These are not universal truths...

[iambiguous]

What is most interesting about the problem of universals is that it is still discussed.

Is it then a universal truth that "what is most interesting about the problem of universals is that it is still discussed"?

Or is it just one man's opinion?

[Faust]

Puerile

[iambiguous]

Puerile

Is this a universal truth about my post?

Or just one man's opinion. Embedded in, among other things, dasein.

[Dan~]

What is a faustian truth?

I wonder about this.
I can guess, and it may not be purely made of straw.

We can only know something, if we can feel it or sense it with our senses.

The highest abstraction is merely made of elements.

Truth as a thing, requires support, from and of elements.

Truth is about language only because language is elemental.

Gas is elemental for driving a car.

Activity is when elements align.

Thought is a form of activity.

With the right elements, we can make an image of an event.

A good truth is like a mirror.

[Faust]

We know something to the extent that we can make true statements about that something.

Knowledge, like truth and like everything else that is of interest to a philosopher, exists on a continuum.

Purely binary thinking, like iam's, is a great impediment to even understanding this.

[Fixed Cross]

Freedom means active, class-distinction.

One youtube user said:
"When you want to be somewhere, and you are there, you are then free."

A good truth is like a mirror.

good stuff

[iambiguous]

We know something to the extent that we can make true statements about that something.

Knowledge, like truth and like everything else that is of interest to a philosopher, exists on a continuum.

Purely binary thinking, like iam's, is a great impediment to even understanding this.

Is the assertion that my thinking is "purely binary" a universal truth or is it just one man's opinion?

Again, let's bring these abstract intellectual contraptions out into the world of human interaction.

With respect to a particular context let's explore the extent to which someone's thinking either is or is not "purely binary".

My argument is that with respect to value judgments it is not likely that universal truths exist because in my opinion the moral and political narratives embodied in "I" are rooted subjectively/intersubjectively in an identity/self encompassed out in the world of human interactions as existential contraptions.

Thus suggesting in turn that the tools available to philosophers here have a limited use and exchange value.

[Faust]

What?

[Faust]

So what of the other alternatives to "universal truth" and "one man's opinion"?

But before we get that advanced, that it is an opinion misses the entire point. You're making a big fat category error.

Do you know what that category error might be? Do you know what "binary" means?

I don't think that you do know.

Does it help to know that expressing my opinion could produce a true statement?

It's not "a truth" at all. What is a truth? What does a truth look like?

[iambiguous]

So what of the other alternatives to "universal truth" and "one man's opinion"?

First, we need a context. A situation involving human interactions in which the use of such words as "universal truth" and "one man's opinion" would be germane. Otherwise we get into these pissing contests pinning down the philosophically correct definitions of such words used in an argument that only defends other words.

But before we get that advanced, that it is an opinion misses the entire point. You're making a big fat category error.

Same thing. In grappling to pin down the technical meaning of a "category error" let's bring that out into the world of human interactions in turn. You choose the context.

For example, in regard to the gun control debate, how close can we come to a universal truth? In regard to the use of guns in particular contexts, how close are actual facts able to be demonstrated as true objectively for all of us to a universal truth? Juxtaposed with truths that can be established for all of us in regard to, say, the optimal -- most rational -- set of laws that either prescribe or proscribe behaviors related to the use of guns.

Do you know what that category error might be? Do you know what "binary" means?

I don't think that you do know.

As others here will confirm, my primary interest lies in taking words that "serious philosophers" like you claim to have a thorough grasp on "technically", out into the world and see how they use that understanding relating to the things that are of most interest to me: identity, value judgments and political power.

How they come to be intertwined existentially given a particular context in which to explore the meaning we ascribe to them "in our head".

Does it help to know that expressing my opinion could produce a true statement?

It's not "a truth" at all. What is a truth? What does a truth look like?

No, what would help me considerably more is taking abstract "assessments" like this and substantiating them in regard to a description of and a reaction to contexts in which the use of the words "universal truth" might generate conflicting points of view.

[Faust]

You are incapable of conversation.

[Karpel Tunnel]

We know something to the extent that we can make true statements about that something.

then in baby steps....

We have a statement about something.

X is B.

We have to have criteria to decide if it is true. How do we decide if X is B?

Could be that we check and expect that certain things happen when we examine X.

Some would say we check for certain things.

But I'd want to emphasize process and events in epistemology. What happens when we look rather than what do we see?

[Fixed Cross]

You are incapable of conversation.

If we were looking for evidence of the existence of universal truths.

[Fixed Cross]

Being requires an actual valuation of what one is being presented with, the response cant be completely a priori.

Hence there is always a certain questioning to being, a wondering how it shall continue to be, namely, what it will be encountering outside and inside of itself.
The mind is either changing patterns outside by fixing patterns inside or changing patterns inside by fixing patterns outside, always serving as a valve and a fortress against the pure encounter of being. It needs to be "destroyed" in order to represent being in a fertile way, this is why humans are not orderly beings on the whole. The preemptive defence of the mind against pure encounter being is the most well known problem to humans. The whole a priori structure of the mind is a concoction which serves mostly itself; in as far as it is supposed to refer to the world it is nonsensical, its only purpose for the mind is a place to ground suspension of conclusions.

[iambiguous]

You are incapable of conversation.

I'm sorry, but we still need a context here. Your technical understanding of universal truth and my own attempt to encourage you to bring that understanding out into the world that we live and interact in.

Again, don't pass up an opportunity to expose just how and why I am incapable of conversation.

In other words, by focusing the conversation itself on a set of circumstances in which some see universals truths while others see existential fabrications.

Or, sure, keep embarrassing yourself by avoiding that part altogether.

[iambiguous]

You are incapable of conversation.

If we were looking for evidence of the existence of universal truths.

Just out of curiosity, how close does value ontology come to being one?

I've been trying now for years to get you to bring that out into the world of actual human interactions.

[Ecmandu]

I won this debate against iambiguous last year...

Trixie, before being banned, even stated as much...

Universal truth:

Nobody wants their consent violated

Iambiguous consent violations:

-Conflicting goods

-fractured sense of self.

Iambiguous argument is a subset of my argument

Here's how mind really works...

The older it gets, the more that it loathes zero sum realities.

Think about the depth of most people's spirits in this world for a moment...

That which they celebrate the most is zero sum wins...

House, wife, job...

The mind of the young is inverted.

As the mind grows older, it grieves all of its past successes in life here.

And that truly is how the mind works.

Why choose something you'll have to grieve in the future?

These are universal truths, nobody escapes them

[Pedro I Rengel]

We actually have this game in Venezuela. I'll play it with you, it's fun if you never have before.

Do you want me to tell you the story of the bald chicken?

[promethean75]

He was running around like a chicken with his hair cut off, right?

[Ecmandu]

We actually have this game in Venezuela. I'll play it with you, it's fun if you never have before.

Do you want me to tell you the story of the bald chicken?

I don't play or watch games anymore.

I'm not kidding when I stated that the older a mind becomes, the more that it hates zero sum realities.

Young minds seek the conquest.

If I wanted to pool my resources, I could live a 100% non contradictory life. I choose not to. I am celibate however. Not for some religious reason, but because of how difficult it is to sexually select me without consent violation involved. And I'm perfectly content with this. If one of the loopholes presents itself, I will partner with someone sexually in the way that I do, but the odds are minuscule

[Ecmandu]

I want to add to my post above and I meant to include it earlier but forgot:

Meta arguments are not treated the same as the subset arguments.

What I mean by this is that if everyone on earth told me that their consent was being violated because I point out that nobody wants their consent violated; I'm the one with the objective argument for non consent violation. I am also in the position of truth, and as truth, am not subject to being treated like everyone else; I am greater than.

All you have to do is agree with truth, and you too will be greater than.

This truth itself is very humble, unlike conquest truths.

[Faust]

So, iam. What is a philophically correct definition of "one man's opinion"? You brought it up, evidently without context, for you are calling for one now. But what is the definition you had in mind when you introduced the term?

Please don't mention the belly of anything or the fact that your personality shatters when you try to make a decision. The first is bad poetry and the second is a feature of mental illness. Let's just try to talk as if not every thing anyone says is somehow about you and you alone.

[iambiguous]

So, iam. What is a philophically correct definition of "one man's opinion"? You brought it up, evidently without context, for you are calling for one now. But what is the definition you had in mind when you introduced the term?

I don't know how to explain it any differently. My interest here revolves more around taking the manner in which [technically] a philosopher might define and then differentiate a personal opinion from a universal truth out into the world and situating the definitions themselves in a specific context such that the definitions can be aligned both with a description of the situation and our reaction to it if and when value judgments come into conflict and precipitate conflicting behaviors that precipitate actual consequences.

Given my gun control example above, what objective facts can be garnered that might come closest to that which some would define as a universal truth? I mean, sure, one can argue that universal truths don't exist, but there are any number of actual flesh and blood human beings who insist that not only are there demonstrable facts here true universally for all of us [on planet Earth], but there are objective moral narratives and political agendas that, as far as they are concerned, are in turn something that all rational and virtuous human beings are obligated to accept.

And, if they acquire the necessary power, others are obligated...or else.

That's the world that we live in. And that's the world that in my view serious philosophers will either address with regard to their definitions or they won't.

Please don't mention the belly of anything or the fact that your personality shatters when you try to make a decision. The first is bad poetry and the second is a feature of mental illness. Let's just try to talk as if not every thing anyone says is somehow about you and you alone.

Again, you can choose the context. You can choose the behaviors in conflict such that our respective assessments can be discussed as being more or less in sync with your own definition/assessment of universal truth.

But you can be sure that my own "existential contraption" here will revolve around the manner in which I react to human interactions at the intersection of identity/dasein, value judgments/conflicting goods and political economy/the power of enforcement.

[Faust]

But you are asking someone who finds the term "universal truth" incoherent to provide an example of a universal truth. Do you actully read any of my posts?

And you cannot provide a definition of "personal opinion"?

Is english your first language?

[Fixed Cross]

Don't be too harsh. Im convinced that he sometimes does kind of read a few lines of a post. More in a scanning fashion looking for a keyword he can "ask a question about" but still, he sometimes does let his eyes linger on the posts he responds to. It cant be more than a few seconds but hey, he's... him.