These are not universal truths...

[iambiguous]

Iambiguous,

I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this before it sticks and/or you reply...

I consent to you repeating it 3.14159265359 more times. Then, after consulting with Max Cohen and Darren Aronofsky, we'll see.

Note to others:

That's the best you can do? Trying to mock me for word salad? I can assure you, my reply to your posting history is clear and sane.

Okay, that's 1.

2.14159265359 more to go.

Speaking of pi, how close does this...

http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5 ... igits.html

...come to a universal truth?

[Karpel Tunnel]

. I'm not arguing that my understanding of "universal truth" is the right one.

You seemed incredulous that Faust did not think it was coherent. Then you defined it. If you don't think your definition is the right one why is it your definition? I could understand you saying you are not sure if it is the right one, but to define X and they say that your definition of X is not one you think is right means that you are just wasting people's time.

I'm suggesting only that however it is understood by others [conceptually, by definition, in a world of words] it needs to be explored contextually out in the world of human interactions.

Sure. But if we don't even know what 'it' is how could we possibly explore it contextually out in the world of human activities.

A: I don't think alskdjflaölös is coherent.
Iamb: give us some concrete examples of alskdjflaölös.
A: huh?
Iamb: I think alskdjflaölös means Y. And why is no one applying it to concrete real world examples?

[pause]

Iamb: I don't believe my definition of alskdjflaölös is right. But I want people to talk about alskdjflaölös in the world of conflicting goods.
A, B, C...etc.: huh?

On this thread, others will either take the "statements" they make regarding "universal truth" and ground them in particular sets of circumstances or they won't.

Well, if Faust thinks the phrase makes no sense, he can't. There are a few people who don't think the phrase makes sense. Zero Sum does think it makes sense and he gave an example. For what it's worth.

I'm suggesting only that however it is understood by others...

Right, if it is not considered coherent by others, that means they don't understand what it means. So there is no how it is understood that can then be explored in via concrete examples.

You could acknowledge this, apologize to Faust for your humbler than thou irrelevent insults and then ask the minority of people here who think it makes sense how they would apply it in concrete situations.

Of course this would be a tangent. It's not what the OP was about. This is your concern. It's a good one, but as usual you try to move every thread into becoming one of the threads of yours people avoid. Which you may interpret as their great fear of nihilism. Might be that. Might be something else. Might vary.

But your interaction carries the weight of 'should', over and over. It should be talked about it like this, relating it to conflicting goods.

Despite your hypothetical nihilism.

I'm suggesting only that however it is understood by others [conceptually, by definition, in a world of words] it needs to be explored contextually out in the world of human interactions.

Notice your use of the passive: it needs....

It doesn't need. You want.

Why hide in the passive? Why present your desire as objective need?

[please consider that question rhetorical. not in the sense that I know the answer or that we do, but rather that you are being disingenuous...for some reason or other]

[Pedro I Rengel]

No no, it's not:

Sure, Kid, go ahead, why not.

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

[iambiguous]

No no, it's not:

Sure, Kid, go ahead, why not.

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

On the other hand, which came first, the bald chicken or the bald egg? You know, going back to a definitive understanding of existence itself. Or God, if He came first.

[Pedro I Rengel]

No, no, no.... It is not:

On the other hand, which came first, the bald chicken or the bald egg? You know, going back to a definitive understanding of existence itself. Or God, if He came first.

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

[Ecmandu]

Iambiguous,

Really!? That was your big trick? You're coming at me with math? Dude. Bad idea.

Any irrational or transcendental number can be made rational by making it the base.

Base pi.

I really don't want to bother with you if you're going to pull this cutsie shit on me.

I have a real argument that is outstanding and you haven't addressed it in your posting history, the argument against your posting history.

[obsrvr524]

Bump ,, in case it was missed.

I am pretty sure Faust believes that 'universal truth' is incoherent - though I may be biased since I tend to agree -

Thank you again and you seem a level headed guy, so what is it about the term "universal truth" that seems "incoherent"?

I'm a believer in references so let me provide reasonably reputable source:

Universal definition is - including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception; especially : available equitably to all members of a society.

