Trivium_method_man Posted August 8, 2014 Posted August 8, 2014 I was researching The Laws of Logic and came across this... Found it slightly humorous, but mostly frightening.In some places I think he is using Aristotelian logic to disprove logic. And in another place he uses the fact that more than one system of logic exists as proof that all logic is relative.Let me know if I am correct in thinking that this guy is a well trained sophist.It's a a bit much for one person to try and digest. Below is the first little bit of a long article, here is the link to the actual article: http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/There-are-NO-Absolutes-There-is-NO-Absolute-Truth INTRODUCTION Some people may be surprised to discover tons of self-professed Messiahs of Philosophy on the Internet, especially on YouTube. What is not surprising is that almost none of them have bothered to educate themselves on the 2500-year-old Philosophical concept called the “absolute”. These Priests of Philosophy have no qualms about claiming that there are “absolutes” or “absolute truth”. What kills their claims is that they cannot define the key words that make or break their argument: ‘absolute’ and ‘truth’. They are merely parroting what they heard from the grapevine: “ummm, duh,....are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes? See, gotcha....there are absolutes. Also, that there are no absolutes, is an absolute statement. Ha ha, gotcha again, I win!” These Priests of Philosophy are quick to break out the bottle of champagne in celebration of the argument which they won in their own mind. But, they are quite embarrassed when a member of the audience stands up and asks them to define “absolute” and “truth”. What is funnier is that they cannot even give a single example of a statement which resolves to absolute truth. And more embarrassing for them is that their silly childish questions are not even arguments....THEY ARE TRICKS! These trick questions have a very simple ANTIDOTE. Click on this link to see their tricks exposed: http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/ABSOLUTE-TRUTH-Is-it-Absolute-True-there-are-NO-Absolute-Truths This article exposes the Religion of The Absolute. You will understand why the "absolute" is the Hallmark of Religion and the Opium of Fanatics. We will explain why the word “absolute” ultimately resolves as a synonym of the word RELATIVE. Furthermore, you will understand why these Priests of Philosophy don’t want you to read this article and understand the critical analytical issues behind the words “absolute” and “truth”. Your ignorance is their blessing. After all, they have surreptitiously fooled you into having FAITH in absolutes; so they do deserve some credit. WHAT IS TRUTH? The word “truth” is a concept which has been conceived by humans for use as a conceptual label of validation on statement types known as propositions. Propositions are statements which propose an alleged case or scenario. This anthropocentric concept of truth is unwittingly used by many people to intentionally decree a label of “validated acceptance” (i.e. true) or of “validated rejection” (i.e. false) to propositional statements. But since truth ultimately stems from the validation of propositions, it necessitates an observer who must VALIDATE the proposition before they can label it as ‘true’ or ‘false’. It is obvious that the word “truth” is ultimately dependent on a dynamic process that an observer must perform before labeling a proposition as true/false. This process of validation is called PROOF. A proposition labelled as true/false is always dependent on a human observer’s ability to use their magical powers to validate it as such. Q: So how do humans validate or prove a statement as truth? What magical powers do they use? A: Their subjective and limited sensory system! Since the concept of truth is ultimately dependent on a human’s subjective use of their limited sensory system, it is easy to understand why all truths are subjective; i.e. opinions. Truth is an observer-dependent human-related concept that is inherently subjective. As such, it necessarily resolves to none other than opinion! This limited anthropocentric concept cannot possibly be objective. What is TRUE to you, is a LIE to your neighbor! Your Priest may have convinced YOU of the truth for God, dark matter, black holes, warped space and energy, but he hasn’t convinced your neighbor. Truths are inherently biased. Truth is what is dear to YOUR heart & soul, only. Truth means that the Priest had his way with you while you were in the confession box. For all intents and purposes, you can use the word “truth” as a synonym to the word “opinion” in every scenario, and you will not change the context or meaning of your dissertation. Just try it and see for yourself. Remember: TRUTH = OPINION. Those who disagree, all they need to do is answer the following questions for the audience: 1) What magical means do they use to resolve their statement as being TRUE? Do they use their sensory system? Do they vote on the issue? Do they ask their Priest, God or a higher authority to decide? 2) Is it TRUE that TRUTH is correct? What standard does one use as a benchmark for testing and evaluating TRUTH to be correct? They obviously cannot use truth!!! Anybody wanna step in the lion’s den and answer these questions for the audience? Are you scared to answer because you will expose your Religion of Truth, or because you don’t know? Be honest with yourself.
