Philosophy

[Belinda]

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.

But we don't inhabit a world of formal logic! We have to live with uncertainty , where formal logic is useful for us not making invalid claims. Formal logic is no help at all for the truth of premises.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

But we don't inhabit a world of formal logic! We have to live with uncertainty , where formal logic is useful for us not making invalid claims. Formal logic is no help at all for the truth of premises.

If you believe what you are writing, you can agree that FDP's truth is true, even though FDP's truth is that your truth claims are bullshit garbage.

If you can't then that is because you don't agree with yourself.

I get why Age and Skepdick and Vegetable Armpit can't understand this reasoning. But I really don't get why you can't.

[Belinda]

I often don't agree with myself. Sometimes when I am out for a walk by myself I have silent discussions in my private thoughts about stuff that bothers me. I don't believe that you or anyone not under the influence of tranquillisers or booze has no cognitive dissonance, ever.

[FlashDangerpants]

I often don't agree with myself. Sometimes when I am out for a walk by myself I have silent discussions in my private thoughts about stuff that bothers me. I don't believe that you or anyone not under the influence of tranquillisers or booze has no cognitive dissonance, ever.

How tragically are you prepared to squirm?

[Wizard22]

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.

That's true.

And there can be a Meaning of Life beyond all cultures, on Earth, today. Just as Science is sometimes revolutionized in some Centuries of history, but not other Centuries.

[Belinda]

I often don't agree with myself. Sometimes when I am out for a walk by myself I have silent discussions in my private thoughts about stuff that bothers me. I don't believe that you or anyone not under the influence of tranquillisers or booze has no cognitive dissonance, ever.

How tragically are you prepared to squirm?

I'm content to accept that I will never know it all. As a working hypothesis I rely on the moral traditions of my culture which is basically Xian, and by now is post-Xian. Also I try to keep up with science . I identify with some ideas and not others. As far as philosophy goes I have preferences and I hope to add to what ideas I have.

[FlashDangerpants]

I often don't agree with myself. Sometimes when I am out for a walk by myself I have silent discussions in my private thoughts about stuff that bothers me. I don't believe that you or anyone not under the influence of tranquillisers or booze has no cognitive dissonance, ever.

How tragically are you prepared to squirm?

I'm content to accept that I will never know it all. As a working hypothesis I rely on the moral traditions of my culture which is basically Xian, and by now is post-Xian. Also I try to keep up with science . I identify with some ideas and not others. As far as philosophy goes I have preferences and I hope to add to what ideas I have.

Oh FFS.

Scenario 1.... knowledge about a fact.
I know my cat is dead.
You might claim to know my cat is actually sleeping.
These would be mutually exclusive fact claims.
There is a way to resolve them such that the true one is known and the false one is discarded.

Scenario 2... bullshitters pretending to "know" stuff....
Henry knows that the only rule of ethics is not to misappropriate other people's property.
Vegetable Armpit knows that all morality revolves around robotic adherence to a special list of principles generated by a science of moral shit.
They both know the other is wrong.
There is no means to resolve this matter.

It is stupid to say that VA and Henry each has his own Truth when VA and Henry each insists that each other and also you and I are in error about those same matters.

[Wizard22]

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?

Science can study and record 'Meaning' in Life, or the value which people and animals have.

It's like an "Economics of Biology".

There is ONLY One Reality, and It is Itself.

This is Nonsense.

That's like saying "There is ONLY One Reality, and it is One Reality!"

Is this your final answer? That's all you got??

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

History is very biased.

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.

It is becoming clear to me that children are your teachers, and not adults. I prefer the adults, myself.

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

Correct, for example, some humans run faster than others. They are "BETTER" than and "MORE THAN" capable than other runners.

Do you deny this?

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

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

"You human beings"? Are you denouncing your humanity here?

Also, nobody mentioned abusing children. Do you have some sort of fixation?

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

I'm listening to what you and others answer, about the Meaning of Life.

Speak your mind, if you have something to say about it.

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'll look back through the thread; I believe your Meaning of Life has already been refuted.

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

Because there are clear Winners and Losers in survival, it begs-the-question as to the value of some strategies and species who survive over others.

If this applies to Meaning of Life, then the same principle would apply. There are better "Meanings" than others. It's a very distressing possibility, certainly, that a human being could waste their entire life. And I believe that some do, sometimes willingly, sometimes by choice, sometimes by accident, etc.

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

It wasn't long ago in history that a man's life could be auctioned and sold at the marketplace; even now in less civilized parts of the world, human slavery still exists, along with child trafficking.

So it seems that you are not really knowledgeable about the world you live in. You may disagree against it, but your disapproval doesn't stop these things from happening.

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

It seems more "twisted and distorted" to believe in something that has never existed, and cannot exist, by your own admittance.

It's the "God Game". Present God to me, right now. Magically conjure and present to me, the British Crown jewels. If you cannot, then God does not exist.

See how simple this game is?

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?

How is a lion, eating a gazelle, an example of "life treating itself equally"? Doesn't Predation prove you, obviously wrong? A predator's life is not "equal" to its prey.

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?

The value of life is the importance, significance, and meaning that an organism deems to itself, and to others. Since a life can have no value, no meaning, then this manifests as a suicidal impulse. Some people commit suicide, because of this. They believe their life has no meaning, and affirm this through willfully destroying their own life: Annihilation.

Nihilism is the ideology, with premise, that Life has no inherent (preceding) value or meaning.

Moralism is the opposite ideology, with premise, that Life does have inherent (preceding) value or meaning.

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?

Because Subjectivity is selfish; Objectivity is selfless. I aim for Objectivity.

Because of WHO and WHAT they ARE, in Life.

That's not a valid answer.

*WHY* are children blameless???

Don't dodge this question.

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?

Because caring, or not caring, both demonstrate inequality. You cannot "care" for two people equally, let alone the rest of all existent life.

Here's another example. Let's say that Care is based on proximity. Are you equally approximate to every life form in existence? No. Therefore, No.

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

I think lying is a form of NOT caring. If you care about somebody, then you tell them the Truth.

Life does not have a center?

But It is UNEQUAL, RIGHT?

Yes, it is unequal and without a center.

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?

Usually, yes, most men are sent to war to die for a politician's ambition, for example.

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.

Incorrect, Chromosomes do prove gender and sex.

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.

This is common sense.

If a man has a few beers in a month, then he is not an Alcoholic. So over-indulgence is the definition of addiction and abuse.

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.

I never said nor implied that I "know" what absolute Truth is.

Where'd you get that idea??

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

A big part of life is learning when you are being joked, duped, lied to, deceived, betrayed, etc.

Did I speak about myself, on this?

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

I simply take the Philosophical and Skeptical route.

I presume that most people are lying from the start.

For example, a lot of Westerners now lie about their gender.

Another example, a lot of Western "News" media is fake news.

So my premise is validated accordingly.

[Wizard22]

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 is their own life, not "life itself", as if one life is not a representation of the whole of life?

That's exactly the problem here. One "Meaning of Life" is as diverse as the myriad of "life itself".

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?

I don't believe most of humanity leaves it up to blind luck and chance that their life has meaning or not. People want control over this, control over the odds.

Yes, I do believe that most people are content with being assigned meaning, rather than producing it themselves. Just like most people are content to have the tv magic box do their thinking and politicking, for them. People outsource these tasks. And they outsource Meaning of Life, too.

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

I'd say about 90% of humanity wants to be "normal".

I think you're wrong about Independent minds. Independence is a rare value, not the norm.

[Wizard22]

I often don't agree with myself. Sometimes when I am out for a walk by myself I have silent discussions in my private thoughts about stuff that bothers me. I don't believe that you or anyone not under the influence of tranquillisers or booze has no cognitive dissonance, ever.

You and Flash both have good points here.

People hold mutually exclusive beliefs; so people are forced to pick one or the other sometimes. Sometimes you're forced to, other times not. When you're forced to, that's when Flash's formal logical comes into play. You 'NEED' to decide, then. But when you don't have to decide, when you have time to think, that's when you can compare the opposition accordingly and accept whichever position seems truer than the other.

The modern world allows many conflicting and opposite opinions to co-exist, like never before. In previous eras of human history, we had far less choices, and far less time to ruminate, on conflicting values.

[Sculptor]

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 is their own life, not "life itself", as if one life is not a representation of the whole of life?

Why are you asking? Is it because you doubt the difference; do not know the difference; but do, but are just being contrary?

That's exactly the problem here. One "Meaning of Life" is as diverse as the myriad of "life itself".

Is it?
Why not stop asking questions, and try to answer 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?

I don't believe most of humanity leaves it up to blind luck and chance that their life has meaning or not. People want control over this, control over the odds.

That has not begun to answer my question

Yes, I do believe that most people are content with being assigned meaning, rather than producing it themselves. Just like most people are content to have the tv magic box do their thinking and politicking, for them. People outsource these tasks. And they outsource Meaning of Life, too.

Are you content? If you are then why are you asking questions, but not answering any?

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

I'd say about 90% of humanity wants to be "normal".

I think you're wrong about Independent minds. Independence is a rare value, not the norm.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself what is meant by "normal"?

[Wizard22]

Why are you asking? Is it because you doubt the difference; do not know the difference; but do, but are just being contrary?

