[INFJ] As an infj whats your view about Truth and absolute truth?

[Deleted member 16771]

What would you answer to somebody who objected that empirical truths are dependent on the senses, and that the senses can betray us, be illusory, etc.?

Can synthetic statements really be known a priori?

By the way, if anyone hasn't read John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, I heartily recommend it as an introduction to epistemology. I really enjoyed it.

I think you're (or rather, your unnamed objector) conflating two issues here - the difference between truth and knowing truth. Or maybe you aren't? Actually that difference is difficult to parse isn't it?

Suppose we had a being with perfect senses - an omniscient being. Would the truth discernable by that being differ to the truth we are capable of?

In other words, what we've come down to is the same distinction, between objective truth and subjective truth.

For me, there is a clear logical order here - subjective truth presupposes objective truth; objective truth determines subjective truth.

Now imagine if you think that it is subjective truth which is logically precedent. Well then you have a situation in which you have to claim that the universe is generated by the subject, which hardly makes sense outside some thought experiments.

We intuitively know that this can't be the case, since Ren can say things which I can't think of before he says them (he knows things I don't), so how can I generate a reality with a Ren in it?

 

[Ren]

By the way, if anyone hasn't read John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, I heartily recommend it as an introduction to epistemology. I really enjoyed it.

I think you're (or rather, your unnamed objector) conflating two issues here - the difference between truth and knowing truth. Or maybe you aren't? Actually that difference is difficult to parse isn't it?

Yeah I wasn’t objecting personally, I just didn’t really know where to stand exactly. What I do know is that I quite like the typology you’re planning to use in your PhD thesis. But the question of the absoluteness of empirical knowledge is likely to be open to such objections, I think, whether truly legitimate or not.

Suppose we had a being with perfect senses - an omniscient being. Would the truth discernable by that being differ to the truth we are capable of?

I suppose that from the point of view of an absolute being, all that is known is known with absolute certainty – not even because its senses would be infallible, but because it would know all the absolute truths intuitively. I’m not sure an omniscient being needs senses to gain knowledge of the world. This would suppose that it gains knowledge empirically, yet always infallibly; but I would argue that it would not gain knowledge empirically, but rather by a kind of immediate intuition.

In other words, what we've come down to is the same distinction, between objective truth and subjective truth.

Now imagine if you think that it is subjective truth which is logically precedent. Well then you have a situation in which you have to claim that the universe is generated by the subject, which hardly makes sense outside some thought experiments.

We intuitively know that this can't be the case, since Ren can say things which I can't think of before he says them (he knows things I don't), so how can I generate a reality with a Ren in it?

I am sympathetic to your views here, but it’s not clear to my how they answer the objection above. (Sorry, my brain is a bit muddled tonight.) Do you mean that it’s possible to objectively know absolute finite truths?

I am sympathetic to your views here, but it’s not clear to me how they answer the objection above. (Sorry, my brain is a bit muddled tonight.) Do you mean that it’s possible for human being to objectively know absolute finite truths?

 

[Puzzlenuzzle]

How can there be false, if there is no truth?
How there can be temporary if there is no eternal.
How can there be finitiness if there is no infinity.
How can there effect if there is no cause.
How can there be subjective truth and objective (collective) truth, if there is no absolute truth?

I think these are universals.

hmm...
It's all subjective and correlates with our reality. e.g how we feel at the present moment.
- Something temporary for me is when I know I need to knuckle and push through during a relatively short period of times.. whilst something eternal is when for example I have bonded with someone. Then I remain loyal to that feeling "eternally".
- Finiteness and infinity: math
- There is cause.. You never do anything without a cause. We might not be aware of why we do half the things we do but there is a cause. An effect is a result of an act. That effect as another effect of a cause or, a butterfly effect.
- subjective truth is from my own perspective whilst an objective truth is perhaps like the blind spot in the mirror. Lets say that someone does something. The perpetrator has a completely different experience about it then society as his cause and effect was based on perspective which is bound to personality, experiences etc. Therefore, his truth might be completely different than what society or groups of people are interpreting from it.
The absolute truth is something I would never wish on mankind.

 

[Puzzlenuzzle]

I trully imply that in a way that something must be always existed since temporary existing also exist. Now that you have understood the implication, can you illustrate why you think its a false premise?
Something cannot come from nothing by nothing. Therefore always is something. If one is saying "only eternity exist", then I would agree that only "Eternity exist self suffiently". If one is saying only "temporary exist" then I must disagree, because temporay can not exist temporarely without there being something before that. Therefore causality is not part of "Eternal existence".

This is started to sound like quantum physics. Time doesn't exist - it's just a facade (it is).

 

[John K]

Do you mean that it’s possible for human being to objectively know absolute finite truths?

The absolute truth is something I would never wish on mankind.

I think it is possible to know absolute truth, but only when we define it to be so in (eg) formal mathematics. By definition well defined axioms are true and so is anything generated from them with the correct application of the rules of logic. Perhaps I’m being over simplistic though @Ren and @Deleted member 16771 - are there philosophical perspectives that cast doubt on this? Maybe the issue hangs on what ‘absolute’ actually means. I’ve quoted my post from earlier in the thread on this.

If you look at Truth as one of the two values (True and False) in pure analytical logic, then there is another tale to tell. In maths you start off by defining a set of statements as "True" (the axioms) - this is in principle an arbitrary assignment of truth values, but there can be issues with logical consistency between sets of axioms if they are not completely independent of each other which can complicate the issue. You also define the set of rules (ie formal logic) for manipulating statements about the axioms as valid (ie you accept it preserves truth and falseness within each step as you apply its rules). Anything that you accurately conclude from applying the rules of logic to the axioms is then "absolutely" true or false, within the "world" defined by the axioms.

 

[Ren]

I think it is possible to know absolute truth, but only when we define it to be so in (eg) formal mathematics. By definition well defined axioms are true and so is anything generated from them with the correct application of the rules of logic. Perhaps I’m being over simplistic though @Ren and @Deleted member 16771 - are there philosophical perspectives that cast doubt on this? Maybe the issue hangs on what ‘absolute’ actually means. I’ve quoted my post from earlier in the thread on this.

I would incline towards agreeing with you, John.

Maybe there are philosophical approaches that call into question the absoluteness of, say, the law of identity (according to which x=x). But either I am not aware of them, or I have hardly been convinced by them.

 

[Barnabas]

I would incline towards agreeing with you, John.

Maybe there are philosophical approaches that call into question the absoluteness of, say, the law of identity (according to which x=x). But either I am not aware of them, or I have hardly been convinced by them.

It's a Ding an Sich! A thing-in-itself as proposed by Immanuel Kant.

"And we indeed, rightly considering objects of sense as mere appearances, confess thereby that they are based upon a thing in itself, though we know not this thing as it is in itself, but only know its appearances, viz., the way in which our senses are affected by this unknown something."

Absolute Truth is a thing that exist independent of our observations.

 

[Charm]

By the way ... anyone read John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding [?]

No.

I heartily recommend it as an introduction to epistemology. I really enjoyed it.

Oh well when you say it like that.

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

Truth is a book you haven't read yet

you’re saying that objectivity isn’t truth, because subjectivity cannot be denied, therefore accepting objectivity is just as objectively detrimental to subjectivity as subjectivity is to the objective.
Reality is subjective to the one witnessing it, just as finding a definition to that subjectivity would deny the objectivity of the observer?

I’m officially perplexed and intrigued.

 

[Wyote]

you’re saying that objectivity isn’t truth, because subjectivity cannot be denied, therefore accepting objectivity is just as objectively detrimental to subjectivity as subjectivity is to the objective.
Reality is subjective to the one witnessing it, just as finding a definition to that subjectivity would deny the objectivity of the observer?

I’m officially perplexed and intrigued.

I'm pretty sure whatever you're trying to say here isn't what I was saying.
Try to approach it more simply.

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

I'm pretty sure whatever you're trying to say here isn't what I was saying.
Try to approach it more simply.

I may be too simple to make it simple, though I appreciate your point of view no matter my inability to grasp it or even let it go.

understanding and appreciating ones point of view that is subjective to them doesn’t disregard the objective reality of what is, yet to disregard the objective reality would be to the detriment of the patient. Where does this leave the truth seeker? In the pain of the subjective truth of the objective person needing to overcome their subjectivity.

