What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[lancek4]

Thanks Nicoli; I will check it out.

Sob: I was addressing the argument of 'definition' and its relation the AbTruth.

Each and every definition/term one uses reflects one's actual Being in/of the universe. Each and every one.
To situate some of them as 'other' or 'not me' as absolutely true segregates that individual as an object likewise

[Mark Question]

if we are talking truth, are we talking knowledge or not?

No!

why not? dont you need knowledge to know what you are talking about?

if we are talking absolute truth, are we talking absolute knowledge?

No!

why? dont you need absolute knowledge to absolutely know absolute truth?

if we are talking absolute knowledge, are we talking all-knowing god?

No!

what is your favorite lexicon saying the word "absolute" means to its writers and to you?

if we are talking all that exists, are we talking world or universe?

Universe!

are we? why many others like to use word "world" instead of "universe"? is universe more like scientific term? why you use word "truth" instead of using word "universe" when meaning all that exists?

do we need knowledge if we want to define what is knowledge? can we know it before we can know it? or can we define it first, like you do if you say something about it? is knowledge getting better and better every day, like many see themselves in mental hospital?

[Arising_uk]

...
Chair: (Noun) a seat, especially for one person, usually having four legs for support and a rest for the back and often having rests for the arms.

A: (indefinite article) not any particular or certain one of a class or group: a man; a chemical; a house.

Seat: (Noun) something designed to support a person in a sitting position, as a chair, bench, or pew; a place on or in which one sits.

Especially: (adverb) particularly; exceptionally; markedly: Be especially watchful.

For: (preposition) with the object or purpose of: to run for exercise.

One: (adjective) being or amounting to a single unit or individual or entire thing, item, or object rather than two or more; a single: one woman; one nation; one piece of cake.

Person: (noun) a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.

Usually: (adverb) habitual or customary: her usual skill.

I could continue, but so far, I see no circular reference causing any problems. Oh wait, I see one potential:

Sitting: (noun) the act of a person or thing that sits.

Sit: (verb {used without object}) to rest with the body supported by the buttocks or thighs; be seated.

--All definitions from: dictionary.reference.com--

Would an alien with no legs be able to grasp what a chair is from the above?

Dictionaries of a language are a relatively new occurrence but dictionaries have been around a long while and have been about set subjects, mainly technical. I look at my shelves and I have a few English dictionaries, a couple of philosophy ones, an artificial Intelligence one and a chemistry one(it was too cheap to refuse). Someone who knew no philosophy would be hard pushed to find a meaning from the philosophy one whereas I find it a useful reference and informative about words I have not encountered but only because I recognize the base terms and the situations they describe. Same goes for the AI dictionary with even less understanding for most than from the philosophy one I suspect. I think this because when I peruse the chemistry one this is what happens to me as I have no understanding of chemistry and every entry pretty much refers back to a term in the dictionary and where it doesn't it refers to a state of mind or experience that I've not had. Language and meaning is essentially use. These types of dictionary show their structure, limitations and advantages clearly but a language dictionary obscures this a lot more as we all speak the language. So SpheresOfBonkers assertion that the meaning of a language is just a dictionary and its rules of grammar seems wrong to me, not least because the illiterate appears to be able to speak a language but also because if true AI would have had Turing capable parsers a long-time back.

Some people just find complication where there is none, for the sake of their self image. I call them, plastic people, PP's for short; Pseudo-intellectuals. I believe that when one considers effective communication, intellect would actually dictate simplicity. Because the idea of being effective is to ensure the accomplishment. I have found that some here seem to be more concerned about their self image, than the point of their argument. Of course, everyone is concerned about it to some extent. It's consideration is therefore only important when it's the main thrust of their reason.

Don't forget the pseudo-philosophers who think they can comment upon what they've not read.

[lancek4]

There is a good book called 'the power of babel'. Its a 'popular' book but written by a linguistic scholar I don't remember.

He talks about language and how our language,diction, grammar, and the dictionary develkoped historically. Interesting read.

His basic premise is that there is no real 'stanbdard' language, that language is a constantly changing element upon which we place definitive standards and call it 'proper'.

I gathered that the underlying thesis is that language indicates and reflects only the present moment it is being used.

