Do we reach absolute truths, or are all truths we say just circumstantial? — Cidat

Yes, I think all truths are conditional. And I don't know why that bothers some people.

I think all truths are conditional. — Jackson

I'd say that is broadly true, but with some caveats.

And I don't know why that bothers some people — Jackson

It's because they care what you think. The alternative would be them not caring what you think, which would be very discouraging.

It's because they care what you think. The alternative would be them not caring what you think, which would be very discouraging. — Cuthbert

Conditionals are not a form of skepticism.

True. And circumstances aren't conditions. So, the OP asked about 'circumstantial' which is a bit different. If somebody asks me 'What's 60% of 450?' my first response is: 'It depends who's asking'.

'What's 60% of 450?' — Cuthbert

270.

"Truth is a property of sentences, since sentences are dependent for their existence upon vocabularies, and since vocabularies are made by human beings, so are truths."

Richard Rorty

Do we reach absolute truths, or are all truths we say just circumstantial? — Cidat

Yes and no. Tautologies & contradictions are "absolute"; empirical propositions & sound arguments are "circumstantial".

absolute truths — Cidat

Absolute truth cannot exist, because truth is a relationship between two things, the thing that gets known and another thing (like a mirror) or a subject (like a person) that does the action of knowing. As a consequence, it is impossible, for the thing or the subject who is knowing, not to condition the information. For example, it is impossible for a mirror to be 100% faithful to the content of what it mirrors, for the simple fact that the mirror is not the mirrored object.

Do we reach absolute truths, or are all truths we say just circumstantial? — Cidat

There are absolute truths that help to explain existence itself. Without these truths we would not be here.

There are absolute truths that help to explain existence itself. — chiknsld

Could you name some?

"Truth is a property of sentences, since sentences are dependent for their existence upon vocabularies, and since vocabularies are made by human beings, so are truths."

Richard Rorty — Tom Storm

Rubbish. Effin' Rorty...

True belief is prior to language. Either true belief does not require truth or truth does not require language(vocabularies).

You might be right. I put it out there as a perspective, I know many hate RR as a decadent SoB. But I am interested to know how you can hold a true believe in things that require language to understand, without that language.

Do we ever get to the truly true absolute truth? Well, I think I have, so, yes. And it doesn't require language. Language merely accelerated it's contemplation.

Then again, it's how I see it. But I'll stick to it till someone point me to a flaw...

I am interested to know how you can hold a true believe in things that require language to understand, without that language — Tom Storm

You cannot. What makes you think that non(pre) linguistic true belief is about things that require language to understand?

Belief that a mouse ran behind a tree does not require language. If the mouse is there, well... Surely you get the point.

Surely you get the point. — creativesoul

Are you being snarky? Please don't if you are.

Belief that a mouse ran behind a tree does not require language. — creativesoul

Well... it's not a 'mouse' or a 'tree' or 'running' if there is no web of linguistic relations operating. Without the words, the belief would look like something else. Not sure what that would be.

And when we get to more complex beliefs like creation myths or morality how are these understood without language?

I'm into mythology. Does that mean I'm an anti-philosopher (someone who prefers falsehoods over truths) in that respect?

I've always wondered why this option exists at all? I can choose myths over knowledge.

I may not last long though as per some folks - believing falsehoods tend to be as injurious and as deadly as smoking. However, a delusion can go a long way in keeping us happy enough not to want to kill ourselves (in despair).

The choices are: Killed (comforting myths) or Suicide (bitter truths)

Well... it's not a 'mouse' or a 'tree' or 'running' if there is no web of linguistic relations operating. — Tom Storm

A mouse is a mouse. A tree is a tree. The spatial relationship between the mouse and the tree is the spatial relationship between the mouse and the tree. The cat, say, can watch a mouse run behind a tree. That cat will go looking for that mouse behind that tree because it believes it is there. If the mouse is there, the cat's belief is true. If not, it is not.

There is no web of linguistic operations necessary for any of these things to exist and/or take place.

