What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Ammendum: humanity is diverse. To propose that we may all fall under a common ethic is what are known as 'golden ages' of culture, and they always achieve such commonwealth by somehow successfully denying that humanity which does not conform to the commonwealth's norms.

One could say the every one is on board now with the democratic capitolism, that they have all 'entered modernity' and in this sense we could say that a common ethics of some sort is in effect.
But even so, we might say that you and I have a common ethics, but I'm sure we would disagree on many issues. And, there are those who do not even come close to our agreements, and yet iwe exist with them in a certain harmony. Then those with whom we can find less agreement. Law is the only recourse to this diversity.
Them we have the impetus behind our system which breeds a type of intellectualism and education which asserts itself upon others as a type of progress for the benefit of humanity, all the while denying those people their rights as human beings, their absolute truths, when all they are doing is making a living, it is seen as expendible. The journals of anthropology are filled with fouls like this.

And there is no sign of it getting better, only groups that work to enlighten others to this problem and hopefully get them compensation. Yet noone cares.

Everyone is self interested. To assert that there will one day be a great realized truth is the same as beleiving there will be a great reckoning. And answering for sins.
And even this last is a self centered project.

And there are those who don't want a new world order, who are quite intelligent and educated.

Incorrect, you fear the new because of the old, but the difference is that the old served the relative truth of the few in power. The Truth amongst men has been RELATIVE since DAY ONE! I'm talking about a whole new paradigm where the absolute truth "for all" is concerned. We're bound by laws as it is, I'm talking about nothing more than that, but the difference is that mine, unlike those of today, only serve everyone! They exclude no one! Only the absolute truth has that ability.

(edit) P.S. I hope you didn't include either of us in that last statement.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Spheres, you write well and have an interesting take on life.



Do you have any published works?



.

[SpheresOfBalance]

.



Spheres, you write well and have an interesting take on life.



Do you have any published works?



.

Bill, you do me a great honor in your query, and I don't take it lightly, Thank You!

I consider that, a great responsibility, and though I have thought about it, I have not as of yet. I think that my problem in that accomplishment would be that, I would never believe it complete, such that it may end up under constant revision.

[Godfree]

The absolute Truth ,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth,
seems funny using such terms , in reference to religion ,
there is a lot about religion , that I couldn't call true ,
the existence of god , life after death , hell ,
none of that is the truth ,
So if we are to write the Absolute Truth ,
that would be evolution ,not creation ,
death is final , and there is no hell .
basically there is no room for religion ,
in The Absolute Truth

[SpheresOfBalance]

You do not write the absolute truth as in the examples that you've given. The absolute truth is not mans creation, it is man coming to terms with the reality of the universe as it's proven true. The Universe has already written the absolute truth, man shall find it's illumination in his time. The only things required in the search, are acknowledging, recording and teaching the particular absolute truths that are already known. The acceptance and musings of these that are currently known, shall ever so slowly, illuminate those yet to be uncovered.

[lancek4]

You do not write the absolute truth as in the examples that you've given. The absolute truth is not mans creation, it is man coming to terms with the reality of the universe as it's proven true. The Universe has already written the absolute truth, man shall find it's illumination in his time. The only things required in the search, are acknowledging, recording and teaching the particular absolute truths that are already known. The acceptance and musings of these that are currently known, shall ever so slowly, illuminate those yet to be uncovered.

This has got to be the most graceful and concise voicing of your side of what we've been discussing and developing so far, and I truly appreciate it.
It shows to me that our discussion is not in vain.
Because It allows me to express my side, I hope, just as clearly; which is, I am not sure if we have found any Abs 'already known' of the Ab universe's - That they are the same; that is, our positing of these two Abs are really of the same 'quality' in an Absolute sense, which is to say, present knowledge. And I know: such contradicts itself. Such it is that I say propositions of Ab trruth reveal one's orientation, either the contradiction is solved by orienting knowledge toward the 'out there', or the 'in here'. And that such orientations Is the problem at hand.

[MJA]

I only know One truth,
And One is truly All One needs.

