Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2016 5:07 am**

yiostheoy wrote:
ken wrote:
yiostheoy wrote: It helps to do a complete survey of what it out there before you decide on what to embrace yourself.

That's basically my decision model for everything.
The "complete" word needs to emphasized here. I wonder how much of everything you have actually completed before you decided what to embrace?
yiostheoy wrote:Empiricism is great because it makes the most sense.
I think you meant to write, "Empiricism is great to me because it makes the most sense to me.

An empiricist is just as stupid as a relativist. Any person that calls themselves a word, which they really are not, is a person who is not able to learn and understand more. Instead of choosing a model to embrace yourself on, why not just be yourself?
Strange comments. Strange red herrings as well.

Stranger comments, in that you are not alluding towards anything. I have no idea what you are talking about. Nor are you answering my questions. Are you just trying to ignore the questions or are you not able to answer them?

I was just emphasizing in red that what you say is great and makes the most sense, is great and makes the most sense only to you. Obviously empiricism is NOT great NOR does it makes the most sense to other people. You cannot legitimately speak for others. You can only speak for yourself. Therefore you should have written it the way I wrote it.

With more information of where the red herrings are and what and how the strange comments are. I could then enlighten you further, well at least try to. I do not want to guess what you are confused about so I will wait till you tell me what you find strange.

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2016 7:36 am**

ken wrote:...Obviously empiricism is NOT great NOR does it makes the most sense to other people. You cannot legitimately speak for others. You can only speak for yourself. Therefore you should have written it the way I wrote it.

With more information of where the red herrings are and what and how the strange comments are. I could then enlighten you further, well at least try to. I do not want to guess what you are confused about so I will wait till you tell me what you find strange.

Well it should be easy to pick out your own red herrings. Those are statements you made out of the blue.

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2016 11:15 am**

yiostheoy wrote:
ken wrote:...Obviously empiricism is NOT great NOR does it makes the most sense to other people. You cannot legitimately speak for others. You can only speak for yourself. Therefore you should have written it the way I wrote it.

With more information of where the red herrings are and what and how the strange comments are. I could then enlighten you further, well at least try to. I do not want to guess what you are confused about so I will wait till you tell me what you find strange.
Well it should be easy to pick out your own red herrings. Those are statements you made out of the blue.

But I did not make any statements out of the blue. It has now become obvious that you do not want to answer any questions nor clarify anything you write.

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2016 2:28 pm**

ken wrote:
yiostheoy wrote:
ken wrote:...Obviously empiricism is NOT great NOR does it makes the most sense to other people. You cannot legitimately speak for others. You can only speak for yourself. Therefore you should have written it the way I wrote it.

With more information of where the red herrings are and what and how the strange comments are. I could then enlighten you further, well at least try to. I do not want to guess what you are confused about so I will wait till you tell me what you find strange.
Well it should be easy to pick out your own red herrings. Those are statements you made out of the blue.
But I did not make any statements out of the blue. It has now become obvious that you do not want to answer any questions nor clarify anything you write.

It is hard for people to find their own mistakes but it is a good mental exercise.

Go back and read what you said, then go back and read what I said, and they you should be able to find your mistakes -- the red herrings.

You may need to wait a few days so that your review of your though process can proceed as a "cold review".

This exercise will teach you how to clean up your work before you submit it.

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2016 2:31 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote: For the wise, Truth is self evident, and supports all things equally! Yes, even relativists!

Truth is never self evident.

It takes a lot of analysis and careful thought.

The a-priori level of proof defines what is self evident.

Then the a-posterior level of proof must proceed analytically from there with induction or deduction.

Induction is never completely safe.

Deduction is never always applicable.

I'm pretty sure you know that already.

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2016 2:34 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Ken you're not understanding my rant.

Parts of your rant I understand. The other less informative, off track parts I find difficult to follow and understand. But not to worry. You will share that information if you want to.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Because I'm relatively old, much of my rants contain, (between the lines), truths that I believe to be self evident, (so I leave them out), if someone misses those, they often miss the entire thing.

