For example, should we kill osama bin laden or not.
Nobody has a proof for this. So… it’s not a universal truth which way is correct.
Universal truths refer to proven truths. They actually have proof structure, like the proof for fermats last theorem in mathematics.
I hear lots of people discount tautologies as non signifiers. Definitions are self evident, they are grounded in experience:
When I say for example that it is morally true for all possible beings that nobody wants their consent violated, the smarmy logitician will come in and say, “people don’t want what they don’t want” is a meaningless LOGICAL tautology. But, it’s more than what logical operators encompass, because, everyone knows what it actually means, and everyone knows that it’s the most self evident aspect of existence for beings that exist (have a yes/no operator)
So yes, in the absence of proofs, it is useful to state that some truths are universal and some are not
From my frame of mind, your argument is about lining up the right words in the right order. Words that merely define and then defend other words. And, here, as often as not, in pedantic intellectual contraptions.
That way the only time these precious words have to make any contact at all with actual extant things like the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution is technically.
And then when men and women struggle, say, for all practical purposes to encompass the closest thing we’ve got to objective truth in interacting with others, you thump them upside the head with “arguments” like “‘Universal truth’, however, is nonsense in any context - it’s universally nonsensical.”
As though they were the fools here when the discussions do revolve around the manufacture, sale and use of firearms.
Well, if “getting there” means sounding anything at all like you do in discussing human truths and falsehoods, I’ll take my chances down here on the ground.
Definitional logic has it’s place, sure. Just not in the discussions that are of most interest to me.
With respect to human relationships that revolve around the manufacture, sale and use of firearms, you can define words like “universal”, “objective”, “moral”, “freedom”, “justice” etc., until you are blue in the face. Then you can take the conclusions you derive from those definitions out into the world and defend them by way of the behaviors you choose.
iam - I think you feel the way you do because you just don’t argue. You don’t try to make a case. You repeaet the same points for years and years and never advance your case, because you don’t try to advance your case.
Abortion is legal because people made arguments for it (as well as against it). SCOTUS presented its own argument for the legalization of abortion. Same with gun rights - people made cases. That’s what actually does happen in the real world. People make a case and sometimes it gets to SCOTUS or somewhere else where it actually counts. The justices present their own cases, majority and dissent. Those cases, those arguments, are presented in their decisions.
And sometimes, philosophy is involved. In fact, in these kinds of cases, it always is, at least indirectly.
People who actually make decisions and get things done that affect real lives (and real deaths) use logic, moral reasoning, choose words carefully. That is the real world. If you joined that world, you would already know that.
Negotiation and compromise requires engagement. It requires an attempt at finding common ground and not robotic repitition of self-styled dogma. That dogma precludes negotiation and compromise.
I get it. You’re a working class beast-belly guy and you don’t like philosophers. You’re a message-board tough guy. BFD.
“Most Greek thinkers, on the other hand, commended abortion, at least prior to viability. See PLato, Republic, V, 461; Aristotle, Politics VII 1335b 25. For the Pythagoreans, however, it was a matter of dogma.”
But my case is that the cases themselves are constructed existentially given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy given the manner in which they are embedded/embodied historically, culturally and experientially given that which can or cannot be demonstrated as true or false for all of us. Here as close as as we are able to come for all practical purposes to an objective truth or an objective falsehood.
Arguing over what – technically, logically, epistemologically – constitutes an objective or universal truth may be a fascinating exercise among serious philosophers. But how important then are their conclusions when we get down to the nitty gritty of reacting [morally, politically, legally] to particular contexts relating to the conflicts that revolve around things like abortion or gun control.
I “advance my case” in the arguments made in my signature threads. Here, what else is there?
Yes, but the crucial distinction I make here are between arguments said to be derived from such disciplines as philosophy, science, sociology, political theory, psychology etc., and arguments derived more from the components of my own moral philosophy in a No God world.
In other words, the objectivists here among us have no qualms whatsoever in concluding that their own moral narrative and political agenda reflect that which, as far as they are concerned, are universal truths. And trust me: not just technically.
What I am in regard to issues like abortion and gun control re truth and falsehood in the is/ought world, is the embodiment of the points I raise here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
This either resonates with others or it does not.
And while one can shrug and say “so what?” to the fact that “people struggle”, – or call that a universal truth – I feel it is important to grapple with the components of that struggle existentially. For example, out in the world of actual human interactions.
Again, my point revolves less around what these men thought about abortion back then, and more around how they came to derive their individual conclusions. To what extent did they attribute their own political prejudices to “thinking through” the conflict using the tools of philosophy or theology? As opposed to how their own value judgments were no less the embodiment of dasein confronting conflicting goods in a particular political economy.
Why are you arguing with me, who doesn’t have “objective truth” in his vocabulary? Your first post on this thread was sarcasm, aimed at anyone who actually wants to do some philosopy. Then you want to know if a statement I made is universal truth or just opinion.
You are a snarky troll. You repeatedly ask the same question like a rude seven year old.
You just argue with anyone. But your arguments suck. They are nonresponsive. You just want to fill space with your original position on life and how you’re in a complete panic over the loss of god. Or some loss you cannot get over. Ambiguous grief, they call it.
Why are you arguing with me, who is not an “objectivist”.
Your points do not resonate with me or anyone else. So why don’t you get the fuck off this thread?
I know I could just ignore you. But you are certainly not concerned with my arguments or your own. You’re just angry. You keep talking about universal truths. Why? They don’t exist.
I actually don’t care if you get off the thread. It wasn’t a rhetorical question, though.
I’m gonna start a thread about possible worlds. You won’t understand it, but I’m sure you’ll weigh in.
You are asking me to explain that which motivates my intentions in posting here when I am the first to acknowledge how the intertwining genetic/memetic variables that encompass my “lived life” were, are and will continue to be in so many crucial respects beyond either my complete understanding or control. After all, I have attempted to grope and grapple with this many times with others here.
I merely suggest in turn that this is almost certainly applicable to you [and to them] as well.
And, in part, it revolves around this:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles
This truly resonates with me, but how do I explain it definitively even to myself?
And then these parts:
I merely assume that folks like you want to steer clear of assumptions of this sort. After all, what do they tell us about the profound limitations imposed on anyone intent on becoming a “serious philosopher”?
Then the part that revolves around a deep-seated and genuine interest in morality on this side of the grave, and the fate of “I” on the other side of it.
And, finally, the part that revolves around “waiting for godot”. And in a mind that has always been prone to polemics.
Of course this doesn’t surprise me. Over the years, I have driven any number of Kids, objectivists, and serious philosophers to retorting, to huffing and puffing, to making me issue.
I can only leave it to others to determine for themselves why this is the case.
Right. As though I am not able to make the same points about you and your own “technical arguments”. My “thing” however is to take “world of words” accusations of this sort down off the skyhooks and note their relevancy in regard to actual human interactions.
No? You come here and, among other things, insist that “universal truths” are “complete nonsense”. You pin me to the mat with your psycho-babble assertions in order to expose the “real me” to everyone else. You seethe with this indignant self-righteous sense of certainty…but you’re not an objectivist.
For example:
Note to others:
By all means, decide for yourself what this tells you about him. It certainly speaks volumes about one of us.
That I am still able to bring otherwise intelligent and articulate philosophers to this state never ceases to amaze me. Or is it surprise me?
On the other hand, they’ve got a hell of a lot more to lose if my own assumptions about the human condition come closer to the mark.
We know that for you ‘serious philosophers’ is pejorative. So, you started a thread with an insult. IOW you made the other participants in the thread the issue, right off the bat.
I know, you are too fragmented to notice anything you do or to take even the slightest responsibility for people thinking you are like lice.
There is nothing provocative in grappling with universal truth
Because trying to understand our place in the grand scheme of things is a truly noble if ultimately superfluous thing to do
Should you want to then it will suck an awful lot of energy and time out of you but that still does not make it provocative
No yo but listen, that’s good to hear. I’ve heard you describe girls like you are describing carpets. Not specific ones, I secretly suspect you to be a man of taste, but girls as a phenomenon.
Nah can’t get into her. Went to her channel to check her out. My first impression; wealthy chick who fell into some money by no effort of her own needs a subject matter as an excuse to show off her ass on camera so she made a motorcycle vlog. no thanks. I mean she’s definitely fuckable, but not someone who’d keep my attention for too long.
A claim of “Universal” or “objective” truth is neither true nor false. It’s incoherent.
Now, that’s a claim to truth. Every declarative sentence we make that purports to be about the real world is a claim to truth. It’s really not necessarily a claim to “objective” truth. Certainly my objection to the term is not derivative of some idea of objective truth. My objection is that it is nonsense.
Iam uses the word, yet cannot define it.
If you tell me that 2+2=5 and I object, claiming that 2+2=4, you could say I’m objecting on “technical grounds.” So what?
Encountering “2+2” as an existentialist is another bullshit phrase.
“In a world sans God” is another bullshit phrase. As if there were at one time a god, and that he has somehow escaped, or died, or is hiding in Kent. Or did God’s “I” fracture?
Can you hold your breath long enough without suffocating? I want to know if you can exist without the objectivism of oxygen. Prove to us that you’re a God where objective rules or laws don’t apply to you.
Language analysis is a cop-out.
Who needs cops anyway? They used to give tickets, raid adult films, etc.
Law? Well it’s ok as it is not black letter.(didn’t mean that figuratively)
