Philosophy

[Wizard22]

I did not use the word surviving.
I was asked what was the meaning of life and defined it by it's opposite.
What meaning we may chose to place upon it is up to us and cannot be answered for another.

I didn't say that you used surviving; that was my interpretation of your answer.

You don't believe that people answer for each other's meaning?

I disagree, people often have their 'Meaning in Life' defined and assigned, for them. Sometimes they accept it, other times not.

[Sculptor]

I did not use the word surviving.
I was asked what was the meaning of life and defined it by it's opposite.
What meaning we may chose to place upon it is up to us and cannot be answered for another.

I didn't say that you used surviving; that was my interpretation of your answer.

You don't believe that people answer for each other's meaning?

I disagree, people often have their 'Meaning in Life' defined and assigned, for them. Sometimes they accept it, other times not.

You are giving an empirical answer I am giving a normative answer. Because people impose meanings for others does not make that valid or good. And that fact that so many people follow their own path when they grow up suggests to me that my first thought makes more sense.

[Belinda]

So says your truth. But his truth says you are wrong.

That's what happens when you are so profligate with the T word.

It's deep fact of nature (or God take; your pick) that cultures of belief are often opposed to one another. If there were a God, the only way back to Him would be via conflict and resolution of conflict, as that is the way of the world.

Anthropologists and good diplomats try to get inside cultures that they did not take in with their mother's milk. And there are strategies that can assist. But in the end the subjective stance is the only stance of which we are capable. Sooner or later there must be an ultimatum if we are to act.

Why do you keep waffling about "truths" when you are clearly a subjectivist?
Is it just for an excuse to sneak God into yet another non-religious conversation?

Your antennae are very sensitive to 'religion'.

Anyway, God or no God, we all must accept that people will often be at odds with one another in a wee forum like this or international affairs. What the subjectivist must accept defines the subjectivist so what I wrote is not an empirical truth it's a tautological truth about subjectivity. In other words it's true to say the subjectivist as defined does not believe truth is to be found apart from subjective experience.
The truth or validity of my reasoning is not the same as the truth of what I reason about. The truth of what I reason about cannot be known as if it were some empirical fact.

[Wizard22]

You are giving an empirical answer I am giving a normative answer. Because people impose meanings for others does not make that valid or good. And that fact that so many people follow their own path when they grow up suggests to me that my first thought makes more sense.

I believe most people find more meaning in life than "not death".

How do you suspect a person finds "their own meaning" rather than it assigned to them?

You do realize that independent-minded people are rare, and not the norm, right?

[Belinda]

You are giving an empirical answer I am giving a normative answer. Because people impose meanings for others does not make that valid or good. And that fact that so many people follow their own path when they grow up suggests to me that my first thought makes more sense.

I believe most people find more meaning in life than "not death".

How do you suspect a person finds "their own meaning" rather than it assigned to them?

You do realize that independent-minded people are rare, and not the norm, right?

Do you mean most people accept cultural standards of behaviour?
Perhaps so but philosophers look beyond cultural standards maybe especially when they are doing metaphysics or moral philosophy.

[Age]

Yes,

So, which one is it?

EVERY time you 'clarify';

Am I to ask you ANOTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION, and so on? Or,

Am I to just ASSUME that you do NOT mean the WHOLE of your "clarification", EVERY time you "clarify"?

Science and Empiricism concerns itself with Objectivity, what requires clarifying exactly?

'Science' and 'Empricism' are not actual things that have the ability to 'concern themselves' with absolutely any thing.

'Objectivity', itself, is a way of looking at and seeing things, which only through human beings this can happen.

Also, I do not know how the last part of your sentence here relates to the first part.

Have you done any "Science" before? [/quote

Define 'science'.

You need to study phenomena and record data. Beliefs, Opinions, Subjectivity is last place. Evidence, and what can be duplicated, shown, is first place. You need to Show your work. I apply this approach, to the Meaning of Life. It's *NOT* a matter of opinion.

What is your conclusion, and what is the phenomena that you supposedly studied, what record data did you collect, and keep, what evidence did you duplicate, and what exactly will you show?

SO WHAT, to BOTH of these sentences?

