Freethought & Rationalism Archive

phaedrus · 08-11-2002, 08:29 PM

dostf

Thanks for restating my OP...anyhows few things

"truth" will always be "partial" and incomplete from this vantage point

it is my assertion that it is necessary to "pass" or "overcome" our limited partial view that has been shaped through our own particular upbringing, experience, knowledge etc. -much of which is incorrect

Truth could be partial but is still a subset of "knowledge" and hence until unless you can prove otherwise one has to subscribe to one of the various metanarratives floating around. I dont think there is any way you can "pass" or "overcome" your groundings, since that is what the "current" knowlege is. For practical purposes and to function as a society we agree upon "truth" through mutual consent. (read that as majority view). Obviously majority can be wrong, and it is upto the individual to convince the majority on that part.

Keith

This is a fancy way of stating that neither truth nor knowledge exists.

Could you elaborate as to how you came to the conclusion from my post?

Your remaining comments are dependent on this statement so will deal with them once you elucidate.

JP

Adrian Selby · 08-12-2002, 12:43 AM

"They are in contrast to natural living-ie. eating what you like, having a job, family etc.ie. normal reasonable living.."

This is truth?

dostf · 08-12-2002, 03:26 PM

phaedrus:

"truth" will always be "partial" and incomplete from this vantage point

it is my assertion that it is necessary to "pass" or "overcome" our limited partial view that has been shaped through our own particular upbringing, experience, knowledge etc. -much of which is incorrect

Truth could be partial but is still a subset of "knowledge" and hence until unless you can prove otherwise one has to subscribe to one of the various metanarratives floating around. I dont think there is any way you can "pass" or "overcome" your groundings, since that is what the "current" knowlege is. For practical purposes and to function as a society we agree upon "truth" through mutual consent. (read that as majority view). Obviously majority can be wrong, and it is upto the individual to convince the majority on that part.(phaedrus)

- truth is not a subset of knowledge or understanding or logic etc.
- Knowledge is the first step in "cleaning" oneself of many falsities we all have about many things, but not he "end" of the process
- without this "cleaning" it is not possible to "hear" new things, as we always will compare and categorize the new information by what we already "know"
- Our explanation of the truth certainly should be reasonable, scientific and current. However i maintain this is not the same as LIVING the truth
- For thousands of years people have tried to overcome their "groundings" through a variety of methods (prayer, isolation, ritual, narcotics, fasting, etc.)- these have all failed
- certainly our "groundings" are based on more than knowledge(although certainly a part)- experience, upbringing, genetics,instincts etc.?
- i would say to function as a society we agree on what is morally correct or incorrect at any given time as opposed to "truth"

Thanks

Be seeing you...

dostf · 08-12-2002, 03:34 PM

Adrian:

"They are in contrast to natural living-ie. eating what you like, having a job, family etc.ie. normal reasonable living.."
This is truth? (adrian)

- no, again the idea here is it is not necessary to take "extarordinary measures"
to "find" "truth" (live in cave , not eat, do rituals for 50 years)
- this is opposition to many ideas from the past,(and still practised widely today) particularly relgious and "mystical" ideologies
- these ideologies offer "ways" or "methods" to attain "truth" or "god" or "heaven" etc.
- it is my contention they are false, hence the point of "natural living"

Is this any more clear?

Thanks

Be seeing you...

phaedrus · 08-13-2002, 02:41 AM

dostf

- truth is not a subset of knowledge or understanding or logic etc.

Oh, so you mean to say that "truth" is formed or discovered inspite of the knowledge (or outside of it) ?

Knowledge is the first step in "cleaning" oneself of many falsities we all have about many things, but not he "end" of the process

Did i say its end of the process? What do you mean by knowledge is the first step in "cleaning"? Isnt knowledge what you currently possess and something you change or improve or leave-it-be depending on your own outlook or new information you come across?

Our explanation of the truth certainly should be reasonable, scientific and current. However i maintain this is not the same as LIVING the truth

So ? And?

- For thousands of years people have tried to overcome their "groundings" through a variety of methods (prayer, isolation, ritual, narcotics, fasting, etc.)- these have all failed

Err...they have? Then all knowledge is false and all truths are baseless?