I asked because I want to square your answers about Meaning of Life with an example.

"Life-itself" is a big concept. What is something that all life shares in common?

Is it?
Why not stop asking questions, and try to answer them?

I have some answers. But I made this thread, and asked first. If you made the thread, and asked me first, then you'd have initiative.

That has not begun to answer my question

There's a lot of factors to consider. For one, some people may not be able to produce "their own" Meaning of Life. For two, of those who can produce their own Meaning, how do they do so, and what is this process? I don't think it's common. Because most people follow a preset path in life. People don't reinvent the wheel; people generally pick up where their ancestors leave off. Humans don't invent new lifestyles every generation.

There's a demand for garbagemen, librarians, plumbers, welders, college professors, ambulance drivers, etc. Specialization is the trend. These hypothetically 'meaningless' jobs have a small significance, yet are necessary. And while one may deem menial tasks as less meaningful than others, the meaningful tasks, actions, objectives, etc. need to be compared. How is one life more meaningful, or less than another?

Are you content? If you are then why are you asking questions, but not answering any?

Am I not answering your questions right now?

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself what is meant by "normal"?

Yes, it is political, cultural, and biological. In grade schools for children, children will want to "look" and "act" normal, to avoid being bullied. If a child is too small or too fat, too short or too tall, too racially different, etc. then they will be made fun of. Those who have a weaker will, and more scared of bullying, will then want to "be more normal" to avoid it. Normalcy is a survival method within one's own specie, to be 'included' into general society. Hence, the more "normal" somebody is, the more that person "passes" throughout all levels and areas of Society. If a person looks and acts "normal", then they are forgettable and not perceived as a threat.

Yes?

[FlashDangerpants]

I often don't agree with myself. Sometimes when I am out for a walk by myself I have silent discussions in my private thoughts about stuff that bothers me. I don't believe that you or anyone not under the influence of tranquillisers or booze has no cognitive dissonance, ever.

You and Flash both have good points here.

People hold mutually exclusive beliefs; so people are forced to pick one or the other sometimes. Sometimes you're forced to, other times not. When you're forced to, that's when Flash's formal logical comes into play. You 'NEED' to decide, then. But when you don't have to decide, when you have time to think, that's when you can compare the opposition accordingly and accept whichever position seems truer than the other.

The modern world allows many conflicting and opposite opinions to co-exist, like never before. In previous eras of human history, we had far less choices, and far less time to ruminate, on conflicting values.

I may have referenced formal logic concepts to express it, but the law of the excluded middle isn't the origin of that observation. It's a fact of the language we are speaking that is understood by all competent users that to say something is true is likewise to say that it is false to deny it.

That's why I know Belinda cannot bring herself to say that I am right when I say that her talk of one truth for thee and another for me is bullshit. If she believed her own pitch she would have no problem saying her own words are both true and total bullshit. But she would be opting out of all normal language to do so.

Fact and truth are not synomyms of fiction and opinion. Certain people on this forum are constantly outsmarting themselves in an effort to pretend they are, but also to avoid explicitly recognising that they are doing so. None of these people has the mojo to pull this heist off, especially not Belinda. It's embarassing.

[Wizard22]

I think she was referring to Moral Relativism, and in that context, logical contradictions don't carry the same weight.

In other words, people hold directly contradictory views and beliefs, yet claim them as truth, such as cultural relativism.

For beliefs which are not scientific, and not empirical, there is a far less stringent rigor with regard to 'truth'.


I'll wait for Belinda's response though, don't want to misspeak her position.

[Age]

How tragically are you prepared to squirm?

I'm content to accept that I will never know it all. As a working hypothesis I rely on the moral traditions of my culture which is basically Xian, and by now is post-Xian. Also I try to keep up with science . I identify with some ideas and not others. As far as philosophy goes I have preferences and I hope to add to what ideas I have.

Oh FFS.

Scenario 1.... knowledge about a fact.
I know my cat is dead.
You might claim to know my cat is actually sleeping.
These would be mutually exclusive fact claims.
There is a way to resolve them such that the true one is known and the false one is discarded.

Scenario 2... bullshitters pretending to "know" stuff....
Henry knows that the only rule of ethics is not to misappropriate other people's property.
Vegetable Armpit knows that all morality revolves around robotic adherence to a special list of principles generated by a science of moral shit.
They both know the other is wrong.
There is no means to resolve this matter.

It is stupid to say that VA and Henry each has his own Truth when VA and Henry each insists that each other and also you and I are in error about those same matters.

Of course it is stupid to say any two people have their own Truth, because they obviously do not. But this is just because of what Truth is. Also, and by the way, just as obvious is the fact that people have their own truth, which is best never mistaken for Truth.