Truth is either absolute, or it is not absolute. ''Have you heard of GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem?'' * If truth is absolute, then there could possibly be EssentialTruthsThatNeedToBeFaced... * If truth is not absolute, then truth can never be absolute, not even once or sometimes, because absolute is absolute. This leads us to a RecursiveParadoxicalProblem. ''Actually the problem is that you have a FalseDichotomy Fallacy. The paradox arises from the assumption in your first statement, i.e., the assumption that truth must be one or the other, while truth may actually allow for both.'' CircularReasoning is the point of this page. Defining a concept, or creating new words based on linking them together. Isn't this what wiki is all about? When you compound words to create links, you can then talk about the definition of this idea until there is a general consensus. Here, we are defining the word Truth mixed with the idea of needing to face a key something. CircularReasoning is ok here because it clearly proves a point about truth and the word "absolute". The first statement is a true assumption; otherwise the meaning of the word "absolute" breaks down. We would have to change the word to MostlyAbsolute or SometimesAbsolute. ''Nothing has been proved here. An assumption is true only for the person that assumes it. Individual words are neither true nor false; they are at best predicates within a frame.'' "Truth is sometimes absolute" is bad programming because it causes certain InfiniteLoops in the mind. ''Reality has nothing to do with programming. Unless programming is something you happen to focus on. You cannot, for example, program a rose. You can grow it, smell it, breed it, give it, admire it, remember it, dream it ... roses are PsychoActive ... anyway, also ThereIsNoInfinity and UniversalMind groks OpenLoop''''''s just fine thanks.'' These threads are unconsciously terminated in the brains of most (to avoid neurosis). This causes a person to land on one side of the BeliefFence or the other based on their unconscious choice. ''"To avoid neurosis" doesn't follow. The rest is PersonalChoiceElevatedToMoralImperative.'' Is it possible then for belief to create this truth by its act of defining certain WordConcepts? ''Belief doesn't create truth. Truth is an aspect of an agreement.'' ---- Expressed another way, in say... PHP '''setAllThePowersOfGod($this); $this->will_i_face_the_truth = $this->isTruthAbsolute($this); } ''// find out if truth is always true'' '''function''' isTruthAbsolute($truth) { if($truth == ABSOLUTE) { return new EssentialTruthsThatNeedToBeF''''''aced($this); }else{ $this->todaysTruth = $this->isTruthAbsolute(); } } } '''?>''' ''GarbageInGarbageOut. You have assumed a frame, then expressed some pseudo-code representing a procedure within that frame. Choose a different frame, your code does something else. It has no inherent meaning. Unless, you think life is a PHP compiler ...'' Possible InfiniteLoop with the question of AbsoluteTruth... ''How can a truth be a question?'' Maybe ThereIsOnlyOneWayOut--by facing those EssentialTruthsThatNeedToBeFaced. ''I can't help noticing you've inserted GrahamOswaldDumpleton's initials in your pseudo-code. Now I've worked with Graham, and he's both an excellent man and a brilliant software engineer, really encyclopedic especially in C++. But even he makes bugs from time to time, and he's not really the fellow to speak to about PHP I think. So your example seems a little contrived - no?'' ---- Well, the fact is (oops, a fact is an AbsoluteTruth!), all truths are absolute, yet not all truths are true for every, while some truths ''are'' true for everyone. Examples: * Ice cream: Chocolate ice cream is my favorite. That is an AbsoluteTruth. If I say "Chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream in the world!" my proclamation is only true for me. It is false for many other people. * Gravity: all people who step off the top of tall buildings fall to the ground (insofar as we have observed and measured). The effects of gravity upon all in this universe are an AbsoluteTruth that applies to all. ** ''Put your building in orbit. Step off. Observe that truth depends on context. Repeat.'' Now, regarding the title of this page - EssentialTruthsThatNeedToBeFaced - I have not seen any listed here. Maybe we can start: ** Man exists *** ''He does? Can you introduce me to him? Can I shake him by the hand? I think your "Man" is just a distinction you apply to interpret and predict your