Search function 
says 沒有.
OK. I see absolute truth in truth tables, which are comprehensible
Any form of logic is built on presuppositions. I’m leaning more toward phenomenology in that we can say that nothing is true and nothing matters but our actions reveal our subconscious beliefs and assumptions.
So you see absolute truth in the intangible concept of absolute truth?
It is not an invalid way of looking at the world, but that isn’t the logic your phone is built on
I see absolute truth in the ability to predict the future
You predict the future with truth tables instead of consulting our God-Emperor? 
Okay heretic, how’s that working out for you, in practical terms?
1 Like
Well, it means I can type on my computer thingy here and on the other side of the world the same words reliably pop up on your screen, and vice versa
Actually, now that I see it put it that way… 
Right, so it works, until it doesn’t. 
In practical terms, you have a very useful relative truth, but not an absolute one.
In different terms, the reason we have things like phones and computers is because of the absolute truth in boolean logic, which we comprehend well enough to harness
just because your phone stops working doesn’t mean there is no truth
It’s still just the intangible concept of absolute truth, though. It doesn’t mean you have grasped the true nature of the universe.
Just because a concept is useful in producing something that works most of the time, that doesn’t mean it’s divine.
Sorry, when I saw ‘absolute truth’ I didn’t realize it was being used in the 42nd sense or a divine one
No, the logic works all the time. Maybe the phone gets dirty or the code becomes burdensome, but the truth tables don’t work ‘some of the time’.
What does one thing have to do with the other? Why would you care about shutting down others? Seems to me the danger would come more from people believing in the bedrock rightness of their ideas. ( (cough) me, in my more self-righteous moments (cough) ).
It’s like the reaction to theologian’s question “If you don’t have absolute values, what stops you from raping and killing?”
Answer: “I rape and kill all I want, which is zero. If belief in absolute morality (e.g.God) is all that stops you from raping and killing, by all means believe.”
1 Like
I’m seeing a parallel to “The Stranger” by Camus in this discussion. Perhaps he was right in saying that the only philosophical question is that of suicide.
found this in the jokes thread from yesterday
very good dissection of the “conservative/liberal” split in regards to social issues, and more specifically the role individual citizens play (if any) in improving the world. where the more left leaning folk tend to recognize problems as made by humans and solved by humans, the right leaning folk adhere to the belief that “evil” is a fact of life, and since all bad acts cannot be stopped, why bother mitigating at all?
i thought leftoids were the real bummer crowd, but man if the conservative mindset isn’t bleak as all hell…
I was thinking about existentialism the other day on account of this thread but couldn’t remember who wrote along the lines of to the existentialist, life has whatever meaning one chooses to give it. My first guess would be Sartre, but it’s locked away deep in the memory vault. 
Yeah, but the logic only works consistently in the sense of the intangible concept of working consistently. 
It can still be absolutely true, and comprehensible, even if we can’t touch it. I’m confused about tangibility as a criterion for absolute truth.
It would be easier to explain in person over a bottle of the good stuff that you can’t get on this planet…
2 Likes
The logical positivist claimed science could recall truth through experiment.
I’m sure Sartre would say that we can decide our own values. He claimed that we lived in a self imposed cage and that our own freedom is the thing hardest to accept.