- certainly our "groundings" are based on more than knowledge(although certainly a part)- experience, upbringing, genetics,instincts etc.?

Err...did you read what i offered? "Knowledge" is not the possession of a "transcendental signified," a translinguistic "essence". It is nothing other than the shared understanding that a community of inquirers comes to as a result of a free exchange of opinions. It is a process of "communication."

- i would say to function as a society we agree on what is morally correct or incorrect at any given time as opposed to "truth"

Examples?

JP

popeontheropes · 08-13-2002, 08:36 AM

i did however think the "personal comments" were not needed to voice your displeasure to my original response.(dostf)

perhaps not. i get angry when i am dissmissed. sometimes i have it comming and somdetimes it is uncalled for...but it allways gets my dander up. thank you for the itemized break down regarding my post...i will reply and at less length so as to expidite the reply process. bare in mind that my posts will all be directed towards you and your points unless i specifically mention the person who i'm directing them towards . this will save on the "Q" factor.

g'bye 4 now

dostf · 08-16-2002, 04:40 PM

phaedrus:

Sorry for the delay. I had completed my response to your post several days ago, but it was "wiped out" by some irregular technology, and I haven't been able to get back since.

I'll try again...

- truth is not a subset of knowledge or understanding or logic etc.

Oh, so you mean to say that "truth" is formed or discovered inspite of the knowledge (or outside of it) ?(phaedrus)

- the expression of truth is certainly dependent on knowledge. This advances as humanity advances. However this is different from living the truth

Knowledge is the first step in "cleaning" oneself of many falsities we all have about many things, but not he "end" of the process

Did i say its end of the process? What do you mean by knowledge is the first step in "cleaning"? Isnt knowledge what you currently possess and something you change or improve or leave-it-be depending on your own outlook or new information you come across?(phaedrus)

-no you did not say it was the end of the process, i did as part of an explanation
- we have much false information and "beliefs" about ourselves and the world, formed through ; upbringing, experience, education, incorrect information etc.
- through these constucts we "assess" the world and ourselves
- in order to properly process new information, it is my assertion that we must "clean" ourselves of the incorrect "old" information( if it is reasonably shown to us that it is in fact incorrect)
- if this "cleaning" does not occur new information is processed, compared, categorized, and filtered through the old incorrectly
- for example christians "hear" new information through THAT worldview, and systematically compare and relate to it from that standpoint
- in order for them to "hear" new information or ideas correctly, their current "christian worrldview" should be "cleaned"- by reasonable exchange of knowledge
- note --- this occurs only if that person is somewhat disatisfied with their current beliefs or views and how they are perceived to effect their life

Our explanation of the truth certainly should be reasonable, scientific and current. However i maintain this is not the same as LIVING the truth

So ? And?

-This statement is made to state that i differentiate between the explanation of, and the living of truth
-again this reinforces the idea that truth is not learned, understood, felt, imagined, but lived
- furthter, any explanation one might "hear" about truth, will not and is not the same as living it for oneself

- For thousands of years people have tried to overcome their "groundings" through a variety of methods (prayer, isolation, ritual, narcotics, fasting, etc.)- these have all failed

Err...they have? Then all knowledge is false and all truths are baseless?(phaedrus)

- they have all failed in so far as no one has ever lived truth by doing them
- the knowledge and "truth" learned from these methods are unreliable and incomplete
- their "original premise" is incorrect

- certainly our "groundings" are based on more than knowledge(although certainly a part)- experience, upbringing, genetics,instincts etc.?

Err...did you read what i offered? "Knowledge" is not the possession of a "transcendental signified," a translinguistic "essence". It is nothing other than the shared understanding that a community of inquirers comes to as a result of a free exchange of opinions. It is a process of "communication." (phaedrus)

-Yes, i read what you said although i think it was not stated exactly in this manner?
- I would agree with your definition of knowledge
- my reply was an assertion that our "groundings" or "self" is more than just knowledge

- i would say to function as a society we agree on what is morally correct or incorrect at any given time as opposed to "truth"

Examples? (phaedrus)

- our laws. Although one might argue that laws are a manifestation of a societies collective "truth" at a given time and place

Thanks

Be seeing you...

dostf · 08-16-2002, 04:42 PM

popeontheropes:

Very good then...

