What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[chaz wyman]

You must be really fucking bored

Just a touch tired of looking at you pulling up others spellings when your own posts to me have been replete. And please don't say 'don't read them then!' as I enjoy reading most of your thought. So I was just checking that you'd be fine with me doing it when or if I reply to you. But maybe not.

Bullshit. As a rule I don't. You are imagining it.

Right now I have no idea why I was pissed off with you. But it had less to do with you picking me up on my spelling and more to do with the matter at hand. It was so long ago I can't remember what it was.

Don't you mean "...reading most of your thoughts."?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.






What's stopping us from seeing the truth?





It's humbling.


The composed link is humbling.

The link provides a perspective.



There is a naked truth in just being awed beyond words.



There is a truth in understanding the extremely thin, very very thin film that we pontificate upon.



The extremely thin layer of reality our lives begin and end upon.






Thank you for asking that question. I hope that once again I have been able to direct you.




I am you.







.

[lancek4]

I have to lean on Chaz side of the SOB/chaz tennis game. He tends of Hegel. And as the other guys input, yes the problem of assertions of truth is that they contradict the truth they are asserting. But I assert that this problem is one of the limits of discourse. Chaz and SOB illustrate this perfectly. I would associate this scheme as Chaz is speaking of the 'truth' of the subject; SOB is of the object. Together is dialogue the exemplify the orientations, niether can get past the other because both 'see' the thruth of the matter through their respective lenses. If we understand Sartre and Hegel then we have Chaz; SOB more like Russel. ( I do not mean to pigeon hole you guys). But both overlap with the inability to breach a 'truth' of the matter at hand.

I propose that both means or argueing are 'conventional' and the result - if we see philosophy as an attempt to find what is true or some sort of way of showing what should be 'more proper' way of reality, some sort of 'how do I fit' reflection, in the face of such philosophical paradox and stalemate in arument, each side asserting its correct way - the only route for the individual person is to 'check out' of the conversation. And this is Typists 'aphilosophical and bills zen-dome of another thread, or the metaphysical 'oneness' that speaks inenigmas. .

What is preventing us from seeing the truth is exactly the resistance of the individual to admit they just might be incorrect in their 'orientations'.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm not wrong about being a skeptic.

You may be wrong about anything else and why not about being a skeptic?

Are you saying I'm not a skeptic - Make up your mind!!
See edited response also.

When a skeptic cannot radically or systematically doubt himself or his own assumptions, he is hardly a skeptic. No, he isn't. My mind is made up.

Not that I really want to pick on anyone although I'm sure it's been obvious to many that I've been the intended victim of Chaz's picking.

So far the most intelligent responses have been born of "Ron de Weijze." He's got the right idea. Actually his point, I had a glimpse of earlier, however I'm easily sidetracked because I understand how everything is related but my mind isn't capable of maintaining all those connections simultaneously. In addition in the brief time I became aware of the possible argument I was incapable of formulating a method to express it.

"The only thing we truly know is that we don't know!"

So Chaz without truth, what is it that you profess to know? What is it that your words indicate? In you own words of course. You're not afraid to answer this, are you?

Gee whiz. Well thank you for making my argument for me.
Based upon "your" (this) assertion, "you" misunderstand "my" meaning, because "my" meaning does not give way to this conclusion. I insist that "my" words mean something entirely different, such that "your" response to them is incorrect (is not valid).

Truth is relative.
Saying that truth is relative indicates that there is no one truth, that its a perspective, that there is no correct or incorrect truth. If this is in fact, then I'm sure that the courts of the US would not use the following swearing in oath: "Do you Chaz swear to tell the 'truth' the whole 'truth' and nothing but the 'truth,' so help you god." The United Kingdom also utilizes 'truth' in oaths pertaining to the loyalty of the queen. Obviously They're using truth to erase ambiguity not to cause it. They don't want 100 different versions of truth. They want "the truth." The quote from above, i.e., "The only thing we truly know is that we don't know!" holds knowledge as subjective and truth as objective, not the other way around. Truth is being used as a qualifier of knowledge such that knowledge could be flawed and requires truth to ensure it's not

What I profess to know is that which serves to correspond to my experience, my reason and evidence.
Such that from your perspective, What I profess to know is that which serves to correspond to my experience, my reason and evidence. Such that if in fact (truth), this statement of yours is correct then both of our perspectives can neither be seen as right nor wrong, and if neither of our relative perspectives are incorrect then neither of us has in fact (truth) the grounds to demean, humiliate, condescend or otherwise abuse each others resolve, in the interest of fair play, which in fact (truth) is what you have done on numerous occasions to numerous people, because in fact according to your own words their truth is relative and based upon 'their experience, their reason and evidence.' To say that each has their own relative version of truth and then condemn them for it is contradictory and automatically undermines your relative version of truth with the same amount of fervor.

