What is an undeniable rational truth?

An undeniable truth is one found in ultimae principles that are dereived by inducing facts into concepts, concepts into priciples, and principles into ultimate principles. It is like unifyig elm and oak into trees, and dog and cast into animal. Then unifying trree and animal into organic as differing from inorganic, then combinin these into their essence of material in contrast to rational and spiritual knowledge. Then reasoning the interplay between these three values. This ultimate principle of three values will be a source of knowledge from which all that is induced to it may be logically deduced from it in a hierarchy of coherent truths.

An example of an undeniable truth: Inage a dynamkc see-saw with a person on easc end and one in the middle. One extreme is the radical changer, the other is the the reacionary non-changer, the middle is he condtroller who controle by moving a short distance either way. Some undeniable truths are: The see-saw cannot go up without going down, vice versa.
If all three are equal, there is no movement. As the parts change, the whole remains the same. Most, if not all knowledge is based on this balancing change between tree values, including theology, philosophy, history, politics physics, mathematics, and psychology.

Your explanation as to how to derive ultimate truth only seems to work if you believe that universals exist, which is a split issue. Thus far, I have only found one thing that is immune to debate. This is my personal realization, and a salute to Socrates. "I know that I know nothing"... Since human knowledge seems to be based on assumptions to various degrees, this is the only thing that I can be sure of thus far.

the more obvious candidate is cogito ergo sum, but descartes appraoch is wrong in epistemological terms. it might be argued that his method of doubt strips the world of complications in accord with the principle of economy of explanation, but i think is more rightly viewed as a huge and unnecessary assumption: that there is some subjective reality called 'I' that exists independently of the objective reality of the body and physical world.

further, it occurs to me that the truths you propose about the see-saw are conditional truths, rather like those in mathmatics and logic where they say:

if A>B and B>C then A>C.

A>C is a logical and rational truth, but conditional, like the position of one end of the see-saw is a condition of the position of the other end.

thus it's said that A>B and B>C are 'suffcient conditions' to infer that A>C, but A>C is not in itself an independent truth - only a logical relation.

Ah, but whether "I" is illusory or not, it is obviously experienced by me. I may experienc "I", you may not. This is one of those things that I cannot be sure about. Truly, the only consciousness that I can claim to experience is my own, which means that I can only say that "I am". You may not be. This isn't solipsism, either, seeing as I am admitting that I don't know whether you have a consciousness or not. Indeed, your awareness may or may not be merely a projection of my own awareness. But I'm going on and on, and risking making this post confusing. What I'm trying to get at is that you (whether you actually exist or are only imagination) will likely be unable to prove that I do not experience "I" (because if you truly are there, you can only be intimate with your own "I"). Thus, if I say that I experience "I", there is no one who can refute this, because it is a very intimate knowledge of myself that I have. Furthermore, even if it is merely an illusion, it is still experienced, thus it is still real to some extent or another. Even if it is a projection of a one unified consciousness, it is some fragment of the concept of "I" still exists. From this ledge of "I" that Jehocifer is standing on, Jehocifer can only be sure of "I know that I know nothing", because even the objective or subjective nature of "I" cannot be determined.

Well actually, I don't exist - not yet, but that's another matter entirely.

I'm willing to concede - without knowing for certain, that you experience 'I' - and that Descartes experienced 'I' - but cannot concede that 'I' is an experience independent of, and therefore distinct from the physical body and physical world.

Therefore, logically, if the existence of the physical body and world can be doubted, such that existence itself does not stand as a rational and undeniable truth, then neither does 'I'.

By reverse, if 'I' exists then the phsical body and world exists and the plethora of rational truths we would ordinarily concede without knowing for certain fall within the scope of our reasoning.

So you're right, as Socrates, if he existed, said: i know that i know nothing.

"I know that I know nothing".

... is erroneous.
Perhaps; "I know one thing, and that is that I only know one thing."
But then the original purpose is defeated in that you 'think' that you 'know' something after all.
Nah, worded poorly and probably oxymoronic.
Like most 'bumperstickers', it fails under critical scrutiny. Sounds all wise and stuff, if left unexamined, though, and that is enough for most...

Yeah, that's kind of like 'go to work having eaten an egg' or 'do you have milk?' - more correct, but way less catchy.

'Cogito ergo sum' - the whole of western philosophy caught it, but i don't like what Descartes was selling - religiously sensitive epistemology.

'Science is not a tool to be employed by ideology, but a rule for the conduct of human affairs.'

Too wordy!

Your explanation as to how to derive ultimate truth only seems to work if you believe that universals exist, which is a split issue. Thus far, I have only found one thing that is immune to debate. This is my personal realization, and a salute to Socrates. "I know that I know nothing"... Since human knowledge seems to be based on assumptions to various degrees, this is the only thing that I can be sure of thus far.

It is not that I believe universals exist, they exist because a dialectical of universal coherent truth conclude in the universal.

If Socrates lived by "All I know is that I know nothing," and stooped there, then he would die knowing nothing. Isn't it logical for the sane mind to continue by saying truthfully, 'so now I have everything to learn."

Yes, so now I have everything to learn. I challenge nameless to give me an undeniable truth that is not based on a single assumption. Let us see how well you examined my statement. Are you up for it, nameless?

The question of a universal truth rests in someone offering something that is undeniable, obviously. You must have knowledge that is completely free of assumption...completely free... Maybe it is possible to find such a thing. But, unless one of you gentlemen can offer up a theory without assumption, then I can not say that such knowledge is in our grasp, or come to the conclusion that it even exists. I wouldn't wish to call any of you naive, for I don't think you are. However, consider what we actually know more carefully. And no, my "I know that I know nothing" isn't saying "I give up". It is quite the contrary, actually. It allows me to stay open-minded and realize that in my quest for an answer, it is entertaining regardless of the outcome. My inability to find a theory without assumption allows me to consider alternative possibilities, which keeps me thinking.... So nameless, you're up... Actually, if anyone would like to offer a theory or statement that is free of assumption, please do. As the non-existing mark black pointed out, even "I know that I know nothing" can be said to be assumption...

May I also say that nameless was indeed correct. I obviously wasn't paying attention to my wording, and I must humble myself by admitting my flaw. Had I been paying attention the first time, I would have made sure to say that even my personal stance is based on assumption. From my point of view, with my understanding of "I" whether it be illusory or physical, it is a difficult thing to refute. I should have been wise enough to consider that no one else could see this "I" from my point or view. But oh well, I'll be more careful next time. The challenge still stands, though.

Nevermind..After looking back over his post, nameless seems to be attacking the quote more than anything else. In that case, it is an oxymoron. I'm glad you paid attention in school. It's supposed to be an oxymoron. It's ironic, if you will. Alright, I don't THINK that anyone can give me a theory that isn't somehow based on assumption...Now...go!

Well I challenge you to touch your elbow with your nose!

Damn, mark. It appears that you have won this round. The attempts to do this were so depressing that I gave up within ten seconds and held my head in shame.....pity

I'm still trying...i'm sure it's possible...