Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Theli · 09-30-2002, 03:18 AM

Kent Stevens

Quote:

The problem is that human testimony is fallible. People make mistakes. They may incorrectly believe that certain things happened, but to them it is the truth.

I think it's easy to forget that there are 2 different truths. There is one objective, that exist outside our own perception/interpretation.
And then there is the second (the interpretated truth) that we are stuck with. A pen is plastic and ink, it is a cluster of particles, but it's still a pen. None of these claims are false, but they are not objective truths.
Some (most?) claims are made with insufficient observation of the objective truth.

Theli · 09-30-2002, 03:24 AM

Starboy: Does truth have a temporal nature? Can something be true today but be false tomorrow?

I would think so, yes.

Starboy · 09-30-2002, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli:
Starboy: Does truth have a temporal nature? Can something be true today but be false tomorrow?

I would think so, yes.

Theili, I can't help but think that this is just another form of Christian double think, true = false. If the term doesn't fit, don't use it.

Starboy

Kent Stevens · 09-30-2002, 11:06 AM

Quote:

I think it's easy to forget that there are 2 different truths. There is one objective, that exist outside our own perception/interpretation.
And then there is the second (the interpretated truth) that we are stuck with. A pen is plastic and ink, it is a cluster of particles, but it's still a pen. None of these claims are false, but they are not objective truths.

It is only reality that exists outside of our beliefs. These beliefs may coincide with reality at times or they may not.

Everything is a matter of belief. Everything is a matter of perception. We can only perceive shadows of reality. We might be living in a virtual reality such as is seen with the movie the Matrix. Or if you saw the movie Beautiful Mind there was another virtual reality. To me any religion shows a virtual reality. Our scientific understanding as it is imperfect also represents a virtual reality.

But when we live our daily lives we just assume that what our senses say corresponds to reality. When we say that we got out of bed, we have a belief that corresponds to reality. When we say that we ate something today, we have a belief that corresponds to reality.

We also need some way of distinguishing good perceptions that correspond to reality from bad perceptions that do not. We can say that it is false to believe in pink elephants or it is wrong to do so. We can say that it is true that we got out of bed today, to distinguish from other false alternatives. These statements are beliefs themselves.

We can partly use words like true and false, right and wrong. We just need to remember that these words are used in statements that are perceptions or beliefs. As knowledge is imperfect we need to use such terms in a tolerant and flexible way.

Primal · 09-30-2002, 01:57 PM

Keith my apologies as my post and comments were directing towards Hugo. Who I will not answer anymore in light of Hugo's one-liner criticisms, a good portion of which consists of jokes and emoticons, responses to my arguments. Responses which quite obviously consists of petty mongering.

A sample of Hugo's style of argument:

Quote:

I must strike my colours here: i plan to enrol in a logic class, preferably the same one Primal attended. Suicide is also on the cards.

and

Quote:

What the hell are you talking about? Logical principles hold that the law of identity must be proven absolutely? I think i'd better ask our Lord for help understanding you here!

as well as the penetrating:

Quote:

This is your best yet, i'll allow. Quite breathtaking! "If... blah, blah... then the subjectivist finds himself in a paradox". I'll bet our subjectivist fears for his life in this awkward predicament. However, i shall caution him against suicide until such time as you can establish the paradox without the use of that - doubtless insignificant - word "if".

Nice summary of my argument Hugo: "blah blah blah".

The depth of such a criticism amazes me. Notice how in Hugo's entire post he ignores the fact that my criticism stemmed from a logical viewpoint. This is quite plain when Hugo writes:

Quote:

But you said that our subjectivist only uses opinion; why, then, would he require such a standard?

Maybe because saying that what is or is not logical is a matter of subjective opinion is illogical Hugo? I hope you paid that much attention to what I wrote.

Hugo here obviously has an agenda other then examination of the evidence, or critical discussion, most likely he wants to harass me for putting his friend Kant on ignore, that or he is so emotionally charged on the issue that discussion with him will get nowhere. I have yet to see one relevant response to my arguments from Hugo.

Now Hugo is right, even the biggest jerks and idiots can be right. But he neglects 2 things.

1) While this is possible it's not likely.

