|existentialism ° art ° poetry ° exquisite corpse ° chat ° search engine|
|( the cry ) Philosophy Discussion Board|
Posted by Spratley on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 at 12:14:34 :
In Reply to: silence posted by INSpECT on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 at 01:09:19 :
I'm not sure why it is a universal assumption that if there is no Absolute Truth, then there is no truth.
I see a way for there to be no Absolute Truth, yet plenty of truth all over the place to play with. Call it the difference between Truth and truth.
I'll tell you why I think people fall into that assumption. We live in a culture that operates under the assumption that there is Absolute Truth. Thereofer all the tricks and tools that the culture has developed were developed uner this overriding assumption. Thus, when someone supposes that there is no absolute truth, they immediately get smacked in the forehead with the realization that if nothing is untouchably true, irrefutably true, then how can it have any authority? If a ship isn't anchored to the bottom of the sea? Then how can it stay fixed on a certain point? If an electron doesn't have an identifiable location or velocity at any given time, then how can we say it exists at that time?
Logic leads us to a stumbling block --that something which does not exist in a concrete and undeniable way cannot exist at all. I say that the realization that there is no absolute truth should suggest to us that the thought patterns and thought customs developed under that assumption shouldn't be given too much weight. I think that the destruction of the notion of absolute truth opens the universe up for all kinds of good and useful truths.
Post a Followup