How do you expect us to not miss, what you leave out? I, for one, have no idea whatsoever what the truths that you believe to be self evident if you do not tell me firstly. It helps us all if you put in the things you believe to be self evident, then we can grasp better what it is that you are saying and talking about exactly.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: I believe that universally, there is no such thing as relative truth. Those things which people call relative truth's are actually falsehoods, not containing truth whatsoever. Understand?

I understand that what you say is you believe that universally there is no such thing as relative truth. And, you also believe those things which people call relative truths are actually falsehoods, which do not contain truth whatsoever. So yes I understand that is what you believe, however, in one sentence you say there is no such thing as relative truth, but then you say in the next sentence those things that people call relative truths are actually falsehoods, which contain no truth whatsoever.
Firstly, is there relative truth or not?
Secondly, would not falsehoods just be, falsehoods? Why do you call falsehoods "those things which people call relative truths"?
Thirdly, on looking, 'relative truth' has a few differing definitions. Maybe you could explain what you mean when you write relative truth?
Fourthly, why do say that universally there is no such thing as relative truth? Are you thinking that if you use the word universally, then that somehow makes "it", whatever words come next, absolute truth?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:We have to make a distinction here. There are things that "are" universal to all people, then there are things that "can be" relative to all people.

If there are things that are universal to all people, then that would, in of itself, suggest that not just all people could but all people would be in agreement.

What exactly are the things that "are" universal to all people?

And, what exactly are the things that "can be" relative to all people?

SpheresOfBalance wrote: In terms of vegetables, it might be true that kale tastes best to you and zucchini tastes best to me, but it's a falsehood to say that either kale or zucchini tastes best.

To me it would not just be a falsehood to say that but also an extremely foolhardy and stupid thing to say. I don't like to talk like that and wonder why people still talk like that, especially after I explain to them why it is wrong to talk like that and after I have provided them with far better, more truthful ways to express themselves.

It may be a falsehood to say that either kale or zucchini tastes best, but it certainly is not a falsehood for me to say that either kale or zucchini tastes better than the other, to me.

I am just expressing myself, truthfully. There is no falsehood here whatsoever. Is this a universal, absolute truth? It is after all only a relative and subjective truth to me. So is this a relative truth or a universal truth, to you, or something different?

SpheresOfBalance wrote: A lot of young men might argue over which band is best, their 'preference' just can't be true universally.

Obviously.

In fact, is there anything that can be "best"? Best to what exactly and in who's view is it best, needs to be taken into account.

If any person tries to argue what they believe is right and others do not agree, then it (whatever it is) is actually not worth arguing about. Either an argument is sound and valid, i.e., a fact that is unambiguous and could not be disputed, and thus this type of argument could not be disagreed with, therefore it could be agreed with by all. Or, an argument is unsound and/or invalid, i.e., a statement that is only partly true or not true at all, and thus this type of argument will obviously not be agreed with by all.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Those types of truths, philosophically, really don't matter.

This is where I find your language somewhat confusing. In some of yours sentences you say relative truths do not exist, but then you continue on saying that those types of truths, i.e., relative truths, really do not matter. Which one is it going to be? Relative truths exist or not? Either something exists or it does not exist. Please pick one and stick to it. If something exists, then it can or can not matter, but if something does not exist, then it does not exist and so is not worthy of talking about, philosophically.

You have also alluded to "Those types of truths" are in fact falsehoods. But I struggle with how you can see a (type of) truth as a falsehood also. If a truth is a truth, then it is not a falsehood, right?

SpheresOfBalance wrote: The truths I'm always speaking of, are of the universal type! They are really the only ones important to philosophy.

Could you please provide some examples of those truths that really are the only important ones to philosophy for me here? I will see if my formula for universal truth works or not.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Everyone knows, I'm sure, that personal preference for something is often relative amongst people, it's subjective.

And is that not what is sometimes referred to as relative truth? Again, what is your definition of relative truth?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Universally, I'm an empiricist.

Again you use the word 'universally' here. What is the purpose of this please?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I was referring to universal truths. I kind of went off due to things in my life that defy the universal, a means of releasing steam. Which I hope was apparent.

