David; Fri, 17 May 1996 17:02:40 -0600:
The claim that truth is subjective is
>self-inconsistent. Either that proposition is an objective truth (which
>obviously makes it false) or it is a subjective truth. If it is subjective
>then it implies that someone else can truthfully claim that truth is
>objective, which again makes the original claim false. This seems to imply
>that there is indeed a way that things are: an objective truth.
I'd think this is a Russel (Bertrand) type paradox and does not constitute
a good argument. That is: a statement about sets of subsets that does not
include itself.
It gets a bit complicated and i dont trust my English to make it
understandable, but you can find it explained in Hofstadter; An Eternal...
(It's page 21 of the Swedish edition)
Perhaps it could be resolved by saying that statements about physical
reality can be good approximations: A Cultural Relativist at 20.000 feet
is higher than19.500 and lower than 20.500 feet.
But as to what that means to us, the meaning is indeed in the eye of the
beholder. Cannibal:- Long Pig dinner E.T.A. =3D
approx20.000/approx3/approx9,81=3D
approx 11 minutes, 30 seconds. (did i get that right?)
I think the quest for Absolute Truth should be settled at ultimate truth,
that is, in constant tests against others and induction,the strongest meme
construct at the time.
Of course i make no claim about what conditions are like on TeTa.
A population of one might make things seem a bit less relative.
Also i detect a hint of evolutionary positivism in the extraterrestial
communications. Again a resonable standpoint if one is the evolutionary
endpoint of a whole planet.
Are things really getting better or just different?
Greetings.
Peter =D6kner; okner@arch.kth.se