I'm a absolutist-realist. I believe that truth is constant and your point of view is relative. The noise is there whether anybody hears it or not. Schrodinger's cat is either dead or alive. Period. Whether we know about it or not is irrelevent.
If you believe the opposite, you are a relativist-idealist. But then, you wouldn't be really because whether you would be or not would also be relative to everyone's point of view.
There aren't any third alternatives as far as I've heard of because any third alternative could simply be placed under the relativist category.
Am I wrong? I agree with truth is constant......it is our acceptance of truth without enough knowledge that make some truths shaky. Most people don't have the time, resources, or will to know, what is an absolute truth. It is easier to assume a truth, then to know a truth....lol does that make any sense? I think I understand what you're saying. But it is very hard to have a complete truth, w/ full knowledge of all aspects of it. I believe in absolutes, but many people don't. The thing is, it's very difficult to convince someone like that to constrain themselves to one truth. The thing is, truth is close-minded. If it wasn't, then we wouldn't know anything for sure. You just have to know where to draw the line between believing something is truth to assuming it is w/o enough knowledge of it. I know it's a little confusing. i find it hard to believe any one truth(if there is such a thing)i don't believe in absolutes, i guess the easy way to sum up my way of thinking is "FREE YOUR MIND" or somthinng like that,i'm going to bed "The Truth will Set You Free" is more my motto. We ought to be "freeing our minds" from what is false and holding on to what is true.
I think the truth is objective, while our viewpoints are subjective. The only objective viewpoint in the Universe is God's, which is all-encompassing. The rest of us only have little pieces of truth.
I heard someobdy trying to prove to me that truth wasn't constant once. They said, "Take a kindergarden class on a field trip to the country to see a windmill. Make sure they know beforehand the difference between clockwise and counter-clockwise. Put the class in front of the windmill and have them all observe that it's turning clockwise. Then put half behind the windmill, and they'll observe that from that side it's turning counter-clockwise. This shows that truth is relative to your point of view, because both opposite points of view are correct."
I found this laughably absurd. The windmill had stayed in the same place. Only the students had moved. The windmill had stayed the same. The REAL truth in this instance wasn't that the windmill was turning clockwise, it was that "the windmill is turning clockwise IN THE FRONT."
To put it concisely as possible, FACTS EXIST whether we can see them or not. Truth is an illusion created by those in power to keep the people under control, and to satisfy man's all-encompassing sense of curiosity. Truth is not necessarily what is real, because when something is real, it is FACT. Truth can vary from place to place, from person to person. A certain religion may say that the truth is that the world was borne from an egg, but that may not be fact. The FACT is not yet known how the world was made, so you cannot refute nor deny the truth given by that religion. Truth can be altered by those in power to benefit them, or to benefit the people. For example, would you tell the people that an asteroid is coming and cause mass panic, or would you tell them all is well and let them all die relatively blissful? To them, the truth is all is well. And those in power, the government, the scientists, the companies that give us goods and services, keep us under control by monopolizing the truth machine that runs our society. So what you're basically saying is that there is no truth, if it can be changed so much, right? I disagree; truth is constant, the only thing about it that varies is our perception of it, given a new perspective. If truth can vary, then everyone is right. Muslims, Atheists, Christians, Buddists, Jews, Wiccas. They are all correct. OK, so how can a person who believes in a deity & a person who doesn't both be right? There either is or isn't a God. It can't be both.
Let me give a simpler example. I want all your money, ok? I believe that it is right to take your money and leave you with nothing. You, obviously, do not agree with me. So, what happens? Can I take half your money? That would be even worse. Neither of us would get what we want. So what do we do if we're both right? What is truth?
Truth is constantly changing.
All around us,yes truth is constant but it is also in motion.
Truth is also as has been metioned,open to interpretation.Basically think of the old "glass half empty-glass half full thing" thing,it illustrates what i'm saying perfectly,some people see it as empty,some see it as full,some people don't care,some people do,different perceptions of the same truth-all relevent,but all different. Truth is a relative concensus. Because quite simply there are no absolute truths about anything, ohnly what the majority has deemed the 'right' one. Well, truth is really just a word, like love. Or karma. Truth is a word, used to describe things. What exactly does it describe? We may never know. To go along with what I said before, a person in a cult may believe that the truth is that a UFO will come to deliver them from evil, but it might not be true. In fact, it isn't. They just believed a lie, but it seemed like truth to them. So then, is truth even real? Truth is just an illusion. But I have to agree, there is an ultimate reality/truth/fact that is unchanging, but truth itself is always changing with time. Until everyone agrees, there will never be an ultimate truth, just varitions of opinon on what it is. Even then we might not know whats true. Its just more and more confusion.
Oh, and can I have half your money? Please? :D My take is:
Truth is constant.
Our perceptions are in motion. They move through time, space, personality, interpretation, logic, illogic, love, hate, war, peace, everywhere.
But the Truth, which none of us can see completely, is all-encompassing.
And it is what defines what is REALLY true and what is REALLY false.
What defines it?
I believe that God does. OF course, given that truth is a constant, I could be wrong. "There is no God" could be the constant instead. The antithesis of my thesis.
But what is most important is that I believe that there are thesises that are true and anti-theses that are false, but THERE IS NO SYNTHESIS. THERE IS NO MAYBE.
Binary code has only Ones and Zeroes. No threes.
There is no spoon. Wanderer, you didn't really address my hypothetic situation. What happens if two people with opposing views are both right? And even if people agree on something being true, it still may not be true. The Nazis believed that the truth they needed to follow was that they were the superior race, and the others needed to be exterminated. That doesn't mean that was the truth. isn't that the same as the Windmill analogy? I'm a absolutist-realist.
Why so certain? Sure, there might be an absolute truth, but why be certain about it?
What happens if two people with opposing views are both right?
Your thesis would suggest both had the 'absolute truth', which may or may not exist. If that were true, they would not differ from views, as the absolute truth would be absolute, if it existed.
Mr U HU brings up a good point. Say there is absolute truth. Fine. But now you have to apply to that absolute truth each persons interpritation of that truth. If there is absolute truth, then there is either one or maybe no way of thinking that is actually correct. This makes a lot of people angry, because I think the popular belief today is that truth is relative, that whatever you think is right is the truth. Kind of a 'whatever works for you' philosophy. But that can't be right. You can't just make up whatever you want and call it truth. You can't just make up whatever you want and call it truth.
People do that all the time! They're wrong, of course, but they CAN make up whatever they want and CALL it truth. The point I'm making is that what they CALL the truth is irrelivent to what the truth actually IS. ^ That's exactly what I meant. Just because you say something is true, it doesn't mean it is. Right. So we agree then? Cool.
or do we?
do you agree with this? :
Truth is constant.
We are relative.
Our points of view are relative.
Whatever we think is relative.
If truth wasn't constant, then no matter what we thought we couldn't be wrong, because everything would be equally right and wrong, both right and wrong and neither right nor wrong.
Since truth is constant, we might be right and we might be wrong but we can't be both.
If we disagree, then one of us is right and one of us is wrong or we're both wrong but we both can't be right. Somebody's wrong, and we all hope it isn't us.
Why?
Because truth is constant. Right, except our thoughts and our point of view aren't always relative. They could sometimes actually be truthful. Veradis, your last statement made a few of my brain cells blow. Ow. So...deep. I have to watch TV to dumb myself down now. I'm sorry. Did you have something to contribute? So far all you've done is quote the matrix movies & put them into your own perspective, then avoid backing anything up after we show you how you are wrong. You continue to state that truth as an absolute exists as a premise. Socrates, in his debates, was wrong because he dealt with faulty premises. This is why filosophy inheritantly fails. They become certain of their own dogma.
Why is there an absolute truth, and if there is reason to believe that there might be such a thing, why be certain of it (at least, certain enough to base upon it further reasoning (which, although they may appear to be based at logic, are of course nonsensical))?
Mr U Right, except our thoughts and our point of view aren't always relative. They could sometimes actually be truthful.
I think we probably agree completely except with different words then. So let's collaborate to explain our view to HU.
You continue to state that truth as an absolute exists as a premise.
Yes, exactly. Perhaps you're starting to get it.
Socrates, in his debates, was wrong because he dealt with faulty premises. This is why filosophy inheritantly fails. They become certain of their own dogma.
How can you say they failed if there is no standard (i.e. truth that is a constant) by which to measure their success or failure?
Why is there an absolute truth, and if there is reason to believe that there might be such a thing, why be certain of it (at least, certain enough to base upon it further reasoning (which, although they may appear to be based at logic, are of course nonsensical))?
Actually nobody has any idea of anything at all ever.
Everything we know or believe is based on our faith. Everything. Faith that we are not living in the Matrix, faith that the world around us is real, faith that when Sir Iasic Newton dropped an apple, it fell to the ground as surely as the apple you buy from the supermarket today falls and will fall tomorrow, if you care to experiment.
Faith is not nessicarily a fundamentally religious concept. It is merely the assumption of the truth or falseness of information.
Logic is a method of taking information and implying other information.
At some point, the original information has to be accepted as true by faith. Logic that does not have such a starting point, but only rests on other logic isn't really logic at all, and is called "thinking in a circle" or "Circular Logic," which, as Mr. Spock would say, is "illogical" with the raise of a Vulcan eyebrow.
"Truth is Constant" is one such starting point from which, unconsously, many people begin their reasoning. The other point is "Nowhere" and I have never heard of there being a third. There are two types of faith: blind faith, and faith that is based on an experience or trust in something that has already happened. I don't know many people that act on blind faith. My faith in God, and I'm guessing Patriot's too, is not completely blind; I've seen many reasons that God exists, enough to make me trust Him with my life.
And if you believe in absolute truth, you have to be certain of it- that is the definition of absolute. If you think there may not be absolute truth, you can't be certain, because that point may or may not be truthful. This is the circular logic Patriot was talking about. There are two types of faith: blind faith, and faith that is based on an experience or trust in something that has already happened. I don't know many people that act on blind faith. My faith in God, and I'm guessing Patriot's too, is not completely blind; I've seen many reasons that God exists, enough to make me trust Him with my life.
