I suppose it all depends on how silly one wants to be while defining 'The Truth'. Problems sprout like twigs on a tree in spring whenever a neutral starting point is not made available. Everything in the real world is subjective and relative to many differing scenarios. So how does one go about defining the ‘truth’ … a word we all use all the time?

I suppose it would be easier to consider the truth as having some varying components that need to be individually evaluated, but I will surmise up front that there is no real thing as ‘the truth’. Our language is just too vague and inadequate and our minds are still too small to make this easy. Anyone who believes there is an ‘absolute truth’ when dealing with humanity is just fooling themselves. As a people, we are fickle beyond belief (just look around) and if anything, we are more adapt at bending the truth than adhering to it. Strange thing is that we don’t seem to have many problems supporting the ‘bent’ truth though … go figure.

As an example take Christianity vs. Islam (piss on both their radical elements). They both religiously support the very same one god and for the exact same reasons (names unimportant here) but they are mortal enemies … and why … because only their specific collective has their shit together … everyone else is just out to lunch. From this (add in the Baptists, Protectants etc.) it is easy to see that the one god is not at all the issue … it is all about the religions themselves … and their support and their membership and most of all of their coffers that are being  argued over. God is just the tool they use, how inappropriate is that?

Looks real good on paper but not overly realistic I think, all things considered. On a personal level (where we like to communicate) this should work well enough in theory assuming at least some common ground and experience. But when dealing with organizations be they religious or otherwise it is never that simple. Rapport is seldom even welcome and all empathy is only internally expressed. Where is there even wiggle room for say the RCC to waffle on anything they have professed to be the true word of their god for a thousand years?  Same to be said for any religion that relies entirely on their own interpretation of all things and bars all others for no apparent real reason I can discern.  It all boils down to this: when dealing with a rock … only a fool would expect anything other than the continued inability to change anything rockish … ever.

Oh, but it is quite realistic.  The common ground is the human experience, of which we all have some, eh. 

You started with a premise about barriers to gaining knowledge and seem to keep moving back towards having a discussion with perhaps a devout Catholic and trying to get them to perhaps come around to see your point of view.  Or at least it sounds that way.  And if that's the case, the goal really shouldn't be to proselytize, but rather to discuss individual points.  Anyway, this still makes me wonder why this seems like such a sticking point for you. Do you have loved ones that are in the RCC and because of your past experiences, don't want that for them? 

 

My biggest stumbling block here is the "there really isn't any truth" perspective.

You can argue philosophically on that from a million different angles for an eternity but it also is a convenient dodge psychologically and emotionally when confronted with something you really don't want to know or think about--basically, it's the very "barrier to truth" that prompted this post.

The person who wants a compromise here but not abandon their option to dodge an issue will often demonstrate their more open philosophy along the line of, "Well...ok...let's agree there can be "truths" for conversations sake but they must include only x,y,z and can never include a,b,c.".

Which puts you right back at the barrier again--just more "rationally" justified.

We either can either share common perceptions of reality as humans--which means we can perceive some things as truths--or we all are crazy, locked totally in a world of our own imagining  but its' completely disingenuous to wash our hands and say, "What is truth?" as an out for anything one can't visualize as an individual and that another feels they may have some perception or understanding of.

You didn't seem to be interested in the remainder of my comment where I explained this??? Not all experience is useful here and yes there are some common ones but they are the ones taken for granted like eating, breathing and sleeping, useless things to build a rapport on. Try taking a devout Muslim raised in the desert totally in the embrace of Allah and see how much common ground you find from life or human experiences when placed in a room with a devout city raised Catholic Jew... sparks is all that comes to mind. There will be no meeting of the minds and that will be only because such people do not need or want to compromise ... certainly not with each other anyway. I am only trying to present a real world perspective ... not some idealistic philosophical repartee is all?  

As far as I know my whole family on my mother’s side are Catholics (been over 45 years since I left that behind me) ... but what does that have to do with me? Whatever floats their boat works for me ... just don't ask me to jump in too. My problem with the RCC is with the RCC itself as I could care less about its members (well, individually I care, collectively I could care less). Have you never taken up your pen in defense of a Lula diatribe before? Convert a Catholic to what (???), how ridiculous that one is.

