These are not universal truths...

[obsrvr524]

You'd have to tell me how the use of average in science is metaphysics.

It is in the same way that "universal" is, such as "universal constant".

"All" does not restrict the range of "apple."

The word "all" reveals what the restriction is - that of the union of all subcategories.

Of course, mathematics and logic use "all." We all use "all" all the time.

A universal truth claim - "all, all the time". And used to distinguish from "most, most of the time" and other subcategories.

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.

A fruit. All apples, no matter where throughout the universe are fruit (assuming the use of the word was not intended as metaphor or euphemism). Or you could also simply say that it is universally true that all apples have mass. Or that they are universally organic.

The specific type of fruit is:

Apple
A cultivated deciduous tree (Malus domestica or M. pumila) in the rose family, native to Eurasia and having alternate simple leaves and white or pink flowers.

The firm, edible, usually rounded fruit of this tree.

Whether it seems a good idea to use the word "universal" or not, there seems nothing "incoherent" about its use. And I think it helps communication by ensuring the intent of the noun being mentioned (as a universal rather then an unspoken, possibly intended subgroup).

[Faust]

A universal constant such as the speed of light in a vacuum. "In a vacuum" is the context. So sure, a universal, meaning universal within a context. I still don't see how that is metaphysics. It is physics.

Every set is the union of all of its subsets. This is axiomatic and definitional. It's not metaphysics.

"We use 'all' all the time" does not mean literally "all the time." I was just trying to be droll. Still, it's a claim to truth. As I have said, adding "universal" changes nothing. It's either true or false.

To say that an apple is a fruit, or that all apples are fruit, is taxonomy. Taxonomy is very useful. Compare this to "All bachelors are unmarried men". This is just definitional also. It says nothing. It's a tautology.

It is undoubtedly true (in my view) that all apples have mass. But it's still just true.

Your last point, I agree with, if I understand it. To add "it is true that" to a claim to truth is okay for emphasis, or to indicate agreement with the statement it modifies is perfectly okay. But it doesn't add meaning to the statement. Likewise with "universal" I guess. That's not what I'm arguing with. It's that this is somehow metaphysics. It's language.

There are people who think that mathematics is metaphysics. That's okay if by metaphysics you mean "not of the empirical world." It's not okay if you think it produces a synthetic "truth".

Analytic statements do produce "universal" truths in that 2+2 always equals 4. But this is a closed system, a definitional one. 2, the plus sign, the equal sign, and 4 are all defined by each other. the number 2 is defined by that equation and by all other mathematical equations, at least indirectly. 2=2=4 does not provide any inormation not already provided by the definition of the terms that are used.

Every apple is a fruit only because of the way inwhich we define these terms. That's not metaphysics. It's language.

[Pedro I Rengel]

"It's certainly a different sort of lie than "There was no quid pro quo.""

okaaAAAY Faust, you've signaled your virtue, we know you're one of the enlightened.

We know the enlightened masters don't like to condescend to us red neck evil porr people, but would master please qualify, what is the true meaning of social justice?

We await master's infinite wisdom with obedient pacience.

[iambiguous]

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.

Okay, but out in the real world of actual flesh and blood human interactions revolving around the manufacture, sale and use of guns, it's still the language of choice. After all, for all practical purposes, it has to be right?

Come on, if you were to take an argument like yours into a discussion and debate regarding mass shootings in America, you'd be laughed out of the room. Or met with dumbfounded stares. Only in the hallowed halls could an actual serious debate unfold about the existence of second amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- the truth of it -- being "literal nonsense".

As though when language first evolved long ago among cave dwellers, the crucial focus revolved not around the act of clubbing those deemed to be enemies, but around discussing the act "philosophically"!!

And I don't bemoan arguments not being settled. Instead, I react to those who insist that only their own arguments settle it.

And then probing for strawmen and category errors?

Sure, in particular contexts, these factors are not unimportant at all. But my aim is always to take what any particular serious philosopher deems to be important about them out into the world and situating them in contexts that are of interest to me: the existential juncture of identity, value judgments, political power.

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".

I agree. It is instead what I deem to be a "political prejudice" embodied in dasein. As encompassed in my assessment of that in my signature threads.

