What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Above I have disproved your and Chaz's: "we cannot add 'absolute' or 'objective' or 'universal' unless we admit the existence of these relationships between the subject and the object. ..." and so in fear you try and scramble to pick up the pieces of your facade so as to maintain your illusion. You appear to be a man of hollow words, and not a man of actual physical means.

And your delusion here is exactly why we think you are so stupid.
It would seem you are stupid, speak for yourself, fool!

Every truth you try to demonstrate reinforces the view which Lance and I have asserted, simply because your method inevitably exemplifies that viewpoint. Everything you hold true is based on a relationship between you (the subject) and the thing you think is a truth (the object).
Bullshit! Just because you say so, does not make your case. Get off your lazy ass and try and make a case for a change!

[lancek4]

[quote="SpheresO

Red=SoB; (sorry I had to adjust it for the 3 embedded quotes thing)
blue=lk4, and the post outside the box.
I think more to the point: The result of the discussion of truth is evident of most discussion that has to do with true things. The discussion always leads to a compromise or a negotiation of truth, such that the truth is thus what a defined majority or consensus deems.

What is this then ? What is this truth that 'they' establish? Say for example 'all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights...'. What truth is this? How did it come about? Or perhaps a most siginifcant question: from where did does it arise? From observation? From utility?

Or the most operative: what relation do I have to this truth? Am I an object defined by a conflation of objects? Or am I that which establishes the conflation ?

Is that which is contradictory, that is, reason that reaches contradiction, de facto false?

... or what kind of truth is it that admits to any compromise?

Oh shit! That's it , isn't it? The issue here.

That's what I like about you Chaz; your not afraid to bring things right down to the line.

So what are we talking about. Are all humans created equal? What are we talking about ? Lead it onward.

I just think that the truth is not in any sense "out there". Were there no humans then there would be true. Nothing would be true without persons to ask what is true.
Incorrect, truth was born of man finally realizing that his beliefs, were incorrect (false). Truth then, was meant to be a place holder for all that man currently, at any particular moment, believes; that which is 'in' his head, that is in fact, actually false, as compared to that which is actually 'out there,' that his understanding shall one day come to realize.

For instance the belief that the earth was flat, was false (untrue), it was 'in' mans head, but by this time man knew that the truth was 'out there,' as it turned out he ventured 'out there' and found the truth, that in fact the earth was spherical. If he had never ventured 'out there' he would have never known this truth, as 'out there' was the only place it could be found, as truth is not to be found in his head.

If a man is born without any senses, he is deaf, dumb, blind and without smell or touch, he is completely with'in' himself and knows absolutely nothing of any truth, whatsoever. If suddenly a miracle cure of medical science restores all of his senses, he may now for the first time venture 'out there' to finally be acquainted with the truth that had always been 'out there' all around him, just waiting to be understood. Of course along this journey, he shall presuppose, anticipate, what truths lie around the next bend, and in so doing, he shall have beliefs born from within his own head, that only what's 'out there,' around the next bend, shall illuminate, as to in fact, the actual truth of the matter.

Plato was dead wrong. There is not ideal forms; except those that we generate in our minds. Thank you; yes....

Truth is about the relationship between me, you and others and the things that we object to our scrutiny.
Thus truth is not just contingent on that which is the case. It is also contingent upon our perception of those objects of our interest.
...with stipulation...

.
Incorrect, if you are not interested as to whether or not your wife is screwing your neighbor, in truth, she still may be, if in fact she is in truth, your interest matters not.

But whilst we can agree upon what we think is true,
What you think is true, matters not!

we cannot add 'absolute' or 'objective' or 'universal' unless we admit the existence of these relationships between the subject and the object. ...
go on with your bad self...

Incorrect, if you are sitting in your home as the subject and you are oblivious to the true object of fire approaching your home, you still burn up and die whether you admit this relationship or not.

If you want to know about 'absolute' ask SoB and his delusions.
Your argument defeats itself, as such, it is you that is delusional. You state your case, as if in fact, it's absolute, yet you say there can be no absolutes!

