These are not universal truths...

[Pedro I Rengel]

This one is for the honest person inside all of that cover.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DkWBaukEPs

[promethean75]

Nah can't get into her. Went to her channel to check her out. My first impression; wealthy chick who fell into some money by no effort of her own needs a subject matter as an excuse to show off her ass on camera so she made a motorcycle vlog. no thanks. I mean she's definitely fuckable, but not someone who'd keep my attention for too long.

[Faust]

A claim of "Universal" or "objective" truth is neither true nor false. It's incoherent.

Now, that's a claim to truth. Every declarative sentence we make that purports to be about the real world is a claim to truth. It's really not necessarily a claim to "objective" truth. Certainly my objection to the term is not derivative of some idea of objective truth. My objection is that it is nonsense.

Iam uses the word, yet cannot define it.

If you tell me that 2+2=5 and I object, claiming that 2+2=4, you could say I'm objecting on "technical grounds." So what?

Encountering "2+2" as an existentialist is another bullshit phrase.

"In a world sans God" is another bullshit phrase. As if there were at one time a god, and that he has somehow escaped, or died, or is hiding in Kent. Or did God's "I" fracture?

[Zero_Sum]

A claim of "Universal" or "objective" truth is neither true nor false. It's incoherent.

Now, that's a claim to truth. Every declarative sentence we make that purports to be about the real world is a claim to truth. It's really not necessarily a claim to "objective" truth. Certainly my objection to the term is not derivative of some idea of objective truth. My objection is that it is nonsense.

Iam uses the word, yet cannot define it.

If you tell me that 2+2=5 and I object, claiming that 2+2=4, you could say I'm objecting on "technical grounds." So what?

Encountering "2+2" as an existentialist is another bullshit phrase.

"In a world sans God" is another bullshit phrase. As if there were at one time a god, and that he has somehow escaped, or died, or is hiding in Kent. Or did God's "I" fracture?

Can you hold your breath long enough without suffocating? I want to know if you can exist without the objectivism of oxygen. Prove to us that you're a God where objective rules or laws don't apply to you.

There's no objectivity, right?

[Meno_]

A claim of "Universal" or "objective" truth is neither true nor false. It's incoherent.

Now, that's a claim to truth. Every declarative sentence we make that purports to be about the real world is a claim to truth. It's really not necessarily a claim to "objective" truth. Certainly my objection to the term is not derivative of some idea of objective truth. My objection is that it is nonsense.

Iam uses the word, yet cannot define it.

If you tell me that 2+2=5 and I object, claiming that 2+2=4, you could say I'm objecting on "technical grounds." So what?

Encountering "2+2" as an existentialist is another bullshit phrase.

"In a world sans God" is another bullshit phrase. As if there were at one time a god, and that he has somehow escaped, or died, or is hiding in Kent. Or did God's "I" fracture?

Can you hold your breath long enough without suffocating? I want to know if you can exist without the objectivism of oxygen. Prove to us that you're a God where objective rules or laws don't apply to you.

There's no objectivity, right?

Language analysis is a cop-out.
Who needs cops anyway? They used to give tickets, raid adult films, etc.
Law? Well it's ok as it is not black letter.(didn't mean that figuratively)

[iambiguous]

A claim of "Universal" or "objective" truth is neither true nor false. It's incoherent.

In other words, as long as you can come to an agreement on how to define "universal" or "objective" or "true" or "false" or "incoherent" in a technically correct manner.

As, for example, he does.

Now, that's a claim to truth. Every declarative sentence we make that purports to be about the real world is a claim to truth. It's really not necessarily a claim to "objective" truth. Certainly my objection to the term is not derivative of some idea of objective truth. My objection is that it is nonsense.

Here though many make the distinction between those things that are said to be true beyond that which any particular individual subject thinks is true and those things that someone believes are true "in their head" but either are or are or are not able to demonstrate are in fact true for all rational men and women.

All I propose is that we take these intellectual "world of words" definitions and intertwine them in a particular context where behaviors are chosen based on what we think -- subjectively/subjunctively -- is true.

