With regard to truth: (a) can people be wrong? and (b) if so, is disagreement evidence or proof that there is no truth?

(a) Yes but how do you judge wrong? (b) Disagreement is evidence of lack of truth because without truth there is no proof.







With regard to society: for humans is it good that each person can form his own beliefs (including being wrong about things), or is it bad?

Personally I would say good but as a whole I say it is neither good nor bad. Since there is no greater truth or meaning beyond what we as individual give I can't call a right or wrong on it.

Of course I could be completely wrong and be in a cult by next month.

I'm so happy you're back; you lend a joie de vivre to this place!

If you decide to disappear into a cult or clothing-optional comune (apparently they're back in style), please leave your forwarding address and PM me your email address, and password for safe keeping before you forget it again.

We have to find a way to keep you out of MAIL JAIL ;-)

---

DFL > DNF > DNS

You are the best young lady. Always top drawer to me. Also you would not believe how often I have had to reset my password in the last two days.

I agree with you that people can be wrong. Through experience I have seen that I have been wrong in the past many times. I have seen others be wrong and correct themselves.

Evidence tells me that people are not perfect discerners of truth. They are colored by personal emotion and desires, and by ignorance and mistake, which impair the functioning of logic and reason.

Wrong is judged by logic and reason, by creatures that are aware that they have the capability to use logic and reason yet may be ignorant and affected by emotion.


I don't follow your logic. Given that people may be wrong, as you acknowledged, what logic or reason leads you to conclude that disagreement is anything more than people being wrong? In other words, given that people can be wrong (which causes disagreement), how does disagreement prove there is no truth?

I'd say that disagreement is just the natural consequence of beings that can individually reason and form their own beliefs.


I guess I disagree. As far as I know, other animals lack the ability to conceptualize and form their own beliefs. That is a natural characteristic of humans. A human operating pursuant to its natural capabilities -- reasoning and forming beliefs -- is good. A human that does not operate pursuant to its natural capabilities is bad. Things that function per their capabilities are good. Things that cannot or do not function per the capabilities of their kind or form are bad or defective. (And that is not what today is often called a value judgment. A car that doesn't start is bad. A tire with a puncture is bad.)

My emotional needs would like for you to be mesmerized by my words and agree with me and join my cult. ;) Reason tells me that the the best thing for you is to use your own reason and disagree with me if that is what you conclude.


I don't believe that statement. And as I said above, disagreement is not proof of lack of greater truth.

You have several times noted disagreement as basis for you thinking on truth. Is that an emotional reaction or a reasoned one? If a reasoned one, then I'd like to hear the logical argument that it would be good if humans did not have the characteristic to form individual opinions and instead all somehow were forced to agree, like for instance, bees in a hive.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

"Wrong is judged by logic and reason, by creatures that are aware that they have the capability to use logic and reason yet may be ignorant and affected by emotion. "

Agree. So what or who is the final judge of truth other than the individual?


"In other words, given that people can be wrong (which causes disagreement), how does disagreement prove there is no truth? "

Who is the final judge of truth? What if I disagree? I mean I think the proof of global warming is unarguable and we need to get ready but enough people disagree so we stand with our thumbs up our asses.


"I'd say that disagreement is just the natural consequence of beings that can individually reason and form their own beliefs. "

Agreed.

"A human that does not operate pursuant to its natural capabilities is bad. Things that function per their capabilities are good. Things that cannot or do not function per the capabilities of their kind or form are bad or defective."

What if the capabilities bring harm to many others for only the gain of the individual?


" My emotional needs would like for you to be mesmerized by my words and agree with me and join my cult. ;) Reason tells me that the the best thing for you is to use your own reason and disagree with me if that is what you conclude. "

Like versa and vice versa.


"I don't believe that statement. And as I said above, disagreement is not proof of lack of greater truth. "

What is a greater truth? Can you prove that truth? What good does that do if I disagree?


"You have several times noted disagreement as basis for you thinking on truth. Is that an emotional reaction or a reasoned one? If a reasoned one, then I'd like to hear the logical argument that it would be good if humans did not have the characteristic to form individual opinions and instead all somehow were forced to agree, like for instance, bees in a hive. "

Emotion and reason go hand in hand. I need you to show me that people shouldn't have individuality or why individuality is bad. This whole thing is about my individual choice to not get too involved with groups. I think a problem is that there is too much group think.

 



2+2=4
Sum of all angles of triangle = 180 degrees
H is human. All humans die. H will die.
Cats are four-legged animals.
Some people are ignorant, mistaken, and/or insane.

If the last truth fits you and you deny the preceding truths, I don't care, and I still believe them to be truths.


That is bad because it is not in accord with reason and thus contrary to the natural capability.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

"If the last truth fits you and you deny the preceding truths, I don't care, and I still believe them to be truths. "

Exactly.



