The forum,

Greetings

During my lifetime it has become a convenience for some people to deny the reality of truth. In the postmodern era many apologists tell us truth is not discovered; instead, we are told that each person determines truth, and truth is not true for everyone, but truth is true only for a particular person, society, or cultural heritage. It is common nowadays to hear, “what is truth for you, is not the truth for me.”

We are also told that, “Absolute truth does not exist,” and that we should not negatively condemn or judge other people who holds a different set of values, and we should tolerate every worldview because no single worldview is correct. People who claim to be correct in their worldview today are often demonized or identified as bigots and openly chastised by a media that perpetuates the myths by telling us, “We should tolerate every viewpoint, unless those viewpoints are intolerant.”

To me, thinking such rationale is total nonsense, and I mean that in the sense of logic as applied to problem solution. There is one fundamental principle that all logical thought must adhere to if we are to overcome the multitude of problems amongst societies today worldwide; moreover, we cannot escape from that principle. The principle is identified as the Law of Non-Contradiction, which was originally proposed by Aristotle. The Law of Non-Contradiction says, “X is not –X,” and no two contradicting statements can be true simultaneously, and in the same respect. The existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist, and, if truth does not exist, the proposition, ‘Truth does not exist’ is true, and if there is anything true, there must be truth.

Logicians and thinkers cannot escape the proper usage of the Law of Non-Contradiction; people who attempt to deny the law deceive nobody but themselves. For those who say the Law of Non-Contradiction is false, they would be arguing true versus false, but each argument about that which is true or false necessarily employs usage of the Law of Non-Contradiction. Without using the Law of Non-Contradiction people cannot say anything meaningful about reality, and you cannot say anything is true or false. When a person denies the reality of truth, that person is necessarily assuming that some truths do exist, otherwise they will not be in a position to say something does or does not exist in reality as we human beings, experience it. When we say something is false, necessarily we are inferring that something else is true. Again, to deny the reality of truth openly assumes that some truths do exist.

For the people who think and say, “There is no such thing as truth,” I ask the question, “Is that a true statement?” There are no contradictions or paradoxes in nature; thereof, those people who think and say, “There is no such thing as truth,” are liars, which is a most unfortunate position to put oneself in for it cannot be logically defended without avowing that truth is true.

Truth is a statement of expression that corresponds to subject or object. When reality is subject (reality is not an object), a statement is true when it corresponds to reality as it is experienced. Reality and truth are independent of human perception, but human beings can prove and validate truth statements by using the Principle of Non-Contradiction. If we use the principle as a test of our perceptions, the truth is truth whether we accept it or not; therefore, reality is real despite our subjective human rationalization of it. For those people who still think, “There is no such thing as truth,” the obvious challenging question is always, “Is that statement true?” The answer they must give denies their argument is anything more than foolish hyperbole and nonsensical.

This same argument applies to absolutes, and will defeat the person who says, “There are no absolutes.” That is a self-defeating statement, and is rather illogical. All you need to do is reply, “Is that an absolute statement?” The Law of Non-Contradiction again proves its utility by proving the statement, “There are no absolutes,” is false, for if the statement is an absolute statement, it contradicts itself; if it is not an absolute statement, it is also a false statement. In either sense as inferred, the statement is false.

The question should not be, “Does truth really exist.” The question everyone should be asking is, ”Which worldview best corresponds to truth?” To answer the question is not an easy or simple task, but at least when we accept the notions that truth and reality are real, and both are a part of our everyday lives, we are then in a position to search for the truth.

After thinking about these things for the past several days, I have came to the decision that there are but two causes of inhumane acts, acts that can deprive all of humanity of the equality that should be enjoyed by every living human being on this earth. The two causes are, hatred and greed, and from them all inequities of human beings that deprive others of the equality due them by birthright, as human beings. Perhaps there are other causes, but I have not been able to identify them, and follow them through to produce a common despicable result such as hatred and greed inevitably accomplish.

To the religions I say, give up your hatred, give up your greed; for the non-believers I say, do not condemn that which you cannot validate, give up your greed, and give up your hatred. The world is large enough to accommodate all belief systems, but it is too small to accommodate hatred and greed when that hatred and greed originate from any and every belief system. But today, every belief system perpetuates greed, and hatred, which validates the arguments presented herein, that modernism with acceptance that truth does not exist is wrong, and people who profess that truth does not exist are also wrong.