Hmm. I'd never really considered there being blind and half-blind faiths ...
If faith is belief in things you haven't seen or aren't sure of, then how can it not be blind?
And if you believe in absolute truth, you have to be certain of it- that is the definition of absolute. If you think there may not be absolute truth, you can't be certain, because that point may or may not be truthful. This is the circular logic Patriot was talking about.
Ah yes. I concur. Hmm. I'd never really considered there being blind and half-blind faiths ...
If faith is belief in things you haven't seen or aren't sure of, then how can it not be blind?
Do you trust that there is a God just because you up & decided to believe in Him one day? Or was there some evidence that allowed you to come to that conclusion? I'm just saying that most people trust in something because of a basic idea. They don't know everything about it, but they trust that it makes sense, and then all the pieces fall into place. You normally don't have faith for no reason at all. And here I thought people had faith becuase it was pushed on them by their parents when they were too young to form their own opinions. Indeed not. Your parents may be able to make you believe whatever they want you to believe when you are a child, but as an adult you make your own decisions. That is why many children of Christian parents rebel in their teenage years, and that is why many people from non-christian parents get converted when they're older.
But what you or your parents believe is irrelivent to what the actual truth is, as I've been pointing out. Indeed not. Your parents may be able to make you believe whatever they want you to believe when you are a child, but as an adult you make your own decisions. That is why many children of Christian parents rebel in their teenage years, and that is why many people from non-christian parents get converted when they're older.
But what you or your parents believe is irrelivent to what the actual truth is, as I've been pointing out.
Blabla. Medieval psychology. Blabla. Not worth my time.
Yes, exactly. Perhaps you're starting to get it.
You see, I get your point. Your point however, is foolish. Why? Because you make a fact out of something that might be true. I asked you, why act as if it was a certainty? You did not respond? Why not? Because you are not understanding me, not vice versa.
How can you say they failed if there is no standard (i.e. truth that is a constant) by which to measure their success or failure?
So if I attempt to be like God, God has to exist because else I can not fail? What you are saying may seem logical, but it is not. Truth as an absolute may or may not exist. You seem ignorant to this point.
Everything we know or believe is based on our faith. Everything. Faith that we are not living in the Matrix, faith that the world around us is real, faith that when Sir Iasic Newton dropped an apple, it fell to the ground as surely as the apple you buy from the supermarket today falls and will fall tomorrow, if you care to experiment.
Faith is not nessicarily a fundamentally religious concept. It is merely the assumption of the truth or falseness of information.
Logic is a method of taking information and implying other information.
At some point, the original information has to be accepted as true by faith. Logic that does not have such a starting point, but only rests on other logic isn't really logic at all, and is called "thinking in a circle" or "Circular Logic," which, as Mr. Spock would say, is "illogical" with the raise of a Vulcan eyebrow.
PM theDon, and he will give you this great "Master of the Obvious" image. You deserve it.
"Truth is Constant" is one such starting point from which, unconsously, many people begin their reasoning. The other point is "Nowhere" and I have never heard of there being a third.
That's because you haven't been listening. Tertium datur, tool. Anyway, just because you have faith in there being an absolute truth, doesn't make it so. You hammering about that 'people have to believe in something' has done nothing for you point, except shown how well you are at waltzing around.
Hmm. I'd never really considered there being blind and half-blind faiths ...
If faith is belief in things you haven't seen or aren't sure of, then how can it not be blind?
Wow, something promising out of your mouth. Well, you see, it's still faith, because these experiences are dubious. Unless you actually believe you are hearing the voices of God (in which you might want to visit your doc and pick up some medication against schizofrenia), these experiences can be interpreted to be divine experiences, and thus.. faith.
Mr U PM theDon, and he will give you this great "Master of the Obvious" image. You deserve it.
Here you go buddy, use at will.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y198/Shini1775/master.jpg Blabla. Medieval psychology. Blabla. Not worth my time.
... which is why I wasn't talking to you. :)
So if I attempt to be like God, God has to exist because else I can not fail? What you are saying may seem logical, but it is not. Truth as an absolute may or may not exist. You seem ignorant to this point.
I think you are quoting me out of context. What?
You see, I get your point. Your point however, is foolish. Why? Because you make a fact out of something that might be true. I asked you, why act as if it was a certainty? You did not respond? Why not? Because you are not understanding me, not vice versa.
Perhaps you are right that I do not understand you. Perhaps we do not understand each other. As I think I said at the beginning of the thread, this is only natural because there are only two fundamental views of truth, and ours are opposites.
That's because you haven't been listening. Tertium datur, tool. Anyway, just because you have faith in there being an absolute truth, doesn't make it so. You hammering about that 'people have to believe in something' has done nothing for you point, except shown how well you are at waltzing around.
I'd thought it was answered rather well in that other post that said: "And if you believe in absolute truth, you have to be certain of it- that is the definition of absolute. If you think there may not be absolute truth, you can't be certain, because that point may or may not be truthful. This is the circular logic Patriot was talking about."
I didn't think it required further explanation, but if you insist, then here we go again:
You ask "Why do I believe in absolute truth?" and you claim I am avoiding the question. The simple answer is "IT IS SELF-EVIDENT." Perhaps the more detailed answer sounds like an avoidance of the question, in which case I suggest rephrasing the question.
The answer to "How do I know that my theory of the existance of absolute truth is true?" is:
Perhaps I don't.
There is no way for me to know whether my theory of the existance of absolute truth is true unless I know what the truth is. And there is no way for me to know what the truth is unless there is a truth that I can know. It must be self-evident - who checks the credentials of the credentials comitee? who checks their credentials? and theirs? and theirs? and theirs? and theirs? and theirs?
You were saying that Socrates failed or was wrong, and I was asking you how he could be wrong if right and wrong do not exist. How can something be said to have failed is there is no standard by which to judge what failure and success is?
That is the question that has been waltzed around here. Please let me know if I have accidentally overlooked any. :)
Come to think of it, now that I have gone and "contributed" this much to the conversation, I think I deserve to be able to post a Matrix quote on my own account:
Smith/Oracle: Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why, why do you do it? Why, why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something, for more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is, do you even know? Is it freedom or truth, perhaps peace - could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson, vagaries of perception. Temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself. Although, only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson, you must know it by now! You can't win, it's pointless to keep fighting! Why, Mr. Anderson, why, why do you persist?
Neo: Because I choose to.
In this debate, I might use this scene as an example, where I am taking the side of Neo and HU is taking the side of Smith, except that I am claiming that Smith was wrong - as opposed to Neo surrendering the point. That has got to be one of the best lines in all three films! Why do I believe in absolute truth?
This is where you are wrong. This is not what I am asking. Your point, the one you have been making over and over, is so basal it can hardly be misunderstood. Let me clarify, I am not misunderstanding you.
What I am asking is, why make it a certainty? Whether or you beleive it is self-evident is irrelevant. Even whether it can be proven or not. Why should it be certain? The same cogito ergo sum. Why do you need to stress that it is certain that the absolute exists? Why not be content with "possibly"?
Mr U It has to be certain because if you believe in absolute truth, then that has to be absolutely true. There is no second guessing, because it's absolute. You can't 'kind of' believe in it. It's an all-or-nothing kind of idea. "Why make it a certainty?"
Why not? How can you be certain that it isn't a certainty or that it only may be a certainty?
You seem to be pretty certain that I am wrong to make it a certainty, which is illogical because then the only way I could be wrong was if I was right. I have been trying to following this little discussion, but I have no damn clue what the hell you just said. That is possibly one of the most convoluted posts I have ever seen here. Let me try to make it simpler. You can never be sure there is no absolute truth, because if you believe there are no absolutes, then even that point isn't absolutely certain. So, the only way we could be positively wrong about absolute truth existing is if it actually existed, it's the only way you could be sure. But that's a contradiction, it makes no sense. Yes, you're right! To NOT believe in the existance of absolute truth would in itself be a contradiction. Then you start getting into the dialectic and all other kinds of crap. Let me try to make it simpler. You can never be sure there is no absolute truth, because if you believe there are no absolutes, then even that point isn't absolutely certain. So, the only way we could be positively wrong about absolute truth existing is if it actually existed, it's the only way you could be sure. But that's a contradiction, it makes no sense.
Your arrogance as a human being is not natural, you know. It is tought, it is learned. So to the intellectual arrogance. The arrogance of certainty. As soon as we profess to be certain we demonstrate arrogance. Whether within or out of religion, we claim to be God, we claim some part of ourselves to be divine, so we can diabolize the rest. Indeed, we hope to define good and evil by this, and cast it away as arrogance, since arrogance is evil, and since we are doing, we aren't being evil.
No, it is not a contradiction. Why not? Because I do not claim to know for sure whether there is in fact an absolute truth. I know that my knowledge is relative to my previous knowledge, and that my view is corrupted, colored. In this view, I am humble, and I state that perhaps the absolute exists. Perhaps there is a sheet of absolute truth on which we paint our relative falsehoods. However, I asked you before, how can you be certain? It is the same for God. One can never be certain of God's existence. Any man who claims this is not at all religious. Religion is about internal doubt, about faith. Faith does not supply certainty, it is beautiful because it supplies doubt.
Absolute truth may or may not exist, I do profess to have this knowledge, for I have no intent of equaling God, whether he exists or not.
Why not? How can you be certain that it isn't a certainty or that it only may be a certainty?
Your ad infinitem point shows very much zeno's paradox, and your own foolishness in this point. Indeed absolute truth is paradoxial, as it accounts Zeno as well. I am not certain of anything, but this you will not understand, as you are too blind. You can not understand this point I make, because you do not understand me as a whole. In fact, you will never, ever be able to grasp me or my thoughts. At some point in your life you will stumble upon a realisation, and you will understand this point and all my other points. Whether that is descension or ascension is irrelevant.
Mr U You continue to assert that I am being arrogant. Now, who has been name-calling here? Me or you?
You have. You aren't refuting my points, you are merely describing them as arrogant and foolish. That does not make a valid argument.
