the four basic truths [for most of us]

[Nah]

When I observe how people tend to use the word truth, it seems to represent the (wrong) presumptions that there is something absolutely unquestionable and its common to everybody, everywhere, without exception.

I should point out that, in part, this post is facetious. I had just been listening to The Godfathers's classic "Birth School Work Death" when the idea of "basic truths" popped into my head.

I use the word truth here only as someone curious about those things that seem relevant to all of us.

I see.

Still, isn't "relevant to all of us" showing the high degree of certainty (you might have felt at that time)?

[von Rivers]

Nah,

What is the point of what you've said? And could you give a relevant example...

I happen to think that you yourself don't even know what you're talking about. Perhaps an example would rectify this.

[Nah]

I think you can't understand because you are so sure about your (mis)interpretation of what others say.

Can you understand that you would not be able to follow what others are saying unless you try to adopt same focuses others are using?


Even though you are slowly realizing that you are not understanding what I said, I think you are still hopefully/wishfully trying to interpret that it's not because of your wrong focuses.

The part you are having problem was written so that (some) readers can notice the common factors among these, which is the sense of certainty.
And it's often subconscious, emotional, and grossly exaggerated (in terms of applicability/probability/universality/etc), if we take a good look.

So, I tend to think that truth (and some other notions) are more of expression of emotional projection and hope/desire for the absolute certainty than result of reasonable/rational/logical evaluation.

[von Rivers]

I think you can't understand because you are so sure about your (mis)interpretation of what others say.

Can you understand that you would not be able to follow what others are saying unless you try to adopt same focuses others are using?

Even though you are slowly realizing that you are not understanding what I said, I think you are still hopefully/wishfully trying to interpret that it's not because of your wrong focuses.

The part you are having problem was written so that (some) readers can notice the common factors among these, which is the sense of certainty.
And it's often subconscious, emotional, and grossly exaggerated (in terms of applicability/probability/universality/etc), if we take a good look.

So, I tend to think that truth (and some other notions) are more of expression of emotional projection and hope/desire for the absolute certainty than result of reasonable/rational/logical evaluation.

If your central point is in the underlined part, then you really are swinging at a straw man pinata in an open field. What that means is that NOBODY disagrees, and that your point is so uninteresting and uncontroversial, that it's not worth swinging at.

I would take the underlined part to be your main point, but I am having trouble convincing myself that you actually know what you yourself are trying to say. I asked for a simple example in my last post---so, how about one...

[Nah]

So, I tend to think that truth (and some other notions) are more of expression of emotional projection and hope/desire for the absolute certainty than result of reasonable/rational/logical evaluation.

If your central point is in the underlined part, then you really are swinging at a straw man pinata in an open field. What that means is that NOBODY disagrees, and that your point is so uninteresting and uncontroversial, that it's not worth swinging at.

I would take the underlined part to be your main point, but I am having trouble convincing myself that you actually know what you yourself are trying to say. I asked for a simple example in my last post---so, how about one...

It's one of the point.

But "NOBODY" disagrees?
Is it another one of your wishful thinking?

As for the example, how about what you just wrote?
If it's not enough, you can just read other posts of yours in this thread.
You've been making worthwhile contribution in the form of live examples, although they were mostly useless as arguments. Thank you.

[FilmSnob]

So, I tend to think that truth (and some other notions) are more of expression of emotional projection and hope/desire for the absolute certainty than result of reasonable/rational/logical evaluation.

If your central point is in the underlined part, then you really are swinging at a straw man pinata in an open field. What that means is that NOBODY disagrees, and that your point is so uninteresting and uncontroversial, that it's not worth swinging at.

I would take the underlined part to be your main point, but I am having trouble convincing myself that you actually know what you yourself are trying to say. I asked for a simple example in my last post---so, how about one...

It's one of the point.

But "NOBODY" disagrees?
Is it another one of your wishful thinking?

As for the example, how about what you just wrote?
If it's not enough, you can just read other posts of yours in this thread.
You've been making worthwhile contribution in the form of live examples, although they were mostly useless as arguments. Thank you.

The relativists lose again.

