GameBanshee Forums

NO! Not Nietzsche!

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
I never thought i would be quoting Nietzsche but here goes:

"What, then, is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins."

I think this mostly sums up my feelings...

As with most Nietzsche passages i have read it usually ends up being an anti establishment anarchic message but he was very insightful at times...before you ask i haven't read that much of his work

Don't you believe it, Mr. Sleep! TRUTH exists NOT based on the whim of the masses, nor is it constructed through general consensus. TRUTH exists because REALITY does. Every "conflict" between people reduces down to either one party - or both parties - trying to get around the facts of reality.

REALITY IS NOT SUBJECTIVE!

Or, in other words: your reality is NO DIFFERENT than mine. Anyone who tells you different is trying to get away with something. Don't let 'em.

Re: Re: You have to look a bit harder than that

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


I am not sure that i live within the realm of an underlying absolute truth, i have no reason to think either way.
<snip>

You DO live within the realm of an underlying absolute truth. (Actually, it is not "underlying," it is foremost and supreme.) If you think you have no reason to think either way, ask yourself this: what makes you think the next plane you get on will actually fly? Look, I am an engineer. My job is to fully understand the truth/reality of any given situation, and to create an effect from a cause. I can ONLY do this in a world which is absolute. A world where A is A, and 1+1=2, and the Swiss engineer reading my plans sees the same reality as the French engineer reading my plans.

But it is NOT just engineers that require this absolutism to live. We ALL do. IMPLICITLY, we all live TACITLY accepting that A is A. We do not assume that the table we work at will suddenly sprout wings and fly away! Yes, in matters of morality and justice things can become difficult - but NEVER doubt the essentials of reality. If you do, you are surely lost.

What he said.

Originally posted by Lazarus
But it is NOT just engineers that require this absolutism to live. We ALL do. IMPLICITLY, we all live TACITLY accepting that A is A. We do not assume that the table we work at will suddenly sprout wings and fly away! Yes, in matters of morality and justice things can become difficult - but NEVER doubt the essentials of reality. If you do, you are surely lost.

As i stated previously in this thread i accept the absolute truth of humans breathing to live, i am not so sure it applies to more esoteric and philosophical quandires since those are personal and defined by ones own intellect or faith .

Side note: Just out of interest why exactly have you capitalised some words?

Let me say that I do think my reality(what I perceive from Reality) is subjective. And its a pleasure to lost myself in this subjective reality. Remembering that, be subjective(and perceive reality as subjective) do not reduce the conviction, only make us change the convictions from times to times, in the gradience of ours truth and lies(I do not see this "line" between truth/lie).

Maybe I cannot be an engineer.


@ MrSleep: Glad that you like the link , is one of my favorites text of Nietzsche, because was one the firsts text I read of him IRC. BTW, I also have not read that much of his works.

Re: NO! Not Nietzsche!

Originally posted by Lazarus
REALITY IS NOT SUBJECTIVE!

When life on earth is dead (as it will be, someday), will the universe cease to exist? As our means of verifying the existence of the universe depends upon being alive, having sensory equipment, and using scientific methods of measurement--lacking those three things, how can we state that after our collective deaths the universe exists? (I don't espouse this idea, but I'm curious about your answer.)

Originally posted by weasel:

The only absolute I believe in...Mankind can be wrong.

Maybe in order to understand mankind we have to look at that word itself. MANKIND. Basically, it's made up of two separate words "mank"and "ind." What do these words mean? It's a mystery and that's why so is mankind...

As is often the case my opinions have already been expressed here.

I believe reality to be subjective, as is anything that relies heavily upon opinions.
However this is merely my opinion.

Seeing as this seems to be the best thread to post this, Jim Morrison summed it up admirably when he said
"There are things known and there are things unknown and in between are the Doors."

LOL@Jaesha

Oh, my! So many questons ...

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
As i stated previously in this thread i accept the absolute truth of humans breathing to live, i am not so sure it applies to more esoteric and philosophical quandires since those are personal and defined by ones own intellect or faith .

Rather than attempt to pull an example out of thin air (and be accused of creating straw men), I will turn that decision over to you. Why don’t you give me an example of something you believe to be fully “subjective,” and I will attempt to explain how that “subjective” issue must, in the end, deal in some way, shape, or form, with reality.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Side note: Just out of interest why exactly have you capitalised some words?

My apologies – if apologies are in order – for the CAPITALS. I use them for emphasis, because I don’t like bothering with the bold characters or the italics, which I find to be more hassle than holding down the shift key. Is this an internet fauxpax?

Originally posted by Delacroix
Let me say that I do think my reality(what I perceive from Reality) is subjective. And its a pleasure to lost myself in this subjective reality. Remembering that, be subjective(and perceive reality as subjective) do not reduce the conviction, only make us change the convictions from times to times, in the gradience of ours truth and lies(I do not see this "line" between truth/lie).

