Truth and DLJ's manifesto
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-06-2014, 02:34 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(04-06-2014 02:30 PM)kim Wrote:  Popcorn

ditto
[Image: ca7f3a268b0748a75d6bf2052aaf6a.gif]

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like WitchSabrina's post
04-06-2014, 03:03 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
[Image: huh-what.jpg]


"Life is a daring adventure or it is nothing"--Helen Keller
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2014, 04:27 PM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2014 04:34 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(04-06-2014 03:03 PM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  [Image: huh-what.jpg]

Explanation: This is my way of asking DLJ this question:

[Image: 66d768a5535632d82414b3669fb800771dfc9948...63da95.jpg]
He was all vague, but putting on a good front. He said he's really fond of truth (a philosophical technical term).

I was suspicious if that's for real, because he also doubted he ever reached the truth.

So I asked basically, WTF man? Do you even believe that truth exists? The correct answer is, "yeah, dumbass, for example the truth is, that people can accurately perceive the language. So there are things we can objectively know for sure, such as that you or me exist, that we're real and that reality exists."
He didn't do that, instead went scuttling under the nearest rock, which is usually not a good sign. We didn't even get through the dumbass phase. The Force is not strong with this one.

And I think his definitions of purpose, meaning and value of life suck, that should have warned me. They're either tautological, or unjustified. For example, passing our genes forward is what life does. That's like saying "life is life" (tautology). Defining life is not the meaning of life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Luminon's post
04-06-2014, 04:44 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(04-06-2014 04:27 PM)Luminon Wrote:  For example, passing our genes forward is what life does. That's like saying "life is life" (tautology).
Well, life is life. Maybe you might be making it too complicated.

(04-06-2014 04:27 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Defining life is not the meaning of life.
I agree.
Living is the meaning of life.

Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2014, 04:49 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
*blinks* what just happened? Drooling Unsure Blink Facepalm

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2014, 05:00 PM (This post was last modified: 04-06-2014 05:09 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(04-06-2014 04:44 PM)kim Wrote:  
(04-06-2014 04:27 PM)Luminon Wrote:  For example, passing our genes forward is what life does. That's like saying "life is life" (tautology).
Well, life is life. Maybe you might be making it too complicated.

(04-06-2014 04:27 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Defining life is not the meaning of life.
I agree.
Living is the meaning of life.

Drinking Beverage
Meaning of life raises expectations. It's asked when we want more info on how the life should be best lived. The problem arises, because success in human society is defined differently than in natural ecosystems (genes). In fact, the further from nature we are, the better. In nature, everything is trying to fuck and kill. We call that rape and murder and we don't want that. So it's really bad from DLJ to mix these two together. Now I get irritated because DLJ doesn't notice such things, I expected he would.

Darwin was a Darwinist about nature, but he was not a Darwinist about people, he wasn't a social Darwinist. It showed in his activism against slavery. So neither natural, nor social Darwinism gives us any answers on how human life should be lived.
So the problem is, we know success criteria in nature, but we don't know success criteria in human society. The only thing we know is, that they're very different. But we don't have any specific answers.

I didn't invent the answers, but I know the answers when I see them. That is, because I can think regardless of any traditions, which are usually based on some form of social Darwinism or slavery.
In order to do that, one must be able to ask questions, give consistent answers and stick with them. That's like knowing how to tie one's shoelaces before running. I thought DLJ would be able to get through that phase. This forum is full of people who can reason in the face of religion, but in all other topics they fail to reproduce the results.

(04-06-2014 04:49 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  *blinks* what just happened? Drooling Unsure Blink Facepalm
Just a verification of a pet theory about a person, by another, obsessive person.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2014, 10:48 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
This applies to every Luminon thread...

[Image: operation-enduring-clusterfuck.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
04-06-2014, 11:05 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
I'm loathed to do one of those line-by-line deconstruction posts (because I loath to read them) or a Taq-style 10-consecutive-replies thing 'cause that's loathsome too so I guess I'll just start typing and see what happens (present-hedonism in action). Pull up a chair, it's going to be a long one but not a text-wall.

OK, first, for those who are confused as to the purpose meaning value cause of this thread (and could not be bothered clicking on the little green arrow in Lumi's OP Tongue ), here's the background:

(03-06-2014 10:06 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(03-06-2014 04:45 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I want to prove to you that universals are real and inevitable.
But that's for starting another thread. If I prove that to you, what will you do? Will you join me in my "fundamentalist crusade" for the necessary universal values? Don't worry, they're pretty general, which means they don't order people around agains their will and that there is a great freedom in implementing them in practice.

I joined that quest (not crusade) when I was born. It is what drives my very being... more important than anything material; more important than knowing where my next BJ is coming from ...
Consider
... OK, it's the second most important driver.

I just don't believe anyone has found any yet.

If you want to start a new thread about it, fill yer boots but no text walls please... as it's universally true that tl;dr will be the response.

Tongue

[emphasis, mine; spelling mistake, his]

So Lumi's position is "that universals are real and inevitable".

It is apt that he ask this question:
(04-06-2014 04:27 PM)Luminon Wrote:  [Image: 66d768a5535632d82414b3669fb800771dfc9948...63da95.jpg]

And the answer is no. Well, not until recently.

At the risk of damaging my oh-so-accidentally cultivated 'man of mystery' status (hence the spoilers), allow me to explain...
As many of you already know (if you had read all of my nearly 10,000 posts here Big Grin ) I left school in my teens over 30 years ago... never studied... I was away the day the other children were taught how to study. The only tests I passed were the ones where only innate ability was required (6th in the school in the National Maths Competition (the top guy in our school who went on to the national finals (came second IIRC) was 4 years my senior) and usually second in the annual poetry competition and pool champion (the one with the stick and balls - I never learned to swim) every year).

The main thing I learned ... was not to overuse (brackets and) ellipses Laughat

I think I have learned more from the people on this forum over the last 2+ years than I ever learned in official education and knowing more now than I did then about high functioning autism, the reasons for that are now (fairly) clear to me.

And, by "people on this forum", I include Luminon near the top of the list.

What have been passing comments for the authors have been hours of delving, reading and bepuzzlement for me.

I am very grateful to you all (except Hughsie, of course).

To further address the gaps in my knowledge (and also because I have a professional interest in group vs. individual ethics) I have joined a local Philosophy group where I have quickly established myself as a troublemaker e.g.
Discussion on abortion... quick round the tables to determine everyone's starting positions... lady says "I'm a christian so of course I agree with the bible on abortion"... I chip in with "so, you're pro-choice" and pretend to make a note... she says "ye... NO! Ohmy"... I refer to Numbers 5: process and purpose of abortion (the only biblical reference to the subject).

Due to all the travelling I do, I've only been to maybe 4 of the meetings (I was most disappointed to miss the one on Marx but caught the last 2 on Kant and have signed up for the next one on Sartre (although what the singer of "My Way" has to do with philosophy, I'm not sure)).

Here're the sign-up messages to give you some idea of how I am perceived:

DLJ: Hi. As usual, I'm not really sure on which continent I'll be for that Saturday but fingers crossed I'll be there. Apologies in advance for not reading the book (there's zero to nil chance of finding the time) so I'll just shut up and listen.

Organiser: Hey DLJ that's alright, it's always great to have you around anyway, a lot of funny things start going on!

DLJ: I'm not sure how to take that. Funny: peculiar, or funny: haha!?

Organiser: haha both DLJ!

Dodgy
So, maybe that gives some context regarding my reply to Luminon, above, and why I am asking for clarification as to what he means by "universal values".

I think, so far, that humanity is on a unplanned quest to discover universal values but I am not convinced we have found any yet.

Lumi used the word "crusade" and yes, I think we have had a few 1,000 years of crusades where various tribal groups have tried to impose subjectively derived universal values on each other.

So in short, I am hoping that this thread will be another learning opportunity for me.

But then...

(04-06-2014 04:27 PM)Luminon Wrote:  He was all vague, but putting on a good front. He said he's really fond of truth (a philosophical technical term).

"Vague"?... Perhaps. I come from a position of ignorance so OK maybe that's it but I was only asking a question to help remove vagueness.

"putting on a good front"... I'll take that as a compliment as my front is one of my better qualities but I think you, Lumi, have assumed too much.

And this is the bit that has confused me:
"He said he's really fond of truth"... I don't think I did.
I think I said, or at least I meant, that we/humanity are/is on a quest for universal values. I didn't mention 'truth'. But call it a quest for truth if you like.

I should qualify that by saying that I think that many theists are on a quest from truth as they take their version of Truth (note the cap) as their starting point.

You, Lumi, say
Quote:I was suspicious if that's for real, because he also doubted he ever reached the truth.

This is why I asked for definition because I do not see "universal values" as being synonymous with "truth".

I asked and you gave me this:
Quote:truth (a philosophical technical term).

OK. I'll go with that even though this gets me no closer to understanding what you mean by "universal values".

I'm still learning but wrt definitions, here are some that I like ... I do not know if they are "philosophical technical" terms:

Faith: A belief held without or in spite of the evidence.
Belief: A proposition that is accepted to be true, even though it may not actually be true.
Knowledge: Justified TRUE belief.
Certainty: Confidence in the truth of a proposition; probability.
Absolute: Universal; binding on all people across all time and space, including linguistic and cultural barriers.

Please note that by TRUE, I am not equating this to REALITY.
Reality: The sum of all 'real' things; the entirety of existence
Internal reality: Subjective perceptions (memory, vision, emotional states etc.)
External reality: Everything beyond my immediate sensory perceptions.
True: A label given to propositions in accordance with an epistemology.

My position (flawed though it my be) is that truth and reality are not the same. If truth was simply reality, then truth cannot be known as I think (as yet) there is no way of knowing what is objectively true.

So... by asking you to give a definition of "universal values" I was trying to get an understanding of whether you might be referring to 'absolutes' because that (or they) is what I am not yet convinced exist.

And I'm not talking about 'facts'. I'm OK with, for example, the label of 'absolute zero'.

In other words, I'm OK with 'is' truths but not yet convinced about 'ought' truths.

Therefore:
Quote:So I asked basically, WTF man? Do you even believe that truth exists? The correct answer is, "yeah, dumbass, for example the truth is, that people can accurately perceive the language. So there are things we can objectively know for sure, such as that you or me exist, that we're real and that reality exists."
... yeah, dumbarse ... no problem with that. That's all about 'is'.

Please (I mean this honestly) correct me if I am incorrect but aren't "universal values" about 'ought'?

I'm wondering whether I have misunderstood the word 'value' i.e. I'm reading it as 'worth' which is subjective where perhaps you meant it as 'quantity' which is objective Consider

Quote:He didn't do that, instead went scuttling under the nearest rock, which is usually not a good sign. We didn't even get through the dumbass phase. The Force is not strong with this one.
Sure, the force may be weak but rock-scuttling is not my style. I'll let you know if/when I concede a point or an argument and openly thank you for it.

Quote:And I think his definitions of purpose, meaning and value of life suck, that should have warned me. They're either tautological, or unjustified. For example, passing our genes forward is what life does. That's like saying "life is life" (tautology). Defining life is not the meaning of life.

Perhaps it's too subtle but Kim and I seem to on the same page. Maybe one day we'll get to be on the same sheet Dodgy Heart
(04-06-2014 04:44 PM)kim Wrote:  Living is the meaning of life.

More later. I need breakfast.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like DLJ's post
05-06-2014, 10:37 AM (This post was last modified: 05-06-2014 10:41 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
Part II...

I know that you replied to Kim and not to me but it was about me so I claim the right to reply.

I'm thinking that your comment below relates to my signature.

Your interpretation of it is interesting although your extrapolation from content to intent leaves me with both eyebrows raised.

(04-06-2014 05:00 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
Meaning of life raises expectations. It's asked when we want more info on how the life should be best lived. The problem arises, because success in human society is defined differently than in natural ecosystems (genes). In fact, the further from nature we are, the better. In nature, everything is trying to fuck and kill. We call that rape and murder and we don't want that. So it's really bad from DLJ to mix these two together. Now I get irritated because DLJ doesn't notice such things, I expected he would.
...

I would appreciate an explanation as to your irritation.
How did you get from my sig's little idioms to a justification for rape and murder?

I'm an ape. Darwin taught me that.
Fucking and killing is what I do.
The former is dealt with personally and the latter is out-sourced.

I am identifying this, accepting it and then moving on, in the next two lines (separated, not "mixed"), to highlight that this is not the only driver anymore.

Quote:Darwin was a Darwinist about nature, but he was not a Darwinist about people, he wasn't a social Darwinist. It showed in his activism against slavery. So neither natural, nor social Darwinism gives us any answers on how human life should be lived.
So the problem is, we know success criteria in nature, but we don't know success criteria in human society. The only thing we know is, that they're very different. But we don't have any specific answers.

Agreed. Civilisation is all about capitalising on our ability to climb up Maslow's ladder.

Also, agreed that "we don't know success criteria in human society"... only hindsight can tell us that. And I mean ultimate hindsight... we don't even know that humanity is actually a 'good thing' for the universe at large.

"we don't have any specific answers"... exactly my position regarding "universal values".
I guess that means we agree and the discussion is over.

Quote:I didn't invent the answers

Are these the same answers that we don't have?

Quote:... but I know the answers when I see them. That is, because I can think regardless of any traditions, which are usually based on some form of social Darwinism or slavery.

I also think I am quite good at disassociating myself from my inherited traditions (one of the disadvantages and advantages of autism, in my view) but I doubt I'll be able to do this completely. The more I travel and the more I learn, the better I get.

I am curious as to your criteria for this knowledge i.e. knowing the answers when you see them.
That would make a fascinating side topic.
'An' answer is one thing but 'the' answers... that's a whole new kettle of ball-games.

Quote:In order to do that, one must be able to ask questions, give consistent answers and stick with them.

Yes, yes and no.
This does not allow for continual improvement. Answers will change as the questions are refined.

Quote:That's like knowing how to tie one's shoelaces before running. I thought DLJ would be able to get through that phase.

I am open to the possibility that I may not have the optimal (the most efficient and effective) shoe-lace-tying technique.
I am also open to the idea of Velcro. Shoe-laces are sooo last century.

Quote:Just a verification of a pet theory about a person, by another, obsessive person.

How's that theory holding up?

And a definition of 'universal values' would be useful to get the conversation started.

Cheers

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
05-06-2014, 11:02 AM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2014 05:36 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(04-06-2014 08:52 AM)Luminon Wrote:  - Can two mutually exclusive claims be true simultaneously? Yahweh is the one true god, Allah is the one true god. I don't think so.


Two mutually exclusive claims:
  • Two mutually exclusive claims cannot be true simultaneously by definition otherwise they would not be mutually exclusive - True
  • Two mutually exclusive claims can be true simultaneously - Also True


Contrived artificial example of two mutually exclusive claims that are simultaneously true:
  • The word "heterological" is heterological - True
  • The word "heterological" is autological. - Also True

Autological (also known as homological) = a word that describes itself (e.g., the word "short" is short, "noun" is a noun, "English" is English, "pentasyllabic" has five syllables, "word" is a word, "sesquipedalian" is a long word)

Heterological = a word that does not describe itself.


"Heterological" is not a word that describes itself, therefore is heterological, but this means that it is autological, but if "heterological" is autological that means it's heterological and is therefore not a word that describes itself and therefore is autological ... ad infinitum.

Conclusion: Logic is an artificial system that is a useful tool but is not a universal truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Mathilda's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: