Religious belief drops

Would that yellow pepper be absolute truth or relative truth (self-truth)?


For example, the light wave reflecting from the yellow pepper into a specific person's eye.

In other words, what color is the pepper really?


Is light always available?

Quote: DoubleGold

Would that yellow pepper be absolute truth or relative truth (self-truth)?


For example, the light wave reflecting from the yellow pepper into a specific person's eye.

In other words, what color is the pepper really?


Is light always available?

There is an object that, in the right light, is commonly known as a yellow pepper. As long as we both accept the fact that, under certain conditions, this thing is called a yellow pepper---it is knowledge.

Quote: Mission146

There is an object that, in the right light, is commonly known as a yellow pepper. As long as we both accept the fact that, under certain conditions, this thing is called a yellow pepper---it is knowledge.

So it would be relative truth (self-truth).

Relative to self.

Because the pepper has no color.

It's the light wave reflecting into the eye.

Quote: DoubleGold

So it would be relative truth (self-truth).

Relative to self.

Because the pepper has no color.

It's the light wave reflecting into the eye.

Sure, you can have it if you don't use colors as an identifier.

Quote: Mission146

Sure, you can have it if you don't use colors as an identifier.

The absolute truth is the pepper has no color.

Being inside a human body contributes to the illusion (self-deception).

Quote: DoubleGold

The absolute truth is the pepper has no color.

Being inside a human body contributes to the illusion (self-deception).

I've also taken Philosophy 101. Strip it down to nothing and rebuild; find that which is useful along the way. Our conveyances of knowledge, truth, opinion, anything---come down to shared language. It doesn't even have to be formal, or even spoken, language. I could go, "AAAAGGGHHHH!!!!," and point behind you, of course, that probably won't have the desired effect. The desired effect, I think, would be to get you to haul @$$, but you'd probably look behind you to gauge the threat for yourself.

The point is that an agreement on terms is what makes communication possible. To that end, if we're going to talk about knowledge at all, we have to, more-or-less, have some similarities in how we would use the term.

In the case of the pepper, the, 'Absolute truth,' would still be a matter of perception and language. We both perceive this object that, in the right circumstances, we might call a yellow pepper. What if the metaphysical, 'Absolute truth,' does not exist? What if there is no pepper? No object? No we?

None of that would matter. What matters is that we both, in that moment, perceive the same thing and agree upon what it is called. The pepper's absolute color, or possibility that the pepper does not exist, is not useful.

The pepper can have no color. I don't have a dog in the fight. What matters is my referring to a, 'Yellow pepper,' conjures up an image, for most English speakers, of what I am eating, because we agree on language.

And, maybe there is no object. You're taking the existence of the object that I have called a yellow pepper for granted, because I have said it, and you perceive I have no reason to lie. Only I know whether or not an object that we might call that ever existed in the context of my saying so.

Which is why an agreement on language is the most important. We share an understanding of the object being referred to; in this specific instance, it doesn't actually matter whether there was an object or not.

Quote: Mission146

I've also taken Philosophy 101. Strip it down to nothing and rebuild; find that which is useful along the way. Our conveyances of knowledge, truth, opinion, anything---come down to shared language. It doesn't even have to be formal, or even spoken, language. I could go, "AAAAGGGHHHH!!!!," and point behind you, of course, that probably won't have the desired effect. The desired effect, I think, would be to get you to haul @$$, but you'd probably look behind you to gauge the threat for yourself.

The point is that an agreement on terms is what makes communication possible. To that end, if we're going to talk about knowledge at all, we have to, more-or-less, have some similarities in how we would use the term.

In the case of the pepper, the, 'Absolute truth,' would still be a matter of perception and language. We both perceive this object that, in the right circumstances, we might call a yellow pepper. What if the metaphysical, 'Absolute truth,' does not exist? What if there is no pepper? No object? No we?

None of that would matter. What matters is that we both, in that moment, perceive the same thing and agree upon what it is called. The pepper's absolute color, or possibility that the pepper does not exist, is not useful.

The pepper can have no color. I don't have a dog in the fight. What matters is my referring to a, 'Yellow pepper,' conjures up an image, for most English speakers, of what I am eating, because we agree on language.

And, maybe there is no object. You're taking the existence of the object that I have called a yellow pepper for granted, because I have said it, and you perceive I have no reason to lie. Only I know whether or not an object that we might call that ever existed in the context of my saying so.

Which is why an agreement on language is the most important. We share an understanding of the object being referred to; in this specific instance, it doesn't actually matter whether there was an object or not.

So if I claimed there is no God.

Would that be absolute truth or relative truth (self-truth)?

"What if there is no pepper?"


It can be scientifically proven.

We "know" there is a pepper.





"In the case of the pepper, the, 'Absolute truth,' would still be a matter of perception and language."


Another phrase for absolute truth is absolute reality.

It implies being real (not imagination nor illusion).





"in this specific instance, it doesn't actually matter whether there was an object or not."


Then we could not scientifically prove it.

Quote: DoubleGold

The absolute truth is the pepper has no color.

Being inside a human body contributes to the illusion (self-deception).

The truth is that the pepper reflects sunlight at a set wavelength. Different receptors might interpret that frequency in different ways.

Quote: kenarman

The truth is that the pepper reflects sunlight at a set wavelength. Different receptors might interpret that frequency in different ways.

Like a difference species of animal or a color-blind person, etc.




Most of the time, we don't "know" what the absolute truth is.

But it is possible to "know" the absolute truth.



We almost always "know" what the relative truth (self-truth) is.

The difference of the two, if any, is self-deception.



One cause of self-deception is being bound inside a human body.

In that case, we can share the same self-deception.



Another cause of self-deception can be obstructions within our conscience.

In that case, all of us can have a different relative truth (self-truth) compared to each other.



Because absolute truth never changes.