Short answer no. All truths exist in a context not some order of priority or superiority. First truths, truth is simply truth!
‘Fraid there are a few pretty solid a priori truths that will always be true in any possible universe. But just a few. The impossiblity of nothingness (a vacuum), the reducibility of everything to one fundamental substance (monism), and causality (no freewill).
Everything else a being mutters is some kind of a posteriori fact that might not always be true.
.
There are a few truths that will always be of higher importance than all the other truths.. truths that can make or break peoples’ lives and livelihoods, truths that can demonise a whole swathe of humanity, truths that are voiced so that others cannot be undermined on matters of great importance.
Those who say that there isn’t a ‘hierarchy of truths’ say so because they benefit from the truth being buried under a pile of lesser truths.
“truths that can make or break peoples’ lives and livelihoods, truths that can demonise a whole swathe of humanity, truths that are voiced so that others cannot be undermined on matters of great importance”
These are contingent circumstantial truths that won’t be true in a million years. They will have been true for a moment, e.g., it was true that laying workers off was bad for their lively hood once upon a time when a planet existed that had workers and layoffs on it.
The truths i speak of are always true… fuheva and eva.
1 Like
What are THE truths, Surya Loka?
Time to unveil your superior philosophy.
.
Did I say anything about them being ‘contingent’?
.
Please feel free to share your thoughts, on what you think they could be?
I would be happy to discuss them with you, and maybe even share some of my own.
“Did I say anything about them being ‘contingent’?”
Did i say anything about you saying anything about them being contingent? C’mon, mensa mags. Tighten up.
“There are a few truths that will always be of higher importance than all the other truths..”
I claim that those truths you mention that are “higher than all other truths” are, in fact, contingent truths that, on account of their being such, can’t be as ‘high’ as the truths i mention.
But in a way, you are kinda right. The truths you mention, while being only contingent, are certainly more ‘important’ than the first two truths i mentioned above (the impossibility of nothingness and monism hardly concern me, much like quantum waves don’t concern me). But the third… well, that’s the BIG ONE that is both eternally true and immediately concerns us. Understanding that there is no freewill is almost the most important fact we can possibly know because we live our lives under the dangerous illusion that it exists.
Well, it’s YOUR turn to expose your philosophy, girl.
What do you think are THE truths in life?
“truths that can make or break peoples’ lives and livelihoods, truths that can demonise a whole swathe of humanity”
We might infer from this that mensa Mags means practical ethical and political problems that are universally experienced. These are at once the most important but essentially meaningless truths (because they are contingent).
Really, the only use one can get out of the recognition of the three biggins i mention is the liberating power that knowledge of them provides. They shatter the chains of religion, law, and moral world order once and for all.
Only beings who know these truths could ever begin to approach ethics and politics. Others try to handle these problems under the illusion of freewill, or a moral order divined by a god, or the assumption that they are spirits who are only temporarily bound to such worldly problems.
No sir. This is it, buddy. This is what we’re workin’ with.
Well, I’m not familiar with Surya Loka’s philosophy; all I see of her here are brief comments on what others say. So, I’d like her to explain here what she understands to be true, without resorting to what others say about it, if she indeed has a philosophy to call her own.
This is a cool Stirnerian approach to things.
“Well, I’m not familiar with Surya Loka’s philosophy”
Anybody with a name like that won’t be philosophically right about much, I can assure you. New age physics, yoga, walking the path toward enlightenment, maybe, but not philosophy.
.
I’m a compatibilist.
.
[15 characters]
“This is a cool Stirnerian approach to things”
Max was always the coolest person in the room wherever he was. The others. Why do they shout, fret and bungle about? They are possessed by spooks!
“I’m a compatibilist”
Which kind, though. The kind like Dennett who is smart enough to know compatibalism is nonsense but maintains it because he doesn’t want to scare everyone… or the kind that isn’t aware that the position is nonsensical and maintains it in innocence?
1 Like
Compatibilism is very close to how I understand the question of human freedom. Even if our actions are determined one way or another, I understand that we have a degree of freedom, associated with our awareness of knowing what we are doing and wanting to do it at any given moment.
Makes me wonder: do you have a philosophy, MagsJ? Or are you the household “new age” middle age female Promethean is implying you are?
.
Why do you keep insisting that there are only contingent [lesser] truths?
Is that your wholly-deterministic world view talking?