Be seeing you...

popeontheropes · 08-17-2002, 06:14 AM

PHAEDRUS,
you said'

"Knowledge" is not the possession of a "transcendental signified," a translinguistic "essence". It is nothing other than the shared understanding that a community of inquirers comes to as a result of a free exchange of opinions. It is a process of "communication."

that is incorrect.knowledge is not communication.
what you have described sounds an awful lot like ' culture '.

knowledge is a collection of information discovered by experience and learning and based ( at least in principle) on fact.
knowlege is not necissarily truth either.
that is dependant upon the way in which you learn and your abillity to process ,what you have learned, completely.

it is true , however, that knowledge can be 'communicated'. this is how we learn. and without communication, knowledge would be solly the domain of the individual and chaos would ensue as a result of people's conflicting perceptions and the disparity between individual levels of intelligence.

what do you say to that ?

popeontheropes · 08-17-2002, 07:47 AM

Phaedrus

Did i say its end of the process? What do you mean by knowledge is the first step in "cleaning"? Isnt knowledge what you currently possess and something you change or improve or leave-it-be depending on your own outlook or new information you come across?(phaedrus)

<<<<<<<<<<<<&l t;<<<<<<<<<>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>

i would say that i agree , to some extent , that knowledge is a step toward the truth.
example: if you believed that " blacks" are all ignorant violent and stupid...you would never get near the truth in a billion years without first abandoning or "cleaning" your mind of that information.
you may have been taught this,you may have been shown examples which you then observed and thereby determined this to be a fair and true statement.
but, due to personal predjudice or the specific adgenda of the inividual who exposed you to this opinion or a lack of broader experience, you may not have been permitted or able to observe similar behavior in all humans. this observance would mitigate and modify what you held to be true of african-americans to include all of humanity. thereby giving you a broader understanding of our human culture and the culture in which you were raised and hopefully showing you that racism has no reasonable place in your heart or mind and is unfounded , un-necessary and untrue.
this realization would then be a radical departure from the way you grew up and you would then be drawn to question all that you have learned in that environment. your perception would change and your knowledge would grow.

knowledge , however is not something you allready posess and need to modify or periodically re-evaluate. knowledge is information you aquire through scientific and honest observations of the facts as they are without respect to you or your opinion and , infact , having nothing at all to do with you.
knowledge is the cumulative representation of the truth as it is. not as you want it to be.

dostf

" living truth" is absolutly impossible. unless you have complete knowledge of your place in the universe and what it is that you are supposed to be doing...or you have unraveled the secrets of the universe and mankinds reason for being..then you cannot live the truth. primarily because you do not know the truth. you can only live in response to the miniscule truths that you encounter on a daily basis.
ex} if you believe that it is wrong to kill and therefor do not kil; you would then consider yourself to be living the truth. yes ?

now, one day you observe a man killing a child. you are of course appauled due to the fact that this observance is in direct conflict with one of the tenants of your existance.
stay with me here:
you come to find out , through some means or another that offered you unrefutable proof, that the man had knowlege of the future and that the boy who he killed was to be the next adolf hitler and 10 times more horrible.

where is your truth now ? is it still wrong to kill ? or are there now mitigating circumstances which could modify your truth ?
truth can not be modified an therefor your living of the truth by not killing is flawed and , infact , untruthful living.
it would be a truer way to live to say that killing is , at times, necessary, and to embrace the fact that you may have cause or need to kill and that you would only due so in case of dire and inescapable cicumstances.

or, you could refuse to have any opion regarding killing because you cannot safely calculate for all possibillity. this would be more honest and closer to the truth and, therefor,bring you closer to living truth.