Truth definition is - the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality

A "Universal Truth" would be a truth that applies to all places and all things.

A truth is considered to be universal if it is logically valid (logical) in and also beyond all times and places.

There doesn't seem to be anything incoherent about any of that so is the real question merely whether any such thing as a universal truth exists?

[Faust]

Since no one in this thread has actually mentioned it, can I note that no one here knows what "universal truth" means? Or is it just that everyone still on this board is in on the game of creating chaos and hopelessness by never revealing such things?

some people think it is not a coherent term. Iambiguous present a definition a page back. I think there are problems with that definition and presented a critique. Others seem to think universal truth means true for everyone. But that is confused.

Notice Zero Sum games use....

see if you can hold your breath without passing out.

Presumably he means there are no exceptions to that, so it is universal.

But that is confused since 'truth' works just as well there.

Homo sapiens need to breathe to remain conscious.

That statement is true, let's assume. To then say it is universally true, or a universal truth, adds no extra meaning. It is speaking about all humans. So at best it is redundant.

Iambs seems to mean it is universally believed.

But that rarely happens and certainly doesn't make it true or truer. And it would be a bad term for it.

True is true and "universal" adds no meaning to it. It's really as simple as that. I was about to make a very long post about this, which I may yet.

[Faust]

Iam - the U. S. Constitution is not an "objective truth". Thre are no examples of objective truth. I dunno how many times I have to say it before you have the remotest idea of my position. There is therefore nothing to bring out to your world of conflicting goods. There is no definition to place in a context.

Nearly everyone you'll meet (depending upon where you go) will agree that the Constitution "exists". But not in the Archives. That's an iteration of the Constitution. But for present purposes, we can agree that it exists. That piece of paper is not a trurth of any kind. It's a piece of paper. This may sound quite arcane but it's the only way to avoid metaphysics. Believe it or not.

Imagine taking this argument to men and women engaged in a fierce discussion and debate about the meaning of the words written in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

How [to them] would this not cue Will Durant's speculation about "epistemologists"?

Truth as it is understood here technically by certain philosophers or truth as it is related to actual human interactions that revolve around the manufacture, sale and use of firearms.

You and I would both accept that the statement "The U. S. Constitution exists" is true (given my qualifications about existence, which we are setting aside.)

So, we agree that this statement is true. That's all there is. A claim to truth that we (and a shitload of other people) agree is true. There is no question of universal truth here. And the Constitution itself is not a truth of any kind.

Okay, but would you or I or others agree with the statement "the second amendment supports the position of gun ownership in America" more or less than the statement, "the second amendment supports the position of those who want guns to be taken away from private citizens in America."

My interest always revolves around the extent to which any particular philosopher's "wisdom" reconfigures dramatically when we shift from what is true -- objectively? universally? -- in the either/or world and what is true -- objectively? universally? -- in the world of conflicting value judgments.

The Second Amendment is not true. It's not false. "People shall bear arms" is not the same as "People do bear arms."

Okay, perhaps, technically. But what actual flesh and blood human beings will do here is to connect the dots between words such as this and the lives that they live. The fact is that in American lots and lots and lots of people bear lots and lots and lots of arms. It is both in fact true "out in the world" and accurate to state that it is in fact true.

Is that where the controversy lies here?

We just think about this differently. Insofar as where the emphasis lies embedded "in reality".

Mine is not an argument having anything to do with gun ownership. It's with your formulation "universal truth." Here, you're calling the second amendment a universal truth and bemoaning the fact that it doesn't settle arguments. This is literal nonsense.

I guess you're trying to say "If anything is a universal truth, the second amendment is and it still doesn't settle political disputes."

But it's not a truth of any kind, universal or not. And there have been uncountable disputes over the bill of rights since its adoption (and before). So you're setting up a strawman. No one thinks of the second amendment as "a truth." Plenty use it to support their political views.

So what?