[von Rivers]

1. You don't seem to have a clear idea of what you are trying to say. The way you mash separate concepts together into one amorphous, dark, stitched together concept and call it "truth" is down right obscurantism.
2. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd provide a simple example.
3. If you want to use wishful thinking as your example, then use the term properly; it's to take something to be true because you want it to be true, roughly. You are not doing wishful thinking if you take something to be true because it is true. Which is why, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that I haven't offered you an example. Moreover, I certainly haven't assumed that what I'm saying is absolute, pragmatic, and universal (which is what your example requires).







I am a river.

[iambiguous]

Still, isn't "relevant to all of us" showing the high degree of certainty (you might have felt at that time)?

That's my point. "I" felt with a high degree of certainty "at the time" that [for most of us] these aspects of the "human condition" transcend dasein.

But not with the sort of certainty that would ever lead me to conclude that everyone must think [and feel] this way. Or be deemed wrong.

[Nah]

1. You don't seem to have a clear idea of what you are trying to say. The way you mash separate concepts together into one amorphous, dark, stitched together concept and call it "truth" is down right obscurantism.

Again, I think you are misinterpreting, intentionally or by the lack of willingness (or ability) to follow focus of others.

Often, you seem to do it so that resulting conclusion fits your desired perspective.
(Last time, you wanted to think that I was "apologizing". )

2. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd provide a simple example.

I did. You failed to understand, though.

And knowing about what we are talking about and providing example isn't necessary related.
I think your reasoning is faulty, here.

3. If you want to use wishful thinking as your example, then use the term properly; it's to take something to be true because you want it to be true, roughly.

I think you do that, often.
Read your replies to me and you might be able to see.

But "wishful thinking" itself isn't the example.

You are not doing wishful thinking if you take something to be true because it is true. Which is why, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that I haven't offered you an example.

I think you are doing wishful thinking, again, here.

Moreover, I certainly haven't assumed that what I'm saying is absolute, pragmatic, and universal (which is what your example requires).

I am a river.

[/quote]
I'll repeat until you get it. In another thread we repeated 5 or 6 times before you understood one thing.
So, you may understand this, if I repeat a few times more.

Focus on the sense of certainty.
Unless you don't focus on it, you won't understand.

And you've "certainty" assumed many things you were saying with high degree of certainty.

[Nah]

Still, isn't "relevant to all of us" showing the high degree of certainty (you might have felt at that time)?

That's my point. "I" felt with a high degree of certainty "at the time" that [for most of us] these aspects of the "human condition" transcend dasein.

Is it too far if I read this "dasein" as "individuality" or "individual differences", here, in this case?

But not with the sort of certainty that would ever lead me to conclude that everyone must think [and feel] this way. Or be deemed wrong.

Let's say, it wasn't clear and conscious sort of certainty (of absolute and/or logical) form.
But I'm guessing that it had some sense of "undeniable", "inescapable", and/or "demanding" type of feeling, especially/probably in underlying emotion.

And if we translate this kind of feeling into reasoning, it's not very far from "unconditional", "absolute", etc, which isn't intended by the surface consciousness.


So, I think the words (and concept) like "truth", "objective", etc can fool us (our surface consciousness) because of unwarranted degree of certainty implied (often at emotional level).
It's convenient for feeling greater sense of certainty than our surface reasoning is willing to allocate.
But it's like doping oneself, in a way.
I think lots of us have been abusing and fooled by these, while trying to think more accurately (at least at the superficial part of us).

[von Rivers]

Again, I think you are misinterpreting, intentionally or by the lack of willingness (or ability) to follow focus of others.

If I'm misunderstanding, it's because you don't know what you are trying to say. If you did, a simple example would be easy for you. But, since you don't know what you're trying to say, you're not sure how to make up an example.

Focus on the sense of certainty.
Unless you don't focus on it, you won't understand.

You and iambiguous are both obscurantists. This serves a purpose for the both of you. Sometimes the only way to make the waters look deep, is to muddy them up a little bit. Congratulations on that.

[iambiguous]

Is it too far if I read this "dasein" as "individuality" or "individual differences", here, in this case?

Dasein [my dasein] revolves more around the manner in which we come to acquire a sense of identity---and not the manner in which any particular individual has come to "resolve" this to his or her own satisfaction.

Therefore, it is rooted in a particular world that is rooted in the evolution of life on earth. And in history and culture and personal experience. And in contingency and chance and change. And in political economy. And in the limits of language and logic in describing this meaningfully. And, finally, in death and oblivion.

But I have no more a capacity to demonstrate this is in fact true objectively than those who insist it is not in fact true objectively. What are "the facts" here?

