Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?

Life is F***ked up. I don't how objective that is but we can never really remove ourselves from any sort of "truth," it's all just observations but, i think, "life is F***ked up" is pretty good -- sorry i can't put it more eloquently but it just wouldn't have the same "oomph" otherwise.


Also i think what Carlin talks about here is pretty universal and can apply to everyone.

This is kind of topical right now because there's more and more discussion about how universities (especially in the U.S.) are creating an expansive ideological shift away from the concept of objective truth (that used to be brought to us through mediums such as science) toward a concept that objective truth is how you subjectively feel about yourself or anything else.

As much as I believe in and advocate things like a positive mental attitude and positive affirmations or "thinking from the end" or fake it till you make it, (and while these mental disciplines may be a critical part of personal "success") they can only be applied so far within the reality of the objective world with an expectation of efficacy.

So, while I believe in the power of positive thinking, I am still a pragmatist who knows that directed thoughts alone will not necessarily overcome, cure, reverse or prevent every negative situation or circumstance that life can throw at you or those around you. (Positive thinking may help make you better at coping with life's difficulties, but thoughts & feelings alone will not bring about such things as a cure for terminal diseases that span humanity.)

When it comes to objective truth, this feelings over facts philosophy we see many young people adopting seems kind of dangerous because youth in universities are rejecting established scientific facts in exchange for things like cultural agendas, fads and "social contagions".

The only truth is the one that’s out there. I hear they made a show about it.

What will happen when the truth that is out there comes here?
And more than half our population can't understand or accept it because it doesn't fit with the narrative they've been conditioned to believe?

I am not God.


That is all.

I’d say that’d be a good time for a reboot. Then it’d be back out there.

Q: Is there a Single, Objective, Absolute TRUTH?

A: We all feed on death.

I believe that there is absolute truth, but most of what we perceive misleads us, and as such we can use logic to define the very basics while our minds aren't up to understanding the whole. But I love to ponder - a very pleasurable activity, pondering absolute truth. I usually do it on bus trips or on the toilet.

__________________

Elaborate.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

The sun doesnt rise because the world turns.

When you're right, you're right. When you've won, you've won. Winning doesn't make you right. Being right doesn't mean you've won.

dangit.
i was about to quote the OP with this reply but got distracted reading the first few posts.

(grrrr)

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear

The mere act of justification/argument presupposes an obtainable truth in the first place, so the moment someone asks me to demonstrate the premise, I no longer need to.

This is a cop-out, though, isn't it?

What I mean is that the mere act of saying there's an objective truth isn't enough proof that this is the case. For example, if I said that God exists, this wouldn't be enough because the burden of proof is on those who make such claims. I could say that I believe God exists, but if I wanted to claim that God exists for sure, I better have a good argument.

It's not that saying there's an objective truth makes it so. It's that asking for evidence for that claim assumes it is.

It assumes so but just for the sake of the argument.

"For the sake of argument" is exactly what I'm referring to. Either there is no truth, and therefore argument has no force or purpose, or there is, in which case the skepticism is self-contradictory.

This is not analogous to any other claim, because it's about the process used to evaluate claims in the first place. It's inherently nonsensical to employ rationality to undermine rationality. Reason is axiomatic.

So either there is objective truth or there is not and both are axiomatic?

Sort of, but the salient point is that they're not just two warring axioms of equal validity. Claiming objective truth exists is axiomatic because reason itself is axiomatic. It is self-justifying and self-evident. Claiming objective truth doesn't exist is inherently self-contradictory, because it's using reason to undermine the existence of reason.