calm down there harbinger
The 'absolute truth' is just as silly putty as any lie. It's all a popularity contest when it comes to 'absolute truths', because if I decide to throw you into the sun, general consensus is that you'll most likely die before you even reach the surface, which in any other case would be absolutely true-- but we don't' even know what death is, so to say you'd absolutely -die- rather than transcend some kind of reality or be reborn or some other shit couldn't be true. All we know is that you'd stop existing on this plane... which we also don't know for sure, lol.
Personally I'd like to think that if I was thrown into the sun that my energy would meld with its core and I would be able to control it and smash it right into earth and go on a massive destructive journey to the center of the universe.
calm down there harbinger
First of all, there is absolute truth. The idea that there is an objective truth independant of the observer is the fundamental underpinning of all philosophy, more or less. It is a necessary assumption for philosophical discussion and thought. The question of how closely human knowledge approaches this external and immutable truth is a more open question, especially in philosophy of science.
But, yes, there is an objective external reality. There is 'absolute' truth. But I don't like that term at all, because it implies that truth has degrees - it does not. No piece of true knowledge is somehow 'more true' than another. Truth is a binary state; something is either true, or it is false. Hell, that's another logical principle, even, one of the laws of thought or something. I forget, it's been a while since intro level Problems of Philosophy. Point is, every logical statement is true or false. That's why Bertrand Russell had to write papers on problematic statements like 'the King of France is bald.'
First of all, that is begging the question for intelligent design. Your argument is that nothing is like Humanity, ergo Humanity must be intelligently designed. Why? That does not follow. Furthermore, that is not true. Name one thing Humans and *only* Humans do that other animals do not. I won't accept 'create civilization' as an answer, because that's too broad and vague. Same for 'culture'. If you want to say 'have language' that's false. If you want to say 'have written language' well, then, does that mean blind or illiterate people aren't Human?my point was that because we can clearly think about something besides sex food and survival there is some intelligent design behind humans. no other animal is quite like us.
The question of whether human consciousness differs from that of other animals in degree or in kind is an open one, but I think the answers to that will have to come from science, and not philosophy, if indeed they can come at all. I mean, I can't ever truly know the thought processes of other humans, how can I ever truly know the thought processes of things that cannot even communicate with me on the same level?
It does, amusingly, seem that humans alone have philosophy. Although then again, we're pretty unique among animals in that on a day to day basis, most of us don't have to worry about being eaten or hunting food. I can't recall the last time I was concerned about predators eating me.
But all of this is pointless to the topic at hand.
That's a bit of a misunderstanding of solipsism. And, again, if we are having a discussion we have already dismissed solipsism as a realistic option. To speak about solipsism is to betray a disbelief in it, as it would be somewhat silly to carry out an intelligent discussion with figments of your own imagination.as the the problem of solipsism i think i would be a lot more selfish if that where the case plus i would be running the world. but if nothing exist outside my mind then how could anything exist at all. am i to believe that my brain through who know what created a complex mathematical system which i only halfway understand yet understand more of as i grow older. and where does the idea of time come from! i certainly couldn't have thought that up. but solipsism can't really be defiantly disproved. i doubt it, and it still leaves the question of where did you come from.
But the problem of solipsism is more important than just solipsism itself. Our senses are the ways we experience reality - the ways we experience truth, and they lie to us all the damn time. That's why some philosophers reject empiricism and argue that pure reason alone is the only way for humans to genuinely acquire true knowledge of the universe. That only things which can be known a priori - through logic and logic alone - can be said to be 'known'. But, again, that's a question of epistemology, not of metaphysics. You're asking what exists, and that's a question of metaphysics.
And the answer is simple: something(s) exist(s). The question is too broad to answer beyond that. Clearly reality exists, unless you want to go the solipsist route. If you want to discuss anything beyond that, you're going to need to be more specific. If you want to keep talking metaphysics, you'll need to bring up examples of what we're talking about beyond simply 'the universe' and be more specific. If you're talking about epistemology, then that's a different questio and the question there is 'how do we know what we think we know?"
And regarding people who say that 'our theories can change' that's an issue of epistemology. Whether or not something exists/is true has nothing to do with our ability to recognize it. Imagine there is a a locked drawer on a desk, and unknown to you, I have placed a teapot inside of it. You do not have the key to the desk, and the keyhole is too small, and the inside too dark, to peer into. You have no way of knowing whether there is something inside the drawer or if it is empty. Does your ignorance of the teapot somehow cause the teapot to fail to exist? Of course not. The truth of the existence of the teapot within the drawer has absolutely nothing at all to do with your ability to detect or understand that truth. Words in a book do not vanish from existence when the book is handled by a blind person. Sound-waves do not fail to promulgate when the only observers around are deaf people.
That's the whole point of philosophy - attempting to attain true knowledge of the universe and things within it.
And, as an aside, yes, morals don't exist, and, yes, Hitler's belief that it was okay to murder several million people is as 'true' as my belief that it was not. I did an entire term-paper in a meta-ethics class on the nature of morality as an imagined construct that only makes sense within value systems. It is 100% true that within certain value systems there is nothing morally wrong with raping a woman. It is equally true that within my own system of ethics, it is not. But, again, that's not here nor there.
Do you like big boobs? Dragons? Ninja? Martial arts? Wizards? Then click here and make all your wildest dreams come true!!