Here there is only an exchange of narratives that reflect subjective points of view.

Let's say, it wasn't clear and conscious sort of certainty (of absolute and/or logical) form.

But I'm guessing that it had some sense of "undeniable", "inescapable", and/or "demanding" type of feeling, especially/probably in underlying emotion.

The difficulty here lies in denoting precisely where emotion ends and reason begins when reacting to conflicting human behaviors predicated on conflicting value judgments rooted in dasein.

And then there those aspects of human interaction rooted in the truly primordial brain functions.

"I" either acknowledges the vertiginous labyrinth -- the opaque obscurity -- here or does not. But, if not, it doesn't make it go away. But, sure, we can convince ourselves that it does and then from that point of view, it has. For all practical purposes. In our interactions with others. Out in a particular world. Viewed from a particular set of moral and political prejudices.

After all, consequences are born out of human interactions predicated on what we believe is true as much as on what is actually true.

This is part of the mystery that is mind. There is no other matter like it.

[Moreno]

Birth
School
Work
Death

Or perception, emotions, thoughts, intentions, desires, dreams, non-dream sleeping states, pain, pleasure.......

[Nah]

Again, I think you are misinterpreting, intentionally or by the lack of willingness (or ability) to follow focus of others.

If I'm misunderstanding, it's because you don't know what you are trying to say. If you did, a simple example would be easy for you. But, since you don't know what you're trying to say, you're not sure how to make up an example.

You can just look at your sense of certainty that your problem of misunderstanding is caused by others.
I think you tend to be too often too sure of your highly optimistic (hopeful/wishful) version of "reality".

Focus on the sense of certainty.
Unless you don't focus on it, you won't understand.

You and iambiguous are both obscurantists. This serves a purpose for the both of you. Sometimes the only way to make the waters look deep, is to muddy them up a little bit. Congratulations on that.

Here, I think you are talking about yourself, again.

You value depth, and it means you think you are not deep enough.
Then, you think about pretending otherwise.
And you think obscuring would hide how shallow you are (according to your own interpretation).

Personally, I feel the depth of water when the water is clearer.
I don't get much sense of depth from a muddy river.
So, if I had an inferior complex about the lack of "depth", and if I wanted to pretend I'm "deep", I would try to show clarity rather than obscurity.
But I don't value "depth", and I don't think about how to pretend to be "deep", unlike you.

[Nah]

Is it too far if I read this "dasein" as "individuality" or "individual differences", here, in this case?

Dasein [my dasein] revolves more around the manner in which we come to acquire a sense of identity---and not the manner in which any particular individual has come to "resolve" this to his or her own satisfaction.

Therefore, it is rooted in a particular world that is rooted in the evolution of life on earth. And in history and culture and personal experience. And in contingency and chance and change. And in political economy. And in the limits of language and logic in describing this meaningfully. And, finally, in death and oblivion.

But I have no more a capacity to demonstrate this is in fact true objectively than those who insist it is not in fact true objectively. What are "the facts" here?

Here there is only an exchange of narratives that reflect subjective points of view.

Well, I didn't want to focus on your dasein, and that's why I asked if we can use more common words/concepts as substitute in this particular limited context.

But thank you for explaining about your dasein, anyway. I think I understand it a bit more, now.

Let's say, it wasn't clear and conscious sort of certainty (of absolute and/or logical) form.

But I'm guessing that it had some sense of "undeniable", "inescapable", and/or "demanding" type of feeling, especially/probably in underlying emotion.

The difficulty here lies in denoting precisely where emotion ends and reason begins when reacting to conflicting human behaviors predicated on conflicting value judgments rooted in dasein.

And then there those aspects of human interaction rooted in the truly primordial brain functions.

"I" either acknowledges the vertiginous labyrinth -- the opaque obscurity -- here or does not. But, if not, it doesn't make it go away. But, sure, we can convince ourselves that it does and then from that point of view, it has. For all practical purposes. In our interactions with others. Out in a particular world. Viewed from a particular set of moral and political prejudices.

After all, consequences are born out of human interactions predicated on what we believe is true as much as on what is actually true.

This is part of the mystery that is mind. There is no other matter like it.

Well, one reason I didn't want to focus on dasein is you may dive into this sort of thought stream, which can bring in too many things.

