Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dostf · 08-07-2002, 05:03 PM

Adrian Selby:

don't make me laugh.
how is it not true i am a husband if i'm married!
or are you suggesting i'm not completely a husband but i'm other things. well, duh. however, i am still a husband and it is true that i am a husband (AS)

- more constuctive critique
- Of course you are a husband if you are married.
- The idea i tried apparently unsuccessfully to relate was that all our "characteristics" taken together is what we describe as "ourselves". This I maintain is a falsity.
- I certainly have no problem responding to questions or different views or ideas than the ones I posted- however your negative comments that are not related to the post are not needed

Be seeing you...

atrahasis · 08-07-2002, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Sammi:
<strong>dostf,

you are being unfair to the respondents, I am enquiring of you if you are being untruthful in any way shape or form.

Finally, was your post a collection of truths, OR was it a collection of possible truths? If they were possible truths, then who turns the possibilities into reality?

Sammi Na Boodie ()</strong>

Another of mr sammi's Straw men, why don't you ever give counter evidence?????

Time&Task · 08-08-2002, 12:19 AM

Dynamics

Morgan · 08-08-2002, 02:30 AM

Dostf, you forget you're talking to someone who doesn't entirely believe in truth.

Mr. Sammi · 08-08-2002, 05:13 AM

Black Moses,

with truth there will always be straw boys. I was asking dostf, if his "ideas" had any truth in them, but his only compromise was that they were related to truth. It has become so confusing, mabye Black Moses might think I am clutching at straw togs.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

dostf · 08-08-2002, 06:06 AM

Morgan:

From your posts you have made it clear you do not "believe" in truth.
Neither do I. Belief is contrary to reason.
The original post was offered as an understanding of truth based on my living and my reason. Hopefully it would stimulate some conversation or thought among others.

Be seeing you...

Adrian Selby · 08-08-2002, 10:29 AM

"Truth is: a wholeness that may be defined as the human being."

So truth is a human being, or all human beings, or each human being is a truth? What is the truth that is a human being? Is the human being an expression of truth? If so, what is the truth being expressed? Do I merely point at someone and say 'Truth'? What is the meaning of this, what can be deduced from it?

"Truth is: a living- not a "feeling" "understanding" "idea" etc."

I live, therefore this is truth? A living human being is a truth? the truth? being true while they cook breakfast or pee? What is the truth here, people live, I do not understand what truth has to do with this.

"Truth is: progressive-as is the human being."

Truth changes? What truth? Give me an example of a truth changing, or are you saying that as a human changes then truth changes? How can the concept of truth be a property of a changing human, or life? Is this some kind of mystical thought? Do you believe truth can or cannot only be propositional?

"Truth is: in one aspect relative to our individual "situation""

Part of truth is relative to my situation? what part isn't? I thought I was truth, and my life was truth? how can my situation force part of the truth of my life and person to be not relevant?

"Truth is: "past" the "supposed existance of self""

Are you suggesting the self does not exist, or that we merely suppose its existence, if so, can you outline the meaning of saying that truth is past this idea of supposing we exist rather than knowing we exist, do you mean past as in "Truth does not reside in supposing the self exists"? If so, can you outline where it is such that it is past this notion?

"Truth is: explained by a "reason based on science""
So I have a reason for lava being hot, how does that explain truth?

"Truth is : " a natural living""

Define an unnatural living, when all nature encompasses our existence.

"Truth is : "past the stage of love" - but is dependant on it."

how can something be past love, as in beyond it, or posterior to it, what is your concept of love such that it has no bearing on truth, is truth a metaphysical entity that has some status above feelings, give an example also of how there is love, and truth is dependent on it, but also past it.

"Truth is : a word used to describe "a living"."

So if I describe myself living, that is truth, or is that merely a truth about my living, the former seems metaphysically tangled, the latter trite. I thought truth was my existence, how can truth describe a living and at the same time be past the stage of love but dependent on it?

"Truth is : you and me -if only we didn't think of "ourselves" as "something we are not""

Again, truth is people, er, so is lies? How am I wrong?

Keith Russell · 08-08-2002, 12:22 PM

dostf:

Would you please explain why you believe that this statement is true:
"Belief is contrary to reason."

