All solutions and answers are correct

  • Thread starter olde drunk
  • Start date
In summary, all answers, solutions to the various paradoxes and debates are valid. Each of us will use the answer that best suits our level of becoming. Even the atheist who will reject this notion is right, because he wants to experience believing, non-believing at this time. Ironically believing in non-believing is a belief. As such, valid.
  • #36
Originally posted by selfAdjoint

Do you mean we should believe in absolute truth, for no other reason than that it would be morally inconvenient not to? The whole trend of philosophy after Kant led to the position stated by Nietsche: God is dead, there is no absolute truth, and we have to decide for ourselves how to behave. Are you just waving all that away? [/B]
No I didn't mean that at all. Far from it. What I meant was that it matters whether there are absolute truths or not and what they are.

One shouldn't believe anything that one does not think is a truth, not for any reason.

Btw I'm having a lot of trouble with this thread. Posts keep disappearing and appearing again. I seem to be missing some of them.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Originally posted by Canute
No I didn't mean that at all. Far from it. What I meant was that it matters whether there are absolute truths or not and what they are.

One shouldn't believe anything that one does not think is a truth, not for any reason.

what i am saying is that for a given moment in time(or an experience) the subject has an absolute truth unique to that moment. it is, however, a subjective-relative truth within eternity, as are all truths.

perhaps, eternity and infinity are the only absolutes?

peace,
 
  • #38
I half agree with that and half disagree. But I can't think of how to express what I mean at the moment.
 
  • #39
Originally posted by olde drunk
why do you ask?
Because it seems that you would be deceiving the man. You tell him not to hurt your family. Why not? Maybe according to his current "experience" hurting them would be a valuable and good thing. You have no real grounds for reasoning with him, and you're only imposing your morality on him.
 
  • #40
Originally posted by Pseudonym
Because it seems that you would be deceiving the man. You tell him not to hurt your family. Why not? Maybe according to his current "experience" hurting them would be a valuable and good thing. You have no real grounds for reasoning with him, and you're only imposing your morality on him.

1. i do not tell, i ask. we would work with what the situation presented.

if, it was necessary for him to kill me, then that would be the consequence. death, imho, is not the end of my existence.

2. i offer to discuss and reason with him, because there are ALWAYS BETTER solutions to any problem.

3. I am not imposing anything. see #2.


within my experience, violence is not an option. but, that is my relative truth. living in fear of violence, breeds violence.

peace,
 
  • #41
can someone please explain how his personal decision on what he would do in a situation relates to solving paradoxes?
 
  • #42
i think, his point was that 'if i am living my truth and the aggressor is living his' HOW do the two co-exist and/or resolve issues.

if, i wasn't clear, my viewpoint is that we have been drawn to each other [via subconscious (telepathy?) communication] to have this situation so that we can help each other to achieve our goal(s) in life.

our 'truths' may differ but we are here have experiences and expand awareness. this will lead to broader truths.

peace,
 
  • #43
Yes, I was interested how you would apply this idea in life. It's just about meaningless to create a theory without examining how it plays out in the real world.

How should I make decisions? Should I just 'go with my gut'?

And is there any reason apart from your feelings on the matter that I should accept this theory?
 
  • #44
within the premise of the original post. you will believe whatever you want and/or need to belive.

my 'truths' are mine; your's are your's. we agree on the basic rules of physicality so that we can share this experience. there are some cultures that have managed to suspend, alter these rules w3ithin their belief system. again, for their purpose(s).

life is a game to be played respectfully. let's have fun. hell, my contract was renewed, again today, for another minute. no signing bonus (ARG!).

peace,
 
  • #45
Originally posted by elibol

i can argue against this. the simple philosophical fact (and to my knowledge the only one) that the only thing we truly know is that we posses conciousness...

How certain is it that we possesses consciousness? Maybe what we consider consciousness is nothing more than a perception of awareness that we assume exists.

nsciousness, we shall find, is reducible to relations between objects, and objects we shall find to be reducible to relations between different states of consciousness; and neither point of view is more nearly ultimate than the other.

ATTRIBUTION: T.S. (Thomas Stearns) Eliot(1888–1965)
 
Last edited:
  • #46
i think three-valued logic is the key. true, false, or maybe.
 
  • #47
Originally posted by talus
How certain is it that we possesses consciousness? Maybe what we consider consciousness is nothing more than a perception of awareness that we assume exists.

"consciousness, we shall find, is reducible to relations between objects, and objects we shall find to be reducible to relations between different states of consciousness; and neither point of view is more nearly ultimate than the other."

ATTRIBUTION: T.S. (Thomas Stearns) Eliot(1888–1965)

Your quote contradicts your argument.
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
605
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
61
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
681
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
89
Views
12K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
Back
Top