Honzo, you made this question too hard.

I would say that all true is contextual, discovered and conditioned.

Edgar

Well, since I do find truth to be inherently conditioned (though I would find it very fascinating to see attempts to disprove that, I hope some people here take a shot at it), I guess I'll just skip to the last one.

I don't see why conditioning should negate anything. What really matters in a person's life, what really motivates them and envigors them, is how they percieve the truth of a given situation or principle. The only True truth is that which an individual constructs as part of their conception of the world around them (though, I think such meaning-making is best done in community, but that's obviously not always the case). The fact that the truth was conditioned makes it no less real to the person, and the ultimate actions and subsequent consequences of this truth-construction make it all the more real.

You are right, we all do contextualize what we read or hear. However, there is such a thing the Bible calls regeneration, it is there that God by His Spirit reveals to us that the Bible is God's word and Christ is all He claims to be.

So, I would say that although we bring our own interpretive baggage to everything God by His grace can break through that and reveal to Himself and His salvation to the sinner. God works with people in their contexts, this is why the Bible's authors have different styles.

My hesitation here is that if you really take what you said above seriously it is simply impossible to ever break out of this subjectivity. If that really is the case there is no conversation possible, we shouldn't even be talking about this and you certainly won't understand my points because communication isn't really possible if we just reinterpret everything through our own grids.

Nobody lives like that. People can talk about everything being contextual, but when it comes down to it there will always be a reliance on objective principals (language, logic, ethics, even science) all would fall apart if everything was contextually reinterpreted.

Great question Henry, I need to think more about this.

Bob,

Your point about God working within us - I still see that as a relational/experienced thing.

My hesitation here is that if you really take what you said above seriously it is simply impossible to ever break out of this subjectivity. If that really is the case there is no conversation possible, we shouldn’t even be talking about this and you certainly won’t understand my points because communication isn’t really possible if we just reinterpret everything through our own grids.

I really take what I said above seriously and I don't think it is possible to ever completely break out of our own structures. However, I still think communication can be made, even if we don't see as clearly as we had previously thought. I think that once we realize the above, then we can start to work effectively despite it. How exactly that works - I am not sure, but I am trying to figure that out.

"My hesitation here is that if you really take what you said above seriously it is simply impossible to ever break out of this subjectivity. If that really is the case there is no conversation possible, we shouldn’t even be talking about this and you certainly won’t understand my points because communication isn’t really possible if we just reinterpret everything through our own grids. "

I think the way we overcome this is by FURTHER conversation. The more we interact in a dialectical way, the more we enter into eachother's contexts. The more conversations we have, the more we can understand where the other person is coming from and see what they mean and why they say what they say. When we begin to understand the person and the context behind the words, we can better understand the words together.

Maybe I'm just rambling, but it seems that the the best option is to try and break down the barriers we build around ourselves so that we include everyone in our context.

I like your question alot.
I would appreciate if you would break down your "contextual," and "discovered/condition" stuff. That way I could better understand your question.

My first thoughts would be to try to think about this philosophically. How does a statement like Rene Descartes' "I think therefore I am" play into your question?

Would laws of nature be "truths" outside of contexts? Does the law of gravity applies to any context? Even in outer space this law applies, doesn't it?

My only real issue of concern is to think about the difference between "discovered" and "revealed."

We say the Isaac Newton discovered gravity but that is wrong. Gravity was always in place, it was only revealed to him when he got hit in the head with it.

I would think that most things would be contextual/discovered, but is revelation different? I think so. And what things might be revealed to us? I might suggest laws of nature as one example. Would the "Absolute truths" stuff come into play here? I don't know. I might need more time to think about that.

Either way...I like this question.

I would appreciate others (JR, Honzo) to give me your thoughts on my statements.

