These are not universal truths...

What on earth are you talking about here?!

Subjective facts? No, my aim is to make a distinction between objective facts [truths] in regard to the conflicting goods swirling around the Second Amendment above, and subjective opinions in regard to what those facts tell us about moral narratives and political agendas that aim to either prescribe or proscribe actual human behaviors out in the world we live and interact in.

The manner in which we differentiate coherent from incoherent assessments in that discussion.

As that relates to the manner in which Faust claims to understand objective truth and then differentiates that from universal truth.

Instead, as he does, you keep it all up on the intellectual contraption skyhooks.

Next up: Ducks!!!

I’m sorry, but…huh?!!

There is either a duck in the house or there is not. If the house is searched and one is found is that or is that not an objective truth? Note the manner in which you understand the meaning objective/universal truth technically and tell us.

So, the duck is found and Jane says, “let’s have him for dinner.”
But John is aghast. “It’s immoral to eat animals!”

How then does the understanding of objective/universal truth then shift to accommodate this new context?

Really, imagine human interaction in which things and relationships are discussed and someone argues that it makes no sense to define the meaning of words? I must not be understanding you. In any event, my point is to distinguish between the meanings that we give to words in particular contexts [in the either/or world] that are able to be demonstrated as true for all of us – the meaning of duck, house, see, show, eat, etc. – and our reaction to those words when the discussion shifts and they are used in confronting conflicting goods.

“Is it okay to eat the duck in the house we see after you showed it to us?”

The duck is in the house. That’s real, that is something that does exist.

I therefore state that, “the duck is in the house.” So, philosophically, let’s make a gigantic distinction between the two?

Meanwhile I want to focus more on the actual existential distinction between those who want to eat the duck and those who refuse to let them. Defined or not, where is the objective truth here?

Everyone can agree that the duck is in the house if it is able to be established that in fact the duck is in the house. Stating that it’s true the duck is in the house doesn’t change that. If you are instead making an entirely different point, sure, I might [technically] still be missing it. But what is going to generate the greater use value and exchange value for philosophers, your point or mine?

When, for example, the discussion shifts [as it does this time of the year] between eating or not eating the turkey in the house? Quibble all you want about the empirical truth of the matter contra the epistemological truth embedded in stating what is true. But my emphasis will always be on the fact that however someone defines or claims to understand objective truth in the either/or world things change dramatically when we shift to conflicting goods in the is/ought world.

But then we know where Faust and his ilk will take the exchange:

Again, provide us with a context here such that a discussion of objective truth is able to pin down things that are in fact true for all of us versus things that someone claims to be true based on what she thinks she understands about a situation in her head.

You have told me how you solve it. As a pragmatist. Only my own pragmatism is embedded far more in the assumption I make here:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

In recognizing that new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas may well reconfigure my own sense of self in the is/ought world, I am not able to make the part about being fractured and fragmented go away. You seem able to take your own existential leap and feel satisfied enough with this that the part about contingency, chance and change simply doesn’t reach the point where you feel the same sort of splintered “I”.

No, I offered the Faust the opportunity to take his scholastic assessment of objective/universal truth out into the world of actual conflicting goods. Re the issue of gun control. The focus that is of most importance to me.

Given what context?

He [and you] will either take your accumulating abstractions here out into the world that we live and interact in or you won’t.

Or we can just agree to disagree about who has accomplished or not accomplished what in that regard.

Now, let’s see how long we can go before you shift the focus from my idiotic demands to me being the fucking idiot period.

Free-Will is both Freedom-From and Freedom-To. “Freedom-From” means Physical limitations, and it is the basis for which all comparisons are made. To be strong, you have to start with a weight that you can lift, compared to what you cannot lift. What is your limit? People want to be “free-from” physical limitations. Instead of being limited to lifting 20 pounds, I want to lift 200 pounds. I want to lift 2000 pounds. The more I can lift, the ‘freer’ I am claimed to be. “Freedom-To” is the “metaphysical” aspect, you may interpret. I think Philosophy and the 21st Century is still discovering and learning about “Freedom-To”. It represents imagination and creativity. It represents choices and options.

Politically, it means that one class or group of people is “free-to” engage in this activity, or enjoy these comforts, but others (like a lower class) are not.

There are many ramifications of “free-to”.

Iam - the U. S. Constitution is not an “objective truth”. Thre are no examples of objective truth. I dunno how many times I have to say it before you have the remotest idea of my position. There is therefore nothing to bring out to your world of conflicting goods. There is no definition to place in a context.

Nearly everyone you’ll meet (depending upon where you go) will agree that the Constitution “exists”. But not in the Archives. That’s an iteration of the Constitution. But for present purposes, we can agree that it exists. That piece of paper is not a trurth of any kind. It’s a piece of paper. This may sound quite arcane but it’s the only way to avoid metaphysics. Believe it or not.

You and I would both accept that the statement “The U. S. Constitution exists” is true (given my qualifications about existence, which we are setting aside.)

So, we agree that this statement is true. That’s all there is. A claim to truth that we (and a shitload of other people) agree is true. There is no question of universal truth here. And the Constitution itself is not a truth of any kind.

The Second Amendement is not true. It’s not false. “People shall bear arms” is not the same as “People do bear arms.”

The number of language confusions, conflations, and misuses in this thread is just unbelievable. I’m sure it could all get straightened out if everyone actually cared to try. But where is the fun in that?

Meanwhile can I ask about this term…

Is that the same as “conflicting values”?

And if so isn’t there a values expert on the board - that “Value Ontology” guy?

Perhaps he could straighten out what conflicting values has to do with objective truths (whatever “objective truths” is supposed to mean).

Okay, yeah, thank you, I am the “value ontology guy”, where by the way Ive renamed it into “valuator logic”.
Anyway, it would be great if anyone here was actually trying to get to the bottom of any question, but, as I showed in my post above, that is not why people are here, that, as you yourself seem to realize very well, is not why it is being asked.

It is being asked because it confuses these people, and it is meant to keep confusing these people.
And to be fair people here generally prefer being confused over being clear minded.

The question that lies here for those not prepared to bury their faces in a morons shit is rather why is it being asked. But I already gave the answer to that.

It’s quite believable, and it’s a delightful spectacle to behold. One must learn not only to love the epistemological chaos, but also thrive in it.

I ask that you do not disturb anything and just let them roll with it.

No universal truths? Hold your breath and stop breathing, see how long you live without oxygen.

Ambiguo wins, having correctly estimated your intelligences.

“its a universal truth that there is a cat in the house on 75439 Elm Street”

Sounds a little more interesting but seems like that would just be subjectivity or subjective logic.

As you seem to be a theorist, is it your theory that this sort of disingenuous language banter continues because people enjoy creating the confusion (inspiring hopelessness) or because they enjoy being confused themselves (seeking hopelessness)?

And since you are probably going to respond with “both”, how can you tell when it is which?

I challenge everybody in this thread that doesn’t believe in universal truths to stop breathing.

If you successfully don’t die I will concede that there are no universal truths.

Who will be our first volunteer? Upload a video of yourself with this project or didn’t happen.

How about you Faust? Lead by example.

I’m going to recap my posting history here in this post.

I state that universal truths are true for all POSSIBLE beings, and being true for all POSSIBLE beings, that makes universal truths TRANSCENDENT; they are universal and objective, they exist universally.

Does such a truth exist?

Yes. No being wants their consent violated. This is true by definition. Or as Fixed Cross put it; all bachelors are unmarried.

What’s the exception? A being that’s consent is violated unless their consent violated. The only way you can violate the consent of such a being, is to not violate their consent… which STILL means that non-consent violation is a law.

No, it is a complex logical operation involving honesty as a subjective element.
Honesty is absent in all other logic. There are no proper grounds, no starting points.
Its a very difficult practice to master, only a handful of people have mastered it in the 8 years Ive worked with it, but you are welcome to try.
beforethelight.forumotion.com/t1 … e-ontology

The point in general is distraction. Seeking validation in things which offer no resistance. Decadence, weakness, despair.
Some enjoy creating the confusion (Iambiguous) and these are slightly higher on the ladder than those who enjoy to indulge in the created confusion.

As I see it, Iambiguous is their “owner” in as far as he manages to seduce them to partake in his hollow antics.

The ingenious liar is the creator of confusion, sought out by the less ingenious ones.

Per valuator logic, we see Iambiguous manages to value the lesser ones in terms of his own aims; they are horses pulling his cart, food on his plate.
The lesser ones have no power to set aims for themselves here, they are compulsively trying to make it seem to themselves like they are masters of the situation (which tolerates no master except the liar who produced it) by “winning the debate” or “showing their superior understanding” yet there is no conviction in it - they are just addicted to the pattern. If they were motivated by philosophical considerations they’d obviously not engage someone who is asking blatantly nonsensical questions, but might seek for meaningful questions to ask themselves.

But this, asking meaningful questions, is what they are avoiding at all cost, and they are grateful to Iambiguous for presenting them with another distraction in which they can lose their energy without fear it might return to them in the form of some insight.

Why is man afraid of insight?
Thats a real question.

This thread is just another line of thought solved by Experientialism.

A quick recap of the fundaments in case you’re still not acquainted:
[tab]Experientialism distinguishes between Continuous Experience and discrete experiences - the former being “the Truth”, which is that experience has no gaps of nothingness to separate things, and if there are gaps of somethingness to separate things, there are no gaps of nothingness to separate these gaps of somethingness from the things they separate etc.
As such, experience is fundamentally continuous.
However, to speak of experience in any useful way, one needs to abitrarily dissect it into discrete experiences according to what is deemed a useful way. This is the only way to achieve knowledge, however wisdom reminds us that knowledge is necessarily removed from the truth by virtue of it necessarily being in terms of discrete experiences instead of Continuous Experience. Thus utility is not truth, though “truth” is commonly used in lieu of utility in the “relative transitive” sense: that something is true to experience to a certain relative extent - as opposed to ever “being True” in an absolute intransitive (i.e. “True” not “true to”) sense.[/tab]
So as we can see, there is a fundamental explanation behind the first and last lines of the opening post:
“Free will is interesting only in that it informs our thinking about moral agency. It is metaphysics, and therefore not to be taken seriously. It’s a useful assumption, but it is not a primary consideration in social justice.”
and
“What in god’s name does “universal truth” even mean?”

To address some other lines in the opening post (placed within inverted commas):

1. “Universal truth” is just Continuous Experience that doesn’t mean anything, it just exists. It only means something when it is broken down into discrete experiences that acquire meaning insofar as they are reconnected with one another to approximate the absolute Truth of Continuous Experience to some relative degree. Meaning is a useful means back to the Truth.
2. “A claim is true or false” applies to discrete experience and how well we’ve broken down Continuous Experience into concepts that can be associated with one another in a way that’s more or less true to their continuous origin.
3. “Epistemology is all about God” is just a less well defined way of saying you can only create knowledge via dissecting discrete experiences from Continuous Experience, which are more or less true about Continuous Experience. Continuous Experience is no God though, it’s just how the concrete form of existence (in the abstract) presents itself as itself.
4. So with discrete experiences by definition being relative, the opening post’s statement of “There are no necessary truths” is explained.

Experientialism makes philosophy’s formerly “peculiar study of language” much clearer, right down to its logical fundaments - as tabbed out just above.

There’s a later glib comment about the seemingly paradoxical “The truth is that there is no truth”.
Experientialism solves this as well:
By differentiating Truth from utility, the seeming paradox resolves to something like “There is utility but it is not truth”.
The corrected version retains the meaning of “no truth” in the seemingly paradoxical version, yet it eliminates its apparent internal contradiction by more accurately putting the statement in terms of utility instead of truth.

The trick Iambiguous uses to take over peoples system is asking truly stupid questions, making people feel superior and confident to engage, and then once they are engaged and uttering statements, very cleverly misinterpreting these statements. So the misled innocents get angry and indignant and are left with a combination of feeling superior and feeling frustrated. This cocktail is sufficient to keep peoples passions tied to him.

You mean that gaps in experience are not experienced.
This does not suffice to postulate continuous experience as a ground; rather it is a resulting appearance.

Does truth precede claims or did truth not arise until a humanlike creature thought the first claim?

I guess since I’m playing devil’s advocate and doubtless already in over my head…reality doesn’t mean empirical to me, but I’m not a philosopher. I define reality as all there is and existence as the empirical world. Reality would be potentially bigger and the source of existence.

I beg to differ. In another thread I noted a compatibilist pattern to empirical existence…ever-changing matter can only change under the supervision of, and according to the ‘rules’ imposed by the suppositionally immutable non-contact forces. If this pattern holds true (as I believe it does) it demonstrates the function of the absolute as not only a function of but necessary to the material sphere. Seems to me that without the supervision of the absolute, matter, which has little o no organizing principle of itself, would descend into chaos or simply disperse into nothing that could be recognized as existence. From this pattern–because I’m a theist–I posit that the normative/moral/ethical domain exists in some greater reality than our existence and operates under the same sort of rule: absolute managing the mutable. Why is this wrong?

Does this mean that portions of reality do not exist?

Matter certainly has organizing principle in itself - it is an organizing principle. That is to say, there is no way of looking at matter without also looking at organization process.
Matter includes several types of forces, which together constitute a continuous “organization”.

Screen Shot 2019-11-21 at 7.33.02 PM.png982×315 50.1 KB

This is correct. Yet what else is there to go by?
It is appearance, reportedly in the same type of way (if not with exactly the same content) for everyone, and so anything beyond that is what results from such an appearance - including and not limited to conceptions of gaps in experience that are not experienced. They all unavoidably boil down to that same origin in experience with no apparent gaps.

To turn this round and say that appearance results from something else has no directly evident grounds. Only Continuous Experience is a directly evident ground from which to derive anything else that results from it. Anything else is indirect and therefore not fundamental.