Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → "There is no truth."

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

What music are you listen...
by zeca
Today at 08:08 PM
Gaza assault
Today at 07:56 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Today at 05:07 PM
New Britain
Yesterday at 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Yesterday at 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 19, 2024, 06:36 AM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 04, 2024, 03:51 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: "There is no truth."

 (Read 32093 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 4 5 67 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #150 - April 07, 2015, 01:29 AM
    Fine. I'll make friends with broccoli first, and then desk organization, and then philosophy.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #151 - April 07, 2015, 02:17 AM
    Quote from: lua on April 07, 2015, 01:22 AM
    I'm a million percent guilty as charged here, anyway. Grin Our Qtian has been trying to get me to learn more about philosophy, and...inshallah. I'm sure in the end you're right. And, like forcing myself to consume vegetables, I know I should learn more about philosophy, but...

    I caution you against doing that.

    If any part of you doesn't want to learn philosophy, then you shouldn’t do it. If you try to do it anyway, you’re hurting yourself. So you don’t want to ignore that.

    Now part of you thinks learning philosophy would be good for you, and is happy about the idea of learning philosophy. So you don’t want to ignore that part of you either. If you do ignore it, you’re hurting yourself again.

    What you could do instead is find a new idea that satisfies those two parts of you. That way you don’t get hurt. You don’t suffer. You don’t force yourself. Because all parts of you is in agreement.

    Here’s some suggestions for new ideas that might satisfy all parts of you.

    ^ you could ask a few questions — of your choice — so that you could make a judgement about whether spending time learning philosophy is worth it for you (according to your values).

    ^ you could try out learning some actual philosophy and see if it gets you any concrete benefits.

    ^ you could do a combination of those things.


    Whatever idea you’re considering, ask yourself:

    ^ Does the idea satisfy the part of you that wants to learn philosophy?

    ^ Does the idea satisfy the part of you that feels like learning philosophy is like eating vegetables?

    If not, could you change the idea slightly so that both parts of you feel good about it?

    If you need some more creativity to find potential ideas, consider asking yourself why you want to learn philosophy, and why you feel like learning philosophy is like eating vegetables. That line of questioning might help you find an idea that could satisfy both parts of you.


    If you want my advise on what sort of philosophy that you could get some concrete benefits out of — in a short amount of time — consider reading the following essay. It explains more about the stuff I just explained above: Avoiding Coercion http://fallibleideas.com/avoiding-coercion
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #152 - April 07, 2015, 02:29 AM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on April 07, 2015, 01:26 AM
    Philosophy is rather like psychology in the sense that the more you learn, the more your mind adapts to this way of thinking, the more you see things in ways you never did before. It's a worthwhile pursuit in my opinion.

    Right.

    Your philosophy is the lens you see the world through.

    Except it's not just about what you see. It's also about how you think, your emotions and intuitions, and your behavior. Your philosophy affects all this stuff.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #153 - April 07, 2015, 03:57 AM
    I appreciate it, Rami. But I am used to begrudgingly learning, so I'll be okay. Grin
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #154 - April 07, 2015, 11:40 AM
    Lua, what questions do you have? This would be a better starting point than trying to reinterpret Rami.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #155 - April 07, 2015, 12:00 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 07, 2015, 03:57 AM
    I appreciate it, Rami. But I am used to begrudgingly learning, so I'll be okay. Grin

    Well that's one thing you could learn from philosophy. To no longer live life begrudgingly doing things (suffering) and instead living life wholeheartedly doing things (no suffering).

    By the way, do you have kids or intend to have kids? Do you want them to live life begrudgingly doing things? Or would you rather that they live life wholeheartedly doing things and not suffer? (If you begrudgingly do things then you are encouraging them to do the same.)
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #156 - April 07, 2015, 12:01 PM
    Quote from: bogart on April 07, 2015, 11:40 AM
    Lua, what questions do you have? This would be a better starting point than trying to reinterpret Rami.

    Reinterpret? What do you mean?