Which is why I always make the distinction here between those who grasp "I" as an existential contraption and those who insist that, on the contrary, I am in sync with the real me in sync -- through God, reason, ideology, enlightenment, nature etc. -- with the "right thing to do".

Then [for me] it only becomes a question of how those who think like you and I do feel "fractured and fragmented" when confronting conflicting goods in our own lives.

[iambiguous]

Iam - the problem you have is that you don't give a shit about the quality of your arguments.

Fair enough. From your end. From my end however the problem you have is a failure to give a shit about taking arguments that you deem to encompass quality out into the world where others can react to them relating to your own reaction to any particular context. It's all mental masturbation from my point of view. Indeed, sometimes I'm even convinced that you are more intent in projecting as the pedant here. See how smart and sophisticated I am as a serious philosopher. The Satyr Syndrome let's call it.

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.

We'll just have to agree to disagree regarding what constitutes a context then.

From my perspective, you are noting this as though anyone who does not accept your own understanding of "Universal Truth" is -- by definition? -- wrong.

And to the extent you view them as necessarily wrong is the extent to which you seem to be arguing that your own argument here is as close as we are ever likely to get to a universal truth.

It just comes off [to me] as more "language games".

[Faust]

"It's certainly a different sort of lie than "There was no quid pro quo.""

okaaAAAY Faust, you've signaled your virtue, we know you're one of the enlightened.

We know the enlightened masters don't like to condescend to us red neck evil porr people, but would master please qualify, what is the true meaning of social justice?

We await master's infinite wisdom with obedient pacience.

I don't understand the question. I used that term somewhere but only to distinguish between "personal morality" and society-wide ethical norms. I am not particularly liberal in politics. I am a registered Republican.

Does that help?

[Faust]

Iam - the problem you have is that you don't give a shit about the quality of your arguments.

Fair enough. From your end. From my end however the problem you have is a failure to give a shit about taking arguments that you deem to encompass quality out into the world where others can react to them relating to your own reaction to any particular context. It's all mental masturbation from my point of view. Indeed, sometimes I'm even convinced that you are more intent in projecting as the pedant here. See how smart and sophisticated I am as a serious philosopher. The Satyr Syndrome let's call it.

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.

We'll just have to agree to disagree regarding what constitutes a context then.

From my perspective, you are noting this as though anyone who does not accept your own understanding of "Universal Truth" is -- by definition? -- wrong.

And to the extent you view them as necessarily wrong is the extent to which you seem to be arguing that your own argument here is as close as we are ever likely to get to a universal truth.

It just comes off [to me] as more "language games".

Your protestations would be more poignant if you had tried to refute not my position, but my argument for it. Methinks you haven't been able to discern my argument at all.

Look - philosophers are quite aware that they take contentious positions. What makes a philosopher is his arguments.

What is my argument? How do you refute it?

[Pedro I Rengel]

"It's certainly a different sort of lie than "There was no quid pro quo.""

okaaAAAY Faust, you've signaled your virtue, we know you're one of the enlightened.

We know the enlightened masters don't like to condescend to us red neck evil porr people, but would master please qualify, what is the true meaning of social justice?

We await master's infinite wisdom with obedient pacience.

I don't understand the question. I used that term somewhere but only to distinguish between "personal morality" and society-wide ethical norms. I am not particularly liberal in politics. I am a registered Republican.

Does that help?

A little.

But not a lot.

I think maybe perhaps you may be doing that republican thing where you take a lefty tenet as a given in order to try to infuse some sanity. It is one of the most discredited strategies out there I think. It only makes them feel stronger.

See, deep down they are aware that there is no philosophical content to their tenets. It won't calm them down in the sense of "but my ideas are being respected," it will rile them up in the sense of "holy shit my stupid made up thing is being accorded status of substance! Level Up!"

Why Boris Johnson is a staunch Global Warmist.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Anyway, it upset me how naturally it seemed to roll off your pen.

I'm cool now. Sort of.

We'll talk about Trump some other time.

[Faust]

Iam - the problem you have is that you don't give a shit about the quality of your arguments.

Fair enough. From your end. From my end however the problem you have is a failure to give a shit about taking arguments that you deem to encompass quality out into the world where others can react to them relating to your own reaction to any particular context. It's all mental masturbation from my point of view. Indeed, sometimes I'm even convinced that you are more intent in projecting as the pedant here. See how smart and sophisticated I am as a serious philosopher. The Satyr Syndrome let's call it.

