Objective truths?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Quantum Quack, Jun 5, 2010.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    now there is some widom in that statement

    May be you and Glaucon would care to post something at this thread titled:
    Am I insane? inspired by recent comments and one worth having a look at

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2571196#post2571196
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Votorx Still egotistic... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,126
    At no point did I ever think....nor have I given you a reason to make you presume that I thought you were insane... If you do not wish to discuss the topic with me, then I wish you had only told me sooner.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    So you opt for number two?

    Interesting.

    I'll go with the simplest: irrational.

    To wit: it is irrational to believe that your perception can (possibly) be 'objective'.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    You provided no option. Quite clearly you stated you have drawn two conclusions.
    and because of your position on objective truths and facts you can not make any such statements as to do so is to assume an objective position which you have already stated is impossible.
    Besides this, you have no way of knowing whether my perceptions are objective or not.

    Your own position or that of philosophy is self defeating. IMO
     
  8. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Oh come on QQ, I know you can read.



    And you do?
    Interesting.

    Again, you need to make yourself aware of your own limitations. As has been highlighted by all Phenomenological analysis, one cannot go beyond one's experiences. And those experiences, can be anything but objective.

    That assumes some sort of objective (in the sense of 'goal'). Your interpretation of this goal is quite different from all others'.
     
  9. AJRelic Malformed Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    87
    How can your perception be objective? If you understood how our sensory system works you'd understand we perceive a very small fraction of our world. We're taking shots in the dark, so to speak.
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    yes I can read.... and you dispute what you wrote or would you rather discuss intent?

    My folly is not in what I have stated but that I have not provided evidence to support such a claim. This is a mistake on my part.
    as to whether they are objective I can say with out doubt that they are. How because I can compare "psychically", for want of a better word, what you perceive with what I perceive, which is how we fundamentally manage to co-exist with the degree of commonality we have. If not for this psychic function the world would not exist in an cohesive manner what so ever.

    Do I have evidence..not that is presentable yet.

    The point I was trying to make in all this is that for philosophy to be true to it's mission agnotism or constant skepticism is needed. The "I don't know" whether you believe you can know or not is esential to maintain open minded-ness to possibility and usefullness.

    The OP clearly states:
    Why am I arguing this point?

    You have decided by some arbitary means that objective truths are impossible, and this is not a good philosophical statement IMO nor the opinion of the writers of that definition quoted.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2010
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    the logic of this is not hard to understand even with out experiencing it first hand as I am and have and no doubt will continue to do so.

    if we assume that every perspective [ individual is totally automonous and no psychic connection exists]
    then we have to subscribe to the notion that every person has a totally separate unique POV derived from a total state of non uniformity, every brain is different every single experience would cease to have any commonailty at all. The human DNA would reflect alienation between humans so extreme after just a few generations we would have 5 or 6 billion different races not just individuals of the one Human race,on this planet and every one an alien to each other.
    The brain would have to construct a reality for every single second of it's existance in 4 dimensions including memories that have no common link to anything or any one.

    if we all started out as near similar it would take maybe two months before society totally disintegrated and eventually probably in less than 3 months no humans would be left.

    nay there is more evidence to support connectivity [psychic] than there is against.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2010
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    see above....thanks for joining the discussion btw
     
  13. AJRelic Malformed Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    87
    I responded to Quantum Quack. Why was my post deleted?
     
  14. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    No post of yours have been deleted.
     
  15. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    No need.
    Yours were deleted as offtopic.
    As this one should be.
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    Just to help with the issue :
    If any one wishes to comment on the need for psychic interconnectivity issues, use this thread located in pseudoscience forum or start one of your own.
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2572081#post2572081
     
  17. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    And here is where a problem arises since communication about me, for example, will be taken by me to be about things not in your thoughts. There is the me for you and then there is the me for me. So once you are speaking/writing and make generalizations about others that they notice
    it will seem like claims about what is 'out there' unless you are using language in a non-standard way. IOW what may have great integrity as a representation of your thoughts in your journal takes on MORE than an epistemological solipsism once it is read by others and seems to be intended to be read by others. Were I eavesdropping on you speaking out loud to yourself at home it would be another story.

    I feel less crazy now. I am quite sure you will not like the comparison, but there was a certain point where I realized that Lixluke was communicating in yet another way and there was a certain consistency to his position then.

    And so it might follow that upon reading your accounts the reasonably posited others will likely take your claims to be not merely about them as thought forms 'in' you or perhaps better 'of yours,' but as also about them and thus claims about objective 'things'.

    I don't think so. I don't think I have to assume others are just like me and necessarily approximately limited in the way I seem to be. I can simply explore. I could also think they might live out potentials I have. IOW that I am not what I seem like now. I certainly have experienced this in mundane ways where I go by (what seems like) my past experience of myself and assume I will not be able to ____________or do not experience ___________ and then find to my surprise that I was incorrect. I do not know where the limiting border is for those kinds of experiences.

    But oddly this epistemological prudence has led to claims about everyone. I understand, now, that this everyone is as thought forms in you. But, nevertheless, you end up making statements in terms of we and us. This doesn't seem as spare as it could be.

    I was being wry.

    See now as a creature who does not experience itself as (only) inside the phenomology of some guy in Canada, this sentence from someone saying they are being epistemologically prudent and not making objective claims (or ontological ones) seems pretty cocky.

    I notice above, where I bolded, some of that model of the way things are, which to me makes both objective and ontological claims.

    I can see you saying 'I' but once you get to 'we'.....

    I have argued a similar line in defense of non-rational decision making and belief. I mean, we simply do not have time to be rational through and through. And frankly Agrippa's trilemma seems to arise if one sets out. Especially once memory and some minimal trust in it is on the table. And how could it not be?
    I wasn't arguing they were an ill fit. I was laying out what I saw as our differences. That we differed on each point.

    I disagree with you on each point or at least 1 and 2, but I do not think I can show you are wrong.

    1) I would say I must speak to others as if they transcend my experience of them. So when I write things down, I include this being beyond my full grasp. So I cannot speak of their limits. I cannot be objective about them beyond their beyondness. What you referred to as a reasonable assumption - that they are entities in their own right - seems not to affect your approach to putting truths into language. I would not say this is wrong. It is an effective use of language, but I think it leads to confusions because it is not what people expect - even the ones in your head I would guess.

    2) I think one live in the world as if our assumptions or best guess are correct, but then have caution about stating with seeming certainty these assumptions. IOW 'don't know' is often a good official position. And further it would probably be interesting for everyone to see where they decide to be officially agnostic and where they don't. I think they will find, as I did, that my criteria vary. That the epistemological demands we expect others to follow, we often ignore ourselves on other issues.


    So we can take this one step further and imagine me relating what you've said to my spouse and how it will definitely sound to them like you are making objective claims.

    bingo.

    Sure.

    OK. I am getting a fuller picture.

    I think some languages and cultures also fit this more than others. Some are very objective. Language contains information, it does not express. Some are more subjective, the core is more like dancing than informing. Amazingly I would say you have taken a very rational approach to language. You are informing - which fits my sense of Canadians where care and information are prioritized (more than your neighbors to the South) - BUT this is all solipsized philosophically. So it is not personal in the usual sense, but nevertheless is highly self-focused as the ground of information. Your communication adheres to your own experience. Its merits are to the extent it fits your experience. Which again sounds obvious. That one should do this. Until I see the consequences when others are spoken of.

    It ends up that statements, which from the pen or mouth of others, would be claims about the objective make up of the universe, are really claims about your experience. The same exact sentence would have radically different philosophical implications - or potential scope of claim - coming from you and someone else.

    EDIT: sorry this last bit ends up rather ad hom, not that I mean it in any insulting way. I found your approach fascinating and I wanted to mull over it culturally, since that is where I usually encounter that kind of issue. I only think it is positive that you have this approach. I think a diversity of approaches to language is both good and inevitable. How else can we see the limitations of our own use.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2010
  18. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502

    This makes no sense. I didn't dispute what I wrote...

    In any case, I gave you the two options available, which of the two is up to you...

    As for intent, that has no bearing on the topic at hand.


    Surely you see that this:


    directly contradicts this:

    ??



    I'll agree with that, insofar as its utility goes.
    However, this does not mean that decisions cannot be made.


    It's not arbitrary at all.
    The point is, your term "objective truth" cannot make logical or linguistic sense. That's all.
     
  19. Votorx Still egotistic... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,126
    What were to happen if you ingested a mind-altering substance such as PCP? Nobody could escape its effects, and your entire reality would change. When our senses can be so easily disrupted, how can our perception be objective?
     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    because the entire universe including sentient life shares or experiences it simultaneously in a form or way that is not conscious.
     
  21. Votorx Still egotistic... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,126
    Do you believe in a soul?
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,277
    all this is way off topic, suffice to say though
    big secrets come with a big price. Are you prepared to pay that price? Are you even capable of paying that price?
     
  23. Votorx Still egotistic... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,126
    Actually I think it has everything to do with the topic, or at least my understanding of where you're coming from. A simple yes or no will suffice, and when I say soul I'm referring to the traditional monotheistic idea.
     

Share This Page