Again I will say, to me both relative truth and universal truth exist. And, what is subjective or relative to ALL of us, i.e., everyone, is a truth that can not be disputed, therefore it can also be a universal truth.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:See immediately above. Here, in this philosophy forum, I'm only ever referencing universal truths.

None of this answers any of my questions.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Universal truths are.

You did not finish your sentence. I am unsure what you mean by universal truths are...

SpheresOfBalance wrote: You sound like a very level headed and patient person, good for you!

Does that mean you will or will not provide your definition of relative truth?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Here I refer to the actual universe; that which bore us, and that which ends us, at least this particular form.

If you are saying the universal rule is the actual universe, then I can not disagree with that.

I do wonder now, however, how could a universe have a different form?

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2016 3:05 pm**

yiostheoy wrote:
ken wrote:
yiostheoy wrote: Well it should be easy to pick out your own red herrings. Those are statements you made out of the blue.
But I did not make any statements out of the blue. It has now become obvious that you do not want to answer any questions nor clarify anything you write.
It is hard for people to find their own mistakes but it is a good mental exercise.

Go back and read what you said, then go back and read what I said, and they you should be able to find your mistakes -- the red herrings.

You may need to wait a few days so that your review of your though process can proceed as a "cold review".

This exercise will teach you how to clean up your work before you submit it.

This would be one of the most arrogant responses I have ever read.

You have not yet provided any answers to any of my clarifying questions. If you unable to clarify what you believe, then just say you can't do it. I will and do understand.

You have made allegations, without providing any evidence nor proof.

You write as if some things are extremely obvious but will not even allude to what you say is obvious. Even when asked politely for more information.

Why do you not just point out what you allege is my unclean work.

Telling me to leave it for a few days to me is just your way of hoping I will stop asking you simple clarifying questions that you are unable to answer.

I have gone back and reread what I have written and what you have written. Again why not just point out what you call "red hearings" if they are so obvious to you. I can not find them. I have already told you I have not written anything "out of the blue". Everything I have written is for a purpose, so there is no mistake on my behalf. If you are unable to point out anything for me, then I will just wait to see if any other person can see my so called "mistakes".

Hey, why not point out what you call red herrings and my mistakes so that others can see them also for what they are. That way you can truly get people on "your side". Without proof writing the way you are here is not making you look more superior. In fact it is making you look less intelligent.

On the point of red herrings, you will have to point out how you define 'red herrings'. That might make it easier for someone like me to make a review of my thought process.

It is amazing how easily some people can see fault in others thought process but never in their own. Why do you not just show me my alleged mistakes. If you do not do it this time I will put it down to you not actually being able to find them.

I suggest a good mental exercise for you is in honesty. Just look at what you are actually doing.

You say some things are not true, but you will not provide any contrary evidence. You will not answer any questions regarding your views at all. You submit allegations about what people do but you are unable to provide any proof of it.

All the signs of a good philosopher, not.

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2016 3:24 pm**

yiostheoy wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote: For the wise, Truth is self evident, and supports all things equally! Yes, even relativists!
Truth is never self evident.

Are you sure 'truth is never self evident'? Are you going to provide some evidence of what you say, this time?

Or are you again going to just say, "That is not right", whilst not providing any contrary evidence?

You say truth is never...., But are you able to, and are you going to, say what truth is always?

Please use your own advice, which you gave me on my second only post after my introduction. When providing your definition of what truth always is...

"You should always keep your definitions short and sweet. They should not turn into rants like the above.

Try Occam's Razor.

All unexpressed hypotheses and all expressed statements are either completely true or partially true or untrue.

If a hypothesis or statement corresponds with reality then it is true or partly true.

If not then it is false.

See -- 3 simply sentences forming one syllogism. Not a long, long rant."

You seem to think 3 simple sentences is all it takes.

I wait your respone

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2016 3:51 pm**

Dontaskme wrote: Therefore it's neither true nor false...obviously.

When you have figured out what you mean by that "it's" in the previous sentence; get back to me.

