Lesson No. 2 - Absolute Truth
I propose that there IS Absolute Truth.
I originally started this post with a more extensive argument for my position but I soon realized that it is not all that difficult a position to defend. So I will defend my statement with 2 arguments; the first will explain fault with the counter-theory and the second will substantiate my own statement.
First, the statement, “There is no such thing as absolute truth.” is itself an absolute statement. If one wants to say that this statement is the only exception to the rule then that one would still in fact subscribe to my position. The relativism that follows this single absolute statement would not in fact be truth, it would be opinion. Opinions may and do vary between individuals. A single individual may even change their own opinion many times.
Second, Webster defines ‘truth’ as (1) the state of being the case (2) the body of real things, events, and facts. Furthermore, Webster defines ‘opinion’ as (1) a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter (2) a belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge (3) a generally held view.
When we use words in conversations or debate we need to be sure that we are using the appropriate definition. If a word is used inappropriately, it shows the user to be either ignorant—which is acceptable given that he/she is open to correction—or it shows them to be Intellectually Dishonest. The user has not displayed a straightforwardness of conduct developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience. Such a person has allowed their emotions and desire to prove a point to override their intellect. To finish the argument, this individual has not maintained adherence to the facts nor given him/herself to intellectually honest study.
I originally started this post with a more extensive argument for my position but I soon realized that it is not all that difficult a position to defend. So I will defend my statement with 2 arguments; the first will explain fault with the counter-theory and the second will substantiate my own statement.
First, the statement, “There is no such thing as absolute truth.” is itself an absolute statement. If one wants to say that this statement is the only exception to the rule then that one would still in fact subscribe to my position. The relativism that follows this single absolute statement would not in fact be truth, it would be opinion. Opinions may and do vary between individuals. A single individual may even change their own opinion many times.
Second, Webster defines ‘truth’ as (1) the state of being the case (2) the body of real things, events, and facts. Furthermore, Webster defines ‘opinion’ as (1) a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter (2) a belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge (3) a generally held view.
When we use words in conversations or debate we need to be sure that we are using the appropriate definition. If a word is used inappropriately, it shows the user to be either ignorant—which is acceptable given that he/she is open to correction—or it shows them to be Intellectually Dishonest. The user has not displayed a straightforwardness of conduct developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience. Such a person has allowed their emotions and desire to prove a point to override their intellect. To finish the argument, this individual has not maintained adherence to the facts nor given him/herself to intellectually honest study.
posted by OS Hopper at Monday, January 02, 2006
3 Comments:
Great stuff. I'm waiting for a post on unethically acquired possessions.
Ravi Z. is a great apologist. He uses research WITH logic to defend/debate some important issues.
Good memories. My youth pastor used to say you can beat a relativist at their own game by posing the statement, “There is no such thing as absolute truth.”
Post a Comment
<< Home