 

You missed the point entirely David. It is not so much that there is no truth to be told ... it just varies due to the complexities of living in a real world where we are NOT in absolute control of much besides ourselves. From a religious perspective, truth is implicated and administered as the word of god and that is fine if it suits ones purposes, but try and administer that ‘truth’ to someone else of some different heritage … well have fun with that one. Take ‘thou shall not kill’; First of all the words themselves are wrong and should state ‘thou shall not murder’ as killing is acceptable to religious folk as well as most of the rest of us (Buddhists???). Guess there will always be exceptions. With that being said, can you make no argument or envision no situation where murder can be acceptable and even necessary?

I was watching Stargate Universe and in one episode there was a crash where a man was pinned under an immovable object, was in excruciating pain and was dying … almost there too. But the survivors couldn’t stay (you know how that works) … well what are you going to do when he begs you not to leave him to die alone. Two things come to mind here: Give him a weapon and allow him to end his own life (suicide) … pain will break the theological barrier and allow him to do this … but what about the soul you guys are so concerned about. This doesn’t seem to be a theologically acceptable solution. Option two would be to murder him (the option taken) and allow him passage wherever that takes him … but at least it grants him an escape from the pain and suffering … also theologically unacceptable. What would you do under similar circumstances? From a theological standpoint, both the murder and/or the suicide are unacceptable even though they are the only two viable options available. Want to make it even worse (not hard to do) … say the dying person was your mother or your husband. Absolute truth just doesn’t interface well with our species because we are too adapt at discovering exceptions to the rules simply because we must in order to survive. He was smothered in case you were interested …

 

So is it an absolute truth that there is no absolute truth???  Absolutely?

 

Your statement right after that, however, is very true.  Humanity has always bent the truth to its own desires.  Is it possible to find the truth, with all the manipulation that has passed down through the ages?  That is what I see as the biggest hurtle to human ... enlightenment?  I guess that word will work

To minimize further dancing around ... why don't you take a stab at describing 'absolute truth' instead of just using the terms like they have been defined in any real usable manner … and see how many holes I can punch in your definition. First problem though would be to define ‘truth’ on its own merits so it should be a while before you get to the ‘absolute’ part.

Truth has a variety of meanings, such as the state of being in accord with fact or reality. It can also mean having fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal. In a common usage, it also means constancy or sincerity in action or character. The direct opposite of truth is falsehood, which can correspondingly take logical, factual or ethical meanings. However, language and words are essentially "tools" by which humans convey information to one another. As such, "truth" must have a beneficial use in order to be retained within language. Defining this potency and applicability can be looked upon as "criteria", and the method used to recognize a "truth" is termed a criterion of truth. Since there is no single accepted criterion, they can all be considered "theories". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth)

We are finite creatures and don't handle absolutes well--but that does not imply there are no absolutes.  The biggest problem is we often think our own private thinking is "absolute"--with no discernible reason for it other than it suits us.

A true absolute would supersede ourselves.

The issue is that an internally dishonest person can cloud truth and honesty with the question followed by the inference, "Well there's no way to be sure."

FYI--I don't have any theological barriers.  My limits are self-determined as best they can be by my own conscience.

Why do you write things like this. If there is even a small doubt as to your (someone else's) honesty ... end of conversation ... I know mine is intact. I do not see Lula as a dishonest person ... I view her to be intellectually dishonest because of her denial of the realities all around us, especially when they do not even threaten her beliefs.

Which is why it has no earthly meaning??? Absolutes are little more than a denial of our infallible humanity where we are not even allowed to make a choice for ourselves.

Nobody said there were no absolutes ... there are plenty as long as we remain in the real world. I thought we were talking about 'absolute truth' is all ... and that doesn't exist on earth. We are just tied up with our inferior language so we play these word games to no good end.

 

You started with "Why do people do this?"...I'm presenting some reasons why and how it's often rationalized. Wasn't directed at anyone posting here.

It's not always obvious when someone is being internally dishonest.

By "supersede ourselves" I was meaning that despite what we may want to believe a true absolute would not be dependent on our accepting it--that's all.  That doesn't make it have no earthly meaning

I didn't state, "there were no absolutes", I presented that people uncomfortable with ones they feel they perceive will sometimes try to avoid them by using philosophical or rhetorical statements.

