Philosophy

[Age]

The heck you on about Belinda? Mutually exclusive facts cannot be simulatenously true you nutter.
I wasn't asking about "eternally", I explcitly said "at the SAME time".

Don't you understand basic entailment? If X is true then not-X is not true. Mutually exclusive truths are ones which entail that the other is not true.

All this crap you write about "My moral principles are true for me and may well not be true for someone else" falls foul of that basic rule.

So if you are going to live by your own words, eat your own goddamn dog food by agreeing that "FDP's" truth is true, even though FDP's truth is that your truth claims are bullshit garbage.

But we don't inhabit a world of formal logic! We have to live with uncertainty , where formal logic is useful for us not making invalid claims. Formal logic is no help at all for the truth of premises.

If you believe what you are writing, you can agree that FDP's truth is true, even though FDP's truth is that your truth claims are bullshit garbage.

If you can't then that is because you don't agree with yourself.

I get why Age and Skepdick and Vegetable Armpit can't understand this reasoning. But I really don't get why you can't.

Any one KNOWS that 'your truth' is true, to you. But what is also KNOWN is some of what you think or believe is true, which is just 'your truth' is OBVIOUSLY not true, to others.

Your illogical reasoning can be understood. That is; for what it Truly IS.

[Age]

Then do you think truth is out there and when know the truth we know what corresponds to the truth out there?

I think truth relates to what is most coherently reasonable.

It is not coherently reasonable for mutually exclusive "truths" to both be true. That is an abuse of the entire concept. Therefore "My moral principles are true for me and may well not be true for someone else" is a garbage bullshit claim.

It is definitely a fact that when we talk of something being "true" we are required to resolve contradictory claims. Some shit inferior new version of "true" that is only "true" when it is easy or convenient is not worth investing in.

Absolute truth is impossible in this relative world.

Why can people not see that when they make 'absolute claims' about it being impossible for 'absolute truths' to exist that this is in itself absolutely self-contradictory?

How objective and absolute truth is found is through and from the so-called 'relative world'.

Absolute truth is what we seek and it's good to seek it despite we never find it.

But absolute truths can be seen and thus found just about everywhere.

One just has to learn how to find and see them, first.

Cognitive dissonance feels uncomfortable but we need it before we can learn. Reason is the best method however it's a method it's not truth itself.

When we join forces with each other to seek truth it's best for all concerned when each theory is accepted as pro tem in a dynamic process. There is no ultimate authority. I wish there were but

But there is an ultimate authority, actually. And it is from this ultimate authority objectivity is found and absolutes are seen.

[Age]

It is not coherently reasonable for mutually exclusive "truths" to both be true. That is an abuse of the entire concept. Therefore "My moral principles are true for me and may well not be true for someone else" is a garbage bullshit claim.

It is definitely a fact that when we talk of something being "true" we are required to resolve contradictory claims. Some shit inferior new version of "true" that is only "true" when it is easy or convenient is not worth investing in.

Absolute truth is impossible in this relative world. Absolute truth is what we seek and it's good to seek it despite we never find it. Cognitive dissonance feels uncomfortable but we need it before we can learn. Reason is the best method however it's a method it's not truth itself.

When we join forces with each other to seek truth it's best for all concerned when each theory is accepted as pro tem in a dynamic process. There is no ultimate authority. I wish there were but

That was all totally specious. There's a really simple dilema, you have this thing going where mutually exclusive facts are all true at the same time without requiring resolution. I have this fact that you are spouting complete shit.

Facts require proof, and not just the assumptions, the beliefs, nor the words of just one.

To win, you just have to agree with me, that what you have written there is complete shite.

[Age]

Absolute truth is impossible in this relative world. Absolute truth is what we seek and it's good to seek it despite we never find it. Cognitive dissonance feels uncomfortable but we need it before we can learn. Reason is the best method however it's a method it's not truth itself.

When we join forces with each other to seek truth it's best for all concerned when each theory is accepted as pro tem in a dynamic process. There is no ultimate authority. I wish there were but

That was all totally specious. There's a really simple dilema, you have this thing going where mutually exclusive facts are all true at the same time without requiring resolution. I have this fact that you are spouting complete shit.

To win, you just have to agree with me, that what you have written there is complete shite.

Mutually exclusive facts are not eternally true. Neither of the mutually exclusive facts is eternally true. All that we call "facts" are pro tem until a better "fact" comes along.

