I don’t know max. Maybe it is all about magnets. Screw this guessing using definitions and logic, that’s for chumps.
It is all about magnets and their force interactions Josh.Don’t listen to losers like Maxx
Your OP is interesting enough. Jupiter is here just to spam threads. It’s useless to expect concrete arguments from him. A one trick pony.
The last post is typical of the nonsense that losers like Maxx offer.
Meaningless rubbish….
Losers like Maxx will try anything to safe guard their false religion.
I’m just trying to stop you from wasting your time Josh..Get your starting philosophy correct first because that is what dictates everything else.A philosophical certainty doesn’t fail.Philosophical guesses fail every time.
+=- and -=+ philosophy is a philosophical guess.
+=+ and -=- philosophy is a philosophical guess.
+/-=+/- philosophy is a philosophical CERTAINTY!!! and will lead you to true knowledge.
To be honest with you, I’m not convinced that a single person who has replied to this thread understood the OP. Makes me think epistemology is not the best field to crowd-source answers in.
Well, epistemology is a complicated field. It’s not your clear cut question of right and wrong, this is it, this is not it, that’s all.
I for one don’t believe in Truth, like Plato did, but in truths, provisory, limited, temporary truths, never something absolute or unquestionable, never something I or any other can have a final say on.
Why are you wasting your time trying to reason a meaning to everything to losers like Maxx Josh?…He’s not interested.
You’ve been a bit too heavy on the insults man, this is an official warning. Next blatant insult will be met with a suspension.
Well there’s always this lingering question of maybe something’s not quite right, maybe something will come up later that will change your mind. We think something is certain, but as someone here pointed out, there’s human bias. Always a sliver of uncertainty. Like Descartes with his demon making him think he understood mathematics correctly but he actually didn’t.
I don’t see any rock-solid arguments that truth has to be this metaphysical ideal form. I like to think of it that way but I don’t see why it’s required. I think it’s very problematic though, to try to argue something like “No truth-claims at all are possible”. Both logically, and psychologically.
Does your position on limited, temporary truths make you a coherentist? As in, beliefs make sense and are justified when they hang together and are consistent with one another, but there are not necessarily any sacred, foundational beliefs that cannot be rejected under any circumstances.
Flannel…this is an atheistic forum pushing nothing but the atheistic religious agenda.We all know that.Atheists can hurl as many insults on forums such as this to defend their cognitively biased philosophical agenda.Its not a balanced playing field at all.
Lol, I rarely see someone insulting you here, except by calling you a bot, which you most probably are.
I’m not a bot. Maxx..What’s a bot. to someone like you who doesn’t believe in a meaning to anything at all anyway..lol?
You just spout words that have no meaning because your religious mantra is …everything is meaningless….because that is what a lifeless binary processors does.
Report the stuff you think is an insult. I don’t just use moderator abilities to suspend people I don’t like, or protect those I do - I’ve suspended people for insulting people who I completely disagree with before.
That being said, not all insults are the same. This is a place for disagreement, and it’s natural that disagreements get heated here and there. I don’t expect you to circle-jerk each other to completion - you’re allowed some degree of modest vitriol in your posts. But it does need to stay modest.
Calling people idiot, loser, fool… you had like 4 or 5 posts in a row with serious direct insults, and you need to rein it in.
Double so given that you came into this thread to derail it with the same subject you always want to talk about. We already have people who do that on this forum - who can’t respect a topic, who don’t know how to converse about a subject but always want instead to talk about their own thing, no matter the context. We don’t need any more, and we definitely don’t need those people driving off the people who ARE capable of having an on-topic conversation with relentless insults.
You talk about it not being a level playing field, but you are the most egregious insulter on the forum right now. You’ve gotten away with a lot. Cool it.
I state facts Flannel,not lies.
It’s a fact that attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes do not cancel out because it’s a fact that it’s impossible to cancel out the NN,NS,SN,SS electromagnetic force interactions that exist right now between all the spinning objects and particles with N and S poles which make up ALL matter in the cosmos.
So tell me Flannel, why does mainstream atheistic science lie by claiming that attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes do cancel out?