One can have evidence which is not sufficient to be considered 'truth', but which is sufficient enough to suggest that a claim is at least 'plausible', 'very likely', 'possible', etc.

In these cases (sans a great deal of evidence) while I certainly don't recommend full belief in the claim, nor full acceptance of the claim, I think one is correct in saying 'the evidence suggests that the claim might be true'...and 'barring future discovery of contradictory evidence, I believe that the evidence suggests that the claim is correct."

Level of belief from 'maybe' through 'definitely' is a range, not an 'either/or' situation.

If one's 'belief' is based on evidence--and only on evidence--even if there isn't enough evidence to say that full belief is justified, I believe that it is correct to believe to some degree, and that it is thus correct, valid, and proper to refer to that belief as a rational one.

Reason rejects the arbitrary. (But a 'belief' based on evidence is not arbitrary.)

One should only ever beleive a claim based on a carefully reasoned evaluation of the available evidence supporting the claim. And, one should only ever believe a claim to the degree supported by whatever amount of evidence is available.

But, I fail to see how 'Belief is contrary to reason'.

Keith Russell.

dostf · 08-08-2002, 03:05 PM

Adrian Selby:

"Truth is: a wholeness that may be defined as the human being."

So truth is a human being, or all human beings, or each human being is a truth? What is the truth that is a human being? Is the human being an expression of truth? If so, what is the truth being expressed? Do I merely point at someone and say 'Truth'? What is the meaning of this, what can be deduced from it?(AS)

-The idea here is that there is no separation between the"truth" and the "human Being". That is there is no "truth" "out there" somewhere waiting to be found in a book or temple or space etc..
- Human being IS that truth they try so hard to find only they don't know it
- certainly not everything that walks on two legs is a "human being"

"Truth is: a living- not a "feeling" "understanding" "idea" etc."

I live, therefore this is truth? A living human being is a truth? the truth? being true while they cook breakfast or pee? What is the truth here, people live, I do not understand what truth has to do with this.(AS)

-The idea here is that truth is "lived". Many seek to "understand " what truth is or express it as a mathematical equation or through "worship" etc...
- To "live" is not the same as "living truth"
-even "ordinary" people who have no interest in truth or reality, can be "more or less human" depending on what is in their mind at any given moment

"Truth is: progressive-as is the human being."

Truth changes? What truth? Give me an example of a truth changing, or are you saying that as a human changes then truth changes? How can the concept of truth be a property of a changing human, or life? Is this some kind of mystical thought? Do you believe truth can or cannot only be propositional?(AS)

- yes I am saying that as humans change and advance, the truth also changes. The truth is not stagnant, it is evolving as the human evolves( remember by my thinking they are not separate)
- Further , explanations of that truth also advance due to advances in all human fields of study
- religions for example would have "truth" stop at some point thousands of years ago- yet their knowledge and living was only at that level which is certainly far less advanced than today

"Truth is: in one aspect relative to our individual "situation""

Part of truth is relative to my situation? what part isn't? I thought I was truth, and my life was truth? how can my situation force part of the truth of my life and person to be not relevant?(AS)

-the idea here is that as we (if we) are "advancing" ( through reading, discussion, experience etc.) our idea of truth also "advances" or changes. Truth then might be seen to be relative to our understanding and living of that truth
- what is "true" for me today may change tomorrow

"Truth is: "past" the "supposed existance of self""

Are you suggesting the self does not exist, or that we merely suppose its existence, if so, can you outline the meaning of saying that truth is past this idea of supposing we exist rather than knowing we exist, do you mean past as in "Truth does not reside in supposing the self exists"? If so, can you outline where it is such that it is past this notion?(AS)

- the idea here is what we take as our "self" is a supposition ie . not a real thing . It is a compostion of all our characteristics that we may define ourself by which we then understand as "me". Or we might say "that is who and what I am" I state this is a falsity, and that is not what you are. Human is not merely the compostion of learned or self defining attributes.
- if we are able to "pass" this position( that what we are is a composition of all our characteristics taken together), then the "truth" lives. (one might say "you" that is not you)

"Truth is: explained by a "reason based on science""
So I have a reason for lava being hot, how does that explain truth?(AS)

- the idea here is when discussing "truth" one should never ask another to "believe" or have "faith" in anything they say
- the explanation should be reasonable and scientificallly based if possible

