What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I can understand what you're saying.
It just seems a shame all that is missed in such a reaction.
This is assumption that what you found is exclusive to where you found it and that another hasn't found it elsewhere. I have offered to argue specific quotes from the particular source in question, but as of yet no one is willing.

But on a different note: there is a difference often in what people say and their intentions, and what those with an aganda make of them. Many time the worth of a person and their expression is more than what has been made of it by others- the shame that it is. It prevents people from possibly finding something quite meaningful and significant when we rely upon the object that has been given us.

Yes, everyone is bound by the construct of their own making, as they seek their life's path. The differences between us are that of illusion, especially as with time. The more complicated mans, so called, knowledge, and thus language becomes, the more he splits hairs, the more dead ends are created in his labyrinth of thought and, so called knowledge, which has the unfortunate side effect of causing him to forget the really important things in life, those basic things that have always seen to his needs. It's believed that once, a man could smell a woman a mile away.

Mans ego posturing is an illusion born of singular perspective, in an infinite sea of possible incarnations, born of any particular set of selfish endeavors, and so, as war. He should just be happy that he's alive, as death never comes too late, and is sure to follow.

[lancek4]

Perhaps you sob have more in common with N than you realize. Perhaps.

This last statement of yours reveals to me a type of vacilation. I am not sure how you reconcile it with other posts of yours.

As to whether N condones murder - I am attempting to discuss this with you in the framework of the whole piece, and so I asked what you think of the gospels bit. But you have shut down the discussion before it began, justifying it with your 'offended' position. So it would seem you are unwilling to entertain a different view. I cannot even begin to answer the 'killing' question because you won't even consider how the two seemingly contrary notes might work upon a deeper or more insightful or introspective theme.

It would seem you do not understand how dialectic works to bring about a point.

The difference in approach, in light of the discrepancy I point out above, is this:

As you seems to point out above: truth is what I know; it is absolute. There is nothing of me that is not true. Thus I approach discussion to find out where I am incorrect or unclear. Every proposition I make is inherently a question asking for it to be shown incorrect. So it is in discussion I am finding out where I am unclear in my terms, then, when I understand that I am interacting with someone who understands the terms in the way I understand them, and thus i them, then I can entertain whether I am incorrect.

Most conversation is disputing terms; it is not an argument of correct or incorrect but of discrepancy. Yet most people find their truth in the terms. And do argue as if they are talking about correct or incorrect, because they are caught up in defining themselves against the object that the terms supposedly identify: they thus are in a dispute over their identity, rather than what is actually correct or incorrect, true or false.

[lancek4]

Sorry, my threads are getting mixed up.

(apply this comment whichever thread seems appropriate. I'll follow)

[SpheresOfBalance]

Sorry, my threads are getting mixed up.

(apply this comment whichever thread seems appropriate. I'll follow)

I see that truth is the broadest of concerns, to do with all of mankind's knowledge, and does apply everywhere, so N belongs in here as well.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Perhaps you sob have more in common with N than you realize. Perhaps.
My realization, as you mention, would simply require an understanding of N, for myself, that his reading could possibly illuminate, perhaps!

This last statement of yours reveals to me a type of vacilation. I am not sure how you reconcile it with other posts of yours.
But surely this is because I see things differently than you. As to men and truth, I see that currently, it is relative, as largely it is merely belief, and thus not necessarily truth, as man does not fully understand his mind. And that once he does, the absolute truth of man, shall unfold and become clear. It is not that it's not currently 'out there' because it is, it's just that, we are as yet, too young to know of it, but if we survive ourselves, we shall eventually come to know of this.

But as to all, but life, we have uncovered some of the absolute truths and continue to do so everyday. Sure there are still some that are 'out there' but again, if we survive ourselves, we shall eventually come to know them.

