Do you believe in absolute truth?

[totent]

I can argue that the only truth is that the truth changes. Which is more accurate, but at what point does "the only truth" change since its the truth.

Plato suggestion implodes on itself.

How do you mean more accurate? Nietzsche's ideas on being and becoming support the "no truth" idea. He suggests there is no absolute truth. That different things become known as the truth at different times.
What we have been talking about is the idea of absolute truth. If, like you said, truth changes, it is not absolute. Which is what I've been saying

 

[Poki]

How do you mean more accurate? Nietzsche's ideas on being and becoming support the "no truth" idea. He suggests there is no absolute truth. That different things become known as the truth at different times.
What we have been talking about is the idea of absolute truth. If, like you said, truth changes, it is not absolute. Which is what I've been saying

If there is no truths you CANNOT define that it is the truth.

It is more accurate because it does not implode on itself, but allows the definition of the only truth to actually change.

 

[Poki]

Socrates has no written work. When I said what I said about Socrates, it was Socrates as portrayed by Plato in his written works. Plato conveyed his ideas on forms and the philosopher king in the republic. In the apology, he shows Socrates going to his death saying I am the wisest because I know that I know nothing. That's why I said that if you look at all of Plato's work together, he evidently suggests that the only truth is that there is no truth

The other thing about" i am the wisest because i know what i dont now". He assumes that others do not. Which leads down the path of until something is defined it cannot be. But in order to realize this it must have existed before it was defined.

Philosophy is a funny beast and a play on the human mind.

 

[totent]

If there is no truths you CANNOT define that it is the truth.

It is more accurate because it does not implode on itself, but allows the definition of the only truth to actually change.

Nietzsche on language is useful here because when we give a word a specific meaning, we hold to it too dearly. The question was, do you believe in absolute truth. According to Plato, nietszhe, baudrillard and several others, there isn't. I do not see an inconsistency in Plato's argument.

 

[Poki]

Nietzsche on language is useful here because when we give a word a specific meaning, we hold to it too dearly. The question was, do you believe in absolute truth. According to Plato, nietszhe, baudrillard and several others, there isn't. I do not see an inconsistency in Plato's argument.

So is that what they believe as Truth?

 

[totent]

The other thing about" i am the wisest because i know what i dont now". He assumes that others do not. Which leads down the path of until something is defined it cannot be. But in order to realize this it must have existed before it was defined.

Philosophy is a funny beast and a play on the human mind.

I'm sorry you feel that way

 

[Poki]

I'm sorry you feel that way

I am sorry you cant see

 

[totent]

So is that what they believe as Truth?

How do we know that the meaning of a word existed before we created the word? Why is the word red, red? Red is not red because it existed before the formation of language. But now that we've developed language, we fixed the meaning of the word. In addition to that, we are dualistic in our approach to life. Good or bad, right or wrong, true or false. So when I say that they suggested there is no truth, you are automatically inclined to fit it into this dualistic system. You say okay, they think the concept of an absolute truth is false, therefore they think that no-absolute truth is 'true'. Relying again, on the predetermined meaning of the language that you've used to, both, think and convey your ideas. See it as you may, but the idea of an absolute truth is just like the concept of god. Most people are either atheists or believers. There's very few people who are prepared to say, I don't know. Because it is uncomfortable.

 

[Poki]

How do we know that the meaning of a word existed before we created the word? Why is the word red, red? Red is not red because it existed before the formation of language. But now that we've developed language, we fixed the meaning of the word. In addition to that, we are dualistic in our approach to life. Good or bad, right or wrong, true or false. So when I say that they suggested there is no truth, you are automatically inclined to fit it into this dualistic system. You say okay, they think the concept of an absolute truth is false, therefore they think that no-absolute truth is 'true'. Relying again, on the predetermined meaning of the language that you've used to, both, think and convey your ideas. See it as you may, but the idea of an absolute truth is just like the concept of god. Most people are either atheists or believers. There's very few people who are prepared to say, I don't know. Because it is uncomfortable.

If the color red did not exist before we created it what did we use to define it? If we called red purple, it would still be the exact same thing. Words are but a mere representation of our perception and thoughts. I used to sign my cards, "Me, because a name is just a name, but only I am Me."

I have lived my whole life in an unkown state searching for the truth. I CANNOT say God doest exist because i do not know...i CANNOT say he does because i do not know. But i can say i believe he exists...i am getting closer and closer to that.

But it IS a logic fact that "the only truth" and "there is no truths" CANNOT exist together unless you bring in an exception to the rule. You can argue that it is deduced that because he stated a truth it is to be deduced that what follows is said tongue in cheek and that the exception is to be infered, not stated. That is one way to keep it from imploding on itself. But that is not said, so the statement is not accurate, it is misleading. It leaves it open to interpretation of whats meant....and that leads us into what people do with aethiest vs the bible. Not to mention bible vs bible as well

The exception negates whats said so it cancels out whats said and replaces it with what should have been said. That different then just clarification which is more reduction, then negation.

 

[totent]

If the color red did not exist before we created it what did we use to define it? If we called red purple, it would still be the exact same thing. Words are but a mere representation of our perception and thoughts. I used to sign my cards, "Me, because a name is just a name, but only I am Me."

I have lived my whole life in an unkown state searching for the truth. I CANNOT say God doest exist because i do not know...i CANNOT say he does because i do not know. But i can say i believe he exists...i am getting closer and closer to that.

