Absolute truth

I am wondering if we can agree that there are absolute truths. I want to start the discussion out with the examples I consider to be absolute. If you want to say that they are not absolute, please logically support your conclusions.

Here are the examples of absolute truth that I imagine that we can agree on:

The firemen who entered the twin towers on September 11th either climbed those stairs because they believed it was worthwhile to lose their lives while rescuing others, or else they believed it was worthwhile to lose their lives to make sure that their buddies didn't die alone.

In a similar vein, people will risk their own lives to pull someone from a burning car. This is definitely not survival of the fittest, but some deep recognition that it is the right thing to do.

I can think of many other examples, but it does become repetitive. The theme is always that the life of the person being rescued is worth as much as my own.

I accidentally posted this in the wrong forum. It should be in religion, philosophy, or something similar. Thank you forum moderator for moving it!

[edit on 4-7-2009 by novacs4me]

reply to post by novacs4me

The theme is always that the life of the person being rescued is worth as much as my own.

I suppose, however, sinse there are different views. This opinion of yours is not truth. It is your perception of something. I agree with you and I respect your opinion, but they are not "truths". They are your perception and ones perception translates into theory.

Truth is a tricky word. But most of the time its nothing more than someones opinion, that the majority agree with.

Again, I agree with you and your OP. But they are not truth's, just opinions

[edit on Jul 4th 2009 by TheMythLives]

reply to post by TheMythLives
Thank you for your reply! I guess my question to you would be, is it only an opinion that it is right to sacrifice yourself for a friend or in the line of duty, or is it truly the right thing to do? Does it become simply a personal opinion? If one is faced with a life or death situation, can a person choose simply to walk away, and then live with themselves?

Everything that I have said on this site thus far is an absolute truth. Oh the irony.

reply to post by novacs4me


novac, they can, and they do. Just because you feel that is is noble and right to help someone who is in danger does not mean that everyone else shares your opinion. I know of a gal who was with her mom while her mom was in a medical crisis. The lady interfered with the medical treatment because she was hungry. In her mind she wasn't evil, she just didn't think that her mom's health was all that important.

Remember, the people who history remembers as bad never considered themselves evil. In fact many of them probably considered themselves as noble warriors for a grand cause. It's all a matter of perspective.

I for one do not believe in absolute morality. There is no such thing.

Well, they always said "a triangle can't have more or less than 180 degrees" as an absolute truth. Then some non-Euclidan geometists came along and drew triangles on globes (more than 180 degrees) or tauroid shapes (less than) rather than flat pieces of paper. boom! A paradigmatioc "absolute troof" blown to smithereens.

The only "absolute truth" is that we don't know nothin' about nothin'.

reply to post by novacs4me

If one is faced with a life or death situation, can a person choose simply to walk away, and then live with themselves?

Yes. A person can walk away and live with themselves. I personally couldn't. I would do everything to save lives. But their are many that would simply walk away and say that it is not their problem.

I think it is a personal opinion. I am also senidng you a u2u. So be sure to check your inbox.

reply to post by silent thunder


Oh, you are so getting a star for that one.. *smirk*

Yeah, was it Socrates who said "the only thing I know is that I know nothing?"

No such thing as absolute truth, there are things humans can make to produce the illusion of true, but never the truth. a truth may be something like, time is a dimension, but then again, the description dimension is just man made, there fore not being ture. have fun.

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by novacs4me

 

In her mind she wasn't evil, she just didn't think that her mom's health was all that important.

Remember, the people who history remembers as bad never considered themselves evil. In fact many of them probably considered themselves as noble warriors for a grand cause. It's all a matter of perspective.

Thank you for joining the discussion! I can't help but think that you provide this example, because it disturbed you. And I agree with you, that many things have been done in history that were not considered evil by the person or persons who did them. But is it not possible that they were just rationalizing their behavior, which truly WAS wrong, and not merely wrong in the opinion of the majority?

reply to post by novacs4me


Did it disturb me? Not really. The woman got her treatment and was better. The child was taken in for observation as a possible psych risk. Problem solved.

Like I said, I don't believe in absolutes. There is no absolute right and wrong or good and evil. I have spent a lot of time over the years thinking on this and have never found an act done by humans that could not be explained as equally heroic or monstrous depending on your point of view.

Originally posted by gandhi
No such thing as absolute truth, there are things humans can make to produce the illusion of true, but never the truth. a truth may be something like, time is a dimension, but then again, the description dimension is just man made, there fore not being ture. have fun.