"That is bad because it is not in accord with reason and thus contrary to the natural capability. "

A lot of people who claim to worship reason claim that the individual and the preservation of self trumps the needs of others. To us that would be unreasonable and to them that would be reasonable. We keep going back to how a person personally believes. Perception is reality. I look at Trump and see a unstable man with little conception of reality. Some on this board see a true leader and a great man. The truth is up to the individual.

Emotion about political events that likely won't amount to a hill of beans in your person life is going to be the basis for your philosophical conclusions?

It never ceases to amaze me how wound up people get over issues of politics that as you clearly point out generally wind up being next to meaningless in ones day to day life. I have lived as a voting adult thru five presidents now and over 30 years. I can honestly say with few exceptions that none of hand wringing over policy, changes in tax law blah, blah, blah has had an immediate and significant impact on my life. By comparison however the continued monolithic attitude of government in general has most certainly eroded away at my quality of life over that time. Yet there is no desire and seemingly no stomach to change anything about government or the clear general direction it is heading regardless of who is at the helm...or maybe it's just that that direction is where everyone else wants to go.

~Matt

By comparison however the continued monolithic attitude of government in general has most certainly eroded away at my quality of life over that time. Yet there is no desire and seemingly no stomach to change anything about government or the clear general direction it is heading regardless of who is at the helm...or maybe it's just that that direction is where everyone else wants to go.

I think your last comment correct here in Canada and one where the U.S is moving towards.

It seems that people have just become so accepting of government involvement in every part of our lives that it seems it is really what they want. People who stand up and say they are tired of the overreach or want smaller government are considered on the fringe. Think of Ron Paul when he ran. His ideas were largely about less government, less military etc., and for many he was considered an after thought and not taken seriously by the media and many people. Now, guys like Bernie Sanders, who might have won the general election if he had been able to get through the rigged Democratic primary, are thought of as people fighting the good fight. The size of government has grown under both parties, and the more it grows, the more people come to accept it.

If you look at criticisms of government, it is telling. The administrations of the day are roundly criticized if job growth slows, meaning people expect them to create jobs. If anything goes wrong, they look to the government for solutions. Presidents are under a microscope with people looking to him to solve their problems. It's very strange.

Government is the natural order of man. People say they want less but demand more. Same goes for businesses so the idea of pure capitalism is a dream for a few.

And pure capitalism is brutal, absolutely brutal. People love the possibilities of real capitalism, the realities not so much...in my experience. Like teenagers, we want rules and regulations and constraints the hell out of our life so we can be rich and live life to the fullest, until it gets really hard, then we want rules, regs and financial assistance. And we complain all the while (just like teenagers).

You post some cool philosophical musings. It was getting a bit boring without Forge, glad you're posting.

I love to figure things out. if you have a deep question or a striking observation bring it up so we can rap.

I agree. As individuals it is unlikely we are going to significantly change politics I still think it is important to try . But for the most part if we want to better our lives we have to adapt to the systems we live in. As we become more dependent on government we become more vulnerable. A significant downturn in gov'ts ability to "take care of us" seems a good possibility, those who can't take care of themselves are most vulnerable.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

If you want to explore this topic of truth and goodness I would suggest you get your hands on a copy of "The Abolition of Man" by C.S. Lewis. Its a small book but somewhat pithy. Its a book about whether judgements of the goodness of things are subjective and just what the individual thinks or not. Basically is there a natural law ie some things just are good and true and some are not. We have always had disagreements about exactly what is good but general acceptance of the idea that its up to the individual and subjective is a recent phenomena. The idea that it is subjective and anyone can decide can be thought of as a type of close mindedness because it rejects the idea and possibility that some things are good and some are not. Another book that talks about this is "The Closing of the American Mind" by Allan Bloom. It can be a tough read.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I have read the Abolition Of Man. While I am worlds apart from C.S. Lewis I find him a fun writer and sever IQ points higher than me.

Allen Bloom! Ugh. I will read it but I am familiar with his back in my day arguments.

In this tread I am being told that the government doesn't really effect my life but we have too much government and that is bad. What gives?

Parts of it are very good but parts are very unreadable for me. The unreadable parts go over my head I don't know it that is my fault or the authors.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

The author's. You got them brains.

In this tread I am being told that the government doesn't really effect my life but we have too much government and that is bad. What gives?

Don't confuse change in effect with no effect. I think you're being told that no President, politician, individual policy etc etc will have a significant effect on your life but that over a period of decades, even centuries governments tend to move in a direction that has more and more effect on ones life.

In short if you're treading water it really doesn't matter if someone tosses you a cheese sandwich or a bologna sandwich. It would make a big difference though if someone drained the pool. Until the pool empties however it's all up to you not to drown no matter which sandwich they toss you.

~Matt

Uhm, sure.