Tell it to the families of the victims of 9/11. Try telling them that the World Trade Centers did not – in fact – fall, and that their husbands and wives and children did not – in fact – die at the hands of terrorists. Try telling them that they have simply created this subjective reality for themselves, and that if they were to just believe that it did not happen, then it would all be undone.

Heck, you want reality? Just try telling Gruntboy that the WTC didn’t collapse. He’ll flame you back into reality, I am sure.

Originally posted by fable
When life on earth is dead (as it will be, someday), will the universe cease to exist? As our means of verifying the existence of the universe depends upon being alive, having sensory equipment, and using scientific methods of measurement--lacking those three things, how can we state that after our collective deaths the universe exists? (I don't espouse this idea, but I'm curious about your answer.)

The only answer to that is: who cares?

I’ll admit it, fable, I am not omniscient. *gasp!* But you are asking a question that only an omniscient being could answer. Heck, I cannot even tell you that the world will exist after I am dead – because I will be dead! Gone! With no way of getting back to you and letting you know. BUT! As long as I am alive, and perceiving, I will act in accordance with reality. Because there is NO alternative to it.

I think that there is something wrong with the question.

My cup is on the table. That is a statement. It is either true or false. The statement is true if and only if my cup is on the table.

More generally, if statement S obtains then S is true.

What is this thing about absolute truth?

If my cup is always on the table would that make my statement more true?

All this talk about absolute truth I simply dont understand. How would it be different from normal truth???

Re: Oh, my! So many questons ...

Originally posted by Lazarus
Because there is NO alternative to it.

As SYMs resident pothead (though my reputation as such appears to be receding, I may need to find a new cover if this goes on too long ), I must respectfully disagree.

By Delacroix:
Let me say that I do think my reality(what I perceive from Reality) is subjective. And its a pleasure to lost myself in this subjective reality. Remembering that, be subjective(and perceive reality as subjective) do not reduce the conviction, only make us change the convictions from times to times, in the gradience of ours truth and lies(I do not see this "line" between truth/lie).

By Lazarus:
Tell it to the families of the victims of 9/11. Try telling them that the World Trade Centers did not – in fact – fall, and that their husbands and wives and children did not – in fact – die at the hands of terrorists. Try telling them that they have simply created this subjective reality for themselves, and that if they were to just believe that it did not happen, then it would all be undone.

You are trying to transfer the subjectivness of the truth/lie to some factuality of the dead/alive. I don't think the 9/11 victims are a good example for this topic.


Anyway,

Our Culture, don't know exactly why, use to see the death as a major truth. When someone dies everybody around is forced to accept and perceive his deah, BTW that's why funeral exist; maybe is something psicologically terapeutic. But, in other hand, this same culture also try to make death relative, the majority of the religions, especially egyptician and catolic , deal with the beyond death. Afterlife. Imortality. See, even death is relative to us. And especially when the Reality "hit" us harder that we can more easily "flow" on the truth and lies of our reality.
You can say that is a false state, that is just try to blind ourselfs to not face the problem and your absolute truth of Reality; but sometimes I think is necessary, utile, and sometimes even inexorable. I see it(lies and truth) as part of my reality(subjective)

At least, I believe so.

Re: Oh, my! So many questons ...

Originally posted by Lazarus
I’ll admit it, fable, I am not omniscient. *gasp!* But you are asking a question that only an omniscient being could answer.

Oh. And you mean a question about the absolute objectivity of ontological reality isn't one that requires omniscence? You've made a sweeping series of absolute claims, here, as follows:

a) Truth exists because reality does.
b) Reality is not subjective.
c) Even conflict between people reduces down to either one party (or both) trying to get around the facts of reality.
d) Your reality is no different from mine.
e) You live within the realm of an underlying absolute truth.
f) If you doubt the "essentials of reality," than you are "surely lost."

You make these "omniscent" statements about the nature of reality and then declare all questions relating to your views as inapplicable, because they could only be answered by an omniscent being. There's unintentional irony in this, I think. The statements evidently don't require omniscence. But the statements can't be questioned--that would require knowledge of a deific level.

I think this conversation really isn't going to achieve anything, so we might as well just drop it. Suffice to say that while I was curious about the support for your views, reality doesn't much care one way or the other what you or I or anybody else has to say on the matter. Or as Tom put it, cutting to the heart of the matter, "My cup is on the table."

Brevity is the soul of wit - duh'oh!

Originally posted by Delacroix
You are trying to transfer the subjectivness of the truth/lie to some factuality of the dead/alive. I don't think the 9/11 victims are a good example for this topic.

Well, maybe this was not the type of example that you are looking for. I have proposed to Mr. Sleep that he give me some kind of example which I could work with, and I am sure he will get around to it.

