These are not universal truths...

On the Question of Truth;
Note my point here;
Truth is a Relation, Condition, and Perspective
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195337&p=2745759#p2745759

What is most interesting about the problem of universals is that it is still discussed.

It’s like a spell was put on all of you for a moment!!

I know you all know this, but you posted the ignorance of it anyways.

“There are not universal truths”

Is either a universal truth or not.

If it is a universal truth: then universal truths exist

If it is not a universal truth: then universal truths exist.

Yeah… I’m surprised people are talking about this still as well…

Universal truths exist regardless of your opinion,

One notable universal truth is that nobody wants their consent violated.

People can lie to themselves and others as posturing, but when push come to shove; no being/organism really WANTS this to occur.

That’s a universal truth for organisms that abstract yes/no on some level.

Ah yes, the Ol’ the only universal truth is no universal truth routine! Didn’t see that one coming…!?

Thats good.

“Nobody wants what they don’t want” - “all bachelors are unmarried” -

But many people want to be overruled in some respects - those where they don’t seek responsibility.

Again, this is what happens when you use the noun form, “truth”. And when you apply it to something besides a statement. And when you use “truth” in a statement about which you want to ascertain the truth of. I really should have coverrd this earlier.

Ecmandu - you have, once again, committed a violent rape. Which appears to be your hobby.

Language must assume itself as universal truth to bring all possible options for reality under its scope.
Universal truths inside of language include grammatical laws, that for example that subject relates to an object through an action. Concepts like “consent” and “violation” derive from this grammar as much as they do from the rest of reality.

Freedom is a feeling.
You probably have felt it before.

The biggest freedom is the enslaving of body by the mind.

Freedom means active, class-distinction.

One youtube user said:
“When you want to be somewhere, and you are there, you are then free.”

Merging slave and master to get over duality.

Freedom is reuniting with self.

Is it then a universal truth that “what is most interesting about the problem of universals is that it is still discussed”?

Or is it just one man’s opinion?

Puerile

Is this a universal truth about my post?

Or just one man’s opinion. Embedded in, among other things, dasein.

What is a faustian truth?

I wonder about this.
I can guess, and it may not be purely made of straw.

We can only know something, if we can feel it or sense it with our senses.

The highest abstraction is merely made of elements.

Truth as a thing, requires support, from and of elements.

Truth is about language only because language is elemental.

Gas is elemental for driving a car.

Activity is when elements align.

Thought is a form of activity.

With the right elements, we can make an image of an event.

A good truth is like a mirror.

We know something to the extent that we can make true statements about that something.

Knowledge, like truth and like everything else that is of interest to a philosopher, exists on a continuum.

Purely binary thinking, like iam’s, is a great impediment to even understanding this.

good stuff

Is the assertion that my thinking is “purely binary” a universal truth or is it just one man’s opinion?

Again, let’s bring these abstract intellectual contraptions out into the world of human interaction.

With respect to a particular context let’s explore the extent to which someone’s thinking either is or is not “purely binary”.

My argument is that with respect to value judgments it is not likely that universal truths exist because in my opinion the moral and political narratives embodied in “I” are rooted subjectively/intersubjectively in an identity/self encompassed out in the world of human interactions as existential contraptions.

Thus suggesting in turn that the tools available to philosophers here have a limited use and exchange value.

What?

So what of the other alternatives to “universal truth” and “one man’s opinion”?

But before we get that advanced, that it is an opinion misses the entire point. You’re making a big fat category error.

Do you know what that category error might be? Do you know what “binary” means?

I don’t think that you do know.

Does it help to know that expressing my opinion could produce a true statement?

It’s not “a truth” at all. What is a truth? What does a truth look like?

First, we need a context. A situation involving human interactions in which the use of such words as “universal truth” and “one man’s opinion” would be germane. Otherwise we get into these pissing contests pinning down the philosophically correct definitions of such words used in an argument that only defends other words.

Same thing. In grappling to pin down the technical meaning of a “category error” let’s bring that out into the world of human interactions in turn. You choose the context.

For example, in regard to the gun control debate, how close can we come to a universal truth? In regard to the use of guns in particular contexts, how close are actual facts able to be demonstrated as true objectively for all of us to a universal truth? Juxtaposed with truths that can be established for all of us in regard to, say, the optimal – most rational – set of laws that either prescribe or proscribe behaviors related to the use of guns.

As others here will confirm, my primary interest lies in taking words that “serious philosophers” like you claim to have a thorough grasp on “technically”, out into the world and see how they use that understanding relating to the things that are of most interest to me: identity, value judgments and political power.

How they come to be intertwined existentially given a particular context in which to explore the meaning we ascribe to them “in our head”.

No, what would help me considerably more is taking abstract “assessments” like this and substantiating them in regard to a description of and a reaction to contexts in which the use of the words “universal truth” might generate conflicting points of view.

You are incapable of conversation.

then in baby steps…

We have a statement about something.

X is B.

We have to have criteria to decide if it is true. How do we decide if X is B?

Could be that we check and expect that certain things happen when we examine X.

Some would say we check for certain things.

But I’d want to emphasize process and events in epistemology. What happens when we look rather than what do we see?