Thank you, too, Gandhi! I've been reading ATS and what I would consider similar sites for a few months now. I find a recurring theme that people of like mind can join together to protect themselves from the great scary unknown that many believe is about to erupt. What I personally (this is definitely in the range of opinion, not truth!) am amazed by is that people who deny that there is something beyond opinion, still believe they can live in a small group in harmony to withstand together what they can't withstand alone. Hasn't history shown that these harmonic groups always fall upon each other in time, because they really don't agree on what is TRUE?

the only absolute truth is that theres no absolute truth.

reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest


LOL.. you know just a few minutes before you posted this, I was talking to my friend about this and he said *exactly* what you said. I just showed it to him and he said, "I hate it when people steal my material! That's F#%ked up!"

Just thought you might get a kick out of that. Great minds and all that. *smirk*

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
the only absolute truth is that theres no absolute truth.

Thanks for your post! I don't mean to pick on you, but you repeat what others are also saying here. Can you folks who agree that there is no absolute truth explain to me what would drive a person to climb the stairs of one of the Twin Towers while everyone coming down was counting the floors, hoping to get out before the dreaded rumble of collapse? Tell me, if you were a firefighter, would you not go up? Would that REALLY be O.K.? Please stick to this scenario in your response, please. Trying to find a more ambiguous situation won't answer my question. Thanks!

reply to post by novacs4me


I cannot tell you what I would do in that scenario. I have never been in that scenario or anything like it. I can only postulate on the motivations of the fire fighters running up those stairs. Each one would have a differant motivation.

Firefighter A may have decided to become a fire fighter because he lost a loved one to a fire as a kid. He never wanted anyone to go through that pain, so he made a career choice. Now in his career, after saving a few lives, he feels that maybe he can actually make a differance, even if his life is at stake. So he dutifully runs up those stairs, hoping to save some lives. It's not like he knew the tower would fall. He was going there to put out a severe fire and save lives

Firefighter B perhaps has a family history of fire fighting. He took on the family business, so to speak. His motivation to run up those stairs is that it is his job, it's what he has trained for, and to do anything else would be cowardly and a dissapointment to his family.

Firefighter C has a wife and two kids to feed. For all he knows this is just a fire. Yeah, sure planes crashed into the building, whatever, he doens't care about that, just doing his job and getting the fire out. Just make it through today and tomorrow is his day off. Just get the fire out and see his wife again.

You see how differant motvations can have the same effect in a particular situation. One was truely selfless, the other was acting on ego, and the final one was just living life one moment at a time and hoping to get back to his wife.

/* The characters in this post are purely fictional and are in no way mean to represent real persons living or dead. */

Hi Novak!
Probably no fireman-spirited people here );-)
But seriously: absolute truths come with transcendental, with religion in most cases, so its not so easy to chatter about them, not even on so noble forum as ATS
Anyway in the moments of real danger its kind of crucial test, so person can see clearer whats really important in Life

Peace

[edit on 4-7-2009 by ZenOnKwalsky]

reply to post by rogerstigers


tell your friend sorry, but he should have made one of those hats that prevent aliens from stealing your thoughts (in reference to a thread from earlier)
if aliens cant steal your thoughts with it, how can i? :p

and to answer the OP, im not sure why they would go up the stairs in the WTC. everyone is motivated by something different. maybe they feel that doing so helped make the world suck a tiny bit less. maybe they had a sense of duty, that it was their job and the risk came with the territory. maybe they didnt even think about the risk to themselves and instead thought "oh my god, there are people trapped in there." and went to save them.

for me i think i would feel the last thing mixed with not being able to sleep at night knowing i let people burn or get crushed to death while i sat by.

reply to post by rogerstigers
I like your three guys, because all of them are doing the RIGHT thing, regardless of their motivation. What you and I don't seem to agree on is whether or not what they did was right. In a world without right or wrong, you could (personally) reasonably expect that if you were sitting injured on the 30th floor no one really would be wrong to leave you there. Relatively speaking, wouldn't it be better for the firefighter to lose his job rather than die trying to save you?

reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
Thank you! I can tell you how I know that what you have said you would do is ABSOLUTELY right. If people get a lump in their throat when they hear that you WOULD go up, regardless of the risks, then it IS right. People know right from wrong. Most would rather pretend they didn't.