I've always wondered why this option exists at all? I can choose myths over knowledge. — Agent Smith

:up:

Have you read Feyerabend?

when we get to more complex beliefs like creation myths or morality how are these understood without language? — Tom Storm

They are not. But those are not problematic for Rorty. Nor are they prelinguistic. The prelinguistic true beliefs negate Rorty.

Ok, thanks. Not sure I understand the argument. Sounds like I probably need @Banno and some Austin...

I think all truths are conditional — Jackson

I suppose this is different than relativism?

when we get to more complex beliefs like creation myths or morality how are these understood without language?
— Tom Storm

They are not. But those are not problematic for Rorty. Nor are they prelinguistic. The prelinguistic true beliefs negate Rorty. — creativesoul

This confuses me. Prelinguistic ideas exist without language. They negate Rorty, who assumes these ideas are language dependent. So no problem for Rorty. Can't creation myths be understood without language?

I suppose this is different than relativism? — Olento

I think it is connected. After all, "relativism" means everything is relational, so there is no absolute measure of all truths.

Absolute truth cannot exist, — Angelo Cannata

Is this also a relative truth?

It is the consequence produced by the assumption that absolute truth exists. This is what happens:

A. let’s assume that an absolute truth exists
B. if it exists and it is absolute, then it must be universal
C. if it is universal, it must involve every object and every subject, including the subject who is making the assumption A
D. involving the subject who is making the assumption A means that the subject is part of the assumption
E. if the subject making the assumption A is part of their own assumption, it means that the assumption has, as a necessary structure of it, that it is necessarily and always made from inside itself
F. if the assumption A is necessarily made from inside itself, then it is relative to itself, it depends from its own perspective, so it is not absolute
G. if A is not absolute, then it is relative.

In short, we have the paradox: if A, then G, which is: if an absolute truth exists, then it is relative.

As a conclusion, we have

H. absolute truth cannot exist.

and, of course, we have also

I. H is relative.

So, yes, the statement of mine that you quoted is relative. The problem is that you cannot conclude from I that,

L. since H is relative, then

M. some absolute truth must or might exist

because

M = A.

So, my statement

“Absolute truth cannot exist”

is relative, but we have no way to deduce from it anything absolute.

This is our human condition: we are forced to think that everything is relative, and we cannot even use this very thought as an absolute starting point for anything, because it must be relative as well. We cannot exploit its relativity, we cannot exploit anything.

In a similar way it is possible to realize the paradox that “if something exists, then it doesn’t exist”.

All the schematic description I have made is actually Heidegger’s thought, it is not a creation of mine.

Ok, thanks. What I mean with "relativism" is the opposition of universalism, that is all facts are relative to some perspective.

So are you actually referring to some thuth-condition theory or are we just using different words here?

Sounds like I probably need Banno and some Austin... — Tom Storm

Neither would help here. Speech act theorists are not considering pre-linguistic belief. Banno's position holds that all belief is propositional in content. There are no prelinguistic propositions.

So do you have a functional definition of truth?

I understand that some things are (or not) the case regardless of words. I also figure that to some extent this is situationally determined. A mouse runs behind a tree is an event. But how do we determine what is true when we talk about how we ought to live? Is idealism true? Causation? Is all this just a battle of perspectival value systems?

So do you have a functional definition of truth? — Tom Storm

The term has several.

Prelinguistic belief is or becomes true by virtue of correspondence to what's happened, is happening, or what has yet to have happened but will and does(in cases of rudimentary 'prediction'; expectation)

I understand that some things are (or not) the case regardless of words. I also realise that to some extent this is situationally determined. A mouse runs behind a tree is an event. But how do we determine what is true when we talk about how we ought to live? Is this just a battle of perspectival value systems?

Those are two very different sorts of situations. Speech act theorists are helpful with the latter. The notion of direction of fit is relevant to moral situations such as promise making(giving one's word).

So far as it comes to how we ought live, and determining what is true regarding that, Banno's institutional facts thread has a link to a paper you may find interesting. How to derive an ought from an is.