It’s a fatal existence. Noble and for the objective of man kind, but eternally misused on the self of that which loves to relieve the burden of the whole race.

In other words, I may enjoy my idiot sandwich, but I can’t enjoy that I’ve taken it from my brothers mouth. I can’t feed my brother if I don’t understand the cost of that pain they experience.

and choosing not to is within your personal right of that decision. Damn man. Just. Ugh.

 

[Wyote]

I may be too simple to make it simple, though I appreciate your point of view no matter my inability to grasp it or even let it go.

understanding and appreciating ones point of view that is subjective to them doesn’t disregard the objective reality of what is, yet to disregard the objective reality would be to the detriment of the patient. Where does this leave the truth seeker? In the pain of the subjective truth of the objective person needing to overcome their subjectivity.

It’s a fatal existence. Noble and for the objective of man kind, but eternally misused on the self of that which loves to relieve the burden of the whole race.

In other words, I may enjoy my idiot sandwich, but I can’t enjoy that I’ve taken it from my brothers mouth. I can’t feed my brother if I don’t understand the cost of that pain.

If anything, simplicity should be the easy route for everyone. I literally mean my comment contained within it far less depth than the amount of unnecessary complexity you are adding to things.
As the saying goes: keep it simple, stupid

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

If anything, simplicity should be the easy route for everyone. I literally mean my comment contained within it far less depth than the amount of unnecessary complexity you are adding to things.
As the saying goes: keep it simple, stupid

No one but my momma whips me in shape like that.

 

[Wyote]

No one but my momma whips me in shape like that.

lmfaoo I didn't mean it harshly, sorry. You seem cool.

 

[solis]

There is a lot of truth in this thread..... Truth is reality without all of our ideas about it.

 

[InfernoMink]

I seeked the truth after a break-up once and it made me the bad guy.

 

[SevenSees]

As an INFJ whats your view about Truth and absolute truth?

This question deserves an honest, forthright, and straightforward response. None are qualified. Why?

We did not make truth. We have not a clue what it is, so it will always be subjective, collectively agreed or disagreed upon, and unreachable to anyone.

We can only do our best to comply with what appears to us as the best for own selves, respectively and individually. It's a toss up, but when we know our own hearts, our truest desires represent themselves in our external choices. As we mature in mind and spirit, hopefully excusing and forgiving others and ourselves our transgressions, we learn that
love, truth, and morals are subjective things we have to decide on for ourselves, but with the best intention for others in heart and mind, as well.

Does any of this make sense?

 

[Ren]

This question deserves an honest, forthright, and straightforward response. None are qualified. Why?

We did not make truth. We have not a clue what it is, so it will always be subjective, collectively agreed or disagreed upon, and unreachable to anyone.

We can only do our best to comply with what appears to us as the best for own selves, respectively and individually. It's a toss up, but when we know our own hearts, our truest desires represent themselves in our external choices. As we mature in mind and spirit, hopefully excusing and forgiving others and ourselves our transgressions, we learn that
love, truth, and morals are subjective things we have to decide on for ourselves, but with the best intention for others in heart and mind, as well.

Does any of this make sense?

I see where you are going, but I'm not sure the position is entirely self-consistent.

It's quite possible that we will never know what 'truth' is -- partly because it might be that truth has no actual content. But the fact we can't define the nature of truth, as such, doesn't entail that truth is subjective.

I can tell that the statement: "Paris is the capital of France" is true, without having to excavate the deep nature of truth. And it is true objectively, not subjectively.

Our very ability to communicate with each other, i.e. to form social communities, is based on the taking for granted of an enormous number of objective truths. Truth doesn't sound so mysterious anymore once you apply it to statements. This may not tell the whole story about truth, but this is certainly one of the ways in which we handle it, and attain objectivity in the process.

 

[o2b]

Wrote this in FB. Thought I'd post here.

If anyone in whom there is any immorality, such as myself, were to stand before God and be subjected to an unveiled revelation of His love, all our immorality would be within our perception and we would respond with such levels of painful emotions such as guilt and shame, that it would be "light's out and no one's home."

That is the essence of separation.

That separation is not complete and God will finish in us what He began.

Some day we will be able to stand before Him unveiled and bask in the experience.