I don't think there is anything that's an absolute truth
Now I could be wrong so then my statement isn't an absolute truth

hat does not mean an absolute value does not exist, it just means we will never be able to measure it. — universeness

Exactly. Showing that something is relative, doesn't mean that there is no absolute. That's why I re-phrased the self-contradictory, self-refuting "There are no absolute truths" to "Truth is always subjective", which also agrees with itself, since it is itself a subjective statement, Buut it does not mean that there is an absolute truth.

As for the term "paradox", I agree that it is quite overrated, but it still serves a good purpose as a reference point covering cases of arguments, statements, descriptions, problems --e.g. "Bertrand's Paradox", which is also a problem-- etc., containing or consisting of logical inconsistencies --like self-contradition and self-refutal-- as well as cases that are inconsistent with facts or physical laws, etc. Inconsistencies that most of the times can be very easily detected. A classic example are the famous Zeno's paradoxes "Achilles and the Tortoise" and "Arrow paradox". They are based on a fallacy: that time and space are discontinuous, and thus (infinitesimal) divisible, whareas they are continuous (in nature). So, they are only "apparent" paradoxes, since their inconsistency can be easily detected. Yet, the word "paradox" seems to always create some magical attraction. :smile:
(As a lot of ancient Greek words do ... In this case, "paradox" comes from "paradoxos" = "para-" (= distinct from or contrary to or parallel to) + "doxa" (= opinion).)

You are Mad and Fool!! :wink: — dimosthenis9

:lol:

I concur with everything except 'The universe contains only absolute truths.' — universeness

Yes, I thought so! :smile: (I only tried to connect the subject of "concepts" with that of the topic, i.e. "absolute truths", before it goes out of sight, as it is usually is the case in these discussions! :grin:)

I think we can always get more and more accurate. — universeness

This is certain. But then, even if we arrive at a perfect measurement, we must not forget the "Relativity Theory". If this still holds --I'm ignorant as far as developments in Physics are concerned!-- then any precision of measurement and talk about absolute values have no much meaning anymore, do they?

As for the subject of quanta, I plead innocent. I have nothing to do with it! :grin:

That's why I re-phrased the self-contradictory, self-refuting "There are no absolute truths" to "Truth is always subjective", which also agrees with itself, since it is itself a subjective statement, Buut it does not mean that there is an absolute truth. — Alkis Piskas

I don't think that helps as the word 'always' means at every moment in time, past, present and future which could make 'truth is always subjective,' an objective truth and thus absolute. Also If 'truth is always subjective' is itself subjective then it may not be true.

I agree with your points on paradox.

As for the subject of quanta, I plead innocent. I have nothing to do with it! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

:up: fair enough, but I suspect that it has everything to do with you!

precision of measurement and talk about absolute values have no much meaning anymore, do they? — Alkis Piskas

Oh, they absolutely do, especially when it comes to developing new tech. There are many many examples of 'very precise settings' that will allow a large complicated system to work and any deviation either way and the system fails. Theists even call some such settings 'fine tuning' arguments for god. :roll:
A setting of 6.9999999999998 and the system fails but at 6.99999999999999999992, ITS ALIVE!
Just my own musings, don't panic, no Frankenstein monster on the loose around the hoose quite yet.

My absolutes:
Hmm, never mind.

I don't think that helps as the word 'always' means at every moment in time, past, present and future which could make 'truth is always subjective,' an objective truth and thus absolute. Also If 'truth is always subjective' is itself subjective then it may not be true. — universeness

Holly shit. This is exactly how a strict definition game always ends up. Like a dog chasing its own tail. At the end not being able to talk about anything at all.But people have to talk! That divine/universal/natural(you name it) gift of speech is what grows our spirit as humans bigger and bigger and we have to make the most of it.Exchanging ideas, feelings, fears, everything. So let the people talk.

Don't get me wrong I don't say that your conversation with Alkis(who by the way i consider him very good in definitions) is meaningless or even actual definitions are useless. For Hell no!It is indeed important but as long we don't lose the forest for the tree.

