Absolutism vs. Relativity

raminio05

National Team Player
#1
A philosophical question, from a discussion that me and bi-honar had a long while back.

Is there such a thing as the absolute truth, and does it exist in all cases? Or, is truth relative to human perception and therefore dependant on it?

In other words, does 2+2 ALWAYS equal 4?

I would love to hear your ideas on this subject.
 
Oct 18, 2002
7,941
0
704 Houser
#2
In what context is this being addressed? I have studied absolutism and relativism in contexts other than philosophy, so I have some thoughts.

On purely theocratic basis I am more inclined to agree with postpositivist, postmodernist, way of thinking. Which is that human knowledge, bias and perception greatly influences our truths. Most of the things that we believe in are functions of social constructs. I have more respect for theories that acknowledge their biases openly such as feminism. However, there are some things that I believe are universal truths that are based on a simple rationality without which we can't function. 2+2=4 is one of them. These I call material truths because they are material to our existence as a well ordered society.

As far as material truths are concerned, in economics, politics, and international relations I favor absolutism which is the basis of liberal political philosophy. If everything is measured in terms of gains can people be content with absolute gains versus relative gains? I think so, because I tend to be more optimistic about human nature and human ability to cooperate.
 
Oct 16, 2002
39,533
1,513
DarvAze DoolAb
www.iransportspress.com
#3
In what context is this being addressed? I have studied absolutism and relativism in contexts other than philosophy, so I have some thoughts.

On purely theocratic basis I am more inclined to agree with postpositivist, postmodernist, way of thinking. Which is that human knowledge, bias and perception greatly influences our truths. Most of the things that we believe in are functions of social constructs. I have more respect for theories that acknowledge their biases openly such as feminism. However, there are some things that I believe are universal truths that are based on a simple rationality without which we can't function. 2+2=4 is one of them. These I call material truths because they are material to our existence as a well ordered society.

As far as material truths are concerned, in economics, politics, and international relations I favor absolutism which is the basis of liberal political philosophy. If everything is measured in terms of gains can people be content with absolute gains versus relative gains? I think so, because I tend to be more optimistic about human nature and human ability to cooperate.
ٌWhat a great post Shahin. I couldn't have worded it like that at all.
 
Oct 18, 2002
11,593
3
#4
2+2=4 is not exactly a "truth". It is just an abstract definition, like everything in math. We have defined number 4 as 2+2.
 
Jun 7, 2004
3,196
0
#5
A philosophical question, from a discussion that me and bi-honar had a long while back.

Is there such a thing as the absolute truth, and does it exist in all cases? Or, is truth relative to human perception and therefore dependant on it?

In other words, does 2+2 ALWAYS equal 4?

I would love to hear your ideas on this subject.
My input is that, I am absolutely certain that there is truth and that I do not make truth, that is truth is not according to my wishes. To give any worth to such a discussion as in any, it must be related to what is of consequence. For example, try not eating to see if there is any relativism to the law that you must eat to live. See how that works out for you then see which would you rather side with on faith, the sure bet or the long shot bet that is most miserable.

The amusing answer for many of us almost all of the time and all of us some of the time is that in face of truth we become absolutely certain that we must submit to it, eat when we get hungry. However once the stomach is full we can philosophize ad nauseam on whether there is absolute truth.
 

raminio05

National Team Player
#6
In what context is this being addressed? I have studied absolutism and relativism in contexts other than philosophy, so I have some thoughts.

On purely theocratic basis I am more inclined to agree with postpositivist, postmodernist, way of thinking. Which is that human knowledge, bias and perception greatly influences our truths. Most of the things that we believe in are functions of social constructs. I have more respect for theories that acknowledge their biases openly such as feminism. However, there are some things that I believe are universal truths that are based on a simple rationality without which we can't function. 2+2=4 is one of them. These I call material truths because they are material to our existence as a well ordered society.

As far as material truths are concerned, in economics, politics, and international relations I favor absolutism which is the basis of liberal political philosophy. If everything is measured in terms of gains can people be content with absolute gains versus relative gains? I think so, because I tend to be more optimistic about human nature and human ability to cooperate.
Farsi Zaban jaan, first of all, thank you for the wonderfull post.
My question was a philosophical one. What other contexts have you studies this in?

