The Coalition of Truth

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Here at ILP we now have what is called The Coalition of Truth.

So far there are two avowed members:

1] obsrvr524
2] WendyDarling

Naturally, I am curiously to explore with them that which they regard as the Truth.

And, in particular, Truths that revolve around my own interest in philosophy: moral and political value judgments. Judgments that precipitate conflicting goods precipitating conflicting behaviors that, for all practical purposes, result in all manner of confrontations and clashes which often bring about dire consequences for millions and millions around the globe.

So, I have come up with a framework for exploring these alleged Truths with them. Revolving around these areas:

1] Distinguishing between these two frames of mind:

  • there is a “real me” and there is a set of moral and political values that encompass objectively “the right thing to do”.

  • there is no “real me” and there is no set of moral and political values that encompass objectively “the right thing to do”. Instead “I” here is embodied subjectively/existentially in dasein, in moral and political prejudices…in the arguments I make for it/this in my signature threads; and specifically in this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529 .

2] Noting that when someone does change their moral and political frame of mind, they are acknowledging that they were wrong about something in the is/ought world around them. And that, once they acknowledge this, they are acknowledging in turn they may well be wrong about other things. Finally, they are acknowledging that, yes, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas, they might be prompted to change their minds again. And again.

3] As a consequence, what I suggest is that we focus in on a particular moral and political truth of theirs and given a set of circumstances we examine our respective moral and political philosophies.

4] Here, however, I’m less interested in simply articulating what we believe is true in the way of moral and political truths and more focused in on how we would go about demonstrating to others that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think and to feel the same.

Let the Truth discussions begin!

2

Wow… aren’t you being idealistic…

the two you mentioned are the least self introspective people on
the board… I seriously doubt either one has given 2 seconds thought
as to why they hold the beliefs they hold… or even why those beliefs
instead of other beliefs…or what it means to hold said beliefs…

wendy is clearly incapable of philosophical thought and observ is
about 12 years old…

one of the major differences that we ‘OLD’ folks have over the younger kids
crowd is that we have admitted to the possibility of being wrong…

as you have stated, “unless I am wrong?” more the once…
and I have stated for the record I have been wrong, more then once
in the past and I shall continue to “fail” in the future…

but think about it… how many others on this site have admitted to being wrong?

few, very, very few… and I think that telling…because it is from failure that
we learn the most from… I don’t learn from success and most people don’t
actually learn from success… look at the lives of such leaders as Gandhi
and Abe Lincoln… their lives are full of failures… and they grew and learned
from each failure… that is a sign of wisdom…but these kids, how can they
learn from failure if they won’t even admit to having failed?

no, IAM you are asking for too much, from the kids… they are incapable of
learning from failure and they are incapable of introspection… two tools
needed if people are to grow into human beings…

your thread will meet with failure because they cannot answer your question
without exposing themselves to the nemesis of most people…
that of admitting failure and that of self reflection/introspection…

Kropotkin

3

This would be like trying to discuss the actual real world accomplishments of Mr Trump with Ms Pelosi. #-o

4

Or, perhaps, ironic?

Admittedly, I can only base my reaction here on my own exchanges with them. No less subjective than their reactions to me. But they either are willing to examine one of their Truths “in context” with me or they are not. Given my own areas of interest above. And, sure, their own areas of interest.

And, if they don’t or won’t, I’ll have my own suspicions as to why: because they grasp [at least on some level] what is at stake for them if my own ideas about “I” here are not nearly as unreasonable as [psychologically] they need them to be.

5

:laughing: I’m tired of Biggie pestering me along with many others.

Biggie, what does this thread have to do with the other side of the grave?

6

K: that in fact is far easier to do then for you to admit your own failures,
and to admit your own failure to be self reflective…

a discussion of the non-accomplishments of IQ45 is really just to deflect
from a real discussion of your thought… which isn’t really thoughts,
but more like a discussion of how you feel, and not any real thoughts…

Kropotkin

7

Okay, Ms Pelosi. The only thing Trump didn’t do that he said on his initial campaign trail was drain the swamp completely, yes, he fired many swamp creatures but he couldn’t fire Congress where said slime mostly congregate. He met all his other platform promises reformed healthcare policies, the Wall, deregulation, cut taxes, ended wars, brought about peace, concentrated on America (n jobs) First, committed his efforts to save us from crappy agreements not helping American interests.

Go ahead, Ms Pelosi, argue against facts that you don’t like.

8

See what I mean about ironic, Peter.

That he is not embarrassed to post something as insubstantial as this on the philosophy board, in a thread that addresses his very own “Coalition of Truth” speaks volumes.

About one of us anyway.

But let’s examine this Truth of his. In regard just to my first area of interest:

Now, in regard to a discussion between Trump and Pelosi relating to Trump’s accomplishments, is obsrvr524 more of the first frame of mind or the second?

In other words, is he convinced that he is wholly in sync with his own “real me”? And that this “core self” is in turn wholly in sync with the only objective truth regarding that which it is said Trump accomplished? That if Pelosi or others don’t agree that they are accomplishments they are necessarily wrong?

Is that what he is arguing? If so, beyond merely what he believes “in his head” here, how would he go about demonstrating it, such that my own frame of mind rooted here…

there is no “real me” and there is no set of moral and political values that encompass objectively “the right thing to do”. Instead “I” here is embodied subjectively/existentially in dasein, in moral and political prejudices…in the arguments I make for it/this in my signature threads; and specifically in this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529 .

…is shown to be less reasonable. And not at all applicable to him.

This is the discussion I wish to have with him. Let him pick the truth and the context.

Let him then bring it to fruition.

9

K: and yet another attempt to deflect from the point of the thread…
all youall got is deflection and fear of introspection…

try to actually address the point of the thread or if that is too hard,
try to engage in some attempt at self reflection as to why you hold
the values you hold…

Kropotkin

10

Same thing:

11

Biggie, are you saying truth is subjective?< a yes or no answer will suffice.

12

Pestering? You claim to be a member of the Coalition of Truth. I have an interest in the existential parameters of truths relating to moral and political value judgments. In particular, those truths that revolve around morality here and now and immortality there and then.

I create a thread in which to explore this with you. I even provide a framework from which to approach any conflicts between us.

As though exploring things of this sort is not one of the most important reasons that philosophy venues are created.

You’re kidding, right?

Or are you actually going to argue that our Christian president and his millions of evangelical followers, do not connect the dots between the president’s policies and Judgment