Primal

Not really.



Well then you don't really believe in the optimism then do you? You seem to be if anything acting as if it is true even though you don't believe it, which doesn't really adress my argument at all. For my argument presumes actual belief.

Gurdur

You seem to be getting confused.
I believe in my optimism --- otherwise how could I be genuinely optimistic ?

The fact that you seem to have a very simplistic psychological view of the belief process is not helping your argument. It's far more complex than you assume.

John Page

As you've pointed out, just saying it doesn't make it so. Secondly, if something were deemed to be absolute to a mind then it would be relative to not-mind.
Hegel, Berkley, care to comment?
The issue is not whether the proposition is impossible, if that were so then to propsition wouldn't exist. The issue is whether the result of the proposition was held to be something impossible.
Beside your misquote (I never said "impossible sometimes", I can think of a lot of things that can be proven to be impossible sometimes and not others. Again, the examples I gave refer to the notion of impossibility and hold irrepective of whether the subject is impossible or not.
Nice. If you do not have the ability to perceive one's own existence (for example, consciousness of self) then the subject would be impossible to attain.

The way I see it, you are arguing that one of us has an inaccurate picture of his/her existence which precisely proves my point that our ideas are relative.

BTW you use the word "wrong" and IMO this is a perjorative term - perhaps more accurate to say that if you are right then the relation between your ideas and reality is True and if you are wrong, the relation between your ideas and reality is False. Now it gets circular because, of course, this is mereley my proposition and the resulting true/false value is in my mind only. Furthermore, if you concur we intersubjectively agree and if you don't concur then we intersubjectively disagree.
The above was in response to my question "Anything else you know that is absolutely true?"
1. Please provide a basic rule of logic that you would like to start with.
2. Please provide a basic rule of math that you would like to start with.
3. If you believe you are having sensations this is subjectively true for you. I know nothing about this and for all I know *Primal* is just a computer programmed set of responses. Please prove to me that you are having sensations.
4. Same goes for your (subjective) thoughts.

In short, nothing here passes my subjective test for absoluteness.

Cheers, John

John Page

LOL! A lot of people believe in the Xian religion, but it isn't true and they damn well know it. However, it works for them...

Seriously. Two men are thinking about A. One says A is false. The other says A is true. Both men believe they are correct. Where is the problem?

I don't believe I'm writing this.

Cheers, John

John Page

In my experience many people, including sometimes me, hold contradictory beliefs. Indeed, whole systems of logic have been devised to determine what is, actually, the truth independent of anybody's opinion about it. Also, have you heard of heretics? If not then perhaps hypocrites?

Finally, IMO, the mind is not a single process and it seems reasonable to me that replacement beliefs must emerge gradually and replace old belief systems gradually. This would also indicate that minds have the capability to hold contradictory propositions true at the same time!!

I still don't believe I'm writing this.

CHeers, John

99Percent

And I don't believe I'm reading this.

Is this in any way useful or even meaningful?

And that is the pitfall of relativism.

John Page

It was intended as a humorous example of a proposition with an "impossible" result! Thus, very germane, very useful and full of meaninglessness , even though I say so my subjective self.

Cheers, John

Primal

Yes just saying it doesn't make it so, but disagreeing doesn't disprove it either John.

Also just because something is absolute "in-the mind" and relative to a non-mind doesn't change the fact that it is still absolute in the mind.

Hegel and Berekley were both idealist philosophers who thought all of existence was literally ideal or within the mind. However they still believed in absolutes, such as sensation and even God. Hegel for example even believed in a sort of universal force known as the "absolute spirit" hence though both believed knowledge was "in the mind" both at some level could accept absolutes as well.


John when I said that a "proposition was impossible" I didn't mean it was "impossible to say" but that it's being true was impossible. This totally avoided my point by concentrating on the irrelevant, the fact still stands that you have to 1)admit that the said proposition is impossible or its "results are" whatever you mean by "results of a proposition." Or face option 2. Red herrings do not escape dillemas.




Yes, good point/nit picking John you never said that verbatim, though I never said you did either. (All I said was that to say something was "impossible somtimes" you made little sense.)


If it is impossible sometimes and not others, then it's mot really impossible at all now is it?

Also are you then saying that the examples you gave of impossibility don't really stand the test of being impossible at all?




Are you saying all evidence or proof is merely a matter of perception via the eyes? What about thought? Are you then saying that a statement "if not seen or proven one way or the other by observation, is meaningless"? If so, then you have to either admit 1) Doubt one's own existence or be agnostic on the issue(an absurd proposition) or 2) Admit that there may be more to evidence then perception or show how my perceptions can disprove my existence.

If you select 1, then you merely create an even greater problem for yourself of proving, using perception only: that perception is the only means to prove a statement correct.



John I am not talking about the details or overall picture of one's existence but the matter over whether one exists or not. Do not make my claim any broader then it really is.

Or John I can simply say "wrong" as I'd rather avoid having to write out an entire sentence to replace a word. Sorry if I don't succumb to your ideas a priori.

Yes though I'd like to avoid the intersubjectivist assumptions made and get back to the issue of whether one exists or not. The issue of existence qua existence not existence in a certain mode.


Non-contradiction and identity.


One plus one equals two.

Alright then "one's own sensation" the one indicating whoever is reading. Can you deny that you yourself have sensations or disprove the claim?


Key point: same goes ffor me when you are the claimant. But with you still be the claimant does the same still go undeniably for you? That's the issue, please stop trying to present my claims in a disingenuine manner (It should be clear by now that I am not supposing you certain of mine or anyone else's thought/sesnations/etc but your own to yourself ,same goes for sensations.)

It's rather strange that you jump the gun seeing as two of the four points above were requests for examples and the other two misrepresented my claims in a rather obvious manner.


John, I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand but let me try explaining this again.

First I'll get to your Christian example, if they know it isn't true then they don't really believe it. If you think they do, tell me exactly what you mean by "belief."
If you mean by "it works for them" that it makes them feel better to pay it lip service and helps them fit in, then they don't really believe it: they pretend to. If you mean they are disingenuine, then they still believe it: they are only insecure about it.

Second for your point concerning man who thinks A is true and man who thinks A is false: they are not the same man. My point presumes the same person is saying "A is true but I don't believe it." Or "I believe A, even though it's not true." Thus let me stress this the example did not adress my point because my point is about one man contradicting himself, not two men disagreeing with eachother.

Hypocrites merely do not practice what they say you should: that has nothing to say about whether they believe something or not. Heretics do not believe what the establishment does: again this has nothing to do with whether or not they contradict themselves.

Also I already said someone may hold a belief, or believe some to be true even though it is wrong. They may simply not believe something and then at the same time believe it is untrue. Those two are very different claims. For example I may realize when Duane Gish says: "The earth is 6,000 years old." He is wrong. But if he says "I believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, but that isn't true." Then he is not only wrong but contradicting himself.



I'd have to say you may be right: but the point is they are still contradicting themselves, which was my point.

Primal

Sheesh, someone's never heard of the fallacy of equivocation.

Primal

Thus you are an optimist yet not an optimist. You believe in optimism, yet think it untrue(disbelieve it). Kind of like a person that claims to be both an atheist and a theist at the same time.

Very well then you contradict yourself, you contain multitudes despite that the multitudes are senseless. This if anything then only proves my point.