DaVinci Posted August 8, 2014 Posted August 8, 2014 It sounds like this person is arguing for nihilism. It also seems like their argument is a bit implosive. I'm sure someone else here can say something more meaningful about it than me. My analysis is a bit limited.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted August 8, 2014 Posted August 8, 2014 Here's Stef's response to that. In order for what this guy says to be true there has to be an absolute standard of truth. If there's not then what he's saying is just an opinion and is no more valid than anyone else's. Maybe he should step up for a live debate with Stef instead of posting lame memes. 1
Brentb Posted August 8, 2014 Posted August 8, 2014 Truth is that which is, or it is a description or a derivative of that which is. This guy is claiming that we can't know what is - but he can't possibly know that.
nathanm Posted August 8, 2014 Posted August 8, 2014 Not sure how much time I'd spend listening to anyone who can't even be bothered to find a Stef head at the proper angle. 2
higginsp Posted August 9, 2014 Posted August 9, 2014 "Truths are inherently biased. Truth is what is dear to YOUR heart & soul, only. Truth means that the Priest had his way with you while you were in the confession box. For all intents and purposes, you can use the word “truth” as a synonym to the word “opinion” in every scenario, and you will not change the context or meaning of your dissertation. Just try it and see for yourself. Remember: TRUTH = OPINION." As TeaBagger and DaVinci stated: this dude is quite literally involved in a contradiction. He explicitly states that propositions state an alleged case, and that these statements can never be anything other than meaningless, subjective utterances. He then immediately proceeds to make a proposition (i.e. a statement of an alleged case), and operates as if this proposition is somehow magically excluded from his own premises. I'd generally recommend avoiding anyone who makes a proposition denying the possibility of valid propositions.
TheRobin Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 Obviously the article is garbage, but for what it's worth, I never quite understood what the difference is between "absolute truth" and "truth". To me the "absolute" seems kind of redundant, but maybe I'm missing something. Can anyone enlighten me here?
PatrickC Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 Obviously the article is garbage, but for what it's worth, I never quite understood what the difference is between "absolute truth" and "truth". To me the "absolute" seems kind of redundant, but maybe I'm missing something. Can anyone enlighten me here? I think it's the difference between a truth that always is. As in, 'there has always been a universe'. A persistent or constant truth if you like. As opposed to a fleeting truth, as in, 'I am crossing the road.' Probably not the best examples, but I believe that is the difference, broadly speaking. ___________________________________ EDIT - On an aside Fatfist is seen by his fans as a bit of a prodigy of Bill Gaede. I recall him trolling a video of Stefan's a few years back. Challenging him to a live (in person) debate. He was also offereng some kind of reward if anyone (including Stefan) could rebut his argument successfully. A rather loud and obnoxious chap I recall. Who seemed to have little problem in resorting to insults which he would happily spoon feed you with, amongst his assorted word salad. 1
shirgall Posted August 15, 2014 Posted August 15, 2014 The blogger would benefit from listening to Stef's series on Introduction to Philosophy ( http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomainRadio-IntroPhilosophy ) where he spends a great deal of time on truth and then applying it to important things like ethics, religion, and politics. But I suspect we all know that already.
