These are not universal truths...

Iambiguous,

I’m going to explain very succinctly why you are notorious (bad popular) on these boards…

You are a bible thumping troll, even if you don’t intend to be, you have deep psychological issues here. Most posters on this board are atheists, and they’re smart… so you have to find a very sophisticated way of being a God troll here, and that’s exactly what you’ve done.

You think objectivity is impossible without God.

Einstein made a theory of special relativity, which we now consider a fact, “It is objectively true in X context”

He spent the rest of his life working on general relativity (true in all contexts) and failed. He never proved it was impossible, he simple failed.

Now, a guy like you comes along and states a million times… “What can we prove in a no God world?”

We’ve proven quite a bit actually! Your protestations are the equivalent of stating “Because Einstein never proved general relativity, special relativity is just a subjective opinion, not really proven.”

This is the thing: You repeatedly assert that in a NO GOD WORLD, unless we have all the answers (are God), that nothing is true.

I can assure you that if you knew EVERYTHING!!! You’d be the most bored dude who ever lived, and so would God…

Your choice here would be to make yourself ignorant about some stuff by the way you set how the cosmos works or kill yourself (because you were so bored).

It never occurs to you that indeterminacy needs to exist for God to exist, and then you go along prattling about all this stuff about how we need to know EVERYTHING in order to know SOMETHING!! sigh

Freewill requires indeterminacy on some level, which is ignorance on some level. This does not mean that we can conclude that morality doesn’t exist however. To be perfectly honest, the evil succeed more on earth than the good, even in feeling happier. What do people generally do when someone states morality is not objective? They gravitate towards evil. They get tired of being shat upon.

The stakes are really high here… do you fight the tough good fight, or the easy evil path? This is what defines a person.

You have thus far defined yourself on the easy path.

On the other hand, has it ever been established [philosophically or otherwise] what it means to actually be of sound mind in discussing things of this sort?

Do you, perchance, have any doubts about your own?

oh yeah no, i’m not saying the language game theory is like some kind of final solution to any number of problems that might arise in ordinary discourse. W’s not advancing the theory for that purpose. he’s only saying that a great majority of philosophical problems are not real concepts that we come along as philosophers and claim we can solve with our language and intellectual tools. he means that those concept-problems are caused by language in the first place, and that usually there is nothing there to be solved. the purpose of philosophy - for these ordinary language philosophers, anyway - is to analyze philosophical language… not to humor it and pretend it’s dealing with real problems. what we’ve got to do, biggs, is bring back their language from vacation so that it can do real work. bring it ‘down from the clouds’, as it were. and it looks like it’s just you and me, kiddo, so we gotta stay on em if we’re to make any progress here at ILP.

Thats good philosophy.
Its hard to get at in conventional terms.

Does Werklempter have any “terms”.

Iambiguous,

It’s really simple why you’re the fool. You use language and truth to argue that language is separate from truth. You chose the wrong side.

:laughing:

Or, sure, possibly: :banana-dance:

Honestly, can philosophy get any more serious? Here this sort of exchange is the context!!!

The idea that man is made in god’s image, and can only do what god has decreed for him to do, is an old religion.
An expression of a need for absolution, seeking justification in the divine.

If all is determined then there’s nobody to blame but that which determines it.
Universal salvation achieved.
Jesus dies upon the cross to take upon himself the sins of mankind.
The majority have accepted the offer, even if they would not admit it openly.

There are words. And then there is the world that words were invented to circumnavigate, to describe, to assess, to [in any number of contexts] judge.

One way or another, we can only do our best to connect the dots between them. Language was not invented [re the biological evolution of life on Earth] in order to culminate in philosophy. It was invented first and foremost to sustain human interaction from day to day “for all practical purposes”.

In that respect [from my frame of mind], it all comes closer to the speculatioins of folks like Marx than to folks like Hegel.

Definitions can revolve around actual things and relationships [in the either/or world] we are able to demonstrate as “in fact” true. And the overwhelming preponderance of the words we use from day to day accomplish precisely that.

It is only with respect to the words we use to judge the behaviors of others as either “moral” or “immoral”, “good” or “bad”, that the dictionary definitions become increasingly more problematic when words acquire a use value and an exchange value out in the world of conflicting goods. Given a particular context.

Or when words are used to discuss and to debate the relationship between our day to day interactions and the really, really Big Questions:

  • why is there something rather than nothing?
  • why this something and not something else?
  • how do we to explain the relationship between universal reality and quantum reality?
  • do we have free will?
  • does God exist?
  • what happens after we die?
  • etcetera…

Or, rather, here and now, so it seems to me.

But, come on, I remind myself, what are the odds that, in the context of “all there is”, the infinitesimally tiny speck of existence that is “I” can ever possibly presume that his “story” is the one and only true explanation?

Whenever someone ends or begins a sentence with ‘from my frame of mind’ or ‘the way I misconstrue dasein’ then we can be certain, within a relative doubt, that he si saying that what he things is a standard we must all abide by.
It raises subjectivity as the presumed standard for everything that follows.

It seems clear that this individual will only, accept one answer:
All are equally wrong, and so we must gather together and make compromises, finding some middle ground in our shared error to live with.
It’s a way of excusing idiocy…one’s own.

Okay, let’s take your own “general description” assessment here out into the world and explore your point given a particular context.

What becomes the most rational standard by which to measure truth [universal or otherwise] in regard to a set of circumstances in which what is said to be true about particular human behaviors comes into dispute.

Let’s pin down “idiocy”…existentially.

You choose the context.

From what I know, to measure something,value or judge it…you must have an objective in mind.
Nothing is innately or intrinsically good/ or bad, valuable or worthless…but only in relation to an objective.

What is your objective?
Universal equality, peace on earth…an end to strife?

Iambiguous,

I practice something that I call “cafeteria style spirituality”: You take what you want and leave what you don’t want.

Now, I don’t agree with a lot of what the buddha taught, but I do carry this with me:

One of the Buddhas disciples asked the Buddha whether God existed or not. The Buddha taught this:

“If someone shoots you with an arrow, it is fruitless to ask who shot it and why, first you must remove the arrow, we have all been shot with the arrow of samsara.” To the buddha, the big questions were absurd, considering the context, and that we were absurd for asking such questions in this context.

Insanity has often been misconstrued for genius…primarily by the masses.
To geniuses insanity is always clear and it announces itself.
I’m no genius, like many of you purport to be here, but I’ve known some, and you people are anything but that.

I’ve never come across a forum populated by so many world-changing, self-promoting, messianic, self-defining geniuses.
This forum is a rare find. A friend pointed it out to me on twitter. Someone you may know…perhaps.

Existence is non-consensual.
We do what we must.
We are thrown into existence without being asked.
We fight and struggle for existence.
This is not a negative…unless you are insecure about the odds.

Well, the odds are devastating to the majority. Devastatingly negative…unless some entity intervenes to slant them our way.
Even so, how mush slant can one mass produce?
Not much…many masses, multiply the mass…but still, in relation to cosmic numbers, an insignificant amount.
By the way…I know you need tit to comfort yourself, but you, particularly you, deserve nothing.
Individuals earn it…and one way is not seeking consent.
Women think this politeness is a weakness. They are correct. Males do not ask, they tell a female what she wants, and she loves it.
But it never lasts.

Yeah, you’re kinda sick in the head. To reply to your last post:

Genius is a definition. An IQ above 135.

By that reckoning, I imagine everyone on this board is a genius.

Then there’s super-genius! This is not rated by IQ, it’s rated by epiphany for the species.

Ae you one of those with an IQ of 135?
I know of another who claims an IQ of 160+ but has nothing to prove it but word-vomit and declarative occultism.
To declare yourself a genius only proves how idiotic you secretly feel.

I am no genius. My IQ has been measured, by experts, at 85.
But you do.
Teach me what it means to be a genius.
There are so many on ILP I think it has to do with birds of a feather flocking together…like flies on a turd.

I give you my consent. Teach me how a genius, like you, thinks.

"An expression of a need for absolution, seeking justification in the divine. "

Or a celebration? A need for a divine image to contain the feeling?

Absolution religions are actually relatively new.

Really?
This is new?

Well like you said, compared to what?

Compared to the other 90% of existing religions?

Brand spanking.