    Btw, my suggestion was also for her to ask questions.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #157 - April 07, 2015, 02:07 PM
    Quote from: bogart on April 07, 2015, 11:40 AM
    Lua, what questions do you have? This would be a better starting point than trying to reinterpret Rami.


    Well, my original question was how is the scientific method a philosophy. What Allat wrote was kind of what I was looking for; I'll take it. Rami spent a couple pages trying to show that the scientific method is a theory, which I still do not see, and this is when you stepped in and said you agreed with him, so I figured maybe you could explain better. There's really no specific questions for that besides how.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #158 - April 07, 2015, 02:10 PM
    Grin Rami, I might sometimes sound much more serious than I mean to. Suffering might be a kind of dramatic way to put it.

    And if I have kids someday, those monsters spawned from the genetic disaster that is a long line of inbreeding in the mountains of Kentucky will have more to worry about than how enthusiastically they learn new subjects. But I appreciate it.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #159 - April 07, 2015, 02:51 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 07, 2015, 02:07 PM
    Well, my original question was how is the scientific method a philosophy.

    A philosophy just means a set of ideas. Do you agree that the scientific method is a set of ideas [about how to create scientific knowledge]?
    Quote from: lua on April 07, 2015, 02:07 PM
    What Allat wrote was kind of what I was looking for; I'll take it. Rami spent a couple pages trying to show that the scientific method is a theory, which I still do not see,

    A theory is just an idea (or set of ideas).

    The scientific method is a set of ideas -- a theory -- about how to create scientific knowledge.
    Quote from: lua on April 07, 2015, 02:07 PM
    and this is when you stepped in and said you agreed with him, so I figured maybe you could explain better. There's really no specific questions for that besides how.

    Is it clearer now?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #160 - April 07, 2015, 02:57 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 07, 2015, 02:10 PM
    Grin Rami, I might sometimes sound much more serious than I mean to. Suffering might be a kind of dramatic way to put it.

    No, it's the correct way to put it.

    Suffering happens when you don't get what you want.

    If you try to learn philosophy, while part of you doesn't want to do that, then part of you isn't getting what you want, hence suffering.

    There's no other way to suffer. All suffering is not getting what you want.
    Quote from: lua on April 07, 2015, 02:10 PM
    And if I have kids someday, those monsters spawned from the genetic disaster that is a long line of inbreeding in the mountains of Kentucky will have more to worry about than how enthusiastically they learn new subjects. But I appreciate it.

    I think you don't realize how much bigger this is than just learning "subjects". This matters to ALL decisions you make, ALL actions you take, ALL disagreements you have with people (including disagreements with yourself).

    Say you have a disagreement with a family member that you live with. Let's say he suggests an idea for an agreement, and you go along with it grudgingly. This means you're suffering.

    There is a way to resolve the disagreement without anybody suffering. It takes creating knowledge of a mutually-beneficial agreement, a win/win, an idea that no part of you (and he) disagrees with.

    Not suffering is possible and desirable. There's no law of nature preventing you from avoiding suffering (i.e. coercion).
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #161 - April 07, 2015, 03:41 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 07, 2015, 02:51 PM
    Do you agree that the scientific method is a set of ideas [about how to create scientific knowledge]?


    ...As much as I'd call following the instructions on a boxed cake container a theory on how to create a cake.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #162 - April 07, 2015, 03:42 PM
    P.S. I still appreciate the advice, Rami.  Afro
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #163 - April 07, 2015, 04:00 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 07, 2015, 03:41 PM
    ...As much as I'd call following the instructions on a boxed cake container a theory on how to create a cake.

