Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2013 7:59 pm**

lancek4 wrote:Lol What is the object toward which you propose 'practical'?

Now this is what I don't get. How can an object be "toward which you propose 'practical'"? That sentence literally don't make sense to me. It's not a sentence! Objects don't do whatever "toward which you propose 'practical'" is. It's like me saying "you want me to mount the sundae on the horse?"... nonsensical.

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:33 pm**

The Voice of Time wrote:
lancek4 wrote:Lol What is the object toward which you propose 'practical'?
Now this is what I don't get. How can an object be "toward which you propose 'practical'"? That sentence literally don't make sense to me. It's not a sentence! Objects don't do whatever "toward which you propose 'practical'" is. It's like me saying "you want me to mount the sundae on the horse?"... nonsensical.

Then just answer the other question: what do you mean by 'practical'? What is practical? What problems are practical and what are not practical? Because are you not making 'what is practical' the criterion of what the mind manages?

Posted: **Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:56 pm**

That which is practical is that which we can use as a means to achieve our ends. When something is more practical than something else it has a higher degree of applicability, there's more we can do with it, more things we can use it for, and that we use it for has a high and noticeable effect.

To the middle-question: problems aren't practical or not practical, solutions has the property of practicality, problems do not, problems are just themselves, you don't "use" a problem for anything (except as a solution... revealing a problem as being a solution to a situation, like not having figured out what is the problem and then figuring it out then the found problem is the solution to not knowing the problem).

To the last question there: it's the mind's own business whatever style it chooses to manage things, practical or not. "What" it manages is ideas, whether the ideas are practical or not is irrelevant, it's still what the mind manages.

Posted: **Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:09 am**

right off, you response appears like a quite conventional approach to life.

The Voice of Time wrote:That which is practical is that which we can use as a means to achieve our ends. Ends. If you read my previous reply, 'ends' are highly suggestive of some object. Keep in mind the question: what is the difference between an 'object', such as a thing, and and 'object' such as an objective, or purpose to activity? It is not very difficult to see that whatever object ( in the former sense) may exist, it likewise has a quality for a reality as an object (in the latter sense). Such it is that in the discussion of the object, the distinction posits some sort of given that is ignored for the meaning of the proposition. Thus to posit some sort of object that is not located in the act of consideration itself, or only partially located there, relies on a transcending effect that is not able to be located, and this effect can be said to function for the purpose (object) of granting a real world (of objects).
When something is more practical than something else it has a higher degree of applicability, there's more we can do with it, more things we can use it for, and that we use it for has a high and noticeable effect. 'use' is highly suspicious. Who or what 'uses'? Is this a 'willing' based in a choice of how we may proceed or act in the world? Also, 'applicability' towards what? What is being applied and towards or upon what?

To the middle-question: problems aren't practical or not practical, solutions has the property of practicality, problems do not, problems are just themselves, you don't "use" a problem for anything (except as a solution... revealing a problem as being a solution to a situation, like not having figured out what is the problem and then figuring it out then the found problem is the solution to not knowing the problem). in what way is a problem separatable from its solution? It seems already shown that a solution is already located in the proposal of the problem, and that to see such a distinction, that there are 'true' solutions and 'false' solutions from which we get to freely choose, relies upon a denial of this property of discourse.

I guess I concur with your 'property of practicality', but i am still a little unsure how this relates to truth.

- I coin the term 'conventional' to refer to a state of reality that is founded within the 'mistake' that stems from an unreflective consciousness. Such a consciousness is 'offended' by such a determined state of affairs (mentioned above) and so 'denies' truth for the sake of its own free choice. 'Problem' is never avoided but its solution merely postpones, extends or projects the initial problem into another area of reality, another arena of discourse. Ironically, it would seem then that the solution to what is practical is thence not practical, but indeed offers a true solution to the problem of postponement. The notion of repetition is salient here. As you suggest, the solution that is located in the problem shows that the problem was not the problem, since it was the solution in practical terms, but in that there indeed was a problem ( we cant all be zen masters in everyday life), it was rather the problem of the problem, so to speak; hence again, it is the ironic solution that 'makes solute' the problem of what may be practical, but that what is then practical of a problem is that it is solved before it was ever problem. What must then be a "problem to be solved" must be truth as a precipitate, or sorts, from what is actually or necessarily true of the situation at hand. .

