So how long will Ben last this time?

[Kidlicious]

If you don't understand your history you do not understand who you are.

This view seems almost Hegelian. Have you ever heard of Lessing's Ugly Ditch?

The basic idea of the problem is that there can be no "necessary" truths based on "contingent" events. In other words, the ditch is trying to jump from contingent happenings (i.e. historical revelation) to truth that is necessary (i.e., divine revelation). How can one assert the ultimate truth of something that is particular, that happens just at one time and one time only?

http://gewissensbisse.blogspot.com/2...-theology.html

This is the problem with trying to find ultimate truth through history. History doesn't reveal ultimate truth.

[Ben Kenobi]

This view seems almost Hegelian. Have you ever heard of Lessing's Ugly Ditch?

I'm not a Hegelian because I'm an objectivist, in the sense that I believe in absolute truth. My school of history is von Ranke's school, and he argues for an empirical basis for History. Everything we know ought to be based on sources in the past and if we cannot find a source for it, we cannot assert that there's any truth for it.

I also came to the conclusion that the bible is a much more reliable source than every other ancient source that we have due to the number and the date of the manuscripts.

That being said, in a sense you are right. We don't have a time machine. We have to rely on sources, so there is always going to be some uncertainty. But, it's the alternative of Neitzsche, where we reject everything. I'm not prepared to go that far, which is why I'm a Christian.

[Kidlicious]

I'm not a Hegelian because I'm an objectivist, in the sense that I believe in absolute truth. My school of history is von Ranke's school, and he argues for an empirical basis for History. Everything we know ought to be based on sources in the past and if we cannot find a source for it, we cannot assert that there's any truth for it.

I also came to the conclusion that the bible is a much more reliable source than every other ancient source that we have due to the number and the date of the manuscripts.

That being said, in a sense you are right. We don't have a time machine. We have to rely on sources, so there is always going to be some uncertainty. But, it's the alternative of Neitzsche, where we reject everything. I'm not prepared to go that far, which is why I'm a Christian.

Hegel believed in absolute truth, and he took an objective approach to finding it. He did exactly as you do. The problem is that you can't find absolute truth that way. The best you could say is that it's an approximation of the truth. I would still disagree with you though. My belief is that those who look for truth in that way won't find it. They will only find it when they abandon all objective thinking.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hegel believed in absolute truth, and he took an objective approach to finding it.

The dialectic is contrary to absolute truth because it argues that any truth in which we presently apprehend can be improved through progress. Thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

The best you could say is that it's an approximation of the truth. I would still disagree with you though. My belief is that those who look for truth in that way won't find it. They will only find it when they abandon all objective thinking.

Well, the solution would be data recorders on a time machine, but the next best thing are primary sources. As to abandoning all objective thinking, again, Neitzsche is the only alternative. The alternative isn't to discard the principle of objectivity, but rather to throw out everything as false.

[Ben Kenobi]

Also, I have a request, Kidicious, can you take the time to please look up von Ranke?

[Kidlicious]

The dialectic is contrary to absolute truth because it argues that any truth in which we presently apprehend can be improved through progress. Thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

No. You are confusing the current state of progress with his absolute truth. He believed that progress is leading us to the absolute truth. And that's the same way anyone believes that believes studying history objectively gives us absolute truth, because as time passes more data is accumulated. As time passes philosophers and theologians can think of concepts that more accurately represent absolute truth. But it doesn't work that way. A person in the first century can know the absolute truth to the same degree that a person living in this century can know the absolute truth. 2,000 years of history has not brought us to know the absolute truth more.

Well, the solution would be data recorders on a time machine, but the next best thing are primary sources.

No. That wouldn't be a solution. That would only make us able to know historical facts with more reliability. But it's not the historical facts that are really important. We would know that Jesus died on the cross. We would know that he performed miracles. But we would still not know that everything he said is the truth. We would not know that if we followed Him we would gain eternal life.

As to abandoning all objective thinking, again, Neitzsche is the only alternative.

Absolutely not. Neitzsche is not the only person who relied on what he believed subjectively. The Bible says that Abraham acted on faith, not on what he knew objectively.

The alternative isn't to discard the principle of objectivity, but rather to throw out everything as false.

That's not objective. That makes no sense.

[Kidlicious]

Also, I have a request, Kidicious, can you take the time to please look up von Ranke?