I do not have the arrogance to assume that the 'truth" exists outside of me in some sort of pure state.Here your logic is obviously flawed simply because of your inclusion of the word "arrogance" Here is the definition of arrogance as per, Oxford Dictionaries; Copyright © 2011Oxford University Press, which is arguably the most trusted dictionary in the world. As to arrogance they state: "having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities" So obviously someone that attributes truth to their own importance or abilities, ("my experience, my reason and evidence") is arrogant, whereby someone that attributes truth not of their own importance or abilities. in other words one that would say that truth exists "without them," cannot possibly be labeled as arrogant, because 'one's own sense' "their self" never enters the assessment of truth, or in other words it exists without them.

It is plain enough that your view is different, and so your truth is not as mine. QED - my point is made.
As far as I'm concerned, this then is the only thing that I agree with and the only thing that you've said in honesty.

Because I don't believe that you honestly believe any of your version of truth and that it's just a smokescreen to ensure that the truth never excludes your god.

(Notice how I never once called you a name. It's because, as a MAN I do not fear that my argument does not stand of it's own fruition. I do not have to attempt to cram it down anyone's throat via an attempt at humiliation. I would not enjoy any recognition as a result of humiliation or that of which was forced with intimidation, anyway. In the interest of fair play, I expect you to either argue against my stance point by point or simply move on.)

Thank you for your time, as it's the one thing that, in the end, we'll all want more of.

[Arising_uk]

Bullshit. As a rule I don't. You are imagining it.

Think not.

... Don't you mean "...reading most of your thoughts."?

Nope, as I understand most of your thoughts as being of a fairly coherent or consistent philosophical thought and agree with the majority of them. So I meant what I said.

[lancek4]

(Btw: if my spelling is exceedingly bad or words screwey I apologize - those posts were done in my blackberry).

[lancek4]

... because I understand how everything is related but my mind isn't capable of maintaining all those connections simultaneously. In addition in the brief time I became aware of the possible argument I was incapable of formulating a method to express it.

If your (sob) previous posts in argument were not obvious enough, this quote from you firmly establishes your orientation as firmly in the objective.

This is evident because of the 'all those connections'. When there are objects to know, as if these constitute individuated things-in-themselves, then there is an infinite set of relation between objects and one has then to 'learn' how each object is related and how arguments mights address this schema. To bring this infinity into a tangibility for such a mind, one then posits an 'end' (sartre). This 'end' is your 'not yet knowable basis for truth' into and toward we might be able to 'know more'. Chaz is correct, in his brazen, stubborn way, that no such basis exists that we can know, except that is, in that one is oriented 'away from' oneself, as if knowledge exists as a potential for an absolute referent As the object.

[lancek4]

But, to be fair, Chaz has not yet sufficiently explained how he is capable of coming to This truth without such basic referent. (Ask him about atheism - that one is great).
This is the problem you guys go in circles about. My question has been, first, do you see this circle ( which is most obvious in previous posts on this thread), and, second, how do you explain the vicious cycle, and third, how do we break the stalemate ?

[lancek4]

.






What's stopping us from seeing the truth?





It's humbling.


The composed link is humbling.

The link provides a perspective.



There is a naked truth in just being awed beyond words.



There is a truth in understanding the extremely thin, very very thin film that we pontificate upon.



The extremely thin layer of reality our lives begin and end upon.






Thank you for asking that question. I hope that once again I have been able to direct you.




I am you.

Feelings, nothing more than feelings.....lalalala (song).

It can't be thinking so its gota be. Awesome ! Wow one must become like a child to enter the kingdom of heaven.
If ignorance is bliss, and this is what jesus meant then you must be in Nirvana.

But somehow, I do not think this is what jesus meant. Darn.

Bill, why don't you check out a book called "idea of the Holy" by Rudolf Otto.
On second thought, you are already too holy for the book to do much good.


Oh btw : so you are speaking to yourself right now. Shouldn't you consider yourself?

[SpheresOfBalance]

... because I understand how everything is related but my mind isn't capable of maintaining all those connections simultaneously. In addition in the brief time I became aware of the possible argument I was incapable of formulating a method to express it.

Hey lancek4, sorry but this quote here was taken out of context. What this passage was referring to was that I had believed that Ron's point was that Chaz's argument contradicts his position and that I had had a glimpse of this previously but at the time was unable to formulate an argument to demonstrate this due to mental overload

If your (sob) previous posts in argument were not obvious enough, this quote from you firmly establishes your orientation as firmly in the objective.