How are you saying zeno's paradox has to do with this? I thought it had to do with the time/distance formula? I'm afraid you're going to have to explain it's relationship with this particular question more clearly.
And by the way, absolute truth has to exist in order for any solid objects to exist that you might use in any example you try to bring up. You can't really say that an example is true unless there is a truth for the example to be.
In other words, I don't see how logic can exist apart from that initial assumption.
Also remember, I am not saying that I know what the absolute truth is. I'm just saying that I believe that it exists.
I get called "arrogant" by people who disagree with me on the Net alot. When they start losing it like that, it usually means the other side is winning. :D ;)
[LATER EDIT] Aha! I went back and re-read my eariler post.
zeno has to do with the credentials comitee example. they're almost the same thing, except I was talking about trying to start the race and zeno's paradox is talking about ending it. hmm.
your point being? HU, claiming to be right is not arrogant. I don't claim to have all the answers, but if I don't believe that my faith is right, I don't really believe it at all.
And claiming to not know the truth is not being humble, it is simply acknowledging that you don't know. Claiming to know the truth is not attempting to be God either. And you still don't understand our point about absolute truth. If you believe it exists, then you have to be sure, because that's the absolute. It's fundamental.
Oh, and your point of view is irrelevant anyway. The actual truth is all that matters. I've been reading the posts here and then I went and just looked up truth in the encyclopedia and I have to say................where's the common sense? It is so easy to get caught up in the intellect of things that we don't pay attention to our feelings about something. With concepts like this, it is best to simplify. I think that it is pointless to debate the concreteness of truth when truth is something that we invented to define parameters of existance. Our minds need a perception. That is how we are designed. Truth is revealed through action. If I see a person steal another person's wallet, I know what the truth is. When the cops catch the thief and the thief says he did not steal anything, I know that that is NOT the truth. If I am the only one who saw what really happened, then the cops and the victim are left with speculation and uncertainty unless I reveal the truth by describing exactly what happened and showing the cops where the thief threw the wallet in an effort to escape punishment. The events that transpired become the truth only because we perceive it as such. But we have to perceive in order to experience and reference the world around us. If there was a pen, a ruler, and a crayon on the floor and I said, "Please pick that up and hand it to me", would you know what the hell I am talking about? No. We label things as an end to the means of understanding its existance in correspondance with our existance. Thus, truth is perceived the same way. I know the events that transpired when that man's wallet was stolen. My mind recognizes that that is the truth, or the correct series of factual information.
As far as cutural and social truths, I disagree that those are truths. Instead, without facts and physical proof, there is only faith, opinion, beliefs, etc, etc..................to say that believing in God is a TRUTH, is a misuse of the syntax of the language we create through are perceptions of what is real, i.e. what are senses experience as tangible. Believing in God is a belief. I believe in God. It is my belief, not my truth because I don't know enough about God other than He is there. I know He is there because of my observation and contact with tangible entities of evidence that denote a higher force in our universe. Our perception of this higher force is debatable.
Ironic that in order to prove the existance of truth, created by our perceptions within us, we must look to things outside of ourselves thus allowing truth to be an independant entity that we search for. As if our invention became self-aware, escaped and set out to elude us by exploiting the very aspect of our minds that perpetuated its creation. That is a very good point about common sense, but I think at some point this thread just turned into a pissing contest. truth is something that we invented to define parameters of existance.
Ah, then you must be on HU's side. :) welcome to the thread. That is the point that we are disagreeing on. veradis and I disagree with that statement. We believe that truth has an existance independent of any of our individual or collective viewpoints. Whether or not anyone is around to hear it, the tree that falls in the middle of the forest makes a rather loud and impressive THUD.
I think at some point this thread just turned into a pissing contest.
That's probably because HU is frustrated with me for continuing to disagree with him even though he obviously is better educated than I am. I haven't even tested out of high school yet, though I anticipate no problems. :) Had you been taking drugs, anomolous, and you had been halucinating in seeing that crime, you would have still been sure about what you saw. Would it still have been the truth? Would it had been the truth if everyone had been using drugs, and everyone saw something that 'really didn't happen'? How do we know that our input reflects the real?
Now, in this thesis, I propose a real. I propose that there is an absolute. However, my own view upon this all goes further than that into the destruction of certainty. It is much like Cogito ergo sum and the matrix itself. Sure, by thinking we may exist, but why stress the point? Why not acknowledge that it is a possibility, in stead of a certainty?
welcome to the thread. That is the point that we are disagreeing on. veradis and I disagree with that statement. We believe that truth has an existance independent of any of our individual or collective viewpoints. Whether or not anyone is around to hear it, the tree that falls in the middle of the forest makes a rather loud and impressive THUD.
No, that's fnord.
That's probably because HU is frustrated with me for continuing to disagree with him even though he obviously is better educated than I am. I haven't even tested out of high school yet, though I anticipate no problems. :)
Again that arrogance we have been discussing. I am not at all frustrated with you. A level of education has, by the way, nothing to do with anything. I believe in personal responsibility for one's fate, and you are responsible for the state of being you are in now, as am I of mine.
Oh, and just because I can:
And claiming to not know the truth is not being humble, it is simply acknowledging that you don't know. Claiming to know the truth is not attempting to be God either. And you still don't understand our point about absolute truth. If you believe it exists, then you have to be sure, because that's the absolute. It's fundamental.
I posted a few posts back that I do understand your view. I also understand Christianity, being instructed in its dogma and biblical content for many years. That, however, does not mean I am a Christian.
If you believe it exists, then you have to be sure, because that's the absolute.
This is where you are wrong. This is exactly the same as the belief in God. I state I am not sure whether God exists. I do not claim lordship over the knowledge of his existence. I am not sure, nor is anyone truly sure. That is what faith is all about. Absolute truth, if it exists, is virtually unattainable. You never know whether the statement you are making is in fact true or not. It is like God, you never know whether something is in fact a manifestation of God or not. It can not be proven.
The illusion of certainty that one statement is for sure the absolute truth is undisguised arrogance. Why? Because the absolute truth is an alternative manifestation of God. By claiming to hold the absolute truth, you claim to be superior to all other relative truths, and to be the one and only superior view. As I said, one diabolizes the rest, and it is from this need for moral that this view comes to existence. Absolutionism is nothing more than a moral way of thinking.
Mr U Absolute truth, if it exists, is virtually unattainable.
before we can even get on to where it or pieces of it can be found, we have to first establish that it exists. I believe that it HAS to exist whether I believe in it or not you see, and whether my beliefs are right or wrong the truth is out there. Attainable? I believe that absolute truth in its complete form is unattainable to ordinary human beings like you and I. I do think, however, that there exist things that are true and things that are false, no matter how we disagree on what those things are, that we can attain and be reasonably certain of, remembering all the time that WE could be wrong because WE are relative, and the TRUTH is constant.
But it is impossible for absoulte truth to not exist, because to say that "There is no absolute truth" would have to be an absoulute truth in itself. It's like saying, "nothing is true" and then insisting that that statement is true. It can't be true that nothing is true because if it's true that nothing is true, then something would be true. (i.e. the statement that nothing is true)
This leads many people to say, "Nothing is true but this statement," which seems to be a very narrow-minded view of the Universe, don't you think? :D Ah, then you must be on HU's side. welcome to the thread. That is the point that we are disagreeing on. veradis and I disagree with that statement. We believe that truth has an existance independent of any of our individual or collective viewpoints. Whether or not anyone is around to hear it, the tree that falls in the middle of the forest makes a rather loud and impressive THUD.
Based on what I have read, It doesn't seem as though I am on anyone's side so far. Truth is not the only perception created to define parameters of existance. Our minds are designed to PERCEIVE the world around us. Our PERCEPTIONS, in general, help us define, or shape, the world around us. There is no denying this characteristic as the process starts when we are small children. Of course, abstract perceptions such as the concept of truth are not understood until later, but truth is a learned perception. Truth has become an entity independant of us. I said this and I think many have missed it. Ironic that in order to prove the existance of truth, created by our perceptions within us, we must look to things outside of ourselves thus allowing truth to be an independant entity that we search for. As if our invention became self-aware, escaped and set out to elude us by exploiting the very aspect of our minds that perpetuated its creation. This is from my previous post. Truth is our perception of factual and tangible actions, events, occurences, etc. From my previous post: My mind recognizes that that is the truth, or the correct series of factual information. If I told you that Neo took the blue pill in the first film, you would know that that is not the truth. It is unmistakeable. Put the movie in the DVD player and SEE that while shooting this scene Keanu Reeves took the red pill as instructed in the script. Let me reiterate: If there was a pen, a ruler, and a crayon on the floor and I said, "Please pick that up and hand it to me", would you know what the hell I am talking about? No. We label things as an end to the means of understanding its existance in correspondance with our existance. Thus, truth is perceived the same way. Truth is the label we give to the recognition of the correct series of factual information, such as events, actions, occurrences, etc, as encountered by our senses in consensus with the encountered senses of other human beings. So, in a sense we are arguing over the use of the label of truth. What falls within the domain of the accurate definition of truth and what does not? Simplifying will allow the answers to come. Do not get trapped in the web of abstraction.
Had you been taking drugs, anomolous, and you had been halucinating in seeing that crime, you would have still been sure about what you saw. Would it still have been the truth? Would it had been the truth if everyone had been using drugs, and everyone saw something that 'really didn't happen'? How do we know that our input reflects the real?
Honestly, knowing myself and having prior experience with hallucinogens, I would not have given a shit about the truth if experiencing a high. That is beside the point though and I see where you are going with this. Drugs do not alter what is defined as truth. If I smoked a bowl of amazing weed and looked up "truth" in the encyclopedia again, the definition of the perception of truth would not change. It is a definition derived by the longstanding consensus of many generations of human beings who have contemplated truth's nature. Drugs alter our minds thus altering our perceptions; however, truth as a definition of ours does not change because the denotation of truth is constructed through our unaltered perceptions of factual events, actions, occurrences, etc. that exist independently outside of ourselves, ironic isn't it? We may or may not encounter the factual events, actions, occurrences, etc, directly with our senses in order to know that they TRULY happened. We may only need something that is tangible as proof to bring the factual events, actions, occurrences, etc, within the domain of the perception of truth. If a tree falls and no one is around, does the tree make sound? Of course!! Why? We have already discovered how the physics of sound functions. We know that even without an intermediary used to interpret sound waves, they still exists in nature. This is based on tangible facts thus bringing the answer of this question within the domain of the perception of truth as defined by our own minds.
