True statements: Philosophy Forums

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

True statements

Page: First 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

True statements

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 705

Posted 08/11/09 - 12:34 PM:	#651
oag wrote: Oooo that is so magnanimous of you. How wonderful. I can stop eating worms now. At least it demonstrates that you do grasp what I am talking about on some level. I'll try to use small words so see if you can follow this. If God does not exist then no one has absolute truth because humans do not have the perspective, the knowledge, the perfection, the infinity, whatever descriptor suits you, to have access to immutable truth. For us it is always a matter of whatever degree of certitude we believe we might have about something. We simply believe that things are true without ever knowing for certain whether or not they are. It is very simple. God is the only being that could have, know, understand absolute truth. I leave it to you to decide if such a thing exists or not. In the meantime it is an ideal that we cannot have like infinity or perfection. We can comprehend what it is while still understanding it is something we can never point to or possess. You misunderstand, I know why you think we don't have absolute truth. I don't understand how you ignore the massive contradiction to say the following:[not a quote, but what i gather from this well of needless rambling, you dig day after day...] Absolute truth exists, but is not possed by anyone or thing ever. Absolute truth isn't something that can exist without a person for it to exist within.or book some have argued Either absolute truth exist and we have it OR Absolute truth does not exist. I guess your saying it doesn't exist, but it could, but it never will. Which is another contradiction. Because to say something is possible, but has not and will never happen - is saying the possible is also the impossible. Metaphor: You are claiming happiness exists, but everyone is sad. But they could be happy, but they won't be because hey are always sad. A complex bit of nonsense you got. God as a metaphor is at best confusing and at worst a cop-out for using religious dreaming to discuss logic and reality. Edited by Cheshire on 08/11/09 - 01:04 PM
Or not.

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2187

Posted 08/11/09 - 12:34 PM:	#652
oag wrote Is it impossible for you guys to imagine that a second look might actually cause a greater error? If you can explain the production of errors from observations then it's easily done.
"A word in your ear is like an untethered goat in a field" Wittigenstein

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 08/11/09 - 01:19 PM:	#653
Cheshire wrote: You misunderstand, I know why you think we don't have absolute truth. I don't think you really do as you keep making points and asking questions that have nothing to do with it. I don't understand... You should jhust leave it at that. Absolute truth exists, but is not possed by anyone or thing ever. OK let me see if I can, using the same illustration I used moments ago, make this more clear to you. Absolute truth exists as an abstract concept just like perfection and infinity. It represent an unattainable ideal. Is there part of that which you cannot understand? No human being has any experience with anything perfect nor is any human being perfect. No human being has experience with anything infinite nor are they infinite in any way. We can conceive of these things and even embody them in God. He can be perfect, infinite and have absolute knowledge/truth. He makes for a nice package in which to express all of those abstracts in one being. Absolute truth isn't something that can exist without a person for it to exist within.or book some have argued That much is true because truth is always a matter of perception and expression. Either absolute truth exist and we have it OR Absolute truth does not exist. I guess your saying it doesn't exist, but it could, but it never will. Which is another contradiction. Because to say something is possible, but has and will never happen - is saying the possible is also the impossible. It is not possible for a human to have or to make something that is perfect. Does that make the word perfect meaningless? Where is the contradiction? Absolute truth exists as an ideal and we cannot have it in practical consideration. That is not a contradiction but an observation of reality. You are claiming happiness exists, but everyone is sad. But they could be happy, but they won't be because hey are always sad. A complex bit of nonsense you got. Except that this is a bit of nonsense you've got. I never said anything of the sort. God as a metaphor is at best confusing and at worst a cop-out for using religious dreaming to discuss logic and reality. Interesting but your POV is not supported by the works of the greatest western philosophers of all time. They found the conception of God (or some other name or title referencing the same concept) a useful, inspiring, logical and not at all confusing device around which to ponder the greatest mysteries of life. I'm sorry that this lies outside of your skill set. I will, for your sake, try to limit my references to simpler, more mundane conceptualizations.

