RE: Truth? Right and wrong?

RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

philosophy -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 2:50:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord We define the world in which we live as to exist with respect to us, just in the same manner as which as world that exists to a hypothetical is real to this hypothetical. ...okies, but after your lecture consider the possibility that any link between us and the world may, in and of itself, be illusory. If it is, then by using such a relationship to define truth or reality we may inadvertantly merely be buying into the illusion.

FullCircle -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 2:57:15 PM)
You mean I can't publish my scientific paper about peeing into the wind now?

CuriousLord -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 3:00:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord We define the world in which we live as to exist with respect to us, just in the same manner as which as world that exists to a hypothetical is real to this hypothetical. ...okies, but after your lecture consider the possibility that any link between us and the world may, in and of itself, be illusory. If it is, then by using such a relationship to define truth or reality we may inadvertantly merely be buying into the illusion. Back already. ;) Yeah, I walked in, got the notes, and realized that the lecture was mostly review. The notes are helpful, though, so it likely was a good use of time. Still, if the world interactions with the observer- this is to say, the observer perceives it- then it affects him. Even if this affect isn't a two-way thing, for him, it is part of his universe. (He is, by definition, part of his universe, as well as anything that affects him.) And that's a philosophical stance. The more physical stance is, "We are part of our universe, not some special entity. The universe does not care where we begin nor end; the observer, himself, is part of the universe, and his distinction of self from it is more arbitrary than inniate." While this seems to be far more accurate from empirical observation and analysis, the philosophical consideration of an intelligence being seperate from its environment is still something that may be addressed, as above. I'd ask you forgive me for the more vulgar phrasings; I'm only putting things like this, more matter-of-fact as opposed to the more civil proposition, due to a lack of time.

Level -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 3:08:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: windchymes quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: windchymes If you pee into the wind, you're going to get wet. That's the truth. But, would it be right, or wrong? [sm=banana.gif] Depends (pun intended!) on who's peeing! True! [;)]

philosophy -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 3:09:19 PM)
..if i've understood you properly perhaps this analogy sums up your position... ....an observer can infer the other boat of reality by measuring carefully how the wake from said boat rocks the observers raft.... ....ok, i know its clumsy, but to further abuse the metaphor, i'm not sure it proves that right and wrong can be predicted. Only after the boat of reality has passed can its wake be felt. Seems to me that right and wrong has a time factor that makes moralists judgements iffy. Only after an act can its full consequences be known, and thus its rightness or wrongness. No code or morality i know of allows 100% prediction of reality in this way. No model, it seems to me, is even close. It seems to me that ultimate reality, or an ability to truly know what is right and wrong lies in an inevitable blindspot. As temporal beings we are handicapped by our lack of clairvoyance.

Real0ne -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 3:21:23 PM)
well before we get all involved in such a discussion dont we at least need to understand where what how and why? absolute truth In general, absolute truth is whatever is always valid, regardless of parameters or context. The absolute in the term connotes one or more of: a quality of truth that cannot be exceeded; complete truth; unvarying and permanent truth. It can be contrasted to relative truth or truth in a more ordinary sense in which a degree of relativity is implied. 1) In philosophy, absolute truth generally states what is essential rather than superficial - a description of the Ideal (to use Plato's concept) rather than the merely "real" (which Plato sees as a shadow of the Ideal). Among some religious groups this term is used to describe the source of or authority for a given faith or set of beliefs, such as the Bible. 2) In science, doubt has been cast on the notion of absolutes by theories such as relativity and quantum mechanics. Attempts to tie together all the known facts about the universe into a single unified theory (one example is string theory) could be seen as efforts to discover absolute truth about this set of facts. 3) In pure mathematics, however, there is said to be a proof for the existence of absolute truth. A common tactic in mathematical proofs is the use of reductio ad absurdum, in which the statement to be proved is denied as a premise, and then that premise is shown to lead to a contradiction. When it can be demonstrated that the negation of a statement leads to a contradiction, then the original statement is proved true. The logical proof of the statement, "There exists an absolute truth," is almost trivial in its simplicity. Suppose we assert the negation of the statement, that is, that there is no such thing as absolute truth. By making that assertion, we claim that the sentence "There exists no absolute truth" is absolutely true. The statement is self-contradictory, so its negation, "There exists an absolute truth," is true. This proof applies only to logic. It does not tell us whether any particular statement other than itself is true. It does not prove the existence (or non-existence) of God, the devil, heaven, hell, or little green people from another galaxy. Neither does it assert that we can always ascertain the truth or falsity of any arbitrary statement. The Incompleteness Theorem, proved by Kurt Gödel and published in 1931, actually showed that there exist logical statements whose truth value is undecidable, that is, they cannot be proved either true or false.

Real0ne -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 3:24:34 PM)
i did not read all this but it hinkn an absolute truth can exist within a given set of boundaries and within specific parameters, based on the knowledge of the day This should remain tru even in the even of extended knowledge of the future is applied, likewise for false.

