Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:30 am Immanuel Can wrote:

Reality is the truth. If one has the truth, one is seeing reality as it is. If one sees realistically, it's only ever because what one sees is also the truth.

Apart from your own qualia, how do you know what is real and what is not real?

Qualia is the only real thing going on here. Everything else is imagined.

Immanuel Can to Scott wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:25 pm I do get what's going on with you right now.

When one is feeling cornered, it's easier just to go looking for some grounds you can sell to yourself as "moral outrage," so you can feign righteousnes, storm off, and stop thinking about the dawning realization that you need to shift your basic theory, at least somewhat.

So the ad hominem becomes very attractive as an option. It seems to offer relief from the necessity of decision and revision.

That's because none of us finds it easy to shift a basic theory. It's like having the ground move under one's feet...very unsettling and concerning.

I think you will also find that you are not going to fool the little voice inside you that easily.

Sounds like Mr. Can is clearly describing himself. He described that 'little voice' with the familiarity of someone who knows well how to ignore it. Projecting all of that onto another person is a dishonorable and dishonest charade.

It's one thing to point out when people are making deceptive or senseless claims, which I have accused Mr. Can of many times. What Mr. Can does is to claim to know a person's mind -- which is also what the poster 'Age' did a lot of. Such is the ultimate god-wannabe behavior, performed with human-transparency. Whether foolish or rather evil, it demonstrates a twisted potential of man in service to himself.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:45 pmWhether foolish or rather evil, it demonstrates a twisted potential of man in service to himself.

It's really hard to call what's really going on inside the human mind. I have a love hate relationship with humans.

I cannot tell whether I love or hate them.

Do I love myself? Absolutely.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:19 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:35 pm This is like watching two blind pigs in a hole in the ground trying to talk about the stars.

Entertaining, though! But it does get tiresome.

What pigs know is about the smell and the dirt. They would do better to study them to the best of their ability.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:43 pmI watched a bit of U-Tube on the Barker dude.

Seems - everything HAS TO BE TRUE as per Bible or NOT. (hence easy target shooting akin with Dawkins)

Ridiculous.

Hence the ridiculous presumption that it is either SCIENCE or THEISM - the two are mutually exclusive.

Haven't seen the clip, so can't really comment. My own view is that science is fundamentally about making things work. Yeah you can have all sorts of theories about how or why something works, but we can never know for sure whether our theories are true, or even if they will apply to conditions we encounter or create in the future. Theories don't change what happens; they may well change what we perceive, but that's a different matter. Theism, i.e. 'God done it' is one of those theories that makes no difference to what happens. It's not that the two are mutually exclusive, it's just that theism, however important to some on a personal level, is irrelevant to science.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:01 am Reality is truth only insofar as the concept reality is known by the only knowing there is which is you

Thank you for the compliment...but no, I am not God, and I'm willing to venture that atto, not just IC has some knowing, too.

But epistemology is not ontology. Epistemology (knowing) is derived from ontology (reality). When knowing fails to square with reality, we are speaking of a thing called "error" or "deception," not "truth."

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:05 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:43 pmI watched a bit of U-Tube on the Barker dude.

Seems - everything HAS TO BE TRUE as per Bible or NOT. (hence easy target shooting akin with Dawkins)

Ridiculous.

Hence the ridiculous presumption that it is either SCIENCE or THEISM - the two are mutually exclusive.

Haven't seen the clip, so can't really comment. My own view is that science is fundamentally about making things work. Yeah you can have all sorts of theories about how or why something works, but we can never know for sure whether our theories are true, or even if they will apply to conditions we encounter or create in the future. Theories don't change what happens; they may well change what we perceive, but that's a different matter. Theism, i.e. 'God done it' is one of those theories that makes no difference to what happens. It's not that the two are mutually exclusive, it's just that theism, however important to some on a personal level, is irrelevant to science.

I was off to bed when the ph when zing - uwot quote - boot PC!

SO.

Theories don't change what happens; they may well change what we perceive

What is the difference between what we perceive and what we think?

Theories and Belief - what is the difference?

Theism, i.e. 'God done it' is one of those theories that makes no difference to what happens.

So theory is the same as belief?

It's not that the two are mutually exclusive, it's just that theism, however important to some on a personal level, is irrelevant to science.

I tend to disagree. My reasoning is that SCIENCE is the search for truth no matter what - so since we as humanity have in the least conceived of the idea of some 3rd party creation to our reality - it makes sense that science in its search for TRUTH - is open to any conceivable answer thus ALL is relevant.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:07 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:01 am Reality is truth only insofar as the concept reality is known by the only knowing there is which is you

Thank you for the compliment...but no, I am not God,

When I asked you what the image of God looks like, you said God's image looks like Jesus, the human being.

So I'm now confused that you say you are not God.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:07 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:01 am Reality is truth only insofar as the concept reality is known by the only knowing there is which is you

Thank you for the compliment...but no, I am not God, and I'm willing to venture that atto, not just IC has some knowing, too.

But epistemology is not ontology. Epistemology (knowing) is derived from ontology (reality). When knowing fails to square with reality, we are speaking of a thing called "error" or "deception," not "truth."

Immanuel Can, your reply shows either you just don't understand non dualism, or else you pretend not to understand for some odd personal motive.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:01 am Reality is truth only insofar as the concept reality is known

No, truth is truth...no matter what one thinks one knows.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:47 pm Immanuel Can, your reply shows either you just don't understand non dualism,

I understand it. I'm just saying it's false.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:39 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:01 am Reality is truth only insofar as the concept reality is known

No, truth is truth...no matter what one thinks one knows.

There is no disagreeing with a tautology, IC! Can't you reply to DAM's proposition with
something more interesting than verbal diarrhoea?

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:39 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:01 am Reality is truth only insofar as the concept reality is known

No, truth is truth...no matter what one thinks one knows.

There is no disagreeing with a tautology.

It's not a tautology. It's a claim that "what one thinks or knows" has zero impact on "what is true." Zero.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:36 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:39 pm
No, truth is truth...no matter what one thinks one knows.

There is no disagreeing with a tautology.

It's not a tautology. It's a claim that "what one thinks or knows" has zero impact on "what is true." Zero.

That's better! I agree.

Next question : Is what is true the same as absolute truth? I don't think it's the same.

What is truecould be anything from the temperature at which water boils ,to what one's pain feels like, to the verdict of a jury, and so forth.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:40 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:36 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:33 pm
There is no disagreeing with a tautology.

It's not a tautology. It's a claim that "what one thinks or knows" has zero impact on "what is true." Zero.

That's better! I agree.

I didn't change the utterance. I just pointed out what it meant.

Next question : Is what is true the same as absolute truth? I don't think it's the same.

It depends on what you mean by "absolute." The word has different meanings. It can mean "ultimate," or "comprehensive," or "total," or a variety of other things, because it is an adjective -- and part of the meaning of an adjective depends on the noun to which it is attached. But in the case of "truth" you could mean any of the above, or none.

What is truecould be anything from the temperature at which water boils ,to what one's pain feels like, to the verdict of a jury, and so forth.

Water boils at 100c: that's true, unless the environment is altered, such as by way of air pressure. Pain feels somewhat different to each person, of course: but THAT X or Y "feels pain" is objectively true, as the case may be. The verdict of a jury is only "true" if it conforms to the facts of what happened, and to the objective truth about the value of those actions.