Quote:
Originally Posted by Politicon
Would this be implying that not all possible truths are equal? Would this in itself not be a truth?
|
Interesting question. Since there is no essence, similarly there is no ultimate truth in which to weigh these things up against. Comparisons of the sort are all equally inter-subjective, but not equally useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Politicon
I believe that one’s perspective on truth should be the one that most closely portrays and explains reality. The simple fact of the matter is if I jump off a cliff I will die absolutely despite whatever I believe.
|
It is important to use the right tools at the right time. For example, using religion to design a motorcycle won't be as effective as using science. But simply because you've used these vocabularies to interpret and predict behavior again doesn't necessitate an ultimate truth. So, when trying to "explain reality" as you put it, for any real metaphysician, the best tool is clearly science. But, while science might be able to demonstrate things like consistent statistical correlations, it doesn't "discover" truth, it isn't finding it where it lies dormant. It is being created, it requires we invent (not discover) new metaphors for describing our world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Politicon
I’m probably missing something, not fully grasping your argument, and doing a poor job of presenting my own. I’m sorry for this. I’m rather tired and probably should put off responding to your post until I have more rest. As matter of clarification are you talking purely moral truth because that would completely invalidate my argument and I would need to reconstruct it...which I probably will not attempt to do until I get some sleep.
|
I'm talking about objective truth. Metaphysical claims, claims about the TRUE nature of reality. Its a wide list, but for example, "the sky is blue" or "you're a bad boy" or "humans have souls".