if it's true for me than it is true. (that would be there are no absolute truths)

But yes, facts too...Some people choose to ignore them when discussing absolute truth.

Bump...

And to everyone who said no:
Does that mean that if I think that 2+2=5, than it's true?

I know people who can prove mathematically that 1 + 1 = 0, so I guess Yes, if you can prove it!

Bump...

And to everyone who said no:
Does that mean that if I think that 2+2=5, than it's true?

No, because your vision/opinion and/or knowledge of the truth does not change it.

There is no absolute truth.

That is absolutely true.

It exists only if it fits your idea of what truth is

sure there are absolute truths
as long as the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt"

im not sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that the universe exists.

If by absolute you mean the same for every person, then yes. The question "will a hamster survive getting hit by a bullet train?" has the same truthful answer, whoever you ask.

I know people who can prove mathematically that 1 + 1 = 0, so I guess Yes, if you can prove it!

You can prove anything if your methods are flawed.

Bump...

And to everyone who said no:
Does that mean that if I think that 2+2=5, than it's true?
Mathematics is predefined and so it is only true to those who accept the definitions. It has been known for people to change the rules and make completely new mathmatical systems to derive different answers, but aslong as you accept a particular definition, such that x + x = 2x + 1 then 2 + 2 will equal 5.

Infact the above definition gives you 1 = 0, and I don't know enough about maths to know whether that is valid; I suppose if you predefine the rules such that 1 can equal 0 then it is valid. I'm sure that there are enough programmers and mathematical types here to answer this properly.

I believe there are absolute truths but not just because someone believes them. I believe absolute truths are things that can be proven. Such as people need to breath. I can prove this. Hold your breath for three hours. lol. That is an absolute truth. I think there are some things that aren't absolute truths (All you can eat restaurant my @$$!). lol.

You can prove anything if your methods are flawed.
Using factorials you can inductively prove that 0! is equal to 1.

0! is the same as writting 0 x 1. Don't be so quick to say that certain things cannot be proved until you can disprove them.

does absolutely truth exist? of course. Do we have any idea what it is? doubtful.

Infact the above definition gives you 1 = 0, and I don't know enough about maths to know whether that is valid
In retrospect, of course you can define 1 to equal 0. All it means is that the first two numbers equal nothing, which, if so defined, is perfectly valid.

To answer the original question, you would first have to decide which side of the proverbial-philosophical fence you stand on. Are you an Objectivist, Empiricist et cetera..? Personally - although I am not well read enough to decide finally - I am inclined towards Empiricism, more precisely Hume and Kant. Perhaps someone here is majoring in philosophy and can shed some light on the a priori knowledge problem and perhaps even answer it to some degree.

Using factorials you can inductively prove that 0! is equal to 1.

0! is the same as writting 0 x 1. Don't be so quick to say that certain things cannot be proved until you can disprove them.

You said "0! is the same as writting 0 x 1". How do you reason that?

I am aware that
1! = 1
2! = 1 x 2
3! = 1 x 2 x 3
4! = 1 x 2 x 3 x 4

However, 0! = 0 x 1 does not seem to fit this pattern

You said "0! is the same as writting 0 x 1". How do you reason that?

I am aware that
1! = 1
2! = 1 x 2
3! = 1 x 2 x 3
4! = 1 x 2 x 3 x 4

However, 0! = 0 x 1 does not seem to fit this pattern
The inductive definition of factorial is given by:

n! = n x (n-1)!

Using this definition, substituting n = 1, gives

1! = 1 x 0!

But since 1! = 1, it follows that:

0! = 1

If you need more convincing, please use a graphics calculator - and a manual if you have no idea of how to use it - and type in "1!" and "0!" and you will get "1" both times.

The absolute truth is ... there is no spoon.

Of course, but it isn't very useful.

The first absolute truth is my existance. The rest of you may not exist, yet I exist. What exactly my existance means and implies is up in the air, but the fact of my existance is an absolute truth.

There is absolute truth, but it cannot be percieved perfectly because of the necessary faults in our method of perception.