I would think to discover something means to create anew (Bill Gates and the internet...or was it Al Gore, I forget). Being revealed to us is more about revelation, (ie law of gravity).

hey Honzo,

Here's some thoughts, I am a little unclear on the issue, but hopefully they connect to the questions you raise. To your second question I would answer no. If a proposition is in fact true than the fact that we learn about it because of a certain experience (or being a part of a certain culture) has no effect on the fact that it is true. It is hard to see how my method of coming to learn a proposition could effect its truth.

What you may be worried about is the possibility that we are not justified in believing something because we learned that it was true only because of our culture's influence. Suppose I think I know p (and I think I have good reasons to believe p) but I also know that 'if I grew up in a different culture I would not have believed p.' Does that give me a good reason to doubt my initial reasons to believe p? I don't think so. The fact that I would not have had these reasons in other contexts does not mean that they are not good reasons. In some contexts I would have lacked my reasons (mainly testimony) for believing the world is round. Unless I have a good reason to believe my culture will cause me to believe p for bad reasons, the fact that my culture causes me to believe p does not undermine my evidence for p.

-Philip

While I am a little mentally wiped from making out latin, greek and french flash cards today, I think I am following you Phillip. At first I read you the complete opposite way (prob because I know you are a philosophy grad student [I think]). What I was wanting bring up and and point out two things: i) all things that we consider truths are not ever known nakedly, that is, our culture and experiences influence each and every thing that we name as a truth; and ii) this is not necessarily a bad thing.

I think that you and I agree, at least on the last part.

Henry,

I don't know if I fully agree with your first thought: "all things that we consider truths are not ever known nakedly."

This is where I asked about my questions earlier; about revelation. Maybe you are trying to be more specific and only talk about discovered truths. I think as a whole (the issue of truth), revelation is different from what you are saying.

Casey,

I did not address your questions, sorry 'bout that. I see your bit about revelation, but counter that while revelation is the divine speaking to us, the process of revelation is experiential. Then the passing on of revelation is contextual/cultural. Also, once the divine communication is in human hands, it is passed on through human channels by humans to humans.

So, the clear and distinct revelation becomes immediately contaminated as soon as it is received or transmitted by humans. I don't think that this contamination is so bad as to render the revelation useless by any means, but it does play a factor - one that needs to be controlled for.

Honzo,

You're right that I'm a philosophy student. The kind of philosophy I do is very non-postmodern. In general, when I hear people say things like "our culture and experiences influence each and every thing that we name as a truth". I am often not quite sure what they are suggesting. They could mean:

(1) Cultural and experiencial factors always affect us and our belief forming mechanisms. As a result, (when that influence is negative) it is more difficult for us to learn about objective reality, but nevertheless, we do have many true beliefs about objective reality.

This strikes me as obviously true. I took you to be advocating something close to this. Is that right?

or they could mean:

(2)Because we can never lift the lenses that culture and experience place over our view of the world, we can never know anything about the world as it is. Thus what we think is true does not actually ever track reality.

This is just skepticism, and although there are some pretty good arguments for it, I think it is false. I don't think the premises of any argument for skepticism will be more plausible than the truth of things like 'I know that 2+2=4' or 'I know that I have hands'. I'm pretty sure that this was not what you were advocating.

or they could mean:

(3) What is actually true always depends on how our culture and experiences have shaped us. There is no truth about how things are independent of what people and cultures believe.

This one seems crazy. How could what we believe directly effect the truth of propositions like 'trees exist'?

Or perhaps they mean something else entirely.

But anyway, I took you to affirming something like (1) and I agree with (1).

-Philip

Honzo,
Feel free to fight me on this...I am usually wrong with deep stuff!

But as I see it, going back to your original question "What is one truth that is not contextual?" My statement is correct pertaining to revelation.

Revelation is not man passing info to others...which at this point it should always be experiential and contextual.

Revelation is about receiving "truth" from God. This is obviously an experience (but isn't EVERYTHING an experience). Experiencing something does not make it PoMo, contextual, or conditioned. Experiencing truth means am a witness.

The journey from this point is contextual and conditioned, but the starting point of receiving revelation from God is not any of this.

