All solutions and answers are correct

[olde drunk]

Originally posted by Pseudonym
olde drunk - What would you say to a man breaking into your house?

why is it necessary that you do this? i am not a threat to you. take what you need, please do not harm anyone.
if you have problems, please realize that we have come together for a reason, this is not an accidental meeting. can we work toward another solution?

again, material property has no value compared to my, or my families injury.

i would deal with the interloper on whatever terms he presented.

yes, i would report the crime and prosecute the culprit.

why do you ask?

peace,

 

[olde drunk]

absolute anything??

as a practical matter, why do we need an absolute truth or anything?

are we so unsure of ourselves that we must have a 'truth' above all other 'truths' in order to confidently face the world?

even a misguided truth (when weighed against the societal or scientific 'truth') can lead to a revelation. so, for that individual, the relative, wrong truth, was valid and necessary.

peace,


ps: we do agree on rules of nature and man for convenience in dealing with each other.

 

[Canute]

Phoenix

I don't agree with your 'third way' approach to truth and falsity, but it's too big a topic for this thread. I do at least agree that there are an infinite number of relatively true (or false)statements.

Olde Drunk

One reason truth is important is that without absolute truth morality can only be relative, To put that another way, if there is no absolute truth then the question of how we should behave does not have an answer. This is the big danger of thinking that there are no truths, as can be seen from the current behaviour of human beings.

 

[selfAdjoint]

This is a remarkable statement.

One reason truth is important is that without absolute truth morality can only be relative, To put that another way, if there is no absolute truth then the question of how we should behave does not have an answer. This is the big danger of thinking that there are no truths, as can be seen from the current behaviour of human beings.

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?

 

[olde drunk]

Originally posted by Canute
.
Olde Drunk
One reason truth is important is that without absolute truth morality can only be relative, To put that another way, if there is no absolute truth then the question of how we should behave does not have an answer. This is the big danger of thinking that there are no truths, as can be seen from the current behaviour of human beings.

we think we have these 'truths' now. what good have they done?

if we show everyone, that they are the powerful creator of their reality, not an outside force. AND that they are responsible for enjoying the consequences of all their actions, we might short circuit the 'hopeless-helpless' feelings that cause antisocial behavior.

we cannot legislate morals and/or behavior. we can only educate! haven't we learned that yet? why do we continually pass laws and rules when something is wrong in society? we must have thousands of books containing laws, including sacred books (bible, talmud, torah, koran, etc) what is your result? 'the current behaviour of human beings'?

let's lead the way for self-determination, with a minimum of rules. do you think that everyone would drive safer if they knew that all the traffic controls were suspended during their trip?

peace,

 

[Canute]

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.

 

[olde drunk]

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,

 

[Canute]

I half agree with that and half disagree. But I can't think of how to express what I mean at the moment.

 

[Pseudonym]

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.

 

[olde drunk]

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,

 

[phoenixthoth]

can someone please explain how his personal decision on what he would do in a situation relates to solving paradoxes?

 

[olde drunk]

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,

 

[Pseudonym]

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?

 

[olde drunk]

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,

 

[talus]

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)

 

[phoenixthoth]

i think three-valued logic is the key. true, false, or maybe.

 

[Canute]

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.