You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Debate: lixluke interviews sisyphus__ about truth
- Thread starter Tnerb
- Start date
Subjectivism is the claim that truth depends on the observer. The claim that truth is not absolute. This claim is false within the parameters of logic. Outside of logic, you make any statement you want. Either way, nothing can be discussed or debated if operating outside of logic. Anything anybody says is true ouside of logic. Thus nothing means anything. It is impossible to have discussions with irrationalists.
As for insanity, it is the claim that truth is relative that is insane. It does not apply within logic. Using circular reasoning that it makes you happy does not answer the question. Why does it make you happy? What is the logical purpose of using irrationalism of approaching truth?
I stated from the beginning that everything I explained only applies within the parameters of logic. It makes you happy to operate outside of logic? You can make anything you want true if you disregard logic. Thus there is no purpose for discussion. Furthermore, you claim that there is no truth? You cannot discuss anything without logic. You cannot arrive at conclusions without logic and objectivity of truth.
As for insanity, it is the claim that truth is relative that is insane. It does not apply within logic. Using circular reasoning that it makes you happy does not answer the question. Why does it make you happy? What is the logical purpose of using irrationalism of approaching truth?
I stated from the beginning that everything I explained only applies within the parameters of logic. It makes you happy to operate outside of logic? You can make anything you want true if you disregard logic. Thus there is no purpose for discussion. Furthermore, you claim that there is no truth? You cannot discuss anything without logic. You cannot arrive at conclusions without logic and objectivity of truth.
Wrong. The claim that truth is absolute, is stark-raving mad, utterly loony, and ultimately meaningless, like most of the things you post.
There is no such thing as "logic" in your mind, or in anything you've posted. You have no idea what logic is.
You have never answered any question, and you aren't going to start answering any. It's a waste of time asking you anything, because you don't know what a question is, either. You have no cause to ask anything, you aren't expecting any answers, are you? Why ask questions if you know all there is to know?
All you appear to know is how to keep repeating the same meaningless, illogical arguments, that you can't explain.
Hello voices I hear I defend myself aganist the person interviewing me thank you for your support.
This is 100% correct.Two rational and non-deluded people are sitting across from each other, with a book on a table to one side of them.
One of them says, sincerely, 'the book is to my right.'.
The other says, sincerely, 'the book is to my left.'.
Both are true statements, and objective. If one knows the speaker's location, one can then calculate the direction of the book, without actually being that person - or without even being in that person's location.
If one of these persons says, sincerely, 'My favourite colour is green', that is objectively true as well. It is objectively true that their favourite colour is green. Nothing in the statement implies that everyone's favourite colour is green. It is a very, very petty objective truth, but is one nonetheless.
If a third person walks into this scenario and says, sincerely, 'A magical flying teapot created the universe and loves everyone', then they are objectively false. But could this be said to be, at least, subjectively true? No. Whilst the subjective does indeed relate to perspective, it is insufficient to override the nature of truth being actual and non-contradictory. It is therefore absurd to say that 'it is true for you', if one is not describing a fact or condition which could be objectively phrased, ie, 'John Smith is in pain'; 'Jane Bloggs is in love', etc.
Note that saying 'John Smith believes in a magical flying teapot which created the universe and loves everyone' is also objectively true - since it includes the word, 'believes' - to disconnect the observation from the claim.
1. Within the parameters of logic, truth is absolute. When operating within the parameters of logic, truth cannot be relative. This is obvious. Zaps description above is very clear and obvious.
2. There is no reason to discuss anything or apporach anything outside of the parameters of logic. You cannot draw conclusions.
2. There is no reason to discuss anything or apporach anything outside of the parameters of logic. You cannot draw conclusions.
This is 100% correct.
We're aware of that. Ok.
But I had intended only to say now that, I have been informed (by some voices so to speak) that this is supposed to be a task of cracking the shell.
It perhaps is I who should be doing the interview, however seeing your questions raised aganist me is just as easy when you ask a question I answer it or something.
So, I'll try to answer a nearly unanswerable post right now. lol.
And in it I will refer to the use of logic in arriving at certain principals. I see it that this is easy. If your logic can say "this is true" then there is something fishy going on do you see what I mean?
I was trying to do this in a way which is acceptable to you. And that's what I'ma gonna do....
Wait just a second, is anyone else able to get any in-put from you?? Or is it just us from you. Seriously. Now regardless. What you're approaching on is something very tempting for us all to show how you're wrong- you know that.Subjectivism is the claim that truth depends on the observer. The claim that truth is not absolute. This claim is false within the parameters of logic. Outside of logic, you make any statement you want. Either way, nothing can be discussed or debated if operating outside of logic. Anything anybody says is true ouside of logic. Thus nothing means anything. It is impossible to have discussions with irrationalists.
It's my belief, that you're entirely wrong- but have some claims to support.
Why can't you stop there, is my question?
Must you really insist on claiming "the claim that truth is not absolute.": I understand that. Truth is not absolute. Or whatever...
What about, some of the other things you said. They're all equal in this regard.
Every other person obviously, has a lot of belief in subjectivism; because it's true and it works.
It isn't like it isn't true.
Or something....
I'm going to give you a simple example to show you what I mean. And since you're interviewing me you must respond to me otherwise I will throw a brick at your face.
Before that, I understand that you present a viable meathod for arriving at truth.
Can you please explain this truth to me.