Objective truth is nothing more than the consensus of predefined criteria (arbtrary always), and universal can never be established until the end of time.
Incorrect, universal merely means, from the outside in, as opposed to, from the inside out.

Indeed there are constants of some universe that enter into our knowledge, such as 'there are things that can catch fire'. The constant is that we merely exist; there is no disputing that somehow there is an interaction amoungst things of the universe.

The question is, again: how do you know this. If I put my hand in a fire, it hurts it burns. The terms that come to my sense of knowledge have nothing to do with this aspect of existence. The terms 'fire', 'burn', 'pain' have no necessary correlation to the event or object except that they have arisen in knowledge as such. The issue is how these terms relate and correlate to what we know as true. The separation of 'fire' and 'plastic' to our knowledge is merely a situating of relations into a particular scheme of truth. In fact, there could be no meaning of 'fire' without the term 'plastic'. We cannot recourse to some history and say that this proposition is incorrect, that there was a time when there was no term 'plastic' because when you do so (rebut in this way) you are recoursing to the scheme of truth that segregates knowledge (terms) into a particular relation, which is the scheme of truth. In other words, when you say 'in the past', the term 'past' is being used as a segregated item in-itself to relate to another item 'plastic', as if these terms refer to specific temporally placed, actual-real, objects in-themselves. Indeed further, as I speak here, I am relying upon a particular scheme of truth to dis-place 'temporal' from its usual position in our scheme - because 'temporal' will usually and automatically refer to the object in-itself that is this supposed item in space-time. Likewise, when I say 'space-time', the usual meaning in our particular scheme of truth will habitually be taken to refer to a particular thing in-itself. Where an absolute thing in-itself exists for meaning, there is necessarily a correspondent 'culmination' or 'reckoning' or 'grand truth' that lay in wait for our progressing knowledge.

The point is that there are no object in-itself that we can know 'absolutely'. To refer to some 'absolute' truth necessarility posits the object in-itself that we can know, and completely denies the limitation of knowledge.

The seeming referent that applies 'wife screwing your best freind' to an actual in-itself object is merely a state of existing that is being confered to knowledge. It does not mean that the event has any particular actual meaning; if it did, everyone who's best freind was screwing thier wife would react the exact same way. The meaning of the event is only true to the extent that it is segregated into a general scheme to create meaning that avoids inherent contradiction of experience.

Now, this is all small talk.

So, as I say; where there is an absolute true object, there is correspondant positing of 'getting somewhere', of progress.

But what we see when we come to terms with the limits of knowing, is that because the true object only exist within and for the positing of progress, which is to say, there is no object in-itself that can be known in its 'essential truth', such a posting merely justifies the positor, and has no real correlation with the proposed progress 'in-itself', but only in as much as the shceme of truth justifies the consciousness that posits it.

Hence, we look into our 'base of knoweldge' (the panoramic surficial depth that is knoweldge), so to speak, and see that every culture, every civilization, every group that has existed has a total meaning of the universe: its truth. And that thier truth was total; it was True. Thus, it is not that this 'objective truth' of yours (sob) is True in some essential progressive way, as if we have learned some essential in-itself knowledge from the 'past', and that we are now so much more knowledgable that the past cultures: this is our Truth. Our Truth explains everything in reference to justifying itself as The Truth.

Technology and science exist as components our our existing, part of our human 'nature', inseparable from our knowledge. there is no 'what if'. It is only in the segregation of knowlegde that we justify our being through the scheme of truth that grants us reality: the absolute truth.

There is no spearating a plant from the medium in which it grows. If one does so then the plant de facto no longer grows and therefore does not exist.

so the real issue at hand becomes ((which N (sorry; bleeding threads) addresses but in short-sighted in his position, and likewise Kierkegaard:)) how is it that i am able to know This? How can This be true?

Thus irony. And thus the conversation that Slavoj Zizek has a handle on and attempts to reconcile. This is where the substantial conversation begins.