    Right. A set of instructions (about how to create a cake) is a theory.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #164 - April 07, 2015, 04:01 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 07, 2015, 03:42 PM
    P.S. I still appreciate the advice, Rami.  Afro

    Smiley

    And my offer to help you with this -- learning philosophy, e.g. how not to suffer -- is open and will never close. well, until my death that is.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #165 - April 07, 2015, 04:05 PM
    ... Cheesy

    Okay. Allat was right. I do see that as getting unnecessarily complicated or overthinking things, and I guess I don't see the benefit if pretty much everything under the sun is a theory. But, as I've learned Bogart and Allat are often quite right, I'll take their word for it and accept that it might just be me and my lack of enthusiasm for the subject.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #166 - April 07, 2015, 04:07 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 07, 2015, 04:01 PM
    Smiley

    And my offer to help you with this -- learning philosophy, e.g. how not to suffer -- is open and will never close. well, until my death that is.


    Well, that's very kind of you. Thanks!
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #167 - April 07, 2015, 04:22 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 07, 2015, 04:05 PM
    ... Cheesy

    Okay. Allat was right. I do see that as getting unnecessarily complicated or overthinking things, and I guess I don't see the benefit if pretty much everything under the sun is a theory.

    Why do you think it's a case of overthinking? Do you think that thinking about this in the terms I've described is not useful? Well then maybe you could ask why it's useful.

    I'll try to explain why this understanding of "theory" is useful.

    Do you agree that all ideas (i.e. theories) should be judged before believing them? Or do you think it's ok to accept a theory before judging it?

    I bet you'll say it's important to judge a theory before believing it. Why?

    Because that's what we do in court. No judge should declare somebody guilty without judging the theory that he's guilty.

    Because that's what we do in science. No scientist should declare that a scientific theory is our current best theory without judging (with criticism and empirical tests) that theory.

    Because that's what we do in business. No businessman should declare that his idea is the current best idea of what to do without judging that idea against all the known alternatives.

    Because that's what we do in life. No person should act on a theory (about what to do now) while part of him disagrees with that theory. Instead, he should judge that theory by comparing it against alternatives, in search of a theory which no part of him disagrees with, and then act on that non-refuted theory (this is the only way to avoid suffering).

    So, do you think it's not useful to think about these things in terms of being theories that should be judged?


    Quote from: lua on April 07, 2015, 04:05 PM
    But, as I've learned Bogart and Allat are often quite right, I'll take their word for it and accept that it might just be me and my lack of enthusiasm for the subject.

    If you think this is all too complicated, do you have a simpler way to understand it while achieving the same purpose? If you don't have a simpler way to understand it, then why did you conclude that this way is too complicated? It seems you have jumped to your conclusion (without judgement).
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #168 - April 07, 2015, 04:29 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 07, 2015, 04:05 PM
    I guess I don't see the benefit if pretty much everything under the sun is a theory.

    You seem to want to give certain ideas extra status by calling them theories and other ideas less status by not calling them theories. Is that it?

    If it's not that, then why do you care about calling some ideas theories and not others? What's the benefit?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #169 - April 07, 2015, 04:31 PM
    What I know is that I, without ever having to stop and think about the philosophy of Betty Crocker's Theory of Funfetti Cake, could follow the box's instructions and either make a cake correctly each time or get varied results and realize the instructions needed tweaking. In my mind, it's important to explain is why it works if it does, and why it doesn't work if it doesn't--and everything else is a waste of time.

    But, Rami, at this point, ignore; you're talking to an old, grouchy man. Grin
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #170 - April 07, 2015, 04:34 PM
    PSA: Qtian has been sending me messages all morning like "Rami & lua <3" and wondering which one of us will maintain our surnames upon marriage. Thanks, Qtian. >: (
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #171 - April 07, 2015, 04:38 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 07, 2015, 04:22 PM
    What I know is that I, without ever having to stop and think about the philosophy of Betty Crocker's Theory of Funfetti Cake, could follow the box's instructions

    No. You did think about it. You just don't remember. When you were younger you had to learn how to interpret text such that you could follow it's directions. That is philosophy that you learned.
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 07, 2015, 04:22 PM
    and either make a cake correctly each time or get varied results and realize the instructions needed tweaking.

