I graduate next year but no… I wouldn’t say I regret it at all.
You are wrong to state such with certainty. The fact that there is a brain implies that Truth exists; how could there be coherence if there is no Truth? You have to allow the possibility of God if there is the possibility of Truth. I’ve spent some time considering the mechanism of truth perception; that the mechanisms present in the human brain have some larger scale correlate (why consider ancient perceptions credible if there is no potential mechanism by which they might be had;) i think they do.
‘Meaning’ always means place, juxtaposition. What is the meaning of your life? How does it align with the Truth? How do you articulate the truth you perceive or; if you percieve no truth, how do you support a system that does?
And what does Rawls say? My answer; you are your brother’s keeper. Such trust is the ground of language.
Only in as much as we meditate and act on word.
Ya know, it seems philosophers like to talk about the limitations of language; they don’t seem to give much thought to the ground of language.
hahah ok buddy…if you really want to discuss your opinion we can. Here we go.
First off you said there are no answers, just opinions. Not quite sure what you mean here. Obviously I can ask you questions to which you give answers…Who is the president of the United States? Now is George Bush the answer or just your opinion?
Remember the definition of opinion is “A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof”
How about do you write in a language? Or do you post on this philosophy forum? Answers to these questions…or just opinions?
Morality might be relative to a Certain extent. Such as we may disagree on the death penalty etc… But It cannot be completely relative. Because to EVEN SPEAK you are PRESUPPOSING some moral absolutes. You obviously believe in the right to communicate? Do you believe that you have the right to enter into a debate with me? If you say yes…then you have just agreed to a moral thats not relative. If you say no…then you have still have agreed to a moral that’s not relative because you have entered a debate with me and therefore by your actions you have agreed with me. You are trapped. There is no way out of this. If you want to debate this or any subject then you believe in the moral absolute of the right to communicate.
Now once you agree with communication then…then we can build from there…like what are the RULES one presupposes to have a meaningful conversation. If you want I can go until I have some pretty good moral absolutes that you can’t disagree with. But let me know if you have followed me up to here. I mean a society in which people have the right to communicate is obviously one in which people have the right to life …etc…
hmm i wish i could study philosophy… but what kind of career would u hav? 
jeff,
Nothing you say makes sense to me. You are speaking a different language. I wouldn’t know where to begin. I have no idea what you mean by TRUTH.
Maybe you can give a definition and an example.
No, hence why I gave it up and studied Literature and Cultural History instead. There were other factors also and I do intend to return to philosophy for my postgrad MA.
Hi BWSU, I just finished reading all your replies to see if I could get to know you a bit better before responding to the challenge you left for me on my post. I am not sure how long it will take for me to organize my thoughts. I’ll probably have at least part of a response by this time tomorrow. I do look forward to further dialogue. I hope you return at least one more time because I am going to match your effort.
All commentary; verbal, written or digitally transmitted; by this poster is expressly a matter of personal opinion, individual belief, personal experience, and is not intended to purport necessity of change(s), implied/perceived, to other posters; physical, mental or emotional. Any attempt to treat this post in a manner contradictory to what has been thusly stated is erroneous, and is the fault, entirely, of the reader of said post.
No, that would be your assertion, not mine. I am not presupposing anything beyond relativity, as there are no meta-morals. Entirely your presumption, don’t project your fallacy on another.
As far as those other questions you posted, no you are just showing an immature intellect in using absurdity to justify a position entirely outside your previous pretext.
All in all, your commentary about “it was all daddy’s money”, shows directly, you lack the maturity to engage in discourses of quality.
Good question. 
Ideally, Truth is that which does not change. It is non-temporal, and the most particular example i can think of is a property of a thing that is characteristic of the thing; sort of a ‘by definition’ Truth. So the thing would be the appropriate juxtaposition of the defining characteristics.
The most general example i can think of is, naturally, everything all at once. I think a human individual can glimpse this but; your ego must be ‘off’. It includes notions of justice and forgiveness and, by that and the facts of the matter things positions themselves ‘rightly.’ An ego-less evolution, laminar thought, a reasonable progression.