2) It's not worth arguing with them about. Most likely such people if right, do not get there by correct method but dumb luck. Meaning open-ended discussion will be fruitless, because one party will just not listen or take the issue seriously and will come back "Rush Limbaugh" style, making unwarranted accusations, changing the subject, asking for definitions of words at random (to take up time and confuse the issue), etc.

Hugo has shown that he does not take the issue seriously, hence I do not take Hugo seriously. Hugo is very much a fundy, perhaps not in content but in style and method. In fact, I have actually seen a lot of fundies more civil(and reasonable) then both Hugo and Kant on Christian Forums. I have for this reason put Hugo on ignore. If Hugo continues to harass me I will inform a mod who may handle this appropriately.

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]

Hugo Holbling · 10-02-2002, 06:01 AM

Primal declared:

Quote:

I will not answer anymore in light of Hugo's one-liner criticisms, a good portion of which consists of jokes and emoticons, responses to my arguments. Responses which quite obviously consists of petty mongering

For the benefit of those who are not so hasty to employ the ignore function, i chose to respond to Primal in amusing (or perhaps not) fashion because i found his post to be nonsensical. In the past elsewhere i have employed a Mencken-esque approach with such people. I admit that i am quite hostile toward idiocy in philosophy, largely because i find destructive arguments so entertaining, and no doubt because i have engaged in more than my fair share. Nevertheless, i have already apologized to NialScorva if my approach should have caused offence; thus far i have received no rebuke.

Quote:

Notice how in Hugo's entire post he ignores the fact that my criticism stemmed from a logical viewpoint.

It pains me to think that i studied logic and flattered myself that i could recognize it when i saw it...

Quote:

Hugo is very much a fundy, perhaps not in content but in style and method.

This comment has cleared up much confusion for me.

If i may conclude: Primal does not understand the difference between subjectivism, solipsism and epistemological nihilism. His "arguments" are incoherent. I apologize for dragging this thread off-topic with my response, but i have trouble resisting the temptation to call a spade a spade.

I leave by reminding you of this gem:

Quote:

Certain rules of logic are said to be true whether one depends on them or not. Rules like the principle of noncontradiction and identity. To say that these things are subjective is to say they are only true as a matter of preference, in which case one is denying the very validity of these logical principles wich holds that these things must be proven absolutely. Otherwise the entire logical system is worthless, as then non-existent things can think and so on.

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Hugo Holbling ]

Hugo Holbling · 10-02-2002, 06:04 AM

phaedrus:

Quote:

Truth and meaning have nothing "objective" about them, in the modern, objectivistic sense of the term; they are integral aspects of the "event" of understanding itself, are inseparable from the "play" of understanding.

What do you make of the concordance, if any, between the modern philosophical understanding of these terms with the older Eastern traditions? (I'm thinking of Zen, specifically, since i've studied it more than others.)

Primal · 10-03-2002, 03:39 PM

In other words Hugo cannot confront my arguments directly and has resorted to red herrings.

John Galt, Jr. · 10-03-2002, 10:36 PM

Mis-strike.

John Galt, Jr.

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: John Galt, Jr. ]

Hugo Holbling · 10-03-2002, 10:53 PM

Primal blustered, previously:

Quote:

I will not answer anymore in light of Hugo's one-liner criticisms... I have for this reason put Hugo on ignore.

Primal changes his mind:

Quote:

In other words Hugo cannot confront my arguments directly and has resorted to red herrings.

If Primal wishes to continue his nonsense, i hope he will make his way
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=001163" target="_blank">here</a>, where he can rant to his heart's content about his "arguments" not being addressed.

Perhaps someone could pass this message on to him, because - as you can see - he's ignoring me.

10-03-2002, 10:36 PM	#149
John Galt, Jr. Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 73	Mis-strike. John Galt, Jr. [ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: John Galt, Jr. ]</p>

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

09-30-2002, 03:24 AM	#142
Theli Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,567	Starboy: Does truth have a temporal nature? Can something be true today but be false tomorrow? I would think so, yes.

10-03-2002, 03:39 PM	#148
Primal Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Marcos Posts: 551	In other words Hugo cannot confront my arguments directly and has resorted to red herrings.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.