|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Perceptions of Reality | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Ringo:
I'm asking you to show me why I shouldn't deny absolutes I understand, and that is why I ask you on what ground you can do so? To deny one thing implies something else. You see, one of the tests for truth is undeniability (eg. I cannot deny my own existence without affirming it at the same time). There are many things we cannot prove, but as jar seems to understand in some regard, they cannot be denied without sacrificing logic at the alter of incredulity. I don't know how many times I have given this illustration. But it seems to go right over... It really pins the point I am attempting to communicate. I guess it is too subconscious for us to easily get a handle on. You said a simmilar thing yourself. Ringo:As the OP suggests, everybody has his own perception of reality, his own "worldview". Dialog depends on the ability to subordinate one's own worldview and see the "big picture". So, in light of the other thread in which we were talking about subordination and it's proper role. And in recognition of it's connection to the discussion here, please do, look and see what Gilbert is saying to us here:
"But the new rebel is a Skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be a real revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything, really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind, and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but also the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity and then curses Mrs. Grundy when they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is a waste of time. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland and Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything." (Orthodoxy, Chapter title - The Suicide of Thought / 1908) Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Ringo:
Not at all. Denying (or questioning) the "truth" of something doesn't necessarily imply falsity. Sometimes it just means uncertainty. Then you are not denying. You used the word deny not me. That is why jesus asked so many questions. To expose whether the question was legitimate, or simply denial disguised as a genuine question. Questioning as you are conflating it, is done by lawyers who seek not truth, but political advantage. This is also why I want to start a thread on whether words mean things objectively or not. I suspect it will not be promoted because it is so easily adapted to empower my worldview because words themselves find their power and reality in truth. Let me go long to illusrate this... Pilot asked Jesus, 'Are you the King of the Jews?' And Jesus asked, 'Is that your own question, or did someone tell you about me.?' In other words, Jesus was asking, 'do you really want to know, or are you asessing the situation so as to angle for your own political advantage?' You see? Pilot wasn't interested in the truth at the expense of his own position and power. This was so, even though he knew that the trial of Jesus was a sham. Truth and justice were crucified by alterior motives. And even the perpetrators of this travesty realized it. As is the case now...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Ringo:
demonstrate why you think justice is an absolute Because if it isn't, then all of us are wasting our time and none of us believe that. You fight for your own political freedom (I know that because of other threads in which I dragged it out of you. So it is you who have to answer your own question. I already assume justice to be a legitimate pursuit and an accurate reflection of reality. And I accept the moral grounds upon which we fight for it. You have lost the right to rebel against anything, by questioning the legitimacy of the very justice you fight for. that was Chesterton's point as is mine. I have explained this effectively. But you do not hear me because you are not asking the questions because you want to understand, but rather to defend your own turf. Turf that btw does not belong to Ringo, but all of us as a whole. All of this I have explained openly and as forthrightly as possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Ringo;
Non sequitur. Is there something unjust about it? I don't think it is a non sequitor. A non sequitor is when the inference does not folow from the premises. If justice is not absolute, then a non sequitor is meaningless. I am talking aobut the basis for logic itself. 'In the beginning was the Word'. Without inffering justice, we have no premise. Aristotle said, 'Justice is virtue entire' and 'injustice is vice entire'. (or something like that...) Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
This is getting well into the limits of my current understanding.
Ringo:Logic is the link we have with other people's reality. If there is any logic to your reality, then lay it out plainly, step by step. All you've done so far is assume your conclusions. Other people's reality? People don't have other realities. They have illusions of such. That is why you argue with me; to challenge my supposed 'version' of reality. I hav e not assumed any conclusions. I have assumed my assumptions. That is why we call them assumptions. You do not assume anything far as I can tell. So by what means do you question me? I assume logic is valid. But I have an actual anchor for that belief. I believe it is actually real. In other words...the 'Word' is God. Logic is reality, to put it another way. Where is your ontic referent to legitimize your questions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Ringo:
What makes one person's reality/illusion "more valid" than another person's? The greater the consensus about an aspect of reality, the more "objective" it is. The consensus in my home (predominantly children 3 to 2 ratio) is that candy and ice cream should be consumed for breakfast lunch and dinner. Who am I to tell them any different?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Ringo:
That's not an aspect of reality. It's just a conflict of opinions. Too small a sample in other words... But it is a concensus! Whether or not it reflects reality is not relevant to the sample size. But as you see below, I will compromise with you on this point. Ringo:If forty people from twenty-nine different cultural backgrounds and seventeen different religions can agree on what's healty for breakfast, that's consensus. That has a chance of being objective. The law of large numbers... yes. I learned it in the insurance industry as an agent a few years back. I don't buy the consensus argument as an extreme, but it is an indicator. You agree with Lewis then in that regard?
