The other night I found myself having a discussion at a party, and after a while it became rather philosophical, and I found myself having to defend a position that I thought should have been obvious to anyone who had spent some time thinking about the matter. The idea was that the truth is true regardless of whether anyone believes it or not. My friends were arguing against this position by saying that this was just my belief, or my perception of reality. However this doesn't even scratch the argument I was making, as I freely admit that my perception could be completely erroneous, yet whatever is real, exists whether I perceive it or believe in it or not.
I got them to agree that if something exists, its existence is not dependent on any mind perceiving it or not, but they wouldn't agree that existence necessarily exists, which I found rather confusing. According to them the fact that existence exists is merely my belief. They also seemed to disagree quite adamantly with the idea of truth that is independent of minds. To me, truth is true regardless of whether it is believed/accepted or not, and this is self-evident. It soon came to the point where I was essentially arguing against a self-refuting circular argument. My friends were essentially arguing from some kind of relativist, solipsist, nihilist, post-modernist position. I did not quite understand exactly what they were trying to argue for, but the message that I was getting from them was that: all perception is false, truth is relative, we can't know the truth and there is no absolute truth.
This position I find to be self-refuting, as it is predicated on a truth claim that says either that we can't know the truth or there is no truth, and an absolute truth statement that says that truth is relative. It's circular and illogical because it attempts to avoid criticism by appealing to its own dogma, which wasn't shown to be true in the first place.
I cannot take a position seriously if it inevitably defines its own demise by asserting self-refuting premises. Any view of reality must presume by default that existence exists, reality is real and truth is true, and belief or perception have no bearing on them. As Johannes Kepler famously said "Once miracles are admitted, every scientific explanation is out of the question". In this situation it is not so much miracles and scientific explanation, but rather once epistemological nihilism is admitted, every single belief, explanation and idea is out of the question, including epistemological nihilism itself.
Not only do I find these ideas to be false in the highest degree, it seems to be a rather depressing and dangerous idea to hold. Once truth in all forms is rejected, everything is futile. From this viewpoint, all inquiry is misguided and useless, life has no meaning inherently, and any meaning you ascribe to it is merely illusory and false. The reason I say that it is a dangerous view is that society simply would not function if it were a widely held belief. It is a philosophy of futility.
Feedback and criticism are welcome.
The post-modernist view is attractive because it allows people to pull anything out of their stinkiest orifice and claim it's as valid as any scientific study. Those cretins took over my profession and are a big reason I am now forever-ABD. Good for you for trying to get them to see reason. You might have gotten through to one or two of the bystanders.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment, I guess I can understand the appeal of it on a superficial level, but it still makes no sense how anyone could consider it a viable position. I am far too interested in reality and finding out what's actually true to fall into the post-modernist cesspit of illogic.
ReplyDeleteI'm really just hoping that what went down was a huge misunderstanding because they are close friends of mine, and are both intelligent people.
That's the most frustrating part -- post-modernism has infected people who could probably handle the truth if they wanted to face it.
ReplyDeletep.s. in order to make my last post I had to type the word "logic." Spooky! (but not supernatural!)
ReplyDeleteu r a lying idiot.... do you deserve to live?
ReplyDeleteSunday Sacrilege pz's blaspheming head
debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1756
*lol* DM lives! I didn't know that psych wards permitted computers these days.
ReplyDeleteDM, take your meds and go back to your basket-weaving class.
p.s. for those unfamiliar with DM: debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1756
ReplyDeleteHello KJ! Love your blog and I heard you posted so I had to comment when I found this juicy piece of work on the 'existence-of-existence' so to speak. Now to clarify, I do believe "existence exists" obviously. But how, and why, and for what, is defined ultimately as what you call 'truth". And I do believe that 'truth' is a matter of debate. I will outline:
ReplyDeleteHere is my complete point (well explained too) which I stumbled across from a very well known philosopher David Hume; from my critical thinking study guide actually which is funny. I quote him directly:
"It may, therefore, be a subject worthy of curiosity, to inquire what is the nature of the evidence, which assures us of any REAL EXISTENCE and matter of fact, beyond the present testimony of our senses, or the records of our memory. This part of philosophy, it is observable, has been little cultivated, either by the ancients or the moderns; and therefore our doubts and errors, in the persecution of so important an inquiry, may be the more excusable; while we march through such difficult paths, without any guide or direction. They may even prove useful, by exciting curiosity, and destroying that implicit faith and security, which is the bane of all reasoning and free inquiry. The discovery of defects in common philosophy, if any such there be, will not, I presume, be a discouragement, but rather an incitement, as is usual, to attempt something more full and satisfactory, than has yet been proposed to the public." (David Hume, Induction cannot be rationally justified)
I would also like to finish by adding to what you said- "life has no meaning inherently, and any meaning you ascribe to it is merely illusory and false."
