Philosophy Now Forum

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Am I sensing anger and frustration, or is it just me?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Am I sensing anger and frustration, or is it just me?

lancek4 wrote:Its just you. I am agreeing that sometimes it seems without the other contextual indicators of face to face human communication that posts convey unintended meanings as subtext that were not intended.
And I understand how such posts can be ambiguous.
I am fine and I hope aside from what direct rebuttal might arouse, that you are likewise. That iether of us do not tend to gather thenecessity for the type of sting that Chaz sometimes feels necessary.
Sometimes I play with this leeway but not our conversation here.

And I don't really get emotionally affected by the forum. I see what might offend me as silly.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Am I sensing anger and frustration, or is it just me?

lancek4 wrote:Its just you. I am agreeing that sometimes it seems without the other contextual indicators of face to face human communication that posts convey unintended meanings as subtext that were not intended.
And I understand how such posts can be ambiguous.
I am fine and I hope aside from what direct rebuttal might arouse, that you are likewise. That iether of us do not tend to gather thenecessity for the type of sting that Chaz sometimes feels necessary.
Sometimes I play with this leeway but not our conversation here.

And I don't really get emotionally affected by the forum. I see what might offend me as silly.

Great, I agree!

I honestly was referring to human kind as a whole, because I believe that the viewpoint you expressed is in majority which is what I see as one of human kinds main problems.

I apologize because I'm not as emotionally centered as you would seem to be. And I have allowed my perception of your words in this limited textual forum to raise doubt of your honest intentions. Like I've insinuated, if only we were more intellect and less emotion.
I shall try and remain emotionally unattached for the duration of our exploration.

lancek4 wrote:I do not believe () that I have misconstrewed what you said. Partly,yes, the textualizing thing sometimes gets in th way. But on the whole our definition is pretty clear- and your posts likewise.
Mine is simply this, and I wonder how u could misconstue it:
I will deconstruct the following piece by piece.
if there is an Absolute truth, how do you know ?
I know simply because, what ever the truth of the particular sequence of events of the universe that gave way to the birth of humanity, they were absolutely true. (Of course our existence could be said to be relative to any particular sequence, but we are talking about the actual sequence that gave way to humans.) They actually existed, happened, were of a particular sequence. No human was around to 'know' of these absolute truths, but that does not negate their existence. Truthfully, at that time, falsehoods did not exist, because falsehoods are generated via the truth testing of all rival beliefs of a particular objective which would seem to give way to human knowledge. Absolute truth is all there was, prior to humans.
You seem to use your knowledge to argue that your knowledge is True.
Anything believed to be knowledge should always be questioned as in keeping with Socrates: "I only know that I know nothing." Because in truth you don't know what you don't know. Assuming there are five questions that give way to a particular bit of knowledge and you only know four, you are not aware of the fifth when you make you assessment, is it true? Obviously, everyone utilizes knowledge, belief and truth testing to generate new knowledge.
You say its obvious that the universe is such a way and use scientific 'proofs' to back it up. I understand these proofss; I ask how can I know These?
Again, it's Belief+Knowledge+Truth testing+Time=Knowing (keeping in mind Socrates statement above.) So never stop asking questions! Question everything!
For it seems our reliance upon them as Absolute, by an implicit extrapolation for them allows us purchase for what we argue.
I shall have to translate this one. (let me know If I'm incorrect in my attempt)
'it seems our reliance upon them as Absolute is because of an unquestioned estimate, which allows us to buy into our argument.' If this is correct, assuming 'our' argument is one in the same, I do not believe that my assertion that absolute truth is all that existed prior to humans, and that falsehood was born of humans, is unquestioned or an estimate! I believe the facts (truths) bear this out.

I can also interpret this as query of the nature of mind with respect to consciousness and thoughts. And I couldn't tell you. Do we 'know' or do we 'believe'? You yourself have alluded to the combination of chance and divine causation. If true couldn't that be part of the equation? Is there something manifest of mind that gives way to this 'knowing'? Could we possibly have a 6th sense that is developing? Darwin might think so. Now I usually chalk these things up to coincidence. But on 'numerous' occasions I've received telecommunication by someone close, with query of exactly that which I had been currently thinking. And they were not necessarily shared topics of recent consideration. Now my rational mind keeps saying coincidence, but is it? It's happened 'quite' a lot. The problems we are facing considering truth are most probably hindered by ignorance of the nature of mind. It may be true that the reason we have ignorance on both fronts is because they are metaphysically related such that they can 'only' come simultaneously. Oneness is quite probable. But this ideology does not necessarily give way to the bearing of truthfulness, of any particular human thought.

I do not necessarily attest to any of the previous Run-On Paragraph, I only reason potential.

Clear?

And so I say: such an extrpolation likewise is not Absolutly true, it is relative. So I say 'somehow' I still think there is an Absoluute that is not relative. And: what is this? How can this be so?
Actually, it is only to say that the object of the extrapolation is not 'necessarily' absolute truth, but it may be.
Sure, I believe that to state that there is actual absolute truth with certainty is easy by considering actual existence without human interpretation (the universes state, predating humans). But for humans to certify that any particular thing is absolutely true is where it gets difficult, because that requires proof. How was it that Einstein came to his mass-energy equation? First I believe he was gifted. He had to have initially 'believed' that an absolutely truthful equation existed; such that he continually tested various permutations against proofs until such time that it became that absolutely true equation. (trial and error). It came in the time that it did, because it was time (It came in its own time). Such shall be the ultimate truth, but I don't believe that, we'll see it.
I'm sure you'll let me know if you think I screwed up

lancek4 wrote:SOb that is a very tight synopsis and explanation.
I like it. But the extrapolation that ' might be' appears not absolute. I do like what you have said here, but it still puts the 'absolute' under the 'we just dont know' qualification. It appears that what we might rely upon is a caculated hope that we are correct, and that this, taken as a whole of what we know now, is what is amounting to what you claim is 'the absolute truth'. That the totality of what we know is 'absolutely' all we know, and this is the Truth

I suppose then I ask: what is or is there 'progress'? Because such hope must then extrapolate its truth into what we might find that will confirm or deny in such a way that we will come to know 'more' of that totality which seems suspended in the time of the past and future to qualify this present 'absolute-ness'

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:SOb that is a very tight synopsis and explanation.
I like it. But the extrapolation that ' might be' appears not absolute. I do like what you have said here, but it still puts the 'absolute' under the 'we just dont know' qualification. It appears that what we might rely upon is a caculated hope that we are correct, and that this, taken as a whole of what we know now, is what is amounting to what you claim is 'the absolute truth'. That the totality of what we know is 'absolutely' all we know, and this is the Truth

I suppose then I ask: what is or is there 'progress'? Because such hope must then extrapolate its truth into what we might find that will confirm or deny in such a way that we will come to know 'more' of that totality which seems suspended in the time of the past and future to qualify this present 'absolute-ness'

Look Lancek4, you've been putting me on the spot for quite some time. If you do not agree that all that existed prior to humans was absolute truth and that falsehood was born of humans then how do you see it?.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:If you do not agree that all that existed prior to humans was absolute truth and that falsehood was born of humans then how do you see it?.

Mark Question wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:If you do not agree that all that existed prior to humans was absolute truth and that falsehood was born of humans then how do you see it?.

to make false assumptions or decisions is not humans privilege. many butterflies have eyes on the back. big eyes! (O_O) scaring stupid predators away. flying safely straight to the carnivorous plant like a happy meal. and do you mean that before humans or any other stupid life form on earth, there was only true beliefs among those who were not there yet?

Mark Question wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:If you do not agree that all that existed prior to humans was absolute truth and that falsehood was born of humans then how do you see it?.

to make false assumptions or decisions is not humans privilege.
It's funny that you should say this, because we've done it since the beginning of our time, and it would seem that we shall continue, unknowingly affecting, the end of our time.
many butterflies have eyes on the back. big eyes! (O_O) scaring stupid predators away. flying safely straight to the carnivorous plant like a happy meal.
You and I shall die my friend, by what ever means, we shall die!
and do you mean that before humans or any other stupid life form on earth, there was only true beliefs among those who were not there yet?
There were no beliefs at all, as beliefs were born of humans.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Mark Question wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:If you do not agree that all that existed prior to humans was absolute truth and that falsehood was born of humans then how do you see it?.

to make false assumptions or decisions is not humans privilege.
It's funny that you should say this, because we've done it since the beginning of our time, and it would seem that we shall continue, unknowingly affecting, the end of our time.
many butterflies have eyes on the back. big eyes! (O_O) scaring stupid predators away. flying safely straight to the carnivorous plant like a happy meal.
You and I shall die my friend, by what ever means, we shall die!
and do you mean that before humans or any other stupid life form on earth, there was only true beliefs among those who were not there yet?
There were no beliefs at all, as beliefs were born of humans.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:If you do not agree that all that existed prior to humans was absolute truth and that falsehood was born of humans then how do you see it?.

Mark Question wrote:quote="SpheresOfBalance" in blue
to make false assumptions or decisions is not humans privilege.
It's funny that you should say this, because we've done it since the beginning of our time, and it would seem that we shall continue, unknowingly affecting, the end of our time.
many butterflies have eyes on the back. big eyes! (O_O) scaring stupid predators away. flying safely straight to the carnivorous plant like a happy meal.
You and I shall die my friend, by what ever means, we shall die!
and do you mean that before humans or any other stupid life form on earth, there was only true beliefs among those who were not there yet?
There were no beliefs at all, as beliefs were born of humans.

lancek4 wrote:I think the point MQ was trying to make - or at least what I got from it - is that the eyes on the butterfys wings are no different than the effects of consciousness. (Maybe my term here is off: the effects are thought and such ).

So, I reason, if this is the case, then such 'incorrect assumptions' of humans are also part of the 'correct' "absuolute".