[SpheresOfBalance]

...
Chair: (Noun) a seat, especially for one person, usually having four legs for support and a rest for the back and often having rests for the arms.

A: (indefinite article) not any particular or certain one of a class or group: a man; a chemical; a house.

Seat: (Noun) something designed to support a person in a sitting position, as a chair, bench, or pew; a place on or in which one sits.

Especially: (adverb) particularly; exceptionally; markedly: Be especially watchful.

For: (preposition) with the object or purpose of: to run for exercise.

One: (adjective) being or amounting to a single unit or individual or entire thing, item, or object rather than two or more; a single: one woman; one nation; one piece of cake.

Person: (noun) a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.

Usually: (adverb) habitual or customary: her usual skill.

I could continue, but so far, I see no circular reference causing any problems. Oh wait, I see one potential:

Sitting: (noun) the act of a person or thing that sits.

Sit: (verb {used without object}) to rest with the body supported by the buttocks or thighs; be seated.

--All definitions from: dictionary.reference.com--

Would an alien with no legs be able to grasp what a chair is from the above?

Dictionaries of a language are a relatively new occurrence but dictionaries have been around a long while and have been about set subjects, mainly technical. I look at my shelves and I have a few English dictionaries, a couple of philosophy ones, an artificial Intelligence one and a chemistry one(it was too cheap to refuse). Someone who knew no philosophy would be hard pushed to find a meaning from the philosophy one whereas I find it a useful reference and informative about words I have not encountered but only because I recognize the base terms and the situations they describe. Same goes for the AI dictionary with even less understanding for most than from the philosophy one I suspect. I think this because when I peruse the chemistry one this is what happens to me as I have no understanding of chemistry and every entry pretty much refers back to a term in the dictionary and where it doesn't it refers to a state of mind or experience that I've not had. Language and meaning is essentially use. These types of dictionary show their structure, limitations and advantages clearly but a language dictionary obscures this a lot more as we all speak the language. So SpheresOfBonkers assertion that the meaning of a language is just a dictionary and its rules of grammar seems wrong to me, not least because the illiterate appears to be able to speak a language but also because if true AI would have had Turing capable parsers a long-time back.

Some people just find complication where there is none, for the sake of their self image. I call them, plastic people, PP's for short; Pseudo-intellectuals. I believe that when one considers effective communication, intellect would actually dictate simplicity. Because the idea of being effective is to ensure the accomplishment. I have found that some here seem to be more concerned about their self image, than the point of their argument. Of course, everyone is concerned about it to some extent. It's consideration is therefore only important when it's the main thrust of their reason.

Don't forget the pseudo-philosophers who think they can comment upon what they've not read.

Sweetheart, you didn't have to mention your being a parrot, I already knew it. Those that can't do, read others that can, then believe they have original thoughts. You're definitely a 'minor' 'bird, ' aren't you? You're nothing more than a Dic-ta-phone.

P.S. I really love the name thing, what is that, like, 8th grade?

[Arising_uk]

Sweetheart, you didn't have to mention your being a parrot, I already knew it. Those that can't do, read others that can, then believe they have original thoughts. You're definitely a 'minor' 'bird, ' aren't you? You're nothing more than a Dic-ta-phone.

Actually they teach. Nice to know that you think I think I have original thoughts but you'd be wrong in this matter as I've studied philosophy.

P.S. I really love the name thing, what is that, like, 8th grade?

Nah! Nicked the idea from a previous poster here, I thought it apt given you had already renamed me in your mind and in print.

I thought you weren't talking to me anymore? Got anymore quotes and insights about Nietzsche you care to pass on?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Sweetheart, you didn't have to mention your being a parrot, I already knew it. Those that can't do, read others that can, then believe they have original thoughts. You're definitely a 'minor' 'bird, ' aren't you? You're nothing more than a Dic-ta-phone.

Actually they teach. Nice to know that you think I think I have original thoughts but you'd be wrong in this matter as I've studied philosophy.

P.S. I really love the name thing, what is that, like, 8th grade?

Nah! Nicked the idea from a previous poster here, I thought it apt given you had already renamed me in your mind and in print.

Touche! Except that at least mine in based upon fact. Yours is just so much envy!

I thought you weren't talking to me anymore? Got anymore quotes and insights about Nietzsche you care to pass on?

I'm not, I'm talking at you!

Yes, the Third Reich, took his example!

[lancek4]

I suppose my thought was indicating AUKs point that there is no 'compendium' which has a total listing of every term in use in all languages for every discipline/ topic. The would be impossible I think.

Thus. I was indicating active communication, the process of attempting to define/convey a terms meaning to another. And then having to further define all those terms used in the attempt.

[Arising_uk]

I'm not, I'm talking at you!

Ooo! I'm cut to the quick! Feel free to do whatever your will desires.

Yes, the Third Reich, took his example!

Dear oh dear! Stopping digging as your disney history of philosophy will show.
p.s.
Whoops! Missed this due to mixed quoting technique.

Touche! Except that at least mine in based upon fact. Yours is just so much envy!

Of what?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm not, I'm talking at you!

Ooo! I'm cut to the quick! Feel free to do whatever your will desires.

Yes, the Third Reich, took his example!

Dear oh dear! Stopping digging as your disney history of philosophy will show.
p.s.
Whoops! Missed this due to mixed quoting technique.

Touche! Except that at least mine in based upon fact. Yours is just so much envy!

Of what?

Because I'm obviously free of parroting, and you're nothing but.

[Arising_uk]

What do you mean by "parroting"? As until then I can't tell if you are free of it. What you're not free of is avoiding discussion.

[SpheresOfBalance]

What do you mean by "parroting"? As until then I can't tell if you are free of it.
To me parroting is reading someone elses ideas, then reciting them as though somehow, because you have, you are special. After all you've only read their work; that and nothing more. It's as if one believes they're somehow responsible for it's creation, merely by the association of reading it. And It's not necessarily true that, if by simply reading it you've understood it, if your understanding is complete, if its understanding is based in truth, or that there is not an opposing view, that has been acknowledged or will be acknowledged that is actually true. I would say most People assume that a book being published, lends credence to it's contents, without question. I would also assert that testing it's truth, is only as through as the testers ability in seeing the need for question and their ability in formulating the proper questions, such that the most important question that has the ability to undermine the entire publication is left unasked. Parrots simply repeat what they've heard like a recording device, and to varying degrees, nothing more. Then seem to take credit for it as if simply reading it gives them license to do so as if it bears on their abilities.

One doesn't simply read other philosophers content then say they are philosophers, they philosophize using/inventing their exclusive content then find out after the fact whether it's been said before or not. These are definitely not parrots, but rather true philosophers, regardless of the height of the pinnacle of their recognition, if any. In other words there is always some fractional portion of unwitting plagiarism involved if you're well read. I personally go so far as to say the the act of reading others works is just so much programming, (likened to computer programming). Garbage in, garbage out; The ultimate in, the ultimate out; All the gray in between in, all the gray in between out. Such that in the end, what are you actually left with. It's a coin toss as well, but it's with someone elses coin.

I have a good example for you. Since I'm a male, like most I enjoy automobiles in the sports sense. Anyway I've heard guys say "my car is a 'certain model car' and is extremely fast. I bet my car can outrun your car. As if they actually have something to do with it. I remind them that it's not the fact that they own/bought it that makes it fast; that, it's not their car that is fast, but it's (car maker's) car that is fast. Their only claim to fame is that they bought it which means absolutely nothing with respect to how fast it is.

Such as automobiles; such as books.

What you're not free of is avoiding discussion.
See this is a matter of interpretation, What the hell are we doing right now? What you said is incorrect, and is an example of where my frustration comes from, especially when it's a barrage. Because I have a need to set people straight which unfortunately takes a lot of words and time to clearly articulate. And I really don't want to spend time arguing the form of their argument.

What you meant to say is "What you're not free of is avoiding the discussion at hand, in this particular case, "What's stopping us from seeing the truth?" Because in fact we are discussing something. Can you see that I try and be extremely literal unless of course I'm using sarcasm, analogy or metaphor.

[Arising_uk]

To me parroting is reading someone elses ideas, then reciting them as though somehow, because you have, you are special. ...

Good job I don't do in general do this then and when I do I cite them, I also repeat views I think have validity, philosophically that is.

After all you've only read their work; that and nothing more. ...

At least thats something, are you saying someone who has not read the work has as much validity in their opinion of the work? Or the person who has only read commentaries?

It's as if one believes they're somehow responsible for it's creation, merely by the association of reading it. ...

Not in academic philosophy its not as you do have to make a meaning for what you read, of course you could do what you say and just parrot but you'll be getting at best a tutu and more likely a richard or whatever it is now.

And It's not necessarily true that, if by simply reading it you've understood it, if your understanding is complete, if its understanding is based in truth, or that there is not an opposing view, that has been acknowledged or will be acknowledged that is actually true. ...

Maybe, as language is a tricky thing but if you've done an academic study of philosophy you have a much improved understanding about the range and history of views and where ones own stands so far.

I would say most People assume that a book being published, lends credence to it's contents, without question. ...

Well, it lends credence to the idea that its different in some way from its competitor manuscripts.

I would also assert that testing it's truth, is only as through as the testers ability in seeing the need for question and their ability in formulating the proper questions, such that the most important question that has the ability to undermine the entire publication is left unasked. Parrots simply repeat what they've heard like a recording device, and to varying degrees, nothing more. Then seem to take credit for it as if simply reading it gives them license to do so as if it bears on their abilities.

You'll get a third or maybe a two-two. What do you mean by "testing its truth"? The point of much of academic philosophy is to identify the axioms and hence the grounds.

One doesn't simply read other philosophers content then say they are philosophers, they philosophize using/inventing their exclusive content then find out after the fact whether it's been said before or not. These are definitely not parrots, but rather true philosophers, regardless of the height of the pinnacle of their recognition, if any. ...

They're also called first-years.

In other words there is always some fractional portion of unwitting plagiarism involved if you're well read. I personally go so far as to say the the act of reading others works is just so much programming, (likened to computer programming). Garbage in, garbage out; The ultimate in, the ultimate out; All the gray in between in, all the gray in between out. Such that in the end, what are you actually left with. It's a coin toss as well, but it's with someone elses coin. ...

Do you? Then you'll like NLP. My take is that if you are philosophically well-read then you know that you're unlikely to have had two philosophical thoughts that you can call 'original' or one's own, despite you thinking of it.

I have a good example for you. Since I'm a male, like most I enjoy automobiles in the sports sense. Anyway I've heard guys say "my car is a 'certain model car' and is extremely fast. I bet my car can outrun your car. As if they actually have something to do with it. I remind them that it's not the fact that they own/bought it that makes it fast; that, it's not their car that is fast, but it's (car maker's) car that is fast. Their only claim to fame is that they bought it which means absolutely nothing with respect to how fast it is.

I think we live in different roads as over here you can have as fast a car as you like but its the nutter or mind behind the wheel that wins the race, that and some skill at handling cars around bends.

Such as automobiles; such as books.

Yup! You go as fast as what your mind brings.

What you meant to say is "What you're not free of is avoiding the discussion at hand, in this particular case, "What's stopping us from seeing the truth?" Because in fact we are discussing something. Can you see that I try and be extremely literal unless of course I'm using sarcasm, analogy or metaphor.

You think yourself the only one? So what truth is it that you see us being stopped from?

[lancek4]

I think that the 'truth' has been the whole point of contension Auk. (I'm sure ThaT point has not been lost on you or any of us, reallly, I think.).

So, if the banter of the last few pages here can be any indication of the problem-

What IS stopping us from seeing the Truth?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I think that the 'truth' has been the whole point of contension Auk. (I'm sure ThaT point has not been lost on you or any of us, reallly, I think.).

So, if the banter of the last few pages here can be any indication of the problem-

What IS stopping us from seeing the Truth?

Selfishness! Humans tend not to be able to just be a sponge and absorb the truth, with no self in the mix. Their egos and such have agendas, thus clouding the vision, that lend distortion in the name of power and wealth, and sometimes just a simple self stroking. We don't want to see the truth as much as we want to be the one to do it. Because ultimately the truth seals our doom. Death is that which we all fear, OK, maybe not actual death but in fact the dying part of it, and don't believe anyone that says otherwise, because it's just so much chest beating, for the benefit of the crowd and thus the self; FEAR!