These are not universal truths...

To the extent others here do construe an exchange with me as a “fight”, I am more than willing to concede that my point of view is no less an existential contraption. I’m not arguing that my understanding of “universal truth” is the right one. I’m suggesting only that however it is understood by others [conceptually, by definition, in a world of words] it needs to be explored contextually out in the world of human interactions.

Out in the world that we live and interact in, there seem to be things and relationships able to be demonstrated as true for all of us. While other things are believed to be true by us in our heads but are less able to be demonstrated to others.

On this thread, others will either take the “statements” they make regarding “universal truth” and ground them in particular sets of circumstances or they won’t.

As for the fight with our selves, that is no less embedded, situated. Either in a world of words or in an actual existential context. What can we say regarding those things we think, feel, say or do? And, then, what can we in fact establish as true such that all rational men and women are going to share our assessment?

It’s not whether:

It’s whether you want me to tell you the story of the bald chicken?

Iambiguous,

I’m not sure how many times I have to repeat this before it sticks and/or you reply…

If any beings consent is being violated, anywhere in existence, we can objectively state that existence is ‘evil’.

We know people’s consent is currently being violated in existence; we know existence is currently evil.

The question then becomes, “will existence always be consent violating?”

If we can prove that existence will always be consent violating, we can objectively assess that existence is not only conditionally ‘evil’, but rather inherently and irreconcilably ‘evil’.

That would be an objective universal truth, but even further, a moral/ ethical objective universal truth.

There are ways to objectivly analyze these types of questions.

If it necessarily is the case that existence violates consent in perpetuity, then ethics solves as this: violate as much consent as you possibly can for the best life.

No, as a matter of fact, it doesn’t even come close. More to the point, that you are actually able to think yourself into believing that it does?!

From my frame of mind, you come at me with things like this:

How is this not just intellectual gibberish? What does it denote regarding the points I raise above pertaining to “the relationship between describing what some construe to be universal truths in regard to human interactions in conflict over value judgments, statements about them, and how to differentiate them technically…”

Choose a context and we can exchange our current understanding of “objective truth” and “universal truth”. Then in that actual substantive exchange if a straw man pops up you can pounce on him. Expose to everyone here exactly what you mean by the accusation itself.

Or, instead, are observations of this sort all just tongue in cheek?

Well, why don’t we start with what you construe to be the most epistemologically sound statement that can be made about “universal truth”; and then the most epistemologically sound statement that can be made about astrology.

And then bring both statements out into the world and, contextually, examine their relevance relating to that which is of most interest to me here: the nature of truth in regard to conflicting goods as the embodiment of daseins intertwined in any particular political economy out in a particular world.

Sure, Kid, go ahead, why not.

I consent to you repeating it 3.14159265359 more times. Then, after consulting with Max Cohen and Darren Aronofsky, we’ll see.

Note to others:

That’s the best you can do? Trying to mock me for word salad? I can assure you, my reply to your posting history is clear and sane.

Okay, that’s 1.

2.14159265359 more to go.

Speaking of pi, how close does this…

geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5 … igits.html

…come to a universal truth?

You seemed incredulous that Faust did not think it was coherent. Then you defined it. If you don’t think your definition is the right one why is it your definition? I could understand you saying you are not sure if it is the right one, but to define X and they say that your definition of X is not one you think is right means that you are just wasting people’s time.

Sure. But if we don’t even know what ‘it’ is how could we possibly explore it contextually out in the world of human activities.

A: I don’t think alskdjflaölös is coherent.
Iamb: give us some concrete examples of alskdjflaölös.
A: huh?
Iamb: I think alskdjflaölös means Y. And why is no one applying it to concrete real world examples?

[pause]

Iamb: I don’t believe my definition of alskdjflaölös is right. But I want people to talk about alskdjflaölös in the world of conflicting goods.
A, B, C…etc.: huh?

Well, if Faust thinks the phrase makes no sense, he can’t. There are a few people who don’t think the phrase makes sense. Zero Sum does think it makes sense and he gave an example. For what it’s worth.

Right, if it is not considered coherent by others, that means they don’t understand what it means. So there is no how it is understood that can then be explored in via concrete examples.

You could acknowledge this, apologize to Faust for your humbler than thou irrelevent insults and then ask the minority of people here who think it makes sense how they would apply it in concrete situations.

Of course this would be a tangent. It’s not what the OP was about. This is your concern. It’s a good one, but as usual you try to move every thread into becoming one of the threads of yours people avoid. Which you may interpret as their great fear of nihilism. Might be that. Might be something else. Might vary.

But your interaction carries the weight of ‘should’, over and over. It should be talked about it like this, relating it to conflicting goods.

Despite your hypothetical nihilism.

Notice your use of the passive: it needs…

It doesn’t need. You want.

Why hide in the passive? Why present your desire as objective need?

[please consider that question rhetorical. not in the sense that I know the answer or that we do, but rather that you are being disingenuous…for some reason or other]

No no, it’s not:

It’s: do you want me to tell you the story of the bald chicken?

On the other hand, which came first, the bald chicken or the bald egg? You know, going back to a definitive understanding of existence itself. Or God, if He came first.

No, no, no… It is not:

It is: do you want me to tell you the story of the bald chicken?

Iambiguous,

Really!? That was your big trick? You’re coming at me with math? Dude. Bad idea.

Any irrational or transcendental number can be made rational by making it the base.

Base pi.

I really don’t want to bother with you if you’re going to pull this cutsie shit on me.

I have a real argument that is outstanding and you haven’t addressed it in your posting history, the argument against your posting history.

Bump , in case it was missed.

True is true and “universal” adds no meaning to it. It’s really as simple as that. I was about to make a very long post about this, which I may yet.

Mine is not an argument having anything to do with gun ownership. It’s with your formulation “universal truth.” Here, you’re calling the second amendment a universal truth and bemoaning the fact that it doesn’t settle arguments. This is literal nonsense.

I guess you’re trying to say “If anything is a universal truth, the second amendment is and it still doesn’t settle political disputes.”

But it’s not a truth of any kind, universal or not. And there have been uncountable disputes over the bill of rights since its adoption (and before). So you’re setting up a strawman. No one thinks of the second amendment as “a truth.” Plenty use it to support their political views.

So what?

My personal view is that most people should be able to own (some) firearms by right but that this right is not established in the second amendment. But I’m not a supreme court justice and certainly am not five of them. It’s important to note that the constitution does not exist empirically. Any more than a novel does. It is important only because the ideas therein contained are accepted, by people who count, if not by many Republican congresmen at the moment, as foundational to our government. But the constitution has been viewed differently over time. Was gay marriage rights always in there somewhere? Presumably, but SCOTUS never quite saw it before.

It’s not even close to a “truth”.

It is true that women are shorter than men. But it is not universally true. It is true as an average, not a universal truth.

see what i mean? you guys are fiddling around and that’s what’s making this so confusing. you gotta go on a case by case basis and watch your statements. tell em, faust.

that first sentence needs a quantifier or by default everyone will think you mean ‘all’ women… which clearly isn’t true, much less universally true.

the last statement has issues too. if most women are shorter than men, the statement ‘most women are shorter than men’ would be universally true… so long as there are no women taller than men unaccounted for on some other planet.

in this case, being true ‘as an average’ is just the condition of the universally true statement ‘most women are shorter than men’, so the statement ‘it is true as an average, not a universal truth’ is misleading.

tell em, faust. tell em man.

This happens all the time, which is why I say that you cannot do philosophy until you have mastered a language. It’s why I say that philosophy is only a peculiar study of language.

Statements, claims, propositions, declarative sentences. These are where you look for something that is true. But many utterances that look like claims to truth are not.

“Universal” is a metaphysical modifier. To even us this kind of modifier catapults your thinking into metaphysics.

The question of truth is much simpler than that.

That is none of my concern. But you strike me as weaker than you sometimes seem when you comment on a theory you haven’t learned.
If you had stated your erroneous understanding after having made an attempt to understand, it would be a bit sad, but that you present assertions about a theory without even having made an attempt to learn it, is also a bit sad.
How would you respect someone who went around saying “Silhouette’s Experientalism says that experience isn’t real” or something completely contradictory to what you’re actually saying? Not very much, or?

Anyway, no harm done, feel free to study whenever you like and address me with an informed position. Also feel free to keep ignoring it.
To be honest Im proud of how difficult the valuator logic is to handle. It is, in the tradition Nietzsche set out, a selecting mechanism.