"I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities. (C. S. Lewis / 'Mere Christianity') But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only to ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two make five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to--whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked..." So, do you have it in you to compromise as well... or is this just a game being played by a child who thinks too highly of himself?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Are you familliar with Nator's Admin avatar?
What a waste...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
RickJB:
Are you ever going to demonstrate to Ringo why you think justice is an absolute? Because like you... I demand justice. I expect an account for your actions. I expect an explanation in truth for why you say what you say. I assume such justice to be an actual reflection of the nature of reality (God). And, I did explain this to Ringo... he waved it off as a non sequitor. he just wishes it away. But time is ticking... Let him wave off the justice that abides upon him on the day of his judgment. The same will apply to you if you don't start using the mind God gave you. That is what I believe. It is probably a laughable and empty threat to most here. But it is my perception of reality, and as Ringo said, 'Who has the right to tell me any different?' Listen to me... We have no rights under the assumptions of naturalism other than what we bestow upon each other. They are not intrinsic. A human life has no intrinsic value. We must fight tooth and claw for such things. My rights, at the expense of anothers.. By what foundation based in reality do you demand the justice implied in your question? Survival of the fittest? If so, that's not justice... it is pure power, cause, and effect. So you have asked nothing. You're only positioning for control. You don't have the right to ask me anything because of what you believe. The reason I answer you is motivated by an entirely different worldview. I believe in the truth. And I believe I am speaking the truth. And I believe you should recognize it as such. And I concede to your intrinsic and God given right to choose whether or not to respect it as such. You can do as you wish. But Justice is default reality. It is absolute. As John Polkinghorne, the Quantum physics professor (and Christian) at Cambridge said, 'Somebody has to pay'. I for one am astounded.... that Reality would come in the flesh and pay my debt for me. I dare not wish justice upon myself... Only grace. Unearned and undeserved forgiveness. Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Ringo:
Your demands and expectations do not, in any way, make anything an absolute. I didn't say they did. I said it is so, despite me. As you have implied, reality is absolute. I have no power to change it. I can only submit to what is right despite what I wish 'right' to be. Ringo:What could be less "absolute" than one person's assumption? Another persons assumption that assumptions themselves are invalid. Such a person exalts and opposes himself... Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Good grief!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
[qs]
Rob: Can you think of a truth that is absolute? Archer:Truth itself. Be more specific... It is this question that delivered me. It was a long journey from here to there. But you must answer it for yourself as I did. And as we would expect, reality only allows one ultimate answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Archer:
Reality is the ultimate answer. Anything else is not real. You won't get an argument from me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Razd:
Basing behavior on false beliefs is not moral. Unless your morality is based on a perversion of information. Beyond that which is amoral, what is not moral, is 'immoral'. And perversion of information is called 'lies'. Both denote a word that is lacking from your vocabulary because you claim not to believe in such doctrine; sin. I told you it was about morality. Did you not believe me? It is all about morality Razd. And morality is inseperable from what is most precious to you. What is your treasure? What you seek, reveals your real heart and exposes it's true motivations. As Jesus said, 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. 22 The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! Jesus also said:For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. Jer 17:9The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? Ho 10:2Their heart is deceitful, and now they must bear their guilt. The Lord will demolish their altars and destroy their sacred stones. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Razd:
I don't draw the line on learning information, and on testing to see whether it is a true, valid, correct vision of reality. Well you just did draw a line with your convoluted statement because it implies that doing otherwise would be wrong. I agree! And I detest your insinuation that I advocate such things. It is I who argue for morality not you. So what exactly is your contention? You've said nothing... What you give with one hand, like some marvelous magician, you take away with the other. It is you sir who moralize incessantly, all for the sake of extinguishing the most important information of all... morality iself. Your sorcery is sophist at best... It's actually quite boring. Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024