Now from your post, you have made it obvious that there are some areas which no universal truths exist for. Is morality one of these areas in your opinion?

Its my belief that the idea of absolute truth is universally valid. No matter how much our biases and perceptions alter this truth, the truth itself will continue to exist. But at the same time, i think that there are some truths that we can never have access to.
 
Oct 18, 2002
7,941
0
704 Houser
#7
Ramin jaan,

I think most social sciences that deal with theory and theory building address this debate to some extent. I studied this in international political theory courses as well as IPE (international political economy). It's probably applicable to economics, law, history, linguistics, psychology, gender studies and much more.

And yes. I *mostly* do not believe in universal truths when it comes to values. But it's more complex than that. There are two things that I can think of that all rational individuals desire. Autonomy and integrity. Autonomy is our desire and ability to choose, and integrity is our desire to be free of coercion.
 

raminio05

National Team Player
#8
My input is that, I am absolutely certain that there is truth and that I do not make truth, that is truth is not according to my wishes. To give any worth to such a discussion as in any, it must be related to what is of consequence. For example, try not eating to see if there is any relativism to the law that you must eat to live. See how that works out for you then see which would you rather side with on faith, the sure bet or the long shot bet that is most miserable.

The amusing answer for many of us almost all of the time and all of us some of the time is that in face of truth we become absolutely certain that we must submit to it, eat when we get hungry. However once the stomach is full we can philosophize ad nauseam on whether there is absolute truth.
i agree with you fole penalt. but there are some complications to this view that i have been struggling with. Look at my answer to deerouz to see what complications that i'm talking about.
2+2=4 is not exactly a "truth". It is just an abstract definition, like everything in math. We have defined number 4 as 2+2.
Perfect. You took this discussion in the direction that i was expecting to go.

Now, it is my belief that 2+2=4 irregardless. That is, even if humans did not exist, two objects put together with 2 other objects would equal four objects.

But here in lies the problem. Does something exist if it is not percieved by some kind of cognitive organism? By some conciousness? In other words, does truth exist, even if it not recognized by anything? Or is truth itself an abstract idea constructed by the human mind?
 

raminio05

National Team Player
#9
Ramin jaan,

I think most social sciences that deal with theory and theory building address this debate to some extent. I studied this in international political theory courses as well as IPE (international political economy). It's probably applicable to economics, law, history, linguistics, psychology, gender studies and much more.

And yes. I *mostly* do not believe in universal truths when it comes to values. But it's more complex than that. There are two things that I can think of that all rational individuals desire. Autonomy and integrity. Autonomy is our desire and ability to choose, and integrity is our desire to be free of coercion.
that is an interesting field of study.

as for this debate being applicable to history, i have an example.

there is still a debate on the number of people involved in the assasination of John F. Kennedy. Some people argue that there is enough evidence to suggest that there was another assasin. Other say that this is not possible. And some say that there is not enough evidence to argue for either side.

But, and this is a big but, irregardless of the arguments made by these people, and irregardless of who has more evidence and who makes more sense, the actual event took place, so there is a "truth" in regards to what actually happened, irregardless of what we think.
 

PJ

IPL Player
Oct 18, 2002
3,066
0
#10
I don't have any training about this. But I give you my perception.
Of course the world that we live in is a big mix of everything.
- There are concepts that are absolutely relative: such as all adjectives (e.g. cold/warm, big/small) but in a lot of cases the adjective is not even measurable-- such as good/bad.
- For the events, I believe there is an absolute truth but each person has a perception of it based on his/her observations, training, experience and context.
- In the same way, rules of nature have an underlying truth but our perception of that varies.
- Our values are formed based on our prior experiences and our reactions to them. Our values fall under the non-measurable and relative category.
- There is also existence and rules of the nature that has an underlying truth but our perception may not be aligned with that.
 
Jun 7, 2004
3,196
0
#11
i agree with you fole penalt. but there are some complications to this view that i have been struggling with. Look at my answer to deerouz to see what complications that i'm talking about.

