On 27 Jul 2006 15:42:08 -0700, "Rupert" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >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.
If they mean independent of human minds, human culture, and that sort of thing what do you mean by not independent of the semantics and why obviously so?