The Shortcoming Of Absolutes

Each thought must carry with it only one of many perspectives. As such, a single perspective by its very nature implies limitation. Which means any given perspective and its associated thoughts can not be absolutely true. 

For example, one might suggest the absolute truth of the sun "rising and setting" every day. But this statement is not absolutely true. Surely an observer on a planet three million star systems away would not agree, let alone an observer merely three star systems away. It is relatively true based on the perspective of one who happens to reside on an arbitrarily named planet known as “Earth” in an arbitrarily named galaxy known as “The Milky Way”. Certainly our truth of the sun "rising and setting" every day is not false, but then neither is it absolutely true. Any other interplanetary observers might experience a daily "rising and setting" of a nearby star but certainly not our star.

I thoughtfully quoted "rising and setting" to make a most important distinction. This expression is merely metaphoric as the sun neither rises nor sets in a literal and hence absolute manner. It is but an illusion created by the Earth's rotation.

Yet another distinction to point out is that technically even this metaphoric "rising and setting" every day is problematic. What about observers on the Earth’s poles during the height of their summer and winter months? Their sun either "stays" risen or "stays" set, this of course being the same sun all of us more tropical types observe. At this point, even the absolute truth of the metaphor is lost.

Another critical distinction to make is that there is nothing absolutely true or real about a day. It is just a relative construct. Presumably, no other planet rotates around itself in the same amount of time. Additionally, the earth's rotational speed is slowing down which means the amount of time it takes to rotate around itself is NOT absolute! It's actually increasing every day! Imperceptibly, to us at least.

In summary, our perception of the sun "rising and setting" every day (this itself a metaphor which cannot hold absolutely true even for Earth's inhabitants) is certainly not false but then neither is it absolutely true. Such is the case with most claims of “absolute” truth.

I will admit, it seems absurd to see things as absolute. Then again, it seems equally absurd to see things as relative. There seems to be an irreconcilable paradox with the absolute/relative dichotomy*.

Many will be annoyed by my "nitpicking" of details. Most overlook or discount them out of the mistaken belief that they are frivolous. However, they are absolutely (a self-professed contradiction, but only for effect) pertinent to any reasonable argument. Any conclusion based on the false notion that variables are necessarily absolute misleads people into believing they can account for all truth with their individual perspectives.

I will end with one of my favorite Kurtisms: do not overlook the profound wisdom of scrutinizing trivial things as this becomes a stepping stone to critically evaluating far bigger things.


*see link that follows for clarification

http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2009/08/duality-of-relativismabsolutism.html

The Relativity Of "Absolute" Truth

It's funny how people interpret things in contradictory fashions. For instance, in this new age of greater tolerance, non-denominational churches typically gain members at the others' expense. The proponents of non-denominational churches then go on to claim that God is blessing churches that address the importance of being “relevant” to today's more tolerant and pluralistic society. 

What will the dwindling sects claim? That Jesus said the path of truth is very narrow and the general masses turning away from this “narrow path of truth” is incontrovertible evidence that theirs is the one and only “true” path.

Notice how each justifies whatever is in a very ad hoc manner. This is why I say “absolute” truth is simply a concoction of the ego. Alas, this nicely explains why there are so many opposing claims of “absolute” truth.

What's Your Favorite Color?

There is a story based on ancient Greek thought concerning a professor who teaches a young boy law without charging tuition. It is only stipulated that fees be collected upon the boy's first successful case. However, after countless hours of being taught law, the boy decides to become a musician instead, much to the chagrin of his professor.

Wanting to collect fees from the boy, the professor figures he can sue the boy and win whether the court rules in his favor or not. His reasoning is thus: if he wins, the court rules the boy must pay tuition fees but even if he loses, the boy wins his first case, which, as per the agreement, would entitle the boy to pay up. The boy, who represents himself in the matter, sees things in a slightly different light. If he loses, obviously nothing is owed the professor because he fails to win his first case. But even if he wins his first case, the court rules in his favor meaning he owes nothing to the professor. So who is right?

Both are right. Each argument is logically sound. This paradox has puzzled many a philosopher for centuries without resolution. It is impossible to resolve this with any sort of “absolute” solution. Ultimately, whichever “right” answer is chosen is as subjective as one's favorite color. Neither answer is the moral imperative. This is how I see much of reality. I think this paradox illustrates why accepting alternative viewpoints is so beneficial for society. We need to stop claiming there is necessarily a good/bad or right/wrong dichotomy to everything just as a means to feel more right(eous). I used to discredit the idea that what is right for one is not necessarily right for another as liberal nonsense but in light of the aforementioned argument I now deem this mantra valid.