When we come to terms with the mythology that we pose at every turn of our asserting a particular reality, then we can begin to remove the 'idols' from our fancy. We can (hopefully)find a better way to speak of the trascending object than to mythologize it into the absolute object. We can step aside from such well-tread discussions that depend upon the object in-itself. And we can then (maybe) find this 'ubermensche', this individual who has 'gone over' what we know as the 'true humanity'.[/qu
All that you have said above is total bullshit. You are caught up on language as if it has any power whatsoever as to truth. Truth exists without us, language is just a crude grunting system by an animal to try and approximate what the truth contains, which is why the animal fails to do so, much of the time.

Above I have disproved your and Chaz's: "we cannot add 'absolute' or 'objective' or 'universal' unless we admit the existence of these relationships between the subject and the object. ..." and so in fear you try and scramble to pick up the pieces of your facade so as to maintain your illusion. You appear to be a man of hollow words, and not a man of actual physical means.

The truth is what is left once you remove mans feeble words and understandings, no matter by what name it's given, or to what degree the man animal understands it. The gruntings of a man, as to meaning (knowledge), has absolutely no bearing on the absolute truth of an asteroid, as it annihilates his gruntings. And only a fool would sit there as it approached, grunting at another man animal, as to it's relationship, of relative understanding as to the absolute truth of the object, as to how they can know it, as after the asteroid event's absolute truth, mans relative subjective understanding shall have vanished, while the absolute truth of all the physical constituents, including the remains of mankinds physical bodies, shall in absolute truth, exist on in some form or another, to infinity. If you don't believe me, ask the ex inhabitants of the Roman city of Pompeii, if their subjective view, had any bearing on the absolute truth, as to the effects of Mt Vesuvius erupting, you may hold the bones to your ears and listen intently, but you shall hear of no relativity between their subjectivity and the absolute truth of the event, it just simply was, as is the nature of absolute truth. The absolute truth simply is, and it's man that tries to understand and put into words, an approximation, of what he believes it is.

It's a fool that speaks of language or understanding as if it's all that matters, as to the absolute truth of any particular matter, as that is the least of what matters, in all absolute truth.[/col







If. Mans gruntings have no barring on the absolute truth of the universe, then what of your grunting about the fact of this absolute true universe. ? It is an empty proposition. Like saying 'truth is'.

I

[lancek4]

So anyways;
What kind of truth is 'all humans are created equal....'?

[SpheresOfBalance]

If. Mans gruntings have no barring on the absolute truth of the universe, then what of your grunting about the fact of this absolute true universe. ? It is an empty proposition. Like saying 'truth is'.

What the hell are you talking about? The word is not barring, it's 'bearing.' My gruntings have absolutely no bearing on any absolute truth of the universe, that's the whole point, they're independent, truth just is. We're talking of the truth of existence, of somethings actuality, not a judgement as to the significance/nature of mans trivial concerns, there is a difference you know!

Of course there is in fact an absolute truth as to the significance/nature of mans trivial concerns, but accessing those truths has to wait until science has thoroughly understood the human brain.

[SpheresOfBalance]

So anyways;
What kind of truth is 'all humans are created equal....'?

Like I said above, it's the truth that's bound by the fact that no man knows the absolute truth of existence.

[MJA]

So anyways;
What kind of truth is 'all humans are created equal....'?

It's only partly true,
Equal is absolutely and infinitely everything.

=

[lancek4]

If. Mans gruntings have no barring on the absolute truth of the universe, then what of your grunting about the fact of this absolute true universe. ? It is an empty proposition. Like saying 'truth is'.

What the hell are you talking about? The word is not barring, it's 'bearing.' My gruntings have absolutely no bearing on any absolute truth of the universe, that's the whole point, they're independent, truth just is. We're talking of the truth of existence, of somethings actuality, not a judgement as to the significance/nature of mans trivial concerns, there is a difference you know!

Of course there is in fact an absolute truth as to the significance/nature of mans trivial concerns, but accessing those truths has to wait until science has thoroughly understood the human brain.

Yes 'bearing'; it was an auto correct error.

If truth just is, then what are you talking about with an absolute truth. ?

