What do people want from philosophy?

[TimeSeeker]

And what is pragmatic exactly? That really is the problem, considering it in itself is subjective.

Sure. Objectivity is concept invented by subjectivity. Out of pragmatic necessity.

The necessity to survive and co-operate brings upon the necessity to communicate in a uniform manner.
The necessity to communicate in a uniform manner brings upon the necessity to have a uniform description e.g language of reality.

The pursuit of "objective truth" without any clear criteria for success is a religion like any other

[Age]

So do you have a method for distinguishing an assumed truth from an actual truth or not?

Yes.

If it is a truth for moral issues then distinguishing comes from NEED and AGREEMENT.

If it is a truth for any other issue then distinguishing comes just from AGREEMENT.

Now, of course this WILL stir up all the usual and same old supposed "counter" questioning and arguments, which inevitably ends up no where, just like this has for thousands upon thousands of years.

But truly OPEN clarifying questions WILL solve this issue once and for ALL.

So what you are asserting is a quantitative difference rather than a qualitative one. It is one of degree rather than kind. And that there is a continuum between an assumed truth and an actual truth. So one might just as well refer to all of them as assumed truths, with a lesser or greater degree of confidence.

No, not really.

[Age]

And what is pragmatic exactly? That really is the problem, considering it in itself is subjective.

Sure. Objectivity is concept invented by subjectivity. Out of pragmatic necessity.

The necessity to survive and co-operate brings upon the necessity to communicate in a uniform manner.
The necessity to communicate in a uniform manner brings upon the necessity to have a uniform description e.g language of reality.

The pursuit of "objective truth" without any clear criteria for success is a religion like any other

BELIEVE that 'object truth' is impossible, is like any other BELIEF, which all religions base themselves upon.

Without evidence what is the BELIEF being based upon? WHAT is supporting the BELIEF up?

[TimeSeeker]

BELIEVE that 'object truth' is impossible, is like any other BELIEF, which all religions base themselves upon.

Without evidence what is the BELIEF being based upon? WHAT is supporting the BELIEF up?

As promised to point out errors in your reasoning and correct them.

Possible/Impossible is black-and-white thinking. It's a false dichotomy. If you want to get better at communicating - learn to think along a continuum.

Impossible-Possible exist on a continuum. Lets say the scale is from 0 to 10.
0 = Possible
10 = Impossible

Objective truth is at 10. It is IMPOSSIBLE. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get to 8, or 9, or 9.5 or 9.9. Or 9.99999!
Our knowledge will ALWAYS be incomplete. How complete do we want it?

https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience ... fwrong.htm

[Age]

BELIEVE that 'object truth' is impossible, is like any other BELIEF, which all religions base themselves upon.

Without evidence what is the BELIEF being based upon? WHAT is supporting the BELIEF up?

As promised to point out errors in your reasoning and correct them.

You say "as promised" but I did not see you promise it anywhere before.

You might now say; As promised, but as of yet NOT done.

Possible/Impossible is black-and-white thinking. It's a false dichotomy.

Are you now suggesting that possible/impossible is FALSE?

If you want to get better at communicating - learn to think along a continuum.

Impossible-Possible exist on a continuum. Lets say the scale is from 0 to 10.
0 = Possible
10 = Impossible

Objective truth is at 10. It is IMPOSSIBLE. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get to 8, or 9, or 9.5 or 9.9. Or 9.99999!
Our knowledge will ALWAYS be incomplete. How complete do we want it?

Are you a teacher by any chance? You must be a great teacher because I have already learned to think along a continuum, just from this one example you gave here. Thanks for the lesson. I now see what you mean. Let me see if I have this right?

If we look at possible-Impossible existing on a continuum. Let us say the scale is from 0 to 10.
0=Impossible
10=Possible

Objective truth is at 10. It is POSSIBLE. Therefore, blah, blah, blah.

For the observers watching this, and laughing. You are now far more aware of how a person's BELIEF can absolutely twist absolutely any thing around while TRYING TO support its own distorted BELIEF.

The belief-system works in such an insidious way that it is happening within a human being, as evidenced, without them even remotely conscious of it happening. The person just goes along following completely unconsciously of what it is actually doing. The belief-system is in control and the human being is completely unaware of what is happening and what itself is actually doing.

https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience ... fwrong.htm

By continually proving to US with evidence by showing US that you are truly unable to look at and discover things for your self, and thus you just follow along wherever you are being led by others, does not help your case.