Briefly on the question of factorials, 0! = 1 for basically the same reason that X^0 = 1. Some mathemetician said, this makes sense so we're going to use it, and now that's the way it is. Since all the functions are entirely the product of humans and are not inherent in the mathematics of the universe there is no reason to believe that we can get anything "wrong" per se, only inconsistent.

Of course, but it isn't very useful.

The first absolute truth is my existance. The rest of you may not exist, yet I exist. What exactly my existance means and implies is up in the air, but the fact of my existance is an absolute truth.

But I think you're just noise in my mind and that only I exist... how can this be?!

But I think you're just noise in my mind and that only I exist... how can this be?!Well I cannot give you an absolute answer, but I can posit a likely answer. I exist. You exist. The fact that each of us exists is independent of the existance of the other. You are suffering from a form of schizoid disassociation brought on by the study of philosophy, in particular the solipsists.

Well I cannot give you an absolute answer, but I can posit a likely answer. I exist. You exist. The fact that each of us exists is independent of the existance of the other. You are suffering from a form of schizoid disassociation brought on by the study of philosophy, in particular the solipsists.

I am in a state of permanent existential crisis, but it's all good. I found my personal mode of transendence so...

"Common Sense" says that we probably both exist, but we need not take things for granted. Plus it's fun to think about it.

There is no single absolute truth, for each "truth" affects every other "truth". You cannot observe a thing (I.E "truth") without defining the very "truth" itself. What is "true" for one circumstance is not "true" for another.

"Truth" And "relevence" are "artificial" "constructs" of the "human" "mentality"

*just to point out the "futility" of "human" "thought"

"Jim"

There is no single absolute truth, for each "truth" affects every other "truth". You cannot observe a thing (I.E "truth") without defining the very "truth" itself. What is "true" for one circumstance is not "true" for another.

"Truth" And "relevence" are "artificial" "constructs" of the "human" "mentality"

*just to point out the "futility" of "human" "thought"

"Jim"

I'd like to emphasize "you cannot observe a thing without defining [it]" It seems that things could well exist without being observed, but as I said before, the imperfection of our system of perception prevents us from observing things exactly.

I dont think it's a good idea to believe in absolute truth - there have been so many pointless holy wars over what it is; I say that everybody has their own personal truths, and they believe what they want to

The inductive definition of factorial is given by:

n! = n x (n-1)!

Using this definition, substituting n = 1, gives

1! = 1 x 0!

But since 1! = 1, it follows that:

0! = 1

If you need more convincing, please use a graphics calculator - and a manual if you have no idea of how to use it - and type in "1!" and "0!" and you will get "1" both times.

That's all good and fine and I admit that that math is above me. However, I do know this, 0! is not the same as 0. 0 /= 0!, so even if 0! = 1, than 0 still does not equal one, therefore 2+2 cannot equal 5.

And, i really like the person who said "there are no absolute truths, that is absolutely true." If you follow that logic, than there is such thing as absolute truth, because that is true for me.

Also, truth, by definition is 100% exclusive. If something is true, than nothing else can be true unless the first true remains true. This is stuff I learned in Geometry...if p than q, and all that stuff.

And, lastly, why is math different than anything else? Either there are absolute truths, or there aren't. Math proves that there are. Nothing else can be any different.

Crabbies first rule of moral (Still needs to come up with a catchy title)

Nothing is absolute.

And yes, that even includes the first rule. Confusing? Yes, but so is life.

Is there such thing as absolute truth?

That's deep. That's all I have to say about this topic.

Mathematically, absolute truth depends on having a system that won't break down. Goedel showed how no mathematical system can ever be perfect. I think it's a pretty interesting subject.

However, what about history? For example, I claim that at exactly 9:07.15' (U.S. Central)', I used a kleenex. Anyone care to dispute the validity of the above statement? That's truth. And history in the making.

However, what about history? For example, I claim that at exactly 9:07.15' (U.S. Central)', I used a kleenex. Anyone care to dispute the validity of the above statement? That's truth. And history in the making.
I bet that it wasn’t even a Kleenex, I’d bet that it was some other tissue brand that you used.

And, lastly, why is math different than anything else? Either there are absolute truths, or there aren't. Math proves that there are. Nothing else can be any different.