If a post could express my feelings for the endless definition game here on TPF it would be exactly that. That's why I wanted to comment about it.
And the crazy thing is that whatever you wrote there, it is indeed the case. It's absolutely right. Hahaha.

2. In order to keep my insanity I must pretend sanity.
3. In order to maintain my falseness, I must pretend to be honest. — Yohan

I would name them your "way of living" absolute truths. They might not be relevant to universe but damn I liked these 2.
The strange thing though is that the way you wrote it, I get the sensation that you do want to keep/maintain your insanity.And I really wonder why. You do love it a little aw?

I don't think that helps as the word 'always' means at every moment in time, past, present and future which could make 'truth is always subjective,' an objective truth and thus absolute. — universeness

It helps, it helps a lot. :smile: Because it doesn't say anything about "absolute truth". That is, it doesn't follow that there is or there is no "absolute truth". And if one brings up such a thing, it means that he assumes it. In which case, he adds something to it. He adds something arbitrary. Moreover, if he brings up the possibility of an absolute or objective truth, he must be able to prove it. Which he can't.
BTW, the word "always" is superfluous. I used it only for emphasis. You can remove it.

Reality is subjective. If you claim that reality is objective or absolute, that would be also subjective, except maybe if you are able to prove it beyond doubt. But doubt is also something subjective. Also, if you are able to do that, then anyone could. Which it doesn't happen.
See the impass we are led to by trying to introduce objectivity? The only way out is to get back to subjectivity! :smile:

I agree with your points on paradox. — universeness

I know. You, yourself, talked about that before me, only with different words. :smile:

I was just talking about relativity ...

Human consciousness is quite special, and worth nurturing to its fullest potential. Glad to see others agree.

:lol: Ok, fair enough. We are not trying to create a cold fusion system here so I will relax on the ABSOLUTE details if you wish. It's your thread!

Btw

whatever you wrote there — dimosthenis9

I typed, I didn't write :rofl: SORRY! I couldn't resist. :halo:

It's fun debating with you regarding accurate terminology, you defend your positions well. I might also complain about your constant use of the 'he' gender as well :lol: but not now! I am certainly no wordsmith or an example of PC perfection. These can be important issues and absolutely essential (or perhaps subjectively essential) sometimes, but for now, I will take my foot off the pressure build, as requested by @dimosthenis9

I will take my foot off the pressure build, as requested by dimosthenis9 — universeness

Well no need. If you wish to debate about that go on. No problem. Just seeing your post triggered my feelings as I described above.

I typed, I didn't write :rofl: SORRY! I couldn't resist — universeness

You little bastard!! :grin:

You little b — dimosthenis9

Hey! I'm 10 ft tall and mean! :lol: and I'm gonna tell my dada you called me a b******! :naughty:

OK. It was fun too talking with you. And with you too, @dimosthenis9.

Well, we weren't 'talking,' we were typ.... :yikes: OKAY OKAY! put down your guns guys! Stop pointing them at me :scream: Let's get back to the OP. We have many members who still haven't typed their own personal absolute truths yet! or explained why they don't have any. We have only had a few flavours so far!

Same here.

I would name them your "way of living" absolute truths. They might not be relevant to universe but damn I liked these 2.
The strange thing though is that the way you wrote it, I get the sensation that you do want to keep/maintain your insanity.And I really wonder why. You do love it a little aw? — dimosthenis9

I think sane people are less happy than insane, and "real" people duped by reality.
I try to do the opposite of everything good and moral, as I think the good and moral are evil. The rule is, that the mind reverses everything. So that everything the mind believes is exactly the opposite of the way things really are.
To stay safeI try to act dangerously.
To succeed I am to fail.

The rule is, that the mind reverses everything. So that everything the mind believes is exactly the opposite of the way things really are. — Yohan

Well I am a bit surprised here. It is a strange rule.Why you think mind reverses things? In what way you mean it? And why things are opposite of what mind believes? Except if you mean it metaphorically.

For example you say you think good and moral are at the end evil. So if for example my mind says "don't kill Joe . it's immoral and evil" is wrong? Should at the end go and kill Joe cause that's the real moral thing to do?

I know too many questions,but your rule intrigued me. Never heard such a thing before. Though I tend to agree with that

sane people are less happy than insane, and "real" people duped by reality. — Yohan

So if for example my mind says "don't kill Joe . it's immoral and evil" is wrong? Should at the end go and kill Joe cause that's the real moral thing to do? — dimosthenis9

Why not kill Joe? What have you got to lose?

Why not kill Joe? What have you got to lose? — Yohan

For start compunctions. Feeling guilt that I caused such a suffering to Joe's family and people who loved him.Also that ended Joe's life and the potential moments that he would love to enjoy. Contributing to the evil among society, making it justified everyone else to come and kill me.

But If any of that bad feelings could affect me, then prison. Deprived of my freedom. Social condemnation that I would be considered as a killer and everyone would treat me like that.

So at at end is it ok/moral to go and kill others?

The theme of your thread is absolutes.
I don't know of an absolute way to measure right and wrong.
So I can't give any absolute answer.
My point is that moral absolutes are evil because they encourage abiding by rules rather than using your own conscience. For example, how many people perpetuate evil policies with the bland excuse of "I was just following orders"

Hard to talk about such abstract and foundational things, it's as if we don't have the proper language to describe it — Jerry

That's very true. Do you (or anyone) have by any chance writings on the kind of metaphysics we are talking about? I understand many ancient philosophers deal with this kind of stuff, but it is so spread on their works that it can be a bit hard to find... do you have any sources, modern or ancient?

Also, if you want you should read some of my discussions (not posts). I think we have a somehow similar thinking and you would probably enjoy them; they are not very organized or clear but I think you still might like them.

The philosophy I've learned about which I think deals with these sorts of ideas is structural realism, more specifically ontic structural realism. James Ladyman is the particular figure I know that talks about it (he wrote the SEP entry on structural realism). Can't elaborate too much on it now (at work) but just researching those things should put you down a good rabbit hole.

I would like to hear the facts/things/ideas/rules(name it whatever you want) that you think that apply in universe/cosmos and that we (as humans) can be sure about them.
The absolute truths that if you remove everything "human-ish" from them, everything phenomenalogical etc they still apply also in universe ...This is what I mean by absolute truths. Not anything mystique nor metaphysical. — dimosthenis9

Hi there ! Fun OP.

I don't see how you can remove everything humanish from a truth which is a sentence in a human language. The very idea of some stuff on the other side of everything humanish seems (humanishly) "mystique nor metaphysical."

Within those new constraints, I suggest that the beliefs we can be most confident about are those that it makes no sense to deny...because denying them is incoherent. Here are a examples:

There is a world 'external' to us in the minimally specified sense that we can be right or wrong about it. It's a world and not us because we can be wrong about it. Proof ?

Consider the negation: "It's wrong to think there is something we can be wrong about."

We share a language, and meaning is 'public.' Proof ? Consider the negation. "We do not share a language. Meaning may be private." This is spoke as a truth with the assumption of the very intelligibly it denies. It's like "communication is impossible." We might therefore rephrase the original statement as "there is communication." One fine point here is the difference between a contingently available listener and the potential listener implicit in any language-as-shared-code.

This can be summed up as 'we are together in a world we can make true and false statements about.' As far as I can tell, to say otherwise is absurd. There is a primacy of the social here that sets this starting point or 'given' apart from other versions.

Hey man, congrats..you used all the keywords of the literati here :lol:..”language” “public”..just throw in some Philosophical Investigations quotes, talk about Wittgenstein and you’re in! Chad it up!

Hey man, congrats..you used all the keywords of the literati here :lol:..”language” public”..just throw in some Philosophical Investigations quotes, talk about Wittgenstein and you’re in! Chad it up! — schopenhauer1

You are basically correct. I bring the theology of Chad. I speak therefore as an insider, shamelessly elitist in my normative rationality. I am sufficiently magnanimous to tolerate the delusions of others who stay out of my way. Does the hale young man on two strong legs resent the brittle old man's crutch ?