and finally...to push this toward the absurd ...
it would be the ultamate in kliving truth to kill all who threatend your survival or the realization of your own highest self interests simply because it is in your nature , as a human, to do so. which , as an animal, it absolutly is.
murder is against the law because we live in a christian society and the ten comandments specifically state that " thou shalt not kill"
ours would be a drasticly different existance if it read " thou shalt kill if thou must"

so that's what i say about it ! anyone?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-11-2002, 08:29 PM	#51
phaedrus Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Indus Posts: 1,038	dostf Thanks for restating my OP...anyhows few things "truth" will always be "partial" and incomplete from this vantage point it is my assertion that it is necessary to "pass" or "overcome" our limited partial view that has been shaped through our own particular upbringing, experience, knowledge etc. -much of which is incorrect Truth could be partial but is still a subset of "knowledge" and hence until unless you can prove otherwise one has to subscribe to one of the various metanarratives floating around. I dont think there is any way you can "pass" or "overcome" your groundings, since that is what the "current" knowlege is. For practical purposes and to function as a society we agree upon "truth" through mutual consent. (read that as majority view). Obviously majority can be wrong, and it is upto the individual to convince the majority on that part. Keith This is a fancy way of stating that neither truth nor knowledge exists. Could you elaborate as to how you came to the conclusion from my post? Your remaining comments are dependent on this statement so will deal with them once you elucidate. JP

08-12-2002, 12:43 AM	#52
Adrian Selby Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Farnham, UK Posts: 859	"They are in contrast to natural living-ie. eating what you like, having a job, family etc.ie. normal reasonable living.." This is truth?

08-12-2002, 03:26 PM	#53
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	phaedrus: "truth" will always be "partial" and incomplete from this vantage point it is my assertion that it is necessary to "pass" or "overcome" our limited partial view that has been shaped through our own particular upbringing, experience, knowledge etc. -much of which is incorrect Truth could be partial but is still a subset of "knowledge" and hence until unless you can prove otherwise one has to subscribe to one of the various metanarratives floating around. I dont think there is any way you can "pass" or "overcome" your groundings, since that is what the "current" knowlege is. For practical purposes and to function as a society we agree upon "truth" through mutual consent. (read that as majority view). Obviously majority can be wrong, and it is upto the individual to convince the majority on that part.(phaedrus) - truth is not a subset of knowledge or understanding or logic etc. - Knowledge is the first step in "cleaning" oneself of many falsities we all have about many things, but not he "end" of the process - without this "cleaning" it is not possible to "hear" new things, as we always will compare and categorize the new information by what we already "know" - Our explanation of the truth certainly should be reasonable, scientific and current. However i maintain this is not the same as LIVING the truth - For thousands of years people have tried to overcome their "groundings" through a variety of methods (prayer, isolation, ritual, narcotics, fasting, etc.)- these have all failed - certainly our "groundings" are based on more than knowledge(although certainly a part)- experience, upbringing, genetics,instincts etc.? - i would say to function as a society we agree on what is morally correct or incorrect at any given time as opposed to "truth" Thanks Be seeing you...

08-12-2002, 03:34 PM	#54
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	Adrian: "They are in contrast to natural living-ie. eating what you like, having a job, family etc.ie. normal reasonable living.." This is truth? (adrian) - no, again the idea here is it is not necessary to take "extarordinary measures" to "find" "truth" (live in cave , not eat, do rituals for 50 years) - this is opposition to many ideas from the past,(and still practised widely today) particularly relgious and "mystical" ideologies - these ideologies offer "ways" or "methods" to attain "truth" or "god" or "heaven" etc. - it is my contention they are false, hence the point of "natural living" Is this any more clear? Thanks Be seeing you...

08-13-2002, 02:41 AM	#55
phaedrus Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Indus Posts: 1,038	dostf - truth is not a subset of knowledge or understanding or logic etc. Oh, so you mean to say that "truth" is formed or discovered inspite of the knowledge (or outside of it) ? Knowledge is the first step in "cleaning" oneself of many falsities we all have about many things, but not he "end" of the process Did i say its end of the process? What do you mean by knowledge is the first step in "cleaning"? Isnt knowledge what you currently possess and something you change or improve or leave-it-be depending on your own outlook or new information you come across? Our explanation of the truth certainly should be reasonable, scientific and current. However i maintain this is not the same as LIVING the truth So ? And? - For thousands of years people have tried to overcome their "groundings" through a variety of methods (prayer, isolation, ritual, narcotics, fasting, etc.)- these have all failed Err...they have? Then all knowledge is false and all truths are baseless? - certainly our "groundings" are based on more than knowledge(although certainly a part)- experience, upbringing, genetics,instincts etc.? Err...did you read what i offered? "Knowledge" is not the possession of a "transcendental signified," a translinguistic "essence". It is nothing other than the shared understanding that a community of inquirers comes to as a result of a free exchange of opinions. It is a process of "communication." - i would say to function as a society we agree on what is morally correct or incorrect at any given time as opposed to "truth" Examples? JP