This is evident because of the 'all those connections'. When there are objects to know, as if these constitute individuated things-in-themselves, then there is an infinite set of relation between objects and one has then to 'learn' how each object is related and how arguments mights address this schema. To bring this infinity into a tangibility for such a mind, one then posits an 'end' (sartre). This 'end' is your 'not yet knowable basis for truth' into and toward we might be able to 'know more'. Chaz is correct, in his brazen, stubborn way, that no such basis exists that we can know, except that is, in that one is oriented 'away from' oneself, as if knowledge exists as a potential for an absolute referent As the object.

Please read blue text above first. Though I do believe that everything is connected. To me it's obvious. There was an origin and after eon's of cause and effect it eventually caused us.

Of course Ron's point applies to us all, at some point or another, which is why I referenced the quote: "The only thing we truly know is that we don't know." This we all seem to loose sight of during our heated debates, because it tends to point out that we are only peeing in the wind when contrasted by truth.

[chaz wyman]

I have to lean on Chaz side of the SOB/chaz tennis game. He tends of Hegel. And as the other guys input, yes the problem of assertions of truth is that they contradict the truth they are asserting. But I assert that this problem is one of the limits of discourse. Chaz and SOB illustrate this perfectly. I would associate this scheme as Chaz is speaking of the 'truth' of the subject; SOB is of the object. Together is dialogue the exemplify the orientations, niether can get past the other because both 'see' the thruth of the matter through their respective lenses. If we understand Sartre and Hegel then we have Chaz; SOB more like Russel. ( I do not mean to pigeon hole you guys). But both overlap with the inability to breach a 'truth' of the matter at hand.

I propose that both means or argueing are 'conventional' and the result - if we see philosophy as an attempt to find what is true or some sort of way of showing what should be 'more proper' way of reality, some sort of 'how do I fit' reflection, in the face of such philosophical paradox and stalemate in arument, each side asserting its correct way - the only route for the individual person is to 'check out' of the conversation. And this is Typists 'aphilosophical and bills zen-dome of another thread, or the metaphysical 'oneness' that speaks inenigmas. .

What is preventing us from seeing the truth is exactly the resistance of the individual to admit they just might be incorrect in their 'orientations'.

I think even Russell would admit that Truth is a human concept and is meaningless outside the realm of human thought.

[chaz wyman]

"The only thing we truly know is that we don't know!"

So Chaz without truth, what is it that you profess to know? What is it that your words indicate? In you own words of course. You're not afraid to answer this, are you?

Gee whiz. Well thank you for making my argument for me.
Based upon "your" (this) assertion, "you" misunderstand "my" meaning, because "my" meaning does not give way to this conclusion. I insist that "my" words mean something entirely different, such that "your" response to them is incorrect (is not valid).

It does because you are contradicting yourself. Your truth has an inherent contradiction thus you are making my point

Truth is relative.
Saying that truth is relative indicates that there is no one truth, that its a perspective, that there is no correct or incorrect truth. If this is in fact, then I'm sure that the courts of the US would not use the following swearing in oath: "Do you Chaz swear to tell the 'truth' the whole 'truth' and nothing but the 'truth,' so help you god." The United Kingdom also utilizes 'truth' in oaths pertaining to the loyalty of the queen. Obviously They're using truth to erase ambiguity not to cause it. They don't want 100 different versions of truth. They want "the truth." The quote from above, i.e., "The only thing we truly know is that we don't know!" holds knowledge as subjective and truth as objective, not the other way around. Truth is being used as a qualifier of knowledge such that knowledge could be flawed and requires truth to ensure it's not

The Legal system asks people to give their accounts. These produce different account due to different perspectives. The court then weighs these against certain prejudices concerning culturally defined meta-statments and expectations about the words as it is currently conceived and offers its judgement. The courts have found people to be witches, they have decided, despite causality that people are morally responsible despite questions as to the antinomy of the free-will and determinism. Courts have sentenced people to death for making spells, and for being homosexual. Courts have convicted people for believing in the 'wrong' version of the Bible, the wrong version of Christianity. Courts have condemned people for being Muslim. There was even once a court that convicted a monkey of murder. A court had determined that 5.9 million Jews were guilty of an International conspiracy and condemned them all to the gas chamber. For those that made those decision all of that was based on their version of the Truth. Courts decide what is true to verify their culturally defined version of reality.

But even where the truth seems to correspond to fact - where every one can agree on some banal point of observation. You still have to admit that the universe does not give a hoot. How can it. Truth is based on the interests of humanity. It is reproduced by humanity and communicated by humanity. Without humans there is no truth.