Correct. Who is to say, or who should be so arrogant as to say there are holders of any such truth? We are meaning-makers. Life has whatever meaning we decide it to be. Regardless of whether it 'is' or not, it isn't possible to prove 'truth,' furthermore, if you wipe a canvas BLANK and take away all meaning- what do you have?
Think about it. It's not nothing. It's EVERYTHING. what you have is POSSIBILITY. when you have meanings that you cling to, automatically you have LOST alternate possibilities. If you decide that life is X, then when you make a decision you will base it on X, and then the consequences will be a result of X yes? But X isn't separate from us- it IS us, our meanings and perceptions, or as David Hume put it- our 'Experience'.
Hello KJ! Love your blog and I heard you posted so I had to comment when I found this juicy piece of work on the 'existence-of-existence' so to speak. Now to clarify, I do believe "existence exists" obviously. But how, and why, and for what, is defined ultimately as what you call 'truth". And I do believe that 'truth' is a matter of debate. I will outline:
ReplyDeleteHere is my complete point (well explained too) which I stumbled across from a very well known philosopher David Hume; from my critical thinking study guide actually which is funny. I quote him directly:
"It may, therefore, be a subject worthy of curiosity, to inquire what is the nature of the evidence, which assures us of any REAL EXISTENCE and matter of fact, beyond the present testimony of our senses, or the records of our memory. This part of philosophy, it is observable, has been little cultivated, either by the ancients or the moderns; and therefore our doubts and errors, in the persecution of so important an inquiry, may be the more excusable; while we march through such difficult paths, without any guide or direction. They may even prove useful, by exciting curiosity, and destroying that implicit faith and security, which is the bane of all reasoning and free inquiry. The discovery of defects in common philosophy, if any such there be, will not, I presume, be a discouragement, but rather an incitement, as is usual, to attempt something more full and satisfactory, than has yet been proposed to the public." (David Hume, Induction cannot be rationally justified)
I would also like to finish by adding to what you said- "life has no meaning inherently, and any meaning you ascribe to it is merely illusory and false."
Correct. Who is to say, or who should be so arrogant as to say there are holders of any such truth? We are meaning-makers. Life has whatever meaning we decide it to be. Regardless of whether it 'is' or not, it isn't possible to prove 'truth,' furthermore, if you wipe a canvas BLANK and take away all meaning- what do you have?
Think about it. It's not nothing. It's EVERYTHING. what you have is POSSIBILITY. when you have meanings that you cling to, automatically you have LOST alternate possibilities. If you decide that life is X, then when you make a decision you will base it on X, and then the consequences will be a result of X yes? But X isn't separate from us- it IS us, our meanings and perceptions, or as David Hume put it- our 'Experience'.
Let me elaborate in a scientific context. So as my statistics manual kindly points out- in every scientific discipline, one cannot PROVE anything as 'true', one cannot assume any truths. Ever. In fact a lot of science is based on (very well backed up) assumptions. such as whether intelligence even exists for example. or the atom. Even if a controlled experiment in any area of science is 99.99% likely to be a particular answer, or even if the statistical significance is close to .1, NO professional of ANY scientific discipline speaks of 'truth'. The reason why? Because if they did that- they would be ruling out POSSIBILITY. And scientists (the legit ones) aren't interested in arguing to be right, they are interested in solving problems, regardless of whether they are right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd, that, is what we want in this world if we want to do anything in life. Without possibility we only have our own blind assumptions- which are ALWAYS assumptions, (even if they are very well backed up ones).
