Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Non-sense

Expand Messages
  • Jack Darach
    Hey all, Hello Randy: No one said we don t perceive. I said if something is true it s true regardless of perception. And again, I mean *really true*
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 15, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey all,

      Hello Randy:

      No one said we don't perceive. I said if something is true it's
      true
      regardless of perception. And again, I mean *really true*
      (existential true, not conventional true).

      You talk about Truth but seem to contradict yourself. You say there
      are
      two
      truths? The true truth being the existential one, as opposed to the
      other conventional truth?
      I don't understand this. Does this tie in with what you talk about
      later when you
      make a distinction between the world of perception and a 'truly real'
      world?


      We can never know that what we observe is all that is
      observable. (how would we know?...it's impossible...). So that
      means
      anything we observe isn't truly real and thus anything we infer
      about
      it can't be a truth. As such, nothing is truly real.

      Truly real? So we live in a world of illusion and behind this
      illusion
      is
      a 'truly real' world?
      For you to say, nothing is truly real implies to me that there
      is something that IS truly real.

      Another point, how do we know about this other world? If we cannot
      infer
      anything about this world as a truth how can we infer from it to
      another
      world beyond it.

      For people that don't get this: This is an issue of context. This
      discussion is about all possible realities, not simply the reality
      knowable by human perception.

      What other reality is there?
      If there is another 'reality' then how are we in a position to talk
      about it?
      I don't think we can gave any meaningful discussion about other
      worlds.
      We live in a world of perception, lets not get confused and start
      talking
      about a world beyond that.

      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      Hello there Stephanie:

      well, "truth is that which is regardless of perception" implies the
      existence of an objective truth that need not be perceived and,
      thus,
      is insusceptible to perspective. while there may or may not be
      many
      things that are "true", i do think that if a truth exists, there
      is
      one
      and only one of that particular truth. am i misunderstanding what
      you
      mean by truth(s)?

      Don't know if you misunderstood, first I'll respond to truths that
      need
      not be perceived I have a problem with truths that can't, or need
      not,
      be perceived.
      What kind of thing is this truth that need not be seen?
      It must be a very strange thing, unlike anything we can perceive.
      A metaphysical entity, with the power to enter peoples minds without
      them perceiving it.

      Truths: I'd say that a truth is susceptible to perception, that
      different people in their different interactions with the world are
      able to perceive different truths about a situation.
      (And the introduction of evidence won't help, I don't think we have
      to
      accept evidence no-matter how convincing, although this will
      certainly
      put our beliefs under more pressure)

      Heres an example, not very good but should provide a point.

      McDuff: I think Capitlism is a evil that has ravaged the world.
      McDougle:Capitlism is good and has benefited the world.

      If I'm understanding you correctly Stephanie, only one of these
      statements is actually true, that so?
      I would say each statement is true to the particular individual who
      made that statement. We could only dismiss one if there was something
      we could compare them to. (And evidence is not so helpful here, good
      evidence can be produced by both sides, unfortunately)
      But I don't think there is 'a' truth which we can compare our beliefs
      to.

      ...Now comes a thought which I haven't worked out completely
      (Or rather I haven't researched properly yet) , so please bear with
      me
      if I'm not making sense. Its just struck me that I can't prove what
      I'm
      about to say. Hey, may as well throw it in!

      ..."God Is Dead" And an implication of Nietsches' line is that there
      can be no trancendental center to any theory, system of belief.
      Nothing
      like, Being, God, Truth, Self, etc which inhabit the 'center' of so
      many philosophical 'structures' can seriously be held to do so. Being
      at the center they must necessarilly be out side of the system at the
      same time. Fatal contradiction leads to conclusion, there are no
      centers...
      Anyone know what I'm talking about and feel like elaborating?
      This comes from a lecture by Derrida, called I think, 'Sign,
      structure
      and play'

      Anyway, bringing this back to our discussion...There isn't a Truth
      with
      which we can compare our beliefs, that truth would constitute, a
      center
      which cannot exist.

      Now, I know why I called this mail Non-sense :-)


      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      Hey Patty, thanks for the reply

      What you say CAN be true, about having all our truths
      interrelated..., but sometimes they just don't fit in.
      I know what you mean, and it makes sense, 'cause it's
      IN the world of 'sense'; but I still think all the
      twists and turns we make in the way we feel and in the
      way we do things, just to make them fit in with
      everything, without brushing up too much, they're just
      in response to our own paradoxes and contradictions.

      Sounds good to me. Life without paradox and contradiction
      is just plain dull!

      <snip>

      Either way, I believe we should all try to move
      towards making our own lives and selves in accord with
      what we know to be our most pure truths, especially in
      the moral sense, although it can get rather sticky
      there.

      _'pure' truths, or perhaps, 'higher' truths don't , for me
      exist. One day I take this truth, the next day I take that truth.
      This is because I don't feel that 'pure' truth that you feel.
      If you feel it, then its there for you, and I think living by
      what we feel and acting on what we feel is important.
      I do the same, I do what I want to do, but for me, those
      actions aren't based on something unchanging, immutable, which
      is how I see the concept of a 'pure' truth.

      Truth should not depend on perception--it should be
      THAT which is, regardless of perception. Perception
      can sometimes be guided by things like our wants and
      needs, fears and defenses...

      Why do we all have so many disagreements with people,
      all of the time!?
      Because or perceptions dont just influence our beliefs, and
      truths, they create them!
      And i'll leave that, like so much else, unargued.
      :-)

      Yours sincerly
      Jack
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.