Philosophy Now Forum

lancek4 wrote:I was being a little free with playing with words.

So, ethically you are good by your nature, as you have decribed (and nurture), and so your belief so happens to coincide with goodness.

That is exactly what Hitler thought of his political reform and moral stance.

This coincidence has allowed you to see the Truth of the world and advocate goodness, and this is really nature working for your personal benifit in this way. But it is belief, so it is only really true to you.

Exactly. Please see the Socratic paradox.

But nature has alowed you to see the truth of nature, that your belief is not merely belief but it is True.

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:I was being a little free with playing with words.

So, ethically you are good by your nature, as you have decribed (and nurture), and so your belief so happens to coincide with goodness.

That is exactly what Hitler thought of his political reform and moral stance.

This coincidence has allowed you to see the Truth of the world and advocate goodness, and this is really nature working for your personal benifit in this way. But it is belief, so it is only really true to you.

Exactly. Please see the Socratic paradox.

But nature has alowed you to see the truth of nature, that your belief is not merely belief but it is True.

lancek4 wrote:I was being a little free with playing with words.

So, ethically you are good by your nature, as you have decribed (and nurture), and so your belief so happens to coincide with goodness.
Did not say that, who knows for sure why I love life, I'd say that everyone does or they would have committed suicide. Anyone that says otherwise is either psychotic or a liar.

This coincidence has allowed you to see the Truth of the world and advocate goodness,
As I said, as to it's coincidence, who knows, that's your assumption.

and this is really nature working for your personal benifit in this way.
I don't see nature working for anyone, it just is as it is, if you live with it, parallel it's systems, then you thrive, if you don't, its the alternative for you.

But it is belief, so it is only really true to you.
The fact that I state it has nothing to do with exclusivity. No, nature is a part of everyone, and everyone is a part of nature which is why it's absurd to destroy it!

But nature has alowed you to see the truth of nature, that your belief is not merely belief but it is True.
Not necessarily, I am no god, nor would I ever claim to be, It just would seem to me, as it makes the most sense, those that can't see it have their twisted agendas that preclude it's vision. Most of modern man is full of himself, like Chaz, Megalomaniacs, that couldn't see the truth if it smacked them in the face, they're so full of themselves that they actually stupidly believe that sacrifice is killing something else and not themselves because their fear is so great, as if the'll actually ever get out of here alive.

lancek4 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:I was being a little free with playing with words.

So, ethically you are good by your nature, as you have decribed (and nurture), and so your belief so happens to coincide with goodness.

That is exactly what Hitler thought of his political reform and moral stance.

This coincidence has allowed you to see the Truth of the world and advocate goodness, and this is really nature working for your personal benifit in this way. But it is belief, so it is only really true to you.

Exactly. Please see the Socratic paradox.

But nature has alowed you to see the truth of nature, that your belief is not merely belief but it is True.

It is interesting to me that Socrates did not enter my mind in my post. That it came as a natural response to what was given for analysis.

I think I am Socrates reincarnated.

This makes sense in that when I originally read Plato the dialogues required of me little concerted effort to understand them.

It all makes sense now.

So, in that I may be free I should be able to decide against what I think is true; what is true to me should have no more wieght as to what I believe as whether I eat an apple or and apricot. And I should be able to free decide what fruit I eat just a neutrally.

lancek4 wrote:I am deciding from a careful weighing of neutral categories: death equals nothing greater or lesser than living -- and I am deciding to not poison myself based on the assumption that the nightshape may not kill me and then I would merely feel discomfort and not die, so I will choose to not poison myself, due to the variable of not dieing from it.

If there were no varaiable, I still choose not to die just for the interest of living some more, to see how it pans out. If indeed I never do inevitably die then I may, at a later time, nuetrally weigh my options of dieing then.

lancek4 wrote:Now I am going to assert my ability to choose from nuetral categories and choose from a bais: I will not poison myself because killing myself is unethical. For if I have the freedom to kill myself then everyone should be able to likewise kill themselves, and this could lead to social collapse. Also, life is limited and it will be over for me soon enough so I will choose from this bias of knowledge that I have not experienced myself but only by other peoeple, to live now in the time given me from nature.

