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.
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.
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.
Being requires an actual valuation of what one is being presented with, the response cant be completely a priori.
Hence there is always a certain questioning to being, a wondering how it shall continue to be, namely, what it will be encountering outside and inside of itself.
The mind is either changing patterns outside by fixing patterns inside or changing patterns inside by fixing patterns outside, always serving as a valve and a fortress against the pure encounter of being. It needs to be “destroyed” in order to represent being in a fertile way, this is why humans are not orderly beings on the whole. The preemptive defence of the mind against pure encounter being is the most well known problem to humans. The whole a priori structure of the mind is a concoction which serves mostly itself; in as far as it is supposed to refer to the world it is nonsensical, its only purpose for the mind is a place to ground suspension of conclusions.