Open Letter: Philosophy Forum

**Amethyst Star** · 10-30-2005 04:45 PM

bradybaker, thanks again for your view on religion. However, it was not included in my previous statement.

Originally posted by kimpossible
Sorry - but then, by definition, it's not \"truth\". *It's subjective reality rather than objective reality. *Truth is truth regardless of what you think/feel/believe. *That's what \"truth\" is.

We could start a whole new thread on "truth vs subjective reality"... which I think already might be in existence. In my view, Truth = Subjective reality. Each person defines truth for themselves. Even with "universal truths" (ie. the sky is blue), others may decide that that is not true. After all, how can you define "Blue" to someone born blind?

And thanks Ex Nine for displaying my post on derailing topics.

-Amé

**kimpossible** · 10-30-2005 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Amethyst Star
We could start a whole new thread on \"truth vs subjective reality\"... which I think already might be in existence. *In my view, Truth = Subjective reality. *Each person defines truth for themselves. *Even with \"universal truths\" (ie. the sky is blue), others may decide that that is not true. * -Amé

Sigh. I blame our schools. Really, I do. I'm sure it's not your fault.

"The sky is blue" is subjective.

"The reflected and refracted light traveling through our atmosphere on a comparatively clear sunny day is primarily around 475nm."

That is objective. You can try to argue with it, but you'd be wrong. Those statements are unable to change because you: think, feel, believe, want, desire, pray, do the wave-length-changing-chant-and-dance.... that they should.

They are. They were. And they will be. Loooong after you are dust. Loooong after your dust is dust.

Then we have the statement: "In 2005, statistically, the vast majority of sighted English-speaking people, by convention, associate light at 475nm with the color 'blue'" Again: objective. Without the date you run the risk of someone coming along and convincing people that gawd wants 'em to call it "argabarga" instead of "blue" and them falling for it.

So, as you can see: Truth is Truth. Objective Reality is Objective.

You can argue with it all you want, but you will ALWAYS be wrong.

**Ex Nine** · 10-30-2005 06:54 PM

Alright! *rolls up his sleeves*

Subjective statements can still be true or false. However, they rely of human mental states. "This Halloween candy is sweet," is subjective and can be true or false depending on the speaker's mental state. Objective statements are wholly independent of human mind states.

To tell the difference, imagine what meaning a statement would have if there were no human minds in existence, like if we were all wiped out. The example before would not apply, but something like, "this candy is made of sugar," would be significantly more objective. Another test is to see how much it depends on agreement. Objectivity has nothing to do with agreement. Try not to get caught up in the linguistics.

Originally posted by Amethyst Star
In my view, Truth = Subjective reality. *Each person defines truth for themselves.

This is called \"relativism.\" Anyone who is reading this - please at least know what it's called, so you can talk about it.

Relativism not just that there are many judgments, but that they are all equally valid and true.

So, if you are going to be a relativist, you must be a subjectivist. However, if you are a subjectivist, you are not necessarily a relativist.

It would really help smooth discussion, I think, if we could know clearly who was and was not a relativist. It would give each of us some predictive power in seeing where a discussion would go and if it would get heated. If everyone in the discussion was a relativist, the conversation would probably not last long. If no one was a relativist, it would potentially go a very long time. Maybe if those who are relativists could raise their hands and say, \"I am a relativist,\" it would help.

I don't mean to call you an \"extremist,\" Amé, but I feel I should point out to you that \"Truth = Subjective reality\" is usually classified as \"extreme relativism.\"

Even with \"universal truths\" (ie. the sky is blue), others may decide that that is not true. *After all, how can you define \"Blue\" to someone born blind?[/b]

\"The sky is blue,\" as Kim pointed out, is subjective and not a universal truth. It's not true for people who are blind, which is what I think you were getting at, because they do not experience the mental state of blueness. There really is no disputing about \"blueness.\" You can't reason other people to see it. The same way there is no disputing about the sweetness of our Halloween candy. It can be true or false, but not by reason.

And thanks Ex Nine for displaying my post on derailing topics.

[/b]

I like to think of it as pushing it on a sieve for injecting slight but needed amusement.

**Universal Mind** · 10-30-2005 10:42 PM

Personally, I love arguing with people who are being hateful toward me. I have been extremely (relatively) tame on the philosophy board on this site because the moderators want it to be civil. I tend to never personally insult anybody who isn't being a jerk, on any philosophy board or in any other place in my life. I have not once personally insulted anybody on the philosophy board who didn't do it to me first, and I have been very civil in the way that I do it... back.

If the moderators had said that we can be as uncivil as we want, I would have held back nothing in really putting several people in their places. Instead, I have gently pointed out illogic and hypocrisy and used light satire. I am amazed that Dream-scape is the person who started this thread because he has been the most insulting of everybody. He has blind sided me several times with comments to the efffect of, "That point is stupid," "The use of that term is stupid," and, "All you proved just then is that you are a complete lunatic." This guy is bothered by insulting conversation? It seems to me that some people are really bothered by being put in their places when they are rude, but that everybody has enjoyed being insulting. I think the philosophy forum should be the one forum that gets an exemption from the civility rule. There are too many angry, hateful people there for it to be civil when the existence of God is brought up, and therefore questioned. Politics would be even worse. When America's war on terror becomes a common topic, watch what happens.