"Truth is : " a natural living""

Define an unnatural living, when all nature encompasses our existence.(AS)

- i would define "unnatural living" as removing oneself from society and going in a monastery for 50 years, or starving oneself, or permanently abstaining from sex, or praying 5 times a day for the rest of your life- all in hopes of finding "truth"-someday

"Truth is : "past the stage of love" - but is dependant on it."

how can something be past love, as in beyond it, or posterior to it, what is your concept of love such that it has no bearing on truth, is truth a metaphysical entity that has some status above feelings, give an example also of how there is love, and truth is dependent on it, but also past it.(AS)

- the idea here is that "love" between 2 humans is the catalyst that allows us to "pass" our "false or supposed self". If i love another who also loves "the truth that is me", one no longer is focused on "oneself" which we normally are. We "get out of ourselves" even if it is for a moment, and "we"(all our ideas about ourselves-supposed self) no longer "exist" for that moment. This is due to that "love" for another.
However it takes 2 to love. Truth is a wholeness that is not 1 or 2 or 0. Therefore it is beyond this position
- this is difficult to say in words- as it is a living experience
- if you have ever been in "ordinary love" you know you often "forget yourself" when thinking of that other person. This is something like I am trying to describe

"Truth is : a word used to describe "a living"."

So if I describe myself living, that is truth, or is that merely a truth about my living, the former seems metaphysically tangled, the latter trite. I thought truth was my existence, how can truth describe a living and at the same time be past the stage of love but dependent on it?(AS)

- the idea here is again to present that "truth" is a "living" as opposed to "knowing" "feeling" "learning" etc..
- again "living" or "existing" is not the same as "living truth"

"Truth is : you and me -if only we didn't think of "ourselves" as "something we are not""

Again, truth is people, er, so is lies? How am I wrong? (AS)

- again the idea that we are not the sum of all our learned or self described attributes

Thanks for your critique without the "irregularities" of some of your prior posts.

Be seeing you...

Keith Russell · 08-08-2002, 04:11 PM

dostf:

You have said a great deal about what you mean by the word/concept 'truth'.

I understand fully that what I mean by the word concept 'truth', and what you mean by that word/concept, are two completely different entities.

However, I'm fairly certain that the concept to which your use of the word 'truth' refers is not a valid one; fairly certain that what nothing in reality (which I call 'truth') corresponds to your description of 'truth'.

Keith Russell.

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

08-07-2002, 05:03 PM	#21
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	Adrian Selby: don't make me laugh. how is it not true i am a husband if i'm married! or are you suggesting i'm not completely a husband but i'm other things. well, duh. however, i am still a husband and it is true that i am a husband (AS) - more constuctive critique - Of course you are a husband if you are married. - The idea i tried apparently unsuccessfully to relate was that all our "characteristics" taken together is what we describe as "ourselves". This I maintain is a falsity. - I certainly have no problem responding to questions or different views or ideas than the ones I posted- however your negative comments that are not related to the post are not needed Be seeing you...

08-08-2002, 12:19 AM	#23
Time&Task Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Between This&That Posts: 5	Dynamics

08-08-2002, 02:30 AM	#24
Morgan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: UK Posts: 89	Dostf, you forget you're talking to someone who doesn't entirely believe in truth.

08-08-2002, 05:13 AM	#25
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	Black Moses, with truth there will always be straw boys. I was asking dostf, if his "ideas" had any truth in them, but his only compromise was that they were related to truth. It has become so confusing, mabye Black Moses might think I am clutching at straw togs. Sammi Na Boodie ()

08-08-2002, 06:06 AM	#26
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	Morgan: From your posts you have made it clear you do not "believe" in truth. Neither do I. Belief is contrary to reason. The original post was offered as an understanding of truth based on my living and my reason. Hopefully it would stimulate some conversation or thought among others. Be seeing you...