There is no truth 'out there' to be discovered.

Is this a truth that can not be refuted?

Or, is this just your own truth or opinion, which obviously could be false, wrong, or incorrect?

Good people love truth and seek it, but that does not imply that there is any ultimate truth that we can find.

And that also does not imply that there is not any ultimate truth that you could find.

The best we can do is keep on with the quest to find ultimate truth despite there being no hope of its existence.

Come on you can obviously do much better than that.

I suggest instead of making claims that are obviously False, Wrong, Incorrect, and absolute NONSENSICAL, like the one just here, you make claims that can not be refuted, and thus are just an irrefutable Fact.

When you start doing that, then you will find and see just how absurd your claims here REALLY ARE.

[Age]

Mutually exclusive facts are not eternally true. Neither of the mutually exclusive facts is eternally true. All that we call "facts" are pro tem until a better "fact" comes along.

There is no truth 'out there' to be discovered. Good people love truth and seek it, but that does not imply that there is any ultimate truth that we can find. The best we can do is keep on with the quest to find ultimate truth despite there being no hope of its existence.

The heck you on about Belinda? Mutually exclusive facts cannot be simulatenously true you nutter.
I wasn't asking about "eternally", I explcitly said "at the SAME time".

Don't you understand basic entailment? If X is true then not-X is not true. Mutually exclusive truths are ones which entail that the other is not true.

All this crap you write about "My moral principles are true for me and may well not be true for someone else" falls foul of that basic rule.

So if you are going to live by your own words, eat your own goddamn dog food by agreeing that "FDP's" truth is true, even though FDP's truth is that your truth claims are bullshit garbage.

But we don't inhabit a world of formal logic! We have to live with uncertainty ,

But you do not have to live with uncertainty, in regards to what is being discussed here.

where formal logic is useful for us not making invalid claims.

If this is true, then how about you start using some so-called formal logic so you will stop making these invalid claims, with you keep making here.

Formal logic is no help at all for the truth of premises.

The actual truth of premises speak for themselves. One just has to learn how to HEAR, and LISTEN FOR, It.

[Age]

I often don't agree with myself. Sometimes when I am out for a walk by myself I have silent discussions in my private thoughts about stuff that bothers me. I don't believe that you or anyone not under the influence of tranquillisers or booze has no cognitive dissonance, ever.

How tragically are you prepared to squirm?

I'm content to accept that I will never know it all.

But there is not a human being EVER who has thought otherwise. So, why express 'that', as though it is not common, but which absolutely EVERY human being agrees with and accepts also anyway?

As a working hypothesis I rely on the moral traditions of my culture which is basically Xian, and by now is post-Xian. Also I try to keep up with science . I identify with some ideas and not others. As far as philosophy goes I have preferences and I hope to add to what ideas I have.

[FlashDangerpants]

I think she was referring to Moral Relativism, and in that context, logical contradictions don't carry the same weight.

In other words, people hold directly contradictory views and beliefs, yet claim them as truth, such as cultural relativism.

For beliefs which are not scientific, and not empirical, there is a far less stringent rigor with regard to 'truth'.


I'll wait for Belinda's response though, don't want to misspeak her position.

I can offer a shortcut. Normally anyone who writes what she does is a relatvist, but Belinda can't commit to that because then she would have no reason to suddely invoke God for F knows what reason this time as per this recent example...

Nobody including me knows whether or not there be that sort of God. I choose my model to fit my moral system according to which there is my God , your God, and each other's God. Ordinary human sympathy + reason is the best measure (or even the best watershed) of whose God is the better God.

You are a moral realtivist who keeps banging on about moral facts.

I don't even care why you suddenly invoked a bunch of relgion

I credited you with the understanding that God is another name for moral realism.

[Age]

What is your conclusion, and what is the phenomena that you supposedly studied, what record data did you collect, and keep, what evidence did you duplicate, and what exactly will you show?

Science can study and record 'Meaning' in Life, or the value which people and animals have.

It's like an "Economics of Biology".

What this is really like is you trying just about anything to back up and support your claims here.

Name one thing that "science" has supposedly studied and recorded the 'meaning of', exactly?

Also, noted is that you did not answer any of the questions I posed to you here for clarification.

There is ONLY One Reality, and It is Itself.

This is Nonsense.

That's like saying "There is ONLY One Reality, and it is One Reality!"