I have yet to see a philosophy forum anywhere where there aren't several people seeing to it that there is an air of hostility. I choose not to initiate that, but it is fun to snap back when I am hit with it.

**kimpossible** · 10-30-2005 11:05 PM

Some people who shall remain nameless, and some types of people in general who shall remain nameless tend towards playing the martyr card.

They pick a fight with someone bigger than they are, and then whine when they get their ass kicked.

If you think about it, that really plays in to the whole g*d-thing. If they start getting their ass kicked, they have to try to appeal to someone bigger than they are. That's where pr*yer comes into play.

[There. Is that milquetoast enough not to get moderated? Go ahead - show me where I was insulting (a) particular person(s). I will flately deny the post had anything to do with anyone and/or religion in general. And I'm ready to prove it. Or bring in a legal team to advise on proving it.

]

[*Seeker slaps Kim*

Thank you for trying to be civil.]

**Amethyst Star** · 10-31-2005 06:47 PM

I'll try to explain my point of view one more time.

A. I put "universal truths" in quotations for a reason. Because some "universal truths", as you were saying, Ex Nine, are not universal, though many think they are.

B. I am not a relativist. Do I believe my truth is better than your truth, of course! Why? Because I'm a human functioning within her own subjective reality.

C. I don't visit the philosophy forum to defend my religion. Why? Because you don't care.

Now, through my own experiences (namely studying Russian literature in depth), I have come to the conclusion that truth is subjective. Imagine a room, an empty room. Now, if I say that I see a chair and you don't, it doesn't matter whether the chair exists or not because the fact that it does exist is my truth. If you see the chair and I don't, I believe the chair doesn't exist (and that you are crazy), and that's my truth. Moving on, imagine that same empty room and I see the chair, but 10 other people don't see it. Who is right? We have two truths: my truth, and the truth of 10 other people. I could try to explain to them that I see the chair, right there, clear as daylight, but would that make a difference? They still don't see it.

There are two main questions to ask in this scenario: how do you judge whose truth is more accurate? and, what happens if the one person who sees the chair is right? That is what you must consider when dealing with philosophy.

Originally posted by kimpossible
You can argue with it all you want, but you will ALWAYS be wrong.

Subjective.

-Amethyst Star

**Universal Mind** · 10-31-2005 07:10 PM

If the chair is there, then the chair is there. If it is not there, then it is not there. Truth is objective. If I don't see the chair and you do, I am asking a legitimate question when I say, "How do you know the chair is there? There doesn't seem to be a chair in here." Some people in the philosophy forum respond by saying, "Well, I see it because I'm better than you. You suck for not seeing the chair. How dare you bash the chair!" That kind of talk doesn't clear things up for me, at all.

**Amethyst Star** · 10-31-2005 11:21 PM

Originally posted by Universal Mind
If the chair is there, then the chair is there. If it is not there, then it is not there. Truth is objective.

Well, who are you to judge what I see? I don't mean that in a deragatory sense, but merely as an open question with an undefined "you." If I've decided that I see the chair, then in my mind I'm right. It's all about the frame of mind.

Transition: the philosophy forum in this context would be me discussing the possible reasoning behind why I see the chair and the possibilities for why you may not see it. I totally agree that any "I'm better than you" talk doesn't help any conversation one bit.

**bradybaker** · 10-31-2005 11:31 PM

Originally posted by Amethyst Star
If I've decided that I see the chair, then in my mind I'm right. It's all about the frame of mind.

Truth isn't about what's right and wrong, it's about what is and isn't.

**Amethyst Star** · 11-01-2005 02:54 AM

Originally posted by bradybaker
Truth isn't about what's right and wrong, it's about what is and isn't.

*sigh* Read Dostoevsky.

I'm trying to explain that since "truth" is such a broad term, it doesn't necessarily matter what is and what isn't. You could tell an insane person any truth under the sun and they could still deny it with all their heart. Someone who has been continually hurt by a particular gender as a child could grow up believing that all members of that gender are evil, though we know "that that's not true." Or is it?

It is through asking these questions of ourselves that we discover our own truth, based on our subjective reality, to borrow some of your own words, brady. As a whole, the human race can not come up with the truth, only truths. Why, because no one can exist in the reality of another, thereby never seeing all of what created that person's truth. It's hard enough to understand our own realities, let alone that of another, even if it is for the pupose of trying to discover the truth. Subjective.

-Amé

**bradybaker** · 11-01-2005 03:47 AM

*sigh* I understand what you're talking about, but I really don't think it deserves the label of "truth". Regardless of whether or not you or I see a chair or not, the physical reality is one or the other. Either it's there or it isn't. One option is factual, one is false.

Is it possible to know for sure if you're right or wrong? No.

