Advertisement
by Christian Democrats » Sun Nov 11, 2012 7:56 pm
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace » Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:01 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:It is true that a square has four sides!
Will the OP please prove this to be wrong; or, at the very least, will he give me a good reason to doubt this statement?
by Typhlochactas » Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:29 pm
The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:It is true that a square has four sides!
Will the OP please prove this to be wrong; or, at the very least, will he give me a good reason to doubt this statement?
Holy SHIT I just realized something!
Saying there is no truth is a paradox!
It would mean the statement is false, which would mean that there is some truth somewhere out there.
But someone probably already said that, ok.
by The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace » Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:32 pm
by Typhlochactas » Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:32 pm
by VogoLannd » Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:36 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:It is true that a square has four sides!
Will the OP please prove this to be wrong; or, at the very least, will he give me a good reason to doubt this statement?
by Typhlochactas » Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:37 pm
VogoLannd wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:It is true that a square has four sides!
Will the OP please prove this to be wrong; or, at the very least, will he give me a good reason to doubt this statement?
It is impossible to prove whether a square truly exists and has four sides. You see something which seems to have four sides and I see that this thing has four sides but what that means is that this thing has the semblance of having four sides according to our subjective faculties and nothing more. If the entire human race agreed that this thing we were looking at has four sides then it would only prove the semblance of the thing having four sides according to human beings. Semblance is not essence.
by The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace » Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:44 pm
VogoLannd wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:It is true that a square has four sides!
Will the OP please prove this to be wrong; or, at the very least, will he give me a good reason to doubt this statement?
It is impossible to prove whether a square truly exists and has four sides. You see something which seems to have four sides and I see that this thing has four sides but what that means is that this thing has the semblance of having four sides according to our subjective faculties and nothing more. If the entire human race agreed that this thing we were looking at has four sides then it would only prove the semblance of the thing having four sides according to human beings. Semblance is not essence.
by Metaphysics (Ancient) » Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:47 pm
by Wikkiwallana » Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:51 pm
VogoLannd wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:It is true that a square has four sides!
Will the OP please prove this to be wrong; or, at the very least, will he give me a good reason to doubt this statement?
It is impossible to prove whether a square truly exists and has four sides. You see something which seems to have four sides and I see that this thing has four sides but what that means is that this thing has the semblance of having four sides according to our subjective faculties and nothing more. If the entire human race agreed that this thing we were looking at has four sides then it would only prove the semblance of the thing having four sides according to human beings. Semblance is not essence.
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.
by Metaphysics (Ancient) » Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:54 pm
Wikkiwallana wrote:VogoLannd wrote:
It is impossible to prove whether a square truly exists and has four sides. You see something which seems to have four sides and I see that this thing has four sides but what that means is that this thing has the semblance of having four sides according to our subjective faculties and nothing more. If the entire human race agreed that this thing we were looking at has four sides then it would only prove the semblance of the thing having four sides according to human beings. Semblance is not essence.
No, a square has four sides by definition. We didn't see squares out in nature and declare "these are things with 4 sides, by Jove!". We instead, in the process of naming geometric figures, said, "And henceforth, all figures with exactly four equal sides, and exactly four 90° interior angles, shall be called 'squares'," and therefore anything that is a square is a thing with 4 sides. No subjectivity, no lack of perception, it's simple, objective truth.
by Wikkiwallana » Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:55 pm
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.
by The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace » Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:56 pm
Metaphysics wrote:Absolute Truths exist, for example, 2 + 2 will always equal 4
But you are correct in the fact that a majority of "truth" is subjective.
by Metaphysics (Ancient) » Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:57 pm
by Wikkiwallana » Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:58 pm
Metaphysics wrote:Wikkiwallana wrote:No, a square has four sides by definition. We didn't see squares out in nature and declare "these are things with 4 sides, by Jove!". We instead, in the process of naming geometric figures, said, "And henceforth, all figures with exactly four equal sides, and exactly four 90° interior angles, shall be called 'squares'," and therefore anything that is a square is a thing with 4 sides. No subjectivity, no lack of perception, it's simple, objective truth.
Observing anything is subjective.
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.
by Metaphysics (Ancient) » Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:58 pm
The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace wrote:Metaphysics wrote:Absolute Truths exist, for example, 2 + 2 will always equal 4
But you are correct in the fact that a majority of "truth" is subjective.
