What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[SpheresOfBalance]

To me 'ALL' Truth is the only thing that is a priori (valid independent of observation), as it's absolute (exists without our knowledge).

.

I have found a truth independent of observation, have you?


=

Yes it's nature; the universe! And we all are it's children; a fractional part of its symbiosis. Why we continually f*** with it is beyond me, as I can clearly see that with this messing that we do, we build our own annihilation. For some reason we can't see the life for the self, which I find absurd; somehow psychotic.

[MJA]

Sorry I asked,
Good day,

=

[SpheresOfBalance]

Sorry I asked,
Good day,

=

Come on don't be shy, rebuttal please! Share how you differ. My solution does not necessarily preclude consideration.

[lancek4]

Yes, sob, the frame which you delineate above would be 'synthetical'. It is, what I call, an 'arena' of knowledge which allows for Truth-value (ethics). This arena can be called 'mythological', and qualified by what I call 'faith'. Faith makes true. Faith is the complicity of the individual in its mythology.

I feel I should remind that I do not see phiosphy as a way to discern a method for how to deal with life. It is simply an endeavor for truth.

It is not synthetic, it is not mythological, it is in fact the truth as to how things work from the human perspective which is what we are! You can assert that there is something more or less but it is that assertion, that is the synthesis, the mythology, steeped in possible truths which is in fact illusory and nothing more than untruths.

Just because one can postulate that there might be more, doesn't necessarily mean that there is, and it does not necessarily negate that which is.

Thus our opposition of view.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Yes, sob, the frame which you delineate above would be 'synthetical'. It is, what I call, an 'arena' of knowledge which allows for Truth-value (ethics). This arena can be called 'mythological', and qualified by what I call 'faith'. Faith makes true. Faith is the complicity of the individual in its mythology.

I feel I should remind that I do not see phiosphy as a way to discern a method for how to deal with life. It is simply an endeavor for truth.

It is not synthetic, it is not mythological, it is in fact the truth as to how things work from the human perspective which is what we are! You can assert that there is something more or less but it is that assertion, that is the synthesis, the mythology, steeped in possible truths which is in fact illusory and nothing more than untruths.

Just because one can postulate that there might be more, doesn't necessarily mean that there is, and it does not necessarily negate that which is.

Thus our opposition of view.

We apparently have some shared and not shared ideas. I value our 'discourse' as it has helped to bolster my views. It has caused me to think of things that I had not considered, and as such has been invaluable. I do not consider it being a waste of time but rather the opposite. I thank you for your time, as it's the one thing that in the end most shall want more of and as such is a most precious gift. I see these holidays as a celebration of selflessly giving and nothing more, so in the spirit of this I say:

Happy Holidays to "ALL!"

[lancek4]

Kant gives two expositions of space and time: metaphysical and transcendental. The metaphysical expositions of space and time are concerned with clarifying how those intuitions are known independently of experience I

Kant's thesis concerning the transcendental ideality of space and time limits appearances to the forms of sensibility—indeed, they form the limits within which these appearances can count as sensible; and it necessarily implies that the thing-in-itself is neither limited by them nor can it take the form of an appearance within us apart from the bounds of sensibility (A48-49/B66). Yet the thing-in-itself is held by Kant to be the cause of that which appears, and this is where the paradox of Kantian critique resides: while we are prohibited from absolute knowledge of the thing-in-itself, we can impute to it a cause beyond ourselves as a source of representations within us.

Kant's view of space and time reject both the space and time of Aristotelian physics and the space and time of Newtonian physics. In the twentieth century, about a century after the publication of the Critique of Pure Reason, Albert Einstein would introduce a new concept of space and time with the Theory of Relativity. Space and time are no longer space and time but space-time. According to Bertrand Russell, "... That is, from a philosophical and imaginative point of view, perhaps the most important of all the novelties that Einstein introduced." On the other hand, some people would readily assume that Einstein's findings in Physics support the Kantian view of space and time. However, Russell is clear that it is misleading to believe that Einstein's space-time in any way resembles

KANT REGARDED SPACE AND TIME AS A SENSUOUS INTUITION

I too have my issues with Kant.
You are lost in the Object. Like a parrot 'speaking'.