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2016 9:16 pm**

yiostheoy wrote:
There are some people who believe truth is relative and subjective. These are now called relativists

Others believe truth is absolute and objective. These are now called empiricists. They ll never agree

They should for it can be either although I only regard absolute or objective truth as the actual truth

Posted: **Sun Jun 19, 2016 9:58 pm**

...a statement of probability.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2016 6:10 pm**

yiostheoy wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote: For the wise, Truth is self evident, and supports all things equally! Yes, even relativists!
Truth is never self evident.
Incorrect, truths are self evident to those that are educated! If I placed someones head fully centered in a hydraulic press made of inconel that can achieve 15,000 PSI, which closes completely to within a half thousandth of an inch (.0005"), where the surface area of the two opposing flat plates are 1 square foot, and close it completely, they shall certainly die, instantly. The truth that they shall certainly die instantly, is one hundred percent self evident! And I wouldn't have to tell them with words at all. All I'd have to do was have them witness me first using a watermelon, then place their head in the device. Believe me, to an actual conscious human, fully equipped with all the human senses, it would be self evident. It doesn't matter that others are not aware of what that jargon means. Ignorance has no bearing on somethings truth factor, however it does bear upon self evidence.

It takes a lot of analysis and careful thought.

The a-priori level of proof defines what is self evident.
There is no such thing as a-priori knowledge. All knowledge is a-posteriori.

Then the a-posterior level of proof must proceed analytically from there with induction or deduction.

Induction is never completely safe.

Deduction is never always applicable.

I'm pretty sure you know that already.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2016 7:01 pm**

SpheresOfBalance wrote: There is no such thing as a-priori knowledge. All knowledge is a-posteriori.

]

Wrong there is no such thing as a priori 'evidence'.
But a priori knowledge is things know from deduction rather than observation; by definition

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2016 7:17 pm**

ken wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Ken you're not understanding my rant.

Parts of your rant I understand. The other less informative, off track parts I find difficult to follow and understand. But not to worry. You will share that information if you want to.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Because I'm relatively old, much of my rants contain, (between the lines), truths that I believe to be self evident, (so I leave them out), if someone misses those, they often miss the entire thing.

How do you expect us to not miss, what you leave out? I, for one, have no idea whatsoever what the truths that you believe to be self evident if you do not tell me firstly. It helps us all if you put in the things you believe to be self evident, then we can grasp better what it is that you are saying and talking about exactly.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: I believe that universally, there is no such thing as relative truth. Those things which people call relative truth's are actually falsehoods, not containing truth whatsoever. Understand?
I understand that what you say is you believe that universally there is no such thing as relative truth. And, you also believe those things which people call relative truths are actually falsehoods, which do not contain truth whatsoever. So yes I understand that is what you believe, however, in one sentence you say there is no such thing as relative truth, but then you say in the next sentence those things that people call relative truths are actually falsehoods, which contain no truth whatsoever.
Firstly, is there relative truth or not?
Secondly, would not falsehoods just be, falsehoods? Why do you call falsehoods "those things which people call relative truths"?
Thirdly, on looking, 'relative truth' has a few differing definitions. Maybe you could explain what you mean when you write relative truth?
Fourthly, why do say that universally there is no such thing as relative truth? Are you thinking that if you use the word universally, then that somehow makes "it", whatever words come next, absolute truth?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:We have to make a distinction here. There are things that "are" universal to all people, then there are things that "can be" relative to all people.

If there are things that are universal to all people, then that would, in of itself, suggest that not just all people could but all people would be in agreement.

What exactly are the things that "are" universal to all people?

And, what exactly are the things that "can be" relative to all people?

SpheresOfBalance wrote: In terms of vegetables, it might be true that kale tastes best to you and zucchini tastes best to me, but it's a falsehood to say that either kale or zucchini tastes best.

To me it would not just be a falsehood to say that but also an extremely foolhardy and stupid thing to say. I don't like to talk like that and wonder why people still talk like that, especially after I explain to them why it is wrong to talk like that and after I have provided them with far better, more truthful ways to express themselves.

It may be a falsehood to say that either kale or zucchini tastes best, but it certainly is not a falsehood for me to say that either kale or zucchini tastes better than the other, to me.

I am just expressing myself, truthfully. There is no falsehood here whatsoever. Is this a universal, absolute truth? It is after all only a relative and subjective truth to me. So is this a relative truth or a universal truth, to you, or something different?

