Philosophy Now Forum

For example: Star Trek the Wrath of Kahn : Spock was faced with a contradiction of pure logic when the reactor was going to explode but noone could get to it because the room it was it was filled with radiation. It was illogical to go into the room and try to fix it because he would die and probably not be able to fix it any ways. But then it was logical to go in because it saw his life was not as important as the whole crews life.

He made a gut call.

If I bet against the odds, this may be said to be illogical for probability. But it may be rational. Depending on the situation.

lancek4 wrote:For example: Star Trek the Wrath of Kahn : Spock was faced with a contradiction of pure logic when the reactor was going to explode but noone could get to it because the room it was it was filled with radiation. It was illogical to go into the room and try to fix it because he would die and probably not be able to fix it any ways. But then it was logical to go in because it saw his life was not as important as the whole crews life.

He made a gut call.

If I bet against the odds, this may be said to be illogical for probability. But it may be rational. Depending on the situation.

I think the biggest mistake people make about logic - the mistake that Star Trek's Spock character is the living embodiment of; is that Logic is the same as truth, or that logic is the best and most logical way to proceed. Logic is not the hotline to the truth, but nothing more that a means to an end. It is more like maths. We should never make our purchasing choices based wholly on maths, and we cannot use logic in this way also.
Logic is a means of presenting alternative based on (and more importantly LIMITED by) the premises and definitions. ANY logical system such as the one I presented from Spinoza (below) can be used to prove or disprove the same thing. Change the premises - and you change the conclusions. All logic does is to expand and narrow the parameters and conclusions OF those premises. It has no power to find truth; it simply extends the description of the model being built. What Spinoza achieved was to prove the existence of a God without ANY of the traditional attributed of God. He proved that what we conceive of as God, by the reasonable and sensible axoims, definitions and premises was indeed nothing more than the deterministic and necessary existence of nature; devoid of personality and capriciousness.

lancek4 wrote:

MJA wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Having and supporting a relative truth system, allows you to have your ‘own’ way, and as far as ‘your’ belief system goes, it’s fine, I encourage it. But as far as those topics that can directly affect ‘others,’ I see it differently. The only true solution is to unify, with an attempt at absolute truth, to ensure people aren’t negatively impacted, by something that has that potential. How many people want a bomb manufacturing plant built next door, or how about a maximum security penitentiary? Most would say that they should be isolated from civilization, and rightfully so. These are just a few examples. My main concern is, as to the environment, the biosphere, the symbiosis. As far as it, is concerned, it’s paramount that we adopt an absolute truth stance, as solution, ASAP, because actually, it should have been done yester-decades ago. Having a relative perspective, staying its present course, in this case, shall be mankind’s undoing, absolutely, eventually.

If you try and fill the 8 oz coffee/tea cup of symbiotic balance, from the fire hose of want, connected to the broken hose bib of capitalism (worship of the gold idol{a pretty rock}), the cup shall not only overflow, but shall be propelled into the infinite space of absolute truth, and thus shall be shattered into a billion pieces, as it strikes the bedrock of reality.

I Found that absolute unity or truth you speak so wisely about to fill your cup.
And if I can find it then someday so will everyone else.
Have you?

=

Indeed, my cup is full in this way. And yet MJA and I do not agree what it is. How paradoxical.

Unity, equality or Oneness has no division, inequity, or any other.
Do you?

=

...on logic,




B?

And if A = B, and B = C, then A = C
But what about B?
They all look different to me, so what is truth,
What can it B?
Different or equal?
What should it B?
To B or not to B?
That is the question.
The Nature of B,
Aristotle, Shakespeare and Me.

=
MJA

MJA wrote:[quot"lancek][quote"MJA"

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Having and supporting a relative truth system, allows you to have your ‘own’ way, and as far as ‘your’ belief system goes, it’s fine, I encourage it. But as far as those topics that can directly affect ‘others,’ I see it differently. The only true solution is to unify, with an attempt at absolute truth, to ensure people aren’t negatively impacted, by something that has that potential. How many people want a bomb manufacturing plant built next door, or how about a maximum security penitentiary? Most would say that they should be isolated from civilization, and rightfully so. These are just a few examples. My main concern is, as to the environment, the biosphere, the symbiosis. As far as it, is concerned, it’s paramount that we adopt an absolute truth stance, as solution, ASAP, because actually, it should have been done yester-decades ago. Having a relative perspective, staying its present course, in this case, shall be mankind’s undoing, absolutely, eventually.