To the last question there: it's the mind's own business whatever style it chooses to manage things, practical or not. "What" it manages is ideas, whether the ideas are practical or not is irrelevant, it's still what the mind manages. I like this summation though: "the mind manages", But I like it as a 'definition' of series, rather than a 'conclusion' of premises. If it is merely a conclusion based upon premises, then I would have to ask again: What is mind? and, how does one find 'mind'? As well as, how does one distinguish what is ones mind from its management or what it is managing? It seems that the question, What are 'thoughts' ? Or What is an idea? must be operative in what you are developing.

Posted: **Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:09 pm**

Okay. lancek4 please stop talking like you're writing from the end of the 19th century. It's not called "concur", it's called "agree", its much more common and I don't have to look up in the dictionary to know it. It's not called "posit" but "held as true", again, I don't have to look up in the dictionary, and last, the word "proposition" is getting out-dated and instead we talk about "sentences" and "statements" (Wiki-quote: "To avoid the controversies and ontological implications, the term sentence is often now used instead of proposition to refer to just those strings of symbols that are truthbearers, being either true or false under an interpretation. Strawson advocated the use of the term "statement," and some mathematicians have adopted this usage."). I knew all three words from before but had forgotten them... why? Because they are words which only hardcore logicians/mathematicians or writers from a century or two ago would use! And they are completely unnecessary! They complicate things a lot. So, my little beg: make things less hard for me. Now on to my reply:

Your first paragraph: You mean ends are highly suggestive of an "objective", not an "object". Although it is possible to twist and turn on this, fundamental difference between objective and object is that objective only need as a minimum carrying of information the description of the "location" in some dimension or manner of movement to achieve it.

What lies at the end of the objective can be uncertain and unclear. As I said it is possible to twist and turn on this, for instance talk about intentions and our drives and desires and say that we have individual objects we attach to the objective, like duty, honour, excitement, and the like, but in a strict sense an objective is formal and nothing but itself and the objects that individuals associate with the objective is not of concern for the objective, unless they are counter to it.

To the later half of what you said I think I managed to get my head around it but I basically have no comment since it's not posing any challenge to me. It seems, that in more worldly terms, it talks along the lines of what I said above, that an objective can be separated from objects but that this, as you say "relies on a transcending effect that is not able to be located", and the reason it is not able to be located is because it is not of a concern for the objective the reasons why an objective is sought out, so you cannot necessarily find the object in an objective and therefore you cannot necessarily know how or why something happens, only that it does.

Your second paragraph: My original claim was that "the only practical purpose of the notion of reality is contained within ideas about it", and so you ask, "who or what uses?", when we talk about ideas the answer is anyone who has access to the mind, although "use" would assume a human directing of action about the one who accesses or a product of human labour like a robot or alternatively an animal/insect/bird/fish.

Those who have access can try to alter the ideas contained within the mind, either by removing (or at least in some way suppress from expression in the way our ideas express through our own action), adding or modifying existing ones (alter the configurations in terms of which other ideas one idea associate with so the idea express in different circumstances and express with greater or diminished magnitude).

Applicability would mean to what extent a use would lead to the ability to cause an idea to express itself, or to what extent we can change the mind (the soup of ideas) in any direction or specific arrangement. Also, to what extent we can direct this to a period of time or a location in space or any other such specifying of time, place and situation. We apply our access to cause a result.

Your third paragraph: you can lack water in your glass without there being any water available, so the problem can very well exist independent of the solution (it seems your finishing claim "relies upon a denial of this property of discourse" is therefore falsified, in fact, some problems have existed for ages but has never found a satisfying answer, it's difficult to talk about a proper marriage when you never see your spouse ^^). It is neither true that a solution is always proposed in a problem (or at least semi-proposed in the sense that you know what you are lacking even if you don't necessarily have access to it), especially in technical problems this is true, because you might need to "invent" a solution that doesn't exist for us before we figure it out. Your problem formulation might be like "How do I create the best IPhone app ever!?", and there's nowhere in that formulation you'll find a trace of the solution, you might have an objective but definitely no object.

