Re: If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?

Post #30,078 by JayMehaffey 2/27/02 8:20:40 PM Reply	Re: If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? If neither Marlowe nor Drew can answer a question about "The Truth", does it exist? Like I said before, you can argue as long as you want over what colour the tooth fairey's house is. That does not mean it exists. You can argue that you can approximate the colour. That does not mean it exists. You can argue that she probably paints it. That does not mean it exists. So, since neither Marlowe nor Drew can say what "The Truth" is about people, despite their repeated arguments that such a "Truth" can be approximated........ There is no "Truth". Nobody knows what is in the bottom draw of my refrigerator either. But that doesn't mean that it's equally likely that I could find anything when I open it. It's far more likely that I'll find some old fruit I forgot about then I'll find a winning lottery ticket. Saying that Truth exists is nothing more then saying that reality exists independent of people. At least in the sense of the word that Marlow is using here. The interesting part is that, while we can be as certain as is possible that reality exists, the level of certainty we can achive for what we understand that reality to be is lower. This fundamental seeming contradiction is where most people get hung up. They either accept the first part and reject the second, comming up with something such as faith to fill that last bit of certainty gap. Or they accept the second and deny the first, and try to hold all posistion equal except the ones they don't like. Jay
Post #30,217 by Brandioch 2/28/02 5:29:02 PM Reply	Ahhhh, that's the crux of the issue. Saying that Truth exists is nothing more then saying that reality exists independent of people. At least in the sense of the word that Marlow is using here. But he's used it in a DIFFERENT sense in the discussion that preceeded this. In >THAT< discussion, "Truth" was something that a certain political party did NOT have (the implication being that another party had it). Let me save you some time and give you a URL: [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=29935\|http://z.iwethey.or...tentid=29935] Clinton didn't have "The Truth" because "net contribution was negative". Now, how does that usage fit with the usage Marlowe is currently trying to.....whatever? The interesting part is that, while we can be as certain as is possible that reality exists, the level of certainty we can achive for what we understand that reality to be is lower. :) Well, if "certain" is not linked to "accurate"....... For example, while I have no evidence that there are still things in the universe that we cannot perceive, I do not believe that we have achieved the state where we >CAN< detect everything. I might be wrong on this.
Post #30,264 by JayMehaffey 2/28/02 10:00:18 PM Reply	I don't think so I don't think Marlow is using the word in a different sense. Rather I think that somehow Marlow has become convinced that his belief that Clinton was a fraud is equally as certain and obvious as his belief that bricks are solid.* That part I'll certainly agree is irrational. Politics is, at best, built on layers of assumptions and aproximations. The idea that any of it can achive the degree of certainty that one can hold about physical matter is absurd. Jay * Yes, I am aware that all matter is largly empty space. The same thing could be said about politicans.
Post #30,327 by Brandioch 3/1/02 12:14:26 PM Reply	Which is an application of my position. Rather I think that somehow Marlow has become convinced that his belief that Clinton was a fraud is equally as certain and obvious as his belief that bricks are solid.* Exactly. Like I said before: Reality (all facts, known and not) is filtered through your senses and beliefs to form your opinion (which you then regard as "truth"). Marlowe has a particular opinion. This opinion will result in only specific "facts" getting through to him. These "facts" will be "verified" by him by seeing if they "work". Of course, "work" will also be determined via his opinion (which filters and so on). So, I point out that Clinton was elected (defeated Marlowe's boy). And then Clinton defeated Marlowe's boy A SECOND TIME. So, Clinton's campaign "worked" (the first time). And Clinton's efforts while in office impressed enough people that they re-elected him. And nothing Clinton did that was OBVIOUSLY wrong managed to affect him. Sooooooo...... it would seem that what Clinton was doing was "working". Since "what works" is a test for "The Truth" in Marlowe's world.... Clinton had "The Truth". But then the filters cut in and Marlowe says that because Clinton didn't follow Marlowe's opinion on what the political agenda should be, then Clinton didn't "work" because when he left office, the country was further from Marlowe's opinion of where it should be than it was when Clinton started. In other words, what "works" is whatever advances Marlowe's CURRENT opinion of how things should work. What doesn't "work" is whatever does NOT advance Marlowe's CURRENT opinion ......... Reality (all facts, known and not) is filtered through your senses and beliefs to form your opinion (which you then regard as "truth"). -AND THEN- Since you "know" that your opinion is "based on facts", it becomes self-supporting. In other words, it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine if what >YOU< believe is actually based on facts or not because there is no OBJECTIVE standard for "works" and the "facts" that you perceive are already filtered. Which gets back to my other example of the Scientologists. They have a belief about the universe that is supported by their "experiments" with their "equipment". And their experiments seem to validate their beliefs. But then, EVERYONE'S beliefs seem to be validated by their experience. This, once again, gets back to the bit about us filtering what is actually happening. And NO ONE can say (well, actually, just about everyone does say it) that his/her >OPINION< is more valid than someone else's "because I base my opinion on facts". Because that would indicate that that person has access to OBJECTIVE information about the facts. Which is impossible because every person filters. Then, some people say that they only accept what "works". Again, what "works" is defined as what fits his/her current >OPINION< of the universe. This is because they do not have access to >OBJECTIVE< criteria for "what works". In other words, they base their opinion on "facts" filtered by their opinion and validate these "facts" against what "works" with their opinion. Just as the Scientologists do. Just as every religion does.
Post #30,334 by screamer 3/1/02 12:35:19 PM Reply	And I've been getting even crazier than that... The idea that any of it can achive the degree of certainty that one can hold about physical matter is absurd. First of all, "certainty" has no degrees... I defined the word certain a while ago. If you are certain, then you are sure, etc... The physical matter just is... Or is it? Is the physical world flat? (it was for thousands of years with a large "degree of certainty"). Is the ... oh, never mind... Everything is an abstraction - filtered, punctuated, abstracted, or in someway abbreviated to help us describe OUR VERSION OF REALITY OR THE TRUTH. It does not mean that we currently CAN or necessarily ever CAN understand what they really are... Rocks come closer than general concepts, but none are "real". The premise that I have the most problem with is that Marlowe assumes that people who are "relativists", such as myself, can only come to the logical conclusion that my thought process = "sit and whine about how there is no truth". To me, it (my belief there is no absolute truth) is just a given in my shorthand for the "equation" of the "truth" and I try to be even more careful about how I conduct my work, my life, etc... Even using his own "logic" about the truth, he fails to use logic or to admit that his "truth" is just as fucked up as EVERYONE elses. And this is in a metaphysical discussion. Now take it to a political discussion... Mooohahahahahahahahah... Let's take it to politics... Is George W. a buffoon? No. Was Dan Quale... No. Was Bill Clinton. No. Each of these men hold graduate degrees from Ivy League colleges. Each has done "good things". Each has done things different than I would have liked or expected men in their positions to. So to compare them is an excersize in applying subjective values. Take Clinton's impeachment for example. I felt (personally) disillusioned by what he did. On my scale, it was enough to feel that I wished he resigned. Ashton and Khasim didn't feel it was enough for them. Am I right or are they? Right now in my life, fidelity to my wife and to my word mean a lot. I am not going to be insulting enough to suggest that they mean less to Ashton and Bradioch. But they apparently have subjectively judged that the "good" that this man did outweighed the "indiscretion". Now, I will appeal all I want, using whatever "facts" I have, but it still doesn't take into account things like the "value" of these "facts" in an overall decision. I would no more claim that Ashton or Brandioch are "wrong" about the way the feel, than I would claim I'm "right". I just feel a certain way. It is my "reality" that I can't seem to change. But it is "my" reality. I went through excrutiating debates in the old IWE forums proposing the Agnostic position toward Christianity and Atheism, pissing off both sides. The basis of this philosophy is that we are unable to KNOW (determine) whether God (the Truth, Reality, etc...) exists or not. That it is beyond our comprehension to know. PERIOD. The key thing I keep coming back to is that this (agnosticism or relativism) is not a "paralyzing" philosophy. It just is "a" philosophy. I don't know "for sure" anything, but I also believe that noone else does either. That doesn't make me feel superior or inferior. So what's the problem here guys? :-) Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #30,336 by drewk 3/1/02 12:53:12 PM Reply	Just a small difference, I think The basis of this philosophy is that we are unable to KNOW (determine) whether God (the Truth, Reality, etc...) exists or not. That it is beyond our comprehension to know. PERIOD. I agree with that. The only difference -- and it might not really even be one, because you haven't expressed an opinion on this -- is that I believe that there is such a thing as objective reality/truth (take your pick). Like I said, I agree that we are unable to know, although we may feel "certain." (Certain != right.) On my scale, it was enough to feel that I wished he resigned. Ashton and Khasim didn't feel it was enough for them. Am I right or are they? You are right that that is what you wished. You can be certain of the truth, "This is what I believe." I can not be certain of the truth, "This is what he believes." As for questions of moral rightness/wrongness, these words specifically mean: whether something is or is not in accordance with a given value system. So to say, "What he did was wrong," is the same as saying, "I believe that what he did is in opposition to my moral standards." That's just what the words right/wrong mean in that context. Wait, does that mean that I am professing a belief in moral relativism despite previously expressing a belief in the possibility of absolute truth? Sure. Morality and reality are different things. When Nick was here and expressed a belief in moral absolutism, I was one of the ones (don't remember if I bothered saying so to him) that this was not a position one could ever demonstrate. His position fell squarely into the category I defined of things that can not ever be demonstrated, and are therefor not worth the effort to argue about. I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make. I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
Post #30,391 by screamer 3/1/02 4:58:29 PM Reply	No difference. At least not in my book. I do "believe" that anything is possible (including the "existence" of God, objective truth, objective reality, honest Republicans) in the same way that I "believe" that it is possible that none of these exists... I do believe that the probability of certain things are higher or lower, but I don't usually don't discuss them because I think they typical end up circular arguments and frustrating to all. I have been tempted in this discussion to reply to Brandioch, "are you sure that the tooth fairy's house really doesn't exist? - that dude must have enough change stashed there to keep us all in Dews and Butterfingers for eternity but this discussion is getting obtuse enough :-) We have been discussing on and off the dichotomy/duelty of how we portray folks in the media in terms of left bias and right bias. I have been critical of both (at least I'm sort of consistent?)... But I guess the reason I keep posting is because I can't figure out my own internal inconsistencies. These types of discussions can get silly too because we're all not using the same jargon. I am confident that if I use the phrase "he was appealling to the bathos or pathos or ethos or mythos or logos (nah, that'll never happen!), that certain members of these fora will know this Philosophical shorthand for not just De Rhetorica (Aristotle or some other old dead Greek dude), but what they mean and - imply. Language is supposed to clarify and the use of jargon is just one more perceptual filter. I've said this before. I'm here to learn and I learn from just about everyone, Marlowe included. Hell, just last week I quoted Adlai Stevenson! As well, I think these types of debate are good every once in a while. There you have it... Thanks for being patient with me. Just a few thoughts, Screamer "I'll tip my hat to the new constitution, take a bow for the new revolution, smile and grin at the change all around, pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday..." P. Townshend "Nietzsche has an S in it" Celina Jones
Post #30,339 by Brandioch 3/1/02 1:04:38 PM Reply	Minor correction. Take Clinton's impeachment for example. I felt (personally) disillusioned by what he did. On my scale, it was enough to feel that I wished he resigned. Ashton and Khasim didn't feel it was enough for them. Hmmm, maybe this belongs over in Politics. Actually, I'd see it more like this. #1. No sex with anyone but the wife. #2. Failing #1, tell the truth. #3. Failing #'s 1 & 2, behave with dignity (this might mean resigning to preserve the "honour" of the office). I know that's confusing to a lot of people. The problem was that he was being hounded for ANYTHING that they could get on him and when they found the sex item, they focused on that without realizing that it wasn't anything that LOTS of politicians had done before. Now, Clinton didn't behave with any degree of honour during the entire 8 years he was President. But this isn't anything new, either. My position on the subject is that it was a witch hunt by his political rivals to find ANYTHING they could use to hang him with. NOT that it was motivated out of any sense of outrage or affront at his activities while in office (well, his non-political activiities). And >THAT< is the part that annoys me. Trying to hang someone for something that everyone else is doing and wanting to appear holy for doing so when you're doing nothing more than attempting to further your own political agenda. Hmmmm, but I think that is also part of what "politican" means.
Post #30,343 by Brandioch 3/1/02 1:39:15 PM Reply	And now that that is done..... But they apparently have subjectively judged that the "good" that this man did outweighed the "indiscretion". Nope. But "good" and "bad" are relative to a moral structure. Although I use those words for shorthand, I don't believe in them. I see actions and consequences. Certain actions will have consequences that result in circumstances that I prefer (or want to avoid). That doesn't make the actions "right" or "wrong". And the actions can't be weighted or balanced. That's a value judgement. As for Agnostic, I can agree with that. -BUT- That doesn't stop me from making a decision whether to support or fight someone's religion based upon the actions/consequences/circumstances I see in it (and resulting from it). I may not be able to determine whether your God exists, but that doesn't stop me from deciding whether I want to help build the world you think he wants or to fight against it.
Post #30,345 by Ashton 3/1/02 1:54:37 PM Reply	Quite close enough in my lexicon too. No unnecessary phrases - just enough to make sure (your own) clarity isn't lost in someone else's vivid 'imagination'. As to Clinton - Brandioch's summary below is equally close enough (no, not to The Truth [!!], but to the best er 'scale and relativity' I can bring to the obvious political motives behind every aspect of that Circus): IMnsHO it had NOTHING to do with [Honest ?] indignation over say, "personal behavior towards others" - not on the part of those who conceived and organized this travesty of any idea of 'justice'. Hypocrisy is always cynical - maybe sanctimony is its most virulent form. I admit irrationality about sanctimony; I despise it, and.. it's so common, especially in Murican politics and sociology. We LOVE being holier than thou! Thus for me it was: which is the Larger offense? Clinton's adolescent sexual development, his fucking stupidity! in risking everything to accept the horny offerings of a post-teen? OR the overt hypocrisy / clearly malevolent, diseased 'rationale' of the political opponents: who could not beat Clinton in THEIR milieu of elections? In such cases I tend to focus upon the sanctimonious even before the axe-murderer. They are less-honest than the merely deranged murderer. My judgment is neither 'wrong nor right' - just mine. Ditto yours, though 'disappointed' is a word I usually eschew, esp. re politics. I expect little, and that's what, usually - We get. HTH Ashton (Who will not extrapolate your attitude re the ~knowability of Reality (?) to the point of - calling our 'daily reality' awfully like.. the maya? ;-) Well, not here anyway..
Post #30,440 by JayMehaffey 3/2/02 1:16:20 AM Reply	More arguments over definitions What fun! :) Actually, I can understand why you don't like that usage of the word. But I am at a loss for a better one. What I am talking about is neither probability nor precision. But all of the synonyms of certainty have the same problem, they all talk in terms of 100% or nothing. There doesn't seem to be a well defined language (in english) for expressing the concept of relative degrees of belief. Marlow's problem with relativists seems to be that he equates all relativists with absolute relativism. The absolute form does hold the posistion that all firmly held beliefs are ultimatly equal, because without a fixed "truth" to judge them against there is no way to say which is better. This posistion is usually associated with ivory tower academics and radical left wing activists, who if fact do a lot of the sort of whining that Marlow complains about. I went through excrutiating debates in the old IWE forums proposing the Agnostic position toward Christianity and Atheism, pissing off both sides. The basis of this philosophy is that we are unable to KNOW (determine) whether God (the Truth, Reality, etc...) exists or not. That it is beyond our comprehension to know. I don't recall any specific debates with you. But I find most agnostics annoying because they selectivly apply different standards of what constitutes knowledge. The key thing I keep coming back to is that this (agnosticism or relativism) is not a "paralyzing" philosophy. It just is "a" philosophy. I don't know "for sure" anything, but I also believe that noone else does either. That doesn't make me feel superior or inferior. So what's the problem here guys? :-) The problem is that not every persons posistions are as relativistic as yours. For instance, I believe that experience, logic and evidence let us determine which beliefs more accuratly reflect reality. However, I also believe that this process is error prone and that we can never reach 100% certainty that a belief is correct. Jay

Welcome to IWETHEY!