Let's use a simpler more reasonable example. What if I did not divulge the truthful information that I possessed? What if I did not care? Truth as with any other perception can be ignored, abused, overlooked, etc. Truth would still exist. Why? Because I know better. I am an adult. There is no adult that is of sound mind and good reason that can deny that. They can delude, but not deny. I have already learned what truth is and what it LOOKS like. I can't unlearn that only twist my perception of it.
This is where you are wrong. This is exactly the same as the belief in God. I state I am not sure whether God exists. I do not claim lordship over the knowledge of his existence. I am not sure, nor is anyone truly sure. That is what faith is all about. Absolute truth, if it exists, is virtually unattainable. You never know whether the statement you are making is in fact true or not. It is like God, you never know whether something is in fact a manifestation of God or not. It can not be proven.
The illusion of certainty that one statement is for sure the absolute truth is undisguised arrogance. Why? Because the absolute truth is an alternative manifestation of God. By claiming to hold the absolute truth, you claim to be superior to all other relative truths, and to be the one and only superior view. As I said, one diabolizes the rest, and it is from this need for moral that this view comes to existence. Absolutionism is nothing more than a moral way of thinking.
I agree partially with HU on this point. As I said before, the belief in God is misplaced in this argument. The perception of God is not an absolute truth. It is a belief. From my previous post: Without facts and physical proof, there is only faith, opinion, beliefs, etc, etc......to say that believing in God is a TRUTH, is a misuse of the syntax of the language we create through are perceptions of what is real, i.e. what are senses experience as tangible. Believing in God is a belief. I believe in God. It is my belief, not my truth because I don't know enough about God other than He is there. I know "He" (a higher power) is there because of my observation and contact with tangible entities of evidence that denote a higher force in our universe. For example, our study of science, ironically, demonstrates that, comparatively to humans, there is a higher power in the universe. Science is our observations, our perceptions of this higher power that governs the world around us. Many of these perceptions fall within the domain of truth because we have encountered with our senses tangible and factual events, actions, occurrences, etc. Many perceptions of science our still speculative as we try to understand this higher force. Our perception of this higher force is debatable. Some will call it "God".....some will not. From there, the varying perceptions can go in a gazillion different directions.
I disagree that certainty is an illusion. For one thing, statements are not ABSOLUTE TRUTHS. Statements CAN BE descriptions of an absolute truth encountered by our senses and filtrated through the perceptive lattices of our minds. Generally, I agree with HU that it is wrong for one to claim that he holds an absolute truth that is, by definition, NOT an absolute truth. The manipulated perception that allows for that is self-serving and CAN lead to an arrogance that alienates others.
Now, in this thesis, I propose a real. I propose that there is an absolute. However, my own view upon this all goes further than that into the destruction of certainty. It is much like Cogito ergo sum and the matrix itself. Sure, by thinking we may exist, but why stress the point? Why not acknowledge that it is a possibility, in stead of a certainty?
Because only by accepting and recognizing who we are, what we are, what we are capable of, and what we are not capable of can we ascend to the pinnacle of our full potential as enlightened and living beings. If we sit on the sidelines and contemplate our lives away, how do we know that we achieved the fullest quality of life for ourselves? The lessons of life are learned in practical terms not through abstraction. One can sit around in one's own little world with great contemplative theories about how the varying aspects of life work, but then fall flat on one's face when it comes time to take ACTION. As we get older, we transcend ourselves and become part of something larger. For instance, I am an only child that never had to answer to anyone or anything. I thought that I had life figured early in my years as I wrapped myself in the proverbial blanket of intellectual contemplation. I quickly learned that as soon as you step outside of your own walls, it is a different ballgame, so to speak. I am married with a 3 year old son and a baby on the way. These tangible variables in my life now bring my perceptions within the domain of truth among other things. Now my newfound focus is my reality. I cannot say, "Why work on a career to support myself and my family when none of this might exist anyway? Why take out an insurance policy on my life in order to secure the well-being of my family when this may all be a dream anyway?" NO! When one is involved in things that are outside, beyond, or larger than oneself, life becomes more concrete, more real, more true, more defined, even more absolute. It has to. As for contemplating the POSSIBILITY that we exist, how is that practical? Ideology like that is just as self-serving as the ideology religious people can have in order to justify their reality. We must accept our limits and fully expound on what we can do filling our parameters of existance to the fullest rather than falling short in recognition that it may be all for not. At some point, in everyone life, a person has to make defining choices to carve out identity and meaning. Why? It is how we are built. It is our nature. We can't know past that. And many cannot afford to ponder over unanswered questions that cannot be unlocked at this level of existance. I do not want to look towards what could or could not be. I want to savor what I know is...........I want to live and enjoy for all that it is worth..........my answers will come.......................some way.................some how. HU, I do not claim to know the absolute truth, I'm just saying I believe it exists. This is the faith you were talking about. I believe that what we perceive to be true is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if absolute truth is attainable or not, what matters is that it is constant. Anomolous, you are the master of the run-on paragraph.
Try to break it up a little to save my eyes please! thanks! :eek: :D
Truth is the label we give to the recognition of the correct series of factual information, such as events, actions, occurrences, etc, as encountered by our senses in consensus with the encountered senses of other human beings. So, in a sense we are arguing over the use of the label of truth. What falls within the domain of the accurate definition of truth and what does not? Simplifying will allow the answers to come. Do not get trapped in the web of abstraction.
lol, you seem to have a foot in both camps, but your head's in HU's however much he may not like you. He seems to get along with theDon pretty well, who's killing me in a battle right now. :D
HU has been accusing me of oversimplification and now you're accusing me of overabstraction! this is rich.
Truth is not the label I give that, or rather that is not what I give the label of truth to. Truth isn't what I see, or what I believe. Like I have been saying the whole time, I am relative. You are relative. Truth is constant.
I believe that absolutes exist outside of our perceptions. They exist independent of our perceptions. As social-evolutionary theorists love to point out, in the cosmic scale of things we don't matter.
Or, as Trinity said in the Matrix, "the truth is out there Neo, " (meaning outside and independent of himself) "and it will find you if you want it to..." Anomolous, you are the master of the run-on paragraph.
Try to break it up a little to save my eyes please! thanks! :eek: :D
HU has been accusing me of oversimplification and now you're accusing me of overabstraction! this is rich.
Truth is not the label I give that, or rather that is not what I give the label of truth to. Truth isn't what I see, or what I believe. Like I have been saying the whole time, I am relative. You are relative. Truth is constant.
I believe that absolutes exist outside of our perceptions. They exist independent of our perceptions. As social-evolutionary theorists love to point out, in the cosmic scale of things we don't matter."
Sorry, I tend to write as I am thinking so I end up ranting. I didn't mean to accuse anyone of anything. My comments were directed more towards everyone involved not just you. Overabstraction was not my point.
To you, truth is a constant............what? Can you explain your view to me? Whether we matter or not seems irrelevant to me in this discussion. Everything we think, say, or do is based on a perception. We can't escape the designs of our brains. The irony I keep trying to point out is that in order to recognize an absolute, you must PERCEIVE it as such. You say I have feet in both camps. I don't see how anyone couldn't. You need one for the other. Don't you?
Also, how is it that we, human beings that physically exist, are relative while a conceptualized perception such as truth is constant or, more to the point, concrete? It is almost as if you are correlating apples with oranges. There is personal truth and then there is actual truth. If I believe, in my heart of hearts, that the sky is green, that has absolutely no impact on the actual truth, but it very much affects my truth. Because of these two differences there is no way to say that there is an absolute truth because you cannot determine what that absolute truth is. You could say that the absolute truth is that the sky is blue, but the fact of the matter is that we could all be color blind except for the guy who sees the sky as green. There is personal truth and then there is actual truth. If I believe, in my heart of hearts, that the sky is green, that has absolutely no impact on the actual truth, but it very much affects my truth. Because of these two differences there is no way to say that there is an absolute truth because you cannot determine what that absolute truth is. You could say that the absolute truth is that the sky is blue, but the fact of the matter is that we could all be color blind except for the guy who sees the sky as green.
Indeed. So too the Matrix. Perhaps the actual sky is black, but we are inside the Matrix, and have no knowledge of this. Now, I'm not some wacko claiming we are in the Matrix, but it is a line of thought we have to consider if we are to believe we can see anything as certain. As long as there is an 'what if' that we can't respond to, we can't be certain.
Anomolous, you state that wondering this would somehow inhibit me. I disagree. I have a personal religion in which I am open to new things. I am open to science, but also to religion, if it is brought in a manner in which I can believe it.
Am I constantly wondering "What does this matter if I don't exist?", no! This is perception is the only perception I can currently enjoy, and thus I participate in it. If I, hypothetically, get a wife and children, I too will get that life insurance, or something similar.
I believe we were participating in this discussion on the existence of God in another thread. "I do not claim to know whether God exists, but I believe he does not exist." I do not claim to know whether aliens exist, but I believe they do not exst." and "I do not claim to know whether this place exists, but I believe it exists."
Why? Because it is tangible, and because it is the only perception I have.
I do not lack Schopenhauer's will to live merely because I am not certain of life's existence.
lol, you seem to have a foot in both camps, but your head's in HU's however much he may not like you. He seems to get along with theDon pretty well, who's killing me in a battle right now.
You are vicious. I like and appreciate Anomolous a lot for offering his time here to learn from him. He has interesting points on various subjects and a subtle nuance I very much appreciate.
As for you, I do not like or dislike you, despite of whatever you may believe. If I feel like disliking anyone, I have enough ignorant fuckups living around me to dislike.
HU, I do not claim to know the absolute truth, I'm just saying I believe it exists. This is the faith you were talking about. I believe that what we perceive to be true is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if absolute truth is attainable or not, what matters is that it is constant.
