Essential Truths That Need To Be Faced

Truth is either absolute, or it is not absolute. Have you heard of GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem?

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

<?php 

 class Self extends ImageOfGod
 {
   // Constructor: being made in the ImageOfGod, my powers are limited by myself
   function Self()
   {
     $this->setAllThePowersOfGod($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 EssentialTruthsThatNeedToBeFaced($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:

Now, regarding the title of this page - EssentialTruthsThatNeedToBeFaced - I have not seen any listed here. Maybe we can start:

Please add more. 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

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 NonSequiturs 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:

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. <Therefore> 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

EditText of this page (last edited January 12, 2007) or FindPage with title or text search