|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Perceptions of Reality | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: What am I missing? Who is claiming that "all truth is relative"? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: Who is claiming that "all truth is relative"? Can you think of a truth that is absolute? That's not what I asked. Your reasoning claimed that "all truth is relative" is invalid because "all" contradicts "relative". I'm asking: Who is using the word "all" besides you? Doesn't your logic fall apart if the statement is "truth is relative"? Edited by Ringo, : Spellink. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: I'm asking: Who is using the word "all" besides you? And I want to make sure that you are not saying 'all truth is relative' implicitly. I contend that you and others are saying it in your assumptions. Contend all you like. If you can't demonstrate that somebody's assumptions are wrong, you won't get anywhere.
If you do not believe (consciously or subconsiously) that all truth is relative, then it should not be difficult for you to think of one. But I believe you do. And I see it implied again and again in so many comments here at EVC. Then it shouldn't be hard for you to demonstrate what you "see". Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: How would you describe the color yellow to a blind man? How does that demonstrate that I'm assuming all truth is relative? (Lay out your whole demonstration at once. I'm not going to waste time answering a series of inane questions.) Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: I am sorry Ringo, it appears that you agree with me. My mistake...Some moral truth is absolute. No, I don't agree with you. If you sincerely want to "dialog" with me, you have one more chance to put up an intelligent post. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: I said that some truth is absolute. If you disagree, then you're saying some truth is not absolute (ie. all truth is relative). No. Disagreeing with your conclusion doesn't necessarily mean deciding that your conclusion is wrong. In this case, it means that you have no basis for your conclusion. I'm saying that we'd have to know whether or not "some truth is absolute" before we could conclude that "all truth is relative". Until we can agree on at least one truth that is absolute, we can't arrive at a conclusion. In essence, all truth is relative until proven absolute - but the trial isn't over yet. And since you are the one who claims that "some truth is absolute", the onus is on you - not me - to produce some. (This might not be the proper thread to do that.) Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: Let's look at Justice, Mercy, and Forgiveness as absolutes. If we do not simply accept that all of the above are absolute by mere assumption, then we lose all basis for denouncing anything. So you're saying that the only way to conclude that they are absolutes is by assuming that they are absolutes? That's no basis for the "dialog" that you claim you want. You can't demand that I accept your examples of "absolutes" with no backup whatsoever. Pick one of them and demonstrate that it is absolute. We can dialog about the demonstration. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: That's just it Ringo... on what basis do you deny it? I haven't denied anything. I'm asking you to show me why I shouldn't deny absolutes.
That is your implication, and I agree that you are correct in insisting upon justice. I'm not insisting upon justice. I'm asking you to demonstrate what you claim - that justice is absolute.
Your entire thinking process is rooted in the Christian worldview. You're just making another assumption without backing it up. A house built on flimsy assumptions can not stand.
If you take it away, with what will you judge a statement to be true or false? You certainly can't just assume that one worldview is true and then compare all other statements to it. 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 forget about your Christian worldview. Look at the big picture of justice and show us why it's absolute. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: To deny one thing implies something else. Not at all. Denying (or questioning) the "truth" of something doesn't necessarily imply falsity. Sometimes it just means uncertainty. We're looking for answers here, not assuming them.
You see, one of the tests for truth is undeniability.... You're jumping the gun. We haven't agreed on any "tests for truth" yet. You asked for a dialog but all you've done is lecture. Once again: show me why I shouldn't deny your absolutes. Don't just tell me to assume you're right. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: Then you are not denying. You used the word deny not me. There you go again, trying to force your definitions on me. I am denying that your conclusions are true - not necessarily because they are false but because your "reasoning" gives you no right to draw a conclusion at all. One more time: demonstrate why you think justice is an absolute. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: demonstrate why you think justice is an absolute Because if it isn't, then all of us are wasting our time.... Non sequitur. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: If justice is not absolute, then a non sequitor is meaningless. Another non sequitur. Hint: you have to show how the inference follows from the premises.
Without inffering justice, we have no premise. Now you're confusing inference with assumption. You can use an inference as a premise to draw a further inference. But you can't infer an a priori premise. Since we all have our own perception of reality, we need some common ground to communicate our perception to others. Language and logic are useful for that, but if you insist on making up your own language and your own logic, you're stuck in a world of your own (a.k.a. de land of de lusion). 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. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: Other people's reality? People don't have other realities. They have illusions of such. What makes one person's reality/illusion "more valid" than another person's? If I can communicate my version of reality to somebody else, and it agrees to some extent with their version of reality, then we can say that that version has some degree of "objectivity". The greater the consensus about an aspect of reality, the more "objective" it is.
But I have an actual anchor for that belief. I believe it is actually real. Your level of confidence in your beliefs has nothing to do with their "truth" value. There is nobody so confident as the truly deluded. The only way to "objectively" examine your reality is to ask somebody else, "Do you see what I see?" Independent confirmation is a safer anchor.
Where is your ontic referent to legitimize your questions? Questions don't need to be legitimized. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: 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. That's not an aspect of reality. It's just a conflict of opinions. 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. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: Whether or not it reflects reality is not relevant to the sample size. I didn't say anything about "reflecting reality". I said that we can be more confident of our version of reality if it tallies with the consensus. The whole consensus idea is just a safety valve, a filter to eliminate as much individual error as possible, to avoid being a slave to one's own delusions.
I don't buy the consensus argument as an extreme, but it is an indicator. Doesn't matter a bit whether or not you buy it. If you have specific objections to it, let's hear 'em.
You agree with Lewis then in that regard? When Lewis becomes a member of this forum, I'll comment on his ideas. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024