What is the absolute truth about human nature?

[AiA]

I've been reading posts and what not for quite some time now, even replying to some just to be attacked. Now if you are going to reply to this thread, read all the posts, don't insult, speak logically and only logically. If you are unsre of something ask, don't use false authorities like 'the law states' and 'majority believe', I don't care about what specific or a lot of people do or believe, just because majority are in favour of or people with high authority are in favour of, in no way implies that there right.

Now I am posting this thread not to impose personal or religious beliefs but truth. If you can argue it, be my guest, but before you do read the above statement first.

Now for everything there is a standard, an absolute. If there is no absolute, then in just saying there is no absolute is the same as saying 'the only absolute is that there is no absolute', now this is a contradiction, so that can't be true, meaning there must be an absolute. Now in seeing this we see there is a standard, even one for human nature. In the history of man, man has done just about everything, does that mean it is part of man's nature, no. It is man's nature to have free will, it is my will to write this post, and my friends will to give up on hopeless subjectivists. That is human nature, its human nature to search for happiness. Even in suicide, the suicidals goal is to relieve pain, in return bringing out happiness.

 

[Philocrat]

I've been reading posts and what not for quite some time now, even replying to some just to be attacked. Now if you are going to reply to this thread, read all the posts, don't insult, speak logically and only logically. If you are unsre of something ask, don't use false authorities like 'the law states' and 'majority believe', I don't care about what specific or a lot of people do or believe, just because majority are in favour of or people with high authority are in favour of, in no way implies that there right.

Now I am posting this thread not to impose personal or religious beliefs but truth. If you can argue it, be my guest, but before you do read the above statement first.

Now for everything there is a standard, an absolute. If there is no absolute, then in just saying there is no absolute is the same as saying 'the only absolute is that there is no absolute', now this is a contradiction, so that can't be true, meaning there must be an absolute. Now in seeing this we see there is a standard, even one for human nature. In the history of man, man has done just about everything, does that mean it is part of man's nature, no. It is man's nature to have free will, it is my will to write this post, and my friends will to give up on hopeless subjectivists. That is human nature, its human nature to search for happiness. Even in suicide, the suicidals goal is to relieve pain, in return bringing out happiness.

First, let us just be sure that you are not planning to call it a day on this planet -commit suicide. Are you? I just want to be sure that you are alirght. I Know that some people do hold the view that it's their moral right to end their lives whatever other reason may be available for them not to do so. If you were planning this, or already made up your mind about doing this, I will personally suggest you not to do so. Here me out first.

Let's take all the issues that you are raising one at a time. First, Suicide. There are many reasons why people should not be selffish about the issue of suicide, let alone thinking about committing it:

1 WORTHINESS

The first fundamental reason not to commit suicide is that, regardless of how low or insignificant you may think of yourself, YOU ARE WORTH SOMETHING, not only to yourself but also to the rest of the world. This is the view held dear by the Universalists. This is what UNIVERSALISM is all about.

2 CAUSAL RELATIONS

The next fundamental reeason for you not to do so is that YOU ARE THE CAUSAL CONSEQUENCE OF SOMEONE ELSE AND MANY OTHERS (your parents who brought you to this world, your sisters, brothers, extended family and the rest of the society that you are a part). According to UNIVERSALISM, causal relation renders you universally bound to your means of existence and to the wider sphere of the human existence. And that when you commit suicide, you are not only being selfish, but also YOU ROB THE REST OF THE SOCIETY AND WIDER WORLD OF VALUE (See KANT's 'Catigorical Imparitives' Moral Theory for details).

3) NEEDS

Another reason is that you should not commit suicide is that someone else may need you as a source of hope or may want your help in so many ways. One of the UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES is that need is the basis of co-existence or even Creation itself. So, in this very sense, you are a valuable part of the show. Another point is that, universalists may view your action not only as selfish but also as risky. They may feel that by commiting suicide you are putting the rest of the society at risk. Ok, take this thought experiment for example:

------------------------------------------------------------------
Supposing you were a genius. You hold a SUPER MATHEMATICAL FORMUALA that is needed to scientifically make every human being immortal. This fact is unknown both to you and everyone else in the socoety and that this fact was going to be revealed to you tomorrow morning. Now, if you commited suicide today, according to the Universalists, you have selfishly, and perhaps ignorantly as well, robbed the rest of the society of the only single source of everlasting life. And just imagine where there is no other means of ever getting such a formula again, what in your honest opinion would be the consequence your action?
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The fundamental Universalist principle is this:

Always act in a manner that preserves everyone, incase one of us turns out to be the only means of the human survival. This is a paraphrase of the central thesis of Kant's Catigorical Imparatives which states; "Act in a manner that you wish your action becomes a universal Law". This implies that anyone of us could hold the key to the human survival, for there is nothing which logically rules this out. Just ask youself this: How many Einsteins has the world...and how many times does one come by?

