Gary's Corner

[Lacewing]

Most people already accept/understand the concept that no singular view reigns over all.

There are things that all views cannot deny.

What can be deduced is that there can be multiple right answers, depending on the angle one is looking from.

The one thing you can know for certain, by pure logic, is that when people disagree, it does not mean "multiple answers can be right."

You both are extraordinarily intoxicated with what you want to claim you know.

A wise man knows he knows nothing.

True wisdom begins with acknowledging one’s ignorance.

Whatever you think you know is but a tiny imagined speck of yours and others limited understanding. The fact that you keep doubling-down on it, trying to insist that what you think you know is some sort of greater truth or reality that all must acknowledge, shows how important it is to your sense of identity and meaning. That's your personal psychological trip and of no consequence to anyone else.

I'm not going to argue with what you foolishly think you know.

Good luck with having some realizations beyond all your stuff.

[Immanuel Can]

Most people already accept/understand the concept that no singular view reigns over all.

There are things that all views cannot deny.

What can be deduced is that there can be multiple right answers, depending on the angle one is looking from.

The one thing you can know for certain, by pure logic, is that when people disagree, it does not mean "multiple answers can be right."

You both are extraordinarily intoxicated with what you want to claim you know.

Yes, basic logic is such heady stuff...especially to those who may be encountering it for the first time.

[Walker]

- I know three things that apply to every view.
- If you do not, or do not think that is possible, is your reasoning to support that because many people think many things?
- What I'm hearing from that, which is the gist of what you've shared, is a non-sequitur.

*

- The truth can generate a pleasure/pain reaction for both the transmitter and receiver.
- The receiver’s reaction to the pain is often resentment against the transmission, or if small-minded, resentment towards the transmitter.
- This can nip the pleasure of truth in the bud before it can blossom into the receiver's view of the big picture.
- Iconoclasm in the comfort zone can activate that reaction, apparently even for relativists ... which is an apparent contradiction to relativism.

Question: What causes the conundrum?
Answer: Attachment to relativism, all the way up the line to the big picture.

[Walker]

A wise man knows he knows nothing.

Was he a sophist or a soothsayer?

[Lacewing]

- The truth can generate a pleasure/pain reaction for both the transmitter and receiver.
- The receiver’s reaction to the pain is often resentment against the transmission, or if small-minded, resentment towards the transmitter.
- This can nip the pleasure of truth in the bud before it can blossom into the receiver's view of the big picture.

You write about what you suspect or think you know, and yet you do not seem aware of how it manifests within yourself. Both you and I.C. have a complete aversion to any truth that does not fit within your narrow, self-serving frameworks... thereby denying obvious broader truth and balance and logic. Such dishonesty exposes the absurd extent of the farce! Yet, you both carry on like two madmen, reveling in your delusional dance while speaking in tongues to glorify yourselves and your views.

[Immanuel Can]

- The truth can generate a pleasure/pain reaction for both the transmitter and receiver.
- The receiver’s reaction to the pain is often resentment against the transmission, or if small-minded, resentment towards the transmitter.
- This can nip the pleasure of truth in the bud before it can blossom into the receiver's view of the big picture.

Both you and I.C. have a complete aversion to any truth that does not fit within your narrow, self-serving frameworks...

You do not believe in truth. You don't think truth exists. You insist it's all "subjective."

Well, subjectively, perhaps Walker and I are not in any difficulty.

You also say that wise man "knows nothing." Assuming you suppose yourself to be like one of these "wise" men -- indistinguishable though you make them from the ignorant -- you must also know nothing about truth. This seems to fit nicely with your grasp of logic.

Therefore, your jibes are blunt. Your disapproval is pointless. And your spite, though entertaining, fails to produce anything.

[Lacewing]

Both you and I.C. have a complete aversion to any truth that does not fit within your narrow, self-serving frameworks...

You don't think truth exists.

I have said there are many truths.

You insist it's all "subjective."

You just said I don't think it exists.

You also say that wise man "knows nothing".

I said:

A wise man knows he knows nothing.

It's one well-known view of philosophy. Fools are the ones who think they know everything. They are closed-off from broader awareness.

Assuming you suppose yourself to be like one of these "wise" men -- indistinguishable though you make them from the ignorant -- you must also know nothing about truth.

There are many truths in each moment and each circumstance. How could there not be? Knowing that there is always more than any singular view or supposed 'truth' seems logical and observant. And it's helpful.

This seems to fit nicely with your grasp of logic.

My logic has worked very well, and many people have commented on it throughout my life. So, I think your misunderstanding is a case of your resistance to any logic other than your own which seems to be in devout service to whatever you want to claim is 'all that exists'. That is absurd, and therefore flawed logic.

And your spite, though entertaining, fails to produce anything.

You just acknowledged that it produces entertainment.

[Immanuel Can]

Both you and I.C. have a complete aversion to any truth that does not fit within your narrow, self-serving frameworks...

You don't think truth exists.

I have said there are many truths.

If you understood logic, you'd know that none can be mutually contradictory, and have both be true. That's basic. So whoever has been remarking on your grasp of logic, I would re-examine theirs, were I you. It might not be such a flattering endorsement as you want us to believe.

[Lacewing]

You don't think truth exists.

I have said there are many truths.

If you understood logic, you'd know that none can be mutually contradictory, and have both be true. That's basic.

That's one kind of basic logic. You surely believe it to be the only possibility because it is all you know and it works for your purposes. That's what I've been saying. What you think you know is based on limitations, so it might not be such a flattering endorsement as you want us to believe.

If you are ever able to say truthfully: "I seek to know what else there is beyond what I think there is," then you might sound more like a philosopher seeking knowledge, rather than a dogmatic wanna-be telling everyone that your view is the only truth.

[Immanuel Can]

I have said there are many truths.

If you understood logic, you'd know that none can be mutually contradictory, and have both be true. That's basic.

That's one kind of basic logic.

It's one of the fundamental laws without which logic itself cannot operate. A first year course in introduction to philosophy would teach you that.

[Lacewing]

If you understood logic, you'd know that none can be mutually contradictory, and have both be true. That's basic.

That's one kind of basic logic.

It's one of the fundamental laws without which logic itself cannot operate. A first year course in introduction to philosophy would teach you that.

What did human beings do before a first year course in introduction to philosophy existed?

Have all philosophers arrived at the same conclusions with their logic?

[Immanuel Can]

That's one kind of basic logic.

It's one of the fundamental laws without which logic itself cannot operate. A first year course in introduction to philosophy would teach you that.

What did human beings do before a first year course in introduction to philosophy existed?

They read Aristotle.

[Lacewing]

It's one of the fundamental laws without which logic itself cannot operate. A first year course in introduction to philosophy would teach you that.

What did human beings do before a first year course in introduction to philosophy existed?

They read Aristotle.

Human beings have always been capable of philosophy and logic without ever emulating anybody in particular. Emulating... and then claiming that's the only truth or right way to do it... is lazy and stupid. That one coats themselves in a protective and comfortable layer of stagnancy.

[Immanuel Can]

What did human beings do before a first year course in introduction to philosophy existed?

They read Aristotle.

Human beings have always been capable of philosophy and logic without ever emulating anybody in particular.

Maybe. But if so, Aristotle explained, for the first time, exactly what it is they'd been doing -- why some ways of thinking led to good answers, and sloppiness in thought almost always ends up in bad ideas. So thanks to Aristotle, we can point out that people who don't know what the Law of Non-Contradiction is tend to arrive at absurd and unfounded conclusions, such as that disagreement means "many truths." Aristotle shows us why they're wrong. So we can thank him for that.

[Lacewing]

They read Aristotle.

Human beings have always been capable of philosophy and logic without ever emulating anybody in particular.

Maybe. But if so, Aristotle explained, for the first time...

Like any human being, he spoke from his perspective and ideas. That is not some kind of complete view. Clearly, you like being a follower, and then glorifying that which you follow. If that's what brings you meaning and comfort, good for you. But you're wrong to insist/impose it as an ultimate reality or truth. That's just you stroking yourself about your own choices.