Ultimate texts

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Operacast

......view as coming especially close to ultimate reality, whatever that is.

ultimate reality? I thought there was none.

[mee]

i think everyone would guess what my ultimate text would be .


And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite; DANIEL 2;44


this is the theme of the whole of the bible from GENESIS to REVELATION

[Dream]

Ultimate truth is the sort of thing you just have to stumble across, and then who'll believe you if you do? Who will listen?

[Dream]

Answer: no one!

They will, however, believe any lie under the right circumstances.

[dauer]

Maybe many of them have stumbled upon what they believe to be ultimate truths, believing of the others that their truths are all misguided lies.

Maybe it is possible to find ultimate truth, but then how could you verify it? Why would anyone have reason to believe you? What reason do you have to believe yourself other than the strength of your own faith in what you've stumbled upon? What is stronger, the faith a person holds in an ultimate truth or the truth of the ultimate truth?

[Dream]

You are making me think...since you've posed so many questions it is your fault that my post will be long! So here's a sort of test for ultimate truth made up of your 5 questions.

Perhaps there are some ultimate truths that everyone can agree with -- things that work in any practical context. For example: seeds always produce plants that are similar to the ones that make the seeds. Here is a truth that is instantly verifiable, and requires only a very small faithful assumption -- that the cycle of seed to plant is a repeatable one. This example is right in front of us everyday, and it is a concept that extends to many other things. Taking each one of your statements I can now test the permanence of this truth by the standards in your post:

Q1. Maybe many of them have stumbled upon what they believe to be ultimate truths, believing of the others that their truths are all misguided lies.
A1. Whatever, man. Its a seed, you plant it, and it makes another one. "Seeds produce plants that are similar to their parents" has passed this test, due to its obvious nature.

Q2. Maybe it is possible to find ultimate truth, but then how could you verify it?
A2. Already done in this case. The cycle is before us, so we can easily see that it will continue unless something stops it.

Q3. Why would anyone have reason to believe you?
A3. The reason to believe would actually be counterproductive in this example, since it is so obviously true. At least in this case, a reason to believe is a bad thing.

Q4. What reason do you have to believe yourself other than the strength of your own faith in what you've stumbled upon?
A4. Only that if I can't believe myself then I must have a good reason for it. In which case I should trust my own opinion about any suspect notion.

Q5. What is stronger, the faith a person holds in an ultimate truth or the truth of the ultimate truth?
A5. Here is where the seed and the plant example can be used again within my answer, because they are two things that rely upon one another in turn -- just like a seed and a plant. I will interpret your question as "Is faith the seed and truth the plant, or is truth the seed and faith the plant? Which is the plant?" They are both the same thing, but seen at different stages. The total plant must considered -- seed and the growing plant. Truth needs faith to reproduce, I think -- otherwise its a forgotten truth. Faith needs truth or its not practical. In this way truth-faith must perpetuate itself like a living thing or it dies, so the question actually is not "Is truth or faith stronger?" but "What faith is obviously true?" This is just begging question 4, so its been answered.

If this one example truth (that a seed produces a plant like its parent) is instantly verifiable, then it is a superior truth to any truth that isn't. Hence, it is an ultimate truth. It is a truth that is consistent with itself, because it works in many contexts, supports itself simply by being true, and inspires faith in itself which in turn causes itself to propagate.
Also, since it is found in Genesis chapter 1, perhaps it could be counted as one possible reason to call that an 'Ultimate text' perhaps. Finally, perhaps there are ultimate truths that everyone can agree upon.

[dauer]

,,,

[dauer]

Dream,

Forgot to say in my earlier post, welcome to c-r. I hope you enjoy the forums.


I would suggest that even in the case of a seed leading to a plant similar to the one that made the seed our own human perception cannot be entirely removed from the equation. What we perceive may not be equivalent with what really is. It may be filtered or tinted by our finite nature to such a point that what we see isn't what's actually happening. If you apply a prism to light, you see a whole spectrum of colors rather than the light that went in. I want to suggest that human perception may work in a similar way, bending the ultimate truths to conform with our own limited perception of the world around us, obscuring what's actually going on while creating an interface with the 'what's-going-on' that we can work with.