This is the argument that the Universalists always use to counter the Untilitarian argument that in the process of trying to save or satisfy everyone you may in process end up endangering or completely destroying everyone that you were trying to cater for in the process in the first place. According to the Untilitarians, in a very messy moral dilemma situation, it is safer for you to save or satisfy as many people as you can than to try to save or satisfy everyone. The Untilitarians have a huge catalogue of moral dilemma thoughts experiments that they always use to demonstrate the validity of their own moral position. There isn't many universalist thought experiments around (if there is even any at all). The above universalist thought experiment that I have stated is one I can personally think of. Maybe someone else would turn up with a better one soon, I hope.

 

[Bartholomew]

AiA, you call subjectivists "hopeless" in the same post you call for a decrease in insults?

When the subjectivist says that everything is subjective, he is not making (if he is consistent) a universal statement; he is simply implying that this is his belief. If he _states_ it is his belief, he is simply implying that it is his belief that it is his belief. The subjectivist says, "there is no certainty anywhere, not even in this statement."

Consider, hypothetically, an undiscoverable flaw in some piece of reasoning you have created. If the flaw is present, then your reasoning is invalid. And there is no way to determine whether any hypothetical undiscoverable flaw is actually present, by virtue of it being undiscoverable; so there is no absolute way to tell whether any given piece of reasoning is valid or invalid.

 

[Philocrat]

I've been reading posts and what not for quite some time now, even replying to some just to be attacked. Now if you are going to reply to this thread, read all the posts, don't insult, speak logically and only logically. If you are unsre of something ask, don't use false authorities like 'the law states' and 'majority believe', I don't care about what specific or a lot of people do or believe, just because majority are in favour of or people with high authority are in favour of, in no way implies that there right.

On this issue of abuse, insult and disresepct, I would just say to you to calm down. Take it easy. I have experienced this as well, and I think many other peope as well. How to handle this? I will suggest the following solutions:

1 DIPLOMACY

Perhaps, the best way to handle it is to be diplomatic where you can. There is no guarantee that this will work 100%. But give it ago, anyway.

2 LEARN FROM OTHERS

Just read around PF and see how other veterans handle bullies. I suggest you look at some of the counter-responses from others. But also look out for the fact that some of the best counter-responders may also be notorious bullies themselves.

3) ENJOY YOURSELF BY KEEPING AN OPEN MIND

We are not fighting war here. If it can be called a war, I would say it is an intellectual war, which should be fought in a fairly civilised manner. I would say just keep an open mind by being flexible and not taking things too seriously. Because when you take things too seriousely it looks as if you are trying to do the very same thing that you are now angry about: 'impose your will and thoughts upon others regardless of if they are right or not'.

4) EAT WELL AND SLEEP WELL

There is no medicine in the world as good as having a decent sleep (I would say a minimum of six hours sleep in every 24hour day). You should not intellectualise with an empty stomarch either. As the saying usually goes:"A Hungry man is an angry man'. Whether this true or not, it does seem to me to make some sense. Personally, I think it is a bad habit to do so...you are not doing yourself much favour.

5) THINK BEFORE YOU RESPOND

By giving yourself a reasonable amount of time to reflect, you stand more chance of systematically deriving at a more strategic but very effective response.


NOTE: Please do not view all this as lecturing you. It is just my innocent and harmless opinion. You are free to reflect on it or completely silently ignore it.

 

[russ_watters]

I submit that pain is negative happiness and thus a reduction in negative happiness cannot lead to happiness - only to zero. For example:

Banging your head against a wall hurts. There is an old joke where a guy is banging his head against a wall and someone else asks him why. He says "'cause it feels so good when I stop!" Does it? If on a "feels good" scale of -10 to +10, banging your head against a wall could be a -3. Stopping just gets you back to zero. So I submit, the guy banging his head against the wall has a screwed-up baseline. Depression and drugs can cause this...

