Philosophy

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Yes, subjective to those perceiving it, but if I'm saying reality is synonymous with existence and being, then it is not subjective to any perception, it just is, period, whether it is being perceived or not.

According to YOUR perception.
It's the same as "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound".
We could go on, like Zen Koans but I think the point of view has been understood.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Reality, existence, it just is. It doesn't require someone believing it or disbelieving it in order to exist, to be real, reality just - is.

"it depends upon what your definition of "is" is".

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Truth is simply what is. If I say you're a pleasant gentleman and someone else says you're an idiot, that doesn't alter the truth of what you are. The truth of what you are doesn't change based on what we think. We don't have that much power.

What I'm trying to point out is that "truth" is a human concept, much like "comfy" or "pleasant" or "an idiot". None of these things exist in and of themselves. They exist because of human consciousness.

We call something "true" because it appears to us to be consistant. This does not mean that it is consistant. The history of science has show us many times that something can appear to be one thing and later be seen quite differently.

[Butterbeer]

You appear to be living dangerously Lief...

then you shout in Spock's ear as he takes a teacup break ....


one thing you certainly are not, my friend is a philosopher ...

Edited by Moderator for Content

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

At best, all we can say is that something "appears to be true as far as we can tell".

Agreed.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Physical "truths" are limited by our perception.

The truths themselves aren't limited by us (or the state of reality isn't limited by us), but our understanding of those truths is limited by our perception.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Moral truths are limited by how we define them.

Only assuming they don't exist as laws of nature. If morality is entirely human invention, I agree that they are relative to us. If morality exists independent of humans, as so much of the universe does, then saying that moral truths are relative to us is an innaccurate statement. You have to make an assumption about where moral values come from to make your statement make sense.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If there were no humans, there might still be an earth, but there probably would not be "good" and "evil".

Assuming there's no other form of life that has our level of intelligence.

[Lief Erikson]

I just disagreed with you and explained why. Politely too .


Edited by Moderator-Content

[Spock]

1. BB & BJ
Let's NOT start anything which could be against the rules.


2. Without humans, conscious or not, nothing can be debated and therefore BJ does have the correct deductions from theory. Now if anyone on this board is NOT human, then they can say what all this would be to them; we are discussing what a persons mind tells them and without people, no one on this board or elsewhere could debate anything.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

What I'm trying to point out is that "truth" is a human concept, much like "comfy" or "pleasant" or "an idiot". None of these things exist in and of themselves. They exist because of human consciousness.

Then tell me, how are you defining truth? I'm defining it as "the state of reality". What about you?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

We call something "true" because it appears to us to be consistant. This does not mean that it is consistant. The history of science has show us many times that something can appear to be one thing and later be seen quite differently.

Agreed.

*Wanders around, feeling rational and a little silly.*



EDIT: Spock, what precisely does "baiting" mean on Entmoot? Neither Butterbeer nor me was intentionally baiting the other, and I don't think either of us was at all mad either.

[Butterbeer]

LIEF

Odd that you say paradox has more to do with language than reality. We're defining truth as the state of reality. Truth is what is. It is what's so. People's views of what's so differs, but that doesn't mean that what's so differs. I might relax on my comfortable chair and say it's comfortable. Someone with a back problem might lounge on the chair and say it's uncomfortable. That doesn't mean truth, or the state of reality, changes. It means that people differ.

We are not defining anything sir - without agreement on the frameworks of the terms of the debate - primarily we do not with the arrogance of a diety decide to define the terms of our debate so singuarly with, as it were, some apparent infalliability principle ...


this may be the way in any pigeon debate- but it will not hold no water on any serious Philosophical examination.

It appears that the definition of truth you attribute is not agreed to be universally acceptable. If you wish to debate then you must decide sir what it is you wish to debate, rather than muddy the waters with unclear, contentious and without these unclear premises being based upon your arguments on equally debatable ground such as your proposed concept of the nature of truth.

[Spock]

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

We are not defining anything sir - without agreement on the frameworks of the terms of the debate - primarily we do not with the arrogance of a diety decide to define the terms of our debate so singuarly with, as it were, some apparent infalliability principle ...

For the purposes of clarity (so that all debaters would be on the same wavelength), I was trying to explain how I interpret truth.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

It appears that the definition of truth you attribute is not agreed to be universally acceptable.

Lotesse brought up the dictionary definitions of truth and I'm going by numbers 2 and 1.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

If you wish to debate then you must decide sir what it is you wish to debate, rather than muddy the waters with unclear, contentious and without these unclear premises being based upon your arguments on equally debatable ground such as your proposed concept of the nature of truth.