Excellent. Congrats Bill 
[quote=“Mastriani”]
All commentary; verbal, written or digitally transmitted; by this poster is expressly a matter of personal opinion, individual belief, personal experience, and is not intended to purport necessity of change(s), implied/perceived, to other posters; physical, mental or emotional. Any attempt to treat this post in a manner contradictory to what has been thusly stated is erroneous, and is the fault, entirely, of the reader of said post.
Yea man you are right I am immature. Show me how to do philosophy just like you! Help me out man. Show me how to do philosophy the mature way. Oh I get it …this is what you do
1)Get Stumped or don’t understand my opponents argument.
2)Have nothing intelligent to say so I therefore name call. If I call my opponent IMMATURE then I never have to actually argue for my position!!!
MATURE PHILOSOPHY. WAY TO GO.
So if you want to be immature like me…how about you try and show me this…because if you can do it I would really be interested in knowing.
First explain how this sentence is not relative “I am not presupposing anything beyond relativity, as there are no meta-morals”…see…relative theories of truth are self-defeating!!!
Also explain to me how you can in a debate with me and say" i am not presupping anything beyond relativity" without presupposing the right to communicate.
DON’T SAY THAT’S MY ASSERTION. SHOW ME HOW IT’S WRONG.
In other words… So there is no way you can not understand it.
1)You say there are no meta-morals, that everything is relative
2)I am saying communication is a meta-moral
One when says the morals are relative…they mean that different cultures have different morals…usually this means that some cultures believe that women should not be allowed to vote while others do for example. One could argue that women being allowed to vote is not an absolute moral but is RELATIVE to the culture one lives in.
3)If something is pervasive in EVERY culture, it CAN’T be relative. Because if every culture and individual does it, then what’s it relative to…?
4)In every culture the people within the culture communicate with one another.
5)If you even argue with me, then you are communicating with me…and therefore you defeated yourself because you obviously believe in communication.
6)Every single person in every single society has TO COMMUNICATE…the self can’t even develop without communication. it is not even possible to exist without communicating of some kind.
7)Communication is A META-MORAL.
Show me how I am wrong…without communicating
All commentary; verbal, written or digitally transmitted; by this poster is expressly a matter of personal opinion, individual belief, personal experience, and is not intended to purport necessity of change(s), implied/perceived, to other posters; physical, mental or emotional. Any attempt to treat this post in a manner contradictory to what has been thusly stated is erroneous, and is the fault, entirely, of the reader of said post.
LOL.
This is truly indicative of why we will someday be living under a foreign flag/nationalism. LOL.
Communication is not a meta-moral, it is an evolutionary gain. There is no morality involved in communicating, it is a function for social survivability, like a social hierarchy. Bereft of morality.
Is every language of every culture exact?
Is there one, (I love the foolishness of this statement), true language?
Does every language bear a direct similarity to the next?
Morality is more of an individual contextual general than a social or cultural particular, or else those insidious, subliminal social contracts wouldn’t be necessary, and the patterns of behavior of individuals within a defined culture or society, would be in exact fashion, without deviation. But that is not the case, at all.
Truth is a personal supposition. That it implies an absolute is a matter of definition in linguistics, not a state of actuality.
You can choose to believe that communication is moral, or even meta-moral, but that doesn’t make it actual, realistic, or true. It is your personal supposition.
I never stated communication doesn’t exist, it simply isn’t moral, it’s evolutionary complexity, as dictated by necessity of survival.
P.S. Showing a lack of respect for your father’s initiative for providing a chance to better educate yourself, shows poor judgement, lack of character, and borderline perfidy. That’s not name calling, that’s moral judgement, leveraged against your person, happens all the time, even in the adult world.
Before I continue…lets clear away any possible misconceptions
What is your definition of morality? and truth? Because I don’t even know what you are talking about anymore.
The definition i was going for was something like…"Morality is an informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behavior that affects others, and has the lessening of evil or harm as its goal. "
Under which communication would be a part of.
“P.S. Showing a lack of respect for your father’s initiative for providing a chance to better educate yourself, shows poor judgement, lack of character, and borderline perfidy. That’s not name calling, that’s moral judgement, leveraged against your person, happens all the time, even in the adult world.”