So I say that we actually know of more absolute truths of things outside ourselves, than we actually know of, inside ourselves, as from the moment we open our eyes, we are bombarded with external stimuli aimed at our senses, such that only once we mature to a certain point, later in life, can we finally ask of the essence of those senses, and their connection to our recording/computing devices, our minds, yet still there are no definitive answers, to the essence of the human mind.

As to whether N condones murder - I am attempting to discuss this with you in the framework of the whole piece, and so I asked what you think of the gospels bit. But you have shut down the discussion before it began, justifying it with your 'offended' position. So it would seem you are unwilling to entertain a different view. I cannot even begin to answer the 'killing' question because you won't even consider how the two seemingly contrary notes might work upon a deeper or more insightful or introspective theme.

It would seem you do not understand how dialectic works to bring about a point.
This again is your presumption, as it may be that I merely prefer it conveyed differently. I prefer, for instance, for you to take my original assertion, with the quote of N's I provided, and quote a passage of N's that would seem to contradict my belief, as you supply your take on his meaning, along side your quote of his words, such that I may see that your understanding is clear, and not full of your flawed interpretation. But it would seem you all fear this, as maybe you have no faith in your understanding of N, along side his actual words, where it would be clear, for all to see.

The difference in approach, in light of the discrepancy I point out above, is this:

As you seems to point out above: truth is what I know; it is absolute. There is nothing of me that is not true. Thus I approach discussion to find out where I am incorrect or unclear. Every proposition I make is inherently a question asking for it to be shown incorrect. So it is in discussion I am finding out where I am unclear in my terms, then, when I understand that I am interacting with someone who understands the terms in the way I understand them, and thus i them, then I can entertain whether I am incorrect.
This, I do not doubt, that you believe. Above I have posed a way to be sure, if you care to go there.

Most conversation is disputing terms; it is not an argument of correct or incorrect but of discrepancy. Yet most people find their truth in the terms. And do argue as if they are talking about correct or incorrect, because they are caught up in defining themselves against the object that the terms supposedly identify: they thus are in a dispute over their identity, rather than what is actually correct or incorrect, true or false.
Well I believe I understand what you meant to convey, though I see that your method of conveyance has much to be desired. I see that it is simple enough to say, that often one's argument is fueled by a difference in terms, as understood by their opposition. Which can be said to be an example, of the very matter, that we now try and unravel.

And I see that the method of dialectic confrontation, that I outlined above could quell our stalemate, yet only I seem to be willing to do this. Do you simply not have a copy of N's T A-C?

[lancek4]

There is nothing in TAC that specifically says 'kill the weak' and thereis likewise no specific statement that has compassion for humanity. His position is if contempt for those who would assert an intelligent morality that is based in a denial of what is actually occurring in front of them. So he appears like you. But what he really means by this last is what the book is about.

[lancek4]

...and to bring it back to this thread, both of you have this contempt that is based in a concern for humanity, that asserts an absolute truth if the matter.

[lennartack]

There is no absolute truth! Truth and untruth exists only in the human mind. See my argument in the Mathematics forum.

Actually, modern maths is not necessarily about numbers, but about sets. All mathematical objects, including numbers, are sets. Maths is based on set theory, which is described in logic.

Logic is necessary for any kind of reason - whether it is mathematical or linguistic, the only difference that in language we use our intuitive logic and in maths we require a formal system based on our intuition. So it all comes down to our intuitive notion of truth.

It becomes very tricky when we start asking questions like "is our intuition correct?". Since outside our intuition truth and untruth may not even exist. This is easy to understand when you ask the same question with mathematics: a true proposition in maths is true in the mathematical system, but has no meaning outside mathematics. This is why I believe truth exists only inside one's mind, and there is no eternal truth.

Mathematics also made me understand that - like chaz said - it is used to describe reality, rather than that reality is based on mathematics. This is true for language as well, and maybe even our logic.

[SpheresOfBalance]

There is no absolute truth! Truth and untruth exists only in the human mind. See my argument in the Mathematics forum.