What you wrote here is nonsense, and because you BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY that what you said is like what I said, then OBVIOUSLY you would claim what I said is nonsense.

But if you KNEW what I actually meant, then you would think differently.

And, it would only take one worded added into your nonsensical sentence to make it absolute and purely perfect sense.

Is this your final answer?

No.

That's all you got??

Is this a question or a statement?

By the way I have LOTS MORE.

But we just have to wade through your nonsensical thoughts and BELIEFS, FIRST.

'History', itself, therefore could NEVER be biased.

History is very biased.

You REALLY still can not get it.

'History' is just a word that means or refers to some 'thing'. AND, that 'thing' can NEVER be biased.

Only 'you', human beings, can be biased.

I have SEEN new born babies who are TEACHING FAR MORE about life and living the True and Right WAY. But 'you', adult human beings, do NOT recognize this. This is because 'you' are contaminated with the BELIEF or ASSUMPTION that 'you' are the TEACHERS in Life and children are just here to LEARN.

If adults learned to Truly LISTEN and HEAR, and to Truly LOOK and SEE, then what is EASILY recognizable is young children are TEACHING the ACTUAL ANSWERS to the meaningful questions, in Life.

It is becoming clear to me that children are your teachers, and not adults.

Hallelujah. FINALLY.

I prefer the adults, myself.

i have NOTICED. And this is the VERY REASON WHY 'you' have become so CLOSED, TWISTED, and DISTORTED.

You speak as though there are SOME human beings who are BETTER, or MORE THAN, than other human beings are.

Correct, for example, some humans run faster than others.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This does NOT make them 'better' NOR 'more than' than others.

They are "BETTER" than and "MORE THAN" capable than other runners.

LOL Well say that.

See, the actual and irrefutable absolute Truth of 'things' is so EASY and SIMPLE to find and UNCOVER.

Do you deny this?

No. But I deny what you have previously stated and claimed.

I do NOT care what 'you', human beings, do.

As long as you are LEARNING to STOP ABUSING things, ESPECIALLY CHILDREN.

"You human beings"? Are you denouncing your humanity here?

When, and if, 'you' EVER come-to-know thy Self, then 'you' will KNOW the answer here, "yourself".

Also, nobody mentioned abusing children.

Did ANY body say ANY thing about ANY one mentioning abusing children?

Do you have some sort of fixation?

YES.

Also, nobody mentioned fixation.

Do you have some sort of fixation?

Here we have ANOTHER PERFECT EXAMPLE of just HOW CLOSED and BLIND some become, to the ACTUAL Truth of things, with and from their OWN made up BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, that the ONLY things that they can SEE and HEAR is ONLY 'that' what they ALREADY BELIEVE and/or ASSUME is true

I'm listening to what you and others answer, about the Meaning of Life.

And, what was my answer, EXACTLY?

Speak your mind, if you have something to say about it.

I ALREADY HAVE.

Have you not been LISTENING?

I have ALREADY EXPRESSED what the 'Meaning of Life' is to me. And, what I wrote can NOT be refuted in absolutely ANYWAY WHATSOEVER. Therefore, this MEANS I have NOTHING MORE to 'defend' NOR 'assert'. The IRREFUTABLE speaks for itself.

I'll look back through the thread; I believe your Meaning of Life has already been refuted.

I LOOKED BACK, and it has NOT.

I SEE EVERY one's life WORTH the EXACT SAME, or EQUALLY if you so wish.

Because there are clear Winners and Losers in survival, it begs-the-question as to the value of some strategies and species who survive over others.

LOL Who is a so-called "Winner in survival? And,

LOL Who is a so-called "Loser in survival"?

If this applies to Meaning of Life, then the same principle would apply.

1. Your first so-called "logic" about winners and losers in Life or in survival is JUST ABSURD.

2. That "logic" does NOT apply to the 'Meaning of Life'.

3. Using or applying the SAME ABSURD "logic" as a principle is just RIDICULOUS in the extreme.

There are better "Meanings" than others. It's a very distressing possibility, certainly, that a human being could waste their entire life. And I believe that some do, sometimes willingly, sometimes by choice, sometimes by accident, etc.

And we could USE 'you', "wizard22", as a PRIME EXAMPLE of one who HAS and IS continuing to waste your ENTIRE life. As SEEN and PROVED here.

Unless, OF COURSE, 'you' have some thing to SHOW us that will PROVE otherwise. We WILL just WAIT and SEE what transpires here now.

