dfnj
Well-Known Member
No. I do not start with any presumption.
An excellent assumption on your part!
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No. I do not start with any presumption.
Many moons ago I thought you understood something that I think is very good for people to understand. I’m still hoping that you really did understand it, and that I can help you somehow to remember it. I might have said enough now, or maybe even too much.Well, yes, you have a point, but I am trying to avoid the truth, because the truth is a way to claim power over people. I try to make us equal in that there is no THE TRUTH for any of us as all of us apparently.
Don’t feel bad. It’s been happening to me a lot too.No, I know it still. But I don't react well to stress. That is not an excuse of anything. That is how it is with me now.
No, I am a skeptic. I use the word truth, because it is, how other humans in the culture, I am a part of, talk. I don't believe in truth, just as some people don't believe in God, but still talk about gods.
I believe in what works good and useful.
Regards
Mikkel
[QUOTE="Aupmanyav, post: 6577783, member: 11823]"Yeah, THE TRUTH does not depend on what we think. It remains the same. For me, only the first.
...
That is true. Subjective truths held by two people differ, but that does not affect objective truth.So are you saying there exists a subjective truth as well as an objective truth?
That is a good joke.At which point the Zen master replies, "Then it must be pretty heavy all day walking around with that rock in your head!"
Were you and I (fighting)? I thought you and I were discussing something (since you have outlawed 'we')... until I can get back to not fighting.
Well, I have tried not to start with presumptions. So I go by what science says:An excellent assumption on your part!
What we experience does not have an iota of truth. That is why the recourse to science and experiments and not philosophy or religion... but I accept this truth/reality is something we can never consciously directly experience. What we consciously experience is a "virtual" reality created for us by the unconscious mind.
So you subjectively say. So the reality of truth equals reality in that you wrote it. And you then asked me to try it out. That requires that it is subjectively true, that I can subjectively test it. So I tested it subjectively and found out that it is true that I can test it and that subjectivity is true both of you and I. So reality is in part subjective, otherwise we couldn't be doing this. Try again.
Regards
Mikkel
I agree except that most people want to impose the tiny bit known by science as a template for understanding all of reality. They never notice that reality does not make a good fit and is spilling out in all dimensions. They don't notice that even if we project what science might learn in the future that reality and our understanding are unlikely to ever be the same.
When an individual takes on beliefs it becomes very difficult to see anything but those beliefs. We all see everything in terms of beliefs and "scientific beliefs" can be more limiting than religious beliefs simply because it is easier to not be able to understand "God's will" than it is to not understand the "Law of Gravity". People tend to come to take for granted the stars in the sky and the satellites among them because everyone believes they understand both.
Can we settle on some definitions for the sake of clarity?
"scientific beliefs" can be more limiting than religious beliefs
In terms of truth, there is something to be said for the simplicity of philosophical materialism. The idea is the only things that are real and true are things that can be experienced by more than one person. If it can't be tested then it doesn't exist. The problem with this way of thinking is there are some ideas that cannot be tested
it is that simple. In practice both science and religion are limited as it comes to the truth
I believe in what works good and useful.
I fight the rationalists, who think they can define reality by using words.
I try to make us equal in that there is no THE TRUTH for any of us
So are you saying there exists a subjective truth as well as an objective truth?
IMO, the truth of conscious experience really is not the truth of reality but is is just as important.
Earth rotates around it's axis seems a true statement.Okay, something simple. The grammatical status of the words "the truth". Those words means that there is one version of the truth. So there can't be different versions of the truth. That is simple to test: 2 examples are given now.
Someone: The truth of how the world is...
Me: Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and think differently about the truth than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the truth as only one truth for the world.
Someone: The one true God is...
Me: Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and believe differently about God than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the one true God.
Yeah, it is that simple. In practice both science and religion are limited as it comes to the truth. I know, how to test for it, because I accept for the subjective subjective results as valid evidence. For the objective I accept objective evidence as valid, but I try not to confuse the 2.
That is how I learned to do it and I accept that you can do subjectivity and objectivity differently, but I will still just check if what you do appears to be subjective regardless of you claim science or religion, how ever you do it.
Regards
Mikkel
...
No, it means we have different definitions, which causes confusion.
Can we settle on some definitions for the sake of clarity?
Can't be bothered. You seem to be trying to slip truth past the filter such as to equate it the same for both religion and science.
Earth rotates around it's axis seems a true statement.
I have a simple algorithm for helping to improve behavior in Internal discussions. It’s to not respond at all in any way to any behavior that you personally think might be harmful, no matter how much you like what the post says or how much you object to it. I have some ideas for responding to posts spreading misinformation, or vilifying or disparaging people, without pointing at any post specifically.You don't need truth for that. You need to be able to turn that statement into behavior, which can be replicated by others.
Regards
Mikkel
You don't need truth for that. You need to be able to turn that statement into behavior, which can be replicated by others.
Exactly what I was thinking, before I saw this post. Only, I would say “I don’t need ‘objective’ or ‘absolure’ reality or truth.”Just as you don't need god, you don't need truth.
Okay, something simple. The grammatical status of the words "the truth". Those words means that there is one version of the truth. So there can't be different versions of the truth. That is simple to test: 2 examples are given now.
Someone: The truth of how the world is...
Me: Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and think differently about the truth than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the truth as only one truth for the world.
Someone: The one true God is...
Me: Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and believe differently about God than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the one true God.
Yeah, it is that simple. In practice both science and religion are limited as it comes to the truth. I know, how to test for it, because I accept for the subjective subjective results as valid evidence. For the objective I accept objective evidence as valid, but I try not to confuse the 2.
That is how I learned to do it and I accept that you can do subjectivity and objectivity differently, but I will still just check if what you do appears to be subjective regardless of you claim science or religion, how ever you do it.
Regards
Mikkel
Most of the best astronomers might disagree with that.... the sun never moves.
Earth rotates around it's axis seems a true statement.