Actually, modern maths is not necessarily about numbers, but about sets. All mathematical objects, including numbers, are sets. Maths is based on set theory, which is described in logic.

Logic is necessary for any kind of reason - whether it is mathematical or linguistic, the only difference that in language we use our intuitive logic and in maths we require a formal system based on our intuition. So it all comes down to our intuitive notion of truth.

It becomes very tricky when we start asking questions like "is our intuition correct?". Since outside our intuition truth and untruth may not even exist. This is easy to understand when you ask the same question with mathematics: a true proposition in maths is true in the mathematical system, but has no meaning outside mathematics. This is why I believe truth exists only inside one's mind, and there is no eternal truth.

Mathematics also made me understand that - like chaz said - it is used to describe reality, rather than that reality is based on mathematics. This is true for language as well, and maybe even our logic.

Incorrect, you are talking about belief, often sold by men as truth!

[lennartack]

There is no absolute truth! Truth and untruth exists only in the human mind. See my argument in the Mathematics forum.

Actually, modern maths is not necessarily about numbers, but about sets. All mathematical objects, including numbers, are sets. Maths is based on set theory, which is described in logic.

Logic is necessary for any kind of reason - whether it is mathematical or linguistic, the only difference that in language we use our intuitive logic and in maths we require a formal system based on our intuition. So it all comes down to our intuitive notion of truth.

It becomes very tricky when we start asking questions like "is our intuition correct?". Since outside our intuition truth and untruth may not even exist. This is easy to understand when you ask the same question with mathematics: a true proposition in maths is true in the mathematical system, but has no meaning outside mathematics. This is why I believe truth exists only inside one's mind, and there is no eternal truth.

Mathematics also made me understand that - like chaz said - it is used to describe reality, rather than that reality is based on mathematics. This is true for language as well, and maybe even our logic.

Incorrect, you are talking about belief, often sold by men as truth!

Then explain to me the difference between truth and belief. Both are subjective perceptions of reality.

[SpheresOfBalance]

There is no absolute truth! Truth and untruth exists only in the human mind. See my argument in the Mathematics forum.

Actually, modern maths is not necessarily about numbers, but about sets. All mathematical objects, including numbers, are sets. Maths is based on set theory, which is described in logic.

Logic is necessary for any kind of reason - whether it is mathematical or linguistic, the only difference that in language we use our intuitive logic and in maths we require a formal system based on our intuition. So it all comes down to our intuitive notion of truth.

It becomes very tricky when we start asking questions like "is our intuition correct?". Since outside our intuition truth and untruth may not even exist. This is easy to understand when you ask the same question with mathematics: a true proposition in maths is true in the mathematical system, but has no meaning outside mathematics. This is why I believe truth exists only inside one's mind, and there is no eternal truth.

Mathematics also made me understand that - like chaz said - it is used to describe reality, rather than that reality is based on mathematics. This is true for language as well, and maybe even our logic.

Then

Incorrect, you are talking about belief, often sold by men as truth!

Then

Then explain to me the difference between truth and belief. Both are subjective perceptions of reality.

Not at all! Belief is what men tout as they find solution that suits their agendas or limitations. Often men call this belief, truth, for the same reasons. This type of truth is in fact subjective and thus relative as it's not really truth at all. The qualifier "absolute" is attached to any of mans truth that is not subject to my previous mention, that is actual, it is never subjective. This absolute truth can never be disputed by any man, or any being no matter how intelligent and all knowing they may be. The absolute truth is not held in the feeble label used to mention it, it is contained in the thing in and of itself, by any other name, it smells just as sweet.

