Is truth relative or absolute?

Post Reply New Topic

How can this be in any case when our experience and resulting cognitive bias influence our perception of the details and states of the world. The details and states of the world vary from one person to the next. The details and the states of the world are as they are. We approximate what we consider to be the details and states of the world by our limited perception.

If errors are always possible in the human construct of fact there is no golden standard or absolute truth that humans can perceive or establish in relationship to the details and states of the world as they are beyond human perception.

I think the idea of absolute or relative truth is restricted to the human construct of idea. We do our best to come up with limited human facts that lead us to the idea of what we consider to be truth.

I like to think that there is a distinction between mere opinions and relative truths. For example, if someone thinks his sister is the most beautiful girl in the world, that's not a relative truth. That's just an opinion.

The difference between a relative truth and an opinion is that a relative truth is backed up by conclusive evidence while an opinion is just an expression of what one feels.

So when a color-blind man sees that the chair has a different color from the one that others see, that's not his opinion. That's the truth to him. Just as the "actual" color of the chair is the truth to us.

Some have argued that it's our interpretations of the truth that's relative while truth itself is absolute. Fair enough. But how would you know what exactly is the actual color. Maybe no human actually sees the actual color ... or maybe the color-blind people are the ones who are seeing the actual color. So how do we know whose truth is the absolute one?

That is why I stick to my original argument: that a truth is either relative or absolute depending on what truth you're talking about.

You are confusing the Map with the Territory. The World is. Regardless of what our opinions about it.

ruveyn

I ask the same question there as long as it is not then also used in an attempt to absolutely state there is, therefore, no absolute truth. If absolute truth does not exist, then we would just "create it" (a human impossibility) by saying there is no absolute truth. But to answer your question:

"So how do we know whose truth is the absolute one?"

The truth of the one who is able to create/constitute it.

You are assuming the existence of something for which there is no empirical evidence. Not a scrap, Not an iota, Not a bit.

ruveyn

No, and while I certainly do believe/know there is a sovereign creator, I had only meant to actually say this:

The truth of anyone able to create/constitute it ...

... and since we human beings cannot create/constitute truth -- we can only manipulate things already in existence -- we are left with the thought of there being, therefore, a sovereign creator (or else there is no truth at all).

I was confused about the wording of your statement. The human construct of fact is part of the map within the human mind that approximates the territory, per your statement that data reveals what the facts are; errors are always possible. So, since facts are fallible they cannot be equated with the details and states of the world as they are.

Your latest statement eliminates the human construct of fact and makes perfect sense to me.

There is plenty of human generated empirical evidence for this statement. "Anyone" can be considered the "one" that is the all that is. The "all that is", cannot be separated from the idea of creation or the constitution of "all that is".

"All that is", is the truth. Humans create ideas and generate facts to explore the "all that is".

I think you and I agree there, but my point to Ruveyn is that a prior assumption of a "God" is not the only way to get there.

I also agree that a prior assumption of a "God" is not the only way to get there.

Truth is absolute!! ! It is a persons perception of truth that is either partial or subjective!

A bullet passing through a human brain does not ask the brain about its opinion on the matter.

:thumleft:

As for whether truth is subjective or objective, the truth is objective but the interpretation of it is subjection which blurs the line between objective and subjective big time. A deaf person isn't able to interpret air pressure as sound, but that doesn't mean the air pressure doesn't exist. Our reality is filtered by many things so it's important not to confuse our interpretation of reality with reality itself since reality doesn't always manifest in a cut and dried fashion or in a way that makes sense. Speaking of making sense, our minds are hardwired to make sense out of things. We might not know why we feel a certain way, so our minds make up some sort of BS reason so that it fits into some sort of narrative. Schizophrenic minds take this to the extreme and this is why they hallucinate and are delusional.

We can never really interpret anything objectively since a lot of information gets lost in translation when it comes to fitting it all into a narrative.

So much is saved if we get things clear.

TRUTH - that which IS, reality, [which some are inclined to believe does NOT exist, which I view as extant]

is NOT the same as truth - that which a person states honestly to be fact. Which has no necessary link with TRUTH

I think the real question is what is more important.
What happened or what people think happened.
or is objective truth more important then shared perception.

I have to say what REALLY happened is primary, that our goal has to be - certainly mine is - to move toward a more accurate and adequate map of the elephant.

But it is unquestionable that much of human interaction is determined by different slants on the elephant mixed with outright lies.