I have simply begun at the most basic level. I have started by trying to at least verify that you (all) believe in some of the most basic, obvious truths. If one were to deny that the WTC fell, I would probably not continue to debate with them – it simply would not be worth the effort. But if we can at least agree that things like skyscrapers and trees and oceans EXIST – well, at least we are speaking the same language (so to speak).

@fable: I am sorry, but as is often the case with your posts, I feel obliged to break it up a bit, and tackle some of these points individually.

Originally posted by fable
Oh. And you mean a question about the absolute objectivity of ontological reality isn't one that requires omniscence?

You lost me already. First, I am not certain that you and I are agreed on the definition of “ontological.” From Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world -- e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.” You use the term “ontological reality.” I have only ever heard of an “ontological argument” – but, hey, I’m an engineer, what do I know?

At any rate, I am most certainly NOT arguing that God exists. (Sorry, EMINEM, I am an atheist.) Second I am most certainly NOT attempting to make this argument a priori, without observation of the world. I am very specifically attempting to objectify truth on the basis of perception of reality. That is why I have brought up something so basic and observable as the WTC. As I state to Ivan above, if we can at least agree upon this, we have a basis for discussion.

Originally posted by fable
You've made a sweeping series of absolute claims, here, as follows:

a) Truth exists because reality does.
b) Reality is not subjective.
c) Even conflict between people reduces down to either one party (or both) trying to get around the facts of reality.
d) Your reality is no different from mine.
e) You live within the realm of an underlying absolute truth.
f) If you doubt the "essentials of reality," than you are "surely lost."

I’m OK with all that, except the possible misinterpretation of e). Saying “You live within the …” seems exclusive. We ALL live in this reality, and that is what dictates truth.

Before I finish off this post (and we once again agree to disagree) I would like to ask you which of these statements you find troubling (if any), and why. DO you believe that your reality and mine are different? DO you believe that reality is subjective? (Again, those two points are only the most basic of the above. If we differ on those, specifically, then further debate will indeed prove “fruitless” as you suggest below.)

Originally posted by fable
You make these "omniscent" statements about the nature of reality and then declare all questions relating to your views as inapplicable, because they could only be answered by an omniscent being. There's unintentional irony in this, I think. The statements evidently don't require omniscence. But the statements can't be questioned--that would require knowledge of a deific level.

I do NOT believe my statements to be of an omniscient character. I believe they are true, and that they can be demonstrated. I believe that they ARE in fact being demonstrated all around us, every day. Here I am. In my chair. It exists. I exist. I know that my co-worker and I observe the same chair when we look at it. It’s all very simple. But YOU asked me about something that CLEARLY would require some omniscient abilities (i.e. will anything exist after all life has been eliminated). What I am stating, and what you are asking, are NOT on the same level.

Originally posted by fable
I suspect this conversation will prove fruitless. Suffice to say that while I was curious about the support for your views, reality doesn't much care one way or the other what you or I or anybody else has to say on the matter. Or as Tom put it, cutting to the heart of the matter, "My cup is on the table."

You are correct. Reality doesn’t heed the content of our brains. And that is precisely my point.

I took way too much time answering this during work today. (Bad Lazarus, bad!) So I will put in my typical caveat: don’t expect any further response from me until the weekend … uh, actually, this weekend is vacation. Don’t expect any response until next weekend. Sorry! I REALLY find this debate worthwhile, and WILL bump the thread if y’all post a few more rebuttals.

Toodles.

Re: Brevity is the soul of wit - duh'oh!

Originally posted by Lazarus
Well, maybe this was not the type of example that you are looking for. I have proposed to Mr. Sleep that he give me some kind of example which I could work with, and I am sure he will get around to it.

Absolute truth's, here is one absolute truth of heaven and hell, redemption and damnation. There is no middle ground, no leeway, either you accept Jeebus or you are condemned to eternal hell...i struggle greatly with the concepts involved, it seems archaic and ridiculous that a pure and holy God would banish anyone to hell.

There is more but that should do for now

About the capitals. Capitalised words generally conveys one is shouting, i don't make up the rules etc etc I actually find emboldend (and capitalised) words to be slightly pointless in a debate since most of the people involved have a decent knowledge of language and don't need any emphasis, i am reading a sentence not a section of bullet points.

@Tom, what i mean by absolute truth is the things which are outside our scope for understanding and are placed in the realm of facts by time. I could clarify more if needs be

Re: Re: Brevity is the soul of wit - duh'oh!

Originally posted by Mr Sleep

@Tom, what i mean by absolute truth is the things which are outside our scope for understanding and are placed in the realm of facts by time. I could clarify more if needs be

I understand the first bit where you say absolute truth is concerned with the things that we are not capable of understanding. Then you say "and are placed in the realm of facts by time." That I do not understand.