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.

We'll just have to agree to disagree regarding what constitutes a context then.

From my perspective, you are noting this as though anyone who does not accept your own understanding of "Universal Truth" is -- by definition? -- wrong.

And to the extent you view them as necessarily wrong is the extent to which you seem to be arguing that your own argument here is as close as we are ever likely to get to a universal truth.

It just comes off [to me] as more "language games".

Well, logical truths are necessarily true and logical falsehoods are necessarily false. So fucking what? You're problem is not so much logic - you really haven't gotten there yet. It's that you're using terms that are undefined, and worse, that you cannot define.

[Ecmandu]

With a lack of proofs, we use subjective truths.

For example, should we kill osama bin laden or not.

Nobody has a proof for this. So... it's not a universal truth which way is correct.

Universal truths refer to proven truths. They actually have proof structure, like the proof for fermats last theorem in mathematics.

I hear lots of people discount tautologies as non signifiers. Definitions are self evident, they are grounded in experience:

When I say for example that it is morally true for all possible beings that nobody wants their consent violated, the smarmy logitician will come in and say, "people don't want what they don't want" is a meaningless LOGICAL tautology. But, it's more than what logical operators encompass, because, everyone knows what it actually means, and everyone knows that it's the most self evident aspect of existence for beings that exist (have a yes/no operator)

So yes, in the absence of proofs, it is useful to state that some truths are universal and some are not

[iambiguous]

Your protestations would be more poignant if you had tried to refute not my position, but my argument for it. Methinks you haven't been able to discern my argument at all.

Look - philosophers are quite aware that they take contentious positions. What makes a philosopher is his arguments.

What is my argument? How do you refute it?

From my frame of mind, your argument is about lining up the right words in the right order. Words that merely define and then defend other words. And, here, as often as not, in pedantic intellectual contraptions.

That way the only time these precious words have to make any contact at all with actual extant things like the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution is technically.

And then when men and women struggle, say, for all practical purposes to encompass the closest thing we've got to objective truth in interacting with others, you thump them upside the head with "arguments" like "'Universal truth', however, is nonsense in any context - it's universally nonsensical."

As though they were the fools here when the discussions do revolve around the manufacture, sale and use of firearms.

[iambiguous]

Well, logical truths are necessarily true and logical falsehoods are necessarily false. So fucking what? You're problem is not so much logic - you really haven't gotten there yet. It's that you're using terms that are undefined, and worse, that you cannot define.

Well, if "getting there" means sounding anything at all like you do in discussing human truths and falsehoods, I'll take my chances down here on the ground.

Definitional logic has it's place, sure. Just not in the discussions that are of most interest to me.

With respect to human relationships that revolve around the manufacture, sale and use of firearms, you can define words like "universal", "objective", "moral", "freedom", "justice" etc., until you are blue in the face. Then you can take the conclusions you derive from those definitions out into the world and defend them by way of the behaviors you choose.

See how far that gets you.

[Faust]

iam - I think you feel the way you do because you just don't argue. You don't try to make a case. You repeaet the same points for years and years and never advance your case, because you don't try to advance your case.

Abortion is legal because people made arguments for it (as well as against it). SCOTUS presented its own argument for the legalization of abortion. Same with gun rights - people made cases. That's what actually does happen in the real world. People make a case and sometimes it gets to SCOTUS or somewhere else where it actually counts. The justices present their own cases, majority and dissent. Those cases, those arguments, are presented in their decisions.

And sometimes, philosophy is involved. In fact, in these kinds of cases, it always is, at least indirectly.

People who actually make decisions and get things done that affect real lives (and real deaths) use logic, moral reasoning, choose words carefully. That is the real world. If you joined that world, you would already know that.

Negotiation and compromise requires engagement. It requires an attempt at finding common ground and not robotic repitition of self-styled dogma. That dogma precludes negotiation and compromise.

I get it. You're a working class beast-belly guy and you don't like philosophers. You're a message-board tough guy. BFD.

People struggle.

So what?

[Faust]

From Roe v Wade:

"Most Greek thinkers, on the other hand, commended abortion, at least prior to viability. See PLato, Republic, V, 461; Aristotle, Politics VII 1335b 25. For the Pythagoreans, however, it was a matter of dogma."

