Is truth subjective or objective?*

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth
Which is why I know that you haven't really thought rigorously about solispsim.

-Garth

I have. In fact, I've all but written a book on the subject. Your powers of assumption cross beyond the boundaries of idiocy into foolishness.

Solipsism is the kind of philosophy that appeals best to angst-filled teenagers. "What if all this is just a dream?" All that is required to dispute solipsism is a personal experience so bad that the individual could never have wished it upon themself. Reality hits like cold water on the face then. You've never had such an experience... lucky you.

Regardless, you are not a moral person, and have proven such. I asked you politely a few days ago to stop unnecessarily nesting quotes, and I even explained coherently for your benefit why such a practice is despised on internet message boards, as typically its only purpose to take quotes out of context and thus spark a flame war. You ignored this, not just to me but to everyone, thus demonstrating disrespect to each and every person you quote in this fashion (which appears to be everyone you reply to, even with a simple single sentence quote). It seems that all I did was provide you with better instruction as to how to piss people off, and you jumped on such an opportunity with glee. Thus, I believe it is fair to say that, because you have demonstrated an enjoyment from inflicting harm on others, that you are not a moral person.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: skace
You think reality is subjective.

I know reality is subjective. It's a priori knowledge.

-Garth

Which means (for the sake of others here) deductive knowledge without experimentation, evidence, or facts. In other words, bullsh!t. Garth is basically claiming to have secret powers of reasoning to which skace (and thousands of prestigious philosophers throughout history, I might add) must therefore be deprived of. As that is extremely unlikely, this is what I mean when I say that he makes stupid look smart.

Absolute nonsense. It *is* a priori knowledge that no experience is inconsistent with solipsism like I already said. The proposition that only subjective reality exists cannot be falsified. Therefore, any notion of reality existing distinct from subjective reality is a flight of fancy, and act of imagination, something that we pretend is true despite having justification. The only reality that we are justified in claiming exists is subjective.

Ta-daa!!

-Garth

 

[Neurorelay]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: skace
You think reality is subjective.

I know reality is subjective. It's a priori knowledge.

-Garth

Which means (for the sake of others here) deductive knowledge without experimentation, evidence, or facts. In other words, bullsh!t. Garth is basically claiming to have secret powers of reasoning to which skace (and thousands of prestigious philosophers throughout history, I might add) must therefore be deprived of. As that is extremely unlikely, this is what I mean when I say that he makes stupid look smart.

Absolute nonsense. It *is* a priori knowledge that no experience is inconsistent with solipsism like I already said. The proposition that only subjective reality exists cannot be falsified. Therefore, any notion of reality existing distinct from subjective reality is a flight of fancy, and act of imagination, something that we pretend is true despite having justification. The only reality that we are justified in claiming exists is subjective.

Ta-daa!!

-Garth

State of nature, that is objective....but if you can think, then it is subjective.....so maybe a tree stump is smarter then we think.

BTW:

a priori=without thought, it just is
a postiori=thought, justification, and so on

 

[Neurorelay]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Garth
Which is why I know that you haven't really thought rigorously about solispsim.

-Garth

I have. In fact, I've all but written a book on the subject. Your powers of assumption cross beyond the boundaries of idiocy into foolishness.

Solipsism is the kind of philosophy that appeals best to angst-filled teenagers. "What if all this is just a dream?" All that is required to dispute solipsism is a personal experience so bad that the individual could never have wished it upon themself. Reality hits like cold water on the face then. You've never had such an experience... lucky you.

Regardless, you are not a moral person, and have proven such. I asked you politely a few days ago to stop unnecessarily nesting quotes, and I even explained coherently for your benefit why such a practice is despised on internet message boards, as typically its only purpose to take quotes out of context and thus spark a flame war. You ignored this, not just to me but to everyone, thus demonstrating disrespect to each and every person you quote in this fashion (which appears to be everyone you reply to, even with a simple single sentence quote). It seems that all I did was provide you with better instruction as to how to piss people off, and you jumped on such an opportunity with glee. Thus, I believe it is fair to say that, because you have demonstrated an enjoyment from inflicting harm on others, that you are not a moral person.

Vic is on the correct path in regards to solipistic thought. However, since I believe the world is me, Vics thoughts are actually my own....therefore it was my idea first.

J/K

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Garth
Which is why I know that you haven't really thought rigorously about solispsim.

-Garth

I have. In fact, I've all but written a book on the subject.

You would have done better to learn about it first.

Your powers of assumption cross beyond the boundaries of idiocy into foolishness.

That plank in your eye is getting larger.

Solipsism is the kind of philosophy that appeals best to angst-filled teenagers. "What if all this is just a dream?" All that is required to dispute solipsism is a personal experience so bad that the individual could never have wished it upon themself. Reality hits like cold water on the face then. You've never had such an experience... lucky you.

Of course I have, but it isn't inconsistent with solipsism. Nothing is. The difference is that I have acknowledged it whilst you have succumb to your own incredulity. The irony is that you attempt to lambaste me for being closed-minded.

Regardless, you are not a moral person, and have proven such.

Remeber what I said about that plank in your eye?

I asked you politely a few days ago to stop unnecessarily nesting quotes,

I will decide what is or is not necessary for the adequate refutation of the nonsense you continue to spruik.

and I even explained coherently for your benefit why such a practice is despised on internet message boards, as typically its only purpose to take quotes out of context and thus spark a flame war.

And I explained why your rationale was nonsense.

You ignored this, not just to me but to everyone, thus demonstrating disrespect to each and every person you quote in this fashion (which appears to be everyone you reply to, even with a simple single sentence quote).

If you don't like how I discuss things, then you are free to stop discussing them with me.

It seems that all I did was provide you with better instruction as to how to piss people off, and you jumped on such an opportunity with glee.

More gibberish. This is how I have always interacted on internet forums, and it is the norm on every single board I visit. You have been the first to lament it, and understandibly so because it highlights your falsehoods so blatantly. That's precisely why it is preferred on philosophy and religion forums: it is the most rigorous method for the scrutiny of claims. No wonder you detest it.

Thus, I believe it is fair to say that, because you have demonstrated an enjoyment from inflicting harm on others, that you are not a moral person.

I do as I have always done and as is the norm everywhere else I go. Like I said, I haven't compelled you to confront my posting style. You have done so of your own volition, and are free to stop anytime you like, so quit playing the hapless victim. It's really quite pathetic.

-Garth

 

[troglodytis]

i assume truth is objective

i assume my perception is subjective

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Neurorelay

State of nature, that is objective....but if you can think, then it is subjective.....so maybe a tree stump is smarter then we think.

This doesn't make much sense to me. Please expain further.

a priori=without thought, it just is

More "knowledge that need not be verified, or which precedes empirical verification."

a postiori=thought, justification, and so on

It's "a posteriori," and it means "knowledge that depends upon emprical verification."

Your definitions weren't really wrong, I just think mine are clearer.

-Garth

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Neurorelay
Vic is on the correct path in regards to solipistic thought. However, since I believe the world is me, Vics thoughts are actually my own....therefore it was my idea first.

J/K

LOL

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: troglodytis
i assume truth is objective

i assume my perception is subjective

You assume correctly.

 

[Moonbeam]

Can the mind leave thought and time behind? Can love become such that the lover and beloved are one?

 

[WildHorse]

Ontological, fundamental reality truth is objective. In other words, there are real laws (laws=truth) about how the physical- emotional- thought cosmos is constructed.

Social truth is subjective.

 

[TBone48]

Philosophical arguments make my brain hurt. If you can't even believe that you exist, or that what you perceive is real, why bother with trying to answer the question? Maybe it was never asked

 

[spidey07]

depends on if they are liberal or conservative.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Can the mind leave thought and time behind? Can love become such that the lover and beloved are one?

Ah crap you would ask a question like that cause it's a real dog to wrap ones mind around. First off I have no idea from this word reply frame of reference but it does have some interesting implications that sort of jump out at you.

In the first place, if such a thing wore possible than the person in that place would not have an answer that were words. For example, somewhere on some dirty island in India there's a woman who hugs. Apparently she is a living answer with something like 22 million people hugged, each I hear, with infinite love. Kind of gives you the Willies, eh? Dang!

But as a theoretical question view as a yes it offers some interesting speculation:

It would mean that it is possible for duality to collapse and for the observer to disappear. That would get rid of that nasty 'everything is subjective' baloney. One would be the universe without words thought or time. Naturally one will not see X-rays or feel gravity waves passing by, at least as far as one can reasonably speculate, which may be a mistake, but anyway the point would be that perception to the maximum of human perception is all the perception we are capable of. But to see the universe with ones full human spectrum is to see as much as can be seen. So one would be seeing the absolute truth as far or as much as a human can see. This is objective enough for me.

Naturally any words about such a state would be fingers pointing at the moon. The fingers are not the moon.

There are a lot of other implications, but we will leave it here for now.