4 ms·

"but absolute truth shall ever elude humans in this complex world." Why? Do you think a grand unified field theory is impossible? Do you think that quantum me

"but absolute truth shall ever elude humans in this complex world." Why? Do you think a grand unified field theory is impossible? Do you think that quantum mechanics is the final word in physics? Do you suppose that that truth is knowable to some hypothetical race of aliens? (You specifically say that humans can't attain any absolute truth.) Or do you simply think that some truths are unknowable, such as distant historical events? Do you hold any superstitions (religious or otherwise)? (You probably don't, but it helps to cover all the bases.)

radu_floricica 18y ago
Because the world is complicated :) Thankfully. And by the time we get to understand significantly more then we do (not even close to everything) we won't be humans anymore. And this whole point will probably be obsolete.
- maxharris 18y ago
  Sure, the world is complicated. But how does that make an "absolutist" moral system impossible? I think that with regard to morality (as it applies to humans, on earth), absolute truths and rules are not only possible to know (and make), but necessary. Without this, human actions are no longer guided by reason, and that is a very bad situation.
  - jacoblyles 18y ago
    Discuss morality with intelligent people, and study evolutionary psychology, and it will not take you long to realize that every moral system has some edge cases where obeying it will lead to stomach-turning results. Our moral intuitions are lumpy, inconsistent, and contradictory. This is to be expected because we were designed by blind evolution, and not by any sort of logical process. Ethical systems serve as great guidelines, but it is impossible to find one simple set of consistent ideas to capture everything that an average person feels is right. It is even more impossible (for a non-theist) to find some sort of objective measure of value by which to determine morality. >"Without this, human actions are no longer guided by reason, and that is a very bad situation." Human actions are guided by reason, but never solely by reason. We have a lot of innate biases left over from our 3 billion year evolution. I think you would enjoy this blog: http://www.overcomingbias.com/ http://www.overcomingbias.com/
    - maxharris 18y ago
      What about Objectivism leads to "stomach-turning results"? (Remember, I don't think we shouldn't worry about what the "average person feels is right"; we should worry about what is actually right.)
      - jacoblyles 18y ago
        Talk to more people that disagree with you, I'm sure you can find someone that can present you with an objectivist-flavored ethical dilemma. Also, you should examine your axioms. There are many self-consistent moral systems starting with different axioms that produce different results. None of these systems is better than the others. Rather, each of these axioms represent something that humans value. They produce contradictory results, but this is not unexpected for reasons previously stated. For what it's worth, I bought pretty much everything Rand ever wrote and quite a few things by Peikoff. I used to hand out copies of Anthem to friends. It was ideas such as I stated above that lead me away from objectivism. Roughly, I have a different idea of what kind of a beast a human is, and what kind of structure morality is. Also, I think what the average person feels is right is very pertinent to the discussion of ethics. Attempts to find an objective standard of moral value beyond what humans actually value are usually flimsy and involve a lot of purposeful ignoring of flaws.
        maxharris 18y ago
        "None of these systems is better than the others." Not if your standard of value is your life, lived as well and for as long as possible. I have not yet come across an ethical dilemma that would trouble an Objectivist that really knew and understood the philosophy. I can't count the number of times I've heard questions about whether or not you should try to rescue people drowning in a river during your trip to visit your dying parent(s) in the hospital, should you come across them. If that's the kind of thing that's dissuaded you from Objectivism, you didn't have a very good command of it in the first place. What the average person feels is right is just a grab bag of altruistic junk handed down to them over the millenia. It's not necessarily true, and it's only important to understand because it's an obstacle to the betterment of man.
jacoblyles 18y ago
Physics is the crown jewel of human knowledge. But even there, the theories of Physics are mere approximations to the actual phenomena that occur in the world. If you are familiar with Physics, then you know how almost-correct theories have been discarded for even more almost-correct theories throughout history. If our knowledge of as objective a field as Physics is so uncertain, then it makes sense that the state of knowledge in a much more nuanced field like Ethics is near hopeless. I suspect aliens would run into the same problems as we do, even if they were much smarter than us. I suspect perfect knowledge is unattainable. Lastly, >"Do you hold any superstitions (religious or otherwise)? (You probably don't, but it helps to cover all the bases.)" I don't think the religious would appreciate your reference to their beliefs as "superstition". And no, I am not religious. However, I don't appreciate your last parenthetical, which implies that I would be offended if you assumed that I was religious. Just yesterday I discovered among Donald Knuth's publications an illustrated book of Bible versus. I have thick enough skin to be lumped among simpletons like Donald Knuth.
- murrayh 18y ago
  Our knowledge of physics is uncertain, but it is not inaccurate. Perhaps absolute truth is unattainable, but we can achieve enough truth that it becomes practically equivalent to absolute truth. I haven't read any of Rand's arguments, so it is difficult for me to understand the context, but dismissing an argument on the basis of absolute truth not existing seems a little too convenient.
unalone 18y ago
Truth is unknowable because it is so vast. To comprehend even a single human in their entirety would take more than an entire life of somebody externally. The closest we can come is an approximation - and Objectivism hits a lot of the right chords, and as such it's a great starting point for people. However, assuming it's perfect only works if you ignore the flaws.
mseebach 18y ago
As I understand it, "absolute truth" refers to when all actors in all interactions know and understand everything relevant to their interactions - and that will obtain the theoretical optimal equilibrium. Problem is, to know everything relevant, you must know everything - otherwise, how do you know that what you don't know isn't relevant? Since this is obviously not possible, you strive for the best approximation. Sovjet-style communism attempted to set up a political system to handle all this knowledge, and failed miserably. Free market capitalism, with free price formation and supply and demand seems to be an orders-of-magnitude better approximation.
liminalist 18y ago
Ever heard of the continuum hypothesis? Know anything about set theory? Etc. There are plenty of things that logically are either true or false, but logically cannot be proved either way by mere mortals.