senses. "Man" exists neither more nor less than does "Unicorn".'' ** Origins matter *** ''To whom? In what way? If this is a truth, it's a completely meaningless one.'' ** People matter *** ''People matter ... more or less than yeast?'' ** What we do in this life matters *** ''Matters to whom? And what is it about all this mattering that matters to you?'' ** ProgrammingMatters *** ''Ah, now I think I see a bit of your thesis. You see programming as an example of reality creation, right? Excellent, Bruce! That's real progress. Now look down the end of your long flabby arms and see whose monkey-like fingers are on the keyboard. Yeah! You're getting it! Now see the finger bones connected to the wrist bone, the wrist bone's connected to the elbone, the ... somewhere along that line you're going to find out that ThouArtGod, dude!'' ** MeaningOfLife: Preparation for eternity *** ''How do you prepare for something that already exists?'' Please add more. * ''Or even one.'' Of course, all the above is false in a godless universe. You can read about this in my article '''Mohammed Atta was no Moral Relativist''' at http://www.lbministry.org/id72.htm. -- BrucePennington * ''Atta was about as far from godless as you are. For your sake I hope he was a little further ... but I guess, to your mind, because he didn't call his god by the same name as you call yours, or share exactly the same interpretation of exactly the same scriptures, he was godless. Continuing your reasoning into the realm of AbsoluteTruth, anyone who disagrees with you on matters of religion is godless, in your book. And since everyone, even the saints who sit beside you in the toppermost pew, must disagree with you in one matter of religion or another ... your reasoning is like the old joke about the guy who finally gets to heaven - and he's the only one there!'' * ''Moreover, although I know you'd like to ignore it, perhaps you can explain to me how Atta's action isn't less heinous than the actions of GeorgeBush and his supporters? I mean, Atta only killed a few thousand innocents for no good reason. Your hero George has killed over 600,000 last I heard, and that's a conservative number.'' (bullshit) ''For no good reason. But your God shines out of his every saintly orifice, right? Bush good, Atta bad ... AbsoluteTruth M.I.A. ... 600,001 I guess.'' Do these truths need to be faced? If a person cares about his/her own wellbeing, or the wellbeing of others, it would be important to face the answers to these questions. ''You haven't asked any questions. You've asserted your usual bunch of NonSequitur''''''s and inserted your obligatory promotion of your blog. That's what you always do, right? But I guess your plan is to avoid this page being moved to TheAdjunct because, hey it has something that looks a little bit like code in it. I wonder how that's going to go over? Well, I dont really wonder very hard ...'' Certainly the majority of humanity goes through life without pondering such things, but we would all be better off if more people considered them. WinstonChurchill said: "Many men stumble across the truth; but most pick themselves up and go on as if nothing happened." -- BrucePennington ''And who was it who said, "Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and fields blue ought to be sterilized"?'' -- Pete ---- Pete, I don't see anything you've posted that looks like an honest effort at a rational disussion - just flaming and insults. You're a smart guy; care to join us in the intent of this page? ''Okay, I'll have a go. Here's some EssentialTruthsThatNeedToBeFaced:'' * ''Nothing is as it seems.'' * ''No one has answers, just opinions.'' * ''The essence of goodness is respecting your neighbours' right to express their opinions.'' * ''People whose opinions disagree with any of these first 3 truths make bad neighbours.'' * ''Bad neighbours can be avoided or ignored, but fighting them makes you a bad neighbour.'' * ''Given the fact that almost all neighbourhoods contain bad neighbours, it's easiest to live quietly.'' ''Is there anything more to face than this?'' Thanks, Pete! I appreciate your heart in these. -- BrucePennington A minor quibble with "The essence of goodness is respecting your neighbors' opinions" - Can we rephrase to say "...respecting your neighbors' '''rights''' to their opinions"? My neighbor may be of the opinion that all blacks should be killed (or Jews, or Asians, etc.). I certainly don't respect that opinion. I do, however, respect his ''right'' to have his own