08-13-2002, 08:36 AM	#56
popeontheropes Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: a rutt Posts: 24	i did however think the "personal comments" were not needed to voice your displeasure to my original response.(dostf) perhaps not. i get angry when i am dissmissed. sometimes i have it comming and somdetimes it is uncalled for...but it allways gets my dander up. thank you for the itemized break down regarding my post...i will reply and at less length so as to expidite the reply process. bare in mind that my posts will all be directed towards you and your points unless i specifically mention the person who i'm directing them towards . this will save on the "Q" factor. g'bye 4 now

08-16-2002, 04:40 PM	#57
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	phaedrus: Sorry for the delay. I had completed my response to your post several days ago, but it was "wiped out" by some irregular technology, and I haven't been able to get back since. I'll try again... - truth is not a subset of knowledge or understanding or logic etc. Oh, so you mean to say that "truth" is formed or discovered inspite of the knowledge (or outside of it) ?(phaedrus) - the expression of truth is certainly dependent on knowledge. This advances as humanity advances. However this is different from living the truth Knowledge is the first step in "cleaning" oneself of many falsities we all have about many things, but not he "end" of the process Did i say its end of the process? What do you mean by knowledge is the first step in "cleaning"? Isnt knowledge what you currently possess and something you change or improve or leave-it-be depending on your own outlook or new information you come across?(phaedrus) -no you did not say it was the end of the process, i did as part of an explanation - we have much false information and "beliefs" about ourselves and the world, formed through ; upbringing, experience, education, incorrect information etc. - through these constucts we "assess" the world and ourselves - in order to properly process new information, it is my assertion that we must "clean" ourselves of the incorrect "old" information( if it is reasonably shown to us that it is in fact incorrect) - if this "cleaning" does not occur new information is processed, compared, categorized, and filtered through the old incorrectly - for example christians "hear" new information through THAT worldview, and systematically compare and relate to it from that standpoint - in order for them to "hear" new information or ideas correctly, their current "christian worrldview" should be "cleaned"- by reasonable exchange of knowledge - note --- this occurs only if that person is somewhat disatisfied with their current beliefs or views and how they are perceived to effect their life Our explanation of the truth certainly should be reasonable, scientific and current. However i maintain this is not the same as LIVING the truth So ? And? -This statement is made to state that i differentiate between the explanation of, and the living of truth -again this reinforces the idea that truth is not learned, understood, felt, imagined, but lived - furthter, any explanation one might "hear" about truth, will not and is not the same as living it for oneself - For thousands of years people have tried to overcome their "groundings" through a variety of methods (prayer, isolation, ritual, narcotics, fasting, etc.)- these have all failed Err...they have? Then all knowledge is false and all truths are baseless?(phaedrus) - they have all failed in so far as no one has ever lived truth by doing them - the knowledge and "truth" learned from these methods are unreliable and incomplete - their "original premise" is incorrect - certainly our "groundings" are based on more than knowledge(although certainly a part)- experience, upbringing, genetics,instincts etc.? Err...did you read what i offered? "Knowledge" is not the possession of a "transcendental signified," a translinguistic "essence". It is nothing other than the shared understanding that a community of inquirers comes to as a result of a free exchange of opinions. It is a process of "communication." (phaedrus) -Yes, i read what you said although i think it was not stated exactly in this manner? - I would agree with your definition of knowledge - my reply was an assertion that our "groundings" or "self" is more than just knowledge - i would say to function as a society we agree on what is morally correct or incorrect at any given time as opposed to "truth" Examples? (phaedrus) - our laws. Although one might argue that laws are a manifestation of a societies collective "truth" at a given time and place Thanks Be seeing you...

