Woman and man's highest calling- Cherokee proverb

[Ginkgo]

I agree opinions exist and that they have to be qualified to be true.

But then could further explain "Truth in the intellect conforming to the subject".

Yeah, good point. So I think greenfairy's definition found in the dictionary reflects mine more accurately as reality includes the subject and the object. How silly of me.

 

[greenfairy]

You don't need some one to observe a distance between two objects in order for it to be real or measurable.

But we're not talking about objects. We're talking about truth versus reality. And any difference between the two depends on the existence of untruth, which arises from a being falsely perceiving; while this is objectively true independent of another being determining it, it is only relevant if it happens or has the potential to happen. If there were only one being in existence, and that being falsely perceived something and never realized it, the (un)truth would not matter. If another being existed, it would matter because that being would have the potential to recognize the false perception in the other being, and then inform it or not.

 

[Coriolis]

I think what [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] was actually saying is not that men and women in relationships fulfill the same roles, but that the role they fulfill within the relationship is not determined by gender.

If the man provides the nurturing and the women provides security they will avoid the "head cracking" of your baseball metaphor.

Or better yet, if each is nurturing and protective in his/her own way. Most mothers I know try to protect their children, and most fathers also try to nurture them.

I don't disagree that their are physical differences but I do question the extent to which they shape our personalities. Most for the reasons I stated previously that women all don't function in the same way. You could have two women which have very dissimilar personalities and a man and a women with very similar personalities. For example of these three people who is the outlier: Sarah Palin, Glen beck, Andy Worhol.

I'm not denying that gender is a factor in shaping a person, I'm just denying that it is the most significant or lone factor.

Exactly. Nice to see someone gets it.

I do agree that the OP is probably not INTP but rather an Fi user. And on this forum NTs more than any other temperament group seem to resent non-NTs posing as NTs, but really, cut her some slag already, IMHO this does not deserve this much drama and passion.

I am sure she would appreciate that.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

 

[greenfairy]

If no beings exist, there is no untruth. If there is no untruth there is no truth, unless you are thinking of truth as something independent of contrast, in which case it is rather meaningless. Truth and reality only matter to the extent that there is unreality (<-- as a theoretical concept) and untruth. So truth is directly relevant to its perception.

 

[greenfairy]

I am sure she would appreciate that.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

LOL

No, keep it away from me!

 

[rav3n]

Is this where dinosaurs disappear?

 

[greenfairy]

Regarding the gender binary, I think a lot of people attach too much importance to it. I'm not really. Saying things work best in balance, and incorporating the construct is just useful to me and some other people in some ways. It's not necessary. I was arguing that it exists, but really it doesn't matter. If you believe it exists and that belief is useful to you, cool. If not, cool. Yin and yang definitely exist, and are (to an arguable extent) independent of gender.

 

[greenfairy]

Is this where dinosaurs disappear?

Your kitten avatar murdered them all.

 

[rav3n]

Your kitten avatar murdered them all.

Nope. Your attempt at logic vaporised them from ever existing. Apply concept to what you're trying to snake oil sell to pseudo.

 

[greenfairy]

Nope. Your attempt at logic vaporised them from ever existing. Apply concept to what you're trying to snake oil sell to pseudo.

If I continue to be illogical for long enough, can I vaporize you from ever existing? Shouldn't be too hard, if I can remove all the dinosaurs.

And snake oil isn't my cup of tea. I prefer red hibiscus flowers.

 

[rav3n]

If I continue to be illogical for long enough, can I vaporize you from ever existing? Shouldn't be too hard, if I can remove all the dinosaurs.

And snake oil isn't my cup of tea. I prefer red hibiscus flowers.

Consider your logic. If there are no beings perceiving an object, that object doesn't exist. There were no beings perceiving dinosaurs, so they never existed.

You're confusing subjective perception with objective truth or objective reality.

 

[greenfairy]

Consider your logic. If there are no beings perceiving an object, that object doesn't exist. There were no beings perceiving dinosaurs, so they never existed.

You're confusing subjective perception with objective truth or objective reality.

No, I said multiple times that objective reality exists. My point it that truth value is irrelevant if there is no one to acknowledge it. Do you see the difference?

 

[rav3n]

value

The crux of the entire thread. Value based assumptions.

 

[Pseudo]

If no beings exist, there is no untruth. If there is no untruth there is no truth, unless you are thinking of truth as something independent of contrast, in which case it is rather meaningless. Truth and reality only matter to the extent that there is unreality (<-- as a theoretical concept) and untruth. So truth is directly relevant to its perception.

Flawed logic.

For untrue statement or lies to exist you need fallible beings/liars to exist.

Truth does not actually need anything to exist. The truth in that case would be "nothing exists". Untruth in that case would be that something exists but with nothing to make such a claim that untruth wouldn't exist. The contrast would theoretically exist but not a lie or untrue atatement

 

[greenfairy]

Flawed logic.

For untrue statement or lies to exist you need fallible beings/liars to exist.

Truth does not actually need anything to exist. The truth in that case would be "nothing exists". Untruth in that case would be that something exists but with nothing to make such a claim that untruth wouldn't exist. The contrast would theoretically exist but not a lie or untrue atatement

True enough. But then why would you need the concept of truth? Why not just reality? There would be no (untrue) claim that a being exists, because there would be no being to claim it. So no untruth would exist, and truth would be irrelevant.

Can you give me a counterexample? Give me a situation in which no beings exist but untruth exists.

 

[greenfairy]

The crux of the entire thread. Value based assumptions.

I have not professed values of any sort, beyond post #30 and the relevant comments. Maybe your Fi sees value when it isn't there?


I don't remember every single post I made, but if there was any implication of value it was in a small minority.

 

[Pseudo]

True enough. But then why would you need the concept of truth? Why not just reality? There would be no (untrue) claim that a being exists, because there would be no being to claim it. So no untruth would exist, and truth would be irrelevant.

Can you give me a counterexample? Give me a situation in which no beings exist but untruth exists.

I don't have an example of that because I already explained why it wouldn't happen.

you wpuldn't need to distinguish truth from Reality in that situation but we do because liars and fallible beings exist in out world.

 

[Pseudo]

I have not professed values of any sort, beyond post #30 and the relevant comments. Maybe your Fi sees value when it isn't there?


I don't remember every single post I made, but if there was any implication of value it was in a small minority.

You value utilitarian beliefs despite the fact that they don't reflect reality

 

[greenfairy]

You value utilitarian beliefs despite the fact that they don't reflect reality

I don't necessarily value them. I said they are useful. Hence the word utilitarian. They are useful to me. Maybe I don't value them. But it's still useful for me to have them. And for a lot of other people as well.

 

[greenfairy]

I don't have an example of that because I already explained why it wouldn't happen.

you wpuldn't need to distinguish truth from Reality in that situation but we do because liars and fallible beings exist in out world.

Right, truth is only relevant to beings existing and comprehending it. How is what you are saying now and what I am saying different?