ONLY those people with Truly DISTORTED thinking or BELIEFS have those 'such values'.

It wasn't long ago in history that a man's life could be auctioned and sold at the marketplace; even now in less civilized parts of the world, human slavery still exists, along with child trafficking.

No one mentioned child trafficking.

Do you have some sort of fixation?

So it seems that you are not really knowledgeable about the world you live in. You may disagree against it, but your disapproval doesn't stop these things from happening.

What have these things, which no one else has mentioned, got to do with absolutely any thing that I have said and meant?

The reason 'you', "wizard22", do NOT treat others EQUALLY is because of YOUR Truly TWISTED and DISTORTED thinking and BELIEVING also.

It seems more "twisted and distorted" to believe in something that has never existed, and cannot exist, by your own admittance.

Well considering the Fact that I do NOT believe in such a thing, then this is just plain old moot.

It's the "God Game". Present God to me, right now. Magically conjure and present to me, the British Crown jewels. If you cannot, then God does not exist.

That seems like a Truly ABSURD and RIDICULOUS game. Why would you even want to play that GAME?

See how simple this game is?

NO. I do not even understand the game, let alone see how simple it is.

I also do not even understand why you mentioned this game. Have you got some sort of fixation here?

I NEVER said there is NOT ONE instance of Life treating Life, equally.

Life is ALWAYS treating Itself, EQUALLY. In fact It could NOT treat in ANY other way.

You REALLY are NOT following, are you?

How is a lion, eating a gazelle, an example of "life treating itself equally"?

Do you REALLY BELIEVE that 'a lion' and 'a gazelle' are the SAME 'life'?

Doesn't Predation prove you, obviously wrong? A predator's life is not "equal" to its prey.

LOOK, I will ask you the SAME QUESTION, AGAIN. Let us SEE if you WILL answer THIS QUESTION, THIS TIME;

You REALLY are NOT following, are you?

We are STILL WAITING for you to INFORM us what the "Value of Life" even means or refers to, so then we can work how you arrived at "Meaning", and then we can move on to what the "Meaning of Life" IS, EXACTLY, correct?

The value of life is the importance, significance, and meaning that an organism deems to itself, and to others.

So, if 'you' deem 'your life', "wizard22", to "yourself" and to "others" to be important, significant, and meaning, then that is 'The value of life', correct?

What happens if one who uses drugs deems to "themself" and to "others" that 'their life' is far more important, far more significant, and far more meaningful than "wizard22's" 'worthless and useless life', then does this mean that this one has far more of 'The value of life'?

By the way, can you REALLY NOT YET RECOGNIZE and SEE just how TOTALLY RIDICULOUS, ABSURD, and NONSENSICAL your attempts at just clarifying my questions posed to you LOOK here?

Since a life can have no value, no meaning, then this manifests as a suicidal impulse. Some people commit suicide, because of this.

But the EXACT reason WHY 'you', human beings, commit suicide is for a far more fundamental reason.

As there are a countless number of 'you'', human beings who see absolutely NO meaning in their lives, and they do NOT commit suicide, NOR even have suicidal impulses, what you said and claimed here does NOT follow.

Also, according to your so-called "logic" above, ALL 'life' that is NOT a 'human being life' would have NO 'value' and NO 'meaning' and absolutely NONE of them have suicidal impulses, which you just CLAIMED would manifest as a suicidal impulse.

I have also NEVER observed the life of young child, which OBVIOUSLY has NO sense of ANY value nor of ANY meaning, manifesting into a suicidal impulse.

They believe their life has no meaning, and affirm this through willfully destroying their own life: Annihilation.

I have observed countless numbers of adult human beings who BELIEVE their life has NO meaning, and NOT what you call willfully destroying their own life.

Nihilism is the ideology, with premise, that Life has no inherent (preceding) value or meaning.

And what you are 'trying to' CLAIM here is that EVERY one of these human beings, with this view, are WILLFULLY DESTROYING 'their own lives'. Annihilation, you even called it.

Moralism is the opposite ideology, with premise, that Life does have inherent (preceding) value or meaning.

And, obviously, you BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY and WHOLEHEARTEDLY that one is ABSOLUTELY True, Right, AND Correct while the OTHER is ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect. So, you keep 'trying to' FIGHT and ARGUE for what you BELIEVE, right?

