What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[SpheresOfBalance]

OK, let me put it into perspective for you. All the people in your little example are blind, now what say you?

I'd say there'd be alot of touchy feely going on!

But I think I could still get the gist that someone was *ahem* "taken" by feeling their tangled mass of limbs....and so...I would keep feelin away...until I found one who wasn't. So before I knew what the word was for it...I would know that there was a difference between 'taken' and single.

I honestly thought you'd understand my point, and then apply it to the other senses. What you speak of, with regard to touch, is still a language that conveys something, that could be refined to be understood in commonality, amongst a particular group. SO... now, I'll have to add, that there are no senses at all, no sight, hearing, smelling, tasting or feeling, NOW, what say you? How could one possibly understand anything at all, let alone marriage? People seem to not understand what all goes into education. A parent should know, as they watch their newborn develop over the years, as it's clear that their newborn, is pretty much devoid of anything us adults call knowledge, except the instinct to survive via air, water and food, which is a function of biology.

[SpheresOfBalance]

OK, corpse! Here you go, since you were too dense to get it the first time, though you won't get it this time either:

Sorry but the word "should" as used, from my perspective, is an opinion, and in this case is merely self ego stroking, therefore it's useless, to anyone but you.

I forgot you were an absolutist, so in answer to your question "... Where does the 'truth' of modern philosophy stand?", it stands with the subject of Logic and specifically, since its modern philosophy you were asking about, in Formal and Symbolic Logic. Clearer for you? Although I am ignoring the problems with this term 'modern philosophy'.
You seem to be dense, as you were doing great until the line "Clearer for you?" You see, you seem to not be as smart as you propose. While you dismiss emotional content as being irrelevant, you use EMOTIcons, argue as to your colourful rag being better than another's colourful rag, spout your so called credentials (pieces of paper) as if they really matter, and say things such as I've quoted above. It would seem you are an emotional train wreck, not understanding what emotions are, or how they're conveyed. I guess that's what you get, when you believe in magical books, and fear the nasty dictionary vortex. The rest of your message goes unread, because you act like a fool. Clean up you act and maybe we'll talk, I've grown tired of your seemingly, selfish, confused, inconsistent, hypocrisy.

Remember that all of what I've said to you, was aimed directly at you, and no one else, so you can stop trying to elicit their support, coward! You would be fun in the sporting ring, no matter what the rules.

<snip>

[SpheresOfBalance]

ginkgo

I agree. After 1948 replies what have we gleaned

Personally I never use the word truth because it only serves to create confusions. People end up talking past each other. That's why whenever I use the word I proviso it.

Anyone trying to evade truth, does so because they want to believe that to commit murder is somehow ethical for them, providing it's not theirs, of course. Of course therein lies the problem, as to someone else, you are the someone else! So the "Golden Rule" or more appropriately, my variation, the "Fundamental Social Axiom" is absolutely true, philosophically speaking. Of course this point that I make, as to murder, is the extreme from no affect whatsoever, containing everything in between.

You know what's really quite funny as well as absurd? Those that preach the road to anarchy, while they live in the lap of luxury. They forget that, that which they argue against, is that which affords their argument.

[Ginkgo]

ginkgo

I agree. After 1948 replies what have we gleaned

Personally I never use the word truth because it only serves to create confusions. People end up talking past each other. That's why whenever I use the word I proviso it.

Anyone trying to evade truth, does so because they want to believe that to commit murder is somehow ethical for them, providing it's not theirs, of course. Of course therein lies the problem, as to someone else, you are the someone else! So the "Golden Rule" or more appropriately, my variation, the "Fundamental Social Axiom" is absolutely true, philosophically speaking. Of course this point that I make, as to murder, is the extreme from no affect whatsoever, containing everything in between.

You know what's really quite funny as well as absurd? Those that preach the road to anarchy, while they live in the lap of luxury. They forget that, that which they argue against, is that which affords their argument.

That's not me, I am a pacifist. I have never had that desire.

Can the Fundamental Social Axiom be understood in terms of never doing anything to anyone that you wouldn't have them do to you?