In his 1833 article "The Great Powers" and his 1836 article "Dialogue on Politics", Ranke claimed that every state is given a special moral character from God and individuals should strive to best fulfill the "idea" of their state. Thus, in this way, Ranke urged his readers to stay loyal to the Prussian state and reject the ideas of the French Revolution, which Ranke claimed were meant for France only.[citation needed]

-wiki

You'll have to explain

[Ben Kenobi]

Short answer, Ranke is not a follower of Rousseau, but of Hobbes. He is a conservative German monarchist protestant. You might like him. He's a bit out of favor with me now, I found his history of the Catholic church was not that well done. There are better histories, and his is not bad if you have a can of white-out handy.

[Ben Kenobi]

No. You are confusing the current state of progress with his absolute truth.

The problem is that if knowledge is fully progressive, we cannot be certain that if anything we know presently is true. This is contrary to Objectivism which states that truth is absolute and attainable, ie, one can obtain absolute truth.

Say I have 12 ideas. How the dialectic works, is that eventually, all 12 will be replaced. My view is that 6 would be replaced and 6 would remain.

He believed that progress is leading us to the absolute truth. And that's the same way anyone believes that believes studying history objectively gives us absolute truth, because as time passes more data is accumulated. As time passes philosophers and theologians can think of concepts that more accurately represent absolute truth. But it doesn't work that way. A person in the first century can know the absolute truth to the same degree that a person living in this century can know the absolute truth. 2,000 years of history has not brought us to know the absolute truth more.

I would argue that yes, 2000 years has brought us closer to the sum total of absolute truth, but also that there are some ideas which have not and will not change.

[Kidlicious]

Short answer, Ranke is not a follower of Rousseau, but of Hobbes. He is a conservative German monarchist protestant. You might like him. He's a bit out of favor with me now, I found his history of the Catholic church was not that well done. There are better histories, and his is not bad if you have a can of white-out handy.

This doesn't tell me anything relevant. What does this have to do with his philosophy of history?

[Ben Kenobi]

This doesn't tell me anything relevant. What does this have to do with his philosophy of history?

Have a look-see here.

http://www.umass.edu/wsp/history/ranke/

[Kidlicious]

The problem is that if knowledge is fully progressive, we cannot be certain that if anything we know presently is true.

Well of course not. You can't ever know if what you believe is an absolute truth without simply abandoning all objective reasoning and having complete faith in what you believe. You can't even know how close you are to the truth. So you've made a good point. However, you have to say that about all objective truth seeking.

This is contrary to Objectivism which states that truth is absolute and attainable, ie, one can obtain absolute truth.

Not through studying historical events. That is not Objectivism. According to Objectivism absolute truth is not determined by the way we understand history.

Say I have 12 ideas. How the dialectic works, is that eventually, all 12 will be replaced. My view is that 6 would be replaced and 6 would remain.

Why?

I would argue that yes, 2000 years has brought us closer to the sum total of absolute truth, but also that there are some ideas which have not and will not change.

Ok. How has Hegel's philosophy improved our understanding of the absolute truth?

[Kidlicious]

Have a look-see here.

http://www.umass.edu/wsp/history/ranke/

Ok, so he was opposed to Hegel's philosophy yet he still believed in studying history as the best method for knowing absolute truth. Now all you have to do is tell me why that is so, because nothing that you've shown me makes that argument.

[Ben Kenobi]

How has Hegel's philosophy improved our understanding of the absolute truth?

As a process of how ideas come about it is not a bad one, but it has it's limitations. Synthesis is not always more correct than the constituent parts. Sometimes truth changes are revolutionary, in which neither the thesis or it's antithesis is correct. Examples abound, probably the most recent is the advent of Quantum mechanics. Sometimes the truth is best not subsumed in the process, and we have to go back. Inquiry is not always directly progressive. Errors abound in correction and must be eradicated as well. Sometimes it is best to go to the older understanding, which the dialectic does not do well.

The biggest problem however is the materialist approach. I found Platonic forms to be far more compelling - the idea that there are no new ideas, but rather forms which have always existed. Insofar as the only thing which changes is our perception, not the ideas in and of themselves, and that the errors are found through our imperfect understanding of these forms. Hegel has a grindstone which polishes and shapes. This is more akin to wearing glasses.

[Ben Kenobi]

Now all you have to do is tell me why that is so, because nothing that you've shown me makes that argument.

Well, I don't really make that argument. I see history as an extension of empiricism in general and that in order to obtain reliable knowledge of the world around us, that it's a component of understanding and should be harmonious with the other components.

I would argue that philosophy in general is the best way to obtain understanding of absolute truth, in the sense that it provides an operant method by which to obtain reliable knowledge. IE, it answers the question as to why we OUGHT to use empiricism and what is empiricism and how it works.

Why should we use empiricism? Because it is reliable and in short, because it works. As for history, the best way to obtain reliable knowledge is through primary sources.