Woman and man's highest calling- Cherokee proverb

[greenfairy]

That doesn't mean that either claim is untrue, as the truth depends directly on objective reality and an impression of it. Truth does not depend on logos. We may have two non-contradictory explanations of the same thing-in-itself. Though the metaphysical and the physical are mutually exclusive, neither nullifies the existence of the other.

I think I agree with this, if I'm understanding it correctly.

 

[Pseudo]

I'm saying we don't know all of objective reality, so we need to make a reliable guess that works for us. And the truth of something doesn't have to be binary. If a claim depends on language, it depends on semantics, which are created and understood by humans; so it will depend on definition. So it can be true and untrue at the same time. If this is describing a natural phenomenon, like int he case of trees having spirits, what I'm saying is that the natural phenomenon we are attempting to describe in words may be so far removed from the original claim that it's truth value is kind of irrelevant. If we believe in something called a spirit, and the truth is that it's just electrical interaction, that's not the same thing- but it might behave the same way in many instances and fool us. So believing in one produces much the same result as believing in the other.

A problem of semantics does not make something both true and untrue it just reveals a limitation in our language. If I some how learned that "peach" meant "door" it would not change anything about the objective truth of the door. I would naturally have a problem expressing my self to others on regards to doors, but the solution to that problem is to redefine my terms not to assume that reality of doors is some combination of architecture and fruit.

In regards the the tree the problem I have with your argent is that you are suggesting that we use symbolic language for things we do understand in other ways. Basically you are promoting the continued use of "peach" to signify "door" after we have learned the word "door".

 

[greenfairy]

A problem of semantics does not make something both true and untrue it just reveals a limitation in our language. If I some how learned that "peach" meant "door" it would not change anything about the objective truth of the door. I would naturally have a problem expressing my self to others on regards to doors, but the solution to that problem is to redefine my terms not to assume that reality of doors is some combination of architecture and fruit.

In regards the the tree the problem I have with your argent is that you are suggesting that we use symbolic language for things we do understand in other ways. Basically you are promoting the continued use of "peach" to signify "door" after we have learned the word "door".

If we were living in an isolated society in which no one knew the word for door, and you thought it was peach, it would be useful to call it a peach because that would be just as good as making up something else.

There is a definition of door; there are 14 definitions of spirit in the dictionary. And even if we agree on one, since (the thing we are talking about) is a metaphysical thing, each person's understanding of it will be a little bit different. Since it is an inherently ambiguous thing, it can't be applied to a physical object in a uniform fashion.

 

[Pseudo]

That doesn't mean that either claim is untrue, as the truth depends directly on objective reality and an impression of it. Truth does not depend on logos. We may have two non-contradictory explanations of the same thing-in-itself. Though the metaphysical and the physical are mutually exclusive, neither nullifies the existence of the other.

I'm not trying to say that metaphysical forces don't exist. Only that our impressions of reality =\= reality.

Imagine I am Ina room with a red cube but I'm situated at an angle to it where I perceive it as a square. The objective truth is that is is a 3d cube but my subjecive understanding of it is a 2d square. By subjective understanding is false.

 

[Pseudo]

If we were living in an isolated society in which no one knew the word for door, and you thought it was peach, it would be useful to call it a peach because that would be just as good as making up something else.

There is a definition of door; there are 14 definitions of spirit in the dictionary. And even if we agree on one, since (the thing we are talking about) is a metaphysical thing, each person's understanding of it will be a little bit different. Since it is an inherently ambiguous thing, it can't be applied to a physical object in a uniform fashion.

Just because we disagree on what to call things doesn't mean there a multiple realities!!! Just because I call a something a dog and some else calls it a shoe doesn't hange the fact that there is a creatiw in existance with four legs, hair and a bark. It doesn't matter what I or you think spirit means. There could be no language at all and things would still exist in certain ways.

Human opinion or understanding doesn't change the reality of something. The earth has been round forever even though different people thought different things about its shape.

 

[Ginkgo]

I'm not trying to say that metaphysical forces don't exist. Only that our impressions of reality =\= reality.

Imagine I am Ina room with a red cube but I'm situated at an angle to it where I perceive it as a square. The objective truth is that is is a 3d cube but my subjecive understanding of it is a 2d square. By subjective understanding is false.

Your subjective understanding that the object is a shape with equal sides and angles is true. Your misunderstanding that the object is a square is false. Your visual of the object is also an accurate depiction of what you are seeing, even if the thing you are seeing exceeds your understanding.

EDIT: Sorry tired

 

[Pseudo]

Your subjective understanding that the object is a shape with equal sides and angles is true. Your misunderstanding that the object is a square is false. Your visual of the object is also an accurate depiction of what you are seeing, even if the thing you are seeing exceeds your understanding.

EDIT: Sorry tired

So "I see a square" is correct but "that is a square" is not. So again our subject truth isn't really true unless with qualify it with some reference to the limitations of our own perception.

 

[greenfairy]

Just because we disagree on what to call things doesn't mean there a multiple realities!!! Just because I call a something a dog and some else calls it a shoe doesn't hange the fact that there is a creatiw in existance with four legs, hair and a bark. It doesn't matter what I or you think spirit means. There could be no language at all and things would still exist in certain ways.