An example of this argument might concern God and fairness. What is fairness concerning financial matters? Many “conservative” people believe God's fairness concerning financial prosperity is based on the idea that one should reap what he sows. People that are smart and productive will thrive whereas those that are not will struggle. Where then is the grace (as in a man should not reap what he sows)?

On the other hand, the more “liberal” types tend to believe God's fairness concerning prosperity is based on the idea that one should not reap what he sows. Prosperity should in this case be distributed more evenly than will naturally occur thus necessitating higher income redistribution. Take wealth from productive people and give it to those, God bless 'em, that just don't want to produce or are very poor at it. There is of course grace here but where is the personal responsibility (as in a man should reap what he sows)?

Before progressing further, I want to say it is my belief that both of these viewpoints are valid or invalid if you like. In other words, neither is a moral imperative in itself. They are different ways of dealing with the fact that reality as we experience it is a trade-off.

Many staunch conservatives will claim liberals use income redistribution as a means to buy votes. And this certainly is true. But can not the liberal perspective claim the same thing concerning conservative dogma? “If you vote for me, I will create income tax sanctuaries for your hard earned dollars!” It is the same method of “buying” votes that liberals use so effectively.

It is so hard for one side to see the other as being in any way valid because each so badly wants to be “absolutely” right. The challenge in dealing with this conservative/liberal dichotomy is that we ultimately must reach a compromise because there is little chance either extreme would or could ever happen.

And herein lies the dilemma. What is the “proper” level of moderation concerning, for instance, taxes and income redistribution? It's just like picking a favorite color! We will be arguing about this for the rest of time to no avail! How about trading democracy for a dictatorship?

Though many will likely cringe at the thought of a dictatorship, who do people think rules Heaven? The Supreme (perhaps benevolent) Dictator a.k.a. GOD. So what could possibly be wrong with a dictatorship? Maybe democracy isn't the optimal form of government after all? So what's your favorite color?

That Foul Smell?

Why does shit stink? I seriously pondered this thought as a believer in a wonderful, magnificent God. How could something so fetid, putrid and vile be reconciled to a perfect and pure God?

Perhaps God reveals abstractions to us through analogy? Possibly, shit's offensive nature is revealed in metaphor. In with the good, out with the bad. As we become more like Jesus, we take on good nature and purge bad nature. This is akin to putting pure things into our bodies and expelling impure things as excrement. 

Conversely, when looked at from an evolutionary point of view, one might ask whether shit is even stinky? How can it not be? It stinks! Well, apparently shit is paradise for dung beetles, flies, bacteria and animals large and small, including our canine companions. It appears shit is only stinky to us. Or maybe it is stinky to all of us but certain bugs, insects, bacteria and animals happen to like stinky things.

Ultimately, the fundamental nature of shit is relative in the following sense: either shit is 1) perceived as being shit to us and a gardenia to “them” or 2) shit is intrinsically stinky but “they” like stinky things.

Technology: Good Or Bad?

Many will likely be critical with my contention that technology is neither good nor bad. For how can it not be good that the lifespan of humans in industrialized societies at least has dramatically increased in just the last century, for example?

It is tempting to judge this as good but ultimately our judgment on any given matter is only ever based on something already known or experienced. For example, if the longest any human lived was known to be only 30 years, we would base our judgment on living approximately 30 years. If one attained this age or beyond, this would of course be deemed good. On the other hand, if the longest any human lived was known to be 200 years, a 30 year lifespan would seem tragically short and deemed bad.

It is enticing for the marginalized to see something “better” and label it good or for the fortunate to see something “worse” and label it bad, but this is only due to disparity. This disparity can be analogous to having something good taken away. Once it is seen what can be, this then becomes the de facto standard and of course there is a desire to attain or maintain this good thing.

But it must be pointed out that this thing is not really good. It is only relatively good. In other words, the thing just is.

I want to further express what I am talking about with what will no doubt be a very emotional topic. Let's suppose that due to medical technology, the infant death rate goes from 1 in 5 to only 1 in 5,000. This is good, is it not? But what if we subsequently came across a civilization that experienced an infant death rate of only 1 in a billion? Is 1 in 5,000 still good? What if your child was one of the 1 in 5,000 that perished?

In this case, statistically it is almost certain your child would have survived if the death rate was only 1 in a billion. As such, might you, or anybody else for that matter, now see this death rate as bad?