I am making my New Year’s Resolution early: I will chastise and ridicule anyone on this earth that denies truth exists, and I will condemn everyone whom perpetuates hatred and greed because of their belief system.

Queen

Dear Queen,

Thank you for writing on Truth, and Welcome!

Indeed a well thought out thesis. Truth is. Truth is Truth, and there is no way to counter that without denying the reality of what is, on its own terms, in Reality. What God decrees, let no man put asunder...

On the other hand, in the relativistic logic of postmodernism, there is room for subjective, and thus liberating, interpretations of truth as a personal objective, as opposed to an objective, and thus more rigidly disciplined, truth external of our personal subjective views. These two, subjective and objective truths, cannot be confused, though there is a way to see Truth as an individual, personal reality in terms of Who we are. If a person claims "there is no such thing as Truth", as per your example, he or she makes a claim on Reality, which then may either accept that claim or reject it. So the personal and subjective is nevertheless subject to the objective rules of what is, as the universe makes it be so. So nothing is either totally true or false, but may tend towards certainty, or away from it into the absurd, into impossibility. This is the relativism of postmodernism, as I understand it to be. But what does that mean to those of us who believe that there definitely is Truth? Here are my thoughts:

If we think of Reality as being an interactive universe, one that either accepts or rejects our actions within it, to be either true or false, then the Universe's Truth acts as a modifier of what it is we believe. I may believe, or not, in the expanding universe Big Bang Theory, for example, with little consequence to myself from the universe... until I try to fly to the next galaxy and find it approaching me faster than I expected... well, there is no immediate danger to me in my claim to my truth. However, if I claim as true that if I step off the roof I will float like a balloon, and do so... I may not live to tell the tale. In this way, Reality, the universe, interacts with us, and thus also interacts with what it is we believe to be the Truth. Taking this to the next level of higher Truths, the kind encountered either in mathematics or physical sciences, or higher still to levels of morality and interhuman behavior, then our absolute truths become tested by how we human beings fare within our beliefs. I say "beliefs" because there is no way to get around the fact that no matter what we may say, what proofs we may offer, what incontrovertible arguments we offer to prove something to be True, it is nevertheless only an expression of what we have come to believe to be true, either from observation or from our true premises brought to logical conclusions... even this statement I am making now... are only our beliefs. Well, at least I believe this to be so, that we cannot ever know anything with such certainty that we can call it The Truth, since even our thinking of it is an act of believing in what we are thinking. Can this be an absolute, that all Truth is only belief, as we believe it to be true? To a postmodernist, if I understand that term correctly, this may in fact be the ultimate Truth: But since rules are to be broken, in the postmodernist world, even this becomes suspect. And if so, then Truth is relative to who is speaking it in relation to Who we are. It is always a truth for us if we believe if to be true, though whether or not it is becomes a judgement from our existence in our personal reality, which is a kind of cosmic pragmatism. That we could then find such truths, and even find consensus in this as a human species, is a triumph of communications and agreement, both within our given reality and each other's realities. When these are found, we then call them unalienable God given Truths; but such Truth is in truth only what we had agreed upon, and what we have come to believe as true. Even reason, if one believes in reason, is only what we have come to believe to be reasonably true.

This above is not sophism, but has a practical application in our humanly interactive environment. As you point out, and with which I agree wholeheartedly, those who would deny to others the right to be Who they are, by inhumane acts and other means of depriving them of their human rights, are driven by other causes, namely those of hatred and greed. But think of it this way, what causes hatred and greed? Is it not a denial of Truth for others, that they may not share in what oneself has brought within his or her own heart to be true, namely oneself? And if considered further, is this same hollow hatred in one's heart not caused by some deep inner fear that drives us to hold ours for our own but deny it to others? I had written elsewhere a paper titled "Evil as a Nexus of Fear" in which this very idea is explored, that evil or greed or hatred, really are manifestations of our inner fears. And like you, I too would challenge and chastise anyone who would deprive another human being of believing truth exists, both subjectively and objectively, so that hatred and ill will ceases to be an operative system for humankind. We all have the right to interact with our Universe, and each other, in a way we believe to be True, and be true to it, in terms of Who we are within this existence. Truth is Truth. To believe otherwise is to deny the Truth of Who we are as human beings, and that is self destructive. To the point, I too would challenge anyone whose truth it is to coerce others according to their beliefs, or worse, condemn to death anyone who turns away from the beliefs of another. Yet, an important question remains: Under what social system is Truth best honored? Is it in democracy or theocracy or oligarchy? I truly do not know, though I favor a democratic republic, and am resigned to let history by my judge. I think that if we end up doing more through agreement rather than through coercion, we are one step closer to the Truth.

I am a most humble, and on bent knee sweeping my doffed hat before me, servant of Truth, Your Majesty.

Ivan

It seems to me that it is true to say that humans at this stage of development are incapable of handling the truth. Perhaps if we only had our sensory/logical faculties, and no other mental equipment, then yes, we could identify what is true, agree upon what is true, and live out our lives as 'truth machines'.

Is it our calling to be truth machines? What makes us think that we are really so much more superior to other species that we have this special mission to identify what is absolutely true. Surely there would only be a limited number who could understand anyway, since 90% of humans wouldn't understand the math.

Indeed, the principle of non-contradiction would have to admit the truth of the existence of every idea that occurs in every sentient being, since each idea is indeed a phenomenon in the world. This corresponds to an insight provided by the rather unfashionable Philosopher, F. H. Bradley:
[quote]
“Every possible idea therefore may be said to be used existentially, for every possible idea qualifies and is true of a real world. And the number of real worlds, in a word, is indefinite. Every idea therefore in a sense is true, and is true of reality. The question with every idea is how far and in what sense is it true. The question is always whether, qualifying reality in one sense, the idea qualifies reality in another sense also. For, true in one world, an idea may be false in another world...”
- Francis H. Bradley
(Essays on Truth and Reality)
[unquote]

Perhaps the pursuit of absolute truth which nears the speed of light is an interesting 'game' for those who are equipped with superior logical faculties, and have high IQs. Just as basketball is an interesting game for those who have superior bodily-kinesthetic abilities. But the fact is (and it's true) the average human has an IQ of about 110, and gets 1 out of 10 when shooting for baskets. When you start to introduce aspects of formal logic such as obversion, conversion, strict tautologies, not to mention the difficulty of a symbolic language, then the average human psyche becomes the non-tautologous element, and formal logical truth eludes the many.

If it is true to say that we are incapable of being 'truth machines', because our evolution also equipped us with faculties to alert us of danger, and which give us fear, including fear of each other, then wouldn't it be more realistic to accept that and work on a more amenable 'truth for us' basis? Should we be addressing the truth of our fears?

Kind regards,

Dave.

Dear Dave, Queen, Chris, and all,

Can we as a human species, some of whom are capable of logical thinking "which nears the speed of light", survive absolute truths? Or is it more likely that we will survive in an environment of "truths for us", of relative truths that allow for non-absolute tolerance of each other's "truths"? Does this more tolerant way of seeing truth as a personal thing, even if wrong, necessarily a contradiction to the principle of non-contradiction?

Without going into the obvious that "absolute truths" had been used by humankind over the millennia to oppress one another, in everything from religious wars to institutionalized slavery, it would also appear that when human beings are way off the mark on what is true, something brings us back to reassess our positions, to bring us back to reality. If the truth exists in an absolute reality of our existence, of how the universe has structured itself into a being within which we are alive and conscious, then does it really matter whether or not our position, incontrovertibly non-contradictory position of what we have come to accept as reasonable and true, is in fact correct or not? Why not trust in reality, in the universe, to prove error in anyone's thinking, so that we may be tolerant of their error, indulge them in their personal myths, and let reality correct the error for us. Why fight about it? Or even argue vociferously? It is by far easier, and more in agreement with absolute universal truths, to allow us to disagree, so that we may remain true until proven false... or innocent until proven guilty. The trouble with absolutes is that they do not leave you any wiggle room, so that once a proof is offered there is no room for dissent. And once there is no dissent, then there is no more freedom. When freedom is taken away, violent struggle begins all over again.

This way of seeing truth is not to deny that absolute truth does not exist, nor deny that a principle of non-contradiction is valid, but merely that it does not exist for us as a human species capable of reason formulating such truths, unless we wish to become God, which we are not. Tolerance of each others personal truths, though they may be faulty, is a better way to the Truth. We can always play the games of "absolute truth", but if we are wrong, the universe will surely correct us. To tolerate error in truth, I think, takes us to the next level of human consciousness, which I believe we need to do if we are to survive.

Bottom line is this: If we accept only Absolute Truths, then we also of necessity accept the right to coerce others against their agreement; but if we accept also that there are "relative truths" for each one of us, then we accept the right to find agreement without coercions. Which is the better way?

Peace on Earth, 2003.

Ivan

Hi Ivan,

Thanks for your post. I was off on a bit of a sojourn, once again troubled by the ever possible interruption by logic and justified true belief. So you saved me posting a forty page 'treatise' about contextual considerations in logical analysis, stuff on Kuhn, the later Wittgenstein etc.

I'll run with your summation instead...well done. But if you want some interdisciplinary backup and broad consensual support, let me know. Believe me its there.

All the best,

Dave.

Queen!

The essence of truth is [lies in] human consciousness. If that is true, without contradiction, please explain the nature of our consciousness.


Peace my brothers and sisters,

Walrus

IN TOLERANCE OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH

Dear Walrus, Queen, Dave, and All,

Can it be said that truth lies in our human consciousness at that point of contact, between us and reality, where the universe's consciousness accepts what we have come to believe as true?

If so, then are we postulating a Conscious Universe, or God?

And if we are, then is that Consciousness also in us in Who we are?

And if it is, then is our being in this consciousness, when we are true to ourselves, a universal truth?

But if this is true, then why do we have error and falsehood? Is it because we have freedom of will?

And if we have freedom of will, then is the Universal Consciousness comfortable enough with us in our being to give us the ability to err?
???

I think the answer is "yes"! And if this is so, then here is the basis for why we should be tolerant of one another, even if what we come to believe is virtually pure nonsense. This is because the Universe allows us this freedom.

I would close by saying that there is nothing on Earth more dangerous than a mind that believes itself 100% correct, or true. That mind is capable of horrible intolerance and cruelty, extreme coercions, and finds no motivation for agreement with others. This is the true danger of Absolute Truths.

Therefore, of necessity, anyone who believes he or she has the Absolute Truth must be tolerant of others, of those who believe differently. By extension, if they coerce in the name of Truth, or God, then it is self contradictory, and it is not Truth.

Ivan

I would close by saying that there is nothing on Earth more dangerous than a mind that believes itself 100% correct, or true. [end quote]

Agreed! Perhaps another contradiction appears in that very perception of perfection. The question (for ethics) would be if what if one were 'perfect'? What would then comprise the actual need for the human feeling of 'striving'? Animal instinct alone does not capture the human condition.

Perhaps a more philosophical musing about such perceptions about contradiction can be sumed up in Davies' book:

'Time is eternity; eternity time.'

The law of non-contradiction excludes Being.


Peace,

Walrus

...and on a metaphysical/ontological note.

How does the ability to compute the laws of gravity provide for the natural/biological advantages necessary to to dodge falling objects?

I submit, that the ability to compute such laws from mathematics has no advantage in an animal world of 'survial of the fittest'. The reason for this so-called unique ability, within our higher levels of consciousness, shall remain a mystery, for which the truth (essence of truth) lies beyond any such mere discovery of those mathematical laws...

Why us?

Peace,

Walrus

Hi Walrus, Dave, Queen, and all,


POSTMODERNISM and History, as Truth?

Richard J. Evans writes on Postmodernism:

"The literature on postmodernism usefully distinguishes between the moderate and the radical. What I call radical postmodernism takes its cue from another post, post-structuralism, roughly speaking the idea that language is arbitrarily constructed, and represents nothing but itself, so that whenever we read something, the meaning we put into it is necessarily our own and nobody else’s, except of course insofar as our own way of reading is part of a wider discourse or set of beliefs."

This brings of necessity the thought to mind that "Truth" is always in quotes, as it applies to us subjectively, though it is nakedly itself as Truth (without quotes), as it applies to itself objectively. Again, once again, the old age duality between the objective and the subjective, though to a "true" postmodernist, this Truth would still be interpreted "subjectively" by the mind that reasons it objectively.

In the end, are there truly no objective criteria by which we can choose between the two positions of subjectivity and objectivity? Or are we back again to that most political and moral, ultimate question: What is Truth?

Ivan

Hello Ivan, all!

While i would not consider myself a left winger (I'm a moderate), I got the jist of the article!
Postmodernism speaks to the reality of Being, of living life.

Maybe the reason why, ultimately, consciousness is so perplexing vis a vis truth is that it produces thoughts that are not 'purely logical' in their nature. Example: all events have a cause.

To the logician, the question becomes: Is that true? And if so, what does it mean? What is the essence (ultimate nature) of that truth as derived from the human mind? Have we really discovered the essence of this truth?

And so, at this juncture, if it is true that all events have a cause, it implies... ?


TRUTH IS BEING.

Peace my brothers and sisters,

Walrus

Hello Walrus,

It appears, by all appearances that are truthful, that Logic is but one thread on the path to Truth. A most useful tool for eliminating the impossible, but not necessarily the final arbiter of what is the Truth. There is always trial and error, as would be defined by fuzzy logic, for there being some way to Truth we had not yet seen, or considered, or is forever unknowable to us. I think this is why long ago humanity accepted to believe on faith, in miracles, in paradox and the absurd, for they are liberating. The only truth then may become that we need to be free to explore, to discover, and to err. And in this way, we may step closer in our being to what is the Truth, at great risk to ourselves, but of necessity.

All the best, Peace,
Ivan

LETTER in response to a new Credo for outside forum on physics:

Dear N___,

With no criticism leveled at M___'s work, which I think is exemplary. My concern is whether this forum is one of inquiry or one of endorsement. If the idea cannot be challenged, or our own ideas expressed freely, then the forum becomes one of endorsement, which is contrary to the spirit of inquiry. A Credo as proposed, if I understand it, has the implications that some things cannot be discussed, such as presenting one's own ideas. This is a limitation, a form of censorship, which does not further the cause of open discussion. Rather, it begins to resemble a more Medieval attitude towards knowledge, that once it is written, it is beyond question. In closed societies, discussion can only be used for clarification, but not for questioning, for that becomes taboo.

Obviously, I stretch a point to illustrate, but it is an important point. Our heritage, especially in the western European-Anglo cultures, is one of open inquiry as opposed to submission. (This may be a point of contention with the extrimist fundamentalists, even those living in England and US, because this is foreign and contrary to their way of thinking, which is only to obey God's or Allah's will, as dictated by their clerics.) There was an excellent speech before the English Parliament,1644, by John Milton which expressed this sentiment (a bit too wordily), which also set the stage for more open discussion and publishing henceforth, which is an important freedom not to be taken lightly. You may find his "Areopagitica" at: http://www.uoregon.edu/~rbear/areopagitica.html

So a Credo to not allow offense, to not discriminate due to race or religion, to not allow another to abuse us, or use foul and inappropriate language, is very acceptable. But a Credo that restricts our thinking, or what we may voice of our thinking, especially if presented intelligently, is a form of censorship. We may not restrict the voice of reason, unless we have something to fear. I fear nothing, so am willing to participate in any discussion, provided it is sane. But to restrict and hide behind limits of what may be discussed, or suggested as alternative ideas, or where one expresses one's view (provided they are offered as opinion only), then we have a problem. I am not in total agreement with M___'s work, and see it more allegorically, so perhaps I am not a good candidate for this forum, since in the end, I would be disqualified, having some opposing ideas.

Furthermore, we all did not get to where we are today by blindly accepting what others have said. So why should we not challenge and question an author who had done the same to Newtonian physics? The contradiction can be removed by allowing for free discussion, otherwise the door to new knowledge, like in Medieval times, once again closes, which can then be opened only forcibly... not my idea of a discussion forum.

So, no regrets, enjoyed the book, have not read all of it, but I will by and by. If the discussions are free and open, without a Credo, I am interested. If they are fixed and limited, by interest drops off.

All the best, Ivan