=
MJA

[chaz wyman]

Given SoB's version of what the Abs Truth is supposed to be leaves me with one single and undeniable truth, and that is humans will never approach such a thing, as it is not in their nature nor in their psychological constitution to search or perceive for such a thing as described.
Indeed, I would go further to suggest that such an aim is utterly antithetical and a clear impediment to the human understanding of his own reality. Far from sharing a perspective with Kant, SoB is so far removed from Kant's conception of the synthetic a priori as it is possible to be, and has simply missed the point of Kant's canon of work. It is as if SoB thinks he can sieze the transcendental object and ignore the simple fact that the moment such an object is presented to the subject it looses its status. Such a thing is as inconceivable and the thing-in-itself, and has to submit to our subjective categories of experience.
It is almost as if SoB has read a different philosopher all together.
SoB's views are far better suited to the naive Objectivism of Ayn Rand and her 'back of the cereal packet' conception of Kant.

[lancek4]

Given SoB's version of what the Abs Truth is supposed to be leaves me with one single and undeniable truth, and that is humans will never approach such a thing, as it is not in their nature nor in their psychological constitution to search or perceive for such a thing as described.
Indeed, I would go further to suggest that such an aim is utterly antithetical and a clear impediment to the human understanding of his own reality. Far from sharing a perspective with Kant, SoB is so far removed from Kant's conception of the synthetic a priori as it is possible to be, and has simply missed the point of Kant's canon of work. It is as if SoB thinks he can sieze the transcendental object and ignore the simple fact that the moment such an object is presented to the subject it looses its status. Such a thing is as inconceivable and the thing-in-itself, and has to submit to our subjective categories of experience.
It is almost as if SoB has read a different philosopher all together.
SoB's views are far better suited to the naive Objectivism of Ayn Rand and her 'back of the cereal packet' conception of Kant.

Hence, I have alluded to the typical misunderstanding of Sarte: revolt- close one's eyes and "say it aint so" and reassert the attainable True Object. Which is in effect, the position of denial.

It is a faith of hope, since such an orientation, faced with the offensive reality of its own freedom, which is in one sense the abyss of eternal redundancy, the individual revolts and asserts its own Absolute intergety that is the Subject as Object, and in this same move, God, the effective name of the displaced Self, arises for Absolution of the Past and Future.

[Godfree]

You do not write the absolute truth as in the examples that you've given. The absolute truth is not mans creation, it is man coming to terms with the reality of the universe as it's proven true. The Universe has already written the absolute truth, man shall find it's illumination in his time. The only things required in the search, are acknowledging, recording and teaching the particular absolute truths that are already known. The acceptance and musings of these that are currently known, shall ever so slowly, illuminate those yet to be uncovered.

Truth is not mans creation ,,,????
that has to be the most confused statement I'v heard in awhile ,
truth is a mans invention , just like language and science etc ,
what you seem to be saying is , to know reality is the aim ,
which is what I have always been saying ,
there is only one reality , and it is that reality which I seek ,
if you are going to wait for proof , or prove religion true ,
you will be waiting forever , and there will be no proof ,
So SOB , does this mean until we "prove religion or god is real"
that you are an Atheist ,and if not WHY NOT ,??????

[lancek4]

You do not write the absolute truth as in the examples that you've given. The absolute truth is not mans creation, it is man coming to terms with the reality of the universe as it's proven true. The Universe has already written the absolute truth, man shall find it's illumination in his time. The only things required in the search, are acknowledging, recording and teaching the particular absolute truths that are already known. The acceptance and musings of these that are currently known, shall ever so slowly, illuminate those yet to be uncovered.

Truth is not mans creation ,,,????
that has to be the most confused statement I'v heard in awhile ,
truth is a mans invention , just like language and science etc ,
what you seem to be saying is , to know reality is the aim ,
which is what I have always been saying ,
there is only one reality , and it is that reality which I seek ,
if you are going to wait for proof , or prove religion true ,
you will be waiting forever , and there will be no proof ,
So SOB , does this mean until we "prove religion or god is real"
that you are an Atheist ,and if not WHY NOT ,??????

To help me better understand you, Godfree, and your truth: against what do you propose your atheism? What is God? Can you tell me ? Then I might better understand your Truth position.

[Godfree]

To help me better understand you, Godfree, and your truth: against what do you propose your atheism? What is God? Can you tell me ? Then I might better understand your Truth position.[/quote]

God is an illusion , a lie ,a con, a trick ,a scam ,
I resent people and organizations that cheat people out of their money,
the church is big business , like the drug bosses ,
the church will not give up it's income , until we force it to ,
they will continue to use peoples hopes and aspirations ,
to con their money out of them ,
I see the church as about as honest as drugs and crime ,
it's a con there should be a law against it , in my opinion ,
when you have been an Atheist for as long as I have ,
you see religion as credible as Peter Pan or Superman ,
it's so unbelievable , I find the people who believe it , unbelievable ,
in this day and age , with the knowledge we have ,
adults still believe the nonsense , absolutely amazing ,
I have to conclude , there aren't many adults ,
just a lot of frightened little children ,
too scared to stand up and be counted , to face reality ,
you want to live in fantasy land , thats fine ,
just don't try and tell me it's the TRUTH ,,!!!!!

[lancek4]

To help me better understand you, Godfree, and your truth: against what do you propose your atheism? What is God? Can you tell me ? Then I might better understand your Truth position.

God is an illusion , a lie ,a con, a trick ,a scam ,
I resent people and organizations that cheat people out of their money,
the church is big business , like the drug bosses ,
the church will not give up it's income , until we force it to ,
they will continue to use peoples hopes and aspirations ,
to con their money out of them ,
I see the church as about as honest as drugs and crime ,
it's a con there should be a law against it , in my opinion ,
when you have been an Atheist for as long as I have ,
you see religion as credible as Peter Pan or Superman ,
it's so unbelievable , I find the people who believe it , unbelievable ,
in this day and age , with the knowledge we have ,
adults still believe the nonsense , absolutely amazing ,
I have to conclude , there aren't many adults ,
just a lot of frightened little children ,
too scared to stand up and be counted , to face reality ,
you want to live in fantasy land , thats fine ,
just don't try and tell me it's the TRUTH ,,!!!!![/quote]

So God is a ruse perpetrated by the Church? So you are really against instotitional religion. No? Can you explain god to me without reference to the church?

[Godfree]

God without religion ,,???
sure ,, monkey invented god ,
god was the force behind the natural forces ,god of thunder , god of the forest ,
god was an ignorant response to natural events ,
it became a convenient lie to explain the unexplainable ,
why did that happen , "it was gods will, who are we to judge god "
if you look at all the primitive cultures around the world today,
you will still find religion in it's original form ,
the NZ Maori have a similar belief ,
the god concept was invented long before man spread himself around the globe,
which is why each culture has this original form .
it was only recent times that god became a tool for government ,
a stick with which to beat the peasants , obey or die ,
god doesn't exist , we fantasize about god , we hope and pray it's real ,
but it's not , it's an illusion , delusion ,,insanity ,,,!!!!!

[lancek4]

God without religion ,,???
sure ,, monkey invented god ,
god was the force behind the natural forces ,god of thunder , god of the forest ,
god was an ignorant response to natural events ,
it became a convenient lie to explain the unexplainable ,
why did that happen , "it was gods will, who are we to judge god "
if you look at all the primitive cultures around the world today,
you will still find religion in it's original form ,
the NZ Maori have a similar belief ,
the god concept was invented long before man spread himself around the globe,
which is why each culture has this original form .
it was only recent times that god became a tool for government ,
a stick with which to beat the peasants , obey or die ,
god doesn't exist , we fantasize about god , we hope and pray it's real ,
but it's not , it's an illusion , delusion ,,insanity ,,,!!!!!

So am I correct in saying that you position is 'man created god(s)' ? Considering that existance is equivocal in all areas of itself, how do you distinguish between the 'realities', if you will, here:

'God created' the forest.

And

The forest 'developed along principles which we are finding out through science'.

I understand the 'religion' argument and the cultrual analysis of religion part, but in philosophy we leave no stone unturned.

What is the difference between the ' ' clauses - which basically account for the unexplainable?

That is, For the meaning that you assert, that which informs you of that meaning, how do you distinguish 'that which is your Truth' of the latter, from 'that which is their Truth' of the former?

Please explain so I may understand your Truth, such that the former is absolutly false.
For otherwise we are stuck in a contradiction between us where we just call each other idiots, and I at least, would figure you would not have much to discuss with an idiot. But here we are. Please tell me how I might go about undersstanding your truth as my truth.