I would not assume that we have many things today that are reveal to us through divine revelation. In fact, I believe that God usually does not reveal much these days (he can, but chooses to allow his word and Spirit to guide us).

I think in one of your comments you made mention of scripture (indirectly). I would not think that today scripture would be considered revelation (newly, given to us from God). But perhaps the first (and only the first manuscripts) would be revelation. After that it would be contextualized and conditioned by man.

I would still like to hear a response from someone (especially Honzo) about "Laws of Nature" being truths outside of context and conditions.

Hey Casey,

I think a lot of theists would deny that the laws of nature hold in all contexts because they would say that it is possible for God to violate the laws of nature. Thus there are some contexts where they don't obtain.

However, if a truth being noncontextual means that it is true in all possible situations then there are lots of noncontextual truths. For example, 'There are no triangles with only two sides', and 'there are no married bachelors'. Most theists would add 'God exists'. Of course, how (or if) we learn these truths does depend on the context of our situation.

-Philip

Philip,

I might be wrong here...feel free to help.

You bring up something that is good...but wrong?

Honzo's Q: What is one truth that is not contextual?
My A: Maybe...Laws of Nature

If God chooses to act in a way outside of the norms that he created...does that negate the the Law. I don't think so. I might be wrong (you fellow smart people can correct me--if I am), but God is outside (greater--or Trancedent) of our context. He does not dictate the norms...thus it is true...the laws of nature (science) are truths outside of our own worldview.

Philip...not to be a wheeny...but I really didn't understand what your second paragraph was trying to communicate. What I am talking about with Revelation might be different from what you are talking about. Revelation (special rev) would not be the same as learning geometry or learn about the bible.

In my last couple of post...after rereading...i might have type some heresy without meaning too...ha..oops

casey

"I am not responsible for my own existence." D. A. Carson

David - I don't doubt that - but the question is how do we come to know these things, not if there are any truths independent of culture and experience. I am talking about how we come to know the things that we consider truths. It is my position that everything we know is dependent on the structure we use to examine and interpret the world.

Casey and Phillip - when you talk about the laws of science - all "laws of science" are based on paradigms (see Kuhn), or structures (the term paradigm seems overused and structure means just about the same thing) that frame the questions in an interpretive framework. All data, observations, and laws are theory-laden. There is no bare data, no bare laws that are not dependent on a scientific paradigm.

Honzo,

Help me with my weakminded head.

Number one: Didn't Captain America DIE? So why not picture the hero of the Civil War...Iron Man on your blog/comments?

Anyways.

"All data, observations, and laws are theory-laden. There is no bare data, no bare laws that are not dependent on a scientific paradigm."

Ok. I get what you are saying, but does this really dismiss Laws of Science?

Science (observed science) is drawing conclusions from repeated tests.

I have to draw some conclusions from throwing an apple in the air 1,000,000 times and watching it fall on down. Do you wake up at night frighten and scared because you might float away into outer space?

You might be correct in stating that we can't prove that we have proof of Laws of Science being true, but we still have to draw conclusions based on the evidence shown so far, don't we?

Even so I can't prove that Laws of Science are 100% absolutely true...I can still use them as answer to your original question...I think.

What is one truth that is not contextualized? Laws of Science (gravity).

I think the only way to disprove this is to prove that there are times when the Laws contradict/don't apply in a certain setting.

ps. I don't know if I believe this stuff...I was just trying to think about your question and this was one of the thoughts that I had.

I would still like to hear more about this from you (others)...especially the "revelation" talk.

Casey, Cap is back as of tomorrow and Honzo is still in denial about the whole Civil War thing.

This is an interesting thread and I am really enjoying these questions and wrapping my head around PoMo thought.

Correction: the quote at # davidon 24 Jan 2008 at 9:02 pm is from E. J Carnell.


I tend to believe that three truths are innate:

The law of noncontradiction;

The law of cause and effect; and,

The law of the basic reliablility of sensory perception.

I think of a crawling baby and a hot stove.