Thread: Back to Basics - Absolute Truth

Originally Posted by WoI

Historically yes, but that has long since become an anachronism. Science today is way ahead of philosophy which is immersed and stuck in semi-medieval scholasticism.
Philosophy has proven to be completely incompetent at incorporating the vast increase in scientific knowledge of the last century and a bit. As such, it's become quite irrelevant to contemporary science. It doesn't even have the methods to challenge science. It would require the development of a formal language therefore.
The relation between science and philosophy is comparable to that between astronomy and astrology. Astronomy did evolve from astrology too but look at what either have become today.

..and that is your opinion.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Contradictions do not exist.

Their contradictions are their admission that their knowledge is inadequate for their theory, and their persistence in maintaining the contradiction exists is their abandonment of logic and reason.

The truth is true, and always absolute. It is their interpretation of the truth that is ever changing. The truth does not require their acceptance, it will remain true in the face of their disbelief, no matter how much they try and twist it to mean something other than what it does.

Always remember when faced with a contradiction, check your premise, you will find one is wrong.

Be careful. Look at the Byron quote in my signature. He divides the "not reasoning" into three groups (bigots, fools and slaves). You are generalizing them.

Originally Posted by Rude Boy

Indeed, time dilation is, in and of itself, the expansion of space-time.

That is not what the "Special Theory of Relativity" says:

Gravitation and the General Theory of Relativity

We have already discussed some of the important implications of the Special Theory of Relativity. For example, the most famous is probably the relationship between mass and energy. Other striking consequences are associated with the dependence of space and time on velocity: at speeds near that of light, space itself becomes contracted in the direction of motion and the passage of time slows. Although these seem bizarre ideas (because our everyday experience typically does not include speeds near that of light), many experiments indicate that the Special Theory of Relativity is correct and our "common sense" (and Newton's laws) are incorrect near the speed of light.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

..and that is your opinion.

An opinion which is backed by the fact that no one in philosophy has been able to incorporate elemental properties of the universe in any cohesive way. If you know of somebody, pray tell, I'd be most interested.

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

You have it ass backwards. Astronomy is the study of celestial bodies, and astrology could not have developed without a prerequisite knowledge of astronomy.

Logic 101

What Rude Boy said.
The root is common but that root was not scientific and hence cannot qualify as astronomy.

Originally Posted by Rude Boy

Doesn't that dispel your own argument and enhances his?

If science is the outgrowth of natural philosophy, and let's just assume that in anything besides science, there are absolutes, but in science, there are none.

No. Empirical science, properly understood, is a branch of philosophy like epistemology or ethics or existentialism, etc. and as such has the same goals, namely increasing our understanding and bringing us to know what is true. The single most important tool in both is identical, reason. Neither can be done properly without reason.

Science divorced from reason gives pseudo-science (eg. astrology or creationism). If what is normally thought of as philosophy is divorced from reason, then one gets pseudo (false) philosophy (eg. Irrationalism (Sartre), Nietzche).

To say that there are no absolutes is to declare an absolute.

Originally Posted by Rude Boy

Then two things can be the same and different at the same time, no?

You should re-examine your reasoning.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

If what is normally thought of as philosophy is divorced from reason, then one gets pseudo (false) philosophy (eg. Irrationalism (Sartre), Nietzche).

That sentence is a perfect illustration of the scholasticism in philosophy I was referring to. Lacking answers for contemporary ideas and knowledge philosophy retreats in the trenches on safe ground of the old (but obsolete) masters.

It's ironic you should mention Nietzsche as pseudo-philosophy. It's he of course that first demonstrated this very scholasticism, way ahead of his time. And in the century since his demise no one, not one philosopher, has found an answer to his critique.

Most ironic.

Originally Posted by WoI

That sentence is a perfect illustration of the scholasticism in philosophy I was referring to. Lacking answers for contemporary ideas and knowledge philosophy retreats in the trenches on safe ground of the old (but obsolete) masters.

It's ironic you should mention Nietzsche as pseudo-philosophy. It's he of course that first demonstrated this very scholasticism, way ahead of his time. And in the century since his demise no one, not one philosopher, has found an answer to his critique.

Most ironic.

If you are basing your negative view of philosphy on Nietzche, then I can see why that view would be negative. It was Nietzche philosphy in action that gave the world the holocaust.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

If you are basing your negative view of philosphy on Nietzche, then I can see why that view would be negative. It was Nietzche philosphy in action that gave the world the holocaust.

Hardly.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

No. Empirical science, properly understood, is a branch of philosophy like epistemology or ethics or existentialism, etc. and as such has the same goals, namely increasing our understanding and bringing us to know what is true. The single most important tool in both is identical, reason. Neither can be done properly without reason.

Science divorced from reason gives pseudo-science (eg. astrology or creationism). If what is normally thought of as philosophy is divorced from reason, then one gets pseudo (false) philosophy (eg. Irrationalism (Sartre), Nietzche).

To say that there are no absolutes is to declare an absolute.



You should re-examine your reasoning.

Hence, paradoxes, bro. I see you've completely looked over that. They exist all around us.

I agree, Helene. The Holocaust was a collective, state ("Your Tax Dollars at Work") effort, and it seems that that Nietzche was more of an individualist.

Originally Posted by Tom Palven

I agree, Helene. The Holocaust was a collective, state ("Your Tax Dollars at Work") effort, and it seems that that Nietzche was more of an individualist.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)

Originally Posted by Steerpike

If you are basing your negative view of philosphy on Nietzche, then I can see why that view would be negative. It was Nietzche philosphy in action that gave the world the holocaust.

If you're completely ignorant of Nietzsche's philosophy which you demonstrate by that remark how on earth can you make a qualified statement about anything at all relating to philosophy ?
Here's a summary I once wrote about Nietzsche's philosophy:
U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives - View Single Post - The Nietzsche Thread
Nothing to do with Nazis or the Holocaust.

Originally Posted by WoI

If you're completely ignorant of Nietzsche's philosophy which you demonstrate by that remark how on earth can you make a qualified statement about anything at all relating to philosophy ?
Here's a summary I once wrote about Nietzsche's philosophy:
U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives - View Single Post - The Nietzsche Thread
Nothing to do with Nazis or the Holocaust.

You give me a link to one your own posts to prove your viewpoint?

If you have read Nietzsche, then you may recall something called, "Will to Power."

Originally Posted by Steerpike

You give me a link to one your own posts to prove your viewpoint?

If you have read Nietzsche, then you may recall something called, "Will to Power."

Not to prove anything, just to explain Nietzsche to you.