Is there objective truth, Jow Forums?

Maybe. That's the best answer you'll get.

No he doesn't.

Attached: Whereshisfuckingears.png (1686x922, 650K)

yeah its always there

new mandela effect, wojak always had ears

reproduction
there is only one true statement could be made about biological creatures that their absolute purpose is to reproduce
everything else is smoke and mirrors

Attached: 1522703880354.png (480x362, 220K)

cursed pic from another timeline

Attached: tired wojak ears2.png (800x900, 69K)

What's with thise ears?

that's an interesting take on it, I guess

Attached: thinking wojak ears.png (710x698, 77K)

ears?

Attached: 1516131290388.png (633x758, 34K)

I've been trying to prove gravity wrong, with not much success

Yes. Traps And OP are always gay

Then what are some absolute truths? Only christcucks believe in absolute truth and they will always cite St. Aquinas' 5 cosmological arguments as proof that a creator exists and then claim that it must be their abrahamic god and therefore god's law is absolute truth.

I think Aquinas makes a good argument to why a creator must exist but nothing he says proves or provides any sort of reasoning to why it must be the Christian god. Therefore, you can't use your god's law as an absolute truth because there is nothing to prove that he's the creator

youtube.com/watch?v=HXsEpa1XjqI

Degeneracy cannot be stopped. Might as well embrace the end and hold on to Christ.

10/10 troll post

this one is less subtle, 4/10

Yes. You are experiencing it right now.

Attached: 13543.jpg (400x315, 30K)

Since words are innately un-truthful, absolute truth can't be described in words. A truth of such nature can only be experienced.

Objective in a Cartesian sense? In a Pragmatist sense? Hypothetico-deductive objectivity? Fin de sicle physics? As above so below? What are you asking?

Attached: 1514750969783.jpg (331x381, 54K)

This is your mind on books

Attached: ....png (1128x1002, 105K)

>Then what are some absolute truths?
Who said absolute truth is something that domesticated primates can grasp?

The only universal truth is that non-sanctioned murder is wrong.
That’s why pro-choice are so big on saying a fetus isn’t life

Scientific laws are subject to revision. The universe is expanding.

this user is onto something

Attached: happy wojak ears.png (645x773, 17K)

STOP PUTTING THAT STUPID OVERSIZED MONKEY EAR ON WOJAK

wtf where did you find that one?

Attached: grinning wojak ears2.png (1128x1002, 122K)

>could there be something to the french asslicking disinfo philosophies?
Post modernists get the bullet too.

So you got nothing, thanks.
Probably the best response out of the three. I was thinking down a similar line of logic as you that perhaps an absolute truth does exist but it can't possibly be explained in language because language is created by human beings who are inherently flawed and an absolute truth must be given by some sort of creator or at least must be infallible

Mathematics are a language.

absolute truth is. all phenomena falls within it. thats like the tired analogy of a fish in water asking where the water is. interesting you bring up christianity interpretation and then argue against it. why did you link absolute truth with something other than what it is? because you only know interpretation. most people have that instinct to rail against a conceptual model that human have built, but the thing is the conceptual can never encompass anything other than itself - this is a pattern in all things. a thought cant think, and feelings cant feel and so on. truth is truth in and of itself. it exists. no need to believe anything.

many interesting answers ITT

great food for thought

Attached: blushing wojak ears.png (645x773, 39K)

to add, see below

It is still a human construction and humans are inherently flawed so how could something inherently flawed describe an infallible truth?

influencer

mathematics is not appicable here because numbers dont exist and we are talking about very fundamental truths.
for example statement - superman is strong is true within given context like 2+2=4 is true
in order to meta absolute truth to exist it must be grounded in reality it cannot be conceptual

Attached: 1507411021469.jpg (852x1041, 150K)

the way i see it, functionality, and tribal survival and nature are close forms of truth.

hmm, interesting

Attached: wojak water ears.png (640x626, 118K)

Humans constructed math? That's news to me, I know we designed things with which we can describe math, but construct it? I don't think so.

Even dogs can count, there is no magic to it, two things are objectively two things, and there's no other way around it, adding a third thing will make three things, that will unfailingly be always truth as well.

You just go from there.

It’s not infallible, though it is non-falsifiable by empirical criteria. I’m simply saying it differs qualitatively from other languages and describes/constructs viewpoints that expand human awareness of real things in a way that is still merely proximate to something outside us.

Now, what is outside of us? A universal consciousness? Things in themselves? What is the problem with a pluralistic attitude toward multiple domains of speculation, getting as close as we can, rather than privileging one epistemic system over another, say, so long as our political, economic, and social structures are bound by a VERY conservative policy on what notions are worthy for inclusion (devil’s advocate)?

Yes the only truth is buy link or stay poor retard

Objectively speaking? Yes. And no.

There are debates about the existence of mathematical objects and the question remains intractable.

If you buy into einstein's theory of relativity, than yes all is subjective.
I however do not, for me there is only one objective truth "That Whitch is" and all subjective perceptions of human beings "My Truth" as scum at courts like to say.

Attached: 1557466397285.gif (400x560, 1.47M)

It's the wrong website, I can tell you that much. You're looking for plebbit. Go back there.

One could use Latour’s actor network theory to argue that mathematical concepts are constructed rather than discovered.

>easrjak

Can't math just be described as a tool which humans have created to describe their perceived reality?

You can say 1+1=2 is true based on empirical criteria but numbers are just a human creation to best describe and make sense of the chaos around us. There is no such thing such as "two" in reality.

General and Special Relativity have no relationship to philosophical relativism.

Yes. One of them being you need to consume energy (food) or you will die.