I was QUESTIONING WHY do 'you', subjectively, place 'your' OWN life as being, supposedly, much more valuable than the lives of other human beings who you have NOT, personally, met?

Because Subjectivity is selfish; Objectivity is selfless. I aim for Objectivity.

LOL
LOL
LOL

You could not have expressed your OWN personal views in a MORE SUBJECTIVE WAY.

I suggest you LEARN how to actually be able to LOOK AT and SEE 'things' from the Truly OBJECTIVE perspective, BEFORE you say 'things' like you just did here.

Because of WHO and WHAT they ARE, in Life.

That's not a valid answer.

It was a 'valid' answer, but it was NOT a 'sufficient' enough answer. Which I did ON PURPOSE.

*WHY* are children blameless???

THANK YOU. It is VERY, VERY RARE for someone here, in this forum, to continue seeking clarity, or answers.

ALL children are blameless because only SOME human beings are responsible for what happens in Life. And, only adults, or human beings from a certain age, are meant to be responsible for their behaviors.

Don't dodge this question.

I would NOT, and I did NOT.

WHY would you even PRESUME such a thing?

Don't I "care for" others more than you, because I believe in Inequality?

I do not know.

WHY do you say that you do NOT care for "others" MORE than I do?

Because caring, or not caring, both demonstrate inequality. You cannot "care" for two people equally, let alone the rest of all existent life.

But I care for EVERY one EQUALLY.

WHY do you ASSUME I do NOT?

Here's another example. Let's say that Care is based on proximity. Are you equally approximate to every life form in existence? No. Therefore, No.

But 'you' have NOT YET LEARNED how to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' properly AND accurately.

WAIT until you LEARN how to do this FIRST, BEFORE you start answering your OWN questions, which you DECEIVINGLY were PRETENDING to pose to ANOTHER.

Do you NOT care for "others" BECAUSE you lie to them, OR, do you LIE to "others" BECAUSE you do NOT care for them.

I think lying is a form of NOT caring. If you care about somebody, then you tell them the Truth.

Ah okay. So, you only LIE to those who you do NOT care about, correct?

Also, is there a human being who you have NOT LIED to?

If yes, then WHO was that, EXACTLY?

In fact, have you EVER LIED to "yourself"?

If yes, then are you SAYING that 'you' do NOT care about 'you', NOR "yourself"?

Or, do 'you' ACTUALLY BELIEVE that 'you' have NOT LIED to, and thus NOT DECEIVED, "yourself" NOR some "others"?

By the way, BECAUSE 'I' can CLEARLY SEE that 'you' are LYING here, does this mean that 'you' do NOT care for 'I'?

Life does not have a center?

But It is UNEQUAL, RIGHT?

Yes, it is unequal and without a center.

Okay.

So, absolutely ANY one can MISTREAT 'you', ANY way they like, just like 'you' can MISTREAT absolutely ANY one, ANY way 'you' like, correct?

After all, 'life' is UNEQUAL.

So, to you, when one is saving "another's" life then this is because they have been 'duped', and are just merely pawns in yet "another one's" political ambition, correct?

Usually, yes, most men are sent to war to die for a politician's ambition, for example.

Well that is NOT saving "another" one's life. The are just DYING for a "politicians" ambition (whatever that may be).

OF COURSE NOT.

BUT xy does NOT necessarily mean male. Which is what we WERE talking about BEFORE.

Chromosomes do not necessarily PROVE one from the other.

Incorrect, Chromosomes do prove gender and sex.

Is this an IRREFUTABLE Fact?

You are SO USELESS at this.

So, what, now, does 'over-indulge' mean or refer to, EXACTLY?

Look, you can NOT take back what you previously WROTE and SAID, and if you do NOT want ADMIT just how Wrong or STUPID it REALLY WAS, then so be it. But the WAY you WRITE and TALK is HERE for ALL to LOOK AT, SEE, and HEAR.

SO, I suggest you think MORE about what you are GOING TO WRITE, BEFORE you put it down here for ALL to be ABLE TO LOOK AT and SEE.

This is common sense.

If a man has a few beers in a month, then he is not an Alcoholic. So over-indulgence is the definition of addiction and abuse.[/quote]

If we take the 'indulge' word to refer to 'partake', then what does the 'over' word refer to, EXACTLY?

What is the VERY 'thing', which the 'over' word is in relation to, EXACTLY?

Is having, or partaking in, a few beers a week, mean that that one IS an "alcoholic"?

