Nam Nguyen wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > > Nam Nguyen wrote: > > > >>Rupert wrote: > > >>>If "absolute truth" means "something that is true regardless of which > >>>semantics you use" then you're right, no absolute truths exist. This is > >>>not a very interesting point. > > >>Right. That's why it seems interesting (to me) that occasionally there > >>are "faithful debates" about what shouldn't be interesting: "absolute" > >>truth! > > > > I think when these debates take place people are usually getting > > interested in absolute truth in a different sense to the sense you're > > talking about. > > Would you be able to give a specific example of another different > sense, in which an *absolute* truth could be defined and be interested > by *more than one person*? >
I'm not sure *exactly* what people have in mind when they're talking about absolute truth. But they're obviously not talking about truth independent of the semantics. I think they mean independent of human minds, human culture, that sort of thing.
> -- > ----------------------------------------------------- > > What we call 'I' is just a swinging door which moves > when we inhale and exhale. > Shunryu Suzuki > ----------------------------------------------------