>Jow Forums
good board, albeit a bit too conservative when it comes to embracing new ideas

Attached: blissful wojak ears.png (645x773, 7K)

>a tool
A language, I’d say.

Nigger

There can only be objective truth if there is an Objective Being that knows everything

checked
And you are right

Attached: awakenimg.jpg (553x700, 139K)

Silicon-based life?

Yes there is objective truth. Only absolute peabrains are relativists. For example, a moral objective truth is that you are in the right to kill someone who is trying to kill you. Typically a relativist will now try to muddy the waters by bringing up all kinds of exceptions, like he's crazy or hungry, but those don't disprove my position instead they just make my answer more complicated; relativists love to engage in masturbatory sophism. There's many objective truths about morality, aesthetics, etc. There's also metaphysical truths but we can't prove those for the most part.
Finally, I will point out that the left, Jews, sjws, etc are relativists, the right are objectivists. There is an eternal struggle between them. If you think you're on the right but a relativist, you're just misguided or haven't fully thought through your position.

Attached: 1557269088727.png (178x186, 39K)

damn... powerful

Attached: pumped wojak ears.png (646x720, 19K)

>peabrain
Dismissed.

retard alert

>You are in the right to kill someone who is trying to kill you.

According to what? Without any kind of belief in a infallible moral arbiter such as a god, morals are simply the opinions of one man versus another.

I believe that a creator exists but I don't know what any objective truths are because you have no way to prove that your religion is correct. Those who pick between buddhism or christianity or what have you have either just believe their religion's particular set of rules because they were born into it or because that religion aligns most closely with their personal views which are fallible and simply their opinion

Explain, Ahmed.

I fucked this up. Kant posited a duality between consciousness and things in themselves. Posthumanists like Graham Harman and Mellasioux strip away that dualism in their metaphysics because it leads to categorical dismissals, demarcation of science from pseudoscience, positivistic totalitarianism, atheism and so on, suggesting that thoughts are objects in the same way Porsches, Potted Plants, and Brenda Ball are, ultimately seeking to get beyond both the dogmas of empiricism, the tyranny of a priori mathematical logic being incontrovertible truth, and the intersubjective construction of social reality by the politics-laden correlationists/holists/pragmatists.

In this case mindstuff describes objects, and these are honored as “real” depending on one’s metaphysical disposition.

It's a priori. Needs no further explanation; morality doesn't have to come from God, god just makes it easier to explain. Maybe to make my case easier I could have said "defend yourself against violence."

Attached: 1554427983939.jpg (250x246, 12K)

only theoretical and I was referring to carbon based life so that is my fault for not clarifying so I guess you sorta win. good job user.

No.
Everything is total complete fabrication or demonstrably false by my theorem, which I contrived with shaky definitions padded over with obfuscating verbose filler.
Please pay me with federal grants and admission fees.

>a priori
isn't that a Kant thing?

Also just because something is presupposed by experience doesn't make it an objective truth.

Sorry but this is fucking retarded.

Math is objectively true.

You can place 1 rock on the ground and that is one. You can place 2 rocks on the ground and that is 2. There is no perception or theories at work here. Math is an absolute truth in our physical universe.

There are theories in where there are different physical laws in other universes in 7th dimension and above. But we are in this universe.

I’m thinking you still win because whatever the basis for life, theoretically speaking, it will still depend upon consumption of energy. Sorry, breatharians of Jow Forums.

so you're saying that relativism is wrong? why?

Attached: wojak back ears.png (640x773, 13K)

the ear isn't following the geometry of the head making it pop out.

Not only is relativism incorrect, but so are you. The entirety of your existence is fallacious, everything around you is myth.

What about a possible difference between numbers and the concepts we use them to describe?

Completely unrelated,
Now Winston how many fingers am I holding up?
When push comes to shove will you say 4 or 5.

There is no such thing as "one" and "two". It it just a construction that is useful in describing our perceived reality.

november the third 2019 is an objective truth.

>moral truths
Such as?

...go on

Attached: wojak palm ears.png (645x773, 15K)

Yes Kant basically created the concept, and it is the opposite of what you say. A priori truths are things that are true even without experience or empirical data. It shouldn't require a philosophical argument to say that a sunset is beautiful or that defending yourself is just.

Attached: precious_treasure.jpg (705x1024, 67K)

With our frail, hurtling to not only close death, but also traceless, complete destruction microscopic bodies, limited comprehension, and a strong social motivation to pass off our ideas as "the truth"... Obviously, whoever says he knows the absolute, universal, total and eternal truth is right

>It shouldn't require a philosophical argument to say that a sunset is beautiful
What is beauty?

>tfw big ears
I don't give a shit anymore but it was a pain when I was a kid.

Yes.universalisms,with vaguery as a central theme. Get used to it, aesop was a prophet and leader

This. There is no such thing as truth or beauty without believing in a creator or the supernatural.

From a purely materialistic mindset everything can be boiled down into just a bunch of molecules whereas a Christian might believe that a sunset is beautiful because it is a shade of divinity he is experiencing

>It shouldn't require a philosophical argument to say that a sunset is beautiful
it should though, wtf. this is an extremely subjective, aesthetic opinion.

>defending yourself is just.
assuming the perceived threat is true of course, but yeah, I agree

Attached: sad wojak ears.png (800x800, 48K)

All events are objective. The way you perceive them is subjective. So in a way yes, and in a way, no.

Math is not "objectively true", it's abstract and can not be either true or false. And as for counting objects... What is your "rock" really? What is, and is not your rock? You can never completely describe it, there are too many factors, the least of which is composition... It all comes down to your "rock" being a gray splotch in your perception, and our senses are VERY far from absolute, universal truths

And describing the composition of the rock accurately doesn’t describe the rock.

Yes, Daoism.