opinions, and even the right to express them. -- BrucePennington ''I don't understand your distinction here, Bruce. Can you sharpen it?'' -- Pete Sure, Pete. It is an important distinction. When we say "People should respect the opinions of others" or "People should respect the religions of all people" or any other variation, I think what folks are trying to say is "Care for others," "Be kind to others," and "Care about people." But that is not what they are saying. What they are saying is "Respect the '''opinions''' of others" or "Respect the '''religions''' of others." So, technically, I could comply with that practice, respecting the '''ideas''' espoused by these various opinions or religions; but not give a whit about the people. What the specific words mean is: be respectful of everyone's opinion, no matter whether it is good or not, or true or not. Imagine yourself a supervisor for a software designing staff. One of your programmers walks up and hands you a program that doesn't work because he designed it with some bad code. You can look him in the eye and say "Jim, you're my best freind, but this code is crap!" You can respect him, without respecting his output. In a similar vein, if my neighbor confesses one day, over the fence while chatting, that he's always hated blacks and wish they were all killed or at least shipped back to Africa; I can look him in the eye and say "Marty, I love you, man, but that is the sickest thing I've ever heard!" I definitely '''don't''' respect his opinion! I respect ''him'' and his ''right'' to have and express his opinions. But, that particular opinion I do not respect at all. ''Thanks Bruce. I agree and have amended my bit above.'' The reason this is critical, is because it is the foundational concept for the All-Religions-Are-True concept and the No-AbsoluteTruth mantra. It is what allowed JohnnyWalker to join the Taliban and arm himself to kill Infidels. It sounds loving, but it really isn't what the speaker probably means. -- BrucePennington ''I don't understand how this follows. Expand?'' We live in the "Post-Modern" era. Modernism promised to solve the world's problems with science. "We have the answers!" cried the scientists. Yet, people globally suffer, wars rage on, malnutrition and disease ravage entire nations. So, the post-moderns have rejected all claims to AbsoluteTruth. Gen-X'ers, Gen-Y'ers, and forward, value relationship and care about people, but are suspicious of anyone who says "I know EssentialTruthsThatNeedToBeFaced." So today's moral code is titled "Tolerance & Inclusiveness." Unable to trust AbsoluteTruth claims, they've crafted a morality that says "I love all people. To love all people I must respect them. To respect them, I must honor and respect everything about them, including their truth-claims. all truth-claims are true." There are two (that I know of) U.N. proclamations declaring the religions of all cultures to be true. Now, since no particular truth-claim is more "true" than the next, the young are encouraged to seek out their own truth. Our newest Congressman from Minnesota that is a Muslim, converted to Islam because "it fit me." JohnnyWalker was ''encouraged'' by his parents to find his own truth, rather than coached by them to seek The Truth. By their actions they showed that they valued his ''opinions'' more than they valued him. Ironically, hardly anything in our universe, or world, or businesses, or our lives operates this way. But, for some reason, we've decided that our afterlife is regulated this way. Like my software design example, above, my boss would be appalled if I said that my new idea for his program is alright for me and should be respected, regardless of whether it worked or not; yet the same guy is expected to pat me on the back and respect my choice of Moleck and child sacrifice, if that's what works for me spiritually. I agree with your point ''"No one has answers, just opinions."'' I bother folks, sometimes,by addressing mine as if they were fact. I have the same problem with Evolutionists that present their opinions as fact. So, I understand. Yet, like the Evolutionist, I think it is possible to have enough information about a subject to discuss it as if it were fact. I think most of us could be better at softening our presentation, though, by making it clear that what we are saying is our opinion. -- BrucePennington ---- To anyone else reading, the person that started this page had a good idea. Any contributions? -- BrucePennington ---- PleaseMoveThisToTheAdjunct