- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,240
- 246,776
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
[INFJ] As an infj whats your view about Truth and absolute truth?
- Thread starter Vita14
- Start date
I have the same relationship with music, I view it as a collection of vignettes of whatever the songwriters experience was. You can even capture the emotional landscape of the experience from the dynamic relationship between the lyrics (even if its fiction) and the musical details. I know some songwriters don't write their own music but some human did. Unless machines write music ... which I wouldn't be surprised is actually possible. IDK lol
I've always found it odd to talk about Truth in the abstract rather than as an attribute. If we turned the question on it's head and asked what are your views on Falseness and Absolute Falseness I wonder if it would cast some new dimensions on the problem?
I thought about it yesterday with same conclusion. Absolute Truth just is, indiscribable, Self suffsient, Eternal. I think we are all dependend on Absolute truth. Merits of actions, merits of testimonies, merits of knowledge makes truthfull person. Absolute falseness in this absence of thise merits, and its place where nobody should go.
Tricky one. If we skip past truths that can be measured empirically and assume they're 'true' then absolute truth would have something to do with the extent to which that reality holds its shape without something to perceive it. Going back to Jung, his theory of the transcendent function and the ability of the psyche to spontaneously conjure up images means that it is impossible to know for certain whether we are experiencing the thing in itself, absolute reality, or a reflection of the thing itself (Maya). It can be convincing enough to develop faith. I think that faith implies a lifestyle change which accounts for the presence of this 'other factor', whereas belief doesn't really require any action.
I think that one of the things confusing me a little in what you say is that you seem to be using "Absolute Truth" as a metaphor for "Absolute Reality". If you ask me is there Absolute Reality, I would say yes, but as others have implied in the thread we can only approach it from an infinity of subjective viewpoints, filtered through our finite and limited senses (both looking outward but also looking inwards to our inner worlds). So my belief in Absolute Reality and its "Absolute Truth" is a pure act of faith, supported so far by my subjective experiences but there is no guarantee that will always be so.
If you look at Truth as one of the two values (True and False) in pure analytical logic, then there is another tale to tell. In maths you start off by defining a set of statements as "True" (the axioms) - this is in principle an arbitrary assignment of truth values, but there can be issues with logical consistency between sets of axioms if they are not completely independent of each other which can complicate the issue. You also define the set of rules (ie formal logic) for manipulating statements about the axioms as valid (ie you accept it preserves truth and falseness within each step as you apply its rules). Anything that you accurately conclude from applying the rules of logic to the axioms is then "absolutely" true or false, within the "world" defined by the axioms.
I not am thinking actually this way, that truth has two values. I am thinking that absolute truth, is eternal, and reality when it comes to person is about mind, and minds realisations about limtedness of its own self, regarding to Self sufficient Eternal Truth.
I am from school of finitism. I concider reality always finite. How do you measure infinity? Viewpoints are minds doing perceptions. As you said with limited senses. You believe mind is infinite? If it would be it would be all-knowing.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 16771
I'll come at it like this:
I think a lot about the various kinds of 'truth' that some academic disciplines try to discern, and one of my favourite analyses of this problem was by the 19th century German Neo-Kantian philosopher Wilhelm Windelband.
He used the terms 'idiographic' and 'nomothetic' to describe different types of knowledge (so really he created a very simple epistemic typology).
Idiographic knowledge concerns things which are true in the particular, like events. An example of an idiographic discipline might be history.
Nomothetic knowledge concerns things which are true universally, like fundamental laws of nature. An example of a Nomothetic discipline might be physics.
Now, in terms of truth, you might think that the 'more absolute' the truth is, the more Nomothetic (or universal) it must therefore be. It must apply equally in all places and in all times, like a law of existence.
Prima facie, this seems rational. However, I would say that it's much easier to vest the 'absolute truth' of something in its idiographic nature, in its very finitenes. It's very difficult to try to prove the falsity of something that definitely happened, for instance, bounded in time.
Think of this statement:
'We have existed. Therefore, we have existed forever, until the end of time and even after that.'
There's something absolute in finity, don't you think?
I think a lot about the various kinds of 'truth' that some academic disciplines try to discern, and one of my favourite analyses of this problem was by the 19th century German Neo-Kantian philosopher Wilhelm Windelband.
He used the terms 'idiographic' and 'nomothetic' to describe different types of knowledge (so really he created a very simple epistemic typology).
Idiographic knowledge concerns things which are true in the particular, like events. An example of an idiographic discipline might be history.
Nomothetic knowledge concerns things which are true universally, like fundamental laws of nature. An example of a Nomothetic discipline might be physics.
Now, in terms of truth, you might think that the 'more absolute' the truth is, the more Nomothetic (or universal) it must therefore be. It must apply equally in all places and in all times, like a law of existence.
Prima facie, this seems rational. However, I would say that it's much easier to vest the 'absolute truth' of something in its idiographic nature, in its very finitenes. It's very difficult to try to prove the falsity of something that definitely happened, for instance, bounded in time.
Think of this statement:
'We have existed. Therefore, we have existed forever, until the end of time and even after that.'