For instance it is absolutely true that the current human being has to have O2, found in the air, which can be found on earth, to live. If he does not breath in this gas, it is absolutely true that he shall die. It is not subjective. All men would agree, and even if not, it is not a perception, they would in fact die. Any one could argue this, not take notice of this, not even be aware of this, or know what to call it. One could be deaf dumb, blind, have no sense of smell or touch, and if in fact they are a current human being, though they may not know it, they shall die, not as with this label, but as with the thing in and of itself, this thing that is death, as it pertains to life. As to the meanings of things, there is no necessary absolute truth, but as to the condition of things, there is a necessary absolute truth, contained within their nature, their actual being as dictated by their actuality of existence.

[lennartack]

There is no absolute truth! Truth and untruth exists only in the human mind. See my argument in the Mathematics forum.

Actually, modern maths is not necessarily about numbers, but about sets. All mathematical objects, including numbers, are sets. Maths is based on set theory, which is described in logic.

Logic is necessary for any kind of reason - whether it is mathematical or linguistic, the only difference that in language we use our intuitive logic and in maths we require a formal system based on our intuition. So it all comes down to our intuitive notion of truth.

It becomes very tricky when we start asking questions like "is our intuition correct?". Since outside our intuition truth and untruth may not even exist. This is easy to understand when you ask the same question with mathematics: a true proposition in maths is true in the mathematical system, but has no meaning outside mathematics. This is why I believe truth exists only inside one's mind, and there is no eternal truth.

Mathematics also made me understand that - like chaz said - it is used to describe reality, rather than that reality is based on mathematics. This is true for language as well, and maybe even our logic.

Then

Incorrect, you are talking about belief, often sold by men as truth!

Then

Then explain to me the difference between truth and belief. Both are subjective perceptions of reality.

Not at all! Belief is what men tout as they find solution that suits their agendas or limitations. Often men call this belief, truth, for the same reasons. This type of truth is in fact subjective and thus relative as it's not really truth at all. The qualifier "absolute" is attached to any of mans truth that is not subject to my previous mention, that is actual, it is never subjective. This absolute truth can never be disputed by any man, or any being no matter how intelligent and all knowing they may be. The absolute truth is not held in the feeble label used to mention it, it is contained in the thing in and of itself, by any other name, it smells just as sweet.

For instance it is absolutely true that the current human being has to have O2, found in the air, which can be found on earth, to live. If he does not breath in this gas, it is absolutely true that he shall die. It is not subjective. All men would agree, and even if not, it is not a perception, they would in fact die. Any one could argue this, not take notice of this, not even be aware of this, or know what to call it. One could be deaf dumb, blind, have no sense of smell or touch, and if in fact they are a current human being, though they may not know it, they shall die, not as with this label, but as with the thing in and of itself, this thing that is death, as it pertains to life. As to the meanings of things, there is no necessary absolute truth, but as to the condition of things, there is a necessary absolute truth, contained within their nature, their actual being as dictated by their actuality of existence.

If I understood correctly, your definitions are as follows:
Belief: things regarded by men as true that have been found by finding solutions that suit their agendas or limitations
Absolute truth: things that are certain to happen in nature

You have not proved an absolute truth exist, but suppose it exists.
Would you agree with me that we cannot be certain of anything, and therefore we cannot know if something is an absolute truth?

[SpheresOfBalance]

There is no absolute truth! Truth and untruth exists only in the human mind. See my argument in the Mathematics forum.

Actually, modern maths is not necessarily about numbers, but about sets. All mathematical objects, including numbers, are sets. Maths is based on set theory, which is described in logic.

Logic is necessary for any kind of reason - whether it is mathematical or linguistic, the only difference that in language we use our intuitive logic and in maths we require a formal system based on our intuition. So it all comes down to our intuitive notion of truth.

It becomes very tricky when we start asking questions like "is our intuition correct?". Since outside our intuition truth and untruth may not even exist. This is easy to understand when you ask the same question with mathematics: a true proposition in maths is true in the mathematical system, but has no meaning outside mathematics. This is why I believe truth exists only inside one's mind, and there is no eternal truth.

