Metaphysics: The ACTUAL Key to Everything

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
A thing is true to the extent that it conforms to the ideal defined by the essence of the kind it belongs to. [/quote]

Things aren’t true or false only statements are. [/quote]

Not according to the subject. :)[/quote]

what do you mean ? what is true or false is always dependent on what can be said i. e. statement of fact in a language…[/quote]

With respect to truth, it is useful, in understanding what is being said, to think of “true” in the sense of “real” or “genuine.”

Further…a triangle drawn sloppily on the cracked plastic seat of a moving school bus is not as true a triangle as one drawn slowly and carefully on paper with a Rapidograph pen and a ruler, for since its sides will be less straight it will less perfectly instantiate the essence of triangularity. [/quote]

I understand what you state “with respect to truth… or “genuine”” But Truth has nothing to do with that understanding, it has more to do with the sentence structure and the meaning i derive from it.

The second assertion strikes me as platonic. That is the triangle written on a paper in a moving school bus isn’t as true as the “form triangle” which is a super-sensible figure or form. Do you want to also say that since the drawing on the bus was done by hand that that to makes it just a bad copy of the real? I think you do. And equally if the triangle was made out of some material like copper or tin or what have you, it would also be inferior for you.

For me the thing that gives triangle its meaning is its abstraction which is captured by language. [/quote]

Truth is mental construct - it only makes sense if you thnk that there is an actual state of affairs - there isnt one outside of our perception of the state of affairs. Truth is correspondance with our own internal logic.[/quote]

If for you Truth is correspondence with your own internal logic, then Truth is many things to many different people. Just a point about the psychology of man its irrationality that drives him. The only reason for rationality are linguistic conventions. AND IF YOU SAY TRUTH IS correspondence then you’re saying its a relation between mental phenomenon and internal logic. You’re turning Truth into a psychological thing.
[/quote]

truth IS a psychological thing = we think of it being the state of affairs, but there is no objective state of anything. rationality is simply the order we apply to our conceprs, it only means something in relation to human thought[/quote]

“we think”
“we apply”
“our concepts”

who is this “We” ?

If what you say is true, your mind is the only thing you will ever know and experience.
So it actually shoud be “I think”, “I apply”, “My concepts”.

You may think that it’s equally true for me, Pat or Tiribulus, but, in last analysis, we, like every human beings, are only concepts in YOUR mind.

Thank you very much for making me in your own image.

[/quote]

come on now, i act as if u were another human mind as thats what i need to do to get my response. i dont know who"we" is, anymore than i know who “i” am. maybe im a concept in your mind, or maybe we are all one mind, or maybe not.

62

We cant know anything beyond ourselves, to know is meaningless outside of our cognition - the idea of knowing something - meaningless. We are lost in our little circular worlds, there is nothing more than this.

OF COURSE - there is a tiny chance (if the concept of chance actually means anything beyond measuring how frquently i perceive certain patterns) that there is a God behind this, which transends all these issues, but i have no reason to really believe with any conviction that this is the case.

If one really thinks about reality, it is bewildering, and always will be.

63

Precisely.
The consequence of your philosophical position is that :
-you can’t know anything
-you’re doomed to always act “as if”.

64

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).

(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]

A thing is the total of a moleculair framework.

Or is “moleculair framework” “using it”?[/quote]

For from Israel was it also: the workman made it; therefore it is not God: but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces.
(Hos 8:6 KJV)

Ruminate on that.[/quote]

That was written by man, after he has become aware of these ideas, just like us. the text wasnt found in nature - why is that scripture so meaningful?

65

[quote]kamui wrote:
Precisely.
The consequence of your philosophical position is that :
-you can’t know anything
-you’re doomed to always act “as if”.

[/quote]

yes, that is basically what i think, but ur wording is not really an accurate relfection of my position.

why “doomed”? my reality means as much to me as if it were objectively real - it is real to me, thats all that matters to me as a human, “as if”? what does that mean? can one ever be in a state that isnt “as if”? my very cognition is “as if” truth is not real, there is no knowledge to be had.

66

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
Precisely.
The consequence of your philosophical position is that :
-you can’t know anything
-you’re doomed to always act “as if”.

[/quote]

yes, that is basically what i think, but ur wording is not really an accurate relfection of my position.

why “doomed”? my reality means as much to me as if it were objectively real - it is real to me, thats all that matters to me as a human, “as if”? what does that mean? can one ever be in a state that isnt “as if”? my very cognition is “as if” truth is not real, there is no knowledge to be had.[/quote]

btw - there does remain a possibility that there is some type of meaning to be had that will revealed but i cannot know now.

67

[quote]kamui wrote:
Precisely.
The consequence of your philosophical position is that :
-you can’t know anything
-you’re doomed to always act “as if”.

[/quote]

what is your point?

68

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).

(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]

A thing is the total of a moleculair framework.

Or is “moleculair framework” “using it”?[/quote]

For from Israel was it also: the workman made it; therefore it is not God: but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces.
(Hos 8:6 KJV)

Ruminate on that.[/quote]

That was written by man, after he has become aware of these ideas, just like us. the text wasnt found in nature - why is that scripture so meaningful?[/quote]
Yes, penned by man. But christians would say “given by inspiration”. God acted via matter, to explain something of Himself.

69

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).

(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]

A thing is the total of a moleculair framework.