Aquinas is in there, too.

[iambiguous]

iam - I think you feel the way you do because you just don't argue. You don't try to make a case. You repeaet the same points for years and years and never advance your case, because you don't try to advance your case.

But my case is that the cases themselves are constructed existentially given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy given the manner in which they are embedded/embodied historically, culturally and experientially given that which can or cannot be demonstrated as true or false for all of us. Here as close as as we are able to come for all practical purposes to an objective truth or an objective falsehood.

Arguing over what -- technically, logically, epistemologically -- constitutes an objective or universal truth may be a fascinating exercise among serious philosophers. But how important then are their conclusions when we get down to the nitty gritty of reacting [morally, politically, legally] to particular contexts relating to the conflicts that revolve around things like abortion or gun control.

I "advance my case" in the arguments made in my signature threads. Here, what else is there?

Abortion is legal because people made arguments for it (as well as against it). SCOTUS presented its own argument for the legalization of abortion. Same with gun rights - people made cases. That's what actually does happen in the real world. People make a case and sometimes it gets to SCOTUS or somewhere else where it actually counts. The justices present their own cases, majority and dissent. Those cases, those arguments, are presented in their decisions.

Yes, but the crucial distinction I make here are between arguments said to be derived from such disciplines as philosophy, science, sociology, political theory, psychology etc., and arguments derived more from the components of my own moral philosophy in a No God world.

In other words, the objectivists here among us have no qualms whatsoever in concluding that their own moral narrative and political agenda reflect that which, as far as they are concerned, are universal truths. And trust me: not just technically.

I get it. You're a working class beast-belly guy and you don't like philosophers. You're a message-board tough guy. BFD.

What I am in regard to issues like abortion and gun control re truth and falsehood in the is/ought world, is the embodiment of the points I raise here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

This either resonates with others or it does not.

And while one can shrug and say "so what?" to the fact that "people struggle", -- or call that a universal truth -- I feel it is important to grapple with the components of that struggle existentially. For example, out in the world of actual human interactions.

[iambiguous]

From Roe v Wade:

"Most Greek thinkers, on the other hand, commended abortion, at least prior to viability. See PLato, Republic, V, 461; Aristotle, Politics VII 1335b 25. For the Pythagoreans, however, it was a matter of dogma."

Aquinas is in there, too.

Again, my point revolves less around what these men thought about abortion back then, and more around how they came to derive their individual conclusions. To what extent did they attribute their own political prejudices to "thinking through" the conflict using the tools of philosophy or theology? As opposed to how their own value judgments were no less the embodiment of dasein confronting conflicting goods in a particular political economy.

And that hasn't changed since in my view.

[Faust]

Why are you arguing with me, who doesn't have "objective truth" in his vocabulary? Your first post on this thread was sarcasm, aimed at anyone who actually wants to do some philosopy. Then you want to know if a statement I made is universal truth or just opinion.

You are a snarky troll. You repeatedly ask the same question like a rude seven year old.

You just argue with anyone. But your arguments suck. They are nonresponsive. You just want to fill space with your original position on life and how you're in a complete panic over the loss of god. Or some loss you cannot get over. Ambiguous grief, they call it.

Why are you arguing with me, who is not an "objectivist".

Your points do not resonate with me or anyone else. So why don't you get the fuck off this thread?

I know I could just ignore you. But you are certainly not concerned with my arguments or your own. You're just angry. You keep talking about universal truths. Why? They don't exist.

I actually don't care if you get off the thread. It wasn't a rhetorical question, though.

I'm gonna start a thread about possible worlds. You won't understand it, but I'm sure you'll weigh in.

[iambiguous]

Why are you arguing with me, who doesn't have "objective truth" in his vocabulary? Your first post on this thread was sarcasm, aimed at anyone who actually wants to do some philosopy. Then you want to know if a statement I made is universal truth or just opinion.

You are asking me to explain that which motivates my intentions in posting here when I am the first to acknowledge how the intertwining genetic/memetic variables that encompass my "lived life" were, are and will continue to be in so many crucial respects beyond either my complete understanding or control. After all, I have attempted to grope and grapple with this many times with others here.

I merely suggest in turn that this is almost certainly applicable to you [and to them] as well.