CuriousLord -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 3:27:22 PM)
Ah, I thought we were talking about what's real, at the base level, but are you talking about what's real, as in, what's really right or what's really wrong? The way I see it, in right versus wrong, we pretty much pick out what we want. I suppose that people being allowed to live unharrased and maintaining control over their property are basic rights to maintain. We do things that work in the favor of this- such as, making sure we don't kill people and such, as our moral code. This becomes right and wrong. We realize that, at times, doing things that contradict more simplistic morals are more conductive to maintaining the premise of morality- the values which is was developed to maintain. What's right? What's wrong? It all depends on the overall balances. The degree to which a person can consider such balances- in magnitude and depth- are liable to affect what they perceive to be right or wrong. PS- At first, I thought we were talking about, "What's real in our world?" The bulk of this post was moreso with regards to, "What's right and wrong with regard to our world?" I'm not sure if either's inline with what you were thinking. If you could tell me about what you're thinking of as a topic, that'd be great, so we'll be on a similar wave length.

kittinSol -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 3:27:23 PM)
In general, truth means that what I say conforms to what actually is. What I say implies that my judgement is involved; what it speaks of is reality, what actually is independently from myself. Where does it lie? Does it lie in thought, or in things? That is, does it reside in the harmony between what I say and the representation I have of things, or does it reside in the harmony between what I say and the way things are in reality? In order for us to speak of the truth, one has to know the truth. Good luck. PS: "I" is often used in philosophy for the matter of finding answers, since we have yet to find a better way to find answers to universal questions than to look through our personal perspective.

Real0ne -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 3:30:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol In general, truth means that what I say conforms to what actually is. What I say implies that my judgement is involved; what is speaks of reality, what actually is independently from myself. Where does it lie? Does it lie in thought, or in things? That is, does it reside in the harmony between what I say and the representation I have of things, or does it reside in the harmony between what I say and the way things are in reality? In order for us to speak of the truth, one has to know the truth. Good luck. unfortunately what actually "is" may be tru to you and false to everyone else math and physics definite maybe on the absolute truth scale. all else = good luck

Real0ne -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 3:32:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord What's right? What's wrong? It all depends on all to often and most often the social norms of the time

kittinSol -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 3:33:46 PM)
Actually, I was using the philosophical 'I' which is used in rhetoric. It's a hypothetical first person: it helps solve problems. Get it?

windchymes -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 3:54:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle You mean I can't publish my scientific paper about peeing into the wind now? Nope. You must perform many clinical trials now for verification. However, if you need a research assistant, I will be glad to assume those duties [;)]

TheHeretic -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 4:49:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Great topic, Level. I'll try to get back later, but for now let's go with; Yes. There are "Truths." "Opinion" isn't the right word for the rest of your question though. "Values" might be a better term, and there certainly are conflicts of those at pretty much every level of human interaction. But is there any such thing as right and wrong? I want to say 'yes,' Level, and argue that some things must be absolute. These things come into conflict though. We all have our heirarchy of values. Which wrong is greater? Does that make the lesser wrong right? I don't know. I've been out in the midday sun, looking for houses I can drive a hard bargain on. Many would consider that "wrong" (people trying to sell their houses, especially [8\|]). I'll sleep just fine tonight. I place a higher value on providing the best home I can for my family. Maybe I'll try again in here later. This is too much question in the heat.

SusanofO -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 5:02:49 PM)
I remember taking an ethics course in college. I remember hearing and reading in that course, that something is definitely wrong, if - If everyone* did it, or acted in a certain way, or did ___________( fill in the blank), it would leave society in shambles - I mean as in, it would cease to exist as a place where people could be trusted to interact with others. Which is why things like murder and burglary are against the law. It made sense to me then, and it still does. Traffic "rules of the road" are also a good example of this concept - what if everyone ran red lights?, etc. I do realize that this philosophy can be seen as relative, and societies vary, etc - BUT - there are some things that have been considered "wrong" throughout the ages, by almost every single society, and I think there is a good reason they've "survived the test of time". Because they are fundamentally destructive to societies on a grand scale. Things like murder and incest are maybe good examples. And Cannnibalism (although I know there may be a few primitive tribes of humans where Cannibalism prevails, it is very, very uncommon. I can't help but think there is a good reason for that). Of course this pertains to interacting with other people. As far as what goes on inside your own head, I think you can think* about whatever you want, and believe whatever you want - weird as it might be considered by others. - Susan

popeye1250 -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 5:08:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ..if i've understood you properly perhaps this analogy sums up your position... ....an observer can infer the other boat of reality by measuring carefully how the wake from said boat rocks the observers raft.... ....ok, i know its clumsy, but to further abuse the metaphor, i'm not sure it proves that right and wrong can be predicted. Only after the boat of reality has passed can its wake be felt. Seems to me that right and wrong has a time factor that makes moralists judgements iffy. Only after an act can its full consequences be known, and thus its rightness or wrongness. No code or morality i know of allows 100% prediction of reality in this way. No model, it seems to me, is even close. It seems to me that ultimate reality, or an ability to truly know what is right and wrong lies in an inevitable blindspot. As temporal beings we are handicapped by our lack of clairvoyance. Philosophy, it wasn't that clumsy, I think you pretty much nailed it!

SusanofO -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 5:12:06 PM)
Philosophy: That is a very intersting and insightful post (above). I do think you're correct, and that groups of people (religions are a good example) believing they have an exclusive handle on "the Truth" can lead to all sorts of problems for this reason (like "pre-emptive" war, executions, religious practices such as "shunning" - even if they have some stated beneficial purpose). I think, for example, that killing people for any reason other than self-defense is wrong. I really believe only God is in a position to ultimately have final judgment over anyone else (and as far as Earthly experience goes, death is a pretty "final judgment" to levy on anyone else, IMO). We still all have to learn to live with eachother on this planet. Which is why we have laws, even if they aren't perfect (and I know you of course already know this, I was just re-emphasizing it). - Susan

Sinergy -> RE: Truth? Right and wrong? (7/29/2007 10:58:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: windchymes If you pee into the wind, you're going to get wet. That's the truth. Unless you have prostate problems and stand with your legs spread. Sinergy

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625