 

[AiA]

damn it your all missing the point of this thread, wth, I'm not suicidal where ever philocrat got that idea from. I don't need to know how to deal with insults, I'm trying to say that subjectivism and skeptivism is wrong, abortion is not opinion based, logic is not opinion based, people don't construct their own logic, they either find it or miss it. and Russ, I know what your saying, I always new, but I'm saying that that's what the suicidal person is thinking, not me, I'm not suicidal, how this post brought about that asumption is beyond me. Though I said not to insult, I think you guys are just either purposely or subconsciesly trying to avoid the purpose at hand. With philosophy and logic, there is very little room for opinion, hence very little room for subjectivism, we need to find this standard without yelling, insulting or ignoring the question or using any other logical fallicies. This site is really ticking me off now, every body just repeats themselves, when a logical point is made most just go back to their apeals to emotions, and I'm really sick of it, this thread is to show people that we must find this standard of truth, and not bull shi* our way through these debates, which aren't really debates cause everyone is one sided.

 

[anti_crank]

Now for everything there is a standard, an absolute. If there is no absolute, then in just saying there is no absolute is the same as saying 'the only absolute is that there is no absolute', now this is a contradiction, so that can't be true, meaning there must be an absolute. Now in seeing this we see there is a standard, even one for human nature. In the history of man, man has done just about everything, does that mean it is part of man's nature, no. It is man's nature to have free will, it is my will to write this post, and my friends will to give up on hopeless subjectivists. That is human nature, its human nature to search for happiness. Even in suicide, the suicidals goal is to relieve pain, in return bringing out happiness.

Are you implying somehow that this paragraph is a paradigm of logic and clarity which none of us has managed to achieve yet when arguing with you?

Now for everything there is a standard, an absolute.

This is false in physics and false in mathematics, and there are no fields of enquiry that are more rigorous. If that is the case, why should there be absolutes in anything else?

If there is no absolute, then in just saying there is no absolute is the same as saying 'the only absolute is that there is no absolute', now this is a contradiction, so that can't be true, meaning there must be an absolute.

We all know the liar's paradox, but what you argue is akin to what follows: because "this sentence is false" is paradoxical, all sentences must be true. How about the statement "The only absolute is that there are no other absolutes" ? Maybe this statement is paradoxical and maybe it is not, but either way your conclusion doesn't follow.

In the history of man, man has done just about everything, does that mean it is part of man's nature, no.

I can almost argue that it *is* part of man's nature, and it is so analytically. What is this "man's nature" that you speak of? If it is supposed to be absolute, how shall we go about finding it, if man can act against that nature? Ultimately for any theory of morality you will need to take some axioms, even if they are as restricted as "something is valuable", and you will have a very hard time finding a set of axioms that people can agree on. This is what philosophy has been trying to do for centuries, and there is no indication it will decide on a final form anytime soon; even if they do, it does not mean they are any closer to the "true" axioms if they exist.

I could go on and on, but I believe my point is made, and I have a seminar to attend. Cheers.

 

[dekoi]

Finally someone found the initiative to make a valid point and at least attempt to put an end to the completely absurd -- and quite hilarious may i add -- notion of subjectivism.
By the way, thanks to whoever posted this:

If he _states_ it is his belief, he is simply implying that it is his belief that it is his belief. The subjectivist says, "there is no certainty anywhere, not even in this statement."

Man did i get a good laugh at the irony of that.
Thank you AiA. Now all you have to do is control your frustration (like i am now).

 

[AiA]

Dekoi makes a good point I contradict myself in saying that inforcing apeal to emotion is wrong when I my self use emotion with my anger towards the subjectivist view.

Now, we see that there has to be a standard, this is because for everything, there is a scale of high to low. One person posted that math isn't concrete, well as soon as you prove that 2+2 does not =4, I'll bow down to subjectivism. In truth we see that this can't be argued, 2+2=4, you can'd dispute it, it IS absolute. In truth, I could say that ethics mean nothing, then another could say ethics is everything, either him or myself are correct, or were both wrong, we can't both be right. So here is a clear example of this standard I speak of.

Now I also spoke of human nature, it is human nature to have free will. That is part of human nature, but it is also human nature to seek the transendentals. Truth, beauty, justice, unity, goodness. People who deny truth are people who can't handle the truth, the people who perverse beauty are people who don't know how to see/hear beauty, people who can't handle justice are people who want more power than they deserve, people who can't handle unity are people in depression, trying to get attention. And those who reject goodness are people who reject others and only live for themselves.

To search for the transendentals, to choose them to go with human nature, but to go against it is part of human nature of freedom.

 

[K.J.Healey]

I submit that pain is negative happiness and thus a reduction in negative happiness cannot lead to happiness - only to zero. For example:

Banging your head against a wall hurts. There is an old joke where a guy is banging his head against a wall and someone else asks him why. He says "'cause it feels so good when I stop!" Does it? If on a "feels good" scale of -10 to +10, banging your head against a wall could be a -3. Stopping just gets you back to zero. So I submit, the guy banging his head against the wall has a screwed-up baseline. Depression and drugs can cause this...

I sort of agree with this, but sometimes I get a brain freeze if I drink my Slurpee a little too quickly. There is an intense physical pain(seems mine is worse than other people's) but when it stops, it actually feels GOOD. Its not just the absence of pain, but also the introduction of relief. That relief increases my happiness.

But then there's the scale of happiness. I think your direction of a "feels good" scale doesn't reflect the real world. I believe it would rather be a "feels how much better or worse than my previous state". Any increase in the positive from your previous state would mean happiness, while decreses would be sadness/pain.

I believe it would also be a parabolic, not linear, scale if compared to a larger sample time period (if looked at by-the-day rather than by-the-second). You break a leg. It hurts, quite badly. Then you get a papercut on your finger. Your increase in physical pain is very small since you were already hurt. But if you were in a good mood, and had zero pain, the papercut would really hurt. So pain is not additive, but more of a maximum of the set of current pains.

So back to banging your head against the wall.
If looked at as you had never known what it was like to NOT be banging your head, I believe your happiness would increase relative to your current state.
If you HAD known life witout the banging of the head, then your time-sample would probably have been larger, and so comparitavely to the pre-banging you would return to your previous level of happiness, and not actually INCREASE, but return from a depression.

I love ranting on stuff that doesn't matter at all.

 

[AiA]

Healey01, discussing happiness is not useless ramblings. As I've stated before, there is a standard, expecially one for happiness, happiness is not something you add up, you don't go "I was happy for 12 out of 20 years of my life, so my life was 60% happy." It doesn't work like that, happiness is the final end, we all strive to be happy. Hence it is something that lasts till death, now following human nature is what leads to happiness. We find truth, were happy, this isn't a matter of a moment or event, you don't read a book and get 100 pages into it and say "I learned something, I'm happy, so I'm not going to finish the rest of the book." It is something one can never stop seeking cause one can never have perfect truth, the same goes for the rest of the transendentals.

Happiness is not a result of physical pleasures, yes we can obtain joys and pleasure from physical things. I love movies, I have a collection, I like action movies cause they stimulate my eyes, my physical emotions and gratifaction, but the movies I really love are those that bring about the transendentals, movies that show beauty and teach truth, those are the movies that surpass those physical movies because they bring about those transendent elements into them. The closer and more we have of these transendentals, the happier we are, and this isn't based on moments but our life as a whole. you can't say "I learned truth for 12 out of 20 years of my life, I'll stop now cause that's enough." no, it doesn't work like that, upon our deaths we can look at our life as a hole and say "I found unity as a hole person, I found truth, I knew truth, I saw, heard beauty." Another example of this same life goal of happiness as an end is a musical orchestra. the exellence of the orchestra is not brought on by a moment, but through out the entire concert, the art behind architecture transends time and brings transendent beauty. The Sphynx is still an idolized and beautiful sculpture amongst other works of historical art. This is not momentary, when runners run, do you say "Wow, he was really fast for the first five seconds, but kinda slacked off during the fifth and sixth second." no, you say "wow, that runner beat the world record, he ran (throughout the hole thing) really fast, he achieved his goal of spead, as a hole." Just as we ought to say "We lived a good, happy life as a hole."

 

[Bartholomew]

Consider, hypothetically, an undiscoverable flaw in some piece of reasoning you have created. If the flaw is present, then your reasoning is invalid. And there is no way to determine whether any hypothetical undiscoverable flaw is actually present, by virtue of it being undiscoverable; so there is no absolute way to tell whether any given piece of reasoning is valid or invalid.

For all you absolutists scoff, I notice that you carefully ignore this very, very logical argument.

 

[AiA]

At heart your question is how can we truly know what's really truth or not correct. For all I know, what I believe, there could be a logical fallicy to it that I have not uncovered yet, I have asked this question myself.

Use logic, that's the only answer, there has to be a truth which we can uncover, if we couldn't, not even remotely, then that would just be crual.
If you believe you know a truth, the best way to justify it is to use it in the most extreme case, and if the argument still stands reasonable, then its just as reasonable to asume its true.

In some things there may be no absolute way of knowing, but that truth is still absolute. But in realizing this absolute, wether we know it or not, we know that it isn't different per person, it can't be, I can't say killing is good and you say killing is wrong, this isn't a logical statement that can be refuted, there are circumstances which can be refuted but the act of cold blooded killing, that can't be refuted, so we see this, already, as a truth.
And another thing we see as absolutes are self evident truths, one being existence, you can't deny your own existence nor could I deny my own. This is a truth that is unrefutable.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Are you saying that there is an ultimate combination of philosophies that humanity has failed to realize? I would agree with that statement. The belief that everything is the result of perspective is an argument that justifies actions in the minds of intellectuals; however, I would deem it flawed. People refuse to realize and accept the failure of themselves and humanity; we have not found the answers we seek. Instead of religion, intellectuals turn to the belief that everything is arbitrary. The quest to find meaning subsides, because everything is claimed to be the result of opinion.

If a tree needs to be cut down there are multiple ways chop it. If an axe becomes avaliable it is the most efficient way to achieve success. The addition of a simply variable can create a self-evident most effecient course of action. In philosophy there are even more variables, and the course of action is more efficient but more complicated. We can accept that differences in opinion may have a place in idealism, but we cannot disregard the necessity to force certain beliefs on people. Happiness may have variances and the potential for molding, but it has a most effecient course.

 

[Bartholomew]

AiA, what "seems reasonable" and what is necessarily true are two quite different things.

"Self-evident" knowledge is subject to the same argument I posed. What if there is an undiscoverable flaw in your judgment that a particular idea is self-evident? You would never know it if such a flaw were there, so you can't be sure. Perhaps you are like a malfunctioning computer, senselessly spitting out data that you see as "self-evident" but that is nonsense to a clear-seeing god.

Even my own existence is subject to question. I would never seriously question it, but if you are honest you must admit that even in your judgment that you are real, there may be an undiscoverable flaw; such a flaw could be present anywhere at all.

 

[AiA]

Barthalemew, you make a good point, but what you must realize is that truth is not limited by time. Aristotle lived around 400 B.C. (I could be wrong, but that isn't important.) That was over 2000 years ago, valid workable arguments for his teachings are few and for distinct teachings, not his teachings as a hole. If two thousand years can't uncover his 'lies' then maybe these 'lies' will never be uncovered, then maybe their actuall truth. Another thing is that the future is not limitless as people may think, there will not be robots with souls, and there won't be valid proof for subjectivism. You claim that maybe subjectivism is true but we cna't see it yet, but even if it is true that would mean only chaos, cause then everyone would have their own morality. Human beings as a hole, what distincts each of us apart from each other and what is it that makes us all man. what makes us all man is our nature, wether it subjective or truly a transendent nature. I suggest you stop waiting for the future to validate subjectivism and argue it now, if you can't, don't beg the question by saying "the future will prove other wise, don't worry." Prove other wise now, and if you can't, then maybe, just maybe what I'm saying isn't all that bad, and maybe just might be true.

I'm not going to lie, at heart, part of what I say envolves faith. But everyone has faith, no matter what. You most likely believe in math right, how do you know pi=3.14, did you yourself calculate it, and if you did, you have faith that your calculations were right just like the original people who calculated it. So if your going to have faith in science, have faith in a philosophy that is yet to be proven wrong for over 2000 years, good luck with that.

 

[GeD]

>You claim that maybe subjectivism is true but we cna't see it yet, but even if it is true that would mean only chaos, cause then everyone would have their own morality.

But only anarchists would take the idea of subjectivism into an anything goes situation. Many people wouldn't want to live like anarchists anyway. The chaos you speak would probably happen for some time at least, but not in the same way as your imagination.

 

[AiA]

You know what I find so hilarious, when I argue about specific things, people bring about their subjective views just about all the time, blatently being subjective saying things like "its not business, its their choice, if its good for me its good for me etc." But then when I argue subjectivism as a hole, state that this form of arguing is wrong, no body really argues back, normally there would be like five posts for every one post of mine, but not this time. Is it that maybe people KNOW that subjectivism is WRONG. Maybe everyone truly realizes that its not opinion based but just make things opinion based cause they really don't know what their talking about, because their actually ignorant on the subject they just say "its up to me or them," And they just say this cause they really have nothing else to say, and for the clever subjectivist they use other and more logical fallicies to support their claim. Like kerrie as she attempts so hard to prove that abortion is good just because its been legalized. This is a misplaced authority, yet she still uses it as an argumetn, cause she really doesn't know what she's talking about.

If theirs another explanation for my findings, please tell me.

 

[loseyourname]

You know what I find so hilarious, when I argue about specific things, people bring about their subjective views just about all the time, blatently being subjective saying things like "its not business, its their choice, if its good for me its good for me etc." But then when I argue subjectivism as a hole, state that this form of arguing is wrong, no body really argues back, normally there would be like five posts for every one post of mine, but not this time. Is it that maybe people KNOW that subjectivism is WRONG. Maybe everyone truly realizes that its not opinion based but just make things opinion based cause they really don't know what their talking about, because their actually ignorant on the subject they just say "its up to me or them," And they just say this cause they really have nothing else to say, and for the clever subjectivist they use other and more logical fallicies to support their claim. Like kerrie as she attempts so hard to prove that abortion is good just because its been legalized. This is a misplaced authority, yet she still uses it as an argumetn, cause she really doesn't know what she's talking about.

If theirs another explanation for my findings, please tell me.

Exactly what have you presented that wasn't subjective? About the only thing I can think of, in this thread anyway, is the rather obvious fact that humans have a tendency to seek out pleasure and minimize pain.

For the sake of fairness (I'm actually pro-life), what argument have you produced that is any better than Kerrie's? Screaming that something is true, no matter how forcefully you do so, doesn't make that something true. Kerrie's basic argument seems to be to be that there are both ethical and pragmatic reasons to either favor abortion or oppose it. The ethical issues are very difficult to resolve, but the pragmatic issues are obviously in favor of the pro-choice position, so that is the position she takes. Heck, she is even willing to admit that abortion at some point very obviously becomes an act of murder and that the practice should at the very least be banned by the third trimester. At least that's a start.

If you want to chime in with some authoritative ethical facts, go ahead and try. But what exactly is an ethical fact? As far as I can tell, the best a human can present is an ethical argument. It's nice if that argument relies as little as is possible on subjective impressions, but you'll almost never be totally free from them.

 

[learningphysics]

About the only thing I can think of, in this thread anyway, is the rather obvious fact that humans have a tendency to seek out pleasure and minimize pain.

Is there something fundamental about ethics and pleasure and pain?

I'd say it is certain that a universe where all beings are always happy, is better than a universe where all beings are always miserable. I believe this is an absolutely true fact. But is there a way to demonstrate this?

 

[Dissident Dan]

I submit that pain is negative happiness and thus a reduction in negative happiness cannot lead to happiness - only to zero.

Well, if you think of pain and happiness just as things "out there", this seems to make sense. However, our bodies will often generate positive feelings, through the release of neurotransmitters and such, at the cessation of negative feelings. For example, think about how good it feels to lie down after a long day's work.

Of course, one might discriminate between the cessation of the unpleasant feeling and the resultant positive feeling as being two different occurences (or maybe not), but it's something to keep in mind.

 

[AiA]

Happiness is not something that we say "I was happy yestarday but miserable today." that is in reference to joy and entertainment, happiness is an end of life, when we die is the only time we can see if we lived a happy and good life, you can speculate by saying "I've lived a happy and good life so far, but that doesn't mean my life as a hole is happy and good." We can't calculate the amount of days were happy and amount not, and that determines wether were happy or not.

By the way Desident Dan, you said no where in my thread of objective truths you said it was all subjective, well next time you blurt out a comment like that, show some evidence of what you say cause i could just as easily say "you saying my post on objectivism being subjective is subjective." This becomes a circuler argument which means absolutely nothing. So then your denying that 2+2=4 then, cause apearently you think everything I said is subjective, so its my opinion that 2+2=4, if you believe 2+2=5, then yoru right. This is idiotic, you can't go against basic laws, this is a blatent example of objective truth. Anything self evident (like existence) can not be disproven, these are OBJECTIVE TRUTHS. Not subjective, I can't say "ITs my opinion that your not real, so then cause its my opinion, you really don't exist." That is extremely ilogical, you know you exist, I know you exist, and we both knw I exist. (Please don't use the what if's and how do you know arguments, cause again, I could say the same thing back and it becomes yet another circular argument which means nothing.) Self evident truths are truths which can't be disproven are objective, hence proving that objective truths exist, proving a standard for truth, and a standard for many more things. Farther prooving the point of this thread, to prove objective truths, and that everything is NOT opinion.

 

[Bartholomew]

You have some reason for believing 2+2=4, do you not? (If you don't, why do you believe it?)

What if that reason has an undiscoverable flaw in it?

You'd never be able to tell.

Not even with 2400 years of time to think.


Note that this is not an argument that subjectivism is _possible_. It is an argument that the falsehood of any particular statement is possible. It is an argument that subjectivism _is the case_.

 

[AiA]

again, your saying we can't know anything absolutely. That isn't true, self evident truths are truth that you can not argue, time will not change that. Truth transends time, you can't say in time it will be proven wrong. And even if it is proven wrong, if a statement is proven wrong it will followed by a new corrected truth, eventually it has to stop, eventually there has to be the final ultimate truth. There is a standard, and as time goes on, even if truth is changed, and proved wrong etc. There will still be that standard, only a higher understood standard proven by people at a later time. But that standard still remains. And a lot of these standard have been found, is rape right, we can, right now, analyze every situation, and say rape is wrong. Time will not prove that rape is good, science can't prove such a thing to be good, time can not prove such a thing to be good. You can't say you believe that rape will be proven good in time, you can't say that, that's like saying "in the future, evil will be the real good." That is something that has remained true since the beginning of time, evil is evil, good is good, no matter how smart you are, you can't prove that wrong, it isn't something that can possibly be proven wrong. Even looking at present situations, "I'm on my computer, at exactly 4:49 PM Jan. 23 I was righting this post". Time will not and can't prove this statement wrong, it never will, it never could. If you think you can disprove that, go right ahead, I will love to see what kinds of arguments you try to come up with, cause even if you do, they will all be ilogical crap cause that statement is a self evident truth and can't possibly be proven wrong logically.

 

[Bartholomew]

However you see the world, my logic remains. It's logic. I'm not saying you weren't writing your post at 4:49 PM on January 23, but I'm saying it's open to doubt. For example, there could be an undiscoverable flaw in your memory of the event.

 

[Philocrat]

damn it your all missing the point of this thread, wth, I'm not suicidal where ever philocrat got that idea from. I don't need to know how to deal with insults, I'm trying to say that subjectivism and skeptivism is wrong, abortion is not opinion based, logic is not opinion based, people don't construct their own logic, they either find it or miss it. and Russ, I know what your saying, I always new, but I'm saying that that's what the suicidal person is thinking, not me, I'm not suicidal, how this post brought about that asumption is beyond me. Though I said not to insult, I think you guys are just either purposely or subconsciesly trying to avoid the purpose at hand. With philosophy and logic, there is very little room for opinion, hence very little room for subjectivism, we need to find this standard without yelling, insulting or ignoring the question or using any other logical fallicies. This site is really ticking me off now, every body just repeats themselves, when a logical point is made most just go back to their apeals to emotions, and I'm really sick of it, this thread is to show people that we must find this standard of truth, and not bull shi* our way through these debates, which aren't really debates cause everyone is one sided.

Thank heavens for for that! You got me scared.
--------------------------------
Think Nature! ,,,,,,,, Stay Green! May the 'Book of Nature' serve you well and bring you all that is good!

 

[GeD]

However you see the world, my logic remains. It's logic. I'm not saying you weren't writing your post at 4:49 PM on January 23, but I'm saying it's open to doubt. For example, there could be an undiscoverable flaw in your memory of the event.

^^ Indeed. History is a recount of previous events and actions, but it is not definitely knowable.

No matter how much you want to believe it, truths do not transcend time. All things 'became' what they are. Things are what they are as a result of previous events. And whatever happens now, or in the future, can affect the way things are in the future.

"That isn't true, self evident truths are truth that you can not argue, time will not change that."
You still need to prove the existence of "self-evident truths that are unchangeable through time". Just writing down that statement doesn't necessarily mean that those truths exist.

 

[AiA]

in the prehistoric age, two dinosaurs + two dinosaurs = four dinosaurs. Now, two humans + Two Humans = four humans. In the beginning of time, two particles + two particles = four particles. This truth of 2+2=4 seem to transend time, so what are you talking about in saying it doesn't?

 

[Bartholomew]

It _seems_ to, and this is the key. You probably agree that 2+2=4 because whenever you have 2 objects and add 2 more to them, you find you have 4 objects. There is no doubt a more rigorous mathematical proof of it, but such a proof would be open to the same question: what if there is an undiscoverable flaw in your reasoning that 2+2=4? You can never, ever rule it out.

 

[K.J.Healey]

We must remember too that there are limits of what we define as addition.
The objects being counted are all the same, and the total represents a number of the same objects.
The objects do not interact when counted.
The addition is a counting of existence only.

Because you can always get tricky and be like 2 quarks and 2 anti-quarks = whatever.


The catch would be "Is there a type of object that once counted, affects the existence of another of the exact same object without actually interacting with the object?"
Basically quantum theory. So if that addition is flawed, we would need a new addition where not 2+2=4 but the sum of probabilities of the existence of the objects.

 

[AiA]

Barthomelow, your going in a circular argument, your not arguing but making excuses. Stop saying "what if" and say "what is", if you can't argue something don't make excuses. you could say "what if in the future man will grow wings spontaniously and fly." Logically, scientifically, this is IMPOSSIBLE, saying "I will never be perfect" is an absolutely true statement, cause man can never be perfect, no matter what science does, man is not perfect. This I can say with 100% confidence of an undoubted proof, if you can argue it, go right ahead, but do it without the "what if's", cause that doesn't prove anything cause I could say "what if your circular argument is wrong." (which it is.) Then you'll say "what if one day they prove your saying 'what if your circular argument is wrong' is wrong." We have no rational hear, no understanding, without understanding you will be unwilling to learn anything beyond your circular argument. And you could say the same for me, but at least I'm saying what is, not the what if's, cause to say what if is saying the universe is limitless. But this is a contradiction cause the universe is very much limited. So your what if's don't aply for everything, so there is a standard. And even if your what if statements work, at the end, there has to be something that there is no what if too, or else everything will be anarchy, it will be limitless. I could say killing is good, I can't prove it now, but what if some one in the future will prove it to be good. I could kill my entire family and say "what if what I did was good, and one day people will know why." Do you see the idiocy behind this. You can't say that, there is a standard, and if your going to dispute it, dispute it, don't say "one day some one else will on my behalf, while I point and laugh." be reasonable, and you'll grow to learn such a person will not come.

 

[Bartholomew]

Those are flaws you can imagine in our current system of addition, and they are discoverable; you might not even be able to imagine an undiscoverable flaw. (Edit: This was a reply to Healey)

Reply to AiA: There is a possible practical mechanism for undiscoverable flaws. Any particle in quantum theory has a certain probability of being in a certain location. For example, it is incredibly unlikely--yet _still possible_--that all the particles in your body could suddenly find themselves three feet to your right. Now think about it in your brain. Circuits in your brain come to a certain conclusion through, at the lowest level, manipulation of particles. What if every time you thought about 2+2, all the particles in your brain relocate themselves in such a way so as to make you think 4 and so as to make you think 4 is the logical answer, when it actually is not? Call it "static in the lines." It's a physical phenomenon that means, with admittedly very small probability, that you could be wrong about anything at all, simply because of an error in computation caused by quantum uncertainty.

 

[AiA]

bartholomew, everything is imaginable, their is no limit to imagination, this is undeniable cause there are an infinite amount of colors, I can imagine a dragon being an infinite amounts of color as well with an infinite amount of wing sizes and an infinite tail sizes for each wing size and for each color, and for each infinite amount of horns and claws, etc. Now tell me this is disputable, forget math, but tell me a single possibility that can prove that imagination isn't limitless, don't say we can't imagine it, cause I'm saying other wise and proving it, if you can back up your asumptions, go right ahead, but don't just blurt out ocmments.

 

[Bartholomew]

Well, there is a proof in math that I read on another forum that there are more real numbers than can be expressed with symbols. What we can conceive of is limited to what can be expressed using the symbols of our minds. But that was really a reply to Healey, not to you. The second paragraph was a reply to you.

 

[AiA]

It is impossible to argue with subjectivist, they don't argue back, they ignore the argument, they don't use logic, they run in circles, they use falls ideals etc. And can't prove anything, they keep on running in circles, like rats in a maze, trying to find a way to argue, and the saddest part is, these rats actually think their close to the answer, some are even so lost they think they are at the end. That Bartholomew, that is you, your a rat, a lost, illogical, random, dumb rat. I'm sorry for the insults but until some one provides real evidence for subjectivism being acurate, I should assume that everyone accepts I'm right, but you won't, cause your nothing but rats, dumb, random rats, and cause of your stupidity, I refuse to post anything at this sight ever again, all I'll get are stupid random attempts of logic. So forget you all, and forget this sight.