    The first time you baked a cake, you didn't know some of the things that you now know about how to bake a cake. This is philosophy that you learned about how to interpret what you're seeing, tasting, and smelling, as you bake cakes.
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 07, 2015, 04:22 PM
    In my mind, it's important to explain is why it works if it does, and why it doesn't work if it doesn't--and everything else is a waste of time.

    Yes I agree. Ideas matter only in relation to their usefulness ("why it works if it does"). So we are in agreement.

    If you ever are thinking about a philosophy (or idea/theory) which does not have a good purpose/usefulness, then it's crap philosophy, and you should reject it. But you don't want to jump to conclusions that a philosophy/idea/theory has no good purpose/usefulness. You want to judge it fairly.

    And judging it fairly is not a thing that people can do automatically. It's a process. And we're improving that process still.

    What is that process? It's the process of creating knowledge, i.e. learning, i.e. how to judge ideas. For more on this, see: http://fallibleideas.com/knowledge-creation
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #172 - April 07, 2015, 04:40 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 07, 2015, 04:29 PM
    You seem to want to give certain ideas extra status by calling them theories and other ideas less status by not calling them theories. Is that it?

    If it's not that, then why do you care about calling some ideas theories and not others? What's the benefit?


    Well, the way you were going about trying to get me to accept this definition was by talking about refuting old scientific methods and talking about empirical evidence which, still, I do not accept the angle you were trying to attack this with. But if in the end you're saying every process is an idea and every idea is a theory in philosophy--whatever, that's fine.

    But then it just seems so abstract to me that I'm not convinced of its usefulness, but, again, two of the people who weighed in on this are ones I find pretty reliable so I'm going to agree that I might have to come back to this discussion in a few years after I finally study...philosophy
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #173 - April 07, 2015, 04:46 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 07, 2015, 04:34 PM
    Well, the way you were going about trying to get me to accept this definition [of a theory]...

    No I was not trying to get you to accept the definition of a theory. I was trying to explain why the scientific method is not a scientific theory. I was actually trying to get you to *stop* thinking about what I was saying in terms of the scientific method being a theory. You kept trying to get me to talk about it in terms of a theory, against my advise. I was trying to avoid that because you were hung up on definitions of things instead of what things *are*.
    Quote from: lua on April 07, 2015, 04:34 PM
    But then it just seems so abstract to me that I'm not convinced of its usefulness, but, again, two of the people who weighed in on this are ones I find pretty reliable so I'm going to agree that I might have to come back to this discussion in a few years after I finally study...philosophy

    Sorry to burst your bubble but you've been learning philosophy this entire time we've been talking over the past few days.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #174 - April 07, 2015, 04:59 PM
    But your end point obviously was that it was a theory? Anyway, you're not going to get far with me anymore, you're going to have to let skeptical grumps be skeptical grumps. At least for another couple years. Grin

    Quote
    Sorry to burst your bubble but you've been learning philosophy this entire time we've been talking over the past few days.

     

    You severely underestimate my power to not retain things.

  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #175 - April 07, 2015, 05:01 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom  to lua on April 07, 2015, 04:46 PM
    ..............You kept trying to get me to talk about it in terms of a theory, against my advise. ...............

    .....Sorry to burst your bubble but you've been learning philosophy this entire time we've been talking over the past few days.

    well what is happening here......theory..advice....philosophy and busting bubbles ..

    well Rami you can not bust the bubbles of  lua., Actually no one can burst her bubble..So stop trying.

    So what else you are working with Rami apart from proving that "there is no truth" ad busting bubbles that you can't see??  

    well what is truth in your neck of the world?   it is not pickle to taste and say "this is truth"...
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #176 - April 07, 2015, 07:02 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 07, 2015, 04:59 PM
    But your end point obviously was that it was a theory?

    No, not my end point at all. What I was explaining was that the scientific method is a philosophical thing, not a scientific one.

    The difference is this:

    - the way that you improve (or refute) something *scientific* is by testing it against physical reality and by philosophical criticism
    - the way that you improve (or refute) something *philosophical* is by philosophical criticism only.

    Quote from: lua on April 07, 2015, 04:59 PM
    You severely underestimate my power to not retain things.

    The reason that you find yourself not really retaining things is that you are learning things grudgingly. Because you're doing it grudgingly, you end up rote memorizing stuff. This is what's wrong with school. They force kids to learn stuff they don't want to learn, and that encourages kids to take short cuts and just rote memorize stuff. That'll help them pass tests but the knowledge they are creating (in their minds) isn't useful for much of anything in real life.

    That's why I caution you against grudgingly learning stuff.
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #177 - April 07, 2015, 07:05 PM
    Quote from: yeezevee on April 07, 2015, 05:01 PM
    well Rami you can not bust the bubbles of  lua., Actually no one can burst her bubble..So stop trying.
     

    I wasn't trying to. It was just a saying.
    Quote from: yeezevee on April 07, 2015, 05:01 PM
    So what else you are working with Rami apart from proving that "there is no truth"

    I can't tell if this is a joke or serious. Did you think I was advocating that there is no truth?
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #178 - April 07, 2015, 08:36 PM
    Quote from: lua on April 07, 2015, 04:05 PM
    ... Cheesy

    Okay. Allat was right. I do see that as getting unnecessarily complicated or overthinking things, and I guess I don't see the benefit if pretty much everything under the sun is a theory. But, as I've learned Bogart and Allat are often quite right, I'll take their word for it and accept that it might just be me and my lack of enthusiasm for the subject.


     Kiss

    I do think some Philosophy types tend to over-think things to the point of absurdity and I do think some Science types tend to want to not think about the underlying assumptions on which "Science" is built (especially nowadays when Science education is under attack in many parts of the US, for example, there is a sense of defensiveness about it amongst some).

    Team Philosophy: Try and understand that it's not necessarily that Team Science is incapable of thinking and analysing concepts to the depths and breadths you are used to. It's that Team Science is generally more about the pragmatic usage of those concepts. You'd get much further with trying to communicate with Team Science if you highlighted the ways that Philosophical analyses can practically help with ongoing issues in the physical world.

    Team Science: Team Philosophy tends to argue for arguments' sake because Western Philosophy has at its root a lot of influence from nihilism and existentialism and rhetoric ("nothing really matters in reality / nothing is real except for what we (collectively and individually) decide to do and talking about things is the way to figure things out" type of thinking which, I think most of us here adhere to, consciously or not). This leads to valuing analyses for analyses' sake. IMO, outside of academia at least, it can be indulgent and wasteful to do that. But I also see a major problem in ignoring Philosophy and thinking of the living world in over-simplistic, disparate, or purely mechanistic terms.

    There is a very unflattering turn amongst some people who have become so defensive of "Science" they want to glorify what they think is "Science" above all other supposedly meager pursuits, including what they think is "Philosophy", "Sociology", "Psychology", "Humanities", etc. While it can be frustrating to argue with Team Philosophy because they sometimes go way beyond practical uses of thought & analyses, I do think throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a problem much deeper and more dangerous than putting up with Team Philosophy's sometimes unnecessarily long focus on matters that seem obvious to Team Science. Some things that seem obvious to Team Science are really not, if you really look at them under a critical, analytical gaze, and unpack them. Some things Team Philosophy goes on about in their 20s, they'll have worked out by their 30s & 40s. Wink

    To both: Personally, I tend to tune out when someone isn't necessarily antagonistic but maybe is just not getting it (from my point of view). Maybe there are other things going on with them in their life... maybe they're trying to work things out in their own heads in their own time. Maybe I need to do that too. Smiley
    "Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."
  • "There is no truth."
     Reply #179 - April 07, 2015, 10:39 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on April 07, 2015, 12:01 PM
    Reinterpret? What do you mean?

    Btw, my suggestion was also for her to ask questions.


    You are not creating an explanation linking SM with philosophy, or at least communicating it well. Hence why I brought up rationalists vs empiricist. I am trying to fill that gap. 
  • Previous page 1 ... 4 5 67 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »