HELP!!!! Need to debate new stream of Philosophy

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Busy Lizzy, Apr 27, 2002.

  1. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Busy Lizzy,

    Welcome to reality... :bugeye:

    Yes, you are right. Children are also closer to the Truth than us. That's because our ego creates a giant web of beliefs, lies, throught our rational mind (I'm including theists and atheists here...). What happens is that our ego perceives the reality differently that it truly is because it JUDGES it. :bugeye:

    That's why Religion says that the "Truth is in the Heart", "the Truth will set you free", "only children can enter the Kingdom of Heaven", etc...

    Three things:

    • Don't believe me
      Unless this alligns with your reality and feels right for you, don't believe in me.
    • Don't believe in yourself
      Don't believe in the limitations that you give to yourself. Don't believe you are not capable of doing something. Do't believe your life stinks, it's just the way you perceive it.
    • Don't believe in others
      They are also drowned in lies... so don't believe in others either.

    Simplicity and innocence is Wisdom.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Be like a little child.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Agent@5 Registered Senior Member

    Truth only exists outside the human mind
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Hoth Registered Senior Member

    Truth and falsehood are idea about things, labels of a sort, and thus must be within the mind only. Outside of the mind there's only things-in-themselves... truth values are judements about things. A judement about something cannot be a part of the thing itself... the judgement must be in a mind, it doesn't exist externally.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Agent@5 Registered Senior Member


    yes, there is that argument. HWich i agree with. What I am suggesting it. EVerything that exists outside the mind exists in its own right. I has no judgement. IT has no name or description. And will will never know if it exist or not, because the mind will catergorise and label.... I agree wit hyou, the concept of 'truth' is a human phenomenom, but what exists outside the human concept cant be understood within the mind. I guess thruth was the wrong word to use, in fact any human concept applied to what is outside the human mind would be contradictory, so ill just leave it as _____ is what is outside the human mind. LOL
  8. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Originally posted by Hoth:
    Originally posted by Agent@5:
    Good posts guys

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I really like this thread... people here are not mental deficient...:bugeye:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Well... the only way to understand the Truth (if possible) would be by not judging what we perceive. Unfortunatly, we have the bad habit of judging everything. Science itself is pure judgement. So the way to the Truth must be very mysterious; it must be explained with the mind but not judged...:bugeye:

    Unless the Truth can't be understood, it can only be experienced. But then, everyone will have to search and when finded, the person won't be able to transmitt it to others, since language is full of judgment... :bugeye:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    This agrees with Eastern Philosophies...!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. Agent@5 Registered Senior Member

    I guess that is the closest we can get, because even in description, we use judgement. But i guess we need to judge. LIke if someone was coming at me with a bloody machine gun, I would judge that from the circumstances and cause and effects, that Ive got to get the hell out of there.... I guess it is ineveitable, the best we can do is try and be as conscious as possible.
    Let me just say, Its nice to finally talk to people who arnt a bunch of ignorant Scmucks. ... thanks yguys
  10. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member


    No. You would have time to judge. You wouldn't have time to process the information. If you had so, you would certainly be hit...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yeah... it's pretty nice talk to you...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. Busy Lizzy Registered Member

    Sorry about the absence - I needed to go out "hunting & gathering" (ie talking to people I wouldn't ordinarily talk to & doing things/thinking for them so they could pay me money, so I could go & buy food to eat >>>> still seems an arse-about, tail-wagging-the-dog way of meeting my basic needs! Sorry off on another tangent!!)

    I must admit I was rather disheartened by my last foray into the chat pool, but I learned something about the potential stumbling blocks for what I'm proposing.

    The "chest beating" response to the suggestion that homosapiens are not superior to every other thing on this planet saddened me deeply. Within what I am proposing homosapiens can really only adopt the position of custodians/general managers of the planet because they have a far less specialised existence (reflected in their comparatively less specialised perceptual apparatus etc etc).

    (I still don't understand why there needs to be a hierarchy anyway? Why does something need to be on the top of the heap? I guess unless we get over it (ie our insecurity), we'll never be able to even glimpse what truth may exist because we will be driven by fear)

    Excellent point TruthSeeker re. judgement, however Gynomypisteology implies we ONLY have the capacity to judge other homosapiens (which we seem to do pretty poorly anyway).

    The fact that the concept of "truth" exists indicates 2 things - our an insecurity in interpreting what we see and/or the fact that we know there is something beyond our comprehension/grasp.

    I would posit that truth is about comprehension and in order to comprehend it, one needs to keep an open mind. Too many times the context of our questions are too small for the answer.

    For example: It's 15 degrees C, so why is it so cold?

    This is a closed question & assumes that the answer will have something to do with the temperature when it could be related to wind chill which is related to a cold front which is related to the El Nino effect on the other side of the planet which is impacted upon by solar flares affecting magnetic winds etc.

    (You could say Chaos Theory takes care of this I suppose - ie compensates for our apparent narrow-mindedness and myopia but do we really need a damn theory about it!)

    Yes Gynomypisteology joins Eastern and Western philosophies Agent@5 the next issue is how to overcome chest-beating?

    Perhaps make up some rules about judgement like:

    "judge only your own kind in a manner you feel is fair for you to be judged...........?"
  12. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Buzzy Lizzy,

    I judge that classical music is awesome and rock&roll is terrible. Can someone disagree with me? Yes. Therefore, judgement is not limited to homo sapiens. There are zillions of possible objects to judge...

    I agree with all the rest...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yeah... I tried that in other thread... but unfortunatly people there were too close-minded...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It was called: "Down with Religion!!!!!!"