The objective will probably be quite complicated with lots of parameters, but for simplicity's sake, let's say it's "make the most praised app ever!", I know it's possible to twist and turn on this one as well but again, for simplicity's sake, bear with me, there shouldn't be an answer in that sentence to any object, although there will be an objective, namely the count of praises and the magnitude of each praise (hint hint on twist-and-turn: there is one object at least, namely the sources of praise, but they are not particular, and so doesn't effectively function as objects but are reduced to statistics).

Your fourth (plus preceding lonely line) paragraph: Truth as I said "is a product of management of the mind", the discussion of practicality is a mislead from a parallel discussion about my claim that the only practical way of thinking about reality is as the idea we have of it, practicality was never a topic of discussion in relation to truth, that's probably a mix-up.

However now that it has been mentioned, think of it like this. We have a notion of reality, this is contained within an idea of it. This idea resides in our minds. Perhaps here it is time to mention that it is not the mind itself that is managing but its external faculties, as I mentioned way before with my distinction between what is the mind, namely the container of ideas, and what are the faculties that work on it, like memory sorting and consciousness filtering and emotional responsiveness and so forth. As our mind is worked over time it alters itself, and when accessed and caused to express itself it will do so from a different composition than the time before, this composition is the truth, with reality being an idea it will also likely differ in composition, the arrangement of all ideas in any particular fashion with its inclusions and exclusions of its (former or new) members; that, is truth, with the implications of our beliefs and recognitions inside it.

This is all practical in the sense that it is something for which we can access, manipulate, make something out of or make do something. Each one of us therefore have one particular truth within us at any point of time, some parts of our minds will resemble what we get from other people's minds, and these become social truths, bases of knowledge we work from in our social dealings.

As to the chunk paragraph it is very confusing for me to understand what you mean and what you are getting at. You talk about postponement, repetition, free choice, discourse, but does it mean anything to the main discussion? Are you hung up in my brief mention of how a problem can be cast as a solution when a problem asks for the revealing of another problem (the problem cast as a solution)?

What does "truth as a precipitate" mean? I'm unsure how to deal with this paragraph, but if it is a criticism of some sort of eternal looping of "problems of problems" (or problems cast as solutions for other problems asking for it) I must say that problems cast as solutions are very useful; basically they are about getting one step closer to the "gap" that you have to jump to go from ignorance and confusion to knowing and clarity. At many times one will find oneself with a question so big and/or mighty it is impossible to jump the huge gap it presents, and one must try to get closer, and one does so by casting new problems as solutions to the problem, and therefore shortening the distance, sometimes this presents a dead-end, sometimes it is just what you need.

Your fifth paragraph: "how does one distinguish what is ones mind from its management or what it is managing", basically a mind is presented in any "now" as the best possible capture of the state of things at that time, but besides that the mind is continuously changing, but so are most things in our world, and it doesn't stop us from talking about them as if they are unchanged, unless something significant happens to them. The distinction is explained above with my mention of the distinction between faculties and the mind itself (which is the container, or more specifically what is contained within the container).

"It seems that the question, What are 'thoughts' ? Or What is an idea? must be operative in what you are developing." I have dealt with the issue of what an idea is before. What a thought is I don't know because people have different opinions, but I guess a thought is a kind of echo of words in your mind that come about in orderly manners so as to produce meaning... some kind of "talking to yourself" using words inside your head. To other people there's not always sentences involved in consciousness, like me I don't think too much in words, using images and even sounds and the like, and whether that is thoughts as well is a matter of discussion.

What I said about the nature of ideas is that essentially they are mathematical expressions for the bodily expressions we have. A mathematical expression says at what rate anything will be expressed as an action of the human body and whether it will happen at all. However, it's tricky to absolutize this, so we must continue. First, an idea is a unit in an informatic system: the mathematical expression of an idea in an informatic system is through preadjustment facilities, which are centres where many small arrangements and rearrangements of things unfolds in simpler exterior actions.