Or is “moleculair framework” “using it”?[/quote]

For from Israel was it also: the workman made it; therefore it is not God: but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces.
(Hos 8:6 KJV)

Ruminate on that.[/quote]

That was written by man, after he has become aware of these ideas, just like us. the text wasnt found in nature - why is that scripture so meaningful?[/quote]
Yes, penned by man. But christians would say “given by inspiration”. God acted via matter, to explain something of Himself.[/quote]

ill be honest, i cant understand how someone can truly believe in a god and have “faith”. maybe i just dont understand what faith is and maybe im completely missing the point - i just cant believe in ANYTHING with conviction, i dont have any tools with which to even pretend to KNOW anything - i can only speak about how things appear to me.

I wont question someone’s faith, but when someone is trying to justify faith using human reason and from a human perspective, it just doesnt work. its like trying to argue certainty in anything, including atheism.

70

whats crazy is that the only reason i engage in these conversation is because im hoping i will gain an insight into something i simply cannot understand. my only hope is that people of faith are convinced and dont change their mind based on logic - so im hoping im missing something, because right now, i simply cannot believe in god, its not a question of open mind, desire or anything. i simply cannot believe it to be true with any conviction.

71

[quote]silee wrote:
I understand what you state “with respect to truth… or “genuine”” But Truth has nothing to do with that understanding, it has more to do with the sentence structure and the meaning i derive from it. [/quote]

I guess I understand the word in a manner found in antiquity. I suppose I’ll have to keep that in mind. I reject the modern notion of what true (though it is actually surprising how often the definition of antiquity is used in advertisement) means. Ex: You’re a true gentleman.

No, copper or tin is an accident of a triangle. Makes no difference to how true (“the word “true” …expresses the conformity of a being to intellect” (QDV 1.1)) the triangle is, changing the triangle from copper to tin just changes the accidental form of the triangle. However, if it loses one of the three sides it has lost what is called SUBSTANTIAL form. Making it less true in degree, and not kind (though if it lost a side I would venture to guess in kind, too). I believe this is called Hylemorphism.

To me, the thing that gives triangles (and everything else) its meaning is its final cause, end, being. :slight_smile:

72

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
Truth is mental construct - it only makes sense if you thnk that there is an actual state of affairs - there isnt one outside of our perception of the state of affairs. Truth is correspondance with our own internal logic.[/quote]

So, you’re saying by your definition of truth, I can reject your definition of truth? :wink:

73

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
truth IS a psychological thing = we think of it being the state of affairs, but there is no objective state of anything. rationality is simply the order we apply to our conceprs, it only means something in relation to human thought[/quote]

I never understood this leap. It cannot be consistently held.

74

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).

(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]

A thing is the total of a moleculair framework.

Or is “moleculair framework” “using it”?[/quote]

For from Israel was it also: the workman made it; therefore it is not God: but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces.
(Hos 8:6 KJV)

Ruminate on that.[/quote]

I do not follow. I don’t remember Hosea being quoted in a metaphysics book.

75

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
come on now, i act as if u were another human mind as thats what i need to do to get my response. i dont know who"we" is, anymore than i know who “i” am. maybe im a concept in your mind, or maybe we are all one mind, or maybe not.[/quote]

Holy Macaroni!

76

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
If one really thinks about reality, it is bewildering, and always will be.[/quote]

That’s why when I am not thinking about killing myself because of my thesis, I think about whales eating sea lions. Nom nom.

77

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
truth IS a psychological thing = we think of it being the state of affairs, but there is no objective state of anything. rationality is simply the order we apply to our conceprs, it only means something in relation to human thought[/quote]

I never understood this leap. It cannot be consistently held. [/quote]

how can the opposite?

78

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
A metaphysical challenge : define “thing” without using it (nor a synonym like “entity”).

(edit : i think i already made an allusion about this one in one of our discussion about the cosmological argument)[/quote]

A thing is the total of a moleculair framework.

Or is “moleculair framework” “using it”?[/quote]

For from Israel was it also: the workman made it; therefore it is not God: but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces.
(Hos 8:6 KJV)

Ruminate on that.[/quote]

That was written by man, after he has become aware of these ideas, just like us. the text wasnt found in nature - why is that scripture so meaningful?[/quote]
Yes, penned by man. But christians would say “given by inspiration”. God acted via matter, to explain something of Himself.[/quote]

ill be honest, i cant understand how someone can truly believe in a god and have “faith”. maybe i just dont understand what faith is and maybe im completely missing the point - i just cant believe in ANYTHING with conviction, i dont have any tools with which to even pretend to KNOW anything - i can only speak about how things appear to me.

I wont question someone’s faith, but when someone is trying to justify faith using human reason and from a human perspective, it just doesnt work. its like trying to argue certainty in anything, including atheism.[/quote]

Lord have mercy on us all.

79

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
truth IS a psychological thing = we think of it being the state of affairs, but there is no objective state of anything. rationality is simply the order we apply to our conceprs, it only means something in relation to human thought[/quote]

I never understood this leap. It cannot be consistently held. [/quote]

are u saying religon must be true as it is the only belief that doesnt contradict logic and is the only logically consistent argument? cant u see how thats just part of the circular logic that all reasoning or belief is based on?

80

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Scorched Soul wrote:
Truth is mental construct - it only makes sense if you thnk that there is an actual state of affairs - there isnt one outside of our perception of the state of affairs. Truth is correspondance with our own internal logic.[/quote]

So, you’re saying by your definition of truth, I can reject your definition of truth? ;)[/quote]
yes