08-16-2002, 04:42 PM	#58
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	popeontheropes: Very good then... Be seeing you...

08-17-2002, 06:14 AM	#59
popeontheropes Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: a rutt Posts: 24	PHAEDRUS, you said' "Knowledge" is not the possession of a "transcendental signified," a translinguistic "essence". It is nothing other than the shared understanding that a community of inquirers comes to as a result of a free exchange of opinions. It is a process of "communication." that is incorrect.knowledge is not communication. what you have described sounds an awful lot like ' culture '. knowledge is a collection of information discovered by experience and learning and based ( at least in principle) on fact. knowlege is not necissarily truth either. that is dependant upon the way in which you learn and your abillity to process ,what you have learned, completely. it is true , however, that knowledge can be 'communicated'. this is how we learn. and without communication, knowledge would be solly the domain of the individual and chaos would ensue as a result of people's conflicting perceptions and the disparity between individual levels of intelligence. what do you say to that ?

08-17-2002, 07:47 AM	#60
popeontheropes Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: a rutt Posts: 24	Phaedrus Did i say its end of the process? What do you mean by knowledge is the first step in "cleaning"? Isnt knowledge what you currently possess and something you change or improve or leave-it-be depending on your own outlook or new information you come across?(phaedrus) <<<<<<<<<<<<&l t;<<<<<<<<<>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>> i would say that i agree , to some extent , that knowledge is a step toward the truth. example: if you believed that " blacks" are all ignorant violent and stupid...you would never get near the truth in a billion years without first abandoning or "cleaning" your mind of that information. you may have been taught this,you may have been shown examples which you then observed and thereby determined this to be a fair and true statement. but, due to personal predjudice or the specific adgenda of the inividual who exposed you to this opinion or a lack of broader experience, you may not have been permitted or able to observe similar behavior in all humans. this observance would mitigate and modify what you held to be true of african-americans to include all of humanity. thereby giving you a broader understanding of our human culture and the culture in which you were raised and hopefully showing you that racism has no reasonable place in your heart or mind and is unfounded , un-necessary and untrue. this realization would then be a radical departure from the way you grew up and you would then be drawn to question all that you have learned in that environment. your perception would change and your knowledge would grow. knowledge , however is not something you allready posess and need to modify or periodically re-evaluate. knowledge is information you aquire through scientific and honest observations of the facts as they are without respect to you or your opinion and , infact , having nothing at all to do with you. knowledge is the cumulative representation of the truth as it is. not as you want it to be. dostf " living truth" is absolutly impossible. unless you have complete knowledge of your place in the universe and what it is that you are supposed to be doing...or you have unraveled the secrets of the universe and mankinds reason for being..then you cannot live the truth. primarily because you do not know the truth. you can only live in response to the miniscule truths that you encounter on a daily basis. ex} if you believe that it is wrong to kill and therefor do not kil; you would then consider yourself to be living the truth. yes ? now, one day you observe a man killing a child. you are of course appauled due to the fact that this observance is in direct conflict with one of the tenants of your existance. stay with me here: you come to find out , through some means or another that offered you unrefutable proof, that the man had knowlege of the future and that the boy who he killed was to be the next adolf hitler and 10 times more horrible. where is your truth now ? is it still wrong to kill ? or are there now mitigating circumstances which could modify your truth ? truth can not be modified an therefor your living of the truth by not killing is flawed and , infact , untruthful living. it would be a truer way to live to say that killing is , at times, necessary, and to embrace the fact that you may have cause or need to kill and that you would only due so in case of dire and inescapable cicumstances. or, you could refuse to have any opion regarding killing because you cannot safely calculate for all possibillity. this would be more honest and closer to the truth and, therefor,bring you closer to living truth. and finally...to push this toward the absurd ... it would be the ultamate in kliving truth to kill all who threatend your survival or the realization of your own highest self interests simply because it is in your nature , as a human, to do so. which , as an animal, it absolutly is. murder is against the law because we live in a christian society and the ten comandments specifically state that " thou shalt not kill" ours would be a drasticly different existance if it read " thou shalt kill if thou must" so that's what i say about it ! anyone?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.