If yes, then WHY, EXACTLY?

But if no, then WHY NOT, EXACTLY?

And remember what I SAID:

I suggest you think MORE about what you are GOING TO WRITE, BEFORE you put it down here for ALL to be ABLE TO LOOK AT and SEE.

YET, you WANT to INSIST that you KNOW what the absolute Truth IS, EXACTLY, in relation to IF Life is EQUAL, or INEQUAL, while at the same time you ADMIT that you REALLY are NOT able to perceive NOR be aware of Existence, Itself.

I never said nor implied that I "know" what absolute Truth is.

I NEVER said NOR implied that you SAID nor IMPLIED that you KNOW what absolute Truth is. In fact it is VERY OBVIOUS that you do NOT know what 'absolutely Truth is', And, it is JUST AS OBVIOUS that you do NOT know what 'the absolute Truth IS' here.

Anyway, by CLAIMING that 'Life is NOT equal', this is INSISTING that you KNOW what the absolute Truth IS here.

Where'd you get that idea??

From you CLAIMING that 'Life is NOT equal', and your FIGHTING for 'this' as though it is the absolutely Truth here.

Are you now suggesting that JUST MAYBE Life IS, or could be, EQUAL'?

But 'you' can NOT, can 'you', "wizzard22"?

A big part of life is learning when you are being joked, duped, lied to, deceived, betrayed, etc.

Well if 'you', adult human beings, STOPPED LYING TO, DECEIVING, AND BETRAYING children, then they would NEED to LEARN when they are being DUPED, LIED TO, DECEIVED, OR BETRAYED, by 'you', adult human beings.

SIMPLE. REALLY.

Did I speak about myself, on this?

What is 'this', EXACTLY?

Okay. So, what this REALLY MEANS IS, you do NOT KNOW, for sure, when, and if, you are being LIED TO, correct?

I simply take the Philosophical and Skeptical route.

I presume that most people are lying from the start.

LOL WHY do 'you', human beings, ADD the 'philosophical' word into places where it REALLY is NOT necessary?

And, WHY PRESUME that MOST people are lying, from the VERY start?

This is a CLEAR SIGN of just how MUCH DAMAGE has been done to you ALREADY.

Furthermore, WHO are in the 'MOST' group? And, how do you DISTINGUISH them apart, from the VERY start?

For example, a lot of Westerners now lie about their gender.

Do 'you' LIE about 'your gender'?

If no, then HOW do you KNOW?

Have you gone and got 'your chromosomes' CHECKED?

If no, then HOW can 'you' be SO SURE of what 'your gender' IS, EXACTLY?

Another example, a lot of Western "News" media is fake news.

So my premise is validated accordingly.

LOL
LOL
LOL

And here we have a PRIME EXAMPLE of 'bias confirmation' at its VERY BEST, or WORST, (and in both of those statements and claims, I will add).

[Age]

I often don't agree with myself. Sometimes when I am out for a walk by myself I have silent discussions in my private thoughts about stuff that bothers me. I don't believe that you or anyone not under the influence of tranquillisers or booze has no cognitive dissonance, ever.

You and Flash both have good points here.

People hold mutually exclusive beliefs;

Exactly like, for example, when two people watch the news media in one country and both DECLARE there is "fake news". But on the EXACT SAME channel that the other one is DECLARING this is "real and true news"

By the way, "wizard22", which channels have the "fake news" and which ones have the "real and true news"?

so people are forced to pick one or the other sometimes.

Absolutely NO one is "forced" to do absolutely ANY thing, let alone "forced" to PICK A BELIEF.

The idea of being "forced" to PICK A BELIEF is even MORE ABSURD when written down, than when it was just in this head.

Sometimes you're forced to, other times not. When you're forced to, that's when Flash's formal logical comes into play.

WHEN do you BELIEVE that you are FORCED to PICK A BELIEF?

You 'NEED' to decide, then. But when you don't have to decide, when you have time to think, that's when you can compare the opposition accordingly and accept whichever position seems truer than the other.

And once you have 'had the time' to PICK a SIDE or POSITION, then you will FIGHT and ARGUE for that SIDE and POSITION, correct "wizzard22"?

The modern world allows many conflicting and opposite opinions to co-exist, like never before. In previous eras of human history, we had far less choices, and far less time to ruminate, on conflicting values.