I'm sorry if this was waffly or if I left stuff out, I'm kinda assuming you will get on my wavelength. I know where you are coming from, and I believe existence exists! But not truth. Truth is a whole other kettle of fish....
Epic work on your blog btw. One critique, perhaps it would be interesting to provide some serious counter arguments that you could refute? I'm referring to the general "God" concept. I agree with you on that! It would just be cool to read. :)
Katherine
It won't let me post on here!! I have this reply, can you please post it up here for your friends so they can respond too if they want? I'll post it to your Facebook. I found some juicy info on 'existence' by the philosopher David Hume.
ReplyDeleteLove your blog KJ :)
Hello KJ! Love your blog and I heard you posted so I had to comment when I found this juicy piece of work on the 'existence-of-existence' so to speak. Now to clarify, I do believe "existence exists" obviously. But how, and why, and for what, is defined ultimately as what you call 'truth". And I do believe that 'truth' is a matter of debate. I will outline:
ReplyDeleteHere is my complete point (well explained too) which I stumbled across from a very well known philosopher David Hume; from my critical thinking study guide actually which is funny. I quote him directly:
"It may, therefore, be a subject worthy of curiosity, to inquire what is the nature of the evidence, which assures us of any REAL EXISTENCE and matter of fact, beyond the present testimony of our senses, or the records of our memory. This part of philosophy, it is observable, has been little cultivated, either by the ancients or the moderns; and therefore our doubts and errors, in the persecution of so important an inquiry, may be the more excusable; while we march through such difficult paths, without any guide or direction. They may even prove useful, by exciting curiosity, and destroying that implicit faith and security, which is the bane of all reasoning and free inquiry. The discovery of defects in common philosophy, if any such there be, will not, I presume, be a discouragement, but rather an incitement, as is usual, to attempt something more full and satisfactory, than has yet been proposed to the public." (David Hume, Induction cannot be rationally justified)
I would also like to finish by adding to what you said- "life has no meaning inherently, and any meaning you ascribe to it is merely illusory and false."
Correct. Who is to say, or who should be so arrogant as to say there are holders of any such truth? We are meaning-makers. Life has whatever meaning we decide it to be. Regardless of whether it 'is' or not, it isn't possible to prove 'truth,' furthermore, if you wipe a canvas BLANK and take away all meaning- what do you have?
Think about it. It's not nothing. It's EVERYTHING. what you have is POSSIBILITY. when you have meanings that you cling to, automatically you have LOST alternate possibilities. If you decide that life is X, then when you make a decision you will base it on X, and then the consequences will be a result of X yes? But X isn't separate from us- it IS us, our meanings and perceptions, or as David Hume put it- our 'Experience'.
Let me elaborate in a scientific context. So as my statistics manual kindly points out- in every scientific discipline, one cannot PROVE anything as 'true', one cannot assume any truths. Ever. In fact a lot of science is based on (very well backed up) assumptions. such as whether intelligence even exists for example. or the atom. Even if a controlled experiment in any area of science is 99.99% likely to be a particular answer, or even if the statistical significance is close to .1, NO professional of ANY scientific discipline speaks of 'truth'. The reason why? Because if they did that- they would be ruling out POSSIBILITY. And scientists (the legit ones) aren't interested in arguing to be right, they are interested in solving problems, regardless of whether they are right or wrong.
And, that, is what we want in this world if we want to do anything in life. Without possibility we only have our own blind assumptions- which are ALWAYS assumptions, (even if they are very well backed up ones).
I'm sorry if this was waffly or if I left stuff out, I'm kinda assuming you will get on my wavelength. I know where you are coming from, and I believe existence exists! But not truth. Truth is a whole other kettle of fish....