Remember I am an ignorant retard and cannot process the ammount of information you are capable of holding.
Subjectivism is false. It is the false claim that truth is not absolute. Truth is absolute. Subjectivism does not work. At least not within the parameters of logic. I have asked many questions in the past few posts that you have not answered. All the while completely avoiding operation within the parameters of logic.
The question is, why have you overlooked pervious posts instead of answering the questions I posted? Either find them and answer them, or get lost. All you are doing is trolling and name calling. It is clear you are not interested in actual productive discussion.
Why then insist on defying all reason and logic, and abiding by irrational subjectivism of truth being relative?
Why then insist on defying all reason and logic, and abiding by irrational subjectivism of truth being relative? Why accept insanity/irrationality over sanity/rational logic/reason?
Are these your questions, my master?
Just say yeah or no I guess.
I'm not disabiding by anything. I'm defying no rules of logic, no universal truth (which is the exact opposite of what you're doing), and not not producing any productive activity. I do nothing irrational other than a bit of entertainment sometimes (this) and see you as claiming I'm something enitrely different.
There is no logical truths, in my opinion. That's a pretty big threshold you're carrying around on your shoulders. If you purposely twist my intent with this message then you will be advoided. And you will probably get away with it because you are like that.
Everything I've said in this thread, has been to show your character and what you believe in. I've found nothing real productive.
You see, I am sisyphus.... You keep forgetting that. You understand next to nothing (sic) (and important clarification) of my reality.
And it is not objective or disabiding by anything.
There is no logical truths, in my opinion. That's a pretty big threshold you're carrying around on your shoulders. If you purposely twist my intent with this message then you will be advoided. And you will probably get away with it because you are like that.
Everything I've said in this thread, has been to show your character and what you believe in. I've found nothing real productive.
You see, I am sisyphus.... You keep forgetting that. You understand next to nothing (sic) (and important clarification) of my reality.
And it is not objective or disabiding by anything.
This means all you are interested is in image, and have no interest in actual discussion of material. I on the other hand ONLY discuss material, and have no regard to showing people's characters or hold no relevance to character of anything other than material and material alone.Everything I've said in this thread, has been to show your character and what you believe in. I've found nothing real productive.
You cannot discuss material with somebody who is not interested in discussing material. Who's only purpose for everything they have said in a thread is to show character of people within discussion.
Wrong. I thought you'd do better than that.This means all you are interested is in image, and have no interest in actual discussion of material.
It isn't about image at all, it's about people claiming that they "own" something and it gets a hell of a lot deeper than image so don't pretend you're on to anything here.
Ok, well what about the material I've presented and my post before you continued with ranting instead of debating?I on the other hand ONLY discuss material, and have no regard to showing people's characters or hold no relevance to character of anything other than material and material alone.
Material, I am interested in. It's a wealth of material you're presenting, and when I counter it with my beliefs they appear worthless.You cannot discuss material with somebody who is not interested in discussing material. Who's only purpose for everything they have said in a thread is to show character of people within discussion.
Notice the bolds by the way.
Caliming that everything you are posting is to expose character is about image. You are either about material or about image. Image means you disregard material, and do whatever you can for the sake of image. Character/image has nothing to do with the validity of the material at hand. Either material is valid or invalid. It has no relation to image/character of anybody presenting material.Wrong. I thought you'd do better than that.
It isn't about image at all, it's about people claiming that they "own" something and it gets a hell of a lot deeper than image so don't pretend you're on to anything here.
Ok, well what about the material I've presented and my post before you continued with ranting instead of debating?
Material, I am interested in. It's a wealth of material you're presenting, and when I counter it with my beliefs they appear worthless.
Notice the bolds by the way.
It does if it's "everything."
Everything you say, every word you present, every logic you spout, will be disregarded by me (to a certain extent), due to the fact that it has no truth.
And, that is what truth is unfortunately.
Let's settle this point which appears insignifigant, first, that way we can move on to the questions that you've forgot about which I posted.
Of course I'm just spouting a little bit of absurdity here but the fact is that what I say is true, and this is what I believe a very important truth to be. A truth which has been devoted by me for nearly my whole life.
Other truths include such examples you raise, and things which are by no means valid for everyone.
Imagine applying your meathod to anything. It's unacceptable.
A lot of what you say though does have its merrit, but that doesn't make it right. If it comes down to it we'll get into this if you want me to and we'll talk about it. Until then, please don't beg me to shove actual logic down your throat, or ask me any other examples. You realize most people are different than you in how they view things. I'm not talking about anything worthless either.
Everything you say, every word you present, every logic you spout, will be disregarded by me (to a certain extent), due to the fact that it has no truth.
And, that is what truth is unfortunately.
Let's settle this point which appears insignifigant, first, that way we can move on to the questions that you've forgot about which I posted.
Of course I'm just spouting a little bit of absurdity here but the fact is that what I say is true, and this is what I believe a very important truth to be. A truth which has been devoted by me for nearly my whole life.
Other truths include such examples you raise, and things which are by no means valid for everyone.
Imagine applying your meathod to anything. It's unacceptable.
A lot of what you say though does have its merrit, but that doesn't make it right. If it comes down to it we'll get into this if you want me to and we'll talk about it. Until then, please don't beg me to shove actual logic down your throat, or ask me any other examples. You realize most people are different than you in how they view things. I'm not talking about anything worthless either.