I submit that what I am trying to explain to you is beyond your ability. And ironically this is exactly the expected result of the rxplanation. Even when I tell you I totally and truly understand what you are saying, you do not believe me. This is evident in your response to my propositions, for you answer as if I do not understand physics and science, as if I would argue that acceleration is not the rate of change of velocity. Or that there are 16 ounces in a pound, or what ever the escape velocity might be for earth.

I understand these 'true' things. This is not the issue.

You seem to be do invested in these 'true' things though, that you see what I'm saying as fantasy. And this is rightly do for you. You see, when the object is center then existentialism was just a moment in the progressing movement if knowledge. And what occurs, indeed what has occurred. Is, as one post said, Modern philosophy has no time for ecistentialism, what current philosophy is concerned with is cosmology. And this is true. The object crntered have 'revolted' from the infinite abyss of freedom and have reasserted the True object. (as Sarte). Offended as they are (Kierkegaard) of their own potential, Thier own Being in existence , they cower back into the True object, which is in effect the transcendent and remain 'sick', 'brutish' 'herdsmen'. (Nietchze )

I am not reiterating something that I have learned from these authors, I am stating my experience in and of knowledge, of being fearless in existence, and I came upon other authors who understand what I have come upon.

[lancek4]

So what kind if truth is it that frames 'all humans' as 'equal'. ?

[lancek4]

So anyways;
What kind of truth is 'all humans are created equal....'?

Like I said above, it's the truth that's bound by the fact that no man knows the absolute truth of existence.

Ok. So truth gains its credence by a relation with an unknown 'binding' element that exists but is not yet known. Is this a correct assessment of your statement ?

[chaz wyman]

Above I have disproved your and Chaz's: "we cannot add 'absolute' or 'objective' or 'universal' unless we admit the existence of these relationships between the subject and the object. ..." and so in fear you try and scramble to pick up the pieces of your facade so as to maintain your illusion. You appear to be a man of hollow words, and not a man of actual physical means.

And your delusion here is exactly why we think you are so stupid.
It would seem you are stupid, speak for yourself, fool!

Every truth you try to demonstrate reinforces the view which Lance and I have asserted, simply because your method inevitably exemplifies that viewpoint. Everything you hold true is based on a relationship between you (the subject) and the thing you think is a truth (the object).
Bullshit! Just because you say so, does not make your case. Get off your lazy ass and try and make a case for a change!

Try and say something that is true, without demonstrating a relationship between object and subject!
When you do that then you can talk about absolute truth.
There is no argument here except your banal failure to see common sense.

[chaz wyman]

So anyways;
What kind of truth is 'all humans are created equal....'?

Like I said above, it's the truth that's bound by the fact that no man knows the absolute truth of existence.

That has fuck all to do with it.
That 'truth' is an assertion of an ideal. It is not in any sense true.
In fact it is palpably false.

[SpheresOfBalance]

So anyways;
What kind of truth is 'all humans are created equal....'?

Like I said above, it's the truth that's bound by the fact that no man knows the absolute truth of existence.

That has fuck all to do with it.
That 'truth' is an assertion of an ideal. It is not in any sense true.
In fact it is palpably false.

It has everything to do with it!
Not an ideal, any more or less than your side. Mine is an assertion of FACT!!!!! And if in FACT you don't KNOW, then you can't 'rightfully' ACT, on merely that of belief!!!! At least not with any sense of certainty. To believe otherwise, can only be fueled by egoism and thus selfishness, one of psychosis, like that of megalomania. Your view is that of one with his fingers up his arse, manipulating his prostate.

It is in every sense true, which I could prove in a gym, care to accompany me? And no, it has every relevance, because we're talking about truth in logic, and that which does, and does not, logically follow. After I was through with you, lying flat on your back, bruised and bleeding from your mouth, I would ask of something I believed you knew, that I didn't, probably related to history, and after you confidently answered correctly, (third party verification) I'd yell down to your sorry arse, "see, neither of us better than the other, such that we were both created equal, fool!" And still, I'm sure that somehow it would continue to escape you.

Here comes a metaphor, which is very appropriate:

And will you two fags stop trying to double team me, and stick your cocks back in your own mouths, it's obvious Chaz likes being on top, but where does that leave the other one. I think I'll write a song titled "Butt Buddies," and dedicate to, well you know who!