To show what is the peculiarities of an idea you must introduce further abilities and restraints, and those are the mind which is the sum of ideas in relations to each other (ideas not in relations to each other, not even by indirect means through other ideas, are not related and not of the same mind), and, secondly, the faculties extending the mind, and which work themselves on the mind and in so doing determining the ways it rearranges itself and alters itself. More specific than that is hard to be, but simply stated: an idea is the mathematical expression of the patterned behaviour of any physical entity that rearranges itself in group with other rearranging physical entities to produce an exterior simple action.

So an idea is not physical per se in that it equates any specific substance, instead it attaches itself as a pattern to a kind of source physical entity that it manipulates and the physical entity works as the original "representative" of the idea, think about a neuron, and many such physical entities together form a mind.

Posted: **Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:46 pm**

The Voice of Time wrote:Throughout history there have been countless many ways to define truth. The latest and likely most extensively agreed upon is that truth is a correlation between the objective world (also called "reality") and our own. I want to slap this definition.

First of all, the definition overlaps with the word "correct",
Not first and foremost.

All definitions are from dictionary.com, based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013

truth [trooth] noun, plural truths [troothz, trooths]
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. ( often initial capital letter ) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy.
Idioms
12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.
Synonyms 1. fact. 2. veracity. 7. sincerity, candor, frankness. 10. precision, exactness.

actual ac·tu·al [ak-choo-uhl]
adjective
1. existing in act or fact; real: an actual case of heroism; actual expenses.
2. existing now; present; current: The ship's actual position is 22 miles due east of Miami.
3. Obsolete . pertaining to or involving acts or action.

fact [fakt] noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law. . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.
Idioms
6. after the fact, Law. after the commission of a crime: an accessory after the fact.
7. before the fact, Law. prior to the commission of a crime: an accessory before the fact.
8. in fact, actually; really; indeed: In fact, it was a wonder that anyone survived.

reality re·al·i·ty [ree-al-i-tee] noun, plural re·al·i·ties for 3, 5–7.
1. the state or quality of being real.
2. resemblance to what is real.
3. a real thing or fact.
4. real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs: the reality of the business world; vacationing to escape reality.
5. Philosophy .
...a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
...b. something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.
6. something that is real.
7. something that constitutes a real or actual thing, as distinguished from something
adjective
8. noting or pertaining to a TV program or film that portrays nonactors interacting or competing with each other in real but contrived situations, allegedly without a script: a popular reality show; reality TV.
Idioms
9. in reality, in fact or truth; actually: brave in appearance, but in reality a coward.
I see that 'correct' is not the most correct overlap as to your assertion, and rather that, 'actual' and 'fact' are much more correct.

real re·al 1 [ree-uhl, reel]
adjective
1. true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act.
2. existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: a story taken from real life.
3. being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary: The events you will see in the film are real and not just made up.
4. being actually such; not merely so-called: a real victory.
5. genuine; not counterfeit, artificial, or imitation; authentic: a real antique; a real diamond; real silk.
6. unfeigned or sincere: real sympathy; a real friend.
7. Informal. absolute; complete; utter: She's a real brain.
8. Philosophy .
...a. existent or pertaining to the existent as opposed to the nonexistent.
...b. actual as opposed to possible or potential.
...c. independent of experience as opposed to phenomenal or apparent.
9. (of money, income, or the like) measured in purchasing power rather than in nominal value: Inflation has driven income down in real terms, though nominal income appears to be higher.
10. Optics. (of an image) formed by the actual convergence of rays, as the image produced in a camera ( opposed to virtual ).
11. Mathematics .
a. of, pertaining to, or having the value of a real number.
b. using real numbers: real analysis; real vector space.
adverb
12. Informal. very or extremely: You did a real nice job painting the house.
noun
13. real number.
14. the real.
a. something that actually exists, as a particular quantity.
b. reality in general.
Idioms
15. for real, Informal.
a. in reality; actually: You mean she dyed her hair green for real?
b. real; actual: The company's plans to relocate are for real.
c. genuine; sincere: I don't believe his friendly attitude is for real.
Truth is the 'actual,' 'factual' state of 'reality,' regardless of mans inability to come to terms with it. As you can see that which is real is independent of experience or ideas as opposed to 'phenomenal' or apparent and is that from which all other things are derived. Mans concepts are born in trying to interpret the actual. Truth, facts and reality are not concepts, constructs of man, rather that which he finally notices, as they existed before him, after years and years of his constructed concepts of mysticism, so as to finally hold his beliefs accountable, and thus philosophy was born, the father of all science. all of which seeks to uncover the truth of things (objects), though it has been a slow process of the trial and error, of his constructs, his concepts, to slowly uncover the 'factual,' 'truth' of 'reality.'