Math offers no such proof. In fact, 2+2=4 only under certain specific strictly defined conditions. Using a base 2 number system (in which 0, 1, and 2 are the valid digits) 2+2 would equal 11. Life is never strictly defined. The only truths that we can be sure are absolute are tautological in nature.

Ok fair enough...look at this, though.

Is this a true statement?
"There are no absolute truths"


If it were a true statement, then you must apply it to the question above, by answering no, it is not a true statement, because there are no absolute truths. Since that is not a true statement, there must be absolute truth. Confusing.

Simplified: If there are no absolute truths, than you cannot say that there are no absolute truths, because that would be an absolute truth.

Personally, I would define an "absolute truth" as something that you don't need proof of for it to be correct, or that can be defined by other absolute truths. For example, someone brought up earlier "I exist, that is an absolute truth." But how do you know that you exist?

Is there such thing as absolute truth?

The one absolute truth is 'I think, therefore I am,' or more accurately 'I think, therefore I think I am.' Everything else requires a little suspension of disbelief, otherwise the inevitable result is solipsism [the most egotistical form of skepticism].

I know people who can prove mathematically that 1 + 1 = 0, so I guess Yes, if you can prove it!

If you're using the normal definitions of all the numbers, i doubt you can prove that.

If you're using the normal definitions of all the numbers, i doubt you can prove that.

Prove that those definitions are accurate. :-)

Prove that those definitions are accurate. :-)
So what if they aren't?
Somewhere, someone has figured out an accurate representation. And if they haven't, there IS an accurate representation. Either way, just because we don't know it's true, it doesn't mean it's not.

The inductive definition of factorial is given by:

n! = n x (n-1)!

Using this definition, substituting n = 1, gives

1! = 1 x 0!

But since 1! = 1, it follows that:

0! = 1

If you need more convincing, please use a graphics calculator - and a manual if you have no idea of how to use it - and type in "1!" and "0!" and you will get "1" both times.

using your work we get that 0! = 1
but try to fill in 0 in your definition:
0! = 0 * (-1)!
this is because the inductive definition requires a base step, 1! = 1 and then the inductive step: n! = n*(n-1)!, the complete definition would be something like:
if n==1 then n! = 1
if n>1 then n! = n*(n-1)!

That is why i prefer to use another definition:
the gamma function

gamma(p) = int(exp(-x)*x^(p-1),x = 0 .. infinity)

when n is an integer we get:

gamma(n+1) = n*gamma(n)
and
gamma(1) = 1

so we end up with:

gamma(n+1) = n! (a definition of n!)
and !0 = gamma(0+1) = 1
this is indeed the 0! = 1, but with a more solid definition

Unquestionably absolute truth exists, if only in a priori truths and analytic- the truth of the statement "no absolute truth exists" proves it to be logically impossible that truth not exist. Almost every other truth is subjective.

Even so, it is not possible to prove that 0=1, it has long been accepted that that was merely the use of flawed mathematics, hence the revision of mathematical systems and indeterminancy.

As to whether if some-one thought 2+2=5 it would be true:
Yes, even as a positivist due to the nature of the statement it would merely require a re-working of the definition of 5 or 2+2. Providing one did not also assume that 2+2=4, and that 4=5-1 etc.

One absolute truth we(humans) were all created in a image.
How can you say you don't have a image we can se you? If you think you are invisible someone should point you you aren't.

The earth is the place we(humans) lived is number 2. If you don't live on earth please tell me where you live?

Number 3, we(humans) can think. Anyone who reads this has just thought(everytime you you read you also think, look it up) so you must agree.

Number 4, Everyone has breathed at least once if you are alive when you read this. That is unquestionable. A new born can't read so if he doesn't breath and somehow dies he doesn't count I'm pretty sure.

number 5, jokes may be funny, but not always.
Optional:
Number 6, Supernatural exists.
Number 6 example:
If the Melchediak Preisthood can bless others than it must exist, because if its not God but ourselves than it must be supernatual and thus the supernatual exist. If it is God than the supernatual still exists becuse God is supernatural I think that fits since he is all mighty.


Number 7, some of you will disagree with number 6's example. Please prove those Absolute laws lol

To find absolute truth, we must have a definition of truth. In this universe, in this dimension, 2+2=4, but in some other universe or dimension, 2+2=7. Or 2+2=*


We must have a definition of relative truth, to find absolute truth.

Prove that those definitions are accurate. :-)

They're defintions. You can define them to be anything you want. Accuracy doesnt enter into it.

Ok fair enough...look at this, though.

Is this a true statement?
"There are no absolute truths"


If it were a true statement, then you must apply it to the question above, by answering no, it is not a true statement, because there are no absolute truths. Since that is not a true statement, there must be absolute truth. Confusing.

Simplified: If there are no absolute truths, than you cannot say that there are no absolute truths, because that would be an absolute truth.
What you have there is a "paradox". But that is only because you have assumed that for A to be true, B must be false and vice versa. A - there are universal truths - and B - there are not universal truths - are contradictions and cannot both be true or both be false.

This runs along the lines of something I have seen before, but with different terms. Namely, the quote of Socrates: "All I know is that I know nothing". How can he know nothing if he knows that he knows nothing? To be frank, a clever person explained why it was possible for Socrates to validly say that he knew nothing, but I have forgotten the explanation.

I think it ran along the lines that it was not necessary for it to be true that Socrates knew that he knew nothing for him to not know, and assert, that he knows nothing. In the same way, it is not necessary for it to be true that there are no universal truths for it to be false that there are universal truths; in other words, it need not be asserted.

What you have there is a "paradox". But that is only because you have assumed that for A to be true, B must be false and vice versa. A - there are universal truths - and B - there are not universal truths - are contradictions and cannot both be true or both be false.

This runs along the lines of something I have seen before, but with different terms. Namely, the quote of Socrates: "All I know is that I know nothing". How can he know nothing if he knows that he knows nothing? To be frank, a clever person explained why it was possible for Socrates to validly say that he knew nothing, but I have forgotten the explanation.

I think it ran along the lines that it was not necessary for it to be true that Socrates knew that he knew nothing for him to not know, and assert, that he knows nothing. In the same way, it is not necessary for it to be true that there are no universal truths for it to be false that there are universal truths; in other words, it need not be asserted.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....Um...i think I get what you're saying, but yeah....not sure...

The one absolute truth is 'I think, therefore I am,' or more accurately 'I think, therefore I think I am.' Everything else requires a little suspension of disbelief, otherwise the inevitable result is solipsism [the most egotistical form of skepticism].
There is some debate over Descates' "proof". For one it is more accurately said that we can think and therefore we can exist. Descartes assumed that we always think, or our souls think when we do not. John Locke wrote an interesting piece on this particular assumption in his Essays on Human Understanding. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with either, but just don't be so quick to call something an absolute truth.

As someone has already mentioned, the only likely candidates for absolute truths are tautological.

1. There are no absolute truths

That this statement is self-contradictory doesn't, of course, make it useless. It does suggest that any reasonging system, when applied to something outside the realm of knowledge for which the system is appropriate, won't be useful. It would be like trying to apply the US constitution to a probelm in British law, or trying to solve a problem in particle physics armed only with Newtonian mechanics.

That, of course doesn't negate the possiblity that their might actually be absolute truths. But finding them is quite another matter. Even once you've passed the problem of getting reliable sensory input--quite a kicker--one needs a formal reasoning system known to be logically consistant. If you're interested in this sort of thing, you might like to read something on Godel's theorem.

1. There are no absolute truths

That this statement is self-contradictory doesn't, of course, make it useless. It does suggest that any reasonging system, when applied to something outside the realm of knowledge for which the system is appropriate, won't be useful. It would be like trying to apply the US constitution to a probelm in British law, or trying to solve a problem in particle physics armed only with Newtonian mechanics.

That, of course doesn't negate the possiblity that their might actually be absolute truths. But finding them is quite another matter. Even once you've passed the problem of getting reliable sensory input--quite a kicker--one needs a formal reasoning system known to be logically consistant. If you're interested in this sort of thing, you might like to read something on Godel's theorem.

But in saying that there may be absolute truths if we just find them, you have shown that "no absolute truths" is incorrect.

Also, if there are no abolute truths, that means that if there are absolute truths for me, then it must be true. In which case, there ARE absolute truths. Don't just throw logic out the window with some crap explaination that logic doesn't matter. If that were true, than there would be NO truths, there would be nothing, we would not exist, this universe would not exist. Logic is what makes the world work.