WHY was there, supposedly, 'far less time' to ruminate 'before', than there is 'now', when this is being written?

[Sculptor]

Obviously - but what is your point?
All they do is find meaning in their OWN life, not in life itself, which is what these questions always assume.

How is their own life, not "life itself", as if one life is not a representation of the whole of life?

That's exactly the problem here. One "Meaning of Life" is as diverse as the myriad of "life itself".

Take a wild guess?
What right has another to assign a meaning to another person?
Are you kidding here? Do you really think another person has that right?

I don't believe most of humanity leaves it up to blind luck and chance that their life has meaning or not. People want control over this, control over the odds.

Yes, I do believe that most people are content with being assigned meaning, rather than producing it themselves. Just like most people are content to have the tv magic box do their thinking and politicking, for them. People outsource these tasks. And they outsource Meaning of Life, too.

No I do not.
Even if that were true. Who wants to be "normal"?

I'd say about 90% of humanity wants to be "normal".

I think you're wrong about Independent minds. Independence is a rare value, not the norm.

All minds have the capacity for independence.
Normal is relative and arbitrary.
Try and think for yourself.

[Age]

Obviously - but what is your point?
All they do is find meaning in their OWN life, not in life itself, which is what these questions always assume.

How is their own life, not "life itself", as if one life is not a representation of the whole of life?

Why are you asking? Is it because you doubt the difference; do not know the difference; but do, but are just being contrary?

That's exactly the problem here. One "Meaning of Life" is as diverse as the myriad of "life itself".

Is it?
Why not stop asking questions, and try to answer them?

Take a wild guess?
What right has another to assign a meaning to another person?
Are you kidding here? Do you really think another person has that right?

I don't believe most of humanity leaves it up to blind luck and chance that their life has meaning or not. People want control over this, control over the odds.

That has not begun to answer my question

Yes, I do believe that most people are content with being assigned meaning, rather than producing it themselves. Just like most people are content to have the tv magic box do their thinking and politicking, for them. People outsource these tasks. And they outsource Meaning of Life, too.

Are you content? If you are then why are you asking questions, but not answering any?

No I do not.
Even if that were true. Who wants to be "normal"?

I'd say about 90% of humanity wants to be "normal".

I think you're wrong about Independent minds. Independence is a rare value, not the norm.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself what is meant by "normal"?

The irony is this thread is very funny.

[Age]

Why are you asking? Is it because you doubt the difference; do not know the difference; but do, but are just being contrary?

I asked because I want to square your answers about Meaning of Life with an example.

"Life-itself" is a big concept.

'Life', Itself, is NOT a big concept AT ALL, well not to me anyway.

'Life' is just ANOTHER concept, like ALL of the other ones are.

What is something that all life shares in common?

Living; being alive. AND, this is ALSO the meaning of 'Life'.

Oh, and another thing that ALL 'life' shares in common is a 'want' to NEVER be abused.

Except, of course, for some adult human beings. Adult human beings are the ONLY 'life' that WANTS to be ABUSED.

Is it?
Why not stop asking questions, and try to answer them?

I have some answers. But I made this thread, and asked first. If you made the thread, and asked me first, then you'd have initiative.

That has not begun to answer my question

There's a lot of factors to consider. For one, some people may not be able to produce "their own" Meaning of Life. For two, of those who can produce their own Meaning, how do they do so, and what is this process? I don't think it's common. Because most people follow a preset path in life. People don't reinvent the wheel; people generally pick up where their ancestors leave off. Humans don't invent new lifestyles every generation.

There's a demand for garbagemen, librarians, plumbers, welders, college professors, ambulance drivers, etc. Specialization is the trend. These hypothetically 'meaningless' jobs have a small significance, yet are necessary. And while one may deem menial tasks as less meaningful than others, the meaningful tasks, actions, objectives, etc. need to be compared. How is one life more meaningful, or less than another?

WHY do you answer the question, BUT THEN ask the question?

The ONLY way one life is more, or less, meaningful IS by how you said and explained above. That is; by 'producing' meaning, "oneself"

'Meaning' exists in NO other form than HOW one SEES 'it' or MAKES 'it'.

Are you content? If you are then why are you asking questions, but not answering any?

Am I not answering your questions right now?

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself what is meant by "normal"?

Yes, it is political, cultural, and biological. In grade schools for children, children will want to "look" and "act" normal, to avoid being bullied.