Iam uses the word, yet cannot define it.

Faust defines the words, but then is reluctant to note how those definitions have any actual use or exchange value in a context in which conflicting goods revolving around issues like gun control are discussed and debated on other threads.

What I do is to explore the definition and meaning that we give to words like objective, universal, true, false and incoherent insofar as an astute technical understanding of them may well be of limited use or exchange value "for all practical purposes" out in a particular context out in a particular world understood from a particular point of view.

If you tell me that 2+2=5 and I object, claiming that 2+2=4, you could say I'm objecting on "technical grounds." So what?

Encountering "2+2" as an existentialist is another bullshit phrase.

Yes, in the either/or world. But my interest here is in exploring those things and relationships deemed by some to be objective, universal, true and coherent in the is/ought world.

You can use words like "nonsense" here until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't dissuade the objectivists/universalists among us from behaving as though all conflicting goods must be resolved in their favor. See how far these "technical" arguments go with them.

"In a world sans God" is another bullshit phrase. As if there were at one time a god, and that he has somehow escaped, or died, or is hiding in Kent. Or did God's "I" fracture?

Except out in the real world that we do live and interact in it is anything but bullshit among those who have the actual power to reward or punish others for choosing or not choosing the right behaviors. And not just pertaining to God.

Let's take them up into the hallowed halls and let Faust set them straight. First, of course, by defining "straight" for them.

[iambiguous]

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

We're all 15 year old emo girls.

Okay, your turn.

Define "universal truth".

Bring this definition down out of the intellectual clouds and note for us the manner in which it has a particular use value and exchange value for you in a context most here are likely to be familiar with.

Or, sure, just stick with the glib retorts.

[iambiguous]

Can you hold your breath long enough without suffocating? I want to know if you can exist without the objectivism of oxygen. Prove to us that you're a God where objective rules or laws don't apply to you.

There's no objectivity, right?

Exactly. However one defines "universal" or "objective" truth, there are certain behaviors clearly producing a result that comes as close as we are able to "here and now" to encompassing it "for all practical purposes".

What I then do is to shift the discussion to a context that revolves around, say, waterboarding. Is it "objectively" or "universally" moral or immoral to practice this technique when interrogating an enemy combatant? Given that drowning and killing him/her is one possible outcome if you go too far.

[Pedro I Rengel]

No no iambiguous. It is not whether:

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

We're all 15 year old emo girls.

Okay, your turn.

Define "universal truth".

Bring this definition down out of the intellectual clouds and note for us the manner in which it has a particular use value and exchange value for you in a context most here are likely to be familiar with.

Or, sure, just stick with the glib retorts.

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

[Pedro I Rengel]

Nah can't get into her. Went to her channel to check her out. My first impression; wealthy chick who fell into some money by no effort of her own needs a subject matter as an excuse to show off her ass on camera so she made a motorcycle vlog. no thanks. I mean she's definitely fuckable, but not someone who'd keep my attention for too long.

It's a nice ass though don't it?

I like how she took the time to paint her fingernails before shooting the video.

[promethean75]

oh it's a phenomenal ass. the two give-aways are; in every video she's wearing skin tight britches. never something baggier. not even once. and two, she mounts the motorcycle cam behind her so we see her ass as she rides. her channel should be called 'TWAAA' (two wheels and an ass) instead of to wheels and a ponytail.

and how did a young girl in her late twenties get enough money to have a place like that, and what, five motorcycles? i dunno maybe i'm wrong. maybe she's got some character and some work ethic and has actually earned those things. i'm just going with my gut feeling in the first impression. i wanna say daddy or husband or insurance settlement or inheritance and not a legitimate job. but hey, for all i know she might be a frickin orthodontist.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Who cares man?

[Pedro I Rengel]

I only watched the one video though lol. It was given to me by youtube and by me to you.

[promethean75]

i care, because it's about...

"the honest person inside all of that cover." - pedro I rengel

besides, when i see a fellow female bike enthusiast, i wanna be able to say 'yo i could ride with her' and not just 'yo i'd let her ride me'.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Lol I don't even think she qualifies as a bike enthusiast. She just... has a bike.

[promethean75]

no she's the real McCoy. races and pops wheelies and everything. even replaced her own clutch plates. *sigh*

[Pedro I Rengel]

HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Pedro I Rengel]

I think you gotta go to Italy.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Or maybe you can't legaly. But I'm sure there is some Eastern European state with laxer rules.

[iambiguous]

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

Fucking Kids, right?

Only why must they bring their act to the philosophy boards?!

Where's only_humean when you need him!!

[Pedro I Rengel]

No Iam. It's not

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

Fucking Kids, right?

Only why must they bring their act to the philosophy boards?!

Where's only_humean when you need him!!

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

[Faust]

A claim of "Universal" or "objective" truth is neither true nor false. It's incoherent.

Now, that's a claim to truth. Every declarative sentence we make that purports to be about the real world is a claim to truth. It's really not necessarily a claim to "objective" truth. Certainly my objection to the term is not derivative of some idea of objective truth. My objection is that it is nonsense.

Iam uses the word, yet cannot define it.

If you tell me that 2+2=5 and I object, claiming that 2+2=4, you could say I'm objecting on "technical grounds." So what?

Encountering "2+2" as an existentialist is another bullshit phrase.

"In a world sans God" is another bullshit phrase. As if there were at one time a god, and that he has somehow escaped, or died, or is hiding in Kent. Or did God's "I" fracture?

Can you hold your breath long enough without suffocating? I want to know if you can exist without the objectivism of oxygen. Prove to us that you're a God where objective rules or laws don't apply to you.

There's no objectivity, right?

There is what we call "objective reality." Reality and truth have been confounded for centuries. See Hegel on this matter. I know there are people here who think this does not matter. I know they think I'm just playing language games. I also know that there are a lot of people here who can't think their way out of a paper bag, because they believe that technique is not required for philosophy.

You can have all the feeling in the world for music, but if you don't know how to make a C major chord, please don't pick up a guitar.

[Zero_Sum]

A claim of "Universal" or "objective" truth is neither true nor false. It's incoherent.

Now, that's a claim to truth. Every declarative sentence we make that purports to be about the real world is a claim to truth. It's really not necessarily a claim to "objective" truth. Certainly my objection to the term is not derivative of some idea of objective truth. My objection is that it is nonsense.

Iam uses the word, yet cannot define it.

If you tell me that 2+2=5 and I object, claiming that 2+2=4, you could say I'm objecting on "technical grounds." So what?

Encountering "2+2" as an existentialist is another bullshit phrase.

"In a world sans God" is another bullshit phrase. As if there were at one time a god, and that he has somehow escaped, or died, or is hiding in Kent. Or did God's "I" fracture?

Can you hold your breath long enough without suffocating? I want to know if you can exist without the objectivism of oxygen. Prove to us that you're a God where objective rules or laws don't apply to you.

There's no objectivity, right?

There is what we call "objective reality." Reality and truth have been confounded for centuries. See Hegel on this matter. I know there are people here who think this does not matter. I know they think I'm just playing language games. I also know that there are a lot of people here who can't think their way out of a paper bag, because they believe that technique is not required for philosophy.

You can have all the feeling in the world for music, but if you don't know how to make a C major chord, please don't pick up a guitar.

So you're admitting there are indeed universal truths like the need of oxygen then?

If so, how do you establish what is universal truth and what isn't?

[Faust]

I am admitting no such thing.

I am contrasting reality and truth.

"Objective reality" is in most senses redundant. But it's useful when we are describing reality "outside" ourselves. Of course, we are in any case inside each other's reality. In the end, there is what we call reality. Except we differ on what exactly that is.

As I have stated, "truth" does not sensibly apply to oxygen, but only to statements.

Nice try.

[obsrvr524]

I know they think I'm just playing language games.

I don't think you are playing language games. I think that you are misunderstanding the intent of the language.