[MJA]

So anyways;
What kind of truth is 'all humans are created equal....'?

Like I said above, it's the truth that's bound by the fact that no man knows the absolute truth of existence.

Ok. So truth gains its credence by a relation with an unknown 'binding' element that exists but is not yet known. Is this a correct assessment of your statement ?

Equal is the unity that binds us all.

=

[SpheresOfBalance]

So anyways;
What kind of truth is 'all humans are created equal....'?

Like I said above, it's the truth that's bound by the fact that no man knows the absolute truth of existence.

Ok. So truth gains its credence by a relation with an unknown 'binding' element that exists but is not yet known. Is this a correct assessment of your statement ?

Illogical question! you asked: 'does truth gain belief of it's truth.' it should be 'does man gain acknowledgement of truth'

Truth simply is, and only gains mans acknowledgement, through understanding, nothing more.

[SpheresOfBalance]

If. Mans gruntings have no barring on the absolute truth of the universe, then what of your grunting about the fact of this absolute true universe. ? It is an empty proposition. Like saying 'truth is'.

What the hell are you talking about? The word is not barring, it's 'bearing.' My gruntings have absolutely no bearing on any absolute truth of the universe, that's the whole point, they're independent, truth just is. We're talking of the truth of existence, of somethings actuality, not a judgement as to the significance/nature of mans trivial concerns, there is a difference you know!

Of course there is in fact an absolute truth as to the significance/nature of mans trivial concerns, but accessing those truths has to wait until science has thoroughly understood the human brain.

Yes 'bearing'; it was an auto correct error.

If truth just is, then what are you talking about with an absolute truth. ?

Your question is not a question as "truth just is" and "absolute truth" are one in the same thing, and here is a proof of your not understanding.

I submit that what I am trying to explain to you is beyond your ability.
Your ego!

And ironically this is exactly the expected result of the rxplanation. Even when I tell you I totally and truly understand what you are saying, you do not believe me.
See above!

This is evident in your response to my propositions, for you answer as if I do not understand physics and science, as if I would argue that acceleration is not the rate of change of velocity. Or that there are 16 ounces in a pound, or what ever the escape velocity might be for earth.

I understand these 'true' things. This is not the issue.
It is exactly the issue, as all these true things, are absolutely true, and that is at issue.

You seem to be do invested in these 'true' things though, that you see what I'm saying as fantasy. And this is rightly do for you. You see, when the object is center then existentialism was just a moment in the progressing movement if knowledge. And what occurs, indeed what has occurred. Is, as one post said, Modern philosophy has no time for ecistentialism, what current philosophy is concerned with is cosmology. And this is true. The object crntered have 'revolted' from the infinite abyss of freedom and have reasserted the True object. (as Sarte). Offended as they are (Kierkegaard) of their own potential, Thier own Being in existence , they cower back into the True object, which is in effect the transcendent and remain 'sick', 'brutish' 'herdsmen'. (Nietchze )
Here is your problem:
"Opposed to Hegelianism and Kantianism,[3][6] Kierkegaard posited that it is the individual who is solely responsible for giving meaning to life and for living life passionately and sincerely,[7][8] even in view of its many obstacles and distractions."

Your stuck on meaning, as in words, language, like I said earlier. There is no meaning to an object, it just is. It is absolutely true. There is absolutely no meaning in absolutely true or absolutely false as they are just states of actuality. You are apparently shallow as you seem only capable of looking from inside to the outside, thus attributing meaning from only one (your) perspective. My point is that your individual perspective, from the inside out, can only truly be seen and understood, from the perspective of the outside in, from the universal absolute truthful perspective, such that you can actually see yourself trying to attribute meaning along side another doing likewise, on to the 7 billion also doing such, in the foreground of a spinning sphere amid the backdrop of infinity, the only true singular perspective of absolute truth.

Do you 'finally' understand?

I am not reiterating something that I have learned from these authors, I am stating my experience in and of knowledge, of being fearless in existence, and I came upon other authors who understand what I have come upon.