But in saying that there may be absolute truths if we just find them, you have shown that "no absolute truths" is incorrect.
I don't follow. Simply because there is a possibility of something being true doesn't make its opposite false. "Possibilities" are a creation of the imagination, beyond human choice there are no "possibilities" merely figments of our mind. To put it another way, you are saying that it is possible for something to have the possibility of being either true or false depending on something else; this is contradictory and it is the fault of the imagination that we view things in such a way.

Also, if there are no abolute truths, that means that if there are absolute truths for me, then it must be true. In which case, there ARE absolute truths. Don't just throw logic out the window with some crap explaination that logic doesn't matter. If that were true, than there would be NO truths, there would be nothing, we would not exist, this universe would not exist. Logic is what makes the world work.
Logic isn't the answer, it is merely a reasoning system. It is based on the assumption that a priori knowledge is attainable. Deductive logic has been dogged by various problems for ages, the most obvious of which is the existential import problem. But hey, I prefer Bacon's inductive method to deduction, and Hume's theory of knowledge - although I am yet to read Kant.

They're defintions. You can define them to be anything you want. Accuracy doesnt enter into it.

Which is why there are no absolute truths.

While absolute truth can exist as a philosophical concept, it's meaningless as an idea in everyday life.

Even "facts" are always going to be subject to the interpretation of those perciving them.

Everything is true, absolutely, even totally contradictory things, such as the true fact that everything is untrue, and all things and possiblities exist at the same place and time everywhere forever, and never have and never will.

That being said, it's all a matter of perspective ;)

I'm surprised that there have been no Ayn Rand fanatics bursting onto the scene explaining the basic principles of Objectivism to us all.

This thread is about truth, what would Rand have to do with it?

I'm surprised that there have been no Ayn Rand fanatics bursting onto the scene explaining the basic principles of Objectivism to us all.

I could, but you wouldn't listen because your mind is closed on this subject. I won't waste my time.

Here's an absolute truth for you: I exist, and my life belongs to me. If you try your "philosophizing" bullsh*t to rationalize taking this from me, I will put a bullet in your brain. Then try your Kantian ravings to get out of your coffin.

This thread is about truth, what would Rand have to do with it?
Well Objectivism (ala Rand) holds that reality is reality regardless of the desires of the observer. Randians really don't have an opening, unless they want to use a tautolgy. What does exist, exist. If there were a strong current in this thread of reality being defined by the observer, as opposed to the argument that observation change the observed, the Objectivists would be conter-arguing.

"Well Objectivism (ala Rand) holds that reality is reality regardless of the desires of the observer. Randians really don't have an opening, unless they want to use a tautolgy. What does exist, exist. If there were a strong current in this thread of reality being defined by the observer, as opposed to the argument that observation change the observed, the Objectivists would be conter-arguing."

Lol, I understand what Ayn Rand stands for (all too well), my comment was a joke, as I generally don not agree with Rand's "philosophy."

Here's an absolute truth for you: I exist, and my life belongs to me.
Whatever the second part of your sentence actually means, that your life belongs to you, I can quite easily disagree with the first. It may be true for you that you exist - and you can prove to yourself that you exist - it is not absolutely true to me that you exist. The proofs you can use to prove to yourself that you exist are not proofs for me, unless you know of a really good one.

If you try your "philosophizing" bullsh*t to rationalize taking this from me, I will put a bullet in your brain. Then try your Kantian ravings to get out of your coffin.
Are you scared or something? Besides, how do you know I exist?

On a more serious note, I am not closed on the subject of Objectivism, I have merely never seen a rational argument from an Objectivist - care to be the first? Spare me the dogmatic principles laid down by dear Miss Rand, I know most of them already, I would rather you gave them basis.

Lol, I understand what Ayn Rand stands for (all too well), my comment was a joke, as I generally don not agree with Rand's "philosophy."Ah, a comment more on the nature of Rand(ians?) than on the nature of Objectivism.