But it IS a logic fact that "the only truth" and "there is no truths" CANNOT exist together unless you bring in an exception to the rule. You can argue that it is deduced that because he stated a truth it is to be deduced that what follows is said tongue in cheek and that the exception is to be infered, not stated. That is one way to keep it from imploding on itself. But that is not said, so the statement is not accurate, it is misleading. It leaves it open to interpretation of whats meant....and that leads us into what people do with aethiest vs the bible.

You are quite sure of what you think. I am not. I know for a fact that what's read for you is not read for me. I see colors differently. Everybody sees something different even when they look at the same thing.
Like I said, in your binary arrangement of language and of understanding, you will not see what they mean by what they say. Everything is open to interpretation, even scientific "facts".
Anyway I think I've given my two cents, I hope you find the time to explore philosophy and with an open mind. I'm sure anyone can find something for themselves

 

[Poki]

You are quite sure of what you think. I am not. I know for a fact that what's read for you is not read for me. I see colors differently. Everybody sees something different even when they look at the same thing.
Like I said, in your binary arrangement of language and of understanding, you will not see what they mean by what they say. Everything is open to interpretation, even scientific "facts".
Anyway I think I've given my two cents, I hope you find the time to explore philosophy and with an open mind. I'm sure anyone can find something for themselves

I do have an open mind, but it doesnt mean i will believe everything i read or will not be critical of it. It means i will discern. Its nteresting you see me as binary as the statememt is binary. I actually took it beyond binary into grey by bringing in exceptions, etc.

I understand this is not your strength, honestly for the mind to accept this is generally accepts that exception i mentioned. Hence why i said it plays with the mind. It is a funny beast...i donnot say whether a beast is a good or bad thing.

Yes, everything is open to interpretation...but some more so then others. Have a nice day this i why i dont study philosophy, i have a mind to tear things apart and delve inside. I do enjoy reading the quotes though i am pick about which ones i enjoy.

 

[uumlau]

I usually find that talking about an "open mind" is as much a conversation-ender as Godwin's Law, because it is almost always used in the context of "I am open minded and you are not. If only you were open minded you would agree with me."

 

[Hawthorne]

Maybe. But any method of accessing and assessing it would seem to rely on inherently subjective criteria. Faith in the senses, presumption of non-paradox, spiritually tapping into universal consciousness, etc.

Suggests to me that if we knew it, we'd never know it or that any means to prove it to others would be futile since anyone who would claim access to a pure or direct conduit falls into the subjectivity trap again.

 

[totent]

I didn't say anything about agreeing with me. Philosophy is not about stating a fact and proving yourself right. I don't approach something to tear it apart. I approach it so that I can learn something from it. I know that it is tempting to say that my view is better than yours, but I don't do that and I am not right now. There is no exception to a rule if that rule doesn't exist. I'm not saying that I think an absolute truth does not exist. But if there were no speed limits, the president's car wouldn't be an exception if it could speed through at whatever speed he pleased. At some level, we are all philosophers. But what I mean by keeping an open mind is to keep your opinions aside when you encounter something. You may still reject it, but it won't be because you didn't want to be proven wrong. In the process, you may learn more. Cheers!

 

[Poki]

I didn't say anything about agreeing with me. Philosophy is not about stating a fact and proving yourself right. I don't approach something to tear it apart. I approach it so that I can learn something from it. I know that it is tempting to say that my view is better than yours, but I don't do that and I am not right now. There is no exception to a rule if that rule doesn't exist. I'm not saying that I think an absolute truth does not exist. But if there were no speed limits, the president's car wouldn't be an exception if it could speed through at whatever speed he pleased. At some level, we are all philosophers. But what I mean by keeping an open mind is to keep your opinions aside when you encounter something. You may still reject it, but it won't be because you didn't want to be proven wrong. In the process, you may learn more. Cheers!

To be a philosopher and to study philosophy is 2 different things

 

[Poki]

The Philosopher is one who dwells in reflection and observation: they take every experience and seeks to understand it, even if doing so requires one to be brutally honest. This requires one to cast off the preconceived notions that one may have accepted in the past and subject all of one's beliefs to critical scrutiny. No belief or source of ideas is immune, regardless of its origin, authority, or emotional power. To think philosophically, one must think for one's self.[4]
Philosophers do not simply form opinions and chat idly. Philosophers, instead, develop arguments, based on premises that can and will be challenged by other philosophers.[5] The goal of philosophical thinking is not to be right, it is to ask good questions and seek understanding.

Study of is to understand and learn the process, the process is to dissect and tear apart. To be a passenger is to just enjoy it for what it is. Do as you enjoy

 

[totent]

To be a philosopher and to study philosophy is 2 different things

At some level we all question things and strive to learn more about it. That is what being a philosopher is about. I am aware that reading about philosophy and being a philosopher are two different things. Nor did I imply that they are one in the same

 

[Poki]

At some level we all question things and strive to learn more about it. That is what being a philosopher is about. I am aware that reading about philosophy and being a philosopher are two different things. Nor did I imply that they are one in the same

No, but what an open mind is in each case is very different. Both have an open mind, just process it differently. Thats why i differentiated it.

 

[Beorn]

The only logical answer is, yes.
To answer, no, would be to contradict yourself.

 

[totent]

Study of is to understand and learn the process, the process is to dissect and tear apart. To be a passenger is to just enjoy it for what it is. Do as you enjoy

I don't see how anything I've been saying is different from your quote. Thanks for sharing it though