There's something absolute in finity, don't you think?
In physics time is what clock reads. If one conciders time had begining, when cosmos started, then by defination of this view of time it has existed forever. But its just point of view. What was before time? I know that I have not existed foreverly in absolute sense, only in a sense that I have been always me, as long as I have been. What does your birth mean to you as an person?
Last edited:
If we have existed forever, and we will exist until the time ends, and even after that. Then the time itself is defined differently than usually. Before and after, can be also understood as a change. If the change for ourselves has been always, then I agree, in a way, that we have been in motion and change always, and we will be after the time, i use it in this sense,stops decaying us, but this is more poetic. Because the concept of time is different in different parts of the sentence. Only possibility that is against all my knowledge is that you feel that person is not finite. You think mind is not finite? How?
I did wonder if your interest in Truth was directed towards God. There are many different viewpoints on God within the forum - there are atheists, agnostics, there are conventional Christians (I'm RC but there are other flavours too) and there are deeply spiritual people with other ways of grasping reality.
It's said that there are many ways up Mount Fuji - personally I find that it's exciting and rewarding to be open to other people's perspectives on ultimate reality even if they are far away from your own because, as I said, my own viewpoint is subjective finite and limited and I never stop learning from others.
No that's not what I said - I'm saying that there is an unlimited number of alternative subjective viewpoints possible when we consider absolute reality. Not that any one person can see them all (that would be a truly dreadful burden!!!), or even a lot of them. But personally I take it as a moral obligation to be as open as I can to all the alternative subjective viewpoints that I can share with others because that is one of the main ways I grow spiritually.
I mean that how ever many viewpoints you can find, there are always going to be more that you haven't found. Some of these may not even be accessible / conceivable by humans, so would be forever beyond our subjective capabilities.What you think about countlesness? You mean that when you say "unlimited number"?
This triggers quite a few thoughts - this is a bit of a brain dump rather than hard edged ....
I think I'd agree with your conclusions. For example, at least at the moment the absolute laws of nature are not known to us, and are part of the ineffable absolute nature of things we can only approach and which we do not grasp directly. All the major scientific theories we have in physics actually contradict each other in their fundamental assumptions about the nature of space, time, energy and matter. In fact it's one of the great and weird things about the world that theories starting from such divergent ab initio viewpoints can be so very, very accurate in predicting how the external world behaves within the domain of validity of each theory. I suspect that in itself is a major clue about more fundamental reality.
One of the great insights that comes from Relativity is that there is no common NOW that flows uniformly through the universe - we (and every other bit of stuff) each have our very own objective now and they are all different from each other. Disconcertingly and counter-intuitively, that suggest to me that the universe may be an eternal completed static 4-dimensional space-time object containing every point of space and time in real existence, and that each of our timelines is preserved eternally (ie timelessly). Our sensation of time passing comes from our individual consciousness travelling along it's own space-time track at the rate of 12 months per year. It's interesting to speculate if the journey could be repeated!?! I hasten to add that I don't necessarily believe this, but it is a possibility that seems to emerge directly from one of the two major physical theories that describe physical reality within modern science - and it's a bit startling to say the least.
So I'm happier by far to agree that ideographic is more readily verifiable than nomothetic knowledge
As far as I can tell, there are three kinds of truths.
1) absolute truths (yes, they do exist)
There are things out there that are objectively, absolutely true. Chloroplast reflects back green light, there is no intelegent life on the moon, evil exsists in the world, etc.
2) subjective truths
Things that we subjectively believe to be true that have no absolute truth to them.
E.g. in the civil war in America, the south thought they were good and God was on their side, and the north thought they were good and God was on their side.
3) partial truths (my favorite)
These are cases in which each of us have a little piece of an absolute truth that can’t be fully grasped/understood by one individual.
Think of it this way. In such cases the truth is basically a sphere, and we are all scattered around it. No one can see the whole sphere, and even if they could they couldn’t understand it (try imagining seeing all sides of a perfect sphere at one time. You can’t). Some people are closer to it, some are farther away, some have a better view of it, and others can’t see it at all.
1) absolute truths (yes, they do exist)
There are things out there that are objectively, absolutely true. Chloroplast reflects back green light, there is no intelegent life on the moon, evil exsists in the world, etc.
2) subjective truths
Things that we subjectively believe to be true that have no absolute truth to them.
E.g. in the civil war in America, the south thought they were good and God was on their side, and the north thought they were good and God was on their side.
3) partial truths (my favorite)
These are cases in which each of us have a little piece of an absolute truth that can’t be fully grasped/understood by one individual.
Think of it this way. In such cases the truth is basically a sphere, and we are all scattered around it. No one can see the whole sphere, and even if they could they couldn’t understand it (try imagining seeing all sides of a perfect sphere at one time. You can’t). Some people are closer to it, some are farther away, some have a better view of it, and others can’t see it at all.
What would you answer to somebody who objected that empirical truths are dependent on the senses, and that the senses can betray us, be illusory, etc.?
Can synthetic statements really be known a priori?