One might claim that only 1 in 5,000 is good because it is better than 1 in 5. However, when compared to a death rate of only 1 in a billion, it seems bad. Furthermore, it is tragic when any infant dies but is especially so when it is yours! So whether the death rate is 1 in 5 or only 1 in 5,000 or still more impressive only 1 in a billion, if your child dies, none of these is good. Conversely, if your child survives, none of these is really bad either.

Perhaps we could legitimately declare it good when no babies die. Then again, could infant death simply be nature's equilibrium so as to preserve the lives of the greatest number of babies and more generally, and perhaps more importantly, to preserve Life in general? Of course this principle will no doubt be hard to accept especially if your baby dies.

In any case, might it be suggested that nature seems to obey the principle of utilitarianism even with an incredibly delicate issue such as this?

One could similarly draw an analogy to the idea of promoting longevity as an intrinsic moral good. Should we adopt this imperative?* What if this places such a strain on society that it undermines the health and well-being of everybody?

Would it be better for people to live 1)marginally well for 150 years, 2)moderately well for 100 years or 3)phenomenally well for only 50 years? Once again, are the ravages of old age nature's equilibrium so as to best serve Life in general (the proverbial One)?

In summary, it seems wise to avoid imparting judgments and to just accept what is.


*Would those predisposed to boredom deem a longer lifespan good?

Ego: Friend Or Foe?

Far be it from me to imply ego as intrinsically bad. It is not. However, with the exception of natural disasters and human “mistakes”, bad or “evil” only ever stems from ego.

On the other hand, perhaps we might say many of the greatest feats of humanity are only ever achieved because of ego. In this case, all or much of good stems from ego as well.

It would thus seem ego is neither good nor bad in itself. Rather, it just is. The problem, if you will, is distinguishing “good ego” from “bad ego”. But this discrimination is prohibitively difficult because it requires an absolute definition as to what is good and bad.

Certainly there would be consensus as to a serial killer's acts being “bad ego”. But what about a military leader who is confident and brash through which he achieves victory for his people? He has given them hope and prosperity for the future but has annihilated another country and its people by doing so. Is this “good ego”? I suppose it is if one is on his side.

What about a scientist who finds a cure for a deadly disease only by “cheating” here and there? What about vigilante justice of the JACK BAUER type? GO JACK! What about an athlete that inspires a whole society only because of his mind-boggling feats but is later found out to have doped to achieve all of this? What if a doped up athlete inspires a whole society only because of his ill-gotten abilities but is not found out? Are any of these examples “good ego”?

I suppose it might depend on whether one believes the ends justify the means or perhaps the means justify the ends. But once again, these guidelines themselves are wholly dependent on what is considered good and bad anyway.

In summary, ego will achieve ends considered both good and bad. Likewise, ego will operate under means considered both good and bad. But ego seems neither good nor bad in itself because it only ever has one master: itself. In other words, ego does not exist to better or worsen society. It simply exists to better itself.

Might Truth Be Like Quantum States?

I have found more truth asking questions and introspecting than I ever did trying to find “absolute” truth. Trying to find “absolute” truth is an endeavor destined to fail because it inevitably winds up skewing one's objectivity in one way or perhaps many.

Might the search for truth be a bit like Heisenberg's uncertainty principal? Truth, like quantum states, is very elusive. It is not possible to know with certainty both the velocity and location of a given particle because the mere act of measuring one skews the “truth” of the other. One can know completely either of the two or know a little something of both but he can not know both with certainty.

If velocity is like relativity and location is like absolutism, let's attempt to find “absolute” truth. How would one do this? That's easy! The precise measurement of a particle's location/absolutism will produce an “absolute” truth. But only at enormous cost. For he will now forgo any knowledge as to the velocity/relativity of the particle, thereby making it erroneously appear as though its velocity is zero and hence not relative in the least. In this case, it seems clear that whatever truth is found is absolute and unquestionable.

Trouble is, somebody else can just as easily measure the particle's location/absolutism in exactly the same manner but come up with a contradictory assessment regarding the particle's “absolute” location. The explanation for this disagreement is that the particle actually has a velocity and hence its location is seemingly relative to any given measurer and time. In other words, because the person and the time of the measurement is different and the measured item actually has a velocity, it will not be in the same position as it is for any other measurer.

This will cause disagreement between the two as both are presumably unaware that the particle has a velocity and hence is not in an identical location at any given time. Each measurer then erroneously believes he is in possession of the “absolute” truth as to the particle's whereabouts at all times.

It is my contention that ego tends to creep into any “honest” assessment of truth. Reason being, the ego's ultimate aim is not, perhaps surprisingly, to find truth. Rather, its ultimate aim is to find an “absolutely right” answer, however arbitrary, to inflate its sense of superiority by being absolutely right.

The issue with finding truth always revolves around fundamental assumptions. Why choose one over another? It can only be arbitrary to individual preferences. If one wants to believe the world is ultimately good, he might assume a good God exists Who out of necessity must be uncaused, this itself another blind assumption. On the other hand, one could just as easily believe the world is ultimately not good and assume there is no God or at least no good God. Of course neither view is provable nor disprovable! They are nothing but assumptions!

Another might just as easily see the world as being equally good and bad (of course this being merely relative to somebody's chosen perspective) and conclude the world is neither good nor bad.....it just is. Would this world be atheistic or would it be “ruled” by an indifferent God? Either could be assumed.

Alternatively, one could just as easily measure completely velocity/relativism and conclude that there is/are no truth(s). Might the true search for truth be inspecting ourselves? What outcome might this have on the world? What if everybody were to partake of this endeavor? Could this be the beginning of the end for the ego? What might happen concerning violence and war or perhaps between their far less dramatic yet insidious siblings, argument and conflict over seemingly petty things?

What Is Excess?

Many vociferously claim "Pastor David" shouldn’t live in a $2,000,000 house and own a $100,000 Bentley! Well then, what house or car is acceptable for him to own? A tenement in the slums and a Ford Pinto perhaps? 

Starving kids in Africa won’t likely see the difference between a $2,000,000 mansion and my humble $100,000 abode. To them, these houses are in the same class. Both have a stable roof (I think?), clean running water, heat, air, etc. Yet here, many people resent what they see as “excess”. But what constitutes “excess” is so relative it renders this whole argument frivolous.

This resentment is ultimately grounded in envy. Many will retort something to the effect that they are not jealous of one who has a big house because they don’t even want a big house. Then why would they be so upset that somebody has a big house? Probably because they don’t think anybody should have a big house! This is envy. Again, why do they care if they are not jealous?

One should also question the implication that the pastor should not have a house considered excessive. Are not or at least should not all “followers” of their respective religions essentially be pastors as well? Why should the standard(s) they live by be much different than the standard by which the pastor lives? He or she is just a human being like the rest of us, right?

Again, keep in mind the fact that we don’t even know what “excessive” means. It means a thousand things to a thousand people. The point of my rambling is to expose the sheer absurdity of this argument!

Firmly Planted In Mid-Air

Many will say my open-mindedness leaves me with no absolute moral foundation in which to approach life. Noted theologian and writer Ravi Zacharias cleverly expresses this by saying that those who lack an absolute moral foundation have their feet firmly planted in mid-air. This brilliant cliché is more or less true but is this necessarily a bad place to be?

Without this absolute moral foundation, it is thought, one is forever precluded from knowing the fine line between what is right and what is wrong. This will then systematically lead to what is commonly perceived as perverse and wicked behavior. It can lead to this type of behavior but it can also lead to a very open and understanding person who feels no need to judge and criticize others who do or believe seemingly peculiar things.

Additionally, many require an absolute foundation only because they need to “know” they are right in order to feel fulfilled. This is a form of control motivated by nothing more than ego. I don't need to be in control of “truth”. I can just be who I am without such control.

Perhaps some are suspicious of their own intentions and as such need a firm foundation in “truth” lest their real self might come out and wreak havoc on themselves and worse, others. Furthermore, I presume many have been indoctrinated with the belief that one must have a worldview based on absolutes to have any semblance of peace and fulfillment. This then commonly becomes self-fulfilled prophesy.

Alas, there is a crippling flaw with any sort of "absolute" moral foundation: contradictions inevitably ensue. This is not the fault of the person per se, rather it is the fault of this system of thinking. It doesn't work. Different absolutes are clearly in opposition to one another but are believed wholeheartedly nonetheless. Doublethink as George Orwell so wisely termed this.

In addition, many absolutes are arbitrarily embraced on a preferential basis. At this point, absolutes are merely relatively absolute. Which means they are not absolute. Are they relative? Certainly not, for if they are relative, they could simultaneously be absolute.

I have reflected extensively on the absolute/relative dichotomy and have comfortably concluded it to be an irreconcilable paradox*. On the other hand, not establishing an absolute foundation does not create these contradictions but is of course replete with its own set of problems. Everything pertaining to the morality and well being of societies is a trade-off and therefore nothing can ever be absolute.


*Please see a couple of my writings on a more thorough examination of this paradox:

The Duality Of Relativism/Absolutism

http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2009/08/duality-of-relativismabsolutism.html

The Shortcoming Of Absolutes
http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2009/07/shortcoming-of-absolutes.html