Got ya there! I believe in it too, I'm just no certain of it's existence. If you believe in God, are you certain that he exists? Be honest about it and realise that you are not certain he exists. That's faith. Claiming to oneself that what he believes is certain, is avoiding the dangerous and beautiful questions.
Mr U Anomolous, you state that wondering this would somehow inhibit me. I disagree. I have a personal religion in which I am open to new things. I am open to science, but also to religion, if it is brought in a manner in which I can believe it.
Am I constantly wondering "What does this matter if I don't exist?", no! This is perception is the only perception I can currently enjoy, and thus I participate in it. If I, hypothetically, get a wife and children, I too will get that life insurance, or something similar.
I believe we were participating in this discussion on the existence of God in another thread. "I do not claim to know whether God exists, but I believe he does not exist." I do not claim to know whether aliens exist, but I believe they do not exst." and "I do not claim to know whether this place exists, but I believe it exists."
Why? Because it is tangible, and because it is the only perception I have.
I do not lack Schopenhauer's will to live merely because I am not certain of life's existence.Mr U
Wonderful. It seems as though you and I are of the same line of thought on this topic then. I can definitely concede to the possibility that reality is not exactly what we think it is. I just don't live my life by it. I know quite a few people who do and, funny enough, I tell them: GET A LIFE! :D I am glad that you do not fall into that trap. Many individuals that I know, who think they are so smart, just let life pass them by and ironically, they think they are the ones who are "in on the ruse".......when actually they ARE the ruse. Some I know think that way because they have this innate characteristic in their personality that makes them want to always feel as though they are a half a step ahead of everyone and everything..........................no way to live if you ask me.
As for God, I don't care whether a person believes or not. I have a very strict "live and let live with respect" policy when it comes to core personal beliefs such as religion. I just mentioned it because I pretty sure I read somewhere that someone was referring to God as an absolute truth. I forget now, but God logically can't fall within the definition of truth, in my opinion, so it doesn't belong in this discussion. It detracts from the point. I already knew your stance which, of course, is no problem for me. There is personal truth and then there is actual truth. If I believe, in my heart of hearts, that the sky is green, that has absolutely no impact on the actual truth, but it very much affects my truth. Because of these two differences there is no way to say that there is an absolute truth because you cannot determine what that absolute truth is. You could say that the absolute truth is that the sky is blue, but the fact of the matter is that we could all be color blind except for the guy who sees the sky as green.
Aha! That is very similar to what I and others have been saying all along. I, and the Matrix movies by the way, have been saying that what you describe as one's "personal truth" is a lie.
My argument is that the "actual truth" is the real "absolute truth" - and that it is a constant - and that everything else is relative to it.
I do not think that truth is an abstraction, even though it is intangible. I believe that it is very real. It is not an abstraction the same way that the "Real World" of the Matrix movies was not an abstraction, but was more real than any seemingly "tangible" electronic deception.
Got ya there! I believe in it too, I'm just no certain of it's existence. If you believe in God, are you certain that he exists? Be honest about it and realise that you are not certain he exists. That's faith. Claiming to oneself that what he believes is certain, is avoiding the dangerous and beautiful questions.
Then perhaps we all agree then. You are merely distressed that my belief carries what you consider an unhealthy level of strength and conviction.
You know, I've practiced that level of strength and conviction. I've learned that that's how one wins debates. ;)
As to the possibilty that all my beliefs are wrong, I do in fact keep that in mind. That's the whole point of the truth being constant and my being relative. It helps one remember that, "I can be wrong because truth is something that exists outside and independent of me and my mind."
Thank you very much for a stimulating and intelligent conversation, ladies and gentlemen. :D You know, I've practiced that level of strength and conviction. I've learned that that's how one wins debates. ;)
Yet the purpose, the nature of debate is identical to any other competition. It is not about winning, it is about improving. It is about learning from one's mistakes, and become better, more intelligent. The socratarian debates attempted, by reason and logic, to come closer to the truth, they were not an intent to prove that Socrates was a greater thinker.
There is a quote from Nietzsche (sadly I am at school, and lack the access I have at home) which I find beautiful. "One should not be willing to die for the truth, for one never knows for certain whether his beliefs are in fact the truth. Rather, one should be willing to die for the ability to have such beliefs."
"live and let live with respect"
In 'the real world' I don't really care about people's religions. As long as they leave me be I let them be. If I find people who are especially annoying, I might be less respectful to them. Than again, these are often people from varying religions.
Mr U lol u r funny HU. Belief in the righteousness of the cause of ensuring the "ability to have such beliefs" as you describe is in itself a belief, like unto any other.
i'm getting ready to go offline for the summer. I might be back on once or twice this week, but maybe not. This might be it. I do plan to write a farwell message on my blog and my h2g2 Space, and I do plan to come back. So TTFN (ta-ta for now) everybody.
tell me to have a nice trip and i'll see you all next fall! :) lol u r funny HU. Belief in the righteousness of the cause of ensuring the "ability to have such beliefs" as you describe is in itself a belief, like unto any other.
Accept I have no believe that it is righteous. I have no opinion on good and evil, and I leave the believing to others. That does not mean that I do not participate in life. It is the subtle nuance you do not seem to be able to appreciate.
Mr U I think my brain just melted and is flowing out of my ears after reading all this but I'll give it a try anyway... half of the discussions up there may have been more about the definition of truth than about the "absolute" truth or not absolute truth existence question if I got it right (which must not be your truth).
Personally I think that there are as many truths as there are facts and that they are all constant. As there is an endless number of facts there would be then an endless number of truths as well and at this point my brain began to overheat (I have problems picturing infinity it does not fit in my finite braincells and I have not got an infinite imagination either).
And I still believe that all those truths are all constant to an infinity of point of views. Damn. But that's just my point of view... dunno if there is any truth in there ... arrrrg and I agree with HU on the uncertainty of it all ... I think...there is just one truth of which I'm reasonably sure that is the one that I can be certain of nothing of what I believe to be truth... hahahaha
Now I need a beer and some ice to put on my poor blonde head... Clicky! (http://www.geocities.com/phineus_gage_cabal/)
^First read the section Discordianism 101. After that, read every other page of the site. Than, masturbate, and than find some links with nice names, and read them too. If your brain is not thanking you for going to that site within the first few minutes, you might as well stop, though.
here is just one truth of which I'm reasonably sure that is the one that I can be certain of nothing of what I believe to be truth
Except, a personal belief is not a truth, dear fool.
Mr U Clicky! (http://www.geocities.com/phineus_gage_cabal/)
^First read the section Discordianism 101. After that, read every other page of the site. (...) If your brain is not thanking you for going to that site within the first few minutes, you might as well stop, though.
Holy shit this is classic stuff! Thanks Pinky! This might actually keep me occupied for a while lmfao! Do you think that Pope Phineus might be related to Doug Adams ? lol :D
Shit you sure about the personal belief thing? It could be truth! It's my truth after all... add in some dimensions where the stuff I believe is actual truth and we'll still get some decent Sci-Fi movie out of this lol
Edited:
Actually this stuff is so good that you might even be right about the bit where I masturbate lmfaorotfpimp. I just realised that I have practised DISCORDIANISM 101 for years without knowing lmfao Ditch the 101 :P. It's just Discordianism I'm sure you have found the link to the book Principia Discordia by now. If you haven't, www.principiadiscordia.com (http://www.trip23.com/pd/) is a good source.
Or, if you feel like having some more options to play with Clicky! (http://www.trip23.com/pd/).
Discordianism really is a beaut. It takes the viewpoint of the nihilistic atheist, and translates it into a religion that allows for some good laughs. Change can be easy. Once you are find people ridiculous, it's hard to be pissed off at them. Great stress-reliever :).
Mr U Sadly, when I follow the PD link all I get is the following error message:
This site has been suspended.
Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.
Thanks for nothing. Than click the second link, tool. It has the book too.
People these days.
Mr U I cant be bothered to click the second link. Why dont you just edit your post, remove the damn broken link that you put there in the first place, and replace it with the one that does work. This wouldnt even be a problem if it wasnt for assholes posting broken links. There I fixed it. I'll doubt it will help you though. You need to apply blinker fluid on your pineal glant on a twice a day basis.
Mr U See, that wasnt so hard, now was it? Oh, and thanks for the link. THE FIVE COMMANDMENTS (THE PENTABARF)
The PENTABARF was discovered by the hermit Apostle Zarathud in the Fifth Year of The Caterpillar. He found them carved in gilded stone, while building a sun deck for his cave, but their import was lost for they were written in a mysterious cypher. However, after 10 weeks & 11 hours of intensive scrutiny he discerned that the message could be read by standing on his head and viewing it upside down.
KNOW YE THIS O MAN OF FAITH!
I - There is no Goddess but Goddess and She is Your Goddess. There is no Erisian Movement but The Erisian Movement and it is The Erisian Movement. And every Golden Apple Corps is the beloved home of a Golden Worm.
II - A Discordian Shall Always use the Official Discordian Document Numbering System.
III - A Discordian is Required during his early Illumination to Go Off Alone & Partake Joyously of a Hot Dog on a Friday; this Devotive Ceremony to Remonstrate against the popular Paganisms of the Day: of Catholic Christendom (no meat on Friday), of Judaism (no meat of Pork), of Hindic Peoples (no meat of Beef), of Buddhists (no meat of animal), and of Discordians (no Hot Dog Buns).
IV - A Discordian shall Partake of No Hot Dog Buns, for Such was the Solace of Our Goddess when She was Confronted with The Original Snub.
V - A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing what he reads.
IT IS SO WRITTEN! SO BE IT. HAIL DISCORDIA! PROSECUTORS WILL BE TRANSGRESSICUTED.
Is this for real? I don't even get it. lmfao that's the beaut of it. If you dont get it the first time you read it Veradis you never will....chaos rules! Hahahahaha. And btw all the links work for me shit I really dig this stuff, why did I never happen upon this before? Veradis, you can't understand for the same reason as you did not nor will you understand the points I made earlier in this thread. Chaos ensues in closed systems. Religion is a closed system. Acknowledging this entropy, acknowledging this chaos and laughing at it is discordianism. It flows from nihilism and moral relativism and such. Christians can not comprehend the beauty of this whole.