You are behaving just like those in the 16th century. You, and them, will NOT look at the actual TRUTH of things because you, and them, are so busy TRYING TO find things that will support your own distorting thinking and BELIEFS. You BELIEVE you already KNOW what is RIGHT because every thing you read and listen to tells you that you are RIGHT. You are unable to look at and SEE things for your self. You will for example, like them, keep insisting the the sun revolves the earth because IT IS TRUE.

You would, like you are doing now, keep providing ALL this written "evidence" from others because you are unable to prove any thing for your self, you will find and show so called "evidence" that the sun revolves around the earth IS RIGHT. The more "evidence" you look for, for this FALSE BELIEF and the more you THINK you "find" from other people, then the more you are satisfied that you are actually RIGHT. It would be impossible for the earth to revolve the sun you would insist. You BELIEVE you are RIGHT because at that period of time that is all you have been taught, and thus that is ALL you could have learned. To you, EVERYONE agrees with you, and, therefore any one or any thing that comes along and says actually the opposite is actual TRUE could NOT be possibly be true, to you. To you, It would be an IMPOSSIBILITY. Any view, any perspective, any thing that was opposing YOUR BELIEF, that was being shown to you, you would be incapable of look at and SEEING it. Within you is the self-talk, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. This WRONG and DISTORTED self-talk would be rendering you incapable of seeing the TRUTH.

Although you are incapable of seeing it yet, every behavior you do that is coming from a FALSE self-BELIEF is obvious, to Me.

[TimeSeeker]

Are you now suggesting that possible/impossible is FALSE?

No. I am suggesting that they are not mutually exclusive options. It is a false dichotomy. There are many alternatives in between "possible" and "impossible". Possible but very hard, possible but very expensive. Possible and easy but very crude. Possible in the near future but not today.

Objective truth is at 10. It is POSSIBLE. Therefore, blah, blah, blah.

OK. I am telling you how I think. I think it's better than the way you think. Take it or leave it.

For the observers watching this, and laughing. You are now far more aware of how a person's BELIEF can absolutely twist absolutely any thing around while TRYING TO support its own distorted BELIEF.

You assumed I wasn't aware. What you say is not new information to me.

The belief-system works in such an insidious way that it is happening within a human being, as evidenced, without them even remotely conscious of it happening. The person just goes along following completely unconsciously of what it is actually doing. The belief-system is in control and the human being is completely unaware of what is happening and what itself is actually doing.

Except I am conscious and aware of it. Which is why I am pointing out problems in your thinking.

By continually proving to US with evidence by showing US that you are truly unable to look at and discover things for your self, and thus you just follow along wherever you are being led by others, does not help your case.

OK, when why have you not DISCOVERED yet that your thinking is far too primitive? Why do you need me to point it out to you? Just apply it then and think along a continuum.

You are behaving just like those in the 16th century. You, and them, will NOT look at the actual TRUTH of things because you, and them, are so busy TRYING TO find things that will support your own distorting thinking and BELIEFS. You BELIEVE you already KNOW what is RIGHT because every thing you read and listen to tells you that you are RIGHT. You are unable to look at and SEE things for your self. You will for example, like them, keep insisting the the sun revolves the earth because IT IS TRUE.

Strawman.

Although you are incapable of seeing it yet, every behavior you do that is coming from a FALSE self-BELIEF is obvious, to Me.

Pretty ironic. The fact that you are no older than 25 is obvious to me. And if I am wrong, then you have an even more serious problem to worry about

[A_Seagull]

Yes.

If it is a truth for moral issues then distinguishing comes from NEED and AGREEMENT.

If it is a truth for any other issue then distinguishing comes just from AGREEMENT.

Now, of course this WILL stir up all the usual and same old supposed "counter" questioning and arguments, which inevitably ends up no where, just like this has for thousands upon thousands of years.

But truly OPEN clarifying questions WILL solve this issue once and for ALL.

So what you are asserting is a quantitative difference rather than a qualitative one. It is one of degree rather than kind. And that there is a continuum between an assumed truth and an actual truth. So one might just as well refer to all of them as assumed truths, with a lesser or greater degree of confidence.

No, not really.

Yes, really!

[Age]

Are you now suggesting that possible/impossible is FALSE?

No. I am suggesting that they are not mutually exclusive options. It is a false dichotomy. There are many alternatives in between "possible" and "impossible". Possible but very hard, possible but very expensive. Possible and easy but very crude. Possible in the near future but not today.

Objective truth is at 10. It is POSSIBLE. Therefore, blah, blah, blah.

OK. I am telling you how I think. I think it's better than the way you think. Take it or leave it.

For the observers watching this, and laughing. You are now far more aware of how a person's BELIEF can absolutely twist absolutely any thing around while TRYING TO support its own distorted BELIEF.

You assumed I wasn't aware. What you say is not new information to me.

The belief-system works in such an insidious way that it is happening within a human being, as evidenced, without them even remotely conscious of it happening. The person just goes along following completely unconsciously of what it is actually doing. The belief-system is in control and the human being is completely unaware of what is happening and what itself is actually doing.

Except I am conscious and aware of it. Which is why I am pointing out problems in your thinking.

By continually proving to US with evidence by showing US that you are truly unable to look at and discover things for your self, and thus you just follow along wherever you are being led by others, does not help your case.

OK, when why have you not DISCOVERED yet that your thinking is far too primitive? Why do you need me to point it out to you? Just apply it then and think along a continuum.

You are behaving just like those in the 16th century. You, and them, will NOT look at the actual TRUTH of things because you, and them, are so busy TRYING TO find things that will support your own distorting thinking and BELIEFS. You BELIEVE you already KNOW what is RIGHT because every thing you read and listen to tells you that you are RIGHT. You are unable to look at and SEE things for your self. You will for example, like them, keep insisting the the sun revolves the earth because IT IS TRUE.

Strawman.

Although you are incapable of seeing it yet, every behavior you do that is coming from a FALSE self-BELIEF is obvious, to Me.

Pretty ironic. The fact that you are no older than 25 is obvious to me. And if I am wrong, then you have an even more serious problem to worry about

WHAT "serious problem" is that?

[TimeSeeker]

Are you now suggesting that possible/impossible is FALSE?

No. I am suggesting that they are not mutually exclusive options. It is a false dichotomy. There are many alternatives in between "possible" and "impossible". Possible but very hard, possible but very expensive. Possible and easy but very crude. Possible in the near future but not today.

Objective truth is at 10. It is POSSIBLE. Therefore, blah, blah, blah.

OK. I am telling you how I think. I think it's better than the way you think. Take it or leave it.

For the observers watching this, and laughing. You are now far more aware of how a person's BELIEF can absolutely twist absolutely any thing around while TRYING TO support its own distorted BELIEF.

You assumed I wasn't aware. What you say is not new information to me.

The belief-system works in such an insidious way that it is happening within a human being, as evidenced, without them even remotely conscious of it happening. The person just goes along following completely unconsciously of what it is actually doing. The belief-system is in control and the human being is completely unaware of what is happening and what itself is actually doing.

Except I am conscious and aware of it. Which is why I am pointing out problems in your thinking.

By continually proving to US with evidence by showing US that you are truly unable to look at and discover things for your self, and thus you just follow along wherever you are being led by others, does not help your case.

OK, when why have you not DISCOVERED yet that your thinking is far too primitive? Why do you need me to point it out to you? Just apply it then and think along a continuum.

You are behaving just like those in the 16th century. You, and them, will NOT look at the actual TRUTH of things because you, and them, are so busy TRYING TO find things that will support your own distorting thinking and BELIEFS. You BELIEVE you already KNOW what is RIGHT because every thing you read and listen to tells you that you are RIGHT. You are unable to look at and SEE things for your self. You will for example, like them, keep insisting the the sun revolves the earth because IT IS TRUE.

Strawman.

Although you are incapable of seeing it yet, every behavior you do that is coming from a FALSE self-BELIEF is obvious, to Me.

Pretty ironic. The fact that you are no older than 25 is obvious to me. And if I am wrong, then you have an even more serious problem to worry about

WHAT "serious problem" is that?

If you are older than 25 and you are only asking these questions now, and making these discoveries now (which are common sense to a lot of people that age) then you are a little behind the curve.

[Eodnhoj7]

And what is pragmatic exactly? That really is the problem, considering it in itself is subjective.

Sure. Objectivity is concept invented by subjectivity. Out of pragmatic necessity.

The necessity to survive and co-operate brings upon the necessity to communicate in a uniform manner.
The necessity to communicate in a uniform manner brings upon the necessity to have a uniform description e.g language of reality.

The pursuit of "objective truth" without any clear criteria for success is a religion like any other

That really lends to the question: What is objectivity in the face of a dying society?

[Age]

Pretty ironic. The fact that you are no older than 25 is obvious to me. And if I am wrong, then you have an even more serious problem to worry about

WHAT "serious problem" is that?

If you are older than 25 and you are only asking these questions now, and making these discoveries now (which are common sense to a lot of people that age) then you are a little behind the curve.

But that is NOT a problem at all.


What is a problem though is; HOW can some thing be OBVIOUS as well as also COULD be WRONG?

[TimeSeeker]

But that is NOT a problem at all.

OK

What is a problem though is; HOW can some thing be OBVIOUS as well as also COULD be WRONG?

So fix it. If it's so easy/obvious.

[Age]

But that is NOT a problem at all.

OK

What is a problem though is; HOW can some thing be OBVIOUS as well as also COULD be WRONG?

So fix it. If it's so easy/obvious.

Hang on!

I ask you a simple clarifying question, from a completely OPEN viewpoint, and you respond back like this. WHY?

Now I have to ask you more simple clarifying questions; Fix what exactly? What is 'it' that you are referring to in relation to "easy" and "obvious".

You are the one who said some thing is obvious but it could we be wrong. I was just clarifying how some thing to you can be obvious but also be wrong at the same time? Does not the word 'obvious' mean more or less that WHATEVER is obvious could NOT be wrong?

[Eodnhoj7]

But that is NOT a problem at all.

OK

What is a problem though is; HOW can some thing be OBVIOUS as well as also COULD be WRONG?

So fix it. If it's so easy/obvious.

Hang on!

I ask you a simple clarifying question, from a completely OPEN viewpoint, and you respond back like this. WHY?

Now I have to ask you more simple clarifying questions; Fix what exactly? What is 'it' that you are referring to in relation to "easy" and "obvious".

You are the one who said some thing is obvious but it could we be wrong. I was just clarifying how some thing to you can be obvious but also be wrong at the same time? Does not the word 'obvious' mean more or less that WHATEVER is obvious could NOT be wrong?

Something can be both true and false (obvious) at the same time as the "truth/falsity" paradigm are duals which exist at the "same time but different respects".

I may look at a tree and see it for what it exists. This is obvious. What is not obvious is movement through time and materiality which led to its creation and destruction as these "things" cannot be observed in and of themselves.

When one "localizes" a truth, one sees the "locality" as true but incomplete in itself.

Obviousness is simplicity, in one manner or another, which gives a foundation to complexity.

[Age]

OK


So fix it. If it's so easy/obvious.

Hang on!

I ask you a simple clarifying question, from a completely OPEN viewpoint, and you respond back like this. WHY?

Now I have to ask you more simple clarifying questions; Fix what exactly? What is 'it' that you are referring to in relation to "easy" and "obvious".

You are the one who said some thing is obvious but it could we be wrong. I was just clarifying how some thing to you can be obvious but also be wrong at the same time? Does not the word 'obvious' mean more or less that WHATEVER is obvious could NOT be wrong?

Something can be both true and false (obvious) at the same time as the "truth/falsity" paradigm are duals which exist at the "same time but different respects".

I may look at a tree and see it for what it exists. This is obvious. What is not obvious is movement through time and materiality which led to its creation and destruction as these "things" cannot be observed in and of themselves.

When one "localizes" a truth, one sees the "locality" as true but incomplete in itself.

Obviousness is simplicity, in one manner or another, which gives a foundation to complexity.

BUT none of that is on topic. All of that is fair and good from A perspective but I asked a question in relation to what was specifically written down. I asked to clarify in regards to what that person wrote, which was; The fact that you are no older than 25 is obvious to me. And if I am wrong,

How can an obvious FACT that is obvious to A PERSON have the possibility of being WRONG to that EXACT SAME PERSON, also?

We are NOT talking about a thing moving through "time" and "materiality". What my question was in regard to is THAT very remark that was made, and which is supposedly an obvious FACT to them but which they also admit COULD be WRONG. Very contradictory statement to make, from My perspective.