Because you asked, and seem ignorant as to the prospect of any "Objective Reality".

There is ONLY One Reality, and It is Itself. Therefore, there is NO other 'thing', which could be known as "Objective Reality".

Objectivity is GAINED by looking at 'things' through and from the perspective of ALL things, combined together as One. And,

'Realit' is what IS POSSIBLE.

If this becomes irrefutably True, Right, AND Correct, then your claim here that I am the one who 'seems ignorant', speaks for itself, and reveals far more than you would like.

What IS, supposedly, NOT true here?

History is very biased, toward the political bias of the countries and nations that record and produce their "histories".

Human beings can be and are biased.

'History' is just a word , which just refers to 'the past'.

'History', itself, therefore could NEVER be biased.

Propaganda is a big problem, with history. It's difficult to be 'objective' about history.

Honestly it is NOT hard NOR complex AT ALL to be 'objective' about history, nor about absolutely ANY thing ELSE.

That is once one KNOWS what 'being Truly Objective' entails, EXACTLY.

Because it means that people must set-aside their socialist and nationalist compulsions. Few people are capable of such. Few people can empathize and understand enemies, and foreign tribes.

You say this like you are NOT one of them.

LOL So, to you, 'history', itself, can NOT or does NOT so-call 'move forward', unless helped along by SOME human being, or SOME human beings, correct?

My point was that some human beings move the ball forward a great, great distance.

WHAT 'ball'?

I suggest instead of creating metaphors or analogies you just use the ACTUAL words that you ACTUALLY MEAN, ONLY.

And almost all people intuitively recognize these individuals, and such lives, as much "more" meaningful than others.

I have SEEN new born babies who are TEACHING FAR MORE about life and living the True and Right WAY. But 'you', adult human beings, do NOT recognize this. This is because 'you' are contaminated with the BELIEF or ASSUMPTION that 'you' are the TEACHERS in Life and children are just here to LEARN.

If adults learned to Truly LISTEN and HEAR, and to Truly LOOK and SEE, then what is EASILY recognizable is young children are TEACHING the ACTUAL ANSWERS to the meaningful questions, in Life.

WHY EXACTLY?

Because SOME so-called "historians" write ONLY about SOME OTHER human beings?

No, because some humans *FLY* while others keep their feet on the ground.

You speak as though there are SOME human beings who are BETTER, or MORE THAN, than other human beings are.

Human achievement cannot be denied.

What is 'human achievement' relative to, EXACTLY?

And, OF COURSE, 'you', human beings, achieve things. And, just as OBVIOUS is the Fact that ALL of 'you', human beings, achieve things.

There may well be SOME 'demonstration' of 'that' (whatever 'that' REALLY IS) to you. But, you might find "yourself" being the ONLY one SEEING ANY thing here.

It's not a matter of consensus.

I NEVER said it was.

I was just pointing out that you might be the ONLY one SEEING any thing here.

When some rare person Achieves something great, it's undeniable.

'Great' is VERY relative.

Just imagine the first humans who step foot on Mars, or Europa, or Neptune. Are you going deny it?

Talk about DIGRESSING and going OFF TRACK completely.

Are you going to naysay it?

WHY would you even BEGIN to ASSUME some thing as SO RIDICULOUS and ABSURD as this?

Are you going to sneer and lift your nose?

WHAT?

That other humans achieve more than you? [/quote]

I do NOT care what 'you', human beings, do.

As long as you are LEARNING to STOP ABUSING things, ESPECIALLY CHILDREN.

That your nihilistic attitude cannot be impressed by anybody or anything else?

Here we have ANOTHER PERFECT EXAMPLE of just HOW CLOSED and BLIND some become, to the ACTUAL Truth of things, with and from their OWN made up BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, that the ONLY things that they can SEE and HEAR is ONLY 'that' what they ALREADY BELIEVE and/or ASSUME is true

How, EXACTLY, do you ASSUME that 'I' am JUDGING 'thee'?

I don't care.

If you cannot assert or defend any "Meaning of Life", then anybody can simply assume that your life has no meaning.

I have ALREADY EXPRESSED what the 'Meaning of Life' is to me. And, what I wrote can NOT be refuted in absolutely ANYWAY WHATSOEVER. Therefore, this MEANS I have NOTHING MORE to 'defend' NOR 'assert'. The IRREFUTABLE speaks for itself.

I'm open to that possibility. I will listen to you, if that's what you believe. And, maybe, you're right? If your life is worthless, then make your case. If your life is worth something, then make your case.

If you are NOT wasting your life, then PROVE it.

I am STILL WAITING for you to CLARIFY:
What does the 'Value of a Life' even mean or refer to, EXACTLY?


And, WHO is, supposedly, doing the 'measuring' of 'that'?

By the way, you LOST 'your bet'. As I ALREADY SAID ABOVE:

I SEE EVERY one's life WORTH the EXACT SAME, or EQUALLY if you so wish.

All organisms demonstrate the value of their life when their lives are danger, and creatures struggle to survive.

MY QUESTION, posed for clarification, WAS and STILL IS; What does the "Value of a Life" even mean or refer to, EXACTLY?

Because organic life values itself, it then proceeds that such life *might be* meaningful. It's not enough to just survive, though. The point about meaning, is why we survive. To do what? To accomplish what? To be remembered for what?

To claim that "it's all equal", I just doubt that. Prove to me that animals fight "equally" to survive. They don't.

Besides 'you', human animal beings, what do you think the other animals are fighting for EXACTLY, if not to survive?

Some animals fight harder than others, and they survive. Some humans commit suicide. So, you're clearly and obviously wrong.

In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

To YOUR ASSUMPTIONS, or what I am ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING?

If the latter, then SHOW US what am I ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING here.

Because it is the having the 'want of money', which CORRUPTS, and it is the 'love of money', which is a MAIN CAUSE of WHY 'the human being created world' is in the DREADFUL shape that it is IN, in the days when this is being written, and on that STEEP and SHARP DOWNHILL SPIRAL or CURVE, that 'you' are ALL IN.

Why keep your money, if your life is "Equal" to that stranger?

But 'money' has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL to do with the EQUALITY of human beings.

That's your opinion; but life has value. The life of one person maybe a million dollars, another, a billion dollars, another, a few dollars. People measure each-other according to such values.

ONLY those people with Truly DISTORTED thinking or BELIEFS have those 'such values'.

So, again, you're clearly wrong that there is any kind of "Equality" in humanity. There is NONE. Literally NOBODY treats each-other "Equally".

The reason 'you', "wizard22", do NOT treat others EQUALLY is because of YOUR Truly TWISTED and DISTORTED thinking and BELIEVING also.

It does NOT.

And, if 'you', adult human beings, did NOT have 'the LOVE of money', then there would NOT be 'a world' WHERE human beings are DYING, just because they are hungry or thirsty.

But if you PHRASE YOUR CLARIFYING QUESTION, ANOTHER WAY, then I WILL answer what 'it' IS that you are SEEKING here.

You should start being honest here.

Your food and eating, takes precedence before others. Admit this, here.

OF COURSE it does.

i have even KILLED people DEAD for this VERY REASON.

This IS and WAS ALREADY BLATANTLY OBVIOUS. That is when 'you' work out who, and what, 'i' am, EXACTLY.

By the way, i ADMITTED this a LONG TIME AGO, ALREADY.

LOL What has that got to do with what the majority of the public will, supposedly, VOTE FOR?

Also, 'debating' people could NOT be MUCH FURTHER from finding out what 'it' is that they would just VOTE FOR.

It's obvious and common sense that people do not treat Life "equally".

I NEVER said 'you', people, do.

In fact, from what I have OBSERVED and WITNESSED 'you', people, CERTAINLY DO NOT TREAT each other EQUALLY, let alone other life forms.

So if there is not *ONE* instance of Life treating Life equally...

I NEVER said there is NOT ONE instance of Life treating Life, equally.

Life is ALWAYS treating Itself, EQUALLY. In fact It could NOT treat in ANY other way.

You REALLY are NOT following, are you?

then why base your beliefs in something that is clearly NOT true, never was, and never will be? There is not *ONE* instance of Life being "equal".

1. I do NOT believe absolutely ANY thing.

2. It is IRREFUTABLY True that Life IS EQUAL. Life can NOT treating Life in any other way.

Let's use an example. There are identical twins. Are their lives "equal"? No, they're not.

But what has the lives of 'you', human beings, got to do with the Meaning of Life, Itself.

Not that I recall.

Perhaps I'll need to rewind this thread and see where you asked and I answered...?

Okay, we WILL WAIT.

Fine with me.[/quote]

OF COURSE it is 'fine' with 'you'. 'you' are the one "wizard22" that we have to WAIT FOR.

I'll simply cut to the chase here. People act as-if Life has meaning.

HOW EXACTLY?

Because people fight viciously, to survive. Animals, fight viciously, to survive. If Life had no Meaning, then nobody would fight to Survive.

Nobody would Survive, without Purpose.

ONCE AGAIN, you keep ADDING IN and CHANGING words AROUND.

WHY do you ADD the 'value' word in your replies when talking about 'meaning', and vice-versa, ADD the 'meaning' word in your replies when talking about 'values'?

Meaning proceeds from Value.

We are STILL WAITING for you to INFORM us what the "Value of Life" even means or refers to, so then we can work how you arrived at "Meaning", and then we can move on to what the "Meaning of Life" IS, EXACTLY, correct?

You feed yourself.

SO WHAT?

And, when I am so-called "feeding myself" I ALSO STILL SEE NO more 'value' in ANY one's life OVER another's life.

Your opinion doesn't matter. By feeding yourself, you ACT as though your life has more value than another's.

And, just as EQUALLY, your opinion does NOT matter, EITHER.

Have you ever eaten meat once in your life? Of course you have. So your actions speak louder than words.

But you do NOT YET KNOW what my ACTUAL WORDS ARE, EXACTLY. This is BECAUSE you are PUTTING YOUR WORDS, literally, INTO MY WRITINGS. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True here.

The genetic make-up of the body has HAD CONTROL over this BEFORE views even BEGAN within this body.

So Meaning maybe genetic, right???

NO, not at all, ACTUALLY.

Yes I COULD. I COULD also do what IS ACTUALLY Right, and help in CHANGING 'the human being created world' so that NO MORE human beings DIE of STARVATION and/or THIRST just because SOME adult human beings are TOO SELFISH and TOO GREEDY to SHARE.

What about your own "GREED"?

What about IT?

EVERY adult human being HAS so-called 'degrees of selfishness, AND selflessness', but instead of MINIMAZING the Wrong being done, let us just LOOK AT thee ACTUAL Truth ALONE. That is; EVERY adult human being IS GREEDY and SELFISH.

By the way, 'bodies' are NOT 'selfish' in ANY degree. ONLY 'you', adult human beings, ARE.

Bodies aren't selfish??? Whaaaaat?!

Are you UNDER some sort of ILLUSION that 'bodies', themselves are ABLE TO THINK about Right and Wrong, and selfish and selfless?

That adult human beings are GREEDY and SELFISH, and ALLOW OTHER human beings to just DROP DEAD because food and/or water is KEPT FROM them, is Truly OBVIOUS, and a VERY SIMPLY and EASILY RECOGNIZABLE Fact. However, you wrote:

"At the very least, a person subjectively places his/her own life as much more valuable than those of strangers."

To which I replied:

WHY do you do this?

I do NOT do this.

That human beings are ALLOWED to DIE, who could be SAVED, was NEVER in QUESTION.

I was QUESTIONING WHY do 'you', subjectively, place 'your' OWN life as being, supposedly, much more valuable than the lives of other human beings who you have NOT, personally, met?

Adults are to blame, but not children? Why are children blameless?

Because of WHO and WHAT they ARE, in Life.

Yes, I admit to placing myself before others, when I eat. Yes, it's common sense.

So, a child is sitting at the table you are eating at and you just ALLOW them to DROP DEAD, because this is the so-called "common sense" thing to do, RIGHT?

Selfishness is not absolute though.

Okay. I wonder if this might be because there is some EQUALITY, in Life?

Being 'born' EQUAL does NOT EQUATE to, necessarily, 'dying' EQUAL.

Also, because you were brought up to BELIEVE and ACCEPT that NOT ALL ARE EQUAL, you WILL live YOUR LIFE 'that way', and thus TREAT people NOT EQUALLY. As can be CLEARLY WITNESSED and SEEN by YOUR INACTIONS in just HELPING "others" to STAY ALIVE and SURVIVE, by WITHOLDING food and/or water, FROM THEM. That in the days when this was being written, there WAS INEQUITY, is A PROVABLE, and an IRREFUTABLE, Fact.

But just because you do NOT BEHAVE in a way that SHOWS EQUALITY, that in itself does NOT mean that Life, itself, IS NOT EQUAL. That just means that 'you', human beings, have grown up to NOT CARE for NOR about "others".

Don't I "care for" others more than you, because I believe in Inequality?

I do not know.

WHY do you say that you do NOT care for "others" MORE than I do?

How can you care for other people when you lie to them?

Do you NOT care for "others" BECAUSE you lie to them, OR, do you LIE to "others" BECAUSE you do NOT care for them.

It is in the very HEART, or CENTER, of 'life', itself.

Life does not have a center?

But It is UNEQUAL, RIGHT?

'Money' is a completely UNNECESSARY part of 'life', and living, and does NOT even come into the EQUATION, here.

I disagree, money is necessary, now more than ever before. People need a medium for trade; it's efficient.

LOL OKAY.

So, in "wizard22's" 'world' money is necessary, and thus without money people would NOT be existing.

Talk about being DISTORTED to the EXTREME.

Because sometimes a person trying to save somebody's life, fails, and wastes his own life trying.

Even selflessness has faults. It doesn't automatically make somebody Righteous, even though they might believe it.

I am NOT sure what so-called "Righteous" has to 'investigate' in relation to WHAT HAPPENED.

Because people are duped by Righteousness all the time. People believe they are doing something 'Right', but, it turns out, they were merely pawns to another's political ambition, a tool, a dupe.

So, to you, when one is saving "another's" life then this is because they have been 'duped', and are just merely pawns in yet "another one's" political ambition, correct?

You DO care, otherwise you wouldn't have asked.

But that reply of mine was NOT in regards to the question I asked you but in regards to your remark about:
Hubris, for example, most people act as though Ignorance and Bravado, fakery and sophistry, are more valuable than Philosophy. So in that, I disagree with most.

You can be dishonest, if you like, but that's your own prerogative.

What do you think I am being DISHONEST about here, EXACTLY?

Because you wouldn't have asked, if you didn't care.

Your response does not even make sense, as it is.

I would agree with sex organs, but also go further and argue for Chromosomes. Male and Female is genetic, and cannot be lied about on the genetic level.

I think you might that 'this', itself, is NOT absolutely True.

How are Chromosomes not "absolutely true"?

You can't "fake" having an 'XX' or 'XY' chromosome. Your blood cannot fake a blood test.

OF COURSE NOT.

BUT xy does NOT necessarily mean male. Which is what we WERE talking about BEFORE.

Chromosomes do not necessarily PROVE one from the other.

No, it's not a matter of Subjective belief. I believe I already stated that. It's not *ONLY* up to me, regarding my Meaning of Life, or meaning IN life. Other people account for it, and then there's Objective Reality, the probability that some exceptional actions or methods or deeds in life maybe MORE meaningful than others.

So, if 'me' and "others" state that 'your' 'life' "wizard22" is meaningless, 'we' account for what the truth is here correct?

You can certainly argue and rationalize, persuade others, but that doesn't mean it's objectively true or real.

AND what you SAY and CLAIM ALSO does NOT mean that it is objectively true nor real AT ALL.

I don't mind, go ahead. I enjoy argument and debate, philosophical discussion and the like. Be honest, with me, with yourself, with others.

About WHAT, EXACTLY?

So, EVERY one who drinks alcohol, which has NOT been prescribed through 'an accurate medical prescription', (whatever that may be), is then a 'drug-abuser', right?

To the degree they over-indulge themselves, yes.

You are SO USELESS at this.

So, what, now, does 'over-indulge' mean or refer to, EXACTLY?

Look, you can NOT take back what you previously WROTE and SAID, and if you do NOT want ADMIT just how Wrong or STUPID it REALLY WAS, then so be it. But the WAY you WRITE and TALK is HERE for ALL to LOOK AT, SEE, and HEAR.

SO, I suggest you think MORE about what you are GOING TO WRITE, BEFORE you put it down here for ALL to be ABLE TO LOOK AT and SEE.

So, HOW, EXACTLY, did these provide an admission?

Because drug-addicts say "Life is Meaningless" and especially "my life is meaningless". They're not proud of their self-destruction.

So, absolutely EVERY human being who is 'addicted' (whatever that refers to EXACTLY) A drug (of absolutely ANY sort) SAYS, "Life is Meaningless", and especially "my life is meaningless".

Now, I wonder HOW OFTEN each and EVERY one of these human beings SAYS these things?

So, when you are HERE, IN Existence, are you REALLY NOT able to perceive NOR be aware of Existence.

To the degree my senses and intellectual acuity allow for, I perceive.

YET, you WANT to INSIST that you KNOW what the absolute Truth IS, EXACTLY, in relation to IF Life is EQUAL, or INEQUAL, while at the same time you ADMIT that you REALLY are NOT able to perceive NOR be aware of Existence, Itself.

So, to you, 'political propaganda' has been around LONGER than human beings, themselves, correct?

AS long as, not longer than. Humans have always had a 'Mythos', which is the basis of propaganda.

But if I recall correctly you used a word similar to 'forever', if it was not that word.

You, ONCE AGAIN, appear to NOT be READING the ACTUAL WORDS 'I' put BEFORE 'you'.

I'm pretty sure that I'm addressing 99% of what you're saying.

I can GUARANTEE that you are NOWHERE even NEAR that figure.

You have LOST me, AGAIN, here.

The point was, if somebody Lies about God, the nature of Divinity, then those who believe from there, are also Lies. The greater point, is that people can be duped into Life, and Meaning, which are based on Lies/Falsity.

But 'you' can NOT, can 'you', "wizzard22"?

Okay, but; Have you NOT been fed Lies and Falsities, or are you ABLE TO SEE THROUGH ALL of the ones that you have been fed?

I've seen through a LOT, but I would not say "all".

Okay. So, what this REALLY MEANS IS, you do NOT KNOW, for sure, when, and if, you are being LIED TO, correct?

[FlashDangerpants]

It's deep fact of nature (or God take; your pick) that cultures of belief are often opposed to one another. If there were a God, the only way back to Him would be via conflict and resolution of conflict, as that is the way of the world.

Anthropologists and good diplomats try to get inside cultures that they did not take in with their mother's milk. And there are strategies that can assist. But in the end the subjective stance is the only stance of which we are capable. Sooner or later there must be an ultimatum if we are to act.

Why do you keep waffling about "truths" when you are clearly a subjectivist?
Is it just for an excuse to sneak God into yet another non-religious conversation?

Your antennae are very sensitive to 'religion'.

Anyway, God or no God, we all must accept that people will often be at odds with one another in a wee forum like this or international affairs. What the subjectivist must accept defines the subjectivist so what I wrote is not an empirical truth it's a tautological truth about subjectivity. In other words it's true to say the subjectivist as defined does not believe truth is to be found apart from subjective experience.
The truth or validity of my reasoning is not the same as the truth of what I reason about. The truth of what I reason about cannot be known as if it were some empirical fact.

That's entirely specious.

When you wrote this:

My moral principles are true for me and may well not be true for someone else.

You are using the word "truth" to describe mere opinion.

And nothing has changed. All you are doing is downgrading the concepts of truth and fact such that you can use them meaninglessly.

Just be a subjectivist honestly, instead of misappropriating the language of objectivity and subjecting it to this torture.

[Flannel Jesus]

Just be a subjectivist honestly

I feel like there's some inherent irony in here

[Belinda]

Why do you keep waffling about "truths" when you are clearly a subjectivist?
Is it just for an excuse to sneak God into yet another non-religious conversation?

Your antennae are very sensitive to 'religion'.

Anyway, God or no God, we all must accept that people will often be at odds with one another in a wee forum like this or international affairs. What the subjectivist must accept defines the subjectivist so what I wrote is not an empirical truth it's a tautological truth about subjectivity. In other words it's true to say the subjectivist as defined does not believe truth is to be found apart from subjective experience.
The truth or validity of my reasoning is not the same as the truth of what I reason about. The truth of what I reason about cannot be known as if it were some empirical fact.

That's entirely specious.

When you wrote this:

My moral principles are true for me and may well not be true for someone else.

You are using the word "truth" to describe mere opinion.

And nothing has changed. All you are doing is downgrading the concepts of truth and fact such that you can use them meaninglessly.

Just be a subjectivist honestly, instead of misappropriating the language of objectivity and subjecting it to this torture.

Then do you think truth is out there and when know the truth we know what corresponds to the truth out there?

I think truth relates to what is most coherently reasonable.

[FlashDangerpants]

Your antennae are very sensitive to 'religion'.

Anyway, God or no God, we all must accept that people will often be at odds with one another in a wee forum like this or international affairs. What the subjectivist must accept defines the subjectivist so what I wrote is not an empirical truth it's a tautological truth about subjectivity. In other words it's true to say the subjectivist as defined does not believe truth is to be found apart from subjective experience.
The truth or validity of my reasoning is not the same as the truth of what I reason about. The truth of what I reason about cannot be known as if it were some empirical fact.

That's entirely specious.

When you wrote this:

My moral principles are true for me and may well not be true for someone else.

You are using the word "truth" to describe mere opinion.

And nothing has changed. All you are doing is downgrading the concepts of truth and fact such that you can use them meaninglessly.

Just be a subjectivist honestly, instead of misappropriating the language of objectivity and subjecting it to this torture.

Then do you think truth is out there and when know the truth we know what corresponds to the truth out there?

I think truth relates to what is most coherently reasonable.

It is not coherently reasonable for mutually exclusive "truths" to both be true. That is an abuse of the entire concept. Therefore "My moral principles are true for me and may well not be true for someone else" is a garbage bullshit claim.

It is definitely a fact that when we talk of something being "true" we are required to resolve contradictory claims. Some shit inferior new version of "true" that is only "true" when it is easy or convenient is not worth investing in.

[Belinda]

That's entirely specious.

When you wrote this:


You are using the word "truth" to describe mere opinion.

And nothing has changed. All you are doing is downgrading the concepts of truth and fact such that you can use them meaninglessly.

Just be a subjectivist honestly, instead of misappropriating the language of objectivity and subjecting it to this torture.

Then do you think truth is out there and when know the truth we know what corresponds to the truth out there?

I think truth relates to what is most coherently reasonable.

It is not coherently reasonable for mutually exclusive "truths" to both be true. That is an abuse of the entire concept. Therefore "My moral principles are true for me and may well not be true for someone else" is a garbage bullshit claim.

It is definitely a fact that when we talk of something being "true" we are required to resolve contradictory claims. Some shit inferior new version of "true" that is only "true" when it is easy or convenient is not worth investing in.

Absolute truth is impossible in this relative world. Absolute truth is what we seek and it's good to seek it despite we never find it. Cognitive dissonance feels uncomfortable but we need it before we can learn. Reason is the best method however it's a method it's not truth itself.

When we join forces with each other to seek truth it's best for all concerned when each theory is accepted as pro tem in a dynamic process. There is no ultimate authority. I wish there were but

[Sculptor]

You are giving an empirical answer I am giving a normative answer. Because people impose meanings for others does not make that valid or good. And that fact that so many people follow their own path when they grow up suggests to me that my first thought makes more sense.

I believe most people find more meaning in life than "not death".

Obviously - but what is your point?
All they do is find meaning in their OWN life, not in life itself, which is what these questions always assume.

How do you suspect a person finds "their own meaning" rather than it assigned to them?

Take a wild guess?
What right has another to assign a meaning to another person?
Are you kidding here? Do you really think another person has that right?

You do realize that independent-minded people are rare, and not the norm, right?

No I do not.
Even if that were true. Who wants to be "normal"?

[FlashDangerpants]

Then do you think truth is out there and when know the truth we know what corresponds to the truth out there?

I think truth relates to what is most coherently reasonable.

It is not coherently reasonable for mutually exclusive "truths" to both be true. That is an abuse of the entire concept. Therefore "My moral principles are true for me and may well not be true for someone else" is a garbage bullshit claim.

It is definitely a fact that when we talk of something being "true" we are required to resolve contradictory claims. Some shit inferior new version of "true" that is only "true" when it is easy or convenient is not worth investing in.

Absolute truth is impossible in this relative world. Absolute truth is what we seek and it's good to seek it despite we never find it. Cognitive dissonance feels uncomfortable but we need it before we can learn. Reason is the best method however it's a method it's not truth itself.

When we join forces with each other to seek truth it's best for all concerned when each theory is accepted as pro tem in a dynamic process. There is no ultimate authority. I wish there were but

That was all totally specious. There's a really simple dilema, you have this thing going where mutually exclusive facts are all true at the same time without requiring resolution. I have this fact that you are spouting complete shit.

To win, you just have to agree with me, that what you have written there is complete shite.

[Belinda]

It is not coherently reasonable for mutually exclusive "truths" to both be true. That is an abuse of the entire concept. Therefore "My moral principles are true for me and may well not be true for someone else" is a garbage bullshit claim.

It is definitely a fact that when we talk of something being "true" we are required to resolve contradictory claims. Some shit inferior new version of "true" that is only "true" when it is easy or convenient is not worth investing in.

Absolute truth is impossible in this relative world. Absolute truth is what we seek and it's good to seek it despite we never find it. Cognitive dissonance feels uncomfortable but we need it before we can learn. Reason is the best method however it's a method it's not truth itself.

When we join forces with each other to seek truth it's best for all concerned when each theory is accepted as pro tem in a dynamic process. There is no ultimate authority. I wish there were but

That was all totally specious. There's a really simple dilema, you have this thing going where mutually exclusive facts are all true at the same time without requiring resolution. I have this fact that you are spouting complete shit.

To win, you just have to agree with me, that what you have written there is complete shite.

Mutually exclusive facts are not eternally true. Neither of the mutually exclusive facts is eternally true. All that we call "facts" are pro tem until a better "fact" comes along.

There is no truth 'out there' to be discovered. Good people love truth and seek it, but that does not imply that there is any ultimate truth that we can find. The best we can do is keep on with the quest to find ultimate truth despite there being no hope of its existence.

[FlashDangerpants]

Absolute truth is impossible in this relative world. Absolute truth is what we seek and it's good to seek it despite we never find it. Cognitive dissonance feels uncomfortable but we need it before we can learn. Reason is the best method however it's a method it's not truth itself.

When we join forces with each other to seek truth it's best for all concerned when each theory is accepted as pro tem in a dynamic process. There is no ultimate authority. I wish there were but

That was all totally specious. There's a really simple dilema, you have this thing going where mutually exclusive facts are all true at the same time without requiring resolution. I have this fact that you are spouting complete shit.

To win, you just have to agree with me, that what you have written there is complete shite.

Mutually exclusive facts are not eternally true. Neither of the mutually exclusive facts is eternally true. All that we call "facts" are pro tem until a better "fact" comes along.

There is no truth 'out there' to be discovered. Good people love truth and seek it, but that does not imply that there is any ultimate truth that we can find. The best we can do is keep on with the quest to find ultimate truth despite there being no hope of its existence.

The heck you on about Belinda? Mutually exclusive facts cannot be simulatenously true you nutter.
I wasn't asking about "eternally", I explcitly said "at the SAME time".

Don't you understand basic entailment? If X is true then not-X is not true. Mutually exclusive truths are ones which entail that the other is not true.

All this crap you write about "My moral principles are true for me and may well not be true for someone else" falls foul of that basic rule.

So if you are going to live by your own words, eat your own goddamn dog food by agreeing that "FDP's" truth is true, even though FDP's truth is that your truth claims are bullshit garbage.