For example, look at the rules. They are paradoxial. They declare that a discordian should not believe what is written, yet Principia Discordia itself is written. It shows the folly and paradoxial nature of absolute rules. It's a statement against absolutism, but it is also a rule in itself. One should not believe what is written, including Principia Discordia. One should acknowledge that everything is chaotic, and we can't even be certain of our own existence. This is what the book than calls discordianism. So, the paradox turns out to be true, and it proves itself to be filosophically superior to any other religion.
Discordia is absurd, but through this absurdity shines a religion more pure and more filosophical than anything you'll ever find anywhere else.
Anyway, my explanations are of course inferior. FoolOnTheHill can concur with this, I think. You either understand or you do not understand. The book is near perfect and states enough for it to be nonsensical to one, and absolutely wonderful to others. In fact, even I still find new things in the book. More hidden meanings slowly reveal themselves. It's wonderful.
Mr U Dont forget the cosmic joke part. You need creative humour to get the irony of it all. And yep. I concur hahahahaha (still laughing, I actually printed the book lmfao)
Quote DISCORDIA: I am chaos. I am the substance from which your artists and scientists build rhythms....
hahahaha OK, I've read some more of it, and I think I understand it now. And HU, I understand your points, I just chose not to believe them. I have to admit, this is probably the largest-scale paradox I have ever seen. The fact that discordianism in itself is nonsensical according to it's teachings is very interesting to me. If it's all a cosmic joke, then there is no point. There's no reason to believe anything, including discordianism. It's just another way to let people go about their lives without fear of repercussions. Incorrect. Discordianism points at other religions being a paradox, and at itself, and thus becomes illuminated, and above paradoxial. It's an enlightened religion.
Mr U It's an enlightened religion.
Hahahahahhaha, stop it you're killing me lol
:D I havn't read the last 5 pages (with the exception of the original post) so please excuse me if I'm echoing someone else.
I think that there is an absolute truth, but it is impossible for us to be certain of what it is because at the same time I believe that our perspective makes our reality. My perception of something is all that matters when I make decisions, same for anyone else (I figure), and if we cannot see the absolute truth because our perception is off, then our reality is skewed to account for it.
This is how I justify when people argue uber-religious ideas (or anything of the like) without being reasonable and admiting that they could be wrong. It is because by their perception, in their reality, they cannot be.
This helps me to not think they are lunatics. Ive been reading thru a few of the pages...i have to say...i am certain that there is an absolute truth...like for religions and evolution...one of them may be the absolute truth, or none of them may be...but there is one that is the absolute truth which is constant forevermore, whether we know what it is or not :P Same here. If a tree falls, it will always make a sound. That is absolute truth. And sum1 has to have the right religion/theory. Even if sumthin is a mystery to us (watever it may be) the mystery has an absolute truth. Whether it is who committed the murder, is time travel possible, and so on, there is a truth sumwhere. It may take 4eva to figure out...or it may never be figured out...but absolute truth is out there sumwhere. We just have to try and find it. :) I agree, DogsRuleWorld - except I think that I have found someone who really has the whole thing.
I think I do actually understand the irony that ms. V seems to have missed to do with this joke thing. HU, your saying "Christians can not comprehend the beauty of this whole." was an absolute (and close-minded) statement - the very thing you so despise!
I really don't understand why relativists bother to get up in the morning and get to work on time. After all, whether they show up for work on time or not must be relative to their point of view ... so if they feel tired, then why bother?
Simply getting up in the morning when you'd rather stay in bed seems to me to be an acknowledgement of the constant nature of truth. was an absolute (and close-minded) statement
Nay, it was not little one. Yet this too, you and your christian brothers can not understand. You see, this is not prejudice against the christian group. This simply follows from your christianity. It is an inhibition tought by your religion.
Regarding the absolute statement. Nay, it is as absolute as you want to make it. Ever fact is based upon the chaotic theory. No fact is 100% guaranteed as there can always be different conditions that affect the fact. 'A Christian believes in God' is an absolute statement according to you. However, the mere word Christian is incorrect, as the process of believing in God is rarely binary. However, I doubt you can even grasp this, christian as you are.
I really don't understand why relativists bother to get up in the morning and get to work on time. After all, whether they show up for work on time or not must be relative to their point of view ... so if they feel tired, then why bother?
There is a clear distinction between Einstein's relativity and philosophical relativity, lol.
Simply getting up in the morning when you'd rather stay in bed seems to me to be an acknowledgement of the constant nature of truth.
The above doesn't amount to this. Your syllogism is baaaad, mofo..
Mr U Absolute truth isn't.
Truth is absolute, not the truth said by the mouth of man, but the truth existing in the events of the universe, be them observed or not.
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see it fall, it makes noise, that's common sense.
Saying that God exists is not absolute truth.
Saying that stars exist is not absolute truth.
Saying that the tree fell in the forest is not absolute truth.
Seeying a star and knowing what it is, is not absolute truth.
Seeying the tree fall and hearing it is not absolute truth.
because absolute means 100%, no mistake no doubt.
In my opinion, absolute truth is not something that can be said or observed, but it does exist. It is something that happens, yet because of the flaws in our senses and our perceptions, ABSOLUTE turth cannot be observed.
As soon as a person mentions the existence of something without being in it's presence the truth of it's existence cannot be absolute because of the flaws of humanity and our ability to register information and our bad habbit of often times changing the truth of what we saw because of pride or guilt or other emotions that may make us want to lie.
Absolute truth can be said to be observation, however as soon as that observation passes from the observer and is manifested in the senses by the observer it is no longer absolute truth because the observers perceptions and lack of perfection toward the observation, these things COULD change what he saw into something completely different.
A man walks into the forest at night and sees a bright light in the sky moving quickly, he returns home and tells his family that he saw a shooting star.
Another man walks into the forest at night and sees a bright light in the sky moving quickly, he returns home and tells his family that he saw a sattelite.
Even if someone asks them exactly what they saw and they both give clues that the light was indeed a sattelite and not a shooting star because it did not burn out, and because it was moving slower than a shooting star. This can not mean that it was in fact a sattelite, it could have been one of many different things, space junk, a flying saucer, who knows. No one would.
However, the truth of the matter is that a light DID cross the sky, another truth may be that this light was in fact a sattelite, yet regardless of proof, however so unchallenged and concrete (such as the records of orbital objects in Nasa's database and their locations on that day) no Human being can state Absolute truth. Absolute truth happens, it cant be observed, yet never observed in absolution.
Basically what I mean is that there is an absolute truth, but there is always room for error during the observation of events that are absolute turths.
No one can say 100% that something happened or that something exists. It's maybe possible to attain a 99.9% but there are so many variables in existence and our senses and technology is so inneficient that no one can say for sure anything.
You can see something from one angle and think it to be one thing, but in it's entirety it is something completely different.
anyway I can give examples 'till the cows come home. Read my earlier posts. If we can merely approximate this 'absolute truth', why insist on its existence? How can you be certain that something exists when you can't prove its existence?
Merely because it looks logical to us doesn't mean it actually exists. It's the same for cogito ergo sum. Sure, it is possible that we exist, but why elevate it to a truth or certainty?
Mr U You said exactly what I said.... in short.
BUT, you're missing a part of my point.
The Absolute truth exists, it's not a matter of us accepting that it exists, even if no one believed in it it still exists, we just can't attain in observation, not absolutely.
and yeah, I know what you're trying to say, but if I'd agree with that there wouldn't be a debate. lol. and yeah, I know what you're trying to say, but if I'd agree with that there wouldn't be a debate. lol.
I encourage you to create another thread about another subject, if this thread with its respective question has been answered. You will find me a willing partner in almost any debate.
I do not, however, linger in old threads, hoping they will experience the spark of life and walk amongst the living threads once more. My point has been made very clear in this thread, and I will leave it at that. I have repeated myself here much too often.
Mr U Nay, it was not little one. Yet this too, you and your christian brothers can not understand. You see, this is not prejudice against the christian group. This simply follows from your christianity. It is an inhibition tought by your religion.
I'm pretty sure that I'd know better than you would what *my* religion teaches, and just because you hear a Christian minister or Catholic priest somewhere say something doesn't mean I believe it. lol.
Regarding the absolute statement. Nay, it is as absolute as you want to make it. Ever fact is based upon the chaotic theory. No fact is 100% guaranteed as there can always be different conditions that affect the fact.
Define or eximplify the "different conditions" please.
'A Christian believes in God' is an absolute statement according to you.
I may be wrong, but I do not recall making any such statement.
...
(long drawn out pause)
...
Reguardless, that is easily mended. I will do so now.
A Christian believes in God.
Now to continue:
However, the mere word Christian is incorrect, as the process of believing in God is rarely binary. However, I doubt you can even grasp this, christian as you are.
OK, first, why say "the process of believing in" instead of "belief in" ?
"rarely binary" meaning you think it's not usually a simple "Yes i believe in God" and "No I do not" because of the questions of "Which God?" and "What is God?"
Is that what you're saying or am I missing something?
It is very rude indeed to insist that you can understand whatever it is I believe (which I repeat you have no clue) better than I can and at the same time that I am incapible of comprehending your beliefs. (or lack thereof)
There is a clear distinction between Einstein's relativity and philosophical relativity, lol.
At last a statemtnt from you I can agree with. Some people get so caught up in the symetry they forget that, and think that if one denies philosophical relativity one denies Einstein's relativity.
But then, at the risk of beating a dead horse, you can't really know for sure whether space and time are curved if you deny the existance of absolutes! So if I was to say something stupid like "Einstien was wrong, Newton was right!" then you couldn't say I was wrong because that would be using an absolute - a thing you deny the existance of. Examples fall down like bowling pins in the absense of absolutes.
Moving on, I think that everybody except HU now believes in the existance of absolute truth, but many believe that it is intangible. (i.e. one can never find it)
This gives rise to the next question. After, "What is Truth?" the next question is "Where is Truth?"
