Does truth have many versions?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wegs, Jan 1, 2020.

  1. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,225
    So, would you offer any advice to say a loved one who was addicted to a potentially destructive substance?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,689
    That is not the question being asked. This thread is about truth and facts.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,225
    Don’t answer the question then. I disagree with your line of thinking, so guess our versions of truth differ.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,689
    That's not fair. You've created a straw man here. You were asking about subjective and objective truth, but now you're posing a moral question. What we should do with our knowledge experiences is a new thread.

    Statistics of past events don't speak truth about present unresolved circumstances. They're predictors, sure, but that's not truth.
     
  8. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,225
    Why not? That’s how actuaries at insurance companies determine our premiums when calculating potential risk.

    They look at past events based on majority findings to determine future outcomes. Outliers will always exist, though.

    Respect your point, but I don’t see this as a strawman.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,610
    Of course. And if someone points a loaded gun at your head and pulls the trigger, you might well survive. Sure, it's a good _prediction_ that you will die, but your prediction could easily be wrong - the gun could jam, or it could be a BB gun or something.

    Still, I bet if you saw a thug pointing a gun at a friend's head and preparing to fire it, you'd do what you could to stop it. Because usually the outcomes for that sort of thing are bad.
     
    wegs likes this.
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    Sounds like a sensitive issue for you ...so...
    My thoughts:
    The addict knows he is doing stuff that is harmful to his life. He or she has made a decision that the harm is the lesser of at least two evils. He or she has traded one sufferance for another in the belief that the one he/she has chosen is the easiest path. The harm being done by the Meth is perceived as less than the harm that would be done by withdrawal ( paranoia )
    So telling them that it is harmful is not going to help that much, but offering a lesser evil that might suffice (example: Methadone ( Heroin) or Naltrexone (lesser pain killer, opioid, addiction))
    For example: Withdrawal from Diazapine ( Valium ) can be fatal so offering an intermediate and less addictive anxiety treating substitute that does not involve a terminal withdrawal is generally advised as a part of a long withdrawal phase. (?)

    Sometimes the use of the word "Subjective" is to facilitate a lie. As in most cases it is objectively true that Meth addicts know they are doing harm to them selves but use the term subjective ( "That's your subjective opinion") as a cop out.

    Notes:
    I underlined the word Addicts for a reason...
    Objectively true is not used in an absolute context....
    ie. truth by consensus is not absolute truth.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2020
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    When you realise that nothing = everything then it is a quite logical statement.

    Basically it is stating that everything is objectively true, even our misinterpretations, lies and self deceptions and what we consider as being subjective are objectively true once realized or understood for what they objectively are.

    "True lies"
     
  12. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,105
    i despise the expression "speak my truth"
    because it is almost entirely owned by women as a process of self actualization in a position of power & authority inequality
    it implies a sense of action when in fact it is just a funder-mental right to having an opinion
    while it has its uses and its own sense of individual validity and worth, as a collective concept to assert to a sense of blatant gender inequality it becomes a bandaid that doesn't cure the source of the injury cause.

    personal development breakthroughs through the early to late 80s saw this term come out and become a very powerful aspect of personal development.

    ... the expression its self...
    sure ok i get it
    but its ability to be knowingly used or applied with implicit bias to usurp equality as being something that must be fought for as an action of normal inequality, is not the message most modern people want as a base line for human rights.

    i do not think people should stop using it, however i think it needs to be understood how the expression is easily able to be used to undermine the very purpose of what it was designed to do.


    "you do you"
    really funny meme

    how is it used ?
    from a position of elitist entitlement ?
    or from a position of defensive self actualization ?
     
  13. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,105
    not intending to slut-shame, (personal scientific curiosity)
    just wondering if you have been addicted to meth ?
    and or used it at least weekly for a period of time(several weeks) which would normally make an addict out of the average person ... ?

    not wishing to de-nude any philosophical concepts for trolls
    my leaning is toward variant subjective natures of the term of self reference to socialized subjectivity in group associations (sociology)
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    Before getting to involved in the issues that you raise there is a need to clarify the term "Addiction"
    My use of the term in this context refers to, in part, repeated substance use or activity that leads to significant societal dysfunction.

    more later and perhaps another thread...
     
  15. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,225
    Oh, it’s not a sensitive issue for me. I did have a friend who used to be addicted to meth. But, I just used it as an example - addiction in a broader sense.
     
  16. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,225
    This guy gets it.
     
  17. whynwhynwhy Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    Lol. Where are you right now? In US, I guess? Imagine you've got friends in Japan or Thailand. If you use the Chat app to talk to your friends in those countries and if you can see them on your screen, then what you see is your friends in the future, right? It's all about the time zone! That's the future version. You understand?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,105
    note the difference between opioid addictions where people pay retail legal & illegal for drugs
    vs
    the hard core meth addict with massive long term behavioural and economic issues resulting in violent crime being created to pay for the addiction

    i suspect the difficulty in political leadership to comprehend the differences drives a carrot & stick ideology that does not seek to reduce the addicts as a primary source to reduce addictions.

    The obvious USA massive issue of opioid addiction where the addicts are not committing crime to pay for the addiction seems to have no real political leadership ideological policy backing.
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,610
    And the vast majority of people between those two extremes.
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,689
    Fool? Or troll?
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,689
    Sorry, it is literally a textbook straw man. Here's another one:

    A: "We are discussing the facts about legal smoking. The smoking age here is 19. If you are over 19, you can smoke."
    B: "I guess you're OK to let 20 year-olds die of lung cancer then. Is that what you want?"



    I'm quite surprised at you Bill. This is also a straw man. Is not germaine to what facts are and what truth is.

    We are no longer discussing the thread topic; we are discussing scenarios, predictions and moral decisions. That's not what I signed up for here. Carry on.
     
  22. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,105
    the vast majority of people are not political leaders
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,610
    Yes. But that didn't happen. Here's what happened:

    Wegs: "Many 'truths' lead people to ruining their lives. Destroying their finances and health. So, if someone likes to get high on a daily basis, it’s their 'truth,' do we have a responsibility to stop him/her?"

    That is a valid question when the topic is "does truth have many versions?"

    Your reply: "You submit facts about other people that happened in the past (i.e. statistics). That only applies to the addict as a prediction."

    Neither of those statements is a strawman. Wegs statement dealt directly with the original question. Your statement was a response to her. You then seemed to get very angry at her answer - but your anger does not make her answer a strawman.
    It is an analogy - a comparison between two topics to illustrate the similarities and differences between them.
    We are discussing how different versions of the truth have different outcomes. Which is EXACTLY what the original question was looking for - how and why there are different versions of the truth, and the results of that.
     
    wegs likes this.

Share This Page