SpheresOfBalance wrote: A lot of young men might argue over which band is best, their 'preference' just can't be true universally.

Obviously.

In fact, is there anything that can be "best"? Best to what exactly and in who's view is it best, needs to be taken into account.

If any person tries to argue what they believe is right and others do not agree, then it (whatever it is) is actually not worth arguing about. Either an argument is sound and valid, i.e., a fact that is unambiguous and could not be disputed, and thus this type of argument could not be disagreed with, therefore it could be agreed with by all. Or, an argument is unsound and/or invalid, i.e., a statement that is only partly true or not true at all, and thus this type of argument will obviously not be agreed with by all.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Those types of truths, philosophically, really don't matter.

This is where I find your language somewhat confusing. In some of yours sentences you say relative truths do not exist, but then you continue on saying that those types of truths, i.e., relative truths, really do not matter. Which one is it going to be? Relative truths exist or not? Either something exists or it does not exist. Please pick one and stick to it. If something exists, then it can or can not matter, but if something does not exist, then it does not exist and so is not worthy of talking about, philosophically.

You have also alluded to "Those types of truths" are in fact falsehoods. But I struggle with how you can see a (type of) truth as a falsehood also. If a truth is a truth, then it is not a falsehood, right?

SpheresOfBalance wrote: The truths I'm always speaking of, are of the universal type! They are really the only ones important to philosophy.

Could you please provide some examples of those truths that really are the only important ones to philosophy for me here? I will see if my formula for universal truth works or not.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Everyone knows, I'm sure, that personal preference for something is often relative amongst people, it's subjective.
And is that not what is sometimes referred to as relative truth? Again, what is your definition of relative truth?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Universally, I'm an empiricist.
Again you use the word 'universally' here. What is the purpose of this please?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I was referring to universal truths. I kind of went off due to things in my life that defy the universal, a means of releasing steam. Which I hope was apparent.
Again I will say, to me both relative truth and universal truth exist. And, what is subjective or relative to ALL of us, i.e., everyone, is a truth that can not be disputed, therefore it can also be a universal truth.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:See immediately above. Here, in this philosophy forum, I'm only ever referencing universal truths.
None of this answers any of my questions.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Universal truths are.
You did not finish your sentence. I am unsure what you mean by universal truths are...

SpheresOfBalance wrote: You sound like a very level headed and patient person, good for you!
Does that mean you will or will not provide your definition of relative truth?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Here I refer to the actual universe; that which bore us, and that which ends us, at least this particular form.
If you are saying the universal rule is the actual universe, then I can not disagree with that.

I do wonder now, however, how could a universe have a different form?

What you seem to not understand is that there are truths of the universe, from it's perspective, which are absolute. Then there are those things from mans perspective, supposed truths, in fact some are and some aren't, they can be both relative and absolute amongst men and the universe.

For the truths of mans perspective to be absolute they have to agree with the universal perspective. Those supposed truths that can never agree with the universal absolute truth, really don't matter, accept in their understanding, so as to iron out the insignificant differences amongst men. What one prefers, like either kale or spinach, is an example of such meaningless relative truths, accept as I said, a means to understand the differences between us, which matters not in the universal arena.

I challenge you to provide a relative human truth that actually matters in a universal context. The universe reigns supreme, mans BS is just that, mans BS. Once we fully understand the human mind, man's relative truths shall be fully revealed in an absolute manner, in such a time there should be no petty bickering or warmongering except by those still in denial.

Posted: **Fri Jul 01, 2016 7:19 pm**

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote: There is no such thing as a-priori knowledge. All knowledge is a-posteriori.

]
Wrong there is no such thing as a priori 'evidence'.
But a priori knowledge is things know from deduction rather than observation; by definition

You can't give me one example, because it doesn't exist.

ghost [gohst]
noun
1. the soul of a dead person, a disembodied spirit imagined, usually as a vague, shadowy or evanescent form, as wandering among or haunting living persons.

There is the definition of Ghost, yet no such thing can be proven to actually exist.

Here's another one:

sprite or spright [sprahyt]
noun
1. an elf, fairy, or goblin.

Philosophy Now Forum

What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?