It was a joke bro.
But if it wasn’t …I’d say its good judgement and shows great character. What would you say then? You can’t possibly say that I’m wrong. It’s all relative right? What if I murdered your entire family for no reason? Would you think I was a person of bad morals or great morals? How do you back up your opinion? How you can EVEN have opinions about anything when you know they aren’t correct?
Esperanto 
All commentary; verbal, written or digitally transmitted; by this poster is expressly a matter of personal opinion, individual belief, personal experience, and is not intended to purport necessity of change(s), implied/perceived, to other posters; physical, mental or emotional. Any attempt to treat this post in a manner contradictory to what has been thusly stated, is erroneous, and is the fault, entirely, of the reader of said post.
That is generally thought of as punditry, generated from or academically grouped within normative ethics, I believe. It also appears that you are applying philosophical ideals of individual fitness for socially enhanced conforming behaviors.
Morality in my sense, bearing some similarities, is more based upon cultural relativism, and heavily influenced by my travels in other nations.
I will certainly disagree with the use of “rational persons” in the context of modern hominid or any definitions thereof. Rationality, in my opinion, is a stretch, at best, for the larger contingent of “modern” hominids.
You touched directly upon what I posit as the failure of morality: the discernment of “good and evil” or “right and wrong”, founded meretriciously upon the basis of hominid perception and “logic”, which rests upon the fulcrum of duality, most heavily weighted by individual egoism and self-interest, generally towards reciprocity.
In an academic sense, morality can be nearly impossible to define, mostly due to benign and amibiguous terminology used in definitions of the term. Not certain if this amounts to catastrophic failure of hominids, or their ignominious use of language.
Although it can be seen that an argument could be made for communication under the general scope of morality, more appropriately, meta-ethics, I personally find that questionable, as it can and is, more often than not in comtemporary societies, misused to the detriment, not the enhancement.
I will also be clear that “societies” are wholly dubious, as a foregone conclusion of necessity, in my perspective.
I too hate using words such as good and evil, right and wrong. However there are ACTIONS that HELP society -I.E the well being of the individuals within it.
Remember if you believe in RELATIVISM that whether actions that help the society or not is RELATIVE to a certain society. I.E it might help one society or it might hurt another. It is relative to the society, that is what the term RELATIVE means.
However as Michael Shermer pointed out in his book “The science of Good and Evil” there are numerous actions that ALL societies and individuals take that help and do not hinder the society. He lists hundreds of these in his book. I am just going to be creative here and come up with a few off the top of my head. THERE is no Society that PLUCKS out the EYES of all newborn babies, or chops off the legs of everybody over the age of 30. These moral actions are NOT relative to a society , there is NO society that would benefit from this.
I was going to get to this…whips out Habermas notes…can’t find them…goes to Google…finds good description
"Thus, communicative action is an indispensable facet of society. It is at the heart of the lifeworld and is, Habermas claims, responsible for accomplishing several fundamental social functions: reaching understanding, cultural reproduction, coordinating action-plans and socializing individuals. However, Habermas is quick to note, different modes of interaction can (in some ways) facilitate these social functions and achieve integration within the lifeworld. This points towards the second key distinction Habermas makes, which differentiates communicative action from strategic action; the coordination of action plans, which constitutes the social integration of the lifeworld, can be accomplished either through consensus or influence.
Strategic action is action oriented towards success, while communicative action is action oriented towards understanding. Both involve the symbolic resources of the lifeworld and occur primarily by way of linguistic interaction. On the one hand, actors employing communicative actions draw on the uniquely impelling force of mutual understanding to align the orientation of their action plans. It is this subtle but insistent binding force of communicative interactions that opens the door to an understanding of their meanings. On the other hand, actors employing strategic actions do not exploit the potential of communication that resides in the mutual recognition of a shared action-oriented understanding. Instead strategic actors relate to others with no intention of reaching consensus or mutual understanding, but only the intention of accomplishing pre-determined ends unrelated to reaching an understanding. Strategic action often involves the use of communicative actions to achieve the isolated intentions of individuals, manipulating shared understanding in the service of private interests. Thus, Habermas claims, strategic action is parasitic on communicative action, which means communicative action is the primary mode of linguistic interaction. Reaching a reciprocally defined understanding is communication’s basic function."
Basically Yes, some forms of communication are detrimental. But what Habermas calls “Communicative Action” is not. Habermas analyzed communication and discovered the underlying presuppositions that people have when succesfully communicating. They are…
Habermas argues that when a speaker is communicating successfully, they will have to defend their meaning by using these four claims.
- That they have uttered something understandably — or their statements are intelligible;
- That they have given other people something to understand — or are speaking something true;
- That the speaker is therefore understandable — or their intentions are recognized and appreciated for what they are; and,
- That they have come to an understanding with another person — or, they have used words that both actors can agree upon. (1979; p.4)
So, for an advocate of universal pragmatics, these four claims are the basis for valid communication.
Any meaning that meets the above criteria, and is recognized by another as meeting the criteria, is considered “vindicated” or communicatively competent.
Well let’s expirement with this. Let’s chuck an infant out into the jungle without any sort of society and we’ll be witness to how well it does.
We aren’t snakes, we are humans, we need society as it is one of our psychological needs. Haven’t you ever seen documentaries on children who grow up without much human contact? They all end up being retarded because their brains don’t develop properly.
And you can’t see how your own position is in part responsible for that misuse? It is a property of your position that one holding it would challenge the notion of ‘misuse’ entirely, isn’t it?
How about ‘families,’ and what does it take for a family to grow into a society? Noone understands each other better than brothers (language is like a mother’s skin;) presumably. How do you get language without community?
You haven’t thought about the letter ‘a’(V?), with its two leggs dancing.
All commentary; verbal, written or digitally transmitted; by this poster is expressly a matter of personal opinion, individual belief, personal experience, and is not intended to purport necessity of change(s), implied/perceived, to other posters; physical, mental or emotional. Any attempt to treat this post in a manner contradictory to what has been thusly stated, is erroneous, and is the fault, entirely, of the reader of said post.
That is your perception. For someone who does not see value in society, and views all the productions of society as a negative consequence upon the totality of humanity as individuals, any social action becomes a negative consequence.
Relative to each separate entity within the society, and only following your assertion under social contract theories. Which I openly reject as negatively impacting the entities.
First, there is no such thing as a “Science of good and evil”, that is a flatly ludicrous premise, especially for a published work.
Secondly, taking the route of absurdity does not aid your premise or position. Societies are their own greatest detractors, as they perpetuate obiter dictum that are possibly beneficial to a perceived majority, (i.e. “the voting public”), but may in fact be a negative consequence to another sector of the society, and they always ignore or obviate the position of the individual for the perceived benefit of the society.
It is obvious you and Habermas agree. But there is an obvious hole in this argument not being addressed, especially as regards the benefit(s) of social communication: there is a two fold path of communication, the speaker and listener. Across this there are levels of interpretation consistently at play, completely unnoticed and unrecognized in social communication which allow for misinterpretation. Misinterpretation is the ultimate failure of communication because it does not cease, it is not acknowledged and therefore has no reconciling force levered against it to maintain quality of information passed from speaker to listener, and the rampancy of aberrance in individuals is rarely acknowledged, which further causes misuse of information.
I disagree summarily that there is any moral character to communication, to the contrary, it is the facilitator of further entropy in societies.
All commentary; verbal, written or digitally transmitted; by this poster is expressly a matter of personal opinion, individual belief, personal experience, and is not intended to purport necessity of change(s), implied/perceived, to other posters; physical, mental or emotional. Any attempt to treat this post in a manner contradictory to what has been thusly stated, is erroneous, and is the fault, entirely, of the reader of said post.
Again, utter absurdity.
It is best to leave this subject alone. I have reared/am rearing four children, the eldest of whom approach your own age. Experience counts for everything in this topic, and books are of no assistance.
When you have children of your own, you just might find society less useful than you do no, being bereft of them.