These are not universal truths...

We’ll need a context of course.

How about the impeachment and the removal from office of Donald Trump.

Has he been impeached and removed from office as of today? No, in fact, in the either/or world that we all live in, he is still in office. On the other hand, is that a “universal truth”? Technically as it were?

Now this part:

Should he be removed from office?

Is there an “only correct” answer here as well? And how might any particular individual’s answer, as a value judgment, be construed in turn as either an objective truth or a universal truth?

How is this…

The only correct answer is…“We are all equally wrong, and the only thing left is to make compromises and agree what the most communally beneficial lie is to be our ‘truth’.”
Emphasis on “equally wrong” - parity in the negative.
Power of the Nil

…applicable to my example above?

Intent, imbecile…nothing can be measured without triangulation.

Subject/Object/Motive
What is the goal? The destination.
There is no blanket value-judgment, except in the simple minds of the world.

Trump’s impeachment- as if I could give a fuck what happens to that Zionist - should be evaluated in relation to the desired goal.
Yours is universal parity, no?
I do not believe in this, because I’ve never seen it.
Can you show me an example of absolute parity to be inspired?

Note to others :banana-linedance:

Unless of course I’m wrong.

See…disclaimers.
It is how you evade being an…“evil objectivist”.
An admission of fallibility.
Like the admission of sinfulness.

Then add patronizing cynicism to pretend indifferent superiority, without actually stating it.

Brian…he’s your man-child. Ha!!!
The Power of the Nil.
Seen it a million times.

And over the edge they go!!!

I’ve been doing this to minds of his ilk now for years, but: it still manages to amuse me. In other words, bringing them to this. Fit to be tied. Huffing and puffing, sputtering, babbling, stammering…beside themselves with exasperation.

Or, you know, so it seems to me. :wink:

Ha!!!
Nothing.

Brian…this is the kind of mind you identify with.
I would pity you…but you are innocent, no?
Nothing that happened, happens or will happen to you is of your making.
It’s all part of universal order.

Are you saying me and Biggs is like peas and carrots?

Beef and broccoli.
Shit and stain.

You know if these goddamn Honduran Mexicans would do some fucking work, I might get out of here by five and have some time to do philosophy with you fellas.

It don’t take no thirty minutes to paint a piece of brick molding, Antonio. Vamo-fucking-nos!

I know…you are the best institutionalized mind on the internets.

But back to reality…oops, there goes gravity.
He’s you in fifteen years when fate leads you outside the apartment of an old married hag, peeping in to master-bait, and a mule kicks you in the head as you try to escape her husband’s wrath.
Dead from the neck up.

Nil.

Bro. You stay away from retirement homes and any properties that might have mules on them. That’s like voyeurism 101 dude.

Though to give obscene credit where it is due…
rarely does one see it in such a stubborn neverending form.

It is true that once you have convinced yourself that nil is absolutely, objectively moral or politically correct, you are free to rationalize any and all behaviors.

However unnatural certain objectivists among us insist otherwise.

On the other hand, the objectivists are always stuck thinking and feeling and saying and doing only that which they insist is in sync with the real me in sync with the right [rational] thing to do.

If they dare do otherwise they risk the censure of those who no longer view them as “one of us”. They can then get thrown into, say, the dungeon. Or, for those convinced that Communism or fascism embodies the only “natural behaviors”, they may even be eliminated altogether.

However dangerous and destructive nihilism can be at least the nihilists are afforded so many, many more options. It just depends on how narcissistic or sociopathic they have become as nihilists. The nihilists who control the world’s economy, for example, make life a living hell for the millions who get in the way of their wealth and power. And heaven help those who cross the paths of nihilists who choose to become serial killers and vicious thugs.

But those sort of choices are no more necessarily a part of being a nihilist than the choices of those nihilists who do everything they can to actually make life better for others.

Right?

No matter who you are, you still have a value system, and that immediately makes you not a nihilist.

A true nihilist would just sit and die of dehydration, but the joke is in them, because they had the value of no value

Nihilists can have a personal value system but not a universal one.

News to me. You mean that moral system that applies to all beings (objective) that there are no objective morals? A direct contradiction !

I just made a post about truth tables in philosophy…

You might be interested

That’s a set empty of morals. Therefore it’s not actually a contraction since it’s a non-system.

You have to make a positive statement to make the claim, which makes it not an empty set, which means exception is allowed into the system, which makes the system self contradictory

"If “reality” doesn’t mean “the empirical world” to you, you’re probably a philosopher. If it does, you can relax. You’re gonna be okay. "

Our king Alexander held his Christmas speech and he soothed us by saying “If you’re down on your luck, don’t worry, its okay”.

viewtopic.php?p=2746712#p2746712

If we define truth as an accurate representation of some portion of the universe, then the following quote is weird.

It makes no sense to say that a representation is accurate “today” and not accurate “tomorrow” or that it is accurate “in Africa” but not accurate “in Australia”.

Either it’s accurate or it is not.

Instead, it is what we think is true that can differ from one moment to another and from one place to another.

People tend to confuse “what someone thinks is true” with “what is true”.

This quote has a different problem. Truth (\neq) reality. Truth refers to a representation of reality. It does not refer to reality itself.

This, on the other hand, makes sense.

In this case, the term “universal truth” can be interpreted to be a reference to a representation that is accurate but not completely accurate. If we say something like “Every women is shorter than every man” then this is clearly not completely true, since some women are taller than men, but it’s also not completely false, since most women are shorter than men.

(On the other hand, if it wasn’t meant to be taken literally, if it literally means something like “On average, women are shorter than men”, then the statement is completely true.)