    Hey... search for my thread "Goodbye Thread" one of those days...!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. ubermich amnesiac . . . Registered Senior Member

    to busy lizzie

    first of all, i think you've mistaken gynomypisteology for gynocoepistemology, the way women learn about the world around them, which essentially equates to "i feel therefore i buy."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    no, seriously though, nice post. it reminds me of mine on religion (the illogical god.) everything i said there has been said by you except with many more cleancut distinctions, (and it implicates god of course, thats why its in religion.)

    there is one fundamental disagreement i have though.
    people are right in saying what you said is not new to philosophy, (and i dont know if id be so haughty to assume my philosophy belongs with one of the big five.) having been said by postmodernist relativism. but the problem with that is that to assume no truth exists without belief is just as fallacious as assuming a common, absolute truth does exist. it's like proving god DEFINITELY EXISTS or DEFINITELY DOES NOT exist.

    moreover, and ironically enough, the idea of a common truth preestablishes the existence of god, or absolute entity, to whom the truth is ultimate. unfortunately, you can neither prove this deity exists or does not exist (see my post on the illogical god,) and therefore the only conclusion gynomypisteology can make is that no truth is common to all people which definitely has been said before.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    you cant do this to people. i have no doubt that you read this distinctions out of a book, or maybe you did just come up with them, but you have to explain what these different striations of existence mean in your philosophy. for example, i dont know what the difference between self-consciousness and self-awareness is here, and why belief, reality, and truth relate to the different levels of existence as they do. (especially truth, i thought you were advocating the negation of absolute truth.) examples please.
    i dont think you can treat belief/existence like a pyramid. why does self-awareness/consciousness (still not sure of your distinction) preclude the man's knowledge of the essence of truth? what does that mean? we must lose our rationality (what separates us from animals, they say) to know truth? then truth by that definition becomes measured by the accuracy of our observations in relation to the true nature of our environment, and you can't, you CANNOT, base your notions of truth on faulty sensory perception. every philosophy agrees on that.
    ??? again, what do you mean by perceptual capacity and specialisation, now im especially confused: i thought man's self-consciousness stemmed from more intricate specialisation thus and higher perceptual capacity. do you mean man's "self-consciousness" trades off with his lack of perceptual capacity of the world? again, even that is unproven. because then only consciousness is key to true perceptual capacity and ultimately truth, which places too much emphasis on the faulty senses.
    true. postmodern relativism.
    now heres my $64 million question for you:
    let's start with the assumption that animals are irrational/at least illogical. we can't know for sure, but i think you agree our rationale separates us from the animals. by your definition, the interpretation of the object is intrinsic to the nature of the subject, and therefore, logic, as a type of interpretive epistemology, is intrinsic to the subject. we know it's not some physical aspect of the subject, but something mental, because that's the fundamental difference between men (logical) and animals (illogical.) so if logic is intrinsic to something in man, it must be intrinsic to his self-consciousness, your distinction between man and animal. my point is that logic is key to manipulating/intuiting further truths from preestablished ones. observation will only allow you to see truths in front of you, logic will allow you to see ones behind and all around you that you dont initially see. but if you're claiming that man must function on the conscious to unconcious level to know truth (as with the animals) then that destroys his logical rationale as well, and he can do nothing but observe that truth. in the end, it comes down to two choices: either seeing an a limited part of an absolute truth and being too stupid (lacking self-conscious) to realize it, or creating your own, personal truth out of dysjunctive, unfounded logic intrinsic to you that means something, and is open to exploitation for creating a personalized existence, for reaching your goals as an individual.

    personally, im going with the latter.

    btw, if you came up with this after reading a specific philosopher/book, please tell me the name of the philosopher/book. id like to know where youre coming from or at least be able to read it on my own time. thanks.
  14. Busy Lizzy Registered Member


    Ask yourself who makes classical music/rock & roll? What I'm saying is judgement within "man's" domain by "man" (ie you).


    Finally some one asking some interesting questions!! However, don't understand your point re. "way women learn about the world" (but, I have always been told I should have been born with balls - wont go there!).

    God is a human construct - our belief in it gives it existence OUTSIDE our belief - we therefore THINK it is true.

    I don't really know if "truth" exists independently - you assume it does, you believe it, therefore it exists AND also exists outside your belief.

    Yes, "Man is the measure of all things" (Protagoras..) a relativistic argument but Gnomypisteology goes beyond this circular, plug hole argument (ie applies to all people/some people? etc.) - so the statement becomes "All man measures is what he believes".

    I made up the distinctions between self-consciousness etc (I have a base degree in Psychology).

    What I am saying is that IF a truth were to exist it would be at our unconscious level.

    Self awareness = "I". Self-consiousness = "I" & others (people are judged as similar/different to me - always relative to self). Both of these are ego-centric = I believe...

    Consciousness is shared/interactive.

    Belief/existence is not a pyramid (another example of the NEED for hierarchy!!! WHY must there be one? Supremacy?).

    What separates us from animals is US.

    Man does not know what he does not know.

    Truth is not necessarily rational, logical etc.

    If every philosophy agrees on not being able to base notions of truth on faulty sensory perceptions why is man (the philosopher) any exception?

    Percpetual capacity means limited perceptual ability = limited comprehension of the environment > we have limited and less specialised senses (ie on a sliding scale compared to animals we are blind, deaf, unable to smell, feel or taste as well), however as a function of an arguably "more even" perceptual apparatus we have self-consiousness (ie an ability to perceive self as a reflection of others = ego-centricity).

    THAT'S IT - "(man)...can do nothing but observe truth"!!!! As soon as there is interaction, truth, IF it exists, is lost.

    There is no book on this I've been at it since I was 12 years old (ie 25 years) - maybe I should write one?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page