Welcome to Gaia! ::

I don't believe there is such a thing as absolute truth. All truth is relative to a set of axioms or assumptions.

For example, the statement "2 + 3 = 5" is generally accepted as true. However, there are a number of assumptions underlying this statement, notably the meaning of the "+" operator, the meaning of the "=" predicate, the number system in use, etc. If our set of numbers is N_5 ([0..4]), then the statement is non-sensical because the number "5" doesn't exist in this model. However "2 + 3 = 0" is both sensical and true when "+" is the modular addition operator under N_5.

Okay, the details of the math above are not really relevant. The point is to show that truth is relative to context. The reason I used math is that it is an area that is generally recognized for its rigor in determining truth.

Im wary of truth, I have modified what socrates said, "the only thing I know for sure is that I know only one thing." But that is a lie, I know 2 + 3 = 5, I cant stop my self from knowing it... or believing it.

I tried years ago to ken the thought processes on truth. I gave up... maybe I was to young.

I have found #2 to be true.

After looking at dioism (spelling), which basically stats that 1 can not possible exist without 1. And from this you could make the argument that all reality is a paradox so the only absolutes that can exist are paradoxes.

There certainly are alot of interesting opinions in here.
Although I haven't seen the group census option until now.

I was trying to show that 2 + 3 = 5 is not always true. It depends on context. That statement (the equation) is true in the default context where we don't specify the axioms or assumptions. But default context in which we do basic arithmetic in day to day dealings does have axioms, and we need to be aware of that fact. We assume this is the context we work with unless otherwise specified. Here's another little math example that may be more recognizable : 1 + 1 = 10; false in the "default" context, but true in binary.

We make similar assumptions in other areas of reasoning, and left unchecked, we easily make unsound assumptions which lead to flawed, and sometimes non-sensical conclusions.

Here's an example of unstated assumptions. Babies come from sex between men and women. Men having sex with men can't produce babies. Therefore, homo sex is wrong. The unstated assumption : The only reason to have sex is to reproduce. Other conclusions that can be drawn from this assumption : All sex without reproduction is wrong.

Here's another. Ships that go off too far in the ocean never come back. Therefore the Earth is flat. Unstated assumption : The ships fell off the edge of the Earth. (Okay, I'm really not sure what their reasoning was back then, but I'm sure it made sense to them.)

If you're not sure what I was talking about with the math, it's probably for the same reason people used to think the earth was flat : You didn't have any reason to think any other possibility could be true.

I see where you're going, and it's something that did need to be pointed out. With the Mathematics sum though, you could be incredibly specific about the sum, and leave no room for false interpretation. So it really would be a truth, not a exactly a great truth that'll open any new doors, but still a truth.

I don't think it proves the existence of an external world. You can merely be conscious. Consider the variety of experience you can have in imagination - none of this comes directly from the external world, so it is at least possible that consciousness is all there is. You can be conscious of your own conscious existence and the experiential variations within it.

But, in response to teh first post, Descartes' cogito is supposed to be that first truth that enables other truths to be built on it - and it doesn't have to be analysed as a premiss and a conclusion. It can be seen as a whole, self evident truth.