All!

The statement that people need food and drink to survive is not an absolute truth in the epistemic sense. Religious people not only fast, but believe that the spiritual life exists in a form beyond that of caloric intake. (Some radical religious people fast then die in order to get to the other side.) Some people further believe that the metaphysical existence is much like that of electrical energy-existence occuring 'naturally' (mind-body phenom) in the universe.

So, whether you believe any of that or not-epistemically, the fact remains that the statement "People need to eat food and drink water in order to live" is not a universal absolute truth in the mind's of many.

I hope this answers the concern that Chatman has raised. (We are still waiting to hear whether subsequent observations, from Chatman's rationalism and/or empiricism, offer any absolute truth, without change. As of yet he refuses to answer Fried's question.)

Walrus
----------
Truth is Subjectivity

WJ,

I trust that you are not taking down the path again where a case rests on a question. As I informed you before, this is rhetoric, and not philosophy. I hope you can take the hint.

In addition, I think you are overlooking one very important point being made by Chatman and Anonymousj. There point is very similar to A.J. Ayer's in the chapter "Skepticism and Certainty" in The Problem of Knowledge. Ayer claims that the reason that the skeptic cannot get a legitimate answer to his question is because the question itself is illegitimate. More than that, it is philosophically uninteresting. Therefore it is best to leave the skeptic to the amuzements of his own mind.

Additionally, your statement which is now appearing at the bottom of your posts is a self-refuting statement. If all truth is subjective, then that must be an absolutely true statement. If that is the case, then it cannot be that all truth is subjective, for there is at least one statement, namely that truth is subjective, that MUST be true. Read Plato.

Thanks,

Mitch


Hi anon, (Mitch)!

I agree [anon]when you said:

"The problem is, no matter how illogical or unsystematic our thinking, the Ideas we construct appear true to us because that is the logical or illogical way we think. Thus, the solution to the problem of knowing when Ideas are true is understanding the mechanics of realistic/systematic thinking."

Again the rationalist/empiricist [Chatman, mitch, et al.] believes that there are solutions that go beyond the absolute that: truth is subjectivity. As of yet we have net seen any evidence. For instance, here's a bit of solipsism:

As a result of the brain's assessment of electrical stimulations coming from objects to it, we feel different senses pertaining to those objects such as hardness or softness, or heat or cold. We derive all details that help us recognise an object from these stimulations. Concerning this important fact, the thoughts of two famous philosophers, B. Russell and L. Wittgeinstein are as follows;

For instance, whether a lemon truly exists or not and how it came to exist cannot be questioned and investigated. A lemon consists merely of a taste sensed by the tongue, an odor sensed by the nose, a colour and shape sensed by the eye; and only these features of it can be subject to examination and assessment. Science can never know the physical world.201

It is impossible for us to reach the physical world. All objects around us are a collection of perceptions such as seeing, hearing, and touching. By processing the data in the centre of vision and in other sensory centres, our brain, throughout our lives, confronts not the "original" of the matter existing outside us but rather the copy formed inside our brain. It is at this point that we are misled by assuming that these copies are instances of real matter outside us.

-----------end quote

Further, I think Mitch is a materialist/realist(?) therefore, the notion that existence can be reduced to an electrical essence of some sort should sound appealing to him. Unfortunatly, it also opens the door for the existence of omnipotence (electrical force). To that end, Mitch, I would too, suggest some reading in physics, and astrobiology.

Walrus
------
Truth is Subjectivity (who said I was a skeptic;)


WJ,

I assure you this is not a personal attack. It is a string of many, many warnings that you have received on this, and the other board. If you persist in your tactics, you will be banned, and that is all there is to it. If you wish to see this as a personal attack, sobeit. It really matters little to me.

Further, I am a realist, but I am not a materialist, so you have me wrong there.

The reason that I do not join the debate directly is because I simply do not have the time. If such time does come available, then I will. Nevertheless, whether I do or not, I am insistant on holding you to the philosophical standards which we have set on these boards, and if you cannot, then it is time for you to find another outlet for your rhetoric. Is that clear?

Thanks,

Mitch

Mitch!

I take strong exception to you phrasing all my posts as rhetoric! (To deduce from the 'general to specific' is the flaw in your approach. Either explain yourself, or stop it immediately and/or I will discuss this issue with others... .)

Got it???????!!!!!!!!

Otherwise, put-up or, simply do not offer your opinions to my posts at all. Because in my view, that's all they are; biased unjustified true beliefs(?).

In other words; put-up or shut-up!

[I've challenged your philosophy before, and when you interupt the discussion, (like was just done with another one of your attacks since graham-the moderator- has had temporarily absence) you in effect divert attention by still refusing to justify your positions.]