radu_floricica 18y ago

Because the world is complicated :) Thankfully. And by the time we get to understand significantly more then we do (not even close to everything) we won't be humans anymore. And this whole point will probably be obsolete.

maxharris 18y ago
Sure, the world is complicated. But how does that make an "absolutist" moral system impossible? I think that with regard to morality (as it applies to humans, on earth), absolute truths and rules are not only possible to know (and make), but necessary. Without this, human actions are no longer guided by reason, and that is a very bad situation.
- jacoblyles 18y ago
  Discuss morality with intelligent people, and study evolutionary psychology, and it will not take you long to realize that every moral system has some edge cases where obeying it will lead to stomach-turning results. Our moral intuitions are lumpy, inconsistent, and contradictory. This is to be expected because we were designed by blind evolution, and not by any sort of logical process. Ethical systems serve as great guidelines, but it is impossible to find one simple set of consistent ideas to capture everything that an average person feels is right. It is even more impossible (for a non-theist) to find some sort of objective measure of value by which to determine morality. >"Without this, human actions are no longer guided by reason, and that is a very bad situation." Human actions are guided by reason, but never solely by reason. We have a lot of innate biases left over from our 3 billion year evolution. I think you would enjoy this blog: http://www.overcomingbias.com/ http://www.overcomingbias.com/
  - maxharris 18y ago
    What about Objectivism leads to "stomach-turning results"? (Remember, I don't think we shouldn't worry about what the "average person feels is right"; we should worry about what is actually right.)
    - jacoblyles 18y ago
      Talk to more people that disagree with you, I'm sure you can find someone that can present you with an objectivist-flavored ethical dilemma. Also, you should examine your axioms. There are many self-consistent moral systems starting with different axioms that produce different results. None of these systems is better than the others. Rather, each of these axioms represent something that humans value. They produce contradictory results, but this is not unexpected for reasons previously stated. For what it's worth, I bought pretty much everything Rand ever wrote and quite a few things by Peikoff. I used to hand out copies of Anthem to friends. It was ideas such as I stated above that lead me away from objectivism. Roughly, I have a different idea of what kind of a beast a human is, and what kind of structure morality is. Also, I think what the average person feels is right is very pertinent to the discussion of ethics. Attempts to find an objective standard of moral value beyond what humans actually value are usually flimsy and involve a lot of purposeful ignoring of flaws.
      - maxharris 18y ago
        "None of these systems is better than the others." Not if your standard of value is your life, lived as well and for as long as possible. I have not yet come across an ethical dilemma that would trouble an Objectivist that really knew and understood the philosophy. I can't count the number of times I've heard questions about whether or not you should try to rescue people drowning in a river during your trip to visit your dying parent(s) in the hospital, should you come across them. If that's the kind of thing that's dissuaded you from Objectivism, you didn't have a very good command of it in the first place. What the average person feels is right is just a grab bag of altruistic junk handed down to them over the millenia. It's not necessarily true, and it's only important to understand because it's an obstacle to the betterment of man.

jacoblyles 18y ago

Physics is the crown jewel of human knowledge. But even there, the theories of Physics are mere approximations to the actual phenomena that occur in the world. If you are familiar with Physics, then you know how almost-correct theories have been discarded for even more almost-correct theories throughout history. If our knowledge of as objective a field as Physics is so uncertain, then it makes sense that the state of knowledge in a much more nuanced field like Ethics is near hopeless. I suspect aliens would run into the same problems as we do, even if they were much smarter than us. I suspect perfect knowledge is unattainable. Lastly, >"Do you hold any superstitions (religious or otherwise)? (You probably don't, but it helps to cover all the bases.)" I don't think the religious would appreciate your reference to their beliefs as "superstition". And no, I am not religious. However, I don't appreciate your last parenthetical, which implies that I would be offended if you assumed that I was religious. Just yesterday I discovered among Donald Knuth's publications an illustrated book of Bible versus. I have thick enough skin to be lumped among simpletons like Donald Knuth.

murrayh 18y ago
Our knowledge of physics is uncertain, but it is not inaccurate. Perhaps absolute truth is unattainable, but we can achieve enough truth that it becomes practically equivalent to absolute truth. I haven't read any of Rand's arguments, so it is difficult for me to understand the context, but dismissing an argument on the basis of absolute truth not existing seems a little too convenient.

unalone 18y ago

Truth is unknowable because it is so vast. To comprehend even a single human in their entirety would take more than an entire life of somebody externally. The closest we can come is an approximation - and Objectivism hits a lot of the right chords, and as such it's a great starting point for people. However, assuming it's perfect only works if you ignore the flaws.

mseebach 18y ago

As I understand it, "absolute truth" refers to when all actors in all interactions know and understand everything relevant to their interactions - and that will obtain the theoretical optimal equilibrium. Problem is, to know everything relevant, you must know everything - otherwise, how do you know that what you don't know isn't relevant? Since this is obviously not possible, you strive for the best approximation. Sovjet-style communism attempted to set up a political system to handle all this knowledge, and failed miserably. Free market capitalism, with free price formation and supply and demand seems to be an orders-of-magnitude better approximation.

liminalist 18y ago

Ever heard of the continuum hypothesis? Know anything about set theory? Etc. There are plenty of things that logically are either true or false, but logically cannot be proved either way by mere mortals.