Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Truth Seekers Wanted

Page 3 of 5 [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

NobelCynic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 600
Location: New Jersey, U.S.A.

11 Feb 2009, 3:52 am

Clarifier wrote:
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.

Yes.

I would also agree with this one. No statement is so clear that it cannot be misunderstood, particularly by someone who would rather not understand it.


_________________
NobelCynic (on WP)
My given name is Kenneth


slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

11 Feb 2009, 7:37 am

ruveyn wrote:
Postperson wrote:

? you're just reinterating the OP. it's a bit meaningless, like a mantra. it ignores the reality of what people do regardless what is logically correct in a Spocky sense.



Not a mantra. It is a brief description of the methodology of physics which is a very successful science. Physics delivers, metaphysics dithers.

rueyn


Very Spocky.



Clarifier
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Age: 80
Gender: Male
Posts: 40
Location: California

11 Feb 2009, 5:18 pm

NobelCynic wrote:
Clarifier wrote:
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.

Yes.

I would also agree with this one. No statement is so clear that it cannot be misunderstood, particularly by someone who would rather not understand it.


Thank you, NC. I've been working on it too. What do you think of this version?
Statements exist that are perfectly clear and obviously true. But no statement is so clear or obvious that it cannot be challenged by someone who wants to challenge it. Such people will surely challenge any defense of that statement, and are likely to do so ad nauseam.


_________________
Truth seekers always clarify.
Ego defenders clarify when they're right, and complicate when they're wrong.
Truth seekers pursue conclusions. Truth avoiders pursue tangents.


Clarifier
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Age: 80
Gender: Male
Posts: 40
Location: California

11 Feb 2009, 5:37 pm

To JoJerome & Orwell,

I think we agree that justice cannot be defined. Can we also agree that inability to define it does not negate its existence?
If so, can we agree that there exists an objective concept of justice, despite the fact that none of us can prove that our own definition is objective? If not, all we have is a morass of subjective definitions without an objective referent. And that is axiological nihilism.

I would really like to get beyond this and discuss the value of objective justice to sentient beings. But first we have to agree on its existence.


_________________
Truth seekers always clarify.
Ego defenders clarify when they're right, and complicate when they're wrong.
Truth seekers pursue conclusions. Truth avoiders pursue tangents.


Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

11 Feb 2009, 6:01 pm

Do you want to make a list of rules for how we should treat sentient beings?


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


NobelCynic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 600
Location: New Jersey, U.S.A.

11 Feb 2009, 7:09 pm

Clarifier wrote:
Thank you, NC. I've been working on it too. What do you think of this version?

I think you are trying to create a maxim to find truth baised on method Clarifier, and I don't think that is possible.

How do you like this?

A persons ability to perceive truth is a function of one's degree of respect for it. A person who tells the truth is very dificult to deceive; a liar wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the ass.


_________________
NobelCynic (on WP)
My given name is Kenneth


Clarifier
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Age: 80
Gender: Male
Posts: 40
Location: California

11 Feb 2009, 8:03 pm

NobelCynic wrote:
I think you are trying to create a maxim to find truth based on method Clarifier, and I don't think that is possible.

I don’t think a single method exists for determining all truth, but methods definitely exist for determining some kinds of truth (e.g. logic), and I want to identify any methods that are available.

NobelCynic wrote:
A persons ability to perceive truth is a function of one's degree of respect for it.

Total flag-waving agreement.

NobelCynic wrote:
A person who tells the truth is very difficult to deceive; a liar wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the ass.

I wish I could agree with this, but truth-tellers are often naïve. And the category of liars covers a wide spectrum of people. Many of them have been at it so long that to them truth is just “a lie that hasn’t been exposed yet.” But I wouldn’t want to say none of them know the truth. Ignorance might be a defense against judgment & well deserved punishment.


_________________
Truth seekers always clarify.
Ego defenders clarify when they're right, and complicate when they're wrong.
Truth seekers pursue conclusions. Truth avoiders pursue tangents.


twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

11 Feb 2009, 8:30 pm

Clarifier wrote:
NobelCynic wrote:
Clarifier wrote:
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.

Yes.

I would also agree with this one. No statement is so clear that it cannot be misunderstood, particularly by someone who would rather not understand it.


Thank you, NC. I've been working on it too. What do you think of this version?
Statements exist that are perfectly clear and obviously true. But no statement is so clear or obvious that it cannot be challenged by someone who wants to challenge it. Such people will surely challenge any defense of that statement, and are likely to do so ad nauseam.

While it may be true that they may challenge it, statements exist which are not challengeable, and any challenge of them is predicated on misunderstanding and ergo do not constitute genuine challenges.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

11 Feb 2009, 8:59 pm

If we can't agree on what truth or Truth is, why bother seeking it?



Clarifier
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Age: 80
Gender: Male
Posts: 40
Location: California

11 Feb 2009, 9:05 pm

twoshots wrote:
While it may be true that they may challenge it, statements exist which are not challengeable, and any challenge of them is predicated on misunderstanding and ergo do not constitute genuine challenges.

If someone misunderstands my statement, and therefore challenges it, I would call that challenge genuine, and worthy of response.
If someone understands my statement, and cannot refute it, but challenges it anyway on some oblique grounds, for some ego-defensive reason, I would call that challenge illegitimate, and ignore it.


_________________
Truth seekers always clarify.
Ego defenders clarify when they're right, and complicate when they're wrong.
Truth seekers pursue conclusions. Truth avoiders pursue tangents.


Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

11 Feb 2009, 11:24 pm

Clarifier wrote:

Quote:
I would really like to get beyond this and discuss the value of objective justice to sentient beings. But first we have to agree on its existence.


I'm curious to see where you are going with this thread.


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Feb 2009, 2:15 am

Clarifier wrote:
To JoJerome & Orwell,

I would really like to get beyond this and discuss the value of objective justice to sentient beings. But first we have to agree on its existence.


What is objective justice? As opposed to non-objective justice or non-justice.

ruveyn



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Feb 2009, 2:17 am

Clarifier wrote:
To JoJerome & Orwell,

I would really like to get beyond this and discuss the value of objective justice to sentient beings. But first we have to agree on its existence.


What is objective justice? As opposed to non-objective justice or non-justice.

ruveyn



Clarifier
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Age: 80
Gender: Male
Posts: 40
Location: California

12 Feb 2009, 3:05 am

ruveyn wrote:
What is objective justice? As opposed to non-objective justice or non-justice.


Objective justice (assuming that it exists) does not vary with diverse opinions. It implies that a given person at a given time should receive a certain reward or punishment regardless of what anyone thinks. E.g. It means I should pay my debts whether I want to or not, and whether I disagree or not. It means Hitler should be punished because he objectively deserves it, and not just because a lot of people think so.

Unfortunately, all human attempts to define justice will be subjective, but that doesn’t mean objective justice doesn’t exist. It only means it can’t be defined from a human perspective.

I can’t prove objective justice exists. But if it doesn’t, then the closest humanity can come to it is majority opinion. So when the majority thought virgins should be sacrificed to gods, then that was just. When the majority thought slavery was just, then slavery was just. Etc.


_________________
Truth seekers always clarify.
Ego defenders clarify when they're right, and complicate when they're wrong.
Truth seekers pursue conclusions. Truth avoiders pursue tangents.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Feb 2009, 7:30 am

Clarifier wrote:

I can’t prove objective justice exists. But if it doesn’t, then the closest humanity can come to it is majority opinion. So when the majority thought virgins should be sacrificed to gods, then that was just. When the majority thought slavery was just, then slavery was just. Etc.


It looks like the virgins must tremble or get laid.

ruveyn



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

12 Feb 2009, 9:57 am

Clarifier wrote:
I can’t prove objective justice exists. But if it doesn’t, then the closest humanity can come to it is majority opinion. So when the majority thought virgins should be sacrificed to gods, then that was just. When the majority thought slavery was just, then slavery was just. Etc.

The majority now, thinks that virgins should never have been sacrificed to gods and that slavery was always evil. Either the majority now is misperceiving things, or the majority then was misperceiving things, in either case, it really seems as if the majority does not have an epistemic power to know justice. As well, if justice is by majority rule now, then the opinions we care about are Indian & Chinese, everyone else's view of justice is immaterial, and based upon that, I do not expect very good results.