If you try and fill the 8 oz coffee/tea cup of symbiotic balance, from the fire hose of want, connected to the broken hose bib of capitalism (worship of the gold idol{a pretty rock}), the cup shall not only overflow, but shall be propelled into the infinite space of absolute truth, and thus shall be shattered into a billion pieces, as it strikes the bedrock of reality.

I Found that absolute unity or truth you speak so wisely about to fill your cup.
And if I can find it then someday so will everyone else.
Have you?

=

Indeed, my cup is full in this way. And yet MJA and I do not agree what it is. How paradoxical.[/quote]

Unity, equality or Oneness has no division, inequity, or any other.
Do you?

=[/quote]
In as much as your last statement indicates nothing real except a particular thought, and that in its coveyance there is an evidence of diversity, and that I disagree with the sentiment from which it stems, I would have to say I have no context in my experience with which to allow its truth or falsity - that is except the oneness that is diversity, which is kind of an empty statement.

One is One,
Are you?

=

Oh and, One is
Truth

MJA wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Having and supporting a relative truth system, allows you to have your ‘own’ way, and as far as ‘your’ belief system goes, it’s fine, I encourage it. But as far as those topics that can directly affect ‘others,’ I see it differently. The only true solution is to unify, with an attempt at absolute truth, to ensure people aren’t negatively impacted, by something that has that potential. How many people want a bomb manufacturing plant built next door, or how about a maximum security penitentiary? Most would say that they should be isolated from civilization, and rightfully so. These are just a few examples. My main concern is, as to the environment, the biosphere, the symbiosis. As far as it, is concerned, it’s paramount that we adopt an absolute truth stance, as solution, ASAP, because actually, it should have been done yester-decades ago. Having a relative perspective, staying its present course, in this case, shall be mankind’s undoing, absolutely, eventually.

If you try and fill the 8 oz coffee/tea cup of symbiotic balance, from the fire hose of want, connected to the broken hose bib of capitalism (worship of the gold idol{a pretty rock}), the cup shall not only overflow, but shall be propelled into the infinite space of absolute truth, and thus shall be shattered into a billion pieces, as it strikes the bedrock of reality.

I Found that absolute unity or truth you speak so wisely about to fill your cup.
And if I can find it then someday so will everyone else.
Have you?

=

No man knows it now, but there is a path of enlightenment that has been illuminated by the words of Socrates: 'I only know that I know nothing.'

'Men are four.
He who knows not, and knows not he knows not,
He who knows not, and knows he knows not,
He who knows and knows not he knows,
He who knows and knows he knows.'

Which one are you?

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:An absolute truth stance sounds good. So does this mean ethics? How will this come about? Do we enforce it? Who gets to decide?

I have thought at times that some people should nnot be allowed to have childeren for various ethical reasons, like if the parents do meth and live a life of deception and,basically, nonsense - as an example.

But who gets to determine what is ethical and right? And at what line do we draw the good from the bad? How do we enforce this type of ethical stance?

It begins with the first step, of belief, in the unifying potential, of absolute truth, as being eventually obtainable. It is realized along the road of the quest of the absolute truth.

But isn't this just begging the question? What absolute truth? Which one? Are you saying that with education people will naturally come to see in or for the interest of their fellow man?
I'm sorry I am not that optimistc. Do you know of the Mexican drug cartels and what they do? And the gangs in the US and brazil? I doubt any one involved in those gangs including the drug addicts who depend upon them will care at all for you pipe dream ( no pun intended - but on second thought: absolutely pun intended. ).
They would laugh in your face as they remove you from 'their' world without a second thought.

But are they incorrect? I doubt it. For you would remove them from your world, likewise with your ethcial justification.

Yours is a religious conviction, just like thiers. And the great thing about religion is that the faithful can only see their own truth, their own ethics, as True.
And there is no proof. No contradiction which will shake the faithfull for life is short and they can die of old age comforted with each their own version of Jesus Christ, each their own ethically justified belief.

The fact that I am here being a devil's advocate for your utopian dream shows you that there is no absolutly 'sensible' education or 'rational' intelligence because here we are, the two of us at least, not even being able to agree.

But your 'faith will set you free', and if it did not, then you could go back in this thread a bit and see how I point out what is really going on with people who assert absolutes - but I knew even then that there is no budging. And in this way, of your ideal of human harmony, ironically, war is perpetuated, because these who 'know the truth' will enforce it. Governments, gangs, families, clubs, militias, etc ...grocery stores, hobbyists, chefs...engineers, programmers, buddhists, modern day saints, homeless junkies.. Everyone has got their 'educated intelligence' about the abosulte truth.

'The unifying potential ?? Of ab truth ?? What about thsoe people who don't give a peace symbol about a unifying potential? Are You going to Make them believe? Is it obvious, like I said, when one is educated? And then what about those Christians who would just have pity on you because your unifying potenti has no mention of the Stations of the Cross ?

Sorry dude. In positing your potential your are being slelective in what evidence you choose to supposrt it.
Religion will kill you smiling for your grace upon the world.
Poison in a pretty pill.

Your projection of your words into my meaning is a testament to your inability to learn, such that 'Like a teacup that has overflowed, you are full of your own opinions and speculations and therefore you have no room for the absolute truth.'

I am

=

And don't let what you know stop you.

MJA wrote:One is One,
Are you?

=

Oh and, One is
Truth

Empty. (That reminds me of the movie Conan the Barbarian, 1981 I think, where Salsa doom preaches reaching 'emptiness')

I cahllenge you to convey to me, so that I am 'truly' know, this true oneness without relying upon the apparent diversity to do so.

The oneness you speak of only occurs within the individual, and at this is still a highly suspect notion for the reality of it. What you propose in teaching of this oneness is to create in another person a condition of paradox and/or contradiction for their knowledge of things. But such an experience of knowledge only occurs to amount to the proposed effect of paradox in those individuals who already 'possess' or who already 'of' such knowledge. It cannot be taught as you propose, for the contradiction, for the majority of individuals, will always appear for them in context of knowledge which solves the apparent contradiction and no move into the experience/ knowledge of 'oneness' will occur - except as an intellectual category of knowledge.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:[quote"lancek4". An absolute truth stance sounds good. So does this mean ethics? How will this come about? Do we enforce it? Who gets to decide?

I have thought at times that some people should nnot be allowed to have childeren for various ethical reasons, like if the parents do meth and live a life of deception and,basically, nonsense - as an example.

But who gets to determine what is ethical and right? And at what line do we draw the good from the bad? How do we enforce this type of ethical stance?

It begins with the first step, of belief, in the unifying potential, of absolute truth, as being eventually obtainable. It is realized along the road of the quest of the absolute truth.

But isn't this just begging the question? What absolute truth? Which one? Are you saying that with education people will naturally come to see in or for the interest of their fellow man?
I'm sorry I am not that optimistc. Do you know of the Mexican drug cartels and what they do? And the gangs in the US and brazil? I doubt any one involved in those gangs including the drug addicts who depend upon them will care at all for you pipe dream ( no pun intended - but on second thought: absolutely pun intended. ).
They would laugh in your face as they remove you from 'their' world without a second thought.

But are they incorrect? I doubt it. For you would remove them from your world, likewise with your ethcial justification.

Yours is a religious conviction, just like thiers. And the great thing about religion is that the faithful can only see their own truth, their own ethics, as True.
And there is no proof. No contradiction which will shake the faithfull for life is short and they can die of old age comforted with each their own version of Jesus Christ, each their own ethically justified belief.

The fact that I am here being a devil's advocate for your utopian dream shows you that there is no absolutly 'sensible' education or 'rational' intelligence because here we are, the two of us at least, not even being able to agree.

But your 'faith will set you free', and if it did not, then you could go back in this thread a bit and see how I point out what is really going on with people who assert absolutes - but I knew even then that there is no budging. And in this way, of your ideal of human harmony, ironically, war is perpetuated, because these who 'know the truth' will enforce it. Governments, gangs, families, clubs, militias, etc ...grocery stores, hobbyists, chefs...engineers, programmers, buddhists, modern day saints, homeless junkies.. Everyone has got their 'educated intelligence' about the abosulte truth.

'The unifying potential ?? Of ab truth ?? What about thsoe people who don't give a peace symbol about a unifying potential? Are You going to Make them believe? Is it obvious, like I said, when one is educated? And then what about those Christians who would just have pity on you because your unifying potenti has no mention of the Stations of the Cross ?

Sorry dude. In positing your potential your are being slelective in what evidence you choose to supposrt it.
Religion will kill you smiling for your grace upon the world.
Poison in a pretty pill.[/quote]
Your projection of your words into my meaning is a testament to your inability to learn, such that 'Like a teacup that has overflowed, you are full of your own opinions and speculations and therefore you have no room for the absolute truth.'[/quote]

That is absolutely not true. I learn all the time; in fact I Am learning from our interaction - just not the learning you want me to. But this is because I understand what you are saying, as I have repeated over and over, but you will not admit that I understand you.

I agree, therer are problems in the world and we have to find solutions for them , but there is nor will there ever be some 'grand human solution' which encompasses all of humanity. Such a grand solution is equivellent of Anakin Skywalker becoming Darth Vader, as if we merely need to inist what is right and every one will see the truth - and if they don't fall in line then we will make them.

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.

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:[quote"lancek4". An absolute truth stance sounds good. So does this mean ethics? How will this come about? Do we enforce it? Who gets to decide?

I have thought at times that some people should nnot be allowed to have childeren for various ethical reasons, like if the parents do meth and live a life of deception and,basically, nonsense - as an example.

But who gets to determine what is ethical and right? And at what line do we draw the good from the bad? How do we enforce this type of ethical stance?

It begins with the first step, of belief, in the unifying potential, of absolute truth, as being eventually obtainable. It is realized along the road of the quest of the absolute truth.

But isn't this just begging the question? What absolute truth? Which one? Are you saying that with education people will naturally come to see in or for the interest of their fellow man?
I'm sorry I am not that optimistc. Do you know of the Mexican drug cartels and what they do? And the gangs in the US and brazil? I doubt any one involved in those gangs including the drug addicts who depend upon them will care at all for you pipe dream ( no pun intended - but on second thought: absolutely pun intended. ).
They would laugh in your face as they remove you from 'their' world without a second thought.

But are they incorrect? I doubt it. For you would remove them from your world, likewise with your ethcial justification.

Yours is a religious conviction, just like thiers. And the great thing about religion is that the faithful can only see their own truth, their own ethics, as True.
And there is no proof. No contradiction which will shake the faithfull for life is short and they can die of old age comforted with each their own version of Jesus Christ, each their own ethically justified belief.

The fact that I am here being a devil's advocate for your utopian dream shows you that there is no absolutly 'sensible' education or 'rational' intelligence because here we are, the two of us at least, not even being able to agree.

But your 'faith will set you free', and if it did not, then you could go back in this thread a bit and see how I point out what is really going on with people who assert absolutes - but I knew even then that there is no budging. And in this way, of your ideal of human harmony, ironically, war is perpetuated, because these who 'know the truth' will enforce it. Governments, gangs, families, clubs, militias, etc ...grocery stores, hobbyists, chefs...engineers, programmers, buddhists, modern day saints, homeless junkies.. Everyone has got their 'educated intelligence' about the abosulte truth.

'The unifying potential ?? Of ab truth ?? What about thsoe people who don't give a peace symbol about a unifying potential? Are You going to Make them believe? Is it obvious, like I said, when one is educated? And then what about those Christians who would just have pity on you because your unifying potenti has no mention of the Stations of the Cross ?

Sorry dude. In positing your potential your are being slelective in what evidence you choose to supposrt it.
Religion will kill you smiling for your grace upon the world.
Poison in a pretty pill.

Your projection of your words into my meaning is a testament to your inability to learn, such that 'Like a teacup that has overflowed, you are full of your own opinions and speculations and therefore you have no room for the absolute truth.'[/quote]

That is absolutely not true. I learn all the time; in fact I Am learning from our interaction - just not the learning you want me to. But this is because I understand what you are saying, as I have repeated over and over, but you will not admit that I understand you.

I agree, therer are problems in the world and we have to find solutions for them , but there is nor will there ever be some 'grand human solution' which encompasses all of humanity. Such a grand solution is equivellent of Anakin Skywalker becoming Darth Vader, as if we merely need to inist what is right and every one will see the truth - and if they don't fall in line then we will make them.[/quote]
Obviously you don't understand me. I never said anything about making anybody do anything, that's born of your own mind, you lawless criminal, you! The only things that should ever be enforced is my "Fundamental Social Axiom" which is a version of the Golden Rule corrected to address some problems noted by some philosophers, and population control.

lancek4 wrote:

MJA wrote:One is One,
Are you?

=

Oh and, One is
Truth

Empty. (That reminds me of the movie Conan the Barbarian, 1981 I think, where Salsa doom preaches reaching 'emptiness')

I cahllenge you to convey to me, so that I am 'truly' know, this true oneness without relying upon the apparent diversity to do so.

The oneness you speak of only occurs within the individual, and at this is still a highly suspect notion for the reality of it. What you propose in teaching of this oneness is to create in another person a condition of paradox and/or contradiction for their knowledge of things. But such an experience of knowledge only occurs to amount to the proposed effect of paradox in those individuals who already 'possess' or who already 'of' such knowledge. It cannot be taught as you propose, for the contradiction, for the majority of individuals, will always appear for them in context of knowledge which solves the apparent contradiction and no move into the experience/ knowledge of 'oneness' will occur - except as an intellectual category of knowledge.

Truth or One cannot be challenged,
Don't you know?
That is what makes One true!

=

How could you argue the Universe?
Twoniverse?

=