And I rest my case! As all the rest is merely the confusion born of twists and turns of the human mind, where the wielder gets lost in the conceptualization of using ever larger words so as to hopefully impress; lost in a labyrinth of complication for it's own sake alone.

which means correlation between an ideal of an object and the experience of the same object. What many people forget is that "reality" is also an ideal, because how else could we conceive of it? How can we conceive of reality as independent of the mind if we could not first make it an idea of the mind? So reality is an idea, practically speaking and my objection is to say that "truth" is reflected in correctness when this is only a recent development historically speaking. Instead, correctness should be correctness, and truth should be truth.

So I came up with an idea myself about what truth is, one that tries to encompass all possible meanings of it, and that is that truth is a product of management of the mind. That is, any process of managing of our ideas leading up to a specific state of the mind with specific ideas and those beliefs that accompany those ideas. I also believe that's what it really, at the very abstract level, always has meant, and that every single definition has always been an instantiation of this abstract concept, an instance, so to speak, of a general concept. I'll also explain, that the reason why we find the current circulating definition so attractive (that truth = correlation between reality and contents of mind), is because of the battle we've had to make people seek answers in the sensuous world instead of ideology and religion, a battle which is still fought and finding recurrence every now and then. This however, is only an instance, and to understand how it is only an instance, can also help us understand when truth isn't true, that is, when we think perhaps that we are quite correct, but when our interpretations are hopelessly worthless (like when you interpret an illusion as literal and real, or if you focus wrongly so you don't get the really interesting about any situation), by allowing for multiple instances, we can compare them and figure out which one excels the best at its task, which in my world would be need satisfaction, but for other people might vary between other similar parameters.

Anybody finds this reasonable? Anything objectionable?

Posted: **Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:30 pm**

SoB, if I was interested in a dictionary directory I would've looked it up myself. Rather obviously it is not my primary concern what the dictionary says, it does not say anything about the world, only try to hint towards how any given word generally is used in a daily speech. When I make a definition, I'm not clarifying how people use a word, I'm not trying to play a translator, but try to show how it is more suitable to have one particular definition instead of another.

Truth, facts and reality are not concepts, constructs of man, rather that which he finally notices, as they existed before him, after years and years of his constructed concepts of mysticism

SoB, truth, fact and reality are concepts children conceive of almost immediately or for reality especially may even already have conceived of before they are born. Reality is found in ones own errors, that your knowledge is not absolute. Truth is found in comparing knowledge between people, realizing that reality may be found in other minds and not just the outer world. Facts are those solid things we know and for which we just know that cannot be refuted (at least by any ordinary means), and you'll catch the notion of facts quite quickly as you realize that some things just seem to be regardless of what else happens.

Posted: **Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:21 pm**

The Voice of Time wrote:SoB, if I was interested in a dictionary directory I would've looked it up myself. Rather obviously it is not my primary concern what the dictionary says, it does not say anything about the world, only try to hint towards how any given word generally is used in a daily speech. When I make a definition, I'm not clarifying how people use a word, I'm not trying to play a translator, but try to show how it is more suitable to have one particular definition instead of another.
But I see that it's yours that's been slapped!