[reasonvemotion]

Spheres, I admire your tenancity to prove your point. I must admit that I dont understand all of your responses, but that is my problem, due to my limited knowledge of philosophy. The question is in my mind, unanswerable, I mean in a total sense. It is has been debated throughout our history andI think the question needs to use two approaches. Logical and mythical thinking. Truth discovered through logical thinking seeks to be objective and universal whilst Mythical thinking approaches through a less direct and intuitive means and is based on individual feelings and experiences. With the question above, I think both these approaches cannot be divorced from each other in applying thought to understanding or trying to solve the question. Even so, at this very moment, right from the time the question was first asked, it remains a mystery. You may say, that is no reason to stop asking. I agree, but to some extent, could it be possible that the absolute truth has been deliberately withheld?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Personally I never use the word truth because it only serves to create confusions. People end up talking past each other. That's why whenever I use the word I proviso it.

ginkgo

I agree. After 1948 replies what have we gleaned

Anyone trying to evade truth, does so because they want to believe that to commit murder is somehow ethical for them, providing it's not theirs, of course. Of course therein lies the problem, as to someone else, you are the someone else! So the "Golden Rule" or more appropriately, my variation, the "Fundamental Social Axiom" is absolutely true, philosophically speaking. Of course this point that I make, as to murder, is the extreme from no affect whatsoever, containing everything in between.

You know what's really quite funny as well as absurd? Those that preach the road to anarchy, while they live in the lap of luxury. They forget that, that which they argue against, is that which affords their argument.

That's not me, I am a pacifist. I have never had that desire.
Did you see that I said, that as to murder, is the extreme. And so you say that, you are a pacifist, such that I wonder, where it is you belong, from no affect to murder, somewhere in between, as certainly you do. Where does evading truth, get you over another? Take some time, as it's been my experience, that the honest answer is 'deep' within. Of course, as to this truth of yours, I do not want to know, as it's best served, as you look into your mirror. Of course it is true that often, public disclosure, helps to facilitate eradication, and that keeping it to oneself, is to keep it hidden, so as to perpetuate, I see that one step at a time, is in order.

Can the Fundamental Social Axiom be understood in terms of never doing anything to anyone that you wouldn't have them do to you?

It's nothing really, I just did some research on 'The Golden Rule' because I had issue with it, and found that a few philosophers did as well, so I decided to incorporate solutions that would address all our concerns. And I think I succeeded. Of course I would always appreciate Constructive Criticism. The first thing I did was to remove gold from it's title, because it's pursuit has caused many to not live by the rule. At the time, I believed that, "Fundamental Social Axiom," was descriptive as to it's contents, so what better name to give it? Next, the main issue seemed to be the accounting for everyone's level of knowledge and sense of right and wrong, good or bad. Lastly, I saw a problem with time, which there is no getting around, and saw that the best, one can do, is in the reference of now. Such that it turned out as follows:
"Treat others as you would have others treat you, to the extent that all parties knowingly agree at the time."

Of course a passerby that provides cheerful greeting, does not allow for the interaction required to necessarily ensure success, as the object of the greet could despise such interaction. At which point, a sincere apology would be in order. But I think you get the gist.

[lancek4]

[quote="Gi="lancek4"]

But then even the nihilist must act, it must be. Ethics, to repose, becomes the determination and determining of reality : the universal is the ethical. And then we begin again from the posit of freedom and it's question. Right? The eternal recurrence.

Yet this to then resides in a truth that is always out of reach.

I do not agree with this limit. This limit is the universal. So I ask: how do we reconcile this situation. ?

Hello Lance,

I guess the answer to that question is that there are a number of competing ethical theories.If you are talking universal ethics ( seems to be the case) then this would be classified as deontological, or rule based ethics. The important point is that these rules are set in stone and do not change overtime. They are universal and apply equally well in all times and all places. Another way of saying it is that the individual has a moral obligation or duty to adhere to these rules.

So I guess the answer to your question is that 'the truth' is not out of reach. Kantian ethics would be of interest here. So, it's no so much a case of the truth being out of reach, rather it would be that other ethical theories promote different 'truths'. For example, Utilitarianism talks about promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Utilitarianism can be seen as a consequentialist theory in that it talks about right and wrong actions as opposed to good or bad actions.

Is this the truth you have reached? Is it deontological or is it just another promoted 'different' truth?[/quote]


Not really, there is a lot more to ethical theories than I have outlined. However, if we are talking very generally then I would say that 'truth' can be applied to deontological theories, but is irrelevant when applied to consequentialist theories such as utilitarianism. An action is right if it promotes happiness wrong if it promotes the opposite. There is no truth because what promotes happiness at one time may not be relevant at another. What promotes happiness in our society may not promote happiness in a different society.