Whatever the second part of your sentence actually means, that your life belongs to you, I can quite easily disagree with the first. It may be true for you that you exist - and you can prove to yourself that you exist - it is not absolutely true to me that you exist. The proofs you can use to prove to yourself that you exist are not proofs for me, unless you know of a really good one.

Just as I said, you try to "rationalize" away my existence. What could be more evil? What could make it easier for you to soothe your conscience about taking away someone's life. "Oh well, they don't REALLY exist anyway, so I didn't REALLY do anything wrong."


On a more serious note, I am not closed on the subject of Objectivism, I have merely never seen a rational argument from an Objectivist - care to be the first? Spare me the dogmatic principles laid down by dear Miss Rand, I know most of them already, I would rather you gave them basis.

Already said I won't waste my time; and your words belie your proclaimed "open-mindedness."

Galtania, you are reassuringly childish.

If there is such a thing as absolute truth, my guess is that nobody wants to hear it. It would take all of the mystery out of life, make it too simple.

Hell, most people can't handle hearing simple truth, let alone what is absolute.

I disagree, simply because I can.

Is there a thing such as absolute? What is absolute?

Well Objectivism (ala Rand) holds that reality is reality regardless of the desires of the observer. Randians really don't have an opening, unless they want to use a tautolgy. What does exist, exist. If there were a strong current in this thread of reality being defined by the observer, as opposed to the argument that observation change the observed, the Objectivists would be conter-arguing.

Well that's certainly what I'm arguing. What we perceive as reality is all that ultimately matters. The fact that we are or can be sentiently aware of such things is all that makes them relevent to us, and how we choose to perceive things can effect their "objective" reality. We are what makes our universe "real" and sets it aside from the eternally omnipresent chaos.

Just as I said, you try to "rationalize" away my existence. What could be more evil? What could make it easier for you to soothe your conscience about taking away someone's life. "Oh well, they don't REALLY exist anyway, so I didn't REALLY do anything wrong."

. . .



OK now... you're saying that anyone who doesn't believe that objective reality exists is just looking for an excuse to kill you? Assuming you're correct, indeed, what evil :rolleyes:

I can confirm that this post was just submitted by me. That is an absolutely true statement. If you wish to challenge that, that would be your perogative but I don't know how you would be able to prove that it isn't an absolute truth.

I can confirm that this post was just submitted by me. That is an absolutely true statement. If you wish to challenge that, that would be your perogative but I don't know how you would be able to prove that it isn't an absolute truth.

How do you know that you submitted it? Maybe it's just a mass hallucination?

Canuck, the burden of proof rests on you to show that what you say is indeed an absolute truth - that's even if you can possibly assign a truth value to your statement. There is a difference between a logical truth value and something being "true" in common lingual use. For instance you can assign a logical truth value to a statement such as "All boats are black", but you cannot assign a logical truth value to a statement such as "I posted a letter".

Infact, I am certain that your statement isn't an absolute truth because there is no way you could possibly proove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you submitted anything. An absolute truth could only come from deduction since there is no "true" or "false" in induction.

Well that's certainly what I'm arguing. What we perceive as reality is all that ultimately matters. The fact that we are or can be sentiently aware of such things is all that makes them relevent to us, and how we choose to perceive things can effect their "objective" reality. We are what makes our universe "real" and sets it aside from the eternally omnipresent chaos.
There is a slight yet important distinction between defining reality as what is observed and saying the observer defines reality, the former is objectivism the later is existentialism.

There is a slight yet important distinction between defining reality as what is observed and saying the observer defines reality, the former is objectivism the later is existentialism.
What's in the middle?

What's in the middle?
I don't believe there is a middle. There are other beliefs about perception and reality tangental to objectivism and exestentialism, but nothing between them.

I don't believe there is a middle. There are other beliefs about perception and reality tangental to objectivism and exestentialism, but nothing between them.
Forgive me if I am wrong, for I have only a basic knowledge of it, but isn't Pragmatisim somewhere in the middle?

James once described reality as 27, but that people could view reality in different ways yet still be right such as 3 x 3 x 3 could be right, but so could 30 - 3 et cetera, with infinite possibilities. So, reality is defined by the observed by the observer. That seems impossible but on further reflection I don't think it is.