Truth, facts and reality are not concepts, constructs of man, rather that which he finally notices, as they existed before him, after years and years of his constructed concepts of mysticism
SoB, truth, fact and reality are concepts children conceive of almost immediately or for reality especially may even already have conceived of before they are born. Reality is found in ones own errors, that your knowledge is not absolute. Truth is found in comparing knowledge between people, realizing that reality may be found in other minds and not just the outer world. Facts are those solid things we know and for which we just know that cannot be refuted (at least by any ordinary means), and you'll catch the notion of facts quite quickly as you realize that some things just seem to be regardless of what else happens.

Wrong! Obviously you have no children.
I've always believed what I found in the dictionary, before ever reading it in the dictionary. What does that tell you? Several possibilities, and then you'll choose which one to believe.

Atheists believe as they do so as to answer to no one, to place their god in their heads, so they can do what ever they want, such is this case.Some quotes that apply:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
99% of all the species that have ever lived have become extinct what hubris to think that fate does not await our species but unlike you I don't think it imminent, barring catastrophes. What might happen is a collapse of this lifestyle. If you want to save the other species look to alleviating your fellow man's condition first.
You call me arrogant, and yet I see, that it does not wait, but instead, we create. You apparently see the causal as external, while I see it as internal, what could be said about each individual, due to their particular perspective? I have never given a date, as I know it's virtually impossible to do; could it be that you just project imminence, as to my meaning? imminent relative to what measure? Should one gorge their mouth with solid fat and pure sugar, just to the point of a massive coronary, before abstaining? And for the sake of what? Gorging? And 'might' anything else happen, instead, in addition? But I see that saving another species, is alleviating my, so called, fellow mans condition.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:The denial of the absolute, thus the acceptance of the relative, amongst humans, is for the sake of the ego alone. It divides, thus chaos ensues, it is of selfishness, and breeds all ill will, It is so we can feel good in the face of our selfishness, as both camps agree, at least, that we are of one origin, as those of true wisdom then finally see the contradiction, indeed! Too Few!! As yet the selfishness moves on to embrace its inevitable self destruction, it does not wait, we, in our relative self appeasement, create it. The 'win' is in the understanding, of the absolute facts, just presented. And the 'win' is for all, as the spheres that bind, would finally be in balance!

Men are shallow as they look at the absolute as only that of a god, but I see that the absolute is of the universe, just because the vision of the absolute was premature, or shuld I say placed in the hands of selfish men, does not mean it's not something worth considering. We are all of one origin, and that origin is the truth, the facts of the reality that is the universe. But you are correct. one is free to pat themselves on their backs all they want, lost in a swirling vortex of an ever increasing complex conceptualization of reality truth and fact, as they make these things concepts, so as to pay them no heed, to declare themselves king, at least in their own minds.

Tell me, are you a big person or a small person? Were you picked on or more of a bully?

Posted: **Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:50 pm**

In my first couple of years in primary school I was picked on quite severely, something which made me extremely isolated in the ensuing couple of years which I spent at a new school. Later on I became variably either excessively extroverted or excessively introverted, I never found a straight path you could say.

I've occasionally made unjust remarks, but never been a picker myself, rather the opposite, since my isolationism made me more independent of crowd consensus, when you know crowds tend to be a bit sheepy with regards to either picking or not picking, they stop thinking about other people and can be both excessively defensive which makes them exploitative and carelessly offensive against individuals which makes them mean.

To note in pure physical terms I've always been a big person, not too tall but generally tall and always fat.

Posted: **Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:56 pm**

How did we get here? Do you 'know?' Or do you just have faith? You may live to 100 if you're lucky. Though it's 'believed' that life started 3.5 billion years ago? So how can you know? YOU CAN'T (PERIOD) But life did start, because here it is. You nor I know the truth, the facts, the reality of it. But obviously they existed, as if not we wouldn't be having this conversation. What ever the 'actual' course of events were, WHAT EVER THEY WERE, they are the TRUTH, they are the FACTS, they are the REALITY of it, despite you or I, NOT KNOWING! Truth, facts and reality are not necessarily known to man. Sorry that you don't like it, but that's the facts, truth and reality of it.

Posted: **Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:57 pm**

The Voice of Time wrote:In my first couple of years in primary school I was picked on quite severely, something which made me extremely isolated in the ensuing couple of years which I spent at a new school. Later on I became variably either excessively extroverted or excessively introverted, I never found a straight path you could say.

I've occasionally made unjust remarks, but never been a picker myself, rather the opposite, since my isolationism made me more independent of crowd consensus, when you know crowds tend to be a bit sheepy with regards to either picking or not picking, they stop thinking about other people and can be both excessively defensive which makes them exploitative and carelessly offensive against individuals which makes them mean.

To note in pure physical terms I've always been a big person, not too tall but generally tall and always fat.

Do you know why I ask?

Posted: **Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:00 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:How did we get here? Do you 'know?' Or do you just have faith? You may live to 100 if you're lucky. Though it's 'believed' that life started 3.5 billion years ago? So how can you know? YOU CAN'T (PERIOD) But life did start, because here it is. You nor I know the truth, the facts, the reality of it. But obviously they existed, as if not we wouldn't be having this conversation. What ever the 'actual' course of events were, WHAT EVER THEY WERE, they are the TRUTH, they are the FACTS, they are the REALITY of it, despite you or I, NOT KNOWING! Truth, facts and reality are not necessarily known to man. Sorry that you don't like it, but that's the facts, truth and reality of it.

uhm... uhm... I have to ask... are you berserking or something?

I just work by what life provides me, whether or not life started 3.5 billion years ago doesn't make much difference to me.

Posted: **Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:01 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Do you know why I ask?

No...

Posted: **Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:17 pm**

The Voice of Time wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Do you know why I ask?
No...

Come on, you got to know where I'm going: over compensation. Often one, as they get older, over compensates, for being slighted when they were young. It's to be expected. They say that the best artists are mentally tormented souls.
You are quite bright and I have a hard time believing that you're only 21. I wonder what has fueled this in you, because by comparison, at 21 I could care less about this kind of stuff. Of course it was a different time, but I'm sure there were people like you during my time. But of course I see these differences as being largely related to our individual experiences, combined with monetary capabilities. Could it have been this isolation that you speak of? A way to count, plus opportunity, so as to fill your time and maybe to show them? I'm thinking probably. I hope you continue in your studies, and graduate college.

Posted: **Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:20 pm**

The Voice of Time wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:How did we get here? Do you 'know?' Or do you just have faith? You may live to 100 if you're lucky. Though it's 'believed' that life started 3.5 billion years ago? So how can you know? YOU CAN'T (PERIOD) But life did start, because here it is. You nor I know the truth, the facts, the reality of it. But obviously they existed, as if not we wouldn't be having this conversation. What ever the 'actual' course of events were, WHAT EVER THEY WERE, they are the TRUTH, they are the FACTS, they are the REALITY of it, despite you or I, NOT KNOWING! Truth, facts and reality are not necessarily known to man. Sorry that you don't like it, but that's the facts, truth and reality of it.
uhm... uhm... I have to ask... are you berserking or something?

I just work by what life provides me, whether or not life started 3.5 billion years ago doesn't make much difference to me.

When am I not berserking?

But my point was, to the truth, fact and reality of things, not your days on planet earth.

Philosophy Now Forum

A slapping of today's traditional thoughts on truth

Re: A slapping of today's traditional thoughts on truth

Re: A slapping of today's traditional thoughts on truth

Re: A slapping of today's traditional thoughts on truth

Re: A slapping of today's traditional thoughts on truth

Re: A slapping of today's traditional thoughts on truth

Re: A slapping of today's traditional thoughts on truth

Re: A slapping of today's traditional thoughts on truth

Re: A slapping of today's traditional thoughts on truth

Re: A slapping of today's traditional thoughts on truth

Re: A slapping of today's traditional thoughts on truth

Re: A slapping of today's traditional thoughts on truth

Re: A slapping of today's traditional thoughts on truth

Re: A slapping of today's traditional thoughts on truth

Re: A slapping of today's traditional thoughts on truth

Re: A slapping of today's traditional thoughts on truth