Hello KJ! Love your blog and I heard you posted so I had to comment when I found this juicy piece of work on the 'existence-of-existence' so to speak. Now to clarify, I do believe "existence exists" obviously. But how, and why, and for what, is defined ultimately as what you call 'truth". And I do believe that 'truth' is a matter of debate. I will outline:
ReplyDeleteHere is my complete point (well explained too) which I stumbled across from a very well known philosopher David Hume; from my critical thinking study guide actually which is funny. I quote him directly:
"It may, therefore, be a subject worthy of curiosity, to inquire what is the nature of the evidence, which assures us of any REAL EXISTENCE and matter of fact, beyond the present testimony of our senses, or the records of our memory. This part of philosophy, it is observable, has been little cultivated, either by the ancients or the moderns; and therefore our doubts and errors, in the persecution of so important an inquiry, may be the more excusable; while we march through such difficult paths, without any guide or direction. They may even prove useful, by exciting curiosity, and destroying that implicit faith and security, which is the bane of all reasoning and free inquiry. The discovery of defects in common philosophy, if any such there be, will not, I presume, be a discouragement, but rather an incitement, as is usual, to attempt something more full and satisfactory, than has yet been proposed to the public." (David Hume, Induction cannot be rationally justified)
I would also like to finish by adding to what you said- "life has no meaning inherently, and any meaning you ascribe to it is merely illusory and false."
ReplyDeleteCorrect. Who is to say, or who should be so arrogant as to say there are holders of any such truth? We are meaning-makers. Life has whatever meaning we decide it to be. Regardless of whether it 'is' or not, it isn't possible to prove 'truth,' furthermore, if you wipe a canvas BLANK and take away all meaning- what do you have?
Think about it. It's not nothing. It's EVERYTHING. what you have is POSSIBILITY. when you have meanings that you cling to, automatically you have LOST alternate possibilities. If you decide that life is X, then when you make a decision you will base it on X, and then the consequences will be a result of X yes? But X isn't separate from us- it IS us, our meanings and perceptions, or as David Hume put it- our 'Experience'.
Let me elaborate in a scientific context. So as my statistics manual kindly points out- in every scientific discipline, one cannot PROVE anything as 'true', one cannot assume any truths. Ever. In fact a lot of science is based on (very well backed up) assumptions. such as whether intelligence even exists for example. or the atom. Even if a controlled experiment in any area of science is 99.99% likely to be a particular answer, or even if the statistical significance is close to .1, NO professional of ANY scientific discipline speaks of 'truth'. The reason why? Because if they did that- they would be ruling out POSSIBILITY. And scientists (the legit ones) aren't interested in arguing to be right, they are interested in solving problems, regardless of whether they are right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd, that, is what we want in this world if we want to do anything in life. Without possibility we only have our own blind assumptions- which are ALWAYS assumptions, (even if they are very well backed up ones).
I'm sorry if this was waffly or if I left stuff out, I'm kinda assuming you will get on my wavelength. I know where you are coming from, and I believe existence exists! But not truth. Truth is a whole other kettle of fish....
truth
ReplyDeleten.
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
Truth is has no frame of reference, it is the reality of cold, hard facts. Whether or not we ever discover exactly what that is, or whether we will know when we have done so is not really relevant. Regardless of whether we know it, it exists, by definition.
Even if the only truth in the universe was that everything was in flux, and not even constants were constant, that would still be the truth, regardless of whether we perceive it to be such.
Regarding the David Hume quote, I believe he's talking about the problem of induction is he not? As far as I'm aware he wasn't an epistemological nihilist/post-modernist.
Problem of Induction on Wikipedia
I agree that life has no inherent meaning, and that any meaning we ascribe to it is all we have. I was highlighting that within the framework of a solipsistic, epistemological nihilistic position that you and Dillon seemed to be advocating the other night, you can't even ascribe meaning of your own to life. Based on that belief, life could be entirely illusory; you couldn't tell whether you were a disembodied mind, and nothing else existed.
ReplyDeleteThat is why I said that it is a potentially dangerous view, as it strips all man-made meaning from everything.
With that said however, meaning and truth are not related concepts. Truth is objective, meaning is subjective. Truth can affect meaning, but meaning doesn't affect truth. Similarly, belief and perception do not affect truth. You can believe that there is no gravity all you like, you could even take some serious drugs and perceive that you could fly, but don't go complaining when you splat on the ground.
You're absolutely right, that in science, we do not prove anything. By definition alone, proofs are limited to pure mathematics and logic. Deduction provides 'proof', but induction (what science does) gives us the best picture we have available to us.