OF COURSE they do. But this is ONLY because 'you', adult human beings, TAUGHT them TO BULLY.

And, 'you' do this because 'you' have some sort of DISTORTED VERSION of what 'normal' IS, EXACTLY?

YET if one was to ASK ANY 'child' or ANY of 'you', adult human beings, 'What is 'normal', EXACTLY? Then 'you' can NOT provide ANY accurate True answer, well not in the days when this was being written anyway.

ALL of 'you', adults and older children alike, will ACT in certain ways, which are PERCEIVED to be 'normal', but when QUESTIONED ALL of 'you' can NOT tell 'me' what 'normal' IS, EXACTLY.

And, especially 'you', "wizard22", as you are SHOWING and PROVING absolutely True here.

If a child is too small or too fat, too short or too tall, too racially different, etc. then they will be made fun of. Those who have a weaker will, and more scared of bullying, will then want to "be more normal" to avoid it. Normalcy is a survival method within one's own specie, to be 'included' into general society. Hence, the more "normal" somebody is, the more that person "passes" throughout all levels and areas of Society. If a person looks and acts "normal", then they are forgettable and not perceived as a threat.

Yes?

There is NO wonder WHY "sculptor" lol'd you here before.

[Belinda]

It is not coherently reasonable for mutually exclusive "truths" to both be true. That is an abuse of the entire concept. Therefore "My moral principles are true for me and may well not be true for someone else" is a garbage bullshit claim.

It is definitely a fact that when we talk of something being "true" we are required to resolve contradictory claims. Some shit inferior new version of "true" that is only "true" when it is easy or convenient is not worth investing in.

Absolute truth is impossible in this relative world.

Why can people not see that when they make 'absolute claims' about it being impossible for 'absolute truths' to exist that this is in itself absolutely self-contradictory?

How objective and absolute truth is found is through and from the so-called 'relative world'.

Absolute truth is what we seek and it's good to seek it despite we never find it.

But absolute truths can be seen and thus found just about everywhere.

One just has to learn how to find and see them, first.

Cognitive dissonance feels uncomfortable but we need it before we can learn. Reason is the best method however it's a method it's not truth itself.

When we join forces with each other to seek truth it's best for all concerned when each theory is accepted as pro tem in a dynamic process. There is no ultimate authority. I wish there were but

But there is an ultimate authority, actually. And it is from this ultimate authority objectivity is found and absolutes are seen.

Absolute means not relating to other than itself. There are no "absolute truths". Absolute truth is all one and indivisible.

[Age]

Absolute truth is impossible in this relative world.

Why can people not see that when they make 'absolute claims' about it being impossible for 'absolute truths' to exist that this is in itself absolutely self-contradictory?

How objective and absolute truth is found is through and from the so-called 'relative world'.

Absolute truth is what we seek and it's good to seek it despite we never find it.

But absolute truths can be seen and thus found just about everywhere.

One just has to learn how to find and see them, first.

Cognitive dissonance feels uncomfortable but we need it before we can learn. Reason is the best method however it's a method it's not truth itself.

When we join forces with each other to seek truth it's best for all concerned when each theory is accepted as pro tem in a dynamic process. There is no ultimate authority. I wish there were but

But there is an ultimate authority, actually. And it is from this ultimate authority objectivity is found and absolutes are seen.

Absolute means not relating to other than itself.

Correct, and as can be clearly seen this appears to be an absolute Truth or absolutely True, Right, and Correct.

There are no "absolute truths".

So, what this inevitably means is that the claim, 'There are no "absolute truths", is NOT absolutely true, which therefore essentially means that that claim is somewhat false or not true.

Which, AGAIN, just is a self-contradiction.

Absolute truth is all one and indivisible.

EXACTLY. And it is because of this HOW, WHERE, WHEN, and WHY absolute Truths are found, or uncovered, and WHAT makes up or constitutes what absolute Truths are EXACTLY.

This is also HOW and WHY absolute Truth is absolutely IRREFUTABLE.

[FlashDangerpants]

Absolute truth is all one and indivisible.

EXACTLY. And it is because of this HOW, WHERE, WHEN, and WHY absolute Truths are found, or uncovered, and WHAT makes up or constitutes what absolute Truths are EXACTLY.

This is also HOW and WHY absolute Truth is absolutely IRREFUTABLE.

All those 'clarifying questions' you always go on about but you aren't asking wtf "indivisible" means in that sentence?