Does a Universal Truth Exist?

[plarq]

mathematics is a logical system, so they're self-consistent.

 

[alcal]

The only universal true is in the nature and nature itself. Nothing out of it, nothing against it.

 

[alcal]

The only universal truth is there are no universal truths.

If the universal true doesn't exist, why are you named perfection? I see nonsense...

 

[El_Machinae]

The only universal truth is there is only one universal truth.

 

[alcal]

The only universal truth is there is only one universal truth.

It seems a joke...

 

[Sui Generis]

First of all, WTH do you mean by "universal"? Do you mean "true for everyone"? Or "true across all logically possible worlds?"

I guess it doesn't matter, because in either case the answer is clearly "yes".

Usually when someone with no philosophy training comes to this conclusion, its usually just hyper-skepticism. First of all, hyper-skepticism is not a good position, because it doesn't properly understand the meaning of the word "knows". Second, even if hyper-skepticism were true, its merely a thesis about what we can know, not what propositions are true.

Let this calm your fears: the locution "x knows y" does not necessitate that x knows y beyond any shadow of a doubt whatsoever.

Maybe we don't know anything beyond any shadow of a doubt, but who gives a crap? We still know lots of stuff, because knowing something beyond a shadow of a doubt is not necessary for knowing it!

I meant true in all logically possible worlds.

I meant "knowing" in the empirical sense.

Anyway, knowing something and not beyond a shadow of doubt... that seems like an oxymoron.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

¬(P & ¬P) is a decent candidate.

 

[warpus]

¬(P & ¬P) is a decent candidate.

Tautologies don't count.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Why don't they?

 

[Dr.Mindbender]

¬(P & ¬P) is a decent candidate.

No true statement is true and false at the same time. Liebniz, is that YOU?!

What about pv¬p? Something has to have a truth value, or no deduction can derive from it.

Tautologies don't count.

It is not a tautology.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

¬(P & ¬P) is a decent candidate.

What about pv¬p? Something has to have a truth value, or no deduction can derive from it.

I thought that was an emoticon!

 

[warpus]

Why don't they?

Because, while being an answer to the question, it is a rather silly one. Tautologies are logically equilvalent to saying "True".

So.. "What is always true?" "Whatever you define to be always true" doesn't seem like a good answer to me.. while being right.

It is not a tautology.

It is.

(P AND not P) always evaluates to FALSE. NOT FALSE always evaluates to TRUE.

 

[Fifty]

I meant true in all logically possible worlds.

There are infinitely many necessary truths.

 

[Gustave5436]

The only universal truth is there are no universal truths.

Which is why I think nihilism is not a reasonably sound concept; it contradicts itself.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I am not a philosopher, nor have I read much philosophy, concentrating more on political theory. However, I have come to an uncomfortable conclusion, that either a universal truth doesn't exist, or humans can never know whether it exists. Can someone with a philosophy please clarify this?

The last place you want to go is to a philosopher. They reach no conclusions, but do use lots of words and symbols to get there.

Let me chime in before BirdJaguar gets a chance to and say that a universal truth exists, and that it is unchanging.

Obviously.

Damn. I knew I should have run those red lights and gotten home sooner.

The fabric of all existence is infinite, eternal, unchanging and permanent. It is universal, absolute and none can escape it or its truth. You can ignore it if you choose.

But if you choose to impose boundaries on the discussion to exclude anything that cannot be counted, observed or quantified in some fashion and to include only those "things" which can be found "within time", you will come to a different conclusion.

 

[Fifty]

The last place you want to go is to a philosopher. They reach no conclusions, but do use lots of words and symbols to get there.

Okay, so you're against using reason. What would you suggest in its place?

 

[Ayatollah So]

There are lots and lots of little itty bitty universal truths. You can, of course, combine them into longer and more informative* statements. (*: not in the Shannon sense of "informative".)

How can there be one universal truth if you say that there is none, you are contradicting yourself with that statement.

If the universal true doesn't exist, why are you named perfection? I see nonsense...

Methinks y'all have fallen into the Chasm of Sar. (Sarchasm, n. The yawning gap between the author of a witticism and the audience that just doesn't get it.)

 

[Birdjaguar]

Okay, so you're against using reason. What would you suggest in its place?

Reason is a great tool, but has its limitations. Unlike the application of reason to the natural sciences, it has not been a good tool to resolve the significant philosphical issues that have under discussion since people began to ponder their place in the universe. I do not expect any definitive answers anytime soon.

If one wants an answer to "life's big questions", I suggest just picking what appeals to you and shaping your life around that. At that point you can apply all the reason and logic (or love and magic) you want, to build something that is coherent and makes sense for you.

In the 2,500 since the Golden Age of Greece the process of arguing philosophy has gotten more complex and esoteric, but few answers of note have been forth coming. (Isn't there a popular definition of insanity that can be applied here?)

The topics of philosphical discussion are infinitly interesting and rich, but the impenetrable jargon and belabored process of constructing arguments has sucked the life and value out of them.

 

[warpus]

If one wants an answer to "life's big questions", I suggest just picking what appeals to you and shaping your life around that.

Yes, because what appeals to you personally has such a high probability of being right.

What you're suggesting might make you feel good, but that's not what this thread is about - it's about the truth.

 

[Agent327]

Anyway, knowing something and not beyond a shadow of doubt... that seems like an oxymoron.

You mean like cruel kindness?

Anyway, the posts on this thread suggest a) there is no universal truth or b) there is a universal truth, but not everyone knows it.

c) since "universal truth" presupposes that everyone knows it, there is no universal truth.

I.e. the question: Is there an universal truth? answers itself.