The correct question is "can anything beyond me be a lie and would I be able to know?"
As an example, say I am a king in a room. It is all I have ever known in my entire life.
I have 5 messengers who tell me of the world, it's features, and of my kingdom of which I rule.
They ask for orders, I give them, and they come back later with a response.
They are my only connection to the world outside of my room, and I trust them because I have no better option.
The question to ask is, is there really a world beyond that room.
Do I really have a kingdom.
Couldn't the messengers be liars.
All I am sure of is the room, and I don't truly know how to leave.
I trust the messengers, but if all this time they were utter liars, I wouldn't know, and would have know way of knowing.
Likewise with the conscious mind.
All you can be sure of is the mind that is in itself thinking, all else is handled by what you assume are your senses, and what you then assume to tell you information that is correct about the world, or whether there is a world at all.
by VogoLannd » Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:07 pm
Typhlochactas wrote:VogoLannd wrote:
It is impossible to prove whether a square truly exists and has four sides. You see something which seems to have four sides and I see that this thing has four sides but what that means is that this thing has the semblance of having four sides according to our subjective faculties and nothing more. If the entire human race agreed that this thing we were looking at has four sides then it would only prove the semblance of the thing having four sides according to human beings. Semblance is not essence.
If it's agreed upon by all subjective views, then it's objective.
by The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace » Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:11 pm
VogoLannd wrote:Typhlochactas wrote:
If it's agreed upon by all subjective views, then it's objective.
What of alien life? even if we can somehow magically achieve a universal human consensus we have not considered the opinions of other sophisticated life forms that may exist in the universe with their own perspectives. We would have to gather ALL that are capable of making subjective evaluations before proclaiming that every sophisticated being with subjective faculties agrees that this object is what we say it is.
EVEN IF THAT WERE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED, all you have is an agreement between subjective beings that an object has the semblance of being such and such. It would be arrogant in my opinion to assume that if we were all to vanish that that square would definitely be a square and it would without a doubt have four sides etc.
by Metaphysics (Ancient) » Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:11 pm
by VogoLannd » Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:33 pm
No, a square has four sides by definition. We didn't see squares out in nature and declare "these are things with 4 sides, by Jove!". We instead, in the process of naming geometric figures, said, "And henceforth, all figures with exactly four equal sides, and exactly four 90° interior angles, shall be called 'squares'," and therefore anything that is a square is a thing with 4 sides. No subjectivity, no lack of perception, it's simple, objective truth.
by Dongolia » Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:34 pm
VogoLannd wrote:Truth is an absurdity that man ought to throw overboard.
Sobaeg wrote:Because of Insurance and Credit and market forces, blue collar and white-collar goods and services are overly inflated.
by Metaphysics (Ancient) » Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:36 pm
Typhlochactas wrote:VogoLannd wrote:
It is impossible to prove whether a square truly exists and has four sides. You see something which seems to have four sides and I see that this thing has four sides but what that means is that this thing has the semblance of having four sides according to our subjective faculties and nothing more. If the entire human race agreed that this thing we were looking at has four sides then it would only prove the semblance of the thing having four sides according to human beings. Semblance is not essence.
If it's agreed upon by all subjective views, then it's objective.
by Wikkiwallana » Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:38 pm
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.
by The Batorys » Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:39 pm
by Wikkiwallana » Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:41 pm
VogoLannd wrote:No, a square has four sides by definition. We didn't see squares out in nature and declare "these are things with 4 sides, by Jove!". We instead, in the process of naming geometric figures, said, "And henceforth, all figures with exactly four equal sides, and exactly four 90° interior angles, shall be called 'squares'," and therefore anything that is a square is a thing with 4 sides. No subjectivity, no lack of perception, it's simple, objective truth.
Four equal sides, 90 degree interior angles, numbers and words. Like I wrote before, I believe whatever we utter and whatever we write has it's origin in convictions which lack incontestable/objective proof. So here I see the proposal that the belief in words and and the belief in numbers carries the objective truth of the square. Subjective belief carrying truth on it's shoulders.
You position one faith down then you posit another faith on top of it and on top of that you get incontestable truth. You my friend are an alchemist. For there is surely some magic involved in that last step.
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.
Advertisement
Advertisement