higginsp Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 I think it's the difference between a truth that always is. As in, 'there has always been a universe'. A persistent or constant truth if you like. As opposed to a fleeting truth, as in, 'I am crossing the road.' Probably not the best examples, but I believe that is the difference, broadly speaking. ___________________________________ EDIT - On an aside Fatfist is seen by his fans as a bit of a prodigy of Bill Gaede. I recall him trolling a video of Stefan's a few years back. Challenging him to a live (in person) debate. He was also offereng some kind of reward if anyone (including Stefan) could rebut his argument successfully. A rather loud and obnoxious chap I recall. Who seemed to have little problem in resorting to insults which he would happily spoon feed you with, amongst his assorted word salad. I think the biggest problem I have with his article is the obscurity with which he uses the term absolute vs non-absolute. In some cases, his distinction between an absolute and a non-absolute truth seems to be accurate, but not particularly of much consequence. He gives an example of a statement along the lines of "my car exists is absolutely true"; here he argues that this claim is not absolutely true because absolute truths must be in effect 'eternal truths.' I find this to be a peculiar point to make. I doubt very much so that anyone who claims that the proposition 'my car exists is absolutely true' implies that their car exists eternally. However, from what I can gather his point seems to be that for something to be 'absolute' it must be divorced from all possible conditions. So for example, the reason 'my car exists is absolutely true' is in fact not absolutely true is because for this statement to be absolute, it must be completely and utterly unconditional. It must be true in every possible circumstance, in every possible time and place without relation to particular persons. Clearly, he is correct in suggesting that if I were to go back in time 300 years and utter this statement again: "My car exists is absolutely true" it could not in fact be true because the statement's truth is contingent upon a certain time period, and I similarly couldn't possibly claim at this previous point in time that my car will exist because I would have no access to future knowledge to make such a claim. This so far is all well and good. Where it gets obscure, however, is with his attempt to deny that the epistemological claim itself is not absolutely true; specifically, he argues that the claim, 'there is no absolute truth', is not an absolute truth. But if we were to use his previous definition of 'absolute truth' (i.e. that a proposition must be true in every possible circumstance, in every possible time and place), his statement could not be epistemologically relevant if it were temporally contingent, place-specific or person-dependent. So, if it were the case that 'there is no absolute truth' was not eternally true, it would seem to me that he could not really claim there is NO absolute truth, or that it is logically impossible to come up with one -- which is precisely what he argues a little bit later on in the article. This is where things get obscure: clearly, if the previous definition of absolute truth were to be applied to his epistemological claim that 'there are NO absolute truths' (that absolute truths are necessarily contradictory and impossible) this claim would meet his prior standards regarding unconditionality. At this point in the article, however, he seems to shift his critique of absolute truth in order to avoid this conclusion. As opposed to absolute truth being concerned with unconditional truth with respect to all times and places -- in all conditions -- he now is concerned with 'relations' between things. This is the definition of absolute to which he later refers: “a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things." He concludes that since concepts (including those used in the notion of 'absolute truth') are necessarily meaningless without relation to other things (e.g. humans, the universe, I suppose) that they by definition cannot be absolute. In other words, he's arguing that the concept of 'absolute' is 'necessarily dependent on an observer-established RELATION between two or more objects', and since absolute per his definition means as valid without relation to other things, therefore nothing can be 'absolutely true' per that definition. This to me seems to be a distinction without consequence, at least from a fundamental epistemological perspective (deriving skeptical conclusions from such a distinction would be contradictory). All he seems to be pointing out in the end is that concepts are necessarily concepts formed by an observer in relation to things. His previous definition/use of 'absolute' in his critique of the existence of a car would not be useful here at all, however. If we looked at his epistemological claim according to his prior analysis (that absolute refers to unconditional truth with respect to times, places, persons, etc.) we would have to conclude that this claim is indeed absolute. It's logical status -- the fact that even a claim that there are no absolute truths necessarily involves the use of observer dependent concepts -- could never be denied in any conditional context. Fatfist doesn't seem to be willing to go far enough to embrace skepticism (he does after all call himself a rational scientist or what not), so it's difficult for me to see the importance of his conclusion beyond stating an epistemological fact. He's not saying there is no truth, but simply that there is no statement that can be conceived of which does not involve the use of concepts, which are necessarily dependent on an observer-established relation. What I am concerned with, however, is his sort of implicit, hazily referenced epistemological agnosticism. Perhaps I have misjudged him, but it seems as though he is not far off from epistemological relativism. On the other hand, he may just be out to point out some obvious epistemological facts: that there is no way to conceive of truth or concepts not in relation to an observer. For there to be any proposition, there are certain presuppositions involved: namely, there must be an observer proposing, and concepts used within the proposition. If that is his only conclusion, I would have to say I find no real fault with it. If he goes on to then argue that knowledge is therefore an illusion or something along those lines, I'd find that problematic.
DCLugi Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 Anyone who genuinely thought this way would never express it. What would be the point? If one says that they can't trust their senses I would ask how did they come to that conclusion and their answer would be by using their senses.
Recommended Posts