Mathematics also made me understand that - like chaz said - it is used to describe reality, rather than that reality is based on mathematics. This is true for language as well, and maybe even our logic.

Then

Incorrect, you are talking about belief, often sold by men as truth!

Then

Then explain to me the difference between truth and belief. Both are subjective perceptions of reality.

Then

Not at all! Belief is what men tout as they find solution that suits their agendas or limitations. Often men call this belief, truth, for the same reasons. This type of truth is in fact subjective and thus relative as it's not really truth at all. The qualifier "absolute" is attached to any of mans truth that is not subject to my previous mention, that is actual, it is never subjective. This absolute truth can never be disputed by any man, or any being no matter how intelligent and all knowing they may be. The absolute truth is not held in the feeble label used to mention it, it is contained in the thing in and of itself, by any other name, it smells just as sweet.

For instance it is absolutely true that the current human being has to have O2, found in the air, which can be found on earth, to live. If he does not breath in this gas, it is absolutely true that he shall die. It is not subjective. All men would agree, and even if not, it is not a perception, they would in fact die. Any one could argue this, not take notice of this, not even be aware of this, or know what to call it. One could be deaf dumb, blind, have no sense of smell or touch, and if in fact they are a current human being, though they may not know it, they shall die, not as with this label, but as with the thing in and of itself, this thing that is death, as it pertains to life. As to the meanings of things, there is no necessary absolute truth, but as to the condition of things, there is a necessary absolute truth, contained within their nature, their actual being as dictated by their actuality of existence.

Then

but SOB is in red
If I understood correctly, your definitions are as follows:
Belief: things regarded by men as true that have been found by finding solutions that suit their agendas or limitations
Absolute truth: things that are certain to happen in nature
No I did not make such a broad general statement, as to what is certain to happen. I specifically mentioned something that is certain to happen given a certain set of conditions.

You have not proved an absolute truth exist, but suppose it exists.
Would you agree with me that we cannot be certain of anything, and therefore we cannot know if something is an absolute truth?
Yes I have, stop your breath. While you may not see it, those around you, that are paying attention, surely will, and that's absolutely true, and you shall absolutely truthfully be dead.

I agree that a great many things are not certain, but I see that some are. Did you not pay attention, you, like Lance, are speaking of knowing of a particular instance of an absolute truth, but as I said, an absolute truth exists whether someone is aware or not. An absolute truth is not conditional upon knowledge, just your awareness of it.

[Ginkgo]

Just one question.


How do you get around the problem of induction? It is not self-contradictory nor is it inconceivable to claim that humans don't need O2 in the air.

[lennartack]

but SOB is in red
If I understood correctly, your definitions are as follows:
Belief: things regarded by men as true that have been found by finding solutions that suit their agendas or limitations
Absolute truth: things that are certain to happen in nature
No I did not make such a broad general statement, as to what is certain to happen. I specifically mentioned something that is certain to happen given a certain set of conditions.

You have not proved an absolute truth exist, but suppose it exists.
Would you agree with me that we cannot be certain of anything, and therefore we cannot know if something is an absolute truth?
Yes I have, stop your breath. While you may not see it, those around you, that are paying attention, surely will, and that's absolutely true, and you shall absolutely truthfully be dead.

I agree that a great many things are not certain, but I see that some are. Did you not pay attention, you, like Lance, are speaking of knowing of a particular instance of an absolute truth, but as I said, an absolute truth exists whether someone is aware or not. An absolute truth is not conditional upon knowledge, just your awareness of it.

How can you be certain that I'm going to die? The fact that most people die does not mean that I will die. Nor does the fact that a lot of people die when there is no oxygen in the air mean that the absence of oxygen causes all people to die.

The next uncertain thing you assert is that an absolute truth can exist without anyone being aware of it. By saying this you assume that our intuitive ideas about logic, truth and untruth apply to nature, but how can you be sure of that? Why cannot something be both true and false, or neither of them?