08-08-2002, 10:29 AM	#27
Adrian Selby Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Farnham, UK Posts: 859	"Truth is: a wholeness that may be defined as the human being." So truth is a human being, or all human beings, or each human being is a truth? What is the truth that is a human being? Is the human being an expression of truth? If so, what is the truth being expressed? Do I merely point at someone and say 'Truth'? What is the meaning of this, what can be deduced from it? "Truth is: a living- not a "feeling" "understanding" "idea" etc." I live, therefore this is truth? A living human being is a truth? the truth? being true while they cook breakfast or pee? What is the truth here, people live, I do not understand what truth has to do with this. "Truth is: progressive-as is the human being." Truth changes? What truth? Give me an example of a truth changing, or are you saying that as a human changes then truth changes? How can the concept of truth be a property of a changing human, or life? Is this some kind of mystical thought? Do you believe truth can or cannot only be propositional? "Truth is: in one aspect relative to our individual "situation"" Part of truth is relative to my situation? what part isn't? I thought I was truth, and my life was truth? how can my situation force part of the truth of my life and person to be not relevant? "Truth is: "past" the "supposed existance of self"" Are you suggesting the self does not exist, or that we merely suppose its existence, if so, can you outline the meaning of saying that truth is past this idea of supposing we exist rather than knowing we exist, do you mean past as in "Truth does not reside in supposing the self exists"? If so, can you outline where it is such that it is past this notion? "Truth is: explained by a "reason based on science"" So I have a reason for lava being hot, how does that explain truth? "Truth is : " a natural living"" Define an unnatural living, when all nature encompasses our existence. "Truth is : "past the stage of love" - but is dependant on it." how can something be past love, as in beyond it, or posterior to it, what is your concept of love such that it has no bearing on truth, is truth a metaphysical entity that has some status above feelings, give an example also of how there is love, and truth is dependent on it, but also past it. "Truth is : a word used to describe "a living"." So if I describe myself living, that is truth, or is that merely a truth about my living, the former seems metaphysically tangled, the latter trite. I thought truth was my existence, how can truth describe a living and at the same time be past the stage of love but dependent on it? "Truth is : you and me -if only we didn't think of "ourselves" as "something we are not"" Again, truth is people, er, so is lies? How am I wrong?

08-08-2002, 12:22 PM	#28
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	dostf: Would you please explain why you believe that this statement is true: "Belief is contrary to reason." One can have evidence which is not sufficient to be considered 'truth', but which is sufficient enough to suggest that a claim is at least 'plausible', 'very likely', 'possible', etc. In these cases (sans a great deal of evidence) while I certainly don't recommend full belief in the claim, nor full acceptance of the claim, I think one is correct in saying 'the evidence suggests that the claim might be true'...and 'barring future discovery of contradictory evidence, I believe that the evidence suggests that the claim is correct." Level of belief from 'maybe' through 'definitely' is a range, not an 'either/or' situation. If one's 'belief' is based on evidence--and only on evidence--even if there isn't enough evidence to say that full belief is justified, I believe that it is correct to believe to some degree, and that it is thus correct, valid, and proper to refer to that belief as a rational one. Reason rejects the arbitrary. (But a 'belief' based on evidence is not arbitrary.) One should only ever beleive a claim based on a carefully reasoned evaluation of the available evidence supporting the claim. And, one should only ever believe a claim to the degree supported by whatever amount of evidence is available. But, I fail to see how 'Belief is contrary to reason'. Keith Russell.