My personal view is that most people should be able to own (some) firearms by right but that this right is not established in the second amendment. But I'm not a supreme court justice and certainly am not five of them. It's important to note that the constitution does not exist empirically. Any more than a novel does. It is important only because the ideas therein contained are accepted, by people who count, if not by many Republican congresmen at the moment, as foundational to our government. But the constitution has been viewed differently over time. Was gay marriage rights always in there somewhere? Presumably, but SCOTUS never quite saw it before.

It's not even close to a "truth".

[obsrvr524]

True is true and "universal" adds no meaning to it. It's really as simple as that. I was about to make a very long post about this, which I may yet.

It is true that women are shorter than men. But it is not universally true. It is true as an average, not a universal truth.

[promethean75]

see what i mean? you guys are fiddling around and that's what's making this so confusing. you gotta go on a case by case basis and watch your statements. tell em, faust.

It is true that women are shorter than men. But it is not universally true. It is true as an average, not a universal truth.

that first sentence needs a quantifier or by default everyone will think you mean 'all' women... which clearly isn't true, much less universally true.

the last statement has issues too. if most women are shorter than men, the statement 'most women are shorter than men' would be universally true... so long as there are no women taller than men unaccounted for on some other planet.

in this case, being true 'as an average' is just the condition of the universally true statement 'most women are shorter than men', so the statement 'it is true as an average, not a universal truth' is misleading.

tell em, faust. tell em man.

[Faust]

This happens all the time, which is why I say that you cannot do philosophy until you have mastered a language. It's why I say that philosophy is only a peculiar study of language.

Statements, claims, propositions, declarative sentences. These are where you look for something that is true. But many utterances that look like claims to truth are not.

"Universal" is a metaphysical modifier. To even us this kind of modifier catapults your thinking into metaphysics.

The question of truth is much simpler than that.

[Fixed Cross]

Ive been explaining this on H and every single post Ive produced here on VO (many hundreds of posts) so you really, reallyreallyreally have not at all paid the slightest bit of attention.

I refer you again to the ancient post "summary of VO"
http://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t1 ... e-ontology

Gotta at least learn the very basic definition before you attempt to validate your theory in relation to it, let alone prove it superior to it.

You're nowhere near reaching as deep as you should be.

Not gonna lie, I've never made that much of an effort to really get to the bottom of VO because I've never come across a compelling reason to do so - no offense.

That is none of my concern. But you strike me as weaker than you sometimes seem when you comment on a theory you haven't learned.
If you had stated your erroneous understanding after having made an attempt to understand, it would be a bit sad, but that you present assertions about a theory without even having made an attempt to learn it, is also a bit sad.
How would you respect someone who went around saying "Silhouette's Experientalism says that experience isn't real" or something completely contradictory to what you're actually saying? Not very much, or?


Anyway, no harm done, feel free to study whenever you like and address me with an informed position. Also feel free to keep ignoring it.
To be honest Im proud of how difficult the valuator logic is to handle. It is, in the tradition Nietzsche set out, a selecting mechanism.

[Silhouette]

That is none of my concern. But you strike me as weaker than you sometimes seem when you comment on a theory you haven't learned.

I'm not weak nor strong, I have arguments.

Judge them.

Yeah it's sad that I've not made an attempt to learn ur stuff - I actually read ur link though, and I liked the statement "The I is thus always an activity."

But I still don't really know what VO does.
I try to bring up Experientialism only when it has a direct application and solves some previously seemingly paradoxical dilemma. On its own it's probably pretty dry and like "so what?", just like VO.

I'm no expert on VO, just like you're no expert on Experientialism - I present my criticisms on what I think you're talking about and you say that's not what you're saying. That's fine, I accepted that. You're still happy to throw out statements about how I'm "not much of an expert on Experience" - on that other thread you made, though. If there's anything I've learned on these forums it's that arguing past one another is truly empty.

There's a lot of emotional baggage to get through to debate with you though, which makes me feel like I can't really be bothered to talk with you. I don't really care if you're butthurt or you don't like my politics - logic stands regardless.

Be proud of your mental creation by all means, I've never thought of you as unintelligent even if you're a bit weird about some topics in a way that makes me doubt your sanity more than your logical capability.