So, I was trying to bring the attention to the sense of certainty, although it may have its own complexity. I thought you might be able to feel the sense of certainty coming along with the concept and/or word "truth" (and come other words).


Strictly speaking, any concept/word carries some (and enough) amount of the sense of certainty.
Otherwise, it won't feel right to use it, or the concept wouldn't fit in.
But some words/concepts seem to carry a lot more (and more than enough/appropriate) dose of the sense of certainty.

And it probably works on our mind like drugs, and we get addicted to and we crave for the (baseless and boosted) sense of certainty.

[Stoic Guardian]

Birth
School
Work
Death

Simplified

Birth
Learning
Labor
Death

[Stoic Guardian]

I don't understand this thread though, why just four?

What makes them basic?

[iambiguous]

Well, I didn't want to focus on your dasein, and that's why I asked if we can use more common words/concepts as substitute in this particular limited context.

To me, that would be like saying, "I didn't want to focus on your own understanding of freedom, but on ways in which to understand it in common."

But, as with personal identity, what is crucial [to me] is the actual context in which words like this will come to be used.

One could even argue that, if hard determinism prevails in human interaction, any context is interchangable with any other because a sense of freedom [like a sense of identity] is actually an illusion.

...one reason I didn't want to focus on dasein is you may dive into this sort of thought stream, which can bring in too many things.

When discussing something like "a fundamental human truth" we need to decide just how inherently muddied [muddled] the words will be. Folks like Mo keep the waters crystal clear by yanking the words up to the skyhooks. Up there the conflicts can revolve around definitions. If you agree with his logic then he is right.

I focus instead on those aspects of human interaction where rational discourse can be sustained only up to a point. Then our "thought streams" will necessarily be rooted more in prejudice and subjective points of view.

Strictly speaking, any concept/word carries some (and enough) amount of the sense of certainty.
Otherwise, it won't feel right to use it, or the concept wouldn't fit in.
But some words/concepts seem to carry a lot more (and more than enough/appropriate) dose of the sense of certainty.

I basically agree. But words that revolve around the relationship between value judgments, individual identity and basic human truths are going to be only more or less certain.

Sure, there are facts that can be established empirically. And there are things we can agree are true by definition...or are rational analytically.
But that certainty begins to fade when -- in depth -- we discuss things like, "how ought I to live my life?", or "is this the right thing to do?", or "why do I feel [think] this when others feel [think] that?"

These things -- increasingly -- become rooted in dasein and dasein is rooted in the enormously complex interaction of thousands upon thousands of existential variables that evolve over time in layer upon layer of contingency, chance and change. And these can be variable interactions that 1] we may have little control over or 2] are not even consciously aware of.

"I" here is profoundly problematic and precarious.

[FilmSnob]

I don't understand this thread though, why just four?

What makes them basic?

Think of it as a sociological statement, rather than a philosophical one. Try to think of exceptions to the birth-school-work-death rule. Not that many, eh?

[Stoic Guardian]

I don't understand this thread though, why just four?

What makes them basic?

Think of it as a sociological statement, rather than a philosophical one. Try to think of exceptions to the birth-school-work-death rule. Not that many, eh?

Exeptions? What about additions?

Sneezing, eating, pissing, shitting, burping ,yawning, sleeping, sighing, yelling, walking, smelling, jumping...

[Stoic Guardian]

I don't understand this thread though, why just four?

What makes them basic?

Think of it as a sociological statement, rather than a philosophical one. Try to think of exceptions to the birth-school-work-death rule. Not that many, eh?

Exeptions? What about additions?

Sneezing, eating, pissing, shitting, burping ,yawning, sleeping, sighing, yelling, walking, smelling, jumping...

[FilmSnob]

I don't understand this thread though, why just four?

What makes them basic?

Think of it as a sociological statement, rather than a philosophical one. Try to think of exceptions to the birth-school-work-death rule. Not that many, eh?

Exeptions? What about additions?

Sneezing, eating, pissing, shitting, burping ,yawning, sleeping, sighing, yelling, walking, smelling, jumping...

You're missing the point. S/he was proposing the elements for a structure of modern life. All of those activities fall under the structure birth-school-work-death.

[Stoic Guardian]

You're missing the point. S/he was proposing the elements for a structure of modern life. All of those activities fall under the structure birth-school-work-death.

And I asked "ok...so whats you main point here?"