08-08-2002, 03:05 PM	#29
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	Adrian Selby: "Truth is: a wholeness that may be defined as the human being." So truth is a human being, or all human beings, or each human being is a truth? What is the truth that is a human being? Is the human being an expression of truth? If so, what is the truth being expressed? Do I merely point at someone and say 'Truth'? What is the meaning of this, what can be deduced from it?(AS) -The idea here is that there is no separation between the"truth" and the "human Being". That is there is no "truth" "out there" somewhere waiting to be found in a book or temple or space etc.. - Human being IS that truth they try so hard to find only they don't know it - certainly not everything that walks on two legs is a "human being" "Truth is: a living- not a "feeling" "understanding" "idea" etc." I live, therefore this is truth? A living human being is a truth? the truth? being true while they cook breakfast or pee? What is the truth here, people live, I do not understand what truth has to do with this.(AS) -The idea here is that truth is "lived". Many seek to "understand " what truth is or express it as a mathematical equation or through "worship" etc... - To "live" is not the same as "living truth" -even "ordinary" people who have no interest in truth or reality, can be "more or less human" depending on what is in their mind at any given moment "Truth is: progressive-as is the human being." Truth changes? What truth? Give me an example of a truth changing, or are you saying that as a human changes then truth changes? How can the concept of truth be a property of a changing human, or life? Is this some kind of mystical thought? Do you believe truth can or cannot only be propositional?(AS) - yes I am saying that as humans change and advance, the truth also changes. The truth is not stagnant, it is evolving as the human evolves( remember by my thinking they are not separate) - Further , explanations of that truth also advance due to advances in all human fields of study - religions for example would have "truth" stop at some point thousands of years ago- yet their knowledge and living was only at that level which is certainly far less advanced than today "Truth is: in one aspect relative to our individual "situation"" Part of truth is relative to my situation? what part isn't? I thought I was truth, and my life was truth? how can my situation force part of the truth of my life and person to be not relevant?(AS) -the idea here is that as we (if we) are "advancing" ( through reading, discussion, experience etc.) our idea of truth also "advances" or changes. Truth then might be seen to be relative to our understanding and living of that truth - what is "true" for me today may change tomorrow "Truth is: "past" the "supposed existance of self"" Are you suggesting the self does not exist, or that we merely suppose its existence, if so, can you outline the meaning of saying that truth is past this idea of supposing we exist rather than knowing we exist, do you mean past as in "Truth does not reside in supposing the self exists"? If so, can you outline where it is such that it is past this notion?(AS) - the idea here is what we take as our "self" is a supposition ie . not a real thing . It is a compostion of all our characteristics that we may define ourself by which we then understand as "me". Or we might say "that is who and what I am" I state this is a falsity, and that is not what you are. Human is not merely the compostion of learned or self defining attributes. - if we are able to "pass" this position( that what we are is a composition of all our characteristics taken together), then the "truth" lives. (one might say "you" that is not you) "Truth is: explained by a "reason based on science"" So I have a reason for lava being hot, how does that explain truth?(AS) - the idea here is when discussing "truth" one should never ask another to "believe" or have "faith" in anything they say - the explanation should be reasonable and scientificallly based if possible "Truth is : " a natural living"" Define an unnatural living, when all nature encompasses our existence.(AS) - i would define "unnatural living" as removing oneself from society and going in a monastery for 50 years, or starving oneself, or permanently abstaining from sex, or praying 5 times a day for the rest of your life- all in hopes of finding "truth"-someday "Truth is : "past the stage of love" - but is dependant on it." how can something be past love, as in beyond it, or posterior to it, what is your concept of love such that it has no bearing on truth, is truth a metaphysical entity that has some status above feelings, give an example also of how there is love, and truth is dependent on it, but also past it.(AS) - the idea here is that "love" between 2 humans is the catalyst that allows us to "pass" our "false or supposed self". If i love another who also loves "the truth that is me", one no longer is focused on "oneself" which we normally are. We "get out of ourselves" even if it is for a moment, and "we"(all our ideas about ourselves-supposed self) no longer "exist" for that moment. This is due to that "love" for another. However it takes 2 to love. Truth is a wholeness that is not 1 or 2 or 0. Therefore it is beyond this position - this is difficult to say in words- as it is a living experience - if you have ever been in "ordinary love" you know you often "forget yourself" when thinking of that other person. This is something like I am trying to describe "Truth is : a word used to describe "a living"." So if I describe myself living, that is truth, or is that merely a truth about my living, the former seems metaphysically tangled, the latter trite. I thought truth was my existence, how can truth describe a living and at the same time be past the stage of love but dependent on it?(AS) - the idea here is again to present that "truth" is a "living" as opposed to "knowing" "feeling" "learning" etc.. - again "living" or "existing" is not the same as "living truth" "Truth is : you and me -if only we didn't think of "ourselves" as "something we are not"" Again, truth is people, er, so is lies? How am I wrong? (AS) - again the idea that we are not the sum of all our learned or self described attributes Thanks for your critique without the "irregularities" of some of your prior posts. Be seeing you...

08-08-2002, 04:11 PM	#30
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	dostf: You have said a great deal about what you mean by the word/concept 'truth'. I understand fully that what I mean by the word concept 'truth', and what you mean by that word/concept, are two completely different entities. However, I'm fairly certain that the concept to which your use of the word 'truth' refers is not a valid one; fairly certain that what nothing in reality (which I call 'truth') corresponds to your description of 'truth'. Keith Russell.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.