[Fixed Cross]

"I'm no expert on VO, just like you're no expert on Experientialism"

Nonsense. I am an quite well versed in Experientalism, as I have actually read endless posts of yours about it and discussed it with you and always arrived at disagreement in terms of falsifiability, and as I follow your arguments I accept that they can, when using an uninvestigated notion of "experience", lead to such an assertions as you're making, but I have countered with an argument you professed to simply not understand before you turned your back.
Ill rephrase the overture: can experience relate to itself without there being "a self"?

[Fixed Cross]

I slightly disagree with Faust on how philosophy is about language - A philosophical act was when Ape spoke the first deliberate reference to an object that wasn't a fellow ape, gave birth to some objective realm, a metaphysics which drew the apes energy into his brain like a tree soaks up water with negative pressure from its crown, and erected ape and made this cosmos appear, as Stanley Kubrick visioned it. The cosmic wheel which the ape begins to propel after he raises a stick to a larger stick and begins to literally "beat down" - hammer - the first metaphysical act.
Philosophy is the active aspect of the human mind, that which engineers appearances before they manifest, for example that which produces syntactic solutions.

To use the tool because of the power of the tool is to begin the journey, the tools create the job so to speak, power engenders goals, but it is hard to keep these goals under control - that is a power mankind has not yet attained. Nietzsche produced the the Superman idea, but I find this to be too anthropocentric as a goal. So to me not language as such but its touching Earth are ultimately the criteria for sound philosophy; can you touch it. Does it 'make sense'. Kant doesn't, Machiavelli does. Rules are usually either iron or very cheap plastic.

[Faust]

I'm not exactly sure where we disagree, Jake. I do overstate things, deliberately. This is more journalism than philosophy for me, here on this board. Language is the medium, so the subject is language in the same way that paint is the medium of a painter, and therefore also the subject of his art. Girl with a Pearl Earring is always only about paint.

Few here keep their language under control. Someone has to do it.

Philosophy is only about language.

Philosophy is only about values.

Philosophy is only about politics.

Philosophy is only about power.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Philosophy is only about wisdom.

[iambiguous]

. I'm not arguing that my understanding of "universal truth" is the right one.

You seemed incredulous that Faust did not think it was coherent. Then you defined it. If you don't think your definition is the right one why is it your definition? I could understand you saying you are not sure if it is the right one, but to define X and they say that your definition of X is not one you think is right means that you are just wasting people's time.

Look, either you and I and Faust will at least make an attempt to bring "assessments" of this sort out into the world of human interactions or I'm left with stringing my own words together while we connect the dots between them and technical "statements" about "universal truth".

...But if we don't even know what 'it' is how could we possibly explore it contextually out in the world of human activities.

First note a context. A context in which human interactions come into conflict over the assessment of particular things and relationships deemed to be or not to be true by different people for different reasons. For example, a context revolving around gun control. Then encompass what "it" means to you then and there.

And I will react to it.

In other words, anything other than example like this:

A: I don't think alskdjflaölös is coherent.
Iamb: give us some concrete examples of alskdjflaölös.
A: huh?
Iamb: I think alskdjflaölös means Y. And why is no one applying it to concrete real world examples?

[pause]

Iamb: I don't believe my definition of alskdjflaölös is right. But I want people to talk about alskdjflaölös in the world of conflicting goods.
A, B, C...etc.: huh?

Come on, at least try something a bit more realistic, okay?

On this thread, others will either take the "statements" they make regarding "universal truth" and ground them in particular sets of circumstances or they won't.

Well, if Faust thinks the phrase makes no sense, he can't. There are a few people who don't think the phrase makes sense. Zero Sum does think it makes sense and he gave an example. For what it's worth.

What does not make sense about philosophers taking their intellectual assessments of -- technical statements about -- "universal truth" and noting how they do in fact have both a use value and an exchange value in interacting with others in particular contexts. Otherwise [to me] you seem to be saying that philosophers have their own "thing" here and it's not really relevant to human interactions at all. "Universal truth" becomes this epistemological contraption that serious philosophers are more intent on grappling with "technically".

I'm suggesting only that however it is understood by others [conceptually, by definition, in a world of words] it needs to be explored contextually out in the world of human interactions.

Notice your use of the passive: it needs....

All I mean is that in order for them to be of interest to philosophers of my ilk, technical assessments of "universal truth" either can or cannot be made relevant to the point Durant makes...

He wanders farther and farther away from his time and place, and from the problems that absorb his people and his century. The vast concerns that properly belong to philosophy do not concern him...He retreats into a little corner, and insulates himself from the world under layer and layer of technical terminology.

Though clearly this has a meaning for me that will not resonate at all for others. The part I attribute to dasein.

Yes, that's what I want. So, if he or you or others want/need something else, then by all means steer clear of me here.

[Faust]

Iam - the problem you have is that you don't give a shit about the quality of your arguments. You're getting plenty of context here. "Universal truth", however, is nonsense in any context - it's universally nonsensical. But you're the one who brought it up. Despite that you cannot tell us what it means.

[Silhouette]

"I'm no expert on VO, just like you're no expert on Experientialism"

Nonsense. I am an quite well versed in Experientalism, as I have actually read endless posts of yours about it and discussed it with you and always arrived at disagreement in terms of falsifiability, and as I follow your arguments I accept that they can, when using an uninvestigated notion of "experience", lead to such an assertions as you're making, but I have countered with an argument you professed to simply not understand before you turned your back.

Ok you got me, you paid attention.

Ill rephrase the overture: can experience relate to itself without there being "a self"?

I mean "can experience relate to itself without there being a self" is a tautology - as you intended.

Such a phrase assumes a self in order to demand a self.

No.
Abandon all this shit.

Stop trying to formulate and prove your VO or whatever otherwise - who cares?
What is left?
Experience.
I rest my case.
Just let go.
What is left?
Yeah, exactly.
Just. Let. Go.

[Urwrongx1000]

If there were some type of universal truth then it would go something like this:

Is there life? Yes.
Is there non-life? Yes.

Therefore throughout all the universe, there is life and non-life.

Something which pretty much all people believe, cannot lie about and innately know without needing a brain.

[ralfy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_and_taxes_(idiom)

Probably not taxes.

[obsrvr524]

This happens all the time, which is why I say that you cannot do philosophy until you have mastered a language. It's why I say that philosophy is only a peculiar study of language.

Agreed but you leave me questioning whether you have actually "mastered the language" in use.

Statements, claims, propositions, declarative sentences. These are where you look for something that is true. But many utterances that look like claims to truth are not.

Except for certain political proponents, those would be called "lies".

"Universal" is a metaphysical modifier. To even us this kind of modifier catapults your thinking into metaphysics.

It seems to me that is no more true than to say that "average value" catapults us into "metaphysics". Science uses averages all the time, doesn't it? How is that metaphysics?

Many proclamations seem to require modifiers or adjectives. The modifier restricts the range of the named category, the "noun".

There are fruits called "small apples", "red apples", "juicy apples", and many other limits to category. But among all of those modifiers is the qualifier of "all apples". There is some quality that establishes the general category called "apples" that encompasses every other subcategory. That category qualifier or modifier is also called "universal".

It is merely a part of the language. I don't see the issue.

[Faust]

Nah, obsrvr, I'm not talking about lies. I'm talking about utterances that have the form of a statement but are not statements. "Unicorns love rainbows," is not a claim to truth, but it looks like one. I'm not sure you could rightly call it a lie. It's certainly a different sort of lie than "There was no quid pro quo."

I can't answer your question. You are the one making the claim that "average value" is metaphysics. You'd have to tell me how the use of average in science is metaphysics.

As to the apples, you have given us an example of what used to be called a problem - the problem of universals. Well, you have in a way. But "all" is not the same as "red". There are apples that are red. There are no apples that are "all." "All" does not restrict the range of "apple." Of course, mathematics and logic use "all." We all use "all" all the time.

Apples are universally.... what? Good to eat? What is a "universal truth" about apples? "All apples are x and not so by definition, but empirically so, synthetically so." Please solve for x.