Personally I never use the word truth because it only serves to create confusions. People end up talking past each other. That's why whenever I use the word I proviso it.

In answer to your last question. It is not a different truth it is a different theory.[/quote]

Obviously, you must have some relationship with truth as to your post. No matter what you call it, you must think it is true.

[lancek4]

Spheres, I admire your tenancity to prove your point. I must admit that I dont understand all of your responses, but that is my problem, due to my limited knowledge of philosophy. The question is in my mind, unanswerable, I mean in a total sense. It is has been debated throughout our history andI think the question needs to use two approaches. Logical and mythical thinking. Truth discovered through logical thinking seeks to be objective and universal whilst Mythical thinking approaches through a less direct and intuitive means and is based on individual feelings and experiences. With the question above, I think both these approaches cannot be divorced from each other in applying thought to understanding or trying to solve the question. Even so, at this very moment, right from the time the question was first asked, it remains a mystery. You may say, that is no reason to stop asking. I agree, but to some extent, could it be possible that the absolute truth has been deliberately withheld?

Cannot experiences be objective and universal be mythical?

[reasonvemotion]

reasonvemotion wrote:

Spheres, I admire your tenancity to prove your point. I must admit that I dont understand all of your responses, but that is my problem, due to my limited knowledge of philosophy. The question is in my mind, unanswerable, I mean in a total sense. It is has been debated throughout our history andI think the question needs to use two approaches. Logical and mythical thinking. Truth discovered through logical thinking seeks to be objective and universal whilst Mythical thinking approaches through a less direct and intuitive means and is based on individual feelings and experiences. With the question above, I think both these approaches cannot be divorced from each other in applying thought to understanding or trying to solve the question. Even so, at this very moment, right from the time the question was first asked, it remains a mystery. You may say, that is no reason to stop
asking. I agree, but to some extent, could it be possible that the absolute truth has been deliberately withheld?

Lance

Cannot experiences be objective and universal be mythical?

Reasonvemotion

Mythical thinking and logical thinking both provide an account of the world, but they do so in very different ways.

[chaz wyman]

Spheres, I admire your tenancity to prove your point. I must admit that I dont understand all of your responses, but that is my problem, due to my limited knowledge of philosophy. The question is in my mind, unanswerable, I mean in a total sense. It is has been debated throughout our history andI think the question needs to use two approaches. Logical and mythical thinking. Truth discovered through logical thinking seeks to be objective and universal whilst Mythical thinking approaches through a less direct and intuitive means and is based on individual feelings and experiences. With the question above, I think both these approaches cannot be divorced from each other in applying thought to understanding or trying to solve the question. Even so, at this very moment, right from the time the question was first asked, it remains a mystery. You may say, that is no reason to stop asking. I agree, but to some extent, could it be possible that the absolute truth has been deliberately withheld?

Cannot experiences be objective and universal be mythical?

How can you have an 'objective' experience? Surely that is practically an oxymoron?

[Ginkgo]

Spheres, I admire your tenancity to prove your point. I must admit that I dont understand all of your responses, but that is my problem, due to my limited knowledge of philosophy. The question is in my mind, unanswerable, I mean in a total sense. It is has been debated throughout our history andI think the question needs to use two approaches. Logical and mythical thinking. Truth discovered through logical thinking seeks to be objective and universal whilst Mythical thinking approaches through a less direct and intuitive means and is based on individual feelings and experiences. With the question above, I think both these approaches cannot be divorced from each other in applying thought to understanding or trying to solve the question. Even so, at this very moment, right from the time the question was first asked, it remains a mystery. You may say, that is no reason to stop asking. I agree, but to some extent, could it be possible that the absolute truth has been deliberately withheld?

Cannot experiences be objective and universal be mythical?

Hello Reason,

Not really.

For the moment let us say experiences are not objective. Objective needs clarification here but I am assuming you mean absolutely true in some sense. Science of course can be objective, but that is a different story. Hume pointed this out a long time ago. We can observe an event happening as many times as we like but we are not justified in saying that it is an objective fact. There are no objective facts. Humans have experienced the sun rising throughout history but we are never justified in saying the sun will rise again tomorrow. It is the same for any observational experience we like to make. This is better know as the problem of induction. and induction is the basis of science. If scientific theories based on experience were in some way absolute, then science would be an absolute discipline there would be nothing more to know. Science is of course is an ongoing enterprise.