So that we can debate, sir, I have sought to establish even ground by looking at definitions of words. If we are debating from different word definitions, the debate sir is meaningless.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Only assuming they don't exist as laws of nature. If morality is entirely human invention, I agree that they are relative to us. If morality exists independent of humans, as so much of the universe does, then saying that moral truths are relative to us is an innaccurate statement. You have to make an assumption about where moral values come from to make your statement make sense.

Either way, it is quite apparent that humans do not know beyond a shadow of a doubt what these "absolute morals" are, so they are, in effect, relative to us, whether they are actually absolute or not

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Either way, it is quite apparent that humans do not know beyond a shadow of a doubt what these "absolute morals" are, so they are, in effect, relative to us, whether they are actually absolute or not

According to Christianity this is not true though, for Jesus sent the Counselor or Holy Spirit to us to show us (among other things) the truth about morality. Therefore the morality is not relative to us but relative to him.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Then tell me, how are you defining truth? I'm defining it as "the state of reality". What about you?

I'm defining truth as "how humans perceive reality". Defining it as "the state of reality" makes the hidden assumption that we can actually perceive all reality and thus know it's actual "state", which we cannot.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I'm defining truth as "how humans perceive reality". Defining it as "the state of reality" makes the hidden assumption that we can actually perceive all reality and thus know it's actual "state", which we cannot.

If you look at my previous posts, I think you'll see that I'm not making that assumption at all.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

According to Christianity ........

We have to be careful to keep Philosopy separate from religion. You can discuss religious theory, belief and moral ideals in other threads.

[Lief Erikson]

They are highly entwined, though. I couldn't possibly respond to brownjenkins properly without getting into it. Hmm. Should this side of the discussion be moved to the Theology thread too, you think? I personally don't really think so, because it's all so, so philosophy enmeshed. But the decision is yours, Spock.

[Butterbeer]

Lief:

EDIT: Spock, what precisely does "baiting" mean on Entmoot?

dunno ...??

but i haven't yet even got to your (first - i think???) post Lief - and yet above we see the chaos it has created already by unilaterally defining truth - you just simply cannot do that if you want a philosophical debate- otherwise it just becomes - well pointless.

If you wish to discuss the nature of truth, or put forward for consideration the principle of a universal truth underpinning all reality and all our perception or intellect, then so so - but do not - please- take your fellow debaters so lowly in your opinion that you feel you can just on a whimsy slip this concept unilaterally in! If that is what you wish to debate, then fine, table it -but you cannot in any philosophical debate just throw it in as a given... for one it is insulting to other debators and for two it muddies the waters of the current debate.

The very nature if not close to any normal definition of debate implies more than a one way diatribe. Debate, Lief, implies agreement of purpose and an openess to ideas and the interaction of more than one person - if you wish to unilaterally define our framework by loading the debate so early on, does it not rather rail against the very principle of debate?

Best, BB

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

According to Christianity this is not true though, for Jesus sent the Counselor or Holy Spirit to us to show us (among other things) the truth about morality. Therefore the morality is not relative to us but relative to him.

And relative to you, because you choose to believe his interpretation. There have been, and will continue to be, many other interpretations.

But this is basically the foundation of why religious belief systems tend to cause so much conflict. It is because they attempt to impose a certain conformity on humanity that simply doesn't exist in practice. The most successful are the ones that stick to a very basic and near-universal morality, which casual christianity does fairly well in practice. But, even so, in extreme cases, like war, it gets messy, because no simple rule can cover all situations.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

They are highly entwined, though. ...... Should this side of the discussion be moved to the Theology thread too,.......

If this is going to become a religiously persued argument based upon tenants of established religions, then it should be MOVED into the proper area.

If it is an occasional reference and not a statement of theology, then it's fine here.

[Butterbeer]

we decide then Lief, our thoughts, our perceptions, our theories, our very philosophy on the basis of ...


a Dictionary ???

yes - religion and beleif will always be to a degree entwined- but unless you are so feeble in your own thoughts here that there is an overriding need to just at the first opportunity turn to religious doctrine to discuss your own ideas on the world, mankind, reality and -here's the point Lief - philiosphy - then i resent quite seriously you attempting to move this to theology - this sir, is the philosophy thread!


I for one wish to stay here and discuss philosophy as we were here in the philosophy thread.

Not an unreasonable request really

Please decide, my friend ..if you are capable of that without seriously turning it into a theological debate.

Of course, i know you have strong beleifs and i respect you for them and yes they are entwined- but then you must decide if it is at all possible for you to actually discuss philosophy, Lief!

best, BB