Hello Craig --
I see you want to destroy my philosophy piece by piece. OK, I won't flinch
at what seems illogical to
Craig.
[Ham]
1) absolute truth is inaccessible to the finite mind
Where are you going with this principle:
2) all definitions are accessible to the finite mind
3) :. no absolute truths are definitions
or perhaps
2') there are no non-finite minds
3') :. there are no absolute truths
I wrote about this in a piece I did for my Values Page some time ago, and
dug it up to quote you some excerpts:
A pre-Socratic teacher by the name of Protagoras came to the conclusion that
all truth is relative on the basis of his observations of the relativity of
human perception. What tastes sweet to one person may taste bitter to
another. What sounds melodious to me may sound discordant to you, etc.
He expressed his relativistic theory as "Man is the measure of all things,
of the existence of things that are and of the non-existence of things that
are not." Protagoras could say this because, for him, reality was
subjective. That is, everything in exiastence is quantified and
interpreted by man. And so it is with the general question: What does it
mrean to say that a statement - ANY statement - is true?
Since empirical knowledge is based on our differentiated experience of
physical reality, "objective" truth (of the kind that Socrates was concerned
with) works - in fact is necessary - in a relational context. However, we
cannot logically apply truth or fiction to a transcendent reality which is
as subjective as it is objective. Actually, you see, this is asking the
wrong question. For if Truth is what is Real , it is first necessary to ask
what is meant by Reality. If our physical world is not the ultimate
reality, as the Philosophy of Essence maintains, what is true in the
objective world may be false insofar as ultimate reality is concerned. In a
reality in which objectivity and subjectivity are identical (as in Essence)
there is no "different point of view", and whatever else Truth may confirm
from a relational perspective, it is Absolute in (i.e., one with) Essence.
So, to address your syllogism . . .
(1) absolute truth is inaccessible to the finite mind
(2) "definitions" are accessible to man (because they define difference and
are constructed by man)
(3) Absolute Truth is not a definition (because what is absolute is
undifferentiated, thus incapable of definition)
(3') :. there are no absolute truths (in existence)
There are other ways to approach this conclusion, but I'm hoping this will
suffice. As you see, I am a relativist when it comes to both morality and
knowledge.
Thanks for your analytical perspicacity.
Essentially yours,
Ham
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
