[INFJ] As an infj whats your view about Truth and absolute truth?

How can there be false, if there is no truth?
How there can be temporary if there is no eternal.
How can there be finitiness if there is no infinity.
How can there effect if there is no cause.
How can there be subjective truth and objective (collective) truth, if there is no absolute truth?

I think these are universals.
 
Vita14 said:
subjective truth and objective (collective) truth
Click to expand...
Subjective is truth based on emotions or feelings of individual truth, while objective truth is agreed upon truth based in logic or facts.

You make a valid arguement @Vita14 however, my thought is Universal Truths are subjective interpretstions of Universal Law. :)
 
Sandie33 said:
Subjective is truth based on emotions or feelings of individual truth, while objective truth is agreed upon truth based in logic or facts.

You make a valid arguement @Vita14 however, my thought is Universal Truths are subjective interpretstions of Universal Law. :)
Click to expand...


Thats nice way to say it. My interpretation about absolute truth would be like mentioned earlier. They are realities that I know from my own realities that limit my ownself.
 
Vita14 said:
Thats nice way to say it. My interpretation about absolute truth would be like mentioned earlier. They are realities that I know from my own realities that limit my ownself.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif

Well said!
 
You
Sandie33 said:
Truth is Subjective and my truth is my own. I do not believe in absolute truths pertaining to reality.
As an example... https://www.google.com/amp/s/exploringyourmind.com/three-absolute-truths-life/amp/ of which 2 of these are being proven untrue by science. ;)

In science and math...
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/10/science/useful-invention-or-absolute-truth-what-is-math.html
Click to expand...

Literally took the words right out of my mouth... but I do believe in a universal truth.... just we can't see it yet... to believe otherwise means we'll never get along as a species...
 
Vita14 said:
How can there be false, if there is no truth?
How there can be temporary if there is no eternal.
How can there be finitiness if there is no infinity.
How can there effect if there is no cause.
How can there be subjective truth and objective (collective) truth, if there is no absolute truth?

I think these are universals.
Click to expand...

Three opposites and a sideways... your logic even metaphorized is flawed... I think you changed direction at the last minute...
 
I think the primitive principles of formal logic are what you could call "absolute truths". Sense could not even be made if they were not.

I would probably consider being to be an absolute truth in some sense, but I'd have to develop that thought as it is maybe peculiar to my philosophy.

Vita14 said:
How can there be false, if there is no truth?
How there can be temporary if there is no eternal.
How can there be finitiness if there is no infinity.
How can there effect if there is no cause.
How can there be subjective truth and objective (collective) truth, if there is no absolute truth?
Click to expand...

I think that a logic of simple relations would resolve all these apparent paradoxes without resorting to the concept of absolute truth.
 
Ren said:
I think the primitive principles of formal logic are what you could call "absolute truths". Sense could not even be made if they were not.

I would probably consider being to be an absolute truth in some sense, but I'd have to develop that thought as it is maybe peculiar to my philosophy.



I think that a logic of simple relations would resolve all these apparent paradoxes without resorting to the concept of absolute truth.
Click to expand...


So by being you mean "descartes" I think therefore I am... bit?
 
Barkalounger said:
Three opposites and a sideways... your logic even metaphorized is flawed... I think you changed direction at the last minute...
Click to expand...

Not flawed, not changed direction. You said yourself you belief in universal truth.
Can observer exist without existence?
 
Last edited:
Ren said:
I think the primitive principles of formal logic are what you could call "absolute truths". Sense could not even be made if they were not.

I would probably consider being to be an absolute truth in some sense, but I'd have to develop that thought as it is maybe peculiar to my philosophy.



I think that a logic of simple relations would resolve all these apparent paradoxes without resorting to the concept of absolute truth.
Click to expand...

I dont think they are paradoxes my dear. I think they are gateways.
 
Vita14 said:
I dont think they are paradoxes my dear. I think they are gateways.
Click to expand...

They could be also be seen as illustrations of the false dilemma fallacy, though.

"How can there be temporary if there is no eternal" - Can't you see that the way you present this argument is circular? You are implying that the concept of temporary depends on that of eternal for its definition. Of course, given this false premise, you arrive at the conclusion that there can't be temporary without eternal.

Barkalounger said:
So by being you mean "descartes" I think therefore I am... bit?
Click to expand...

No, I mean being more in the sense of Heideggerian being. Would you be familiar with Heidegger's philosophy?
 
Ren said:
They could be also be seen as illustrations of the false dilemma fallacy, though.

"How can there be temporary if there is no eternal" - Can't you see that the way you present this argument is circular? You are implying that the concept of temporary depends on that of eternal for its definition. Of course, given this false premise, you arrive at the conclusion that there can't be temporary without eternal.



No, I mean being more in the sense of Heideggerian being. Would you be familiar with Heidegger's philosophy?
Click to expand...

I trully imply that in a way that something must be always existed since temporary existing also exist. Now that you have understood the implication, can you illustrate why you think its a false premise?
Something cannot come from nothing by nothing. Therefore always is something. If one is saying "only eternity exist", then I would agree that only "Eternity exist self suffiently". If one is saying only "temporary exist" then I must disagree, because temporay can not exist temporarely without there being something before that. Therefore causality is not part of "Eternal existence".
 
Vita14 said:
I trully imply that in a way that something must be always existed since temporary existing also exist. Now that you have understood the implication, can you illustrate why you think its a false premise?
Something cannot come from nothing by nothing. Therefore always is something. If one is saying "only eternity exist", then I would agree that only "Eternity exist self suffiently". If one is saying only "temporary exist" then I must disagree, because temporay can not exist temporarely without there being something before that. Therefore causality is not part of "Eternal existence".
Click to expand...

Do you think you could flesh out your demonstration a bit better before I answer? Or structure it better, maybe.

Right now it's very difficult to understand you - but I've a feeling it's a matter of presentation.
 
The space, mobility, directions are phenomenoms that can be philosophically concluded to be all manifestations of causality: that is change and limitations by its essence. Change is what we observe. Causality is what it means. And it have before and after. Any being, or thing has change in their essence. As a observer but also as a being that has come to itself when it was not.

Something cannot come from nothing by nothing. No thing can make itself to become when its not existing, and all things are things in change.
This means that all things are temporary because they change, because of causality. Because change is essence of all, there is nothing that can be called eternal in a realm of change, in cosmos.,Or any world with causality itself.

When change is essence of all reality, then it can not be itself´s own cause, because change is made from things that move and have directions, and those are temporary in nature, they can not be cause for themselves so First cause, cause of all causes must be non-causal. Non-moving cosmos could not make itself move without force outside the cosmos itself. Therefore, any world with causality has beging, that is caused by non-causal thing, Eternity itself.

Something cannot come from nothing by nothing. Therefore always is something. If one is saying "only eternity exist", then I would agree that only "Eternity exist self suffiently". If one is saying only "temporary exist" then I must disagree, because temporay can not exist temporarely without there being something before that. Therefore causality is not part of "Eternal existence".
 
Last edited:
To me, the Truth is beyond any concepts and words (absolute or not doesn't apply here, because it's just a name and concept). So any view, or anything about the Truth cannot be described. Though I have a strong belief that once you reach the Truth, you know it.

Makes me think of a story I once heard, about how a turtle would describe land to a fish. The turtle has lived both on land and spent lots of its life in water so it knows both "realities". The fish doesn't live on land, and so it has no clue how living there is like. It would ask the turtle: is the land wet? T: no it's not. F: are there waves and ripples there? T: no there aren't. F: can you swim in there? No you can't!

I think it's similar with the Truth. It's in a different reality that we can't fathom, so how can we describe it?
 
I had a little bit of an intensity about truth/honesty being one of my core values. I think objective truth is found in critical collective subjectivity, but by this I don't mean like sheep/herd behavior, I mean true collective subjectivity down to like a hermit living a secluded region of the world with a differing opinion on anything to the collective contradictory subjective reactions individuals have even just within themselves. Since collecting all of this is impossible for anyone, I think actually knowing the truth about anything is probably impossible but it is still something to strive for by collecting the experiences and perspectives of our fellow humans. IDK
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top