DeletedUser
A triangle drawn on a ball is being affected by the curvature of it, which means that the z axis is changing it. Because of that, I guess you could just say that it isn't a triangle.
DeletedUser
No, the triangle is drawn on a 2 dimensional surface, that surface has no z axis because it is 2 dimensional and can be mapped completely with 2 coordinates. The topography of the surface itself changes the geometry within it, yes, but that is how things work.
DeletedUser
The fact is that if you deflate the ball, and look only at 2 dimensions, the drawn figure wouldn't have straight lines; that means it isn't a triangle. Sort of like saying a turtle can walk 60 mph (kph for you?) if it's walking inside a car or truck bed. Anyway, it's not important enough for me to debate any more tonight.
DeletedUser
Last night I was thinking about maths and geometry being absoloute truths and then I thought, actually they're just tautologies. 2 + 2 = 4 is true by definition. effectivley it says 4 = 4. But if we concede to allow tautologies into uor list of "absoloute truths" then we can add anything necessarily true within our language. eg a batchelor is an unmarried man becomes an absoloute truth. I dont like that at all.
I'm sticking with I exist and stuff exists thanks
I'm sticking with I exist and stuff exists thanks
DeletedUser
I would agree with Hellstromm's quote. People believing in "God" doesn't make "God" true. People believing in no "God" doesn't make "God" false.
What is true is true regardless of who believes it or doesn't believe it.
We are talking about whether absolute truths can exist. Not if we can prove any individual thing to be an absolute truth, but whether they can exist at all.
We may never be able to prove an absolute truth...but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
It also doesn't mean they do exist.
Adelei, if you cannot prove/disprove an absolute truth, than what's the point in talking about it, debating it, arguing it? Point being, don't we have better things to do than run around in circles with our head cut-off? Chicken wings be damned here, I just don't think it's worth it to debate in circles --- or in triangles for that matter.
DeletedUser
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Umm, Mystra, proved what?
DeletedUser
I never claimed that it did.
It's a question that (as others like to point out) has come up several times on this board. It is a question that Aristotle, Plato, Descartes, Nietzsche and others have tried to tackle. That it doesn't interest you, doesn't mean that it doesn't interest others on this board...
Well, you pointed it out, anyway...
Let's give Descartes a little credit.DeletedUser
You missed my point Adelei. It's a circular argument.
"If there is, than it cannot."
"If it cannot, than it is improperly framed."
"If it is properly framed, than it cannot."
"If it can, than it cannot be framed."
"If it is not framed, than it cannot."
"Prove it."
"No, you prove it."
"I cannot."
"I win."
"No you don't, you prove it can."
"I cannot."
"I win."
"No you don't, because you cannot prove it."
"Well, you cannot prove that it can."
"So?"
"So?"
"What were we talking about?"
"I don't know..."
"Hmm, was it good for you?"
"Yep, got a light?"
"If there is, than it cannot."
"If it cannot, than it is improperly framed."
"If it is properly framed, than it cannot."
"If it can, than it cannot be framed."
"If it is not framed, than it cannot."
"Prove it."
"No, you prove it."
"I cannot."
"I win."
"No you don't, you prove it can."
"I cannot."
"I win."
"No you don't, because you cannot prove it."
"Well, you cannot prove that it can."
"So?"
"So?"
"What were we talking about?"
"I don't know..."
"Hmm, was it good for you?"
"Yep, got a light?"
DeletedUser
No, you missed the point. Whether it is a circular argument or not is besides the point. It is an argument that people have had throughout the ages and will continue to have.
DeletedUser
This statement is absolutely true.
DeletedUser
Works better with, "This statement is absolutely false."
If it is false, it's true.
If it is true, it's false.
DeletedUser
Aristotle & Plato existed over 2000 years ago and their debates on absolutism centered around us in relation to the Gods. To debate what they debated is rather ... archaic, don't you think?
Descartes searched for truth, due to his lack of faith in God. It is argued he was one of the first in a resurgence of philosophers, out of the European Dark Ages.
Your positioning Nietzsche in this debate is unclear, as he did not debate universal truth, but discussed instead objective truth. His stance on universal truth was that it was dead, along with God. As an ex-theologian who became an atheist, he held universal truth to be synonymous with the existence of God. His perception of atheism was that God was dead. Not that he never existed, but that he no longer existed.
So, truly, all these persons were not debating absolute truth, they were debating their own struggles with faith and, in such, the context by which faith holds to the notions of the universal truths associated with faith. I.e., that of good vs evil, right vs wrong.