It’s important that Josh knows this stuff…
I’m glad you wrote this. This is an improvement. This is MUCH better than saying this ± baloney you always say. It’s much more clear and explicit and specific.
First of all, I want to point out that science isn’t atheistic. Science, as far as I know, as a practice, is completely neutral on theism. Many scientists are themselves theists.
So why do scientists think that attractive and repulsive electromagnetic forces cancel out? Great question. I don’t know. It’s not really on the top of the list of things I think about. Have you tried asking scientists, or reading physics textbooks?
Then you have nothing at all.
I think you are missing the point I was making. “science” and etymology are not relevant to my point at all.
REGARDLESS of what or who we are, or how we define outselves.
Whatever it is you are ---- all you saying an think and know is interested and based upon that metric that is “human” or “alien” or how and what ever it is that you might be.
Whatever our condition where and what we are be that a brain in a vat or part of the bilogical scum upon a large rock made mainly of Iron, or sitting on the back of a large turtle
Our lens, nervous system precludes much interest beyond what we can conceive.
Our POV is what it is.
Yes. So disappointing.
Yes I see your are referring to the paradoxical nature of such statements. As far as the paradox is concerned I feel we spend to much time disputing them rather than understanding them. Take your " language is meaningless " " Language has meaning " the assumption is has to be one or other. But if it can either or even both then the paradox becomes redundant. It now becomes a matter of understanding / knowledge. Thus neither claim ( language ) is priori true and it’s truth certainly cannot come from rational insight devoid of experience, evidence and knowledge. Therefore to conflate truth with belief as knowledge becomes the enemy of validity ?
Yes, both positions are dogmatic, both the “There is only one Truth” and the "there are no truths at all. It will really depend on how you define ‘truth’. I see it as a provisory first step towards an end we will never humanly reach. A collection of guesses which are more or less well grounded on observable facts, but which is never, never, allowing the blind adherence required by dogma.
Yes, precisely that. I don’t see the need to establish, for instance, the fact that the mind dies with the body, as an unquestionable Fact, therefore a Truth. I only see this as a relatively solid belief, which you can call a truth as long as there is no convincing evidence of life after death.
Also, humans can’t help but to accept some things as facts. It’s how our minds work. It’s only through deep reflection that we can come to the conclusion we have nothing solid to believe in, but meanwhile, in our everyday lives, there we are, acting with arrogance and certitude about what we believe in.
Well I accept from both of you guys that you cannot have absolute certainty about anything without asserting some kind of “dogma” as absolutely correct and attempting to resolve paradox, even if it’s just a definition or the rules of logic that you’re embracing (like non-contradiction).
Nevertheless I am for the sake of trying to ground knowledge on a system, attempting to make an argument and establish certain conclusions. You can always question an argument or system from outside the argument or system and that’s the beauty of being human.
If I had more philosophical training in logic I could probably make my argument using formal logic alone and I wouldn’t even have to worry so much about whether there are any mistakes or flaws or objections. It would be a simple matter of accepting the premises and the rules of deduction, or not.
But the argument is something like this:
- Knowledge is a type of true belief that is justified.
- Some reasons for a belief can successfully justify it and others cannot.
- Justification requires thinking and a language in which thoughts are expressed.
- In order for there to be any beliefs at all, there must be existence or reality.
- Therefore, if anything can be known, the following must be true:
“Some truth-claims are at least possible.”
“Language has meaning.”
“There are good reasons for believing something and bad reasons for believing something. I.e. there is logic that works, as opposed to bad logic or no logic.”
“Something exists.”
and
“There are such things as thoughts.”
In order to undermine this argument, you would need to undermine one of the premises, or one of the rules of deduction, or one of my hidden premises if I have made any, or assert that one of my conclusions doesn’t follow from the premises - that I need more premises, or I need to revise a premise, or change a conclusion.
I mean this is simply how argumentation works. It’s easy to sit there and doubt anything but it’s harder to make arguments or to find good grounds for believing something.
I have had 13 years of being a relativist and questioning everything (I do mean everything - whether there is an external world, whether other people have minds, whether the universe began 5 seconds ago) and now that I am back at philosophy I am in the business of building beliefs and convictions with solid reasons to the best of my ability, not simply destroying beliefs with scepticism.