oag
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555

Posted 08/11/09 - 01:25 PM:	#654
ragus wrote: If you can explain the production of errors from observations then it's easily done. I find the request a bit convoluted. Errors in observation are caused by erroneous interpretations of what one observes. I should think that is obvious. Are you attempting to back me into some corner where I will finally have the revelation that it is the things themselves which cause the errors and not the human observers? I don't understand where you guys get the notion that inanimate objects do things nor why you think it important for me to agree with such nonsense.

nymirza
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 11, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 08/11/09 - 09:25 PM:	#655
Experience is the only source for true knowledge. Experience means that which comes from the physical senses, or through our own mental process. However, although this may seem tricky, experience merely gives us fact not a necessity. I can only see, hear, or feel that a thing is, never that it must be. my eye tells me that this paper is here, but it will never tell me that it must be here. No one can know that 2 plus 2 equals 4 until it has been pointed out in experience.

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2187

Posted 08/11/09 - 10:09 PM:	#656
oag wrote Errors in observation are caused by erroneous interpretations of what one observes. So there are observations and interpretations of observations. I observe an object and I believe erroneously that it's a rock. Is my erroneous interpretation of the observation a result of thinking? Is thinking also an observation? If it is, it seems to be making use of my memory of rocks rather than rocks and to be internal rather than external. Your positive comments are appreciated.
"A word in your ear is like an untethered goat in a field" Wittigenstein

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 607

Posted 08/12/09 - 03:02 AM:	#657
oag wrote: You have none of that correct. First, just because a human thought is not articulated in internal dialogue does not make it somehow objective. It is still occurring within a human brain and is subject to the limitations, filtration, and prejudices therein. Language is not private, it is public. It is necessary to communicate our thoughts with each other. Lastly, there is no objective look at reality. I have only my subjective one. You, my friend, are 0 for 3 on that post. Let's throw away the "I win you loose"atmosphere, even though this is somewhat a game ;-). Heh, if everything is subjective then I guess there is something objective to be subjective about. Limitations... The only limitation I see here is the the lack of reason and a dominance belief in every post. And lets not forget that belief is born out of uncertainty. Furthermore... "If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty."...If language is public then I don't see why you are complaining that everything is subjective. There is an objective look at reality for every human. This objective look might not always be true, but it is objective for himself. EDIT:Just more funny stuff: oag wrote: Absolute truth exists as an abstract concept just like perfection and infinity. It represent an unattainable ideal. Oag, you are arguing here that if something is to exist for a human being then it must, be experienced. Just because infinity cannot be experienced by a human, doesn't mean it does not exist. If your cogito can't ergo the sum then that's your problem. Edited by Willowz on 08/12/09 - 06:36 AM
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

Cheshire
Aspect

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 705

Posted 08/12/09 - 08:05 AM:	#658
oag wrote: Absolute truth exists as an abstract concept just like perfection and infinity. It represent an unattainable ideal. oag wrote: Absolute truth isn't something that can exist without a person for it to exist within.or book some have argued "That much is true because truth is always a matter of perception and expression." The ideal of absolute truth is a concept about absolute truth. It is not the same as actual absolute truth existing. You have stated that actual absolute truth is "unattainable". You have agreed that absolute truth must exist within someone for it to exist. If absolute truth is unattainable and cannot exist outside of a person or book. Then, you have stated absolute truth is impossible. Which implies "there is no absolute truth". Which is a self refuting argument. Edited by Cheshire on 08/12/09 - 08:26 AM
Or not.

EnigmaSolver
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

Posted 11/18/09 - 09:32 PM:	#659
Truth is the separation of Being from Becoming. A truth is a degree of relativism on an absolute scale. We do not possess the ability of seeing the absolute scale.

EnigmaSolver
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/18/09 - 10:22 PM:	#660
The distinction between Being and Becoming is a distinction between variables: An independent variable and a dependent variable. For example, Michael's perception about John is that he is arrogant. Although one could argue that Michael's perception is wrong, or not true, the statement Michael's perception is not true appears to imply that his perception does not exist. Michael's perception may very well be wrong, but it is still true. The independent variable is John's arrogance. The dependent variable is what causes Michael's perception to function the way it does.

Page: First 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

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