“…it seems to me it still will be "subjective". For instance, what do you mean by RED? It seems meaningless unless you provide a consistent standard of what IS RED.” – Stem
Yes stem, all concepts are subjective. This includes the notion of color and other sense organ things. We have a convention about what in these realms is ‘true’ (small ‘t’) and what is not true. Example: a stop light is red, the go light is green. Convention. Agreed upon ‘truth’. Nothing objective in an ultimate sense yet though. Someone who is red/green blind comes to mind here to show yet another reason why it is relative/subjective too. “Kind of like the meaningless statements when one talks about "collective consciousness" or "god/God".” – Stem Well, these things are ‘meaningless’ if one does not know what they are. By know, I mean have direct experience rather than a shared notion of what a word means. Always has been that way. This is one fairly good example of why negative theology has been around ‘forever’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology On Oct 27, 3:45 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rick S said >>> If I ate a peach and told you that it tasted like an > apple to me, how > could you possibly prove that I was mistaken? It might taste like a > peach to you and everyone else. But it still might taste like an > apple > to me. <<< > > You are right. I guess that is what Orn. calls "subjective truths". > But that still does not get you very far. If you want me to agree > with your assertion that the peach taste like an apple, I would say, > OK. Show me how you got to that conclusion. (Freethinker?) :-) > Give me the objective standard by which you judge it to taste like an > apple? Unless and untill you do that I have no way to judge the > "truth" (value?) of your statement that the peach taste like an > apple. Now, this is kind of an absurd argument, to me. Things like > taste is subjective...and/or rather the description thereof. If you > tell me that you had some kind of oceanic feeling, I can't argue with > that. But if you want me to believe it as truth, then you have to > supply me with an objective standard. Otherwise I will just have to > hold off on my judgement of such I guess. > > By the way, do you equate "truth" with fact or is it just something > that feels good? If so, how do you show that? Conversly, if someone > were to show you, give you an objective standard that something is > real, a fact, would you be open to admit that that "truth" you hold is > false...or at the least subjective? > > Sorry for the ramble. > > Orn. said >>> including things like black is not red. > Truths based upon at least one person's apprehension of appearances > is > another way of saying this. For the above example, a blind person > would not agree that black is not red is a truth, unless one is only > talking about the words/concepts and not the thing itself.<<< > > Thanks for the feedback Orn. (an stimulating thought for/in me) I > can't help but think of Wittgenstien, though. Even if you are talking > about the "thing itself" unless you have a standard of what is RED and > what is BLACK then it seems to me it still will be "subjective". For > instance, what do you mean by RED? It seems meaningless unless you > provide a consistent standard of what IS RED. Kind of like the > meaningless statements when one talks about "collective consciousness" > or "god/God". > > stemcell > > On Oct 27, 4:12 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > “…Is truth not truth? Is it not all or nothing?…” – Stem > > > No. > > > There are subjective truths…including things like black is not red. > > Truths based upon at least one person's apprehension of appearances is > > another way of saying this. For the above example, a blind person > > would not agree that black is not red is a truth, unless one is only > > talking about the words/concepts and not the thing itself. > > > There are ultimate truths. Truths having to do with the absolute are > > in this category. Things like, all is one. > > > On Oct 27, 1:20 pm, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Orn. said this >>> ultimate truth <<< > > > > How is that different from mega-truth? A smidgen of truth? etc.? Is > > > truth not truth? Is it not all or nothing? How can a woman be a > > > little pregnant? > > > > stemcell > > > > by the way, truthfully, great thread. :-) > > > > On Oct 27, 11:40 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > “Science is certainly a quest for truth, but that doesn't mean that > > > > truth can never be achieved. Isn't it possible that someday we will > > > > have explained every observable aspect of nature, and all that's left > > > > is engineering? The fact that we keep replacing scientific theories > > > > with new ones that are better doesn't mean that this will keep > > > > occurring forever.” – Taylor > > > > > A few observations here Taylor. First, I’m not sure which ‘truth’ you > > > > are talking about when associating the term with science. Is it some > > > > sort of ultimate truth? A unified theory? Perhaps you have addressed > > > > this elsewhere, but in context your intention is not clear to me. It’s > > > > almost a tautology. > > > > > As to your apparently rhetorical question about an ontology based on > > > > possibilities, perhaps anything at all is ‘possible’? Not wishing to > > > > enter into a formal debate here, but it would seem that numerous > > > > fallacies are included within that notion. > > > > > As to your last speculation, while, again, perhaps anything is > > > > ‘possible’, in this context, the reverse is more probable, being the > > > > simplest ‘answer’. Perhaps it is a similar thing to one of Zeno’s > > > > paradoxes? > > > > > All of this said, I do appreciate your candor and openness in this > > > > discussion. > > > > > On Oct 27, 7:56 am, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > <<OK. But Popper?>> > > > > > > Quote mining. > > > > > > Science is certainly a quest for truth, but that doesn't mean that > > > > > truth can never be achieved. Isn't it possible that someday we will > > > > > have explained every observable aspect of nature, and all that's left > > > > > is engineering? The fact that we keep replacing scientific theories > > > > > with new ones that are better doesn't mean that this will keep > > > > > occurring forever.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
