MeDeFe wrote:You anticipated correctly, according to your definition of "absolute" you are correct and "there is no absolute truth" would be an absolute statement negating itself.
However, I'm not going to accept a redefinition of a word on this scale, especially not a word that is fundamental to your thesis. At least not just because you say you have the right and duty to provide us with the definitions. I can readily accept "objective" as a substitute (and far more fitting) term for what you are describing, but a redefinition of "absolute" to mean simply "independent of peoples emotions" is a too big step. You're taking a thoroughly and clearly defined word and then you leave out half of the definition to make it fit your purposes. Why not use existing terms that better describe what you mean?
You misunderstood my definition of relative statements a little, in order not to be relative a statement must not refer to any external entities that influence the logical value of the statement.
I do not quite see what you think the problem with the existence or-non-existence of what a term refers to is. So what if there is a concept or definition of the term "absolute truth"? There are also detailed concepts of what magic is and how magic works, but this does not mean that magic is real. If a term can be defined it means only that a concept defining this term exists.
And you STILL haven't said what your personal definition of "truth" is.
OK, let’s start with this “truth” business. Webster’s defines “truth” as “the quality or state of being true…” then defines “true” as “in accordance with fact; that agrees with reality; not false…exact; accurate; right; correct.” Now these definitions have a number of the regrettable qualities that I said I was trying to avoid. They are largely a collection of synonyms which themselves need to be defined, and those definitions usually include “true,” which makes the definition circular and useless. My favorite is “not false.” Guess what their definition of “false” is: “not true”! We have thereby learned nothing about the meaning of either word. Well, we do know exactly one thing: whatever they are, they are opposite to one another; Wonderful.
As I said before, philosophers have been trying to determine “what is truth” almost since the beginning of language. So if the venerated Noah Webster and teams of lexicographers, philologists, and linguists working on his dictionary for about 200 years can’t do any better than this, I doubt you and I can.
You’re asking me to tell you the “intuitive” definition doesn’t make any sense. Maybe I’ve got my definitions wrong again, but what I meant by “intuitive definition” is one that cannot necessarily be stated clearly, but we all have a pretty good idea what we or someone else means when they say something is true, and that idea is similar enough for most people to continue the discussion. It would probably be something along the lines of “not false; correct.” For the purpose of our debate I was recommending proceeding on that.
You just asked for my “personal definition of truth.” I wasn’t planning on using my personal definition, that I use for my life. You wouldn’t like it. When Pilate asked Jesus, “what is truth?” Jesus didn’t answer because the Truth was standing in front of him. If I know something true but hurtful about someone, and it will not benefit them in some way for them to know it, or it is not my place to tell them, saying it is not speaking the truth, because it is not speaking Jesus. Sorry, but you asked for it.
While I was psyched at your concession of my original point given my definitions, you may want to reconsider it. The definition I was using for “absolute” was more than just “independent of people’s emotions.” That would just be the “great/lousy guitarist” example, and “objective” would work for that. But there are 2 other things I said it was not: 1) a general rule with exceptions, for example “car bodies are made of metal” (you could say that that is true, but there are, or at least were, some that are made of fiberglass) and 2) relative, as in calling someone tall or short, which can only be said to be true or false in comparison with some un-named standard like the height of another person. If that is what you meant by “must not refer to any external entities that influence the logical value of the statement,” then my definition is essentially the same as yours. If not, please define “logical value” and how it can be influenced.
I brought up the concept of "real existence" as opposed to "existence as a concept" because one could say that since we can talk about and define "an absolute truth" it necessarily has an existence as a concept, like a thoroughly described fictional character, but an existence of that sort would not necessarily contradict the statement that it does not exist. I was trying to avoid confusion on that point because if one debater asserts, "There is no absolute truth," that, being a particular statement, rather than the concept of a potential statement, even though it is abstract rather than concrete, does have a real existence, and does thereby negate itself.
OK, I think that covers it. Sorry I took so long. I think deliberately, and so am no good in face-to-face debates. You’ve no idea how much I edited this on word processing before pasting it here.
. But that is something I think about every now and again. And I'm still working on it. Hey, if I'd figured it out now, what would be the fun in that?