ReplyDeleteNothing is 100%, but that isn't a weakness of the methodology, it's simply a result of us not being omniscient.
Regarding possibilities; sure, it is possible that tomorrow someone could dig up a fossil rabbit from the pre-cambrian strata, thus falsifying evolution. That hasn't happened so far, so with all the current data we have, which is a lot, you'd be a fool to reject evolution.
However, if somehow all our data swung in the other direction, you'd be a fool to not reject it. We can only base our ideas off the evidence that we have available to us. It is nice to propose new ideas, and come up with possible scenarios, but until we actually have some data to go by on it, that position is not rationally justified.
In the past, humanity had different ideas, that we now know are wrong, but at the time those people were rationally justified in believing as they did, or at the very least, they weren't unjustified. You could say the same about us today, that we are rationally justified in our positions, but there is still a possibility that we could be wrong. Science never closes that possibility off, and that in my opinion is one of its great strengths.
However, that we might change our 'facts' based on new observed 'facts' doesn't affect that there is a truth out there. We might not be right, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a correct view to be had.
I would agree with all of that, and I think we are on the same page. Yes David Hume is talking about induction, but in that sense he is referring to existence itself in the process. I agree it is best to assume the 'best' truths available until new evidence provides us with ideas for otherwise. In response to your idea of 'truth' existing whether we like it or not, well, that is all according to your definition of truth. That is more linguistics don't you think? The definition you gave I would agree with. But as for a moral truth, or an overriding truth- I don't think it will ever exist for US, but it's actually but of my theory on my blog- "The undefined" is such, that there is probably an ultimate truth, but I do believe it is undefinable. Please understand that this is different from postmodern belief, that everyone holds their own- that's not what I am saying. I am saying that it is of many facets and so complex and foreign to our minds and conscious constructions that It can not be categorized or simply put into the words of mere humans. As you say, we are one planet in a whole galaxy. The concept of existence, and of truth is far bigger than we could ever imagine.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading more throughly I believe we have the same opinions, but just elaborated through different language and definitions. I believe too, that there is some sort of overriding logic, purpose, truth, to existence. It is also possible to call that God? Yes? I am not convinced of this, but it is a possibility that cannot be dismissed. If the religious, and man made meaning of God is taken away, then what is left is purely what you are saying. An existing truth that is, whether we believe it or not. Sort of like Pantheism. And although there may be a truth I don't believe any human view can be correct, if we cannot fathom all the variables relative to existence itself. :)
I would agree with all of that, and I think we are on the same page. Yes David Hume is talking about induction, but in that sense he is referring to existence itself in the process. I agree it is best to assume the 'best' truths available until new evidence provides us with ideas for otherwise. In response to your idea of 'truth' existing whether we like it or not, well, that is all according to your definition of truth. That is more linguistics don't you think? The definition you gave I would agree with. But as for a moral truth, or an overriding truth- I don't think it will ever exist for US, but it's actually but of my theory on my blog- "The undefined" is such, that there is probably an ultimate truth, but I do believe it is undefinable. Please understand that this is different from postmodern belief, that everyone holds their own- that's not what I am saying. I am saying that it is of many facets and so complex and foreign to our minds and conscious constructions that It can not be categorized or simply put into the words of mere humans. As you say, we are one planet in a whole galaxy. The concept of existence, and of truth is far bigger than we could ever imagine.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading more throughly I believe we have the same opinions, but just elaborated through different language and definitions. I believe too, that there is some sort of overriding logic, purpose, truth, to existence. It is also possible to call that God? Yes? I am not convinced of this, but it is a possibility that cannot be dismissed. If the religious, and man made meaning of God is taken away, then what is left is purely what you are saying. An existing truth that is, whether we believe it or not. Sort of like Pantheism. And although there may be a truth I don't believe any human view can be correct, if we cannot fathom all the variables relative to existence itself. :)
ReplyDeleteI'm lol'ing and am happy at the same time that most of our debate was just miscommunication.
ReplyDeletehttp://podblack.com/2008/12/little-kitten-lyrics-to-tim-minchins-storm/
ReplyDeleteThought you might appreciate this