What I profess to know is that which serves to correspond to my experience, my reason and evidence.
Such that from your perspective,
What I profess to know is that which serves to correspond to my experience, my reason and evidence. Such that if in fact (truth), this statement of yours is correct then both of our perspectives can neither be seen as right nor wrong, and if neither of our relative perspectives are incorrect then neither of us has in fact (truth) the grounds to demean, humiliate, condescend or otherwise abuse each others resolve, in the interest of fair play, which in fact (truth) is what you have done on numerous occasions to numerous people, because in fact according to your own words their truth is relative and based upon 'their experience, their reason and evidence.' To say that each has their own relative version of truth and then condemn them for it is contradictory and automatically undermines your relative version of truth with the same amount of fervor.

That is correct. Human truth goes forward when individuals' versions of their truth agree. When one persons subjective view of the world corresponds to another - then we are like to call that objective. You are nearly there!!


I do not have the arrogance to assume that the 'truth" exists outside of me in some sort of pure state.
Here your logic is obviously flawed simply because of your inclusion of the word "arrogance" Here is the definition of arrogance as per, Oxford Dictionaries; Copyright © 2011Oxford University Press, which is arguably the most trusted dictionary in the world. As to arrogance they state: "having or revealing an exaggerated

Soon I will give you a lesson on logic too. But for now we can stick to truth.
But this exemplifies why you are so wrong. Dictionaries do not hold the pure, singular and unimpeachable versions to the true meaning of a word. Dictionaries try their best to distill in words the most commonly understood meaning of words as they are in use. Words' meanings change, truth changes. When I said arrogant - I was pointing out that people that believe that dictionary definitions somehow deliver the only possible definition regardless of context. It is arrogant to believe that what is only a human concept is a concept that belongs in the universe. It is arrogant to believe that any concept can exist without a human.



sense of one’s own importance or abilities" So obviously someone that attributes truth to their own importance or abilities, ("my experience, my reason and evidence") is arrogant, whereby someone that attributes truth not of their own importance or abilities. in other words one that would say that truth exists "without them," cannot possibly be labeled as arrogant, because 'one's own sense' "their self" never enters the assessment of truth, or in other words it exists without them.

What will persist when you die is other people's versions of the truth. You are arrogant because when you think you know what is true, you think you have tapped into the universal motherload of truth - you have not.

It is plain enough that your view is different, and so your truth is not as mine. QED - my point is made.

As far as I'm concerned, this then is the only thing that I agree with and the only thing that you've said in honesty.

Because I don't believe that you honestly believe any of your version of truth and that it's just a smokescreen to ensure that the truth never excludes your god.

(Notice how I never once called you a name. It's because, as a MAN I do not fear that my argument does not stand of it's own fruition. I do not have to attempt to cram it down anyone's throat via an attempt at humiliation. I would not enjoy any recognition as a result of humiliation or that of which was forced with intimidation, anyway. In the interest of fair play, I expect you to either argue against my stance point by point or simply move on.)

Thank you for your time, as it's the one thing that, in the end, we'll all want more of.

When you have been diagnosed with cancer - you know THAT is true.
But then that truth like all others is completely human.

[chaz wyman]

Bullshit. As a rule I don't. You are imagining it.

Think not.

... Don't you mean "...reading most of your thoughts."?

Nope, as I understand most of your thoughts as being of a fairly coherent or consistent philosophical thought and agree with the majority of them. So I meant what I said.

You said; "Just a touch tired of looking at you pulling up others spellings"

I have made 4922 Posts. THis will be the 4923rd.

Show me when and where I have picked people up on their spelling. If you can find 0.5% then I will concede the point.
Otherwise stop wasting my time.

[chaz wyman]

But, to be fair, Chaz has not yet sufficiently explained how he is capable of coming to This truth without such basic referent. (Ask him about atheism - that one is great).
This is the problem you guys go in circles about. My question has been, first, do you see this circle ( which is most obvious in previous posts on this thread), and, second, how do you explain the vicious cycle, and third, how do we break the stalemate ?

I am reflecting on every example of truth that I know.

[Arising_uk]

You said; "Just a touch tired of looking at you pulling up others spellings"

I have made 4922 Posts. THis will be the 4923rd.

Show me when and where I have picked people up on their spelling. If you can find 0.5% then I will concede the point.
Otherwise stop wasting my time.

Ach! You could be right and it may just be my over-sensitivity at someone who's posts are pretty full of spelling and grammar errors correcting anothers. Although my actual question was about how you'd react if or when I correct you in any future conversation we may have.