I'm pretty much referring to the first half or so of Plato's allegory of the cave.  It's pretty on-topic.

 

I've only been trying to understand what you are on about as it doesn't make much sense to me.  I ask questions like "why has X person made this post." At least to me, that's far more interesting than gibbering on about absolute truth.  For instance, if you don't find yourself struggling with the things you listed in the OP, why do you care if others have restrictions to seeking the truth?  You know, the practical, real life side of our discussion (eg what are we really talking about here?).  That answer clarifies what you are actually on about to me anyway.  Provided you were interested in a discussion about the question you posed in your op, of course.  I get that this is a philosophy forum and I suppose diving layers and layers below what the actual topic was in order to define absolute truth and so on will happen (even though it likely just muddies the original topic), but I don't really find that to be all that fruitful.  And now that a debate of sorts has begun, I expect that people simply begin to recite their opinions over and over, likely without any desire to learn from each other, but hopefully I'm wrong.

from the OP:

1. Believing that you have already found the truth.  2. Believing that there is no truth.  3. Believing that there is truth out there, but X person doesn't have it to share with you.  Why do you ask?

Pretty much sums it up.  I also agree what you stated in the reply prior to that.

"Plato's cave" is an allegory about people basically in the dark guessing their way through life with limited vision and misunderstandings.  When confronted with truth, they recoil at first as it is blinding and unsettling and painful.

He makes the points that some will be content to simply stay as they are and others will understand that truth is something to be striven for--not to be ignored as by the others.

His advisement in the allegory is in the context of being spoken to a young ruler-to-be and he encourages him to reach for higher philosophical principles so he can be a better man and be more effective in administering over people who do not have his understanding.

His overall point though was that truth in and of itself is something to always be reached for--the highest goal--practical for one's own enlightenment and for governing societies.

A real conversation here would be one where people were honest about their own reasons for struggling with truths personally.  Sadly, this is the internet.

I believe this to be adequate for my reasoning for the use of such limiting barriers??? I was misleading in the OP ... I am well aware of why the barriers are placed there ... I just don't understand the need to do such things if the truth is what is being sought

I addressed this in #8, #9 and #13. And I couldn’t agree any more … ‘absolute truth” is meaningless in the real world and can only be gobbledygooked to no useful end.

First, we are talking about real knowledge here. If you take the science out of this, then I could agree ... but I cannot (don't know how to). (1.): We have backtracked on many things we thought we knew but that later turned out not to be 'quite' true ... so we change (correct) the error and move on. We didn't (and still don't) succumb to the notion that we knew the truth of something and then placed a cease and desist order on further studies. (2.): I see no point in even discussing this option and think it is as unrealistic as it gets. (3.): Again we are supposed to be discussing the truth (as much as is humanly possible) so if someone is not willing to share … I don’t want to play with them either. You used the word HAVE to share … I think it should have been WANT to share … but that still implies they are not willing to be truthful … again no playmate for me.

 

 

 

Glad you sorted out the quotes!    These forums tend to do some crazy things with nested quotes from time to time, eh.

OK - thanks for clarifying things a bit.  I think I see a bit more now.  I've recently been rereading some of Gaiman's work that covers a bit on knowledge.  The basic concept in blatantly false (as you'll see), but there's an interesting bit of truth in there.  First, the concept - We all know everything there is to know.  We simply refuse to accept this truth. 

And this leads me to a quote from Ecclesiastes, actually.  "For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow"

I think there is also a very human component within all of us that knows that to be true.  Obviously, you can come up with your example that makes the above statement both true and false in the context I presented it in (eg the researcher that discovers the cure for cancer has probably not increased sorrow substantially - but knowing, for instance, that your husband or wife is cheating on you... well, that would likely increase your sorrow quite a bit).  Anyway, the point here being that not seeking the truth (eg CHOOSING intentionally) does occur as a defense mechanism.  In this case, people often don't want to know the truth. 

Spot on.  You are correct.

Anyway, all of that said, then perhaps this all boils down to more of a conversation of how we break down barriers that keep people from gaining knowledge, then?  Or perhaps continue and try to come up with a more exhaustive listing of what barriers exist and why?