Descartes searched for truth, due to his lack of faith in God. It is argued he was one of the first in a resurgence of philosophers, out of the European Dark Ages.
Your positioning Nietzsche in this debate is unclear, as he did not debate universal truth, but discussed instead objective truth. His stance on universal truth was that it was dead, along with God. As an ex-theologian who became an atheist, he held universal truth to be synonymous with the existence of God. His perception of atheism was that God was dead. Not that he never existed, but that he no longer existed.
So, truly, all these persons were not debating absolute truth, they were debating their own struggles with faith and, in such, the context by which faith holds to the notions of the universal truths associated with faith. I.e., that of good vs evil, right vs wrong.
DeletedUser
No, not at all. The fact that the question still comes up today shows that what Aristotle and Plato discussed is still interesting and relevant today. It's interesting to me, though, that you want to dismiss these great philosophers so easily. Perhaps we should no longer care about the wheel, too...
Er...so what? I brought Descartes up as an example of a great philosopher that tried to tackle the question of absolute truth. Which he clearly did.
Thus, you answered your own question...
DeletedUser
It's interesting to me that you continue to miss my point. All these philosophers were debating issues of faith, which is a circular debate and one that serves no productive function, except maybe to release some intellectual sperm into the ozone.
I didn't ask a question, I was making a point; a point, like the other points I made in this thread that seem to completely elude you.
I ask you this: what is the point of debating this particular issue? In philosophy courses this particular topic is presented as an exercise in futility, a point of debate that serves no function and provides no answer.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Yes, they all discussed faith. But the point that you seem to miss is that they all discussed the absolute truth, which is the topic of this thread and directly why I named them. That they discussed faith is not the point, but besides the point.
Because YOU don't feel that this is a productive debate is similarly, besides the point.
A point, as I showed, that was wrong. You try to claim that Nietzsche didn't discuss universal truths and in the very next sentence, admit that he did just that.
It takes two to tango. I'm surprised that you are spending so much energy on this debate considering that you don't feel it is worth while. Since your motive is not to further the debate, I can only assume that you are trolling the thread.
What is the point of debating any particular issue?
Maybe some low level introductory courses that may be true (where they take a cursory glance at the topic). But the nature of truth and knowledge is going to be a part of any good epistemology course...
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
No Adelei, they discussed absolute truth in the context of faith. It was not standalone, and thus it is precisely the point.
No Adelei, you're taking my words and twisting them around to suit your purpose. I did not state he did not discuss universal truth, I said he did not debate it. There is a distinct difference. To him, universal truth, in and of itself, was not a topic of debate. The damage caused to society, because of the belief in faith-based universal good, is what he debated. Of course, if you had actually read any of Nietzsche's writings, instead of just tossing his name out, maybe we would have had a more civil discussion about him.
You can assume all day long, but we know what Jiminy Cricket says about that, now don't we? Frankly, I find your posts in this thread to be somewhat trolling, in that you seem to be intentionally misrepresenting "other" people's arguments, including my own.
If you're a philosopher, expansion of thought. If you're a pragmatist, coming to a conclusion. If you're a diplomat, coming to an agreement. If you're a sophist, exercising of the wrist.
Wow, you do like to be insulting, don't you? No, in postgraduate courses I attended, it was considered as I indicated, an exercise in futility and an example of debate that serves no function and provides no answer. There are philosophical musings, and then there are topics deemed as meat for sophists. Debate on universal truth, on universalism vs relativism, falls into the latter and, in this particular debate, you are definitely taking on the role of a sophist.
And, if I can present to those not familiar, sophists are quite despised by philosophers.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
That's pretty much what I was saying. Hellstromm keeps saying that they don't exist (or it's a waste of time discussing whether or not they do) because it's not possible to prove or disprove their existence; my point was that there are truths whether they can be proven or not. The problem is determining what is an absolute truth we can't prove and what's just a universally accepted fact that isn't absolute.
I enjoy the discussion of it, to a point, but I don't see my "truths" changing because of what's said. I still accept mathematical facts as true, I accept laws of nature as true (to some extent) and several other things that I can't prove and wouldn't be likely to try to even if I could.
DeletedUser
Hellstromm,
You really didn't say anything new or worthy of response. But, I do have to ask...
Are these the same postgraduate classes where they dismissed the writings of Plato and Aristotle as "archaic"?
You really didn't say anything new or worthy of response. But, I do have to ask...
Are these the same postgraduate classes where they dismissed the writings of Plato and Aristotle as "archaic"?
Last edited by a moderator: