[Guest]

If absolutely

Sure truth is a myth, are you

Absolutely sure?

Is this haiku yes, no, or paradox.

[Guest]

I don't understand the first line, "If absolutely."

When it asks "are you absolutely sure?" is it asking "are you absolutely sure truth is a myth?"

Haiku's are fine, but with something like this it's too restricting, especially considering the presence of a four syllable word.

Sure, absolute truth can be considered a myth, because for all we know we could be living in the Matrix. (Luckily we have Occam's Razor: stick to the simplest solution. It keeps us sane)

On the other hand, just because we don't know the truth, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In that case, absolute truth is a reality (whether we're in the Matrix or not).

Then there's a third way to view it: truth varies on the viewer. One man's trash is another man's treasure kind of thing. Whether or not people like to admit it, most things are relative.

"The only certainty is a reasonable probability."

Problem with asking "is truth a myth?" is that you can answer it however you like, and as long as you defend your answer you won't be wrong (which is why so many people like philosophizing). There's no paradox, it's just yes, no, and maybe all rolled into one.

However, I think I'm missing something big... seeing as how I don't get what you're trying to say with "If absolutely."

[Guest]

In a haiku the are 3 stanzas in the English version; with 5 -7-5 syllables to the lines; so...it would resemble one... but also "this", in it's wording itself could be a paradox because it is absurd but possible.....may I have 2 answers then...LOL

Well...........

[plainglazed]

gonna go with the transitive law of riddling:

if If = absolutely, and absolutely = sure, then if = sure

which confirms my answer that yes, I am absolutely sure of nothing.

[Guest]

I don't understand the first line, "If absolutely."

When it asks "are you absolutely sure?" is it asking "are you absolutely sure truth is a myth?"

Haiku's are fine, but with something like this it's too restricting, especially considering the presence of a four syllable word.

I could reword it this way...

If (you are) absolutely sure (that the concept of)truth is a myth, are you

Absolutely sure?

This seems like a silly play on words, but I find that it is a simple statement to examine my assumptions and my epistemology. I also think that there is an answer and that it is not a paradox. And it IS technically a 5-7-5 haiku... ( although I should not have capped Sure on the second line) hey I never said it was a good haiku!

Be easy on me this is my first post.

[Guest]

I would have to say no. I'm not sure as I know truth is a myth

Also, check my signature. I believe there is the answer as well

[Guest]

Thank you for the clarification! I don't know why I had problem before, the question seems obvious. =/

If you're absolutely sure that _____________ , are you absolutely sure?

The answer is yes. It doesn't matter what the ___________ is, it doesn't even matter if the __________ is contradictory with the action of being absolutely sure. If Steinback's Liza can believe that none of the parts of the Bible are contradictory, and if Orwell's people can doublethink, then human minds are capable of contradictions (be it performed with extreme cleverness born of stubborn belief, or simple stupidity).

If that answer is not satisfactory to your taste buds, then I proffer this:

What does "truth is myth" mean? Does it mean that nothing is true? That in itself is a paradox requiring the amendment: "Nothing besides this statement is true." But even then, the entire world would be filled with paradoxes. "Nothing is true" is a nonsensical statement no matter how you look at it - unless you reword it to "Nothing is always true." Unfortunately, that's even more easy to refute: two and two always make four.

That's the problem with slogans and brief sayings: they take a good idea and then oversimplify.

What is really meant by "nothing is true" is "the truth is relative in that the world's rules, or at least human's rules, change in changing situations." Hell, people change in different situations. Most people have radically different people all bundled up inside of them (think about how you are to your kids versus your spouse versus your friends versus your enemies).

Two and two always make four, unless of course you define two and four to mean other things. What does that indicate? The truth holds true whenever it makes sense to hold it. The statement "truth is relative" can make sense... but not if you're speaking of basic arithmetic.

So, you can be absolutely sure that "nothing is true," and there is no paradox, because there's no need to hold up the statement to itself.

[Guest]

Great reply DarthNoob! you make thoughtful points.

I can show that the answer is no, however.

The 2+2=4 example always comes up when discussing truth and it should. It cannot be denied. Which is why the man who says he is absolutely sure is correct… he IS absolutely sure about many things, that is the world we live in, the air we breathe, solid things like stoplights and ovens that this man reacts to in a way that says this thing is true therefore: foot on brake, oven mit (whether he confirms or denies his knowledge is irrelevant… this is key) He says 2+2=. 2+2 is absolutely. It is true that 2+2 is the same as such and such. Admitting it equals something puts him in a category of believers in truth.

So we can know he believes truth is not a myth when he says the word absolutely, so the answer would have to be no, he cannot be absolutely sure of himself on this one point (truth being a myth).

Edited August 4, 2009 by Chewbacca

[Guest]

I think I'm gonna haveta disagree with ya on this one

The way you phrased the question in your prior post, it is like this:

Given: you, Person A, are absolutely sure of fact A

Then: are you, person A, absolutely sure of fact A?

Fact A: truth is myth

The answer cannot be no, because that results in a paradox. However, the answer yes does not result in a paradox, though it may seem to. I offered two explanations in my last post.

Do expand on my second explanation, to refute your last post: things are not true in and of themselves. They're either true because we define them to be true in certain situations, or because through trial and error they have shown themselves to be true in nature. In the first case, 2+2 does not have to equal 2+2 if we just change the definition of the equal sign. In the second case, there's always the slightest chance that everything that occurs naturally (be it gravity or the car stopping when you push the brake) could be explained by something else (again, I say the Matrix) but it would be to unlikely to accept (Occam's Razor).

You make the assumption that everybody believes that there are some solid, concrete truths. Person A does not.

Furthermore, if Fact A had instead said "no truths work" or "all truths are nonsensical" or "all truths are false," then there would have been no answer and the question would be a paradox (unless you go back to my first explanation, in which people can believe things that are nonsensical - and in that case, the answer is still yes).

[Guest]

Darth I think that this statement is true: We are at an impasse because we disagree on whether things are true outside of some human measurement or definition.

I concede one point: you are in a basic sense correct in your sterile "person A, Fact A" analysis.

However, I do not think that we live this way. Let me show you my thoughts on this: A red light COULD mean I just won the lottery, idiotic but possible. But when I slam the brakes and curse I cannot then say I thought I was going to win the lottery. I just showed what I truly believe and it is different than the very words of my mouth. So yes, a man can say red light = win lottery.

And yes, he CAN absolutely believe it. (there is the concession)

But when he puts on the brakes, we know he is full of crap and DOES NOT believe any such thing. No matter what his lips say. What if I verbally say to you (in English) I am absolutely sure that I have not, cannot, and never will speak English. I have simply lied. Likewise to use a truth standard (such as being absolutely sure of something) to deny truth is simply an obvious lie.

Yes, you are right, it is possible to believe nonsensical things, but in the real world the SENSICAL thing is to call that person a liar and assume they know they are full of it.

But like I said, for me (my truth if you will, just kidding) this Haiku is a mental exercise to ponder the concept of truth. I apologize if it is a lame riddle that is lacking the flashing lights and bells that go off when the answer is understood. Hey like I said its my first post.

Here is a Haiku that I do not think is quite as lame as this post.

Words without meaning,

uttered to strangers, I heard

from my cubicle.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Chewbacca

[hugemonkey]

maybe

Makes me think of that old Discordian saying: All things are true, even false things.

Then again lots of things make me think of that.

[Guest]

I vote for

no.

Though I would like to add: IMO

1. Absolute truth exists independant from any observer or agent. AND

2. Surity that some idea, concept, premise, etc. is truth is possible to obtain.

[Guest]

You conceded my sterile analysis, so I'm happy with that. ^^

Though I gotta say una mas cosa...

Maybe the red light doesn't give you the lottery just because you haven't taken the red pill yet. =D

(but again, the question as stated doesn't even deal with whether truth exists, just the belief in truth)

Btw, this reminded me of a logic puzzle I made a little while back (the only math/logic puzzle I've made so far), Million Dollar Alphabet, which deals with true/false possibilities (kind of)