Perfect. You took this discussion in the direction that i was expecting to go.

Now, it is my belief that 2+2=4 irregardless. That is, even if humans did not exist, two objects put together with 2 other objects would equal four objects.

But here in lies the problem. Does something exist if it is not percieved by some kind of cognitive organism? By some conciousness? In other words, does truth exist, even if it not recognized by anything? Or is truth itself an abstract idea constructed by the human mind?
I am not sure if I see the problem anywhere except in what I already wrote. In that for anything to have value it has to have consequence. In fact truth and consequence are inseparable. They are the same thing. Believing in truth requires belief in consequence. And this is the key to the entire discussion. It is irrelevant to me if truth exists without me. And the entire point is that whether I philosophize about it one way or another it will not change what I have no access or authority on nor will it change a thing about my own world, it has no consequence for me.

And this is entirely consistent with my first sentence in that in what I perceive, I am absolutely certain that truth exists and that I do not make it.
 

raminio05

National Team Player
#12
I don't have any training about this. But I give you my perception.
Of course the world that we live in is a big mix of everything.
- There are concepts that are absolutely relative: such as all adjectives (e.g. cold/warm, big/small) but in a lot of cases the adjective is not even measurable-- such as good/bad.
- For the events, I believe there is an absolute truth but each person has a perception of it based on his/her observations, training, experience and context.
- In the same way, rules of nature have an underlying truth but our perception of that varies.
- Our values are formed based on our prior experiences and our reactions to them. Our values fall under the non-measurable and relative category.
- There is also existence and rules of the nature that has an underlying truth but our perception may not be aligned with that.
PJ jaan, thank you for taking the time to reply.

You broke it down pretty well. So the conclusion that one can draw is that anything who's existance depends on human perception (like your adjective example) cannot be an absolute truth, while other things who existence is independent of human perception are absolute truth.

So that said, i have two questions:

1. Does something that is not percieved by humans truly exist?
2. Are there some things which have an existance based on human perception but which are also absolute truths? In example would be beauty. Is there in absolute truth to what is beautifull, or is is as subjective as most people believe?
I am not sure if I see the problem anywhere except in what I already wrote. In that for anything to have value it has to have consequence. In fact truth and consequence are inseparable. They are the same thing. Believing in truth requires belief in consequence. And this is the key to the entire discussion. It is irrelevant to me if truth exists without me. And the entire point is that whether I philosophize about it one way or another it will not change what I have no access or authority on nor will it change a thing about my own world, it has no consequence for me.

And this is entirely consistent with my first sentence in that in what I perceive, I am absolutely certain that truth exists and that I do not make it.
I apologize, because i misunderstood your first post.

Rereading it, can you clarify as to why you say truth and consequence are inseperable?
 

PJ

IPL Player
Oct 18, 2002
3,066
0
#13
PJ jaan, thank you for taking the time to reply.

You broke it down pretty well. So the conclusion that one can draw is that anything who's existance depends on human perception (like your adjective example) cannot be an absolute truth, while other things who existence is independent of human perception are absolute truth.

So that said, i have two questions:

1. Does something that is not percieved by humans truly exist?
2. Are there some things which have an existance based on human perception but which are also absolute truths? In example would be beauty. Is there in absolute truth to what is beautifull, or is is as subjective as most people believe?
1. You are clearly asking the wrong person, unless you think I am not human. ;)
Clearly, if something doesn't exist we would have no perception of it or any signs of it. However, if we have no perception of something it either doesn't exist at all or we have no means of telling. For example if there is a creature that we have never seen, we have no perception of it. But it might exist in some far away corner of the world.
2. Some of those things are measurable and some of them are completely subjective. For example we can measure temperature so we can compare two temperatures and say one is colder than the other. But beauty or goodness has no defined measure. In the case of beauty and goodness, there is an existence that has an absolute truth (the figure or the deed) but whether the figure is considered beautiful or a deed is considered good or bad is subjective.
 
Jun 7, 2004
3,196
0
#15
I apologize, because i misunderstood your first post.

Rereading it, can you clarify as to why you say truth and consequence are inseperable?
Not an issue Raminio jaan, I was not objecting. You must be the gentlest most polite youngster on forums.

We consider something as true only if it has consequences. For example, we say it is true that gravity attracts objects towards each other how? We know it is true because we have unshakable faith that if you jumped you will crash rather than float away. The law has a consequence. If I said no it is not so, you say ok jump and see. This is concerning laws.

Even if we consider events in the past, we know they are true or not, only through consequences. For example we say it is true that person X had broken into that house how? We say if he had then there must have been consequences woven into the fabric of universe that we can detect now. For example, finger prints, DNA, and probably sometime into the future we will detect changes to in the wave function of atoms and so on.
 

Meehandoost

Bench Warmer
Sep 4, 2005
1,981
113
#16
...Is there such a thing as the absolute truth, and does it exist in all cases? Or, is truth relative to human perception and therefore dependant on it? In other words, does 2+2 ALWAYS equal 4?...
The only "absolute" truth in the universe is its Creator who has and will always exist independent of all things, including our knowledge or mention. All other truths are relative and in the state of flux and evolution as our perceptions of them change and evolve. Two plus two is not a truth rather the way to perceive a concept by convention and depending on the construct and system of math (i.e. the convention) its answer could be entirely different. As our perceptions are our realities, they form our "relative" truth for the time, although they are only our perceptions of the truth.
 
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
#17
Wow, I was wondering where you have been Meehandoost jaan, but what a comeback. Great post.

Ramin jaan, in the original post, where this came up, I gave you a few examples of how 2+2 does not equal 4. As Meehandoost jaan so delicately put, 2+2 is a human convention to add similar things. It is not a universal truth in that it does not apply to objects that are not similar. For example, 2 apples and 2 oranges are not 4 apple oranges.

It is not even a universal truth in adding similar things and in fact, if 2+2 was a universal truth, the fusion in the stars would never occur and we would never be here - i.e. the treatment of 2+2=4 as a universal truth is contradictory to our creation and therefore God.

There was one or two more examples in the other thread, which I can't recall, but if you can dig them up, we can certainly discuss them.
 

raminio05

National Team Player
#20
1. You are clearly asking the wrong person, unless you think I am not human. ;)
Clearly, if something doesn't exist we would have no perception of it or any signs of it. However, if we have no perception of something it either doesn't exist at all or we have no means of telling. For example if there is a creature that we have never seen, we have no perception of it. But it might exist in some far away corner of the world.
2. Some of those things are measurable and some of them are completely subjective. For example we can measure temperature so we can compare two temperatures and say one is colder than the other. But beauty or goodness has no defined measure. In the case of beauty and goodness, there is an existence that has an absolute truth (the figure or the deed) but whether the figure is considered beautiful or a deed is considered good or bad is subjective.
lol. didn't mean to dehuminize you there PJ jaan.
I for the most part agree with point 1 that you made, although it seems like it has turned into a discussion for another place and another time.

On point two, i have a qestion. Why is it that you think that beauty is subjective. i mean, aren't there physical and chemical triggers in the brain that determine what one thinks is beautifull? and these triggars, are they something that we (humans) are born with, like our instincts, or are they for the most part aquired?

As for good and bad, are you suggesting that morality is completely subjective? Murder being considered "bad" is subjective, and therefore can be considered "good" by some? I find this hard to accept.

Not an issue Raminio jaan, I was not objecting. You must be the gentlest most polite youngster on forums.
chakerim. its only because of members such as yourself setting a positive example.
We consider something as true only if it has consequences. For example, we say it is true that gravity attracts objects towards each other how? We know it is true because we have unshakable faith that if you jumped you will crash rather than float away. The law has a consequence. If I said no it is not so, you say ok jump and see. This is concerning laws.

Even if we consider events in the past, we know they are true or not, only through consequences. For example we say it is true that person X had broken into that house how? We say if he had then there must have been consequences woven into the fabric of universe that we can detect now. For example, finger prints, DNA, and probably sometime into the future we will detect changes to in the wave function of atoms and so on
Ok, fair enough. But what about in philosophical discussions. Its really hard to look at consequences when you are trying to look for truth in abstract ideas.