And, in part, it revolves around this:

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

This truly resonates with me, but how do I explain it definitively even to myself?

And then these parts:

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.

2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.

3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented.

I merely assume that folks like you want to steer clear of assumptions of this sort. After all, what do they tell us about the profound limitations imposed on anyone intent on becoming a "serious philosopher"?

Then the part that revolves around a deep-seated and genuine interest in morality on this side of the grave, and the fate of "I" on the other side of it.

And, finally, the part that revolves around "waiting for godot". And in a mind that has always been prone to polemics.

You are a snarky troll. You repeatedly ask the same question like a rude seven year old.

Of course this doesn't surprise me. Over the years, I have driven any number of Kids, objectivists, and serious philosophers to retorting, to huffing and puffing, to making me issue.

I can only leave it to others to determine for themselves why this is the case.

You just argue with anyone. But your arguments suck. They are nonresponsive. You just want to fill space with your original position on life and how you're in a complete panic over the loss of god. Or some loss you cannot get over. Ambiguous grief, they call it.

Right. As though I am not able to make the same points about you and your own "technical arguments". My "thing" however is to take "world of words" accusations of this sort down off the skyhooks and note their relevancy in regard to actual human interactions.

Why are you arguing with me, who is not an "objectivist".

No? You come here and, among other things, insist that "universal truths" are "complete nonsense". You pin me to the mat with your psycho-babble assertions in order to expose the "real me" to everyone else. You seethe with this indignant self-righteous sense of certainty...but you're not an objectivist.

For example:

Your points do not resonate with me or anyone else. So why don't you get the fuck off this thread?

I know I could just ignore you. But you are certainly not concerned with my arguments or your own. You're just angry. You keep talking about universal truths. Why? They don't exist.

I actually don't care if you get off the thread. It wasn't a rhetorical question, though.

I'm gonna start a thread about possible worlds. You won't understand it, but I'm sure you'll weigh in.

Note to others:

By all means, decide for yourself what this tells you about him. It certainly speaks volumes about one of us.

That I am still able to bring otherwise intelligent and articulate philosophers to this state never ceases to amaze me. Or is it surprise me?

On the other hand, they've got a hell of a lot more to lose if my own assumptions about the human condition come closer to the mark.

Whatever that means.

Right?

[Karpel Tunnel]

You are a snarky troll. You repeatedly ask the same question like a rude seven year old.

Of course this doesn't surprise me. Over the years, I have driven any number of Kids, objectivists, and serious philosophers to retorting, to huffing and puffing, to making me issue.

I can only leave it to others to determine for themselves why this is the case.

Here's your first post in the thread.

Caution: Serious philosophers at work!

We know that for you 'serious philosophers' is pejorative. So, you started a thread with an insult. IOW you made the other participants in the thread the issue, right off the bat.

I know, you are too fragmented to notice anything you do or to take even the slightest responsibility for people thinking you are like lice.

[iambiguous]

Here's your first post in the thread.

Caution: Serious philosophers at work!

No, what I posted was this: Caution: Serious philosophers at work!

In part, tongue in cheek, in part me just being myself, the provocative polemicist.

Since then I have attempted to grapple with "universal truth" more substantively as an existential rather than a technical contraption.

The rest is just you reducing the points I make above down to yet another huffing and puffing retort in which I myself become the problem:

I know, you are too fragmented to notice anything you do or to take even the slightest responsibility for people thinking you are like lice.

Note to others: Yours to decide.

[Pedro I Rengel]

"in part me just being myself, the provocative polemicist"

We're all 15 year old emo girls.

[surreptitious75]

There is nothing provocative in grappling with universal truth
Because trying to understand our place in the grand scheme of things is a truly noble if ultimately superfluous thing to do
Should you want to then it will suck an awful lot of energy and time out of you but that still does not make it provocative

[promethean75]

We're all 15 year old emo girls.

oh man goblin girls are my favorite. I had one once for a girlfriend in highscool. We used to have grunge sex to Danzig and Type O Negative...

[Pedro I Rengel]

Maybe that's all iambiguous needs...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahshahahahahaha


No yo but listen, that's good to hear. I've heard you describe girls like you are describing carpets. Not specific ones, I secretly suspect you to be a man of taste, but girls as a phenomenon.