Where can absolutes be found? Silly rabbit. Had you paid heed, you would have noticed that more fellows here agree with my, rather enlightened, view, instead of your cliché christian view.
I don't know your views? Ha! You should check up on the difference between humanism and christianity.
So if I was to say something stupid like "Einstien was wrong, Newton was right!" then you couldn't say I was wrong because that would be using an absolute - a thing you deny the existance of.
Again, you fail to grasp my point. You would be wrong actually. Since Einstein proceeds on a term of Cogito ergo sum, yet it is this first assumption that 'we' (that's not including you) were discussing here.
It is very rude indeed to insist that you can understand whatever it is I believe (which I repeat you have no clue) better than I can and at the same time that I am incapible of comprehending your beliefs. (or lack thereof)
Oh, but I have not been rude at all. Your stumbling in the dark, waving your hands around, and disturbing my finely woven threads was rude.
Mr U Silly rabbit. Had you paid heed, you would have noticed that more fellows here agree with my, rather enlightened, view, instead of your cliché christian view.
Indeed!? Well tell these fellows to vote in my poll. As it stands now, I have not gone around looking for people who agree with me to vote in my poll, and my view is ahead of yours 10 - 5. Indeed, I would describe yours as a cliched anti-religious view, for just as relativism is not limited to those with anti-religous sentiment, so too is absolutism not limited to Christians.
Though, "My view is enlightened and yours is cliche" would strike anyone as a rather offensive and rude thing to say, reguardless of the statement's truth or falsehood, how can you be sure that your view is more enlightened than mine is in the absense of absolutes???
I don't know your views? Ha! You should check up on the difference between humanism and christianity.
Christianity is the basic idea that the Son of God is the center and measure of all truth.
Humanism is the basic idea that man is the center and measure of all truth.
Both take on many different forms and ideas.
And I repeat, you have no idea what mine are, only perhaps which broad general category they are in. Your placing me in some cliched group you have in your head is, as I've said, rude, though perhaps that isn't the best word.
If a Republicrat did it, I believe it would be called "discrimination."
Again, you fail to grasp my point. You would be wrong actually.
I can't be absolutely wrong if there are no absolutes! In order for me to be wrong, absolute truth HAS TO EXIST.
Since Einstein proceeds on a term of Cogito ergo sum, yet it is this first assumption that 'we' (that's not including you) were discussing here.
Wait a second! You're assuming things!?
"Cogito ergo sum" (I Think Therefore I Am) is a statement of faith. There is no logic or science or evidence to back it up. The idea that the thought, the existance, the thought requiring the existance, the chicken or the egg started somewhere and is an actual solid real thing is a faith-based statement at it's core. What's more, it is an absolute statement.
And Here's Your Einstein Quote of the Day:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
_Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium_ (1941) ch. 13
Oh, but I have not been rude at all. Your stumbling in the dark, waving your hands around, and disturbing my finely woven threads was rude.
Mr U
Funny, I coulda sworn you just admitted that I defeated your points - however clumsily.
:D Wait a second! You're assuming things!?
No I'm not. That's the whole topic of discussion, I'm not making assumptions. You are.
The reason most of them did not vote for the poll is becaues yours is one-dimensional. I did not vote for the poll, because my option was not amongst them.
Funny, I coulda sworn you just admitted that I defeated your points - however clumsily.:D
'defeated'? What a childish point of view. Regardless, how can you defeat what you can not see? Or, in case you'll misinterpret that as well (as you did my entire previous post) 'understand'?
Though, "My view is enlightened and yours is cliche" would strike anyone as a rather offensive and rude thing to say, reguardless of the statement's truth or falsehood, how can you be sure that your view is more enlightened than mine is in the absense of absolutes???
How arrogant of you to tell others what they should feel regarind a certain statement. You clearly are unable to distinguish rudeness from insulting. I insult, but I am not rude. You are insultingly rude.
And Here's Your Einstein Quote of the Day:
Oh, how impressive! You want some Patton quotes? Or perhaps some Newton quotes? Einstein was good at math, not philosophy.
I can't be absolutely wrong if there are no absolutes! In order for me to be wrong, absolute truth HAS TO EXIST.
Bleh, so predictable. You salvage from posts what you can and miss the overal point.
If a Republicrat did it, I believe it would be called "discrimination."
Republicrat? What are you on about? Anyway, stop playing the victim. Move to Central Africa.
And I repeat, you have no idea what mine are, only perhaps which broad general category they are in. Your placing me in some cliched group you have in your head is, as I've said, rude, though perhaps that isn't the best word.
What's next? The all-famous "You don't know me for sure, because I might be a different person on the net than I actually am!"-speech? You see, I don't give a fuck's ass what you are and what you aren't. 'I have in my head'? Is the only feeble insult you can muster an attempt at my integrity? The integrity you measure by your own foolish moral values?
Childe, I do not follow your moral inhibitions. I do not play by your little rules. Your insults do not matter to me because they do not affect me on any kind of level. You are attempting to hit a phantom, little one. Stick to what you are good at, although you hardly qualify as being good at debating.
Mr U lol. you're insulting me, yet I am the one being rude.
I apologize for not finding a strong enough insult, (heh heh heh) but insulting people isn't my strong suit. Is it yours?
Perhaps we all could take a lesson from when Socrates went to see the Oracle. you're insulting me, yet I am the one being rude.
Correctomundo! I have been kind and receiving, yet you, like veradis, prefer victimizing and elevating yourself and have rudely antagonised me, arguing to no end, without in any kind of manner making attempts to understand me. That, is rude. My insults are not rude, in fact, by my standards they are hardly insults. What you have been doing to yourself, looking like alibertines, is insulting to yourself. If God exist, I dare bet a buck that he is disgusted by you. In any case, I am.
Is it yours?
Haha. What you have seen from me is playing around, not insulting.
Mr U I would like to affirm that HU is indeed holding back here people. I'm actually quite impressed.
That is all. Back on topic. I knew I had that link here somewhere:
http://www.poee.org/images/30/answer.gif
For the lovers: Clicky! (http://www.poee.org/images/30/diogenes.gif)
Mr U ok, I will try to understand HU better if I can get some direct answers out of him, otherwise I don't see how I ever could.
HU, you have stated that I am foolish to make anything a certainty. Does your vast area of uncertainty include the concept of "I THINK THEREFORE I AM" and everything we can observe?
Because if it does, how are you talking to me? Patriot, does your own area of knowledge include the definitions of Irony, Paradox, derision (best turned upon oneself) and, most important, Humor? If you want to understand HU a little better you might want to look them up... wasn't talking to you. ;) Here comes the large godess to answer the third snub, or as a normal mortal would call it a lame-ass fucking question. Do I look to you as someone who is so spiritually and philosophically dumb-founded that the asking of such a primitive question will even shake my beliefs?
"I THINK THEREFORE I AM"
There is a certain degree of certainty (hehe, have to admire the English language for that) that this is correct. Adhering to it as a fact is foolish, than again, most things are foolish, read Erasmus. However, this basically means that it is uncertain.
It's silly to state something that is presumable as a fact. It's silly to state that when you have a rock and let it go that it is a fact that it will go down. If you understand the principles that make the rock go down, and you understand these principles, you know that such an act of falling is merely determined by certain rules, and that the rock may fall out of the rules stated for an object to fall down.
Imagine there is a strong wind current beneath the rock, strong enough to propel it upwards. In this case, you are wrong. Now, please note that not all of these principles, all these rules are observable. We don't know all of them because we don't see all of them. Newton said that he who has a momentary, complete view of the universe knows past and future, and in this he is correct. The problem is that we can't see and know everything.
This applies to cogito ergo sum as well. We know not all the premises of which this logical conclusion is deduced. Cogito, ergo and sum have been, as I previously stated, not properly, according to nature described. As long as a definition of a tree does not completely describe a 'tree', the word fails. As long as the definition of existence does not completely describe existence, the word fails, and (seemingly) logical conclusions fail. Trust me, Descartes was not known for his infallible syllogisms.
Am I conversing to you? Who are you? Define you? To me, you are but mere lines formed by small pixels on my computer screen that more often than not make no sense (hehe). Are you a person? How the fuck should I know? I can never be certain that you are of the same degree of existence as myself! In fact, I do not even know that I exist myself, considering I don't know what existence is..
Mr U What I'm getting out of this is that you believe that facts do not exist.
In other words, you know nothing. Correct? Facts are nothing more than an arbitrary matter of perspective. Uh-huh, so HU believes that objective facts do not exist, and that he knows nothing, correct? Certainly, if that happens to be your perspective. ok DonDaddy, i need to get it from the horse's mouth, unless you two claim to agree completely on everything. But meanwhile, HU has claimed that I don't understand this. So far, I understand the concept and strongly disagree with it. What part of this am I not getting then? The part where your beliefs detail yourself being a pretentious prick with a lack of imagination.
Mr U /\
||
||
:lol: a fine example of calm reasoned intelligence. :lol: Aw big deal. So i had a typo. whoop-de-doo. ha ha very funny Patriot had a typo. ha ha ha.
Screw this. I've made my point. Point? I wouldn't even call that blunt. I am not professing to be a nice guy, I am professing a simple clear philosophy that does not base itself upon the logical fallacies of judeo-christian and humanistic beliefs. Just because your mind is more polluted than a bucket of piss and you can't see clearly through it ain't my friggin problem.
Mr U ^Then again in a universe where everything is possible, the impossible should be possible too. Imagine a world where Patriot is right?
This was all fun, I have to go now and retch in a corner, you know how it is... lol (ew that bucket of piss allegory was not good for my upset stomach) Hmm.. You and your possible and impossibles. There are no absolutes in the universe. The concept impossible and possible is a mere human invention to approximate the universe. Because they are unable to properly describe that which they try to describe, any logical derivations drawn from it are flawed, and so too is your theory :P.
Mr U Uh-huh ... so far there's nothing in your theory that I don't understand. The only thing I don't get is where you then claim that I am wrong, because in that case either you don't follow your own philosophy or your theory is contradicting itself. If there are no absolutes then there's no way I can be wrong. O.o
HU, I think the problem is that I UNDERSTAND, but I simply do not AGREE. I would in fact like to get along with people. What's more, I do not think people who take the opposite position to mine are stupid, I just think they are wrong.
I'm not sure what you're used to, but I prefer to try to keep an atmosphere of polite disagreement in a debate. I do claim to be a nice guy and would appreciate it if you'd just stay off my thread(s) and don't talk to me if you aren't going to as well. I have fun arguing/debating, but about issues not this insulting-each-other crap. So please from now on let's both try to be civilized or just not talk to each other. OK? Your attempts to highjack the thread and attempt to point me at my 'bad' behaviour as being a negative are noticed, and ignored. I could not care less about your desires to live happily with someone else. You don't like my style of debate? Get the fuck off my porch.
If you want a debate, start a debate, start a discussion. All that you have shown untill now is endless rebuttal. You do not debate or discuss, for you do not take interest in the argument of the opposing party. You victimise yourself and your argument, and whine when you can't get your way. Now please, if you wish for a civilised debate, present it as such, rather than in your 'special way of writing' that you believe to be 'fun'.
Mr U [this post has been re-edited several times]
Your attempts to highjack the thread and attempt to point me at my 'bad' behaviour as being a negative are noticed, and ignored. I could not care less about your desires to live happily with someone else. You don't like my style of debate? Get the fuck off my porch.
:lol: its my thread! i started it, you highjacked it. Man, every time I say you are doing something you turn right around and prove me right. What is it with you anyway?
If you want a debate, start a debate, start a discussion.
You know what, neither of us budge an inch and never will. Which is a paradox on your side, because I'm the one who believes in absolutes, you aren't.
Let me refer you to the end of Post 83 (http://www.matrixmania.com/showpost.php?p=196516&postcount=83) where, I posted my responses to you and then tried to start another discussion with people, only to have it crowded out and ignored by your responses to my responses and so on.
All that you have shown untill now is endless rebuttal. You do not debate or discuss, for you do not take interest in the argument of the opposing party. You victimise yourself and your argument, and whine when you can't get your way. Now please, if you wish for a civilised debate, present it as such, rather than in your 'special way of writing' that you believe to be 'fun'.
:lol: OK for the record, this is what I said: I think debating is fun as long as it's civilized, and when it starts being rude it ceases being fun. When you put quotes around 'special way of writing', what are you quoting? or was that supposed to be italics? :wtf:
[later edit]
By the way, let me test something out here.
My view is enlightened and yours is cliche. With the reasonable quantity of intelligent members here, have you not wondered why no one, but me, here replies to these kinds of threads?
Mr U ah-hem, 6-11 for "Truth is Constant", till somebody will probably come along and screw with the poll.
quite a few people have replied to this thread. ;) many more than I expected.
[later edit]
perhaps what I should learn from this experience is, if a large group is attracted to a topid I started, to simply ignore disagreeable individuals instead of letting them take over the thread. hmm, I'll think on that one :) Or, you can stop making "the grass is purple" threads.
Mr U no that's blue - haven't you ever heard of bluegrass? :lol: no that's blue - haven't you ever heard of bluegrass? :lol:
I did't think it was possible but the quality of this thread has really gone down,hasn't it? Truth is just electrical signals interpreted by your brain... :) Actually, what Morpheus said was IF real is only what you can sense THEN real is just electrical signals interpreted by your brain. There's a difference between the meaning of "truth" and "real." You can have real lies, but you can't have lies that are truth.
I like that line from the AniMatrix better, "There is some fiction in your truth and some truth in your fiction." I think that's probably true for all of us. Actually, what Morpheus said was IF real is only what you can sense THEN real is just electrical signals interpreted by your brain. There's a difference between the meaning of "truth" and "real." You can have real lies, but you can't have lies that are truth.
I\
I know, it was a joke...note the smiley in my post. Anyway, truth I think is constant, it's about how we perceive it. If you can only know and prove the existence of perception, how do you know you are actually staring at something, namely, truth?
If you are looking in a mirror, are you looking at yourself, or are you looking at your reflection?
Mr U If you can only know and prove the existence of perception, how do you know you are actually staring at something, namely, truth?
If you are looking in a mirror, are you looking at yourself, or are you looking at your reflection?
Mr U
Not sure I can make sense of your first question...but about the mirror...you are looking at yourself and a reflection...but by 'yourself' do you mean what you believe yourself to be, or what others believe you to be? The two questions are essentially the same. You look in a mirror, and you see a reflection, not yourself. Simply because you see a reflection, an echo, does not mean that the actual object that is reflected exists in the sense where existence is related to the properties of the reflection. The color pink in actuality is more the reverse of pink, as it absorbs all the various dimensions not of pink. When we look at pink, we see the opposite. The word existence is of human design, and is unable to recreate the problematic complexity of existence, and thus of the existence of truth. The so-called logical paradoxes "there is no truth" is a truth, and thus truth exist are fallacies because existence is not properly defined.
Mr U Sir, one who believes "there is no truth" can only admit also that "there is no logic." So far as I can see the two are inseperable. Thus any logical deductions you make after the statement "there is no truth" are self-defeating.
When you look in a mirror, what you see is not yourself, not a reflection, but a mirror. Just like when you look at a television screen, what you see is not Neo beating up about a hundred guys in buisiness suits and sungalsses, not an actor on film, not a reflection of an actor on film, but a television screen. How good or how badly these clumsy mediums we human beings construct show us things is as irrelevent to how things really are as the United Nations is to the War on Terror.
I think you might be missing some of the point of what I've been saying. I think there is Truth out there that is objective. (i.e. outside of our minds) My point is, what we think or see is irrelevent to what the truth actually is - which does not change reguardless of how we percieve it and whether we believe in it or not.
(by the way, I do not mean to dismiss or make fun of your statements here, ok? i'm trying to see what all this mirror buisiness actually means) Bleh. Looking at a mirror, or any other surface is the exact same thing, except the mirror analogy made it a bit more clear, which was my original intention.
You see, "Cogito ergo sum" is a logical statement. Logic is a way of approaching the world, because the world we view obeys logical worlds. Thus, if the world exists, logic is probably a valid way of evaluating that world. however, because that logic is of our world, nay, of our view of the world, logic can not prove that existence. Saying cogito ergo sum, may be correct, if the statement "existence exists", which can not be proven by logic, because it preludes logic.
Thus, stating that truth exists as being a factual statement is nonsense. It's a view, a belief. That was my original hypothesis, one you originally attacked, ignorantly. Perhaps you have grown more intelligent since than (which would appear so, because you now have the intellectual decency to state "I think there is a truth out there". However, you still lack the decency to read my posts, and understand that I also believe that there is some degree of truth, some degree of approximation of truth (this is furthering on the reasoning that cogito ergo sum is correct (and this assumption we must respect and remember. Always.). But merely because we view this approximation, this image, does not mean that there is that reality. Like we see ourselves in the mirror, does not mean that we ourselves exist. Imagine that the mirror distorts our image to make us bigger, we see something that does not exists.
By the way, if something exists outside our views and minds, how do you know it exists? It's the same idiocy (for that it is) as believing in God. It's faith, and although that may sound as a good thing, it's just making an assumption to (as I have shown before) to feel better. When we profess to know the truth, or feeling that a truth exists and that we can be closer to it than others, which inevitably happens, makes one more divine than others, and demonises others. It's eventually all about dragging others down and feeling better oneself. How... noble.
Mr U I wrote an excellent response to that, but something went wrong and the stupid thing didn't post it. I haven't time at the moment but soon I will try and type it up again. Given the rampant errors springing up all over the forum I would suggest using something like Word to type all of your posts in. Then just copy and paste the post over. If there is a problem you havent lost all that info. i think that is a wise suggestion yes.
as to whether i'm actually going to do it, i think I am much to lazy to go so far as to save everything ... maybe when i think i'm typing something really cool (and/or lengthy) i'll do that but genearlly its not worth it. ok here we go again
You see, "Cogito ergo sum" is a logical statement. Logic is a way of approaching the world, because the world we view obeys logical worlds. Thus, if the world exists, logic is probably a valid way of evaluating that world. however, because that logic is of our world, nay, of our view of the world, logic can not prove that existence. Saying cogito ergo sum, may be correct, if the statement "existence exists", which can not be proven by logic, because it preludes logic.
What I'm saying is anything that precludes logic is a faith-based statement, and, since you claim there are no absolutes, who are you to say that one faith-based statement is better/more-enlightened than another?
I, on the other hand, could say, "Your theory sucks" because I do believe in absolutes. (i'm not actually saying that, that's just an example)
Thus, stating that truth exists as being a factual statement is nonsense. It's a view, a belief. That was my original hypothesis, one you originally attacked, ignorantly.
er, I've been saying that it seems to me to be the only belief on that level that makes any sense.
Perhaps you have grown more intelligent since than (which would appear so, because you now have the intellectual decency to state "I think there is a truth out there".
I would hope that we are all constantly growing more intelligent - like the old saying, "you learn something new every day."
So, I wouldn't disagree with that statement in a general sense, but FYI I had used the phrase "I think there is a truth out there" many times before I'd ever met you.
However, you still lack the decency to read my posts, and understand that I also believe that there is some degree of truth, some degree of approximation of truth (this is furthering on the reasoning that cogito ergo sum is correct (and this assumption we must respect and remember. Always.).
uh ... OK ?
still I dont get why you claim that basing your logic on that particular statement of faith is more enlightened than any other statement of faith given that there are no absoultes ... but to continue ...
But merely because we view this approximation, this image, does not mean that there is that reality. Like we see ourselves in the mirror, does not mean that we ourselves exist. Imagine that the mirror distorts our image to make us bigger, we see something that does not exists.
ah, well, in the absense of absolutes, you don't really know anything now do you?
By the way, if something exists outside our views and minds, how do you know it exists?
by coming out of one's shell, waking up and smelling the absolute aroma of coffee that makes me sneeze whether I like it or not.
It's the same idiocy (for that it is) as believing in God. It's faith, and although that may sound as a good thing, it's just making a |