Truth Seekers Wanted

Post Reply New Topic

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonie_van_Leeuwenhoek Leeuwenhoek discovered invisible life way before Pasteur and no one thought he was crazy.There was always plenty of evidence around of bacteria but no-one recognized it as such. A great book I read as a kid called "Microbe Hunters" by Paul de Kruif will give you some idea about the history.

The identification of raw energy with consciousness is a profoundly screwy idea. On that basis the Sun should be more conscious than anything in this area and I doubt it would be worthwhile to attempt to hold a conversation with an exploding atomic bomb.

Yes. However, our perceptions of such will always be biased and subjective.



Yes. 2 truths. 1) Mathematical proofs 2) Proof of one's existence to oneself (I think therefore I am). Everything else is potentially arguable, so we'd have to agree ahead of time on what 'truths' we're accepting as givens. Although even then, math is an abstract. I can see someone arguing on the basis that we can't see/hear/smell/taste/touch the number 42.



Yes. E.g.: "Nothing is divisible by zero."



Yes. See above re; math and "I think therefore I am."



If we mean absolute, mathematical formulas of logic then yes. E.g.:

- There exists a list of rules, Set B.
- Some rules in B we do not follow.
- Therefore it is incorrect to say "Because (and only because) rule 4 is in Set B it must be followed."

However, some people have a very different, more emotional definition of 'logic.' E.g.;

- "Nothing beautiful can occur naturally, so logically the world had to be created by a sentient being." This is not logic; this is subjective definition of beauty and how beauty might or might not occur.



Disagree. Often times it is the given nature of X which adds to evidence of its non-existence. E.g.; I don't believe there is a pink elephant in the room. Given what we know of such an animal, that it would be really, really huge, and I don't see one, I believe it is therefore not here.



Agree ... with the huge asterisk that neither is it proof of existence and there can be circumstantial evidence that leans heavily in one direction or the other.



*I* agree, but that is a subjective statement. Justice vs injustice are terms relative to the individual.



- Jo

Apparently ruveyn and JoJerome are filtered out, and I am certain that Awesomelyglorious is filtered out. I am glad that you’re not – so far.



I agree that this is relevant. And I admit that any definition of justice will contain many parts that cannot be understood except intuitively. (You are welcome to prove me wrong by offering such a definition.) I also have to filter out anyone with whom I cannot achieve a mutually acceptable definition of justice. Would you like me to propose one? Or would you like to propose one?

aw it's love.

Magnus,
It appears possible that we can offer each other something of value. Please check out the posts I suggested.

I'll let you take the first try; I'm not interested in trying to propose a definition of justice.

If you’ll accept an intuitive definition, I propose this:
Justice is that which is deserved. That which is deserved is justice. A circular definition is all we've got, and in my opinion, all that's possible. But it's sufficient to be understood intuitively by a consensus of "normal" human minds. So I give you credit for understanding what justice is, and you give me credit for understanding what justice is, and we proceed.

If you won’t accept an intuitive definition, I propose this:
Justice is that which is deserved, which is the same pleasure to displeasure ratio that one has attempted to cause in one’s sphere of influence.

That doesn’t answer all the “What if?”s, but it’s the basic concept. I’m not attempting to come up with a definition everyone will agree with. That’s impossible. I’m trying to come up with one that can’t be improved on. If you can improve on this – great. If you can’t, then you should be willing to admit that this is the best definition you know of. And that should be sufficient for us to proceed.

If you neither accept my definition, nor propose one of your own, but still insist that the concept must be defined before proceeding, then we’re done.

Justice is a relative term. Morality is also subjective. Who can say who is right or wrong and declare to know the real truth.

"Aye there's the rub, for in that dream of death what dreams may come."
-Shakespeare

Deserved? In whose opinion? This approach to justice as at the root of every kangaroo court and lynch mob. You will have to do better than this.

ruveyn

No, I will not accept a circular definition, not when we're discussing a philosophical matter.


So basically justice is karma based on someone's (often failed) attempts to live up to Utilitarian ideals. Well, the problem is that I am not a Utilitarian; I prefer a more deontological view of morality, and given that a number of people who did horrible things really did have good intentions, your definition seems pretty badly flawed.


One option would be simply to reject the concept of justice as unworkable. But since we need a definition for purposes of this discussion, I will put forward a more general and (hopefully) less flawed definition than you had.

Justice is that which is deserved, which is reward or punishment based on adherence to moral principles. Of course, this leaves us with the problem of defining morality, which is rather difficult. It's basically what you had, except that you inserted a Utilitarian morality into it. I would put a deontological morality in instead.

OK. I will accept your definition as adequate to continue the discussion until it proves otherwise. I will further grant you credit for understanding the concept of morality as adequately as I do until I find a disagreement with you on the subject. With this definition and this grant in mind, I propose that you visit one or more of the 3 posts I referred to in my first post, and either respond to something in one of them, or tell me why you don't find anything worth responding to.

To anybody who chooses to respond:

Do you agree with the following statement?
No statement is so clear that its clarity cannot be challenged by someone whose goal it is to challenge the clarity of statements – or at least that particular statement.

Last edited by Clarifier on 06 Feb 2009, 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Or that famous aphorism: All generalities are false including this one.

Questionable, yes, considering that evidence itself can be questionable as well, but -very-? I'm not sure about that, I mean, the way to be used could be very questionable perhaps, but there is value to it, from what I gather from the scientific method, absolute denial of a valid hypothesis for lack of evidence, would be considered an error, given Doubt, which is the principle of the scientific method which covers both directions (acceptance and denial) however, I assume that depends on a given hypothesis to be considered valid, consistent in its propositions, passing logic as well its mathematical model.

Last edited by greenblue on 06 Feb 2009, 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A circular definition IS all that we have and all that's possible, which is what makes justice and morality ongoing debates. E.g.; some people think doctors who perform abortions deserve to be bombed to death. Some do not. For all the mathematical givens you provided, the issue of what-is-just is potentially sticky. Unless the given is just that jury/majority-rules standard and nothing above and beyond that. Most all of us will agree that rape is wrong and giving to charity is a good thing. Do you require a definition of 'justice' beyond this?



Yes. E.g.; No matter how clear the statement: 2+2=4 ... Someone can just keep saying, "I don't understand." And who are we to argue?

False.

Right now I'm taking a class in abstract math. At the level of symbolic logic, set theory, algebra, and number systems, we build from basic axioms statements that lack any ambiguity, so no one can challenge their clarity.