I said no because truth is objective … or at least our description of it is


Kind of like reaching absolute zero … you keep subdividing and getting closer without ever quite reaching

We are limited by both language and even our thoughts and as always things are based in a frame of reference

Maybe a better answer would be that yes there is an absolute but no it is never quite reachable

Yes there are absoulute truths, the question for me is can we as a collective group understand and identify them. The Socratic philosopher said that yes there are truths and we could use logic to come close to understanding them but they raised many questions about how perfect that understanding is. These are pointed out in the Republic in the Image of the Ship the image of the Cave and last the image of the dotted line the first two are interesting and not to difficult to wrap your mind around the last one is tricky I can't say that after look at dozens of times over as many years I am any closer to it or to answering your question but all socrates disciples address it in some way the most famus from plato that I have mentioned above good luck answering this one...

Forgive me if I am wrong, for I have only a basic knowledge of it, but isn't Pragmatisim somewhere in the middle?

James once described reality as 27, but that people could view reality in different ways yet still be right such as 3 x 3 x 3 could be right, but so could 30 - 3 et cetera, with infinite possibilities. So, reality is defined by the observed by the observer. That seems impossible but on further reflection I don't think it is.I've always considered Pragmatacism as tangental to the two, instead of being between the two. One could consider Pragmatiacism as being between the two, but I think examination shows Pragmatacism mostly ignores the question of what reality is instead of being between objectivism and existentialism.


** edit replace "what reality is" with "the nature of reality" for clarity.

Yes there are absoulute truths, the question for me is can we as a collective group understand and identify them. The Socratic philosopher said that yes there are truths and we could use logic to come close to understanding them but they raised many questions about how perfect that understanding is. These are pointed out in the Republic in the Image of the Ship the image of the Cave and last the image of the dotted line the first two are interesting and not to difficult to wrap your mind around the last one is tricky I can't say that after look at dozens of times over as many years I am any closer to it or to answering your question but all socrates disciples address it in some way the most famus from plato that I have mentioned above good luck answering this one...
You would be a lot closer to answering some of those questions if you stepped away from Idealist philosophy. Whilst the ancient Greek philosophers were wonderful in promoting reason (dialetic, not logic - that was Aristotle) they had some wacky ideas about philosophy. Plato was inconsistent, most notable was his half-hearted condemnation of artistry when he infact was an artist. I suppose I too am being inconsistent when I say "ancient Greek philosophers". Let me clarify and say simply that I think Socrates and Plato had some wacky ideas about philosophy, there was a lot of cogent thought from other Greeks of that time that stills has its place today.

I've always considered Pragmatacism as tangental to the two, instead of being between the two. One could consider Pragmatiacism as being between the two, but I think examination shows Pragmatacism mostly ignores the question of what reality is instead of being between objectivism and existentialism.
Pierce was right, that really is an ugly way of writing Pragmatism; I suppose his reason was good enough, but my, it is ugly.

I would think that you know more about Pragmatism than I do. I have read "Pragmatism" by William James, but that was a long time ago. I'm still relatively near the beggining of my journey through Western thought, and so I haven't read much contempory philosophy.

Pierce was right, that really is an ugly way of writing Pragmatism; I suppose his reason was good enough, but my, it is ugly.

I would think that you know more about Pragmatism than I do. I have read "Pragmatism" by William James, but that was a long time ago. I'm still relatively near the beggining of my journey through Western thought, and so I haven't read much contempory philosophy.
I wouldn't say I know more about Pragmatacism. Most of my knowledge comes from Dewey, who was later and not entirely Pragmatic - and I haven't read anything on the subject in quite a few years. One of Dewey's critiques of James was his sidestepping of the issue of the nature of reality and Dewey wrote a bit on the nature of reality (he would have been on the existantialist side). While Dewey is part of the Pragmatacist school , was he a Pragmatacist?

There is a slight yet important distinction between defining reality as what is observed and saying the observer defines reality, the former is objectivism the later is existentialism.

In my case, I prefer Collective Berkleyanism.

philosophically things like absolute truths dont exists. (at least as how i understand it). Facts are also relative, which means that they *may* not be an acurate reflection of reality. Mathematics is simply an explanation, a way to order the world into numbers, it too is based on certain principles which may not actually exist in the real world.