I am not sure about the mythical being universal. I think that would create some confusion at the moment. It would mean getting into the psychology of Carl Jung. Jung would say that the mythical is universal, but that doesn't mean that it is objective or rational. I don't think we need to go there at the moment.

The other type of generally acceptable knowledge is metaphysical knowledge. Metaphysics is always difficult to define, but it has its basis in logic, and mathematics. Without going into the whole thing again, suffice to say that metaphysics deals with logical possibilities. If you are talking metaphysics you are talking universals. When you do metaphysics you generally talking about truths that demonstrate consistency within themselves. However, this has been a chronic problem down through the ages. In other words, trying to show how one type of knowledge (metaphysical) can manifest itself in experience. It is generally accept that it can't and I think this is the point Chaz was making.

So basically, we have two types of knowledge and never the twain shall meet. But like all things in philosophy-perhaps not. There is a theory that tries to show just that - experience can have a universal aspect to it. That's a different story if you are interested.

[artisticsolution]

So basically, we have two types of knowledge and never the twain shall meet. But like all things in philosophy-perhaps not. There is a theory that tries to show just that - experience can have a universal aspect to it. That's a different story if you are interested.

I am interested. Do tell...Please.

[Ginkgo]

So basically, we have two types of knowledge and never the twain shall meet. But like all things in philosophy-perhaps not. There is a theory that tries to show just that - experience can have a universal aspect to it. That's a different story if you are interested.

I am interested. Do tell...Please.

Then there is the synthetic apriori. Synthetic meaning knowledge based on experience. Keeping in mind that knowledge based on experience is not universal or absolute. Apriori meaning prior to experience. Basically, mathematical and logical statements that have an internal consistency. In other words, they are self evidently true.

Now it is true that mathematical statements can be applied to science to give it credence and this happens all of the time. But this doesn't solve the problem because no matter how well we understand the movement of the planets around the sun in mathematical terms it will never guarantee us that the sun will rise tomorrow, only why we might expect it to (I am mixing metaphysics and mathematics together, but it is only for the purpose of the explanation. Basically, they can make use of a similar type of reasoning process).

The the problem still is how can be have something apriori (prior to experience) and have something based in experience (synthetic). Seems like a contradiction. IF such reasoning is possible does the synthetic apriori solve the gap that exists between metaphysics and experience?

The synthetic apriori is very controversial and the matter is of much debate. However perhaps I can use String Theory to serve as an example of how the synthetic apriori might be viewed.

String Theory is has long been touted as a scientific theory explaining the origins of matter. A number of papers are coming out claiming that string theory is not a scientific theory, rather it is a metaphysical theory.

I'll have to think about this a bit more and get back to you. Please keep in mind this is only a rough outline.

[chaz wyman]

So basically, we have two types of knowledge and never the twain shall meet. But like all things in philosophy-perhaps not. There is a theory that tries to show just that - experience can have a universal aspect to it. That's a different story if you are interested.

I am interested. Do tell...Please.

Then there is the synthetic apriori. Synthetic meaning knowledge based on experience. Keeping in mind that knowledge based on experience is not universal or absolute. Apriori meaning prior to experience. Basically, mathematical and logical statements that have an internal consistency. In other words, they are self evidently true.

Now it is true that mathematical statements can be applied to science to give it credence and this happens all of the time. But this doesn't solve the problem because no matter how well we understand the movement of the planets around the sun in mathematical terms it will never guarantee us that the sun will rise tomorrow, only why we might expect it to (I am mixing metaphysics and mathematics together, but it is only for the purpose of the explanation. Basically, they can make use of a similar type of reasoning process).

The the problem still is how can be have something apriori (prior to experience) and have something based in experience (synthetic). Seems like a contradiction. IF such reasoning is possible does the synthetic apriori solve the gap that exists between metaphysics and experience?

The synthetic apriori is very controversial and the matter is of much debate. However perhaps I can use String Theory to serve as an example of how the synthetic apriori might be viewed.

String Theory is has long been touted as a scientific theory explaining the origins of matter. A number of papers are coming out claiming that string theory is not a scientific theory, rather it is a metaphysical theory.

I'll have to think about this a bit more and get back to you. Please keep in mind this is only a rough outline.

There is also the a posteriori, and the analytic to consider across interpretations covering the distinction between the noumena and the phenomena.
There are also other ways to look a this question without referencing Kant.

[Ginkgo]

Hello chaz,


Yes, very true.