It's not as if the universe disappears when you're not looking. There is an objective truth out there. Just because you can't grasp it doens't mean that you should run around calling whatever you see truth. You can only accept the fact that you will never know truth.

**kimpossible** · 11-01-2005 03:51 AM

So when you try to sit in the chair and fall on your ass because it isn't there, and ten people point at you and laugh because they told you the chair wasn't there - why I guess that it just proves my point:

Truth exists whether you like it or not. You can deny it or accept it, but fact remains fact regardless of your perception of the fact.

If the chair is in the room and you refuse (or are unable) to perceive the TRUTH that the chair is in the room, and you trip over it and land on your nose, it again proves - positive or negative is irrelevant. Truth is fact and fact is truth and objective reality exists in spite of your perception of it.

**bradybaker** · 11-01-2005 04:35 AM

Originally posted by kimpossible
So when you try to sit in the chair and fall on your ass because it isn't there, and ten people point at you and laugh because they told you the chair wasn't there - why I guess that it just proves my point:

Truth exists whether you like it or not. You can deny it or accept it, but fact remains fact regardless of your perception of the fact.

If the chair is in the room and you refuse (or are unable) to perceive the TRUTH that the chair is in the room, and you trip over it and land on your nose, it again proves - positive or negative is irrelevant. Truth is fact and fact is truth and objective reality exists in spite of your perception of it.

Yes and no. In a more big picture sense, who's to say that people laughing at you exist?

Tripping over or trying to sit in the chair doesn't prove or disprove it's existence.

It's not a pleasant train of thought, or a usefull one...but unfortunately valid nonetheless.

**kimpossible** · 11-01-2005 04:38 AM

It doesn't prove its existence, but it sure goes a long way towards experiential evidence.

**Amethyst Star** · 11-01-2005 06:12 AM

Yes, there are truths that exist that people, even many of us here, have not discovered. If that is the case, however, how can we call it truth if we have neither experienced it or if no one has told us? How even more so if that truth is intangible?

To bring back "rationalism" into this, I still believe that everyone has their own version of what truth is. Yes, some truths are *cough* better (a subjective term) than others, and some truths are those that some/many/all people believe. Yet we live in an irrational world and thereby are able and often prone to make irrational judgements based on what we perceive to be truth.

I don't know how else to rephrase this. And it's late so my mind's getting foggy.

-Amé

**Rakkantekimusouka** · 11-01-2005 06:15 AM

Reality is relative, folks, it's all relative. Just live and let live, and it won't matter who believes what.

**kimpossible** · 11-01-2005 06:22 AM

Alright, who spiked Mu's drink with the reconciliation pills?!?!

**Universal Mind** · 11-01-2005 08:29 PM

I think that in math classses, we shouldn't have answers. We should refer to them as "impressions." And if one person's impression is different from someone else's, it doesn't matter. Let's all be brothers.

-- Jack Handy, Deep Thoughts, Saturday Night Live

**kimpossible** · 11-02-2005 04:47 AM

So I guess if I walk into a public place and hose down the people there with a Vulcan cannon - I can just claim that since none of them exist in my little world, it can't possibly be murder - thank you, case dismissed, right?

Make it a little closer to home: If you witnessed me shooting your best friend, you wouldn't testify, right?

I mean, you, me, your best friend, the gun, and the very concept of shooting - that's all so relative surely I shouldn't go to jail (which only exists if I choose to believe it does) and pay for the crime I've committed against you and your friend, right?

Can you begin to see how silly this road is?

**Rakkantekimusouka** · 11-02-2005 05:16 AM

You know, kim-chan, now you're just being...well, an old witch. Maybe, just maybe, I didn't mean it completely literally. Maybe I meant it in a harmonious, cosmic sort of way, hmmm? Maybe I was just trying to be uplifting and positive?

You're the second person I've had to tell to "come off it" today.

**kimpossible** · 11-02-2005 06:16 AM

It looks like you and I are going to cross swords.

Would you care to debate the point being made? Exactly what in that which I wrote is logically flawed?

**Ex Nine** · 11-02-2005 06:46 AM

Ame, thank you for clarifying.

Your statements before, without the clarification, seemed to strongly imply relativism. But they were not definitive on there own, so I was a bit hasty.

My thoughts are undeveloped on non-relativistic subjectivism, meaning I haven't considered how much I loathe it.

But I do recognize its strengths and appreciate your clarifying your thoughts.

Originally posted by Amethyst Star
Yes, some truths are *cough* better (a subjective term) than others, and some truths are those that some/many/all people believe.

How would all people believe something? Coincidence or agreement, maybe?

**Rakkantekimusouka** · 11-02-2005 06:53 AM

Kim-chan, what you said was not illogical -- but my point is, you took my comments too seriously. Just chillax, nee-chan. Maybe if you didn't get so cross-eyed over every little thing, you wouldn't miss the point, the bigger picture.

Now it's totally obvious why you and Awaken-san and d-tamer are butting heads: you're two sides of the same coin!

Be happy.