I am also not clear on why you think there is a difference between normal truth and absolute truth.

Take my cup again (I do love that cup). I make the statement ‘my cup is on the table’, the statement is made true or false by whether the cup is on the table or not. In this case it is a true statement because my cup is on the table.
So far so good. Do you agree with me that this is a prima facie ok account of truth?

If we then move on to things beyond our comprehension. Lets say that there is a proof for Goldbach’s conjecture (every even integer greater than 3 is the sum of two primes, 5 + 11 = 16 etc.) But this proof is so difficult that the human brain could never understand it.
Presumably we would still like to say that either there is a proof or not, or put differently; the statement ‘there is a proof of Goldbach’s conjecture’ is true or false.
I still don't see how or why we would want to have two notions of truth.

I my opinion it is counter intuitive to have more than one notion of thruth and I also think it makes things unnecessarily complicated.

A note on ontology.

Originally posted by Lazarus

You lost me already. First, I am not certain that you and I are agreed on the definition of “ontological.” From Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world -- e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.” You use the term “ontological reality.” I have only ever heard of an “ontological argument” – but, hey, I’m an engineer, what do I know?

The ontological argument/s is the one I tried, rather badly, to set out in my first post.
That argument gets it name from the branch of metaphysics called ontology. Ontology is concerned with existence, so ontological problems are the once that deal with what exists and what existence is. So for example one problem is ‘in what sense does universals exist if they exist at all’.

@Tom: I have got the impresson that some people believe in an "absolute truth" in the sense that it is eternal and can never change and is valid during all circumstances. Let me give an example: In science we don't talk about truth in this sense, since we are working with moving the borders for knowledge all the time. If I say: Depression is associated with abnormal serotonin transmission that can never be true in the same sense as "the cup is on the table". The cup either is or isn't on the table, but in the case of depression, new discoveries could either change or modify the initial statement, that today is held as "true", ie correct. So in that sense, what is true and not will change according to our finding new knowledge.

If I understand the idea of absolute truth correctly, it seems it can never change whatever happens and it's not depening on anything outside itself. Some gods people believe in seem to fall into this cathegory, not only because they are incomprehensible but also because they are beyond our reality.

@all: I agree very much with Delacroix that emotional arguments should not be used, hey, we are not politicans trying to buy votes here?

Originally posted by C Elegans

@Tom: I have got the impresson that some people believe in an "absolute truth" in the sense that it is eternal and can never change and is valid during all circumstances

Statements are the only thing that can be true or false. The statement 2+2 = 4 is imo. eternally true, can never change and is (valid?) true during all circumstances.

Originally posted by C Elegans

Let me give an example: In science we don't talk about truth in this sense, since we are working with moving the borders for knowledge all the time. If I say: Depression is associated with abnormal serotonin transmission that can never be true in the same sense as "the cup is on the table". The cup either is or isn't on the table, but in the case of depression, new discoveries could either change or modify the initial statement, that today is held as "true", ie correct. So in that sense, what is true and not will change according to our finding new knowledge.

Here we must disagree CE (it had to happen).
I don't understand why you think that the statement ‘Depression is associated with abnormal serotonin transmission’ can’t be true in the same way as the statement ‘my cup is on the table’.

To me it seems completely the same. the statement ‘my cup is on the table’ is made true if my cup is on the table. The statement ‘Depression is associated with abnormal serotonin transmission’ is true if depression is associated with abnormal serotonin transmission.

I believe that my cup is on the table. I could be wrong - maybe its not my cup or maybe I'm having a hallucination. You believe that depression is associated with abnormal serotonin transmission and you could be wrong together with a lot of other neuroscientists.
But surly what we belief does not influence the truth of the statements we make!?

Originally posted by C Elegans

@all: I agree very much with Delacroix that emotional arguments should not be used, hey, we are not politicans trying to buy votes here?

Weasel?

Re: Re: Re: Brevity is the soul of wit - duh'oh!

Originally posted by Tom
I understand the first bit where you say absolute truth is concerned with the things that we are not capable of understanding. Then you say "and are placed in the realm of facts by time." That I do not understand.

Sorry i was going to write a lot more spiel in there but never quite formed it. What i was trying to say is that some truths that are said to be absolute and are accepted as true are only so because of a certain teaching in history, i have agreed with the quote "history is written by the victors" ever since i heard it, there are some truths that are absolutely accepted but i am cynical about...does that make more sense now?

I my opinion it is counter intuitive to have more than one notion of thruth and I also think it makes things unnecessarily complicated.

But things are complicated My point is that there is a middle ground on issues that are out of our understanding, to use CE's reference to seretonin, it could be half wrong/right, as in it is a factor of what causes depression, it might not be the complete answer/truth but it might be a factor in contributing to the eventual answer. Since it was part of the truth it is half true, thus in the middle ground.