These are not universal truths...

Exactly. However one defines “universal” or “objective” truth, there are certain behaviors clearly producing a result that comes as close as we are able to “here and now” to encompassing it “for all practical purposes”.

What I then do is to shift the discussion to a context that revolves around, say, waterboarding. Is it “objectively” or “universally” moral or immoral to practice this technique when interrogating an enemy combatant? Given that drowning and killing him/her is one possible outcome if you go too far.

No no iambiguous. It is not whether:

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

It’s a nice ass though don’t it?

I like how she took the time to paint her fingernails before shooting the video.

oh it’s a phenomenal ass. the two give-aways are; in every video she’s wearing skin tight britches. never something baggier. not even once. and two, she mounts the motorcycle cam behind her so we see her ass as she rides. her channel should be called ‘TWAAA’ (two wheels and an ass) instead of to wheels and a ponytail.

and how did a young girl in her late twenties get enough money to have a place like that, and what, five motorcycles? i dunno maybe i’m wrong. maybe she’s got some character and some work ethic and has actually earned those things. i’m just going with my gut feeling in the first impression. i wanna say daddy or husband or insurance settlement or inheritance and not a legitimate job. but hey, for all i know she might be a frickin orthodontist.

Who cares man?

I only watched the one video though lol. It was given to me by youtube and by me to you.

i care, because it’s about…

“the honest person inside all of that cover.” - pedro I rengel

besides, when i see a fellow female bike enthusiast, i wanna be able to say ‘yo i could ride with her’ and not just ‘yo i’d let her ride me’.

Lol I don’t even think she qualifies as a bike enthusiast. She just… has a bike.

no she’s the real McCoy. races and pops wheelies and everything. even replaced her own clutch plates. sigh

HAHAHAHAHAHA

I think you gotta go to Italy.

Or maybe you can’t legaly. But I’m sure there is some Eastern European state with laxer rules.

Fucking Kids, right?

Only why must they bring their act to the philosophy boards?! #-o

Where’s only_humean when you need him!! :wink:

No Iam. It’s not

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

There is what we call “objective reality.” Reality and truth have been confounded for centuries. See Hegel on this matter. I know there are people here who think this does not matter. I know they think I’m just playing language games. I also know that there are a lot of people here who can’t think their way out of a paper bag, because they believe that technique is not required for philosophy.

You can have all the feeling in the world for music, but if you don’t know how to make a C major chord, please don’t pick up a guitar.

So you’re admitting there are indeed universal truths like the need of oxygen then? :sunglasses:

If so, how do you establish what is universal truth and what isn’t?

I am admitting no such thing.

I am contrasting reality and truth.

“Objective reality” is in most senses redundant. But it’s useful when we are describing reality “outside” ourselves. Of course, we are in any case inside each other’s reality. In the end, there is what we call reality. Except we differ on what exactly that is.

As I have stated, “truth” does not sensibly apply to oxygen, but only to statements.

Nice try.

I don’t think you are playing language games. I think that you are misunderstanding the intent of the language.

I admit understanding objective truth [universal truth] in a social context is a lot harder objectively than measuring gravity or oxygen but I would also argue that it still is objectively possible. Certainly concerning social contexts there is much up to debate because not all human beings think alike, it is that differentiation of human thoughts or minds that makes articulating objective truth within the social context extremely difficult.

“Language game” is not unlike most things. You can define it and/or encompass it in an assessment such as this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_game_(philosophy

But there is still the part where you bring this down out of the technical clouds and take them out into the world in order to discuss them more substantively given a particular context.

In other words, how is the language actually used to describe a specific set of circumstances? How is it used to judge the descriptions of others? How is it determined which words make the most rational sense in regard to these descriptions and judgments?

Here the technical components can become more or less complex. And the gap between what we think the words mean and what others think they mean instead gets more or less convoluted given the extent to which the language needs to bridge the gap between the either/or and the is/ought world.

But eventually we will need an actual “situation” if we wish to address these conflicts more substantially.