True statements: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » True statements » True statements

True statements

Page: First 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Last

True statements

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/12/09 - 07:46 PM:	#481
Banno wrote: I am not at all sure what "actually, objectively exist" might mean when juxtaposed to "exist". The adverbs don't appear help in any way. Indeed, they appear simply to dissipate and confuse. Then you are obviously not clever enough to make the mental distinction required to understand that humans do not have access to immutable truth. Perhaps we've reached the limit of what you can discuss. The rebuttal is that you are asking too much of language when you put adjectives such as "actually" and "objectively" in front of words like "exist". I have borrowed those from objectivists who talk about truth representing the way things actually are. Objectively simply means not subjectively, as in regardless of how we see things or the classic "how-things-are-whether-we-believe-it-or-not". It isn't difficult conceptually nor is it confusing. Since I am typing on a computer, it would be obtuse to ask if the computer I am typing on exists, but the answer would be apparent. If you wish to insert the words "actually" or "objectively" then you ought give a coherent account of why those words are needed, and what they do. Would you be so kind? Yes. Actually as opposed to mere mental imagery or a vivid dream and objectively as opposed to subjectively. One or the other will suffice to get the point across but I used them redundantly both to emphasize my point and to answer two objectivist positions in one swell foop. I will do my best to show that your account is not coherent. I hope that this is what you want. You in turn can do your best to show me the error of my ways. Best wishes, Banno Well, I was afraid I had already seen your best and since this post is reiterating points I've already made I am not especially optimistic that you will surprise me and actually get it this time around.

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/12/09 - 08:28 PM:	#482
Willowz wrote: I never said anything about god! Either you have a short memory or someone else was posting using your screenname. "Your practically saying that god exists and using his existence as an argument for the existence of everything conscious and unconsciously perceivable." This wasn't you saying something about God? You brought him up. No I did not. I brought up the God's eye view concept. God, Himself, or whether He exists or not, is not relevant to that. Neither did I impose that I took a gods eye view on that tree: I'm trying too use logic to prove the existence of that fallen tree. Not some god POV. I'm simply trying to show you where your logic contains a GEV. I want you to understand where your logic inserts a POV that you, yourself, IRL, could not actually have. This then makes your logic questionable. I didn't have to witness it too know it happened. You had to witness something. You had to witness evidence. You assume and believe the rest. I don't know who created The scenario. You did. You weren't talking about an actual tree. You were talking about a hypothetical one for the sake of laying out your logical argument. You didn't specify a particular tree in a particular location, like your front yard, that you have actually seen. You just said "a tree falls" within the context of a hypothetical situation. Anything other then that what I see is out of my conscious reasoning. Isn't that what I just said? Still that does not mean that things out of my conscious view don't exist. It is very simple. If you have zero awareness of something then for you it does not exist. You can hypothesize that something outside of your awareness might exist but you can't name or describe it because doing so points to conscious awareness. Are you implying that everything must apply to cogito ergo sum? I'm not implying it. I'm stating it plain and simple. Please stop putting god there, where he isn't needed. I didn't put God there. Would it make any sense if I said a Bob's eye view? The point of view to which I am referring requires a singular point of reference in order for you to understand what I mean. I chose the most obvious, universal and expedient means to illustrate it. You have repeatedly missed the point and keep insisting that I'm talking about the existence of God rather than simply presenting a hypothetical POV. If it will unwad your panties I will refer to it as a Creator's Eye View or CEV instead. Did your dog tell you that? Oh crap. You're going to be one of those people that is going to argue that animals are capable of abstract thought and ponder the universe just like we do aren't you? That is a different thread altogether. We don't know if objective reality exists or not. That is precisely the point I've been trying to make all along. After my dog died the world went on. After I die the world will go on. Am I special enough that the world will end when I die?...No. These are statements of faith. You don't and can't know that the world will go on after you die. The only way to confirm that would be for you to die. What you have gone off of the rails on here is that this is the nature of truth. You are stating that the world will go on after you die as though it is inarguable truth but it is, in fact, only something you believe because you can't confirm that it is true. The world went on after your dog died is merely an observation from your POV. It too is a belief statement and not an immutable truth. It is the truth as you see it. It's a rational presumption. Rational yes but isn't presumption just another word for belief? So, now what are we talking about? Your subjectivity? Mine, yours and everybody's. We are talking about what makes a statement true and what makes something true is someone believing that it is. If it were an immutable truth we wouldn't have to be rational or presumptive about it. So are you living in your subjectivity and think that everyone should think like you do. Every conscious person does think like I do. We all have the same equipment (to varying degrees of functionality) with which to experience reality and we all do so in basically the same way. You could as well say:"I know everything and should not be reasoned with". Since I am arguing a subjective POV that speaks to my not knowing anything epistemically (the cogito notwithstanding) so I don't understand how you derive this conclusion. My, my, my... "I reject reality and accept my own"? Maybe you are trying to say that? You aren't using rationality just beliefs. That's right. I am using just beliefs because that is all we ever have. You have misrepresented what I've said but you are very close. I hope to be able to clarify it and get you to understand. When you represent me as saying "I reject reality", what reality is it you imagine I've rejected? I only have one reality that I can work with and that one is my own. What you have me saying is that I reject and then accept my own reality, which makes no sense. I have no choice but to accept my own reality just as you have no choice but to accept yours. Now, if you mean I reject objective reality that doesn't make sense either. I don't have access to objective reality. There is nothing to reject. If you posit the possibility or even the logical necessity that it may exist I do not reject that. I can't. It may not exist. I don't know. If you posit something about the nature of reality I can reject that because all you are telling me about is your perception/belief of reality and mine can differ. Quite obviously I am going to prefer mine.

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 07/12/09 - 08:42 PM:	#483
Let me just throw a twist into the color argument. Suppose that a kid has the color receptors in their eyes cross-wired and where we see green that kid sees the color red. Here's the thing. Growing up, the adults in his life would point to grass and say that it is green. Regardless of the fact that the kid saw what the rest of us call red, he would say grass is green. If you held up an American flag and asked him what the alternate stripes were he would tell you that they were red and white even though his eye is showing his brain green. Green means go and red means stop. The kid would obey those regardless of seeing the opposite colors from what we see because the one on top would be labelled green by him. We have no way to determine that we are all seeing the same color.

enl1ghtened
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 20

Posted 07/12/09 - 08:53 PM:	#484
Truth is the connection between something two sovereign consciousnesses experience. It is the meeting point of realities, perceptions, where each can point and recognize one that is not either of themselves.

FlowOfEnergy
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 07/12/09 - 09:08 PM:	#485
Anything someone believes to be true is true for all truth is subjective. Every statement is true every belief is true and who is to say they are wrong?

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 705

Posted 07/12/09 - 09:32 PM:	#486
oag wrote: .....We are talking about the simple fact that we can never know the true nature of objective reality. We can only ever pick what seems to us to be the most probable explanation for it and choose to believe that this explanation represents the way things really are. It may or may not but we will never know. It doesn't matter which one we place our faith in because when we are not busy imagining what objective reality might be, we are busy dealing with how reality subjectively presents itself to us. Yeah, last I heard there were 11 dimensions to space. There may be a lot going on we don't realize. I do have to disagree with the last statement qouted : I think it does matter which probable explanation for objective reality you accept. If you think your in a universe created and occupied by you alone, then you'd be stark raving mad by most standards. I'm going to have to continue with my tentative truth that the world in front of me is in front of me.
Or not.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 07/13/09 - 12:14 AM:	#487
oag wrote: Cheshire wrote: I don't understand how a subjective reality could be possible if there is no objective reality. Can you explain how that could be? Once again, and hopefully for the very last time for those who have just arrived on the short bus, I have not said anywhere, in any way, that there is no objective reality. But Cheshire makes a very important observation: one cannot posit the subjective without also positing the objective.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 07/13/09 - 12:36 AM:	#488
oag wrote: Then you are obviously not clever enough to make the mental distinction required to understand that humans do not have access to immutable truth. Doubtless. What I have the most trouble with, is why we ought search for immutable truth at all. Why is it so much more important than truth? Moreover, if we are to seek it, we ought have at least some idea of what it is. Else we may find the Boojum rather than the Snark . so what is an immutable truth? Presumably an immutable truth is one that does not change. But that can't be right, since we do have access to truths that do not change: those of mathematics, for example, or even the statement "I am writing this post", suitably indexed... As for truths "representing the way things actually are", I hope that we might agree that truth at the least ought not represent the way things actually aren't! Or is this what you are suggesting? And since you define "objective" as "not subjective", the whole issue seems to rest on what you mean by "subjective". So, what does "subjective" mean in your system? You see, the introduction of this juxtaposition is a trap; once set, one seems obligated to make the distinction as clear as possible. But I fear that the distinction, like that between "here" and "there", does not lend itself to this sort of treatment. This is why I keep dragging you back to the terms you are using. they are the philosopher's tools, and we ought keep them clean. Edited by Banno on 07/13/09 - 01:04 AM
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 616

Posted 07/13/09 - 12:58 AM:	#489
Banno wrote: But Cheshire makes a very important observation: one cannot posit the subjective without also positing the objective. That is the point oag. If my posts didn't say it then let Banno and Cheshire say it for me. oag wrote: In a manner of speaking yes. My temporal reality will cease. I will no longer see or remember anything so I and my experience, and my memories will disappear. I'll try to sum it all up. If possible, try not looking at reality only with memories. Don't label every tree with the same memory of some tree from 10-15 years old.
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 616

Posted 07/13/09 - 01:04 AM:	#490
Banno wrote: Then you do not think we need to do something about those who do not agree with the common-sense idea that everything is a goat? I am not in favour of the persecution of those who fight against goatism. Live and let live. Why stick with goats? Why is the goat so special? How about:"...those who do not agree with the common-sense idea that everything is a cockroach?" I guess I better move this post into "Everything is Goat"
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

Page: First 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Last

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.