These are not universal truths...

If we were looking for evidence of the existence of universal truths.

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.

I’m sorry, but we still need a context here. Your technical understanding of universal truth and my own attempt to encourage you to bring that understanding out into the world that we live and interact in.

Again, don’t pass up an opportunity to expose just how and why I am incapable of conversation.

In other words, by focusing the conversation itself on a set of circumstances in which some see universals truths while others see existential fabrications.

Or, sure, keep embarrassing yourself by avoiding that part altogether. :wink:

Just out of curiosity, how close does value ontology come to being one?

I’ve been trying now for years to get you to bring that out into the world of actual human interactions.

I won this debate against iambiguous last year…

Trixie, before being banned, even stated as much…

Universal truth:

Nobody wants their consent violated

Iambiguous consent violations:

-Conflicting goods

-fractured sense of self.

Iambiguous argument is a subset of my argument

Here’s how mind really works…

The older it gets, the more that it loathes zero sum realities.

Think about the depth of most people’s spirits in this world for a moment…

That which they celebrate the most is zero sum wins…

House, wife, job…

The mind of the young is inverted.

As the mind grows older, it grieves all of its past successes in life here.

And that truly is how the mind works.

Why choose something you’ll have to grieve in the future?

These are universal truths, nobody escapes them

We actually have this game in Venezuela. I’ll play it with you, it’s fun if you never have before.

Do you want me to tell you the story of the bald chicken?

He was running around like a chicken with his hair cut off, right?

I don’t play or watch games anymore.

I’m not kidding when I stated that the older a mind becomes, the more that it hates zero sum realities.

Young minds seek the conquest.

If I wanted to pool my resources, I could live a 100% non contradictory life. I choose not to. I am celibate however. Not for some religious reason, but because of how difficult it is to sexually select me without consent violation involved. And I’m perfectly content with this. If one of the loopholes presents itself, I will partner with someone sexually in the way that I do, but the odds are minuscule

I want to add to my post above and I meant to include it earlier but forgot:

Meta arguments are not treated the same as the subset arguments.

What I mean by this is that if everyone on earth told me that their consent was being violated because I point out that nobody wants their consent violated; I’m the one with the objective argument for non consent violation. I am also in the position of truth, and as truth, am not subject to being treated like everyone else; I am greater than.

All you have to do is agree with truth, and you too will be greater than.

This truth itself is very humble, unlike conquest truths.

So, iam. What is a philophically correct definition of “one man’s opinion”? You brought it up, evidently without context, for you are calling for one now. But what is the definition you had in mind when you introduced the term?

Please don’t mention the belly of anything or the fact that your personality shatters when you try to make a decision. The first is bad poetry and the second is a feature of mental illness. Let’s just try to talk as if not every thing anyone says is somehow about you and you alone.

I don’t know how to explain it any differently. My interest here revolves more around taking the manner in which [technically] a philosopher might define and then differentiate a personal opinion from a universal truth out into the world and situating the definitions themselves in a specific context such that the definitions can be aligned both with a description of the situation and our reaction to it if and when value judgments come into conflict and precipitate conflicting behaviors that precipitate actual consequences.

Given my gun control example above, what objective facts can be garnered that might come closest to that which some would define as a universal truth? I mean, sure, one can argue that universal truths don’t exist, but there are any number of actual flesh and blood human beings who insist that not only are there demonstrable facts here true universally for all of us [on planet Earth], but there are objective moral narratives and political agendas that, as far as they are concerned, are in turn something that all rational and virtuous human beings are obligated to accept.

And, if they acquire the necessary power, others are obligated…or else.

That’s the world that we live in. And that’s the world that in my view serious philosophers will either address with regard to their definitions or they won’t.

Again, you can choose the context. You can choose the behaviors in conflict such that our respective assessments can be discussed as being more or less in sync with your own definition/assessment of universal truth.

But you can be sure that my own “existential contraption” here will revolve around the manner in which I react to human interactions at the intersection of identity/dasein, value judgments/conflicting goods and political economy/the power of enforcement.

But you are asking someone who finds the term “universal truth” incoherent to provide an example of a universal truth. Do you actully read any of my posts?

And you cannot provide a definition of “personal opinion”?

Is english your first language?

Don’t be too harsh. Im convinced that he sometimes does kind of read a few lines of a post. More in a scanning fashion looking for a keyword he can “ask a question about” but still, he sometimes does let his eyes linger on the posts he responds to. It cant be more than a few seconds but hey, he’s… him.

Let’s approach iambiguous this way:

Iambiguous wants to be bossed around to the minutiae like a robot so iambiguous can have the best path/life, but also claims that if everything were mechanical then we cannot be held accountable for what we do, because we don’t decide, atoms do.

He throws this contradiction into almost every post, “I have no choice, so tell me the right thing to do, I bet you can’t do that!! Haha!! I’ve got you guys!!”
No, all you’re doing Iambiguous is contradicting yourself.

You DEMAND the cosmos be robotic, if it’s not robotic, there’s no morality, if it is robotic there is no morality.

That last sentence is the most important in terms of iambiguous, because, Iambiguous is ultimately arguing that even if god exists, there’s no morality.

All Iambiguous is arguing is that morality is a false belief.

I have more where that came from, but, at this juncture, I wonder what Iambiguous response is.

Gasp! Yet another post in which the actual substantive points I raise are reconfigured into an argument that the problem here is me.

As though the fact that he construes “universal truth” to be incoherent need be as far as he goes in demonstrating that in fact it is incoherent. To, for example, anyone he deems to be a rational human being. Whereas out in the world that we live in there are any number things/relationships [embedded in the either/or world] which may or may not be universal truths going back to a definitive understanding of existence itself. But are nonetheless accepted as true objectively in the interim.

Again, in regard to human behaviors revolving around the manufacture, sale and use of guns, there are facts galore. And, for all practical purposes in our interactions from day to day, we treat these facts as if they were “universally true” given our current understanding of the laws of matter.

It’s just that the objectivists among us insist that their moral narratives and political agendas are in turn a reflection of an objective truth applicable to all us. And some do go so far as to call their value judgments “universal truths”.

As for his obsession with definitions, that doesn’t surprise me. Those who pursue the art of concocting “general description” “intellectual contraptions” are often preoccupied with what words mean technically.

That way they can do battle with other serious philosophers up in the clouds of abstraction. World of words philosophers. Cue Will Durant’s “epistemologists”.

Now, he will either bring his own definition of “universal truth” and “personal opinion” down off the academic skyhooks and situate them in a context embedded in an actual discussion of an issue like gun control, or he will continue to hold me responsible for failing to be a “serious philosopher” here like him.

As though that’s a bad thing. :wink:

[size=50]don’t you just love polemics![/size]

First tweedle dee, then tweedle dum! :wink:

I dare him to bring VO down out of the “serious philosopher” clouds. First he can define it. Then he can define “universal truth”.

Then he can note how his definitions are applicable to a discussion of human interactions revolving around the manufacture, sale and use of guns.

Or in regard to any other context in which a discussion of universal truth might be expected.

Just for the record…

What I am arguing is that morality is understood by a particular individual out in a particular world in a particular way. And that some are convinced their value judgments reflect the objective truth in a particular context. While, in fact, others are convinced that, no, their value judgments do reflect a universal truth. In either their own God or No God world.

In other words, go to any planet in any solar system in any galaxy in our universe and only those who do not think about morality in exactly the same way that he does are harboring a false belief.

Go ahead, ask him.

All I suggest in turn is that discussions of this sort may well be a manifestation of a wholly determined universe inextricably embedded in the gap between what any particular one of us think we know about universal truth and morality here and now and all that can be [must be[ known about them going back to a definitive understanding of existence itself.

On the other hand, as has at times been tip-toed around here and on other threads, some of us have special circumstances when it comes to that which we think is true. Our brains are not all wired the same. But that’s just one more factor that needs to be taken into account of course.

Iambiguous,

Your last post was word salad. I don’t say that too often to people.

Objective truth IS universal truth

Subjective truth ISNT universal truth

But you’re word salad here is that objective truth and universal truth are different.

Here’s the deal iambiguous, if it’s true for all POSSIBLE beings, it is a transcendent truth, not merely subjective (a non truth)

I actually haven’t thought much about guns in my life.ive told you before that moral proofs are like mathematical proofs, one may take a few hundred years to solve.

But for the pleasure of your court, I did direct my mind towards guns for a moment.

The first place my mind goes are the limits.

Should we outlaw candlesticks?
What about nuclear bombs?

People who aren’t allowed to buy firearms and choose the quick death of suicide by cop, are very happy firearms exist.

I’d was also making notes about hunting when processing the equations… about 10% of the population has the biochemistry to derive and metabolize nutrients from animal protein, otherwise they will die the horrible death of hyperalkalinity.

Guns work best.

Guns are between butter knives and nuclear warheads.

One could argue that we don’t need to hunt anymore because of domestication…

Those are notes from me pondering guns for about 5 minutes, and trying to place it in a binary proof structure.

lieutenant biggses whole operation here is financed by two villainous philosophical principles that have been known to take down entire book shelves of philosophy. those are, of course, the naturalistic and is/ought fallacies. and, in his own unique way, he wields them with surgical precision. this is why biggs has the reputation of being the everlasting gobstopper of ILP. now you might think you’ve gotten around these two problems, but you ain’t… and prolly never will. if it could be done, it’a been done already.

so what he’s saying, essentially, is no amount of philosophical theory will ever be the thing that is able to persuade you that what you are doing is THE rational thing to do. rather your final verdict must always rest on a leap of faith, a hunch, a feeling, a habit, whatever you wanna call it… but it sure as shit ain’t some indisputable axiomatic logical conclusion you’ve reached after some omniscient examination of all the known facts in/about the universe. if such a thing were even possible, there wouldn’t be so much disagreement among philosophers. 2000 years and philosophy has not solved a single problem it believes exists. and this can be for a couple reasons; either the problems are linguistic (and not conceptual) pseudo-problems, or it lacks the tools to produce solutions to the real problems. in either case, we have an epic fail… ain’t that right, biggs?

lights cigarette, kicks feet up on desk, and gazes incredulously at ILP

You have a desk now?