You can try to 'Duck and Run,' but you said you'd choose your fruit neutrally. Death Berries are in fact the fruit of the Deadly Nightshade plant, so choose between the apple, apricot, and death berries neutrally! You have a one in three chance of surviving the first attempt.

lancek4 wrote:And this all goes to my previous point: that humans are effectivly segragated from what is natural, that we make our own rules and are subject to no natural rules save those that we have deemed natural.
BS, if you eat Death Berries you shall die by the natural rule of being poisoned!

For I freely choose to choose biasedly, yet that I choose freely I am chosing from a bias, so in as much as I say I chose freely I could not but have made just that choice.
Bias is not something you may necessarily be aware of.

Yet we still do choose freely, so the contradiction avoids its problem by asserting its freedom in choice. Thus, as I decide that tending to the environment is an ethical choice, I am denying that my choice as well as my ethics are based upon a bias. Hence: whether or not ethics is really true, I cannot but make a choice within its bounds, and so am effectively a segregated entity from nature.
You can twist your words all over the place, but you are not segregated from nature, you were born of nature, live by nature and shall die by nature.

You can weave grass like you can words, but in the end you'll not necessarily have a functional basket just like you'll not necessarily have a valid point.

lancek4 wrote:I suppose the point I am attempting to make is lost in that your faith in your truth binds you.

The proof:

Belief is relative.
Belief is relative to what? Actually you cannot have relativity with a single object. Imagine if you will, infinite space with one bit of matter. How big is it? Where is it? Is it moving? If so how fast and what's it's trajectory? None of those questions can be answered with one object. So you've left me at a loss, unless of course, if I assume you mean amongst people.

You believe that you know of a true nature.
No, I believe that nature and all it's particulars are of the absolute truth

Your whole argument has been based on an ability to know of an actual universe, but then you say that belief is just opinion and that we cannot really know what is true.
Actually what I said was that belief is not necessarily true, until it is truth tested, then it becomes accepted as knowledge. If I've said anything else that would indicate otherwise, then I apologize because, this is what I meant. Though belief is untested as true, doesn't mean that it's not true, just that it has yet to be positively acknowledged as true, thus being an accepted bit of knowledge.

Not that I actually know of any particular absolute truth of the universe, just that it's absolutely true, in it's totality, what ever it is. With regard to the universe we don't necessarily know, but with regard to localized things we do know some truths, obviously. But as I've said, as to any particular thing, there could be bias and agendas involved that lend to distortion.

So, I have asked from the beginning:

How do you know this?
Yes and I never understood this. which is why I've never responded. I understand the question, but I don't understand how it could be asked.

How do you separate yourself from the relativity enough to know something that is not relative?
Truth itself is not relative to anything, but the stuff that any particular human spouts as truth is relative to another, obviously, because no one seems to agree (slight exaggeration).

To answer this, first a particular issue has to be cited because some of mans things have no truth in them whatsoever, and are only subject to the opinion of the subject, art appreciation for instance. But with regard to us being tied to nature, there are no doubts, as we were born of nature from the beginning of our time 200,00 years ago and beyond.

You see this absolute truth issue really has to do with which particular truth you're referring to, such that actually a blanket statement cannot be asserted without lying. I would even say that there are categories of things that are more prone to being known as true, and those that are not. Anything that's local has a much better chance of being in truth than those of afar, obviously.

Edit: clarity.

lancek4 wrote:How do you separate yourself from the relativity enough to know something that is not relative?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Do me a favor and expand the below quote. For instance explain the nature of the relativity you insist I have to separate myself from. And give an example of something that may not be relative.

lancek4 wrote:How do you separate yourself from the relativity enough to know something that is not relative?