Human opinion or understanding doesn't change the reality of something. The earth has been round forever even though different people thought different things about its shape.

Right, but my point is that if you are to translate this objective reality into language, it would not have universal agreement. Logic uses language. So objective reality is beyond language and logic. For that matter I think we are talking about reality, because truth implies some sort of awareness of reality. And if people's awareness of reality is subjective, then truth is (at least sometimes) subjective.

 

[greenfairy]

I'm not trying to say that metaphysical forces don't exist. Only that our impressions of reality =\= reality.

Imagine I am Ina room with a red cube but I'm situated at an angle to it where I perceive it as a square. The objective truth is that is is a 3d cube but my subjecive understanding of it is a 2d square. By subjective understanding is false.

Right, but we are talking here about physical objects which can be objectively observed. Spirits or consciousness are not purely physical int his sense. So I don't think the argument applies.

 

[greenfairy]

So "I see a square" is correct but "that is a square" is not. So again our subject truth isn't really true unless with qualify it with some reference to the limitations of our own perception.

Isn't this necessary in most cases in the real world? Doesn't understanding and knowledge of anything require it?

 

[Pseudo]

Right, but my point is that if you are to translate this objective reality into language, it would not have universal agreement. Logic uses language. So objective reality is beyond language and logic. For that matter I think we are talking about reality, because truth implies some sort of awareness of reality. And if people's awareness of reality is subjective, then truth is (at least sometimes) subjective.

You cant't have a subjective perception that doesn't exist in the first place. There must be an objective reality to respond to for us to be able to form subjective opinions.

Agin just because we cannot understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You are twisting the concept of "truth" into "your opinion". Something that is true is not false, regardless of anyone's thoughts

 

[greenfairy]

You cant't have a subjective perception that doesn't exist in the first place. There must be an objective reality to respond to for us to be able to form subjective opinions.

Agin just because we cannot understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You are twisting the concept of "truth" into "your opinion". Something that is true is not false, regardless of anyone's thoughts

Actually you can in the case of hallucinations. Or am I misunderstanding?
Yes objective reality must exist for us to respond to it, but truth by its very nature implies cognition. Which means if there were no beings to be aware of reality, truth would cease to be relevant. We would only have reality.

 

[Pseudo]

Right, but we are talking here about physical objects which can be objectively observed. Spirits or consciousness are not purely physical int his sense. So I don't think the argument applies.

I doesn't matter if they can be observed by us, it doesn't change the essence of what they are. Imagine the cube is camaflouged. You can't perceive it at all be it still exists.

 

[Pseudo]

Isn't this necessary in most cases in the real world? Doesn't understanding and knowledge of anything require it?

Yes exactly. We have to qualify things we are not certain of inorder for them to be true which is when we should just be okay with generalizations. Me and sprinkles came to this conclusion several pages back.

 

[Ginkgo]

So "I see a square" is correct but "that is a square" is not. So again our subject truth isn't really true unless with qualify it with some reference to the limitations of our own perception.

I specified: visualization. Not your understanding of the visualization. Fuck, is there a difference between a visual and a visualization? I think I meant visualization.

 

[greenfairy]

I doesn't matter if they can be observed by us, it doesn't change the essence of what they are. Imagine the cube is camaflouged. You can't perceive it at all be it still exists.

True. My point is in reference to our discussion of utilitarian beliefs. If the essence of something is beyond our comprehension, we have to use the mental frameworks we have at the moment.

Yes exactly. We have to qualify things we are not certain of inorder for them to be true which is when we should just be okay with generalizations. Me and sprinkles came to this conclusion several pages back.

Oh yeah, I saw that. I thought this was arguing against the above.

 

[Pseudo]

Actually you can in the case of hallucinations. Or am I misunderstanding?
Yes objective reality must exist for us to respond to it, but truth by its very nature implies cognition. Which means if there were no beings to be aware of reality, truth would cease to be relevant. We would only have reality.

Hallucinations are brought on by some physical circumstances (brain chemistry, sensory malfunction ect).

Truth has nothing to do with cognition. That makes no sense. A world devoid of people still exists. It would be true that earth existed regardless if a human was there it precieve that it was so.

 

[greenfairy]

Hallucinations are brought on by some physical circumstances (brain chemistry, sensory malfunction ect).

Truth has nothing to do with cognition. That makes no sense. A world devoid of people still exists. It would be true that earth existed regardless if a human was there it precieve that it was so.

I'm discussing the difference int he words "reality" and "truth." I guess we have different definitions. Or in your mind they mean the same thing.

 

[Pseudo]

I'm discussing the difference int he words "reality" and "truth." I guess we have different definitions. Or in your mind they mean the same thing.

They are the same thing.

 

[greenfairy]

Actually I just looked up truth in the dictionary. It essentially means conformity to reality. So it is an objective measurement. So you are right, but it could also be argued that since it is a measurement, if no being exists to measure it, it is irrelevant. It could also be argued that anything untrue is imagined- which does imply mental activity in a being. Correct? So if there were no beings, there would be no untruth, and so truth would be irrelevant.

They are the same thing.

There are all kinds of common language meanings of truth btw.

Edit: there are at least 10 definitions of truth in the dictionary.