This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
If There is No God... (debate)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Malgayne
All truth is relative.
Including the above statement.
So if a tree falls in the forest it DOESN'T, in fact, make a sound?
Post by
TheMediator
Exists as what?
I simply mean to ask whether or not that you believe you cannot trust you exist, since you cannot be certain that all the sensory perception you receive is in fact correct.
Post by
pluuf
All truth is relative.
Including the above statement.
So if a tree falls in the forest it DOESN'T, in fact, make a sound?
yes that's actually true. ór prove me otherwise
Post by
Laihendi
All truth is relative.
Including the above statement.
So if a tree falls in the forest it DOESN'T, in fact, make a sound?
How do you know it fell down?
And it is entirely possible that Laihendi does not exist, any thing is possible. However, based on what Laihendi knows, he finds it highly improbable that he does not exist.
Post by
Malgayne
I guess I don't really feel like I have any common basis for argument with someone who genuinely believes that truth is relative. The very statement "truth is relative" seems to preclude the possibility of argument in the first place, and make it obsolete. There's nothing I can say to which you couldn't respond "That's just your reality, mine is different".
If you had a friend, and your friend honestly believed he was Superman, and tried to jump off a building in order to prove it to you—would you stop him? Or let him jump, because that's his perception of the truth and his perception is just as valid as yours?
If you would stop him, in what sense is truth "relative"? You are behaving as though he will fall to his death—in an "absolute" sense—regardless of what he believes to be true.
If you wouldn't, I applaud you for holding true to a difficult belief system—but I also believe you need to be locked up, for your own safety. :P
Post by
Laihendi
Obviously Laihendi would try to stop him, because it would be his perception that his friend was a lunatic and would kill himself. And believing that truth is relative does not make the argument impossible. To you, truth is absolute, to Laihendi, it is not. Laihendi has various reasons that have him convinced that he is correct. When presented with some of these, you reject them, and maintain your belief that truth is absolute.
That by itself is evidence to Laihendi that truth is relative, however you will likely not see it that way.
Post by
TheMediator
I guess I don't really feel like I have any common basis for argument with someone who genuinely believes that truth is relative. The very statement "truth is relative" seems to preclude the possibility of argument in the first place, and make it obsolete. There's nothing I can say to which you couldn't respond "That's just your reality, mine is different".
If you had a friend, and your friend honestly believed he was Superman, and tried to jump off a building in order to prove it to you—would you stop him? Or let him jump, because that's his perception of the truth and his perception is just as valid as yours?
If you would stop him, in what sense is truth "relative"? You are behaving as though he will fall to his death—in an "absolute" sense—regardless of what he believes to be true.
If you wouldn't, I applaud you for holding true to a difficult belief system—but I also believe you need to be locked up, for your own safety. :P
I agree with you for the most part. Our "reality" seems concrete for the most part if you are in a stable state of mind. It doesn't mean for certain that what we perceive as reality is in fact reality. You don't know for certain that we in fact landed on the moon, but why would someone fake that? You don't know for certain that the Earth is flat, but why (or how?) would someone fake that? Etc. Etc.
Post by
Malgayne
I suppose I don't understand. If you believe that all truth is relative and that truth for you is not necessarily the same as truth for everyone else, but then behave
as though
the truth that you perceive was the absolute truth (because within your perception, it is the absolute truth), then...in what sense do you believe that truth is relative at all?
It seems like you declare that truth is relative, and that your own perception of reality cannot necessarily be trusted—but then you trust it anyway, because what else are you going to do?
If that's correct, then I don't see how the phrase "truth is relative" is anything other than a tool to help you win philosophical debates with people you disagree with. :)
Post by
TheMediator
I suppose I don't understand. If you believe that all truth is relative and that truth for you is not necessarily the same as truth for everyone else, but then behave
as though
the truth that you perceive was the absolute truth (because within your perception, it is the absolute truth), then...in what sense do you believe that truth is relative at all?
It seems like you declare that truth is relative, and that your own perception of reality cannot necessarily be trusted—but then you trust it anyway, because what else are you going to do?
If that's correct, then I don't see how the phrase "truth is relative" is anything other than a tool to help you win philosophical debates with people you disagree with. :)
I think he misunderstands. I think he means people can think different things, which is totally true. However, the phrase "truth is absolute" is not in reference to what people believe, but what actually happened. Two people can believe two totally different things, but if a third party steps in and sees what actually happened, he can say what actually happened. I just think its a confusion in what laihendi thinks those terms mean.
Post by
Malgayne
I agree with you for the most part. Our "reality" seems concrete for the most part if you are in a stable state of mind. It doesn't mean for certain that what we perceive as reality is in fact reality. You don't know for certain that we in fact landed on the moon, but why would someone fake that? You don't know for certain that the Earth is flat, but why (or how?) would someone fake that? Etc. Etc.
I think you're right that there's no REAL way of knowing. This is the brain-in-a-jar problem—how do I know what I see and feel is real? The entire universe could be a remarkably cohesive hallucination.
But it meets what I call the "threshold of belief"—meaning that there is enough evidence that it ISN'T a hallucination that we
behave
as though it were true. That's as true as anything can possibly, provably be. That's what confuses me about Laihendi's argument—because it indicates that he does, in some way, believe that truth is relative—but acts as though it were not. And if you're going to act as if something isn't true, why say that you "believe" it is?
Post by
Laihendi
I suppose I don't understand. If you believe that all truth is relative and that truth for you is not necessarily the same as truth for everyone else, but then behave
as though
the truth that you perceive was the absolute truth (because within your perception, it is the absolute truth), then...in what sense do you believe that truth is relative at all?Laihendi's perception of truth is the only one he has to go by.
If that's correct, then I don't see how the phrase "truth is relative" is anything other than a tool to help you win philosophical debates with people you disagree with. :)If it wins debates, then there is likely something to it.
Post by
Laihendi
Like Laihendi said before, you make the assumption that your perception of truth is correct, or else you can't do anything. But everyone has their own perceptions of what is true and what is not.
Post by
Malgayne
If that's correct, then I don't see how the phrase "truth is relative" is anything other than a tool to help you win philosophical debates with people you disagree with. :)If it wins debates, then there is likely something to it.
If it wins debates but has no effect on how you, or anyone else, lives their life—what use is it?
It runs the risk of becoming a catchphrase that you throw around to prevent having to revise and reconsider your own belief system. Because it doesn't
win
debates—it just informs your opponent that there's no use in debating with you.
Post by
Malgayne
Like Laihendi said before, you make the assumption that your perception of truth is correct, or else you can't do anything. But everyone has their own perceptions of what is true and what is not.
I agree with you completely. Everyone has their own perception of reality, and everyone's perception is different. But that's no reason to believe there's no such thing as reality, and only the perception exists.
Everyone's perception is different, but to varying degrees, everyone's perception is similar. This seems like evidence to support the conclusion that each of us perceives reality subjectively, but
also
that there is, in fact, a concrete reality that each of us perceives in our own way.
Why WOULDN'T you believe that?
Post by
Laihendi
If it wins debates but has no effect on how you, or anyone else, lives their life—what use is it?
It runs the risk of becoming a catchphrase that you throw around to prevent having to revise and reconsider your own belief system. Because it doesn't win debates—it just informs your opponent that there's no use in debating with you.
Don't you realize how you fundamentally believe you are right and Laihendi is wrong, and Laihendi fundamentally believes that he is right, and you are wrong? This argument is about theory and philosophy, neither of which actually exist. And yet, both of you have come to entirely different conclusions based on your perceptions of what is true and what is not.
You double posted... :x
Post by
TheMediator
Yes, we have to assume, but it seems a solid assumption to make. If all we said is "Everything is relative, therefore we cannot be sure for certain this will succeed", we would be no where. We must assume things before we can actually do anything at all. Yes, our assumptions may be wrong, but as long as they're logical assumptions, then it is fine.
Post by
Malgayne
Don't you realize how you fundamentally believe you are right and Laihendi is wrong, and Laihendi fundamentally believes that he is right, and you are wrong? This argument is about theory and philosophy, neither of which actually exist. And yet, both of you have come to entirely different conclusions based on your perceptions of what is true and what is not.
I repeat the question. Why does the fact that each of us has a different perception of reality lead you to the conclusion that reality doesn't exist independent of us?
Post by
Laihendi
Everyone's perception is different, but to varying degrees, everyone's perception is similar. This seems like evidence to support the conclusion that each of us perceives reality subjectively, but also that there is, in fact, a concrete reality that each of us perceives in our own way.Everyone to you is infinitely insignificant in the grand scheme of things. That wasn't meant to be offensive, the same applies to Laihendi.
Post by
Laihendi
Yes, we have to assume, but it seems a solid assumption to make. If all we said is "Everything is relative, therefore we cannot be sure for certain this will succeed", we would be no where. We must assume things before we can actually do anything at all. Yes, our assumptions may be wrong, but as long as they're logical assumptions, then it is fine.
What's "fine" for you can be horrible for others.
Post by
TheMediator
I repeat the question. Why does the fact that each of us has a different perception of reality lead you to the conclusion that reality doesn't exist independent of us?
I know this wasn't directed at me, but I figured I'd say, reality could exist and probably does, but could not exist, we don't know for sure. Its all pretty tricky, but for the most part, when you act on something and perceive it to change and others respond to our action in a way that we would expect them too, then it doesn't really matter whether or not reality does exist.
What's "fine" for you can be horrible for others.
I never said what was right was definable. I'm simply just saying, I can assume that what I did actually happened, therefore truth is absolute, things actually happen and we perceive them.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.