I think your argument is primarily one of common sense. It's a useful approach but sometimes the passage of time proves that which appears to be common sense incorrect. The example you've given is very concrete and so it's more effective. To link back to the focus of this thread on sacred texts, it is much more difficult if not impossible to prove the divine origins of a sacred text. This is perhaps an issue with all assertions of a metaphysic and certainly in terms of common sense arguments. If common sense ruled that arena we would find ourselves all agreeing much more about the authority or nature of a given text.

In A4 you suggest that if you can't believe yourself then you must have a good reason for it. How do you know? What qualifies as a good reason in this case? If you are the one making the judgement of what is reasonable then how is your judgement anything more than subjective perception? If you can't trust yourself to know what you believe, how can you trust that your reasons to disbelieve yourself are good? Is the individual the greatest authority on ultimate truth? That would contradict your application of common sense which relies upon consensus . This is is still a problem if your reason for doubting yourself is based on the common sense of others. If you cannot trust yourself to know what is common sense in one situation then how can you trust yourself as a judge of common sense at all?


I think in A5 your analogy hinges on the assumption that faith and truth rely on each other. I don't see this as the case. I don't think faith and truth are the same thing at different stages. I would define faith as a belief in something and truth as the way things really are. A person might have faith in something that is also true but that is not necessarily the case. Strong faith may in actuality lead a person further from the truth.

A person can have faith that he will not die when jumping off of a building but this most likely will not come true. I don't think faith is impractical without truth. Maybe you mean that the truth of the faith might be something other than the object of one's faith. For example, it might be true that there is a positive psychological effect to prayer but that doesn't mean that a supplicant is actually petitioning an Other or that the Other exists at all. I think that in terms of faith, one's faith may have pragmatic value that is different from the object of faith. In the same way, one can have faith in an idea of little value -- like the belief about jumping off of a building -- that is still faith. I don't think that an idea having practical value means that the idea is true.

If we are calling, at the very least Genesis chapter 1, an 'ultimate text' based on the fact that some of its material is consistent with our observations about the world then I think that process should also be applied to all texts. If such a consistency shows that a text is more ultimate, then I suggest that an inconsistency shows it is less ultimate. The majority of religious texts contain at least some content that is, in this sense of verifiability and consistency with our general consensus about the nature of reality, not true to the way we tend to agree the world works. I would suggest that, based on your current definition of ultimate texts, the religious texts are less ultimate than many other writings. Catcher in the Rye by that definition is imo more ultimate than the religious texts (not something that I consider accurate.)

I want to ask a question that ties into your previous post. You asked,

"and then who'll believe you if you do? Who will listen?"

In your most recent post you applied logic to the question of ultimate truth, specifically common sense which deals with those concepts we all most readily agree upon. Were you addressing the same issue in both posts? Were you approaching the question of ultimate truth from the same angle in both posts?

[Thomas]

Well for me, of course it would be the New Testament...

within that, the Gospel of John...

within that, the Discourse at the Last Supper ...

As a matter of interest, Origen saw the Gospels as the 'first fruit' of Revelation, and he saw the Gospel of John as the first fruit of the Gospels.

Thomas

[Dream]

Dauer, thanks for the welcome and also for your thoughtful response!

I had thought your previous post was really an echo of what I was saying before, and I was attempting to trump both our posts in some way. As you pointed out, question 4 of your post is the tricky one. Question 5 just needs clarifying.

Answer #4: You challenged A4 when you prodded that we are talking about a consensus of belief. You said "Is the individual the greatest authority on ultimate truth? That would contradict your application of common sense which relies upon consensus." Our entire conversation is about whether you can I can believe that there are truths people will agree upon universally when they hear them. Our very conversation assumes that we are dealing with individuals, and my argument is that a very obvious truth may indeed be embraced by everyone. The unspoken question I have not addressed is 'Interest'. Why a consensus of people would be interested is beyond my ken, since most people aren't interested in the same things that I am.

Question 5: My 'Assumption' that faith and truth rely upon each other actually is only partly an assumption. It has two parts.
Fact-->faith can rely upon truth, which is any solid fact.
Assumption-->the faith of others can be counted upon as a truth.

I will then say that faith can reproduce truth whenever my assumption is true (and it sometimes is).

Finally, the two posts are related. Obvious truths are all about interest. Are people interested, etc? Interest makes a consensus become possible -- otherwise not at all. The question "Who will listen?" is the biggest one. Tying this in to the 'Ultimate truth text' question, the ultimate truth text will be weakened, even if no less true, if no one is interested in it.

[mee]

Heres another verse in the bible that is closely related to Daniel 2;44 and it is ...1 corinthians 15;24-28


Next, the end, when he (JESUS)hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. 26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. 27 For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.




this is untimately what it is all about .

[Dream]

I just went back and looked at my most recent post in this thread, and its very hard to follow the conversation since it is so link-linked to its previous post. I will understand if nobody reads it.

Thomas, how much did Origin write in his lifetime, anyway?

[DrFree]

The whole of creation is God's text. Anything less is a perspective that may mislead man's mortal mind. Pick one part at your peril.

Namiste

[dauer]

Dream,

I don't think our conversation is about whether we can believe that there are truths people will agree upon universally when they hear them. I think beginning there dodges the question of whether or not we can know at all and assumes that there is some importance to agreement by individuals about what is true.

Question 5: My 'Assumption' that faith and truth rely upon each other actually is only partly an assumption. It has two parts.
Fact-->faith can rely upon truth, which is any solid fact.
Assumption-->the faith of others can be counted upon as a truth.

Faith can also rely upon a falsehood that is accepted as truth. I don't understand your assumption as stated. Do you mean to say that everything others have faith on can be counted upon as a truth? If that is the case, what of the many issues that humanity is divided upon? Do the views of the Australian aborigines on the nature of reality challenge the consensus of the rest of the world regarding the nature of time and space?

You're hinging on the argument that faith can reproduce truth when you are right, but when you are wrong faith can reproduce falsehood. I don't think it's a very helpful observation.

In the last statement of your thread it looks like you're placing a much greater level of importance on perception. How does a lack of interest weaken a truth? It may weaken its strength in human consciousness but how does that weaken the truth itself?

I'm going to try to recreate your argument as briefly as possible to make sure I'm reading you correctly.

The faith of others can be relied upon as truth. If something is obvious to enough people then it is true.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Dream

Thomas, how much did Origin write in his lifetime, anyway?

We don't know. We do know that not many writers were as prolific as Origen. St Epiphanius estimated 6,000 scrolls — and maybe 25,000 words per scroll? — covering books, commentaries, homilies, letters, etc. Many critics assume this to be an exageration. St Pamphilus said less than 2,000 'titles' but this list was evidently incomplete.

We can build a picture from references to lost works, and get an idea of the works from the bits that have survived. His commentary on John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word" filled one scroll ...

He was the first heavyweight philosopher-theologian to offer a systematic apologia for Christianity that was more rigorous and philosophically respectable than the mythological speculations of the various Gnostic sects. Origen was an astute critic of gnosticism and pagan religion generally.

Porphyry (student of Plotinus), though an adversary of Christianity, was nevertheless obliged to grudgingly acknowledge Origen as a master of the Greek philosophical tradition.

Philosophically, his reputation rests on two works: On First Principles which was a refutation of gnosticism and Against Celsus, which was a response to the pagan philosopher Celsus' attack on Christianity, which he accused of being without philosophical foundation.

As a theologian he made his reputation (and later lost it) in following his predecessor's (Clement of Alexandria) footsteps in his extensive interpretation of texts according to the 'Four Senses of Scripture' — whilst this is a viable and legitimate exegetical method, it can be taken to excess.

Origen's reputation (along with Ephrem of Syria and Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite) was 'recovered' by the towering mystical and metaphysical intellect of St Maximus the Confessor, who corrected the errors of Origenism whilst bringing out what was profoundly true and original in his thinking.

Thomas