(I appologize for the interuption all, but Mitch apparently does not like the fact that I'm a christian thinker-he's atheist.)

Let's debate here and now! With all due respect, I challenge your logic Mitch Hodge!!!!

Let's answer the question together:

'Is is possible to know that one knows the truth'?

I await your response

Walrus
--------
Truth is still Subjectivity (?)

_____________________________

Ivan,

The above was taken from the Examined Life, with which I no longer am associated (I was banned today, for reasons unknown-well I kinda know). A new chapter shall begin!

Truth!!!!

Enjoy,
Walrus

Walrus!

You are most welcome here, no shackles on anyone's reason or spiritual thoughts. I am glad you posted these thoughts, and look forward to many more. Welcome!!

Peace, joy, and love,

Ivan

ABSOLUTE TRUTH VS. INTER-RELATIVE TRUTH

Dear WJ,

It occurred to me, upon reflection of your posts above, that there may be a very clear reason why you are having conflict with the rigid philosophical discipline as it is practiced by its disciples.

I think it stems from the ancient belief system, as also believed by the Ancient Greek thinkers, that the universe was composed of a 'true' form, an idealized godlike version of Truth, and also of a less pure, perhaps corrupted, version which we see in what we call Reality. Now, this was ancient thinking by brilliant minds of the times, but also 'ignorant' of reality as we understand it today. So you now have a carry forward from those ancient days of still debating and seeking that 'Pure Form' of what is 'Truth', in some philosophical sense, while those of us who come from a more modern tradition, and perhaps later in life to philosophy, see the universe as already being purely itself, on its own terms; and then that our 'thinking' of it is no more than some imperfect, 'inter-relative' interpretation of reality. Thus, some of us fall into one camp, as did the Ancient Greek philosophers; while others fall into this newer camp, where philosophy is merely a body of thought to model what is Reality, as best we can. Of course, the upshot of this is that in the former, there are absolute 'truths' which take on almost sacred like properties, whereas for us newer thinkers, the only 'sacredness' is the universe itself, in all its wonderful and awesome manifestations, even spiritual. For we see the universe as being 'true' to itself in an inter-related manner of how it interacts with itself; and that is yet for us to discover and understand fully. And when we do, then what comes out of it is that for each human being there is an 'inter-relative' truth to which they are true, in terms of who they are, but for which none other can judge. (Of course, this is what Habeas Mentem is about too.)

So, my friend, this may explain why some of us get 'bumped' from conventional philosophical thinking, because we dare to explore new avenues, which oftentimes fail to conform to that rarefied 'purity of absolute truth' so sought after by ancient philosophers as a holy grail, or philosopher's stone. Perhaps we are less sophisticated in our thinking because we reject such purity, but then we are also closer to the truth, for which I make no apologies.

Remember, we all contribute in our own way according to our ability. And if some feel that theirs is absolutely right, and another's absolutely wrong, then the errors is in their thinking, for only tolerance can allow them to see a greater truth, oftentimes beyond our reach, and that there is only opinion of what we think as true.

Take care, God Bless,

Ivan

Ivan!

Absolutely! The more things change, the more they stay the same. I'll explain.

Case in point, the Platonic thought processes is much like you describe-analytical timeless perfect forms existing inside the mind. The epistemological implications are very far reching in this universe of finitude. But only to the extent that it supports egoism-man's greatest sin. And that translates into rationalism, materialism, and even atheism, to name a few isms.

We have seen that there are some dangers to the Platonic thought process but as I've alluded, this is nothing new. Hellenism is a classic example of how old this issue has become. Jesus came, in part, to dispell all the philosophical dialectic surrounding the early greek thought process of absolute wisdom, and various traditions by exposing the egoistic elements of their approach towards specific worship, truth, ethics, etc..
Well, they got rid of him didn't they!

When we speak to the heart of a matter, and as been said many times in movies or in other ways from observation and experience; some folks can't handle the truth! And the 'truth' is, despite all the futile efforts and philosophical jibberish, we are simply back to the fact that human's cannot know the absolute truth. Until we can create matter and mind out of nothing, we are only mirrors of external truth. Any artisan, engineer, creator of some-thing knows this brute fact.(Of course it doesn't mean we can't enjoy the discussion and exploration of a 'percieved truth'.)

And so some of this appears in the sentence from of my posts/solipsism, and can be summed up quite nicely:

"By processing the data in the centre of vision and in other sensory centres, our brain, throughout our lives, confronts not the "original" of the matter existing outside us but rather the copy formed inside our brain. It is at this point that we are misled by assuming that these copies are instances of real matter outside us."


The human condition. We must know exactly, how, to create human consciousness, to even have a clue as to the how's and why's of our physical existence!

Ex-nihilo and the Mind-body phenomenon!

As always, thanks and God bless,
Walrus