[lancek4]

The problem with Kant, as I posted earlier, is that as he procedes into his thesis he 'loses track' of his argument. This is because of his time, knowledge was still able to grant human beings 'fixed' ideas. His critique indicates this by its point of first noticing the arbitrarity of metaphysical logics, and then by his attempt to bring mataphysics into the 'fixed' arena of knowledge whiich has, for Kants point, as the absolute, his posited 'pure reason'.

Thus his thesis denies itself in that the continuing argument deals only with 'synthetical' knowledge.

[lancek4]

Russel may have had a clue in differentiating Einstein and Kant - but I do not think that BB has a clue as to the difference.

Math and physics concern the synthesis of True Objects. And thus deny the contradiction inherent in such a proposition (of the True Object).

Sensousness has to do with what 'makes sense', not so much as 'the senses' like touch and smell.

[SpheresOfBalance]

So what happened to your Honesty? I was going to recommend Chaz, but then I realized you didn't quite mean it that way!

[SpheresOfBalance]

I found what you seem to be hung up on:

"Kant's Copernican revolution was the inversion of the traditional relation between the subject of knowledge and the object of that knowledge. Instead of the observed objects affecting the observing subject, the subject's constitution affects the way that the objects are observed. Following this transcendental idealism theory, the possibility of knowledge was thus to be found in the structure of the subject itself, instead of in an objective reality from which nothing can be said."

I think it's a nice theory and one that all empiricists should keep in mind, which is probably the brainchild behind the 'Scientific Method,' but I don't see it as an all inclusive limiting factor. I believe that while observing the object externally, especially form a distance, it's more true than from the opposite end of the spectrum of examining the object from the inside, especially observing that of its smallest fundamental constituents, i.e. smallest particles.

As you work from the exterior to the interior you traverse time in reverse, such that you come to the objects birth so to speak, then as you reverse your perspective from the inside out you tend to more closely follow it's actual course of development. Now I'm not saying that one could ever necessarily knowingly know the object with 100% crystal clarity, that the subject can necessarily remove 100% of it's bias, but I believe with enough time, as I originally asserted many weeks ago, more and more becomes clear as the ability to remove the subjective bias increases incrementally and thus that the absolute truth of the object incrementally comes into focus. But this takes time; a sequential ever expanding network of minute truths in the light of their necessary interdependence negating subjective bias thus increasing truth understanding acuity.

[lancek4]

So what happened to your Honesty? I was going to recommend Chaz, but then I realized you didn't quite mean it that way!

I'm not sure what other way I could have meant it.
I deleted that post because I thot of something further to say about the present motif.

But it is true: I am not here for the sole purpose of making others wrong, but to clarify what I think might be correct, and find where I may be wrong.

But everyone has their ways.
Often I find that philosophocal debate appears to be more about being right and the other wrong, as if some essential things need to be set right -
I se it more as a common effort rather that a self righteuous effort (ironically).

My assertions are usually questions in disguise - seeking strong rebuttal.

[lancek4]

I found what you seem to be hung up on:

"Kant's Copernican revolution was the inversion of the traditional relation between the subject of knowledge and the object of that knowledge. Instead of the observed objects affecting the observing subject, the subject's constitution affects the way that the objects are observed. Following this transcendental idealism theory, the possibility of knowledge was thus to be found in the structure of the subject itself, instead of in an objective reality from which nothing can be said."

I think it's a nice theory and one that all empiricists should keep in mind, which is probably the brainchild behind the 'Scientific Method,' but I don't see it as an all inclusive limiting factor. I believe that while observing the object externally, especially form a distance, it's more true than from the opposite end of the spectrum of examining the object from the inside, especially observing that of its smallest fundamental constituents, i.e. smallest particles.

As you work from the exterior to the interior you traverse time in reverse, such that you come to the objects birth so to speak, then as you reverse your perspective from the inside out you tend to more closely follow it's actual course of development. Now I'm not saying that one could ever necessarily knowingly know the object with 100% crystal clarity, that the subject can necessarily remove 100% of it's bias, but I believe with enough time, as I originally asserted many weeks ago, more and more becomes clear as the ability to remove the subjective bias increases incrementally and thus that the absolute truth of the object incrementally comes into focus. But this takes time; a sequential ever expanding network of minute truths in the light of their necessary interdependence negating subjective bias thus increasing truth understanding acuity.

I enjoy the presentation of your mind SOb - namaste - perhaps that's why we have entertained this continuing discussion.

It may be that what you refer to above with Kant -

The difference may be that of explaining experience as opposed to explaining why one has nad an experience. Or vice versa.

[spike]

What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Perhaps it's some of the rubbish we read on this forum!

[SpheresOfBalance]

What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

Perhaps it's some of the rubbish we read on this forum!

It would seem that you believe that your take is not rubbish, so please enlighten us garbage men if you will. I'm sure that your version will be seen as rubbish by some, demonstrating that your assertion of rubbish was ill conceived. Even I understand that no one actually knows they know; they just believe they know!

Why can't we see the truth 'spike,' not 'tough' enough?

[zinnat13]

Hi SOB,

If you remember that, what I first posted in this thread about two months back-
Though I am not competent enough to comment but it looks to me that the assumption of SOB is not missing the target by much.

And, I still stand by this.

But, on some points, I would like to differ and the first one is relativism.

You said- Relative truth: places truth in the individual hands = Arrogance!

I do not think that relativism implies any kind of arrogance. I see it just the opposite. The problem is that you are defining it wrongly.

Relativism means that I am surrendering to the reality in a sense that; it is pervasive and infinite, thus, it is not possible for me visualize it in its totality, thus, I am narrating what I am able to conceive and thus perceive, from my point of view. I also accept that it is possible that, due to the infinitive nature of reality, someone, other than me, may have a different perception of reality, because, his positioning or standing is different from me. Thus, even explaining of same object, due to the limited ability to imbue with truth, the expressions may differ, and thus, we may have different versions of truth, which maybe all true.

I would like to remind you the famous parable of six blind men and an elephant, which is widely usurped by the philosophers, without quoting its source; a less spread and renowned religion, Jainism.

In this parable, six blind men try to define the elephant by touching it. One touches its foot, one grabs the trunk, one takes hold of tail, etc. later they explain the elephant total differently.

SOB, this is relativism. They all explain it differently, yet, it cannot be said that they are totally wrong. They all are right in their observation, and thus perception, but, only to the extent of their capability of realization. Sometimes, even experiences are misleading.
Hence, relativism is acceptance of two notions.

First; the truth is infinite and beyond my capability, thus, I am able to absorb only a portion of it.

Second; any other view may be true and should be considered at par with my version.

SOB, I do not see even a hint of egoism or arrogance in it.

The second issue, on which I have a slight difference of opinion, is priori and posteriori knowledge.

I totally agree with your opinion that the knowledge is always posteriori, but, imho, it is applicable to one individual only; not to the mankind, in its totality. Let me explain.

As far as I understood is that; the knowledge is what one earned not learned. It is all about going through the process of experience; either physical or mental. For the first time, any knowledge has to be earned by someone and hence, it is posteriori for that particular person. But, we store it and keep it available for the use of next generations; hence, it becomes priori for them.

Bell invented the basic phone, and we have developed it up to a handsfree device. The makers of the mobile phones need not to invent the principle of basic phone every time. They can successfully carry on the work from there, where Bell left. Hence, the knowledge of basic phone, which was posteriori for Bell, became priori for Apple.

This is perhaps the only difference between the human race and other living species in this world. This is the only reason that we are able to dominate the world. Look at the animals. They live in the perfect state of posteriori knowledge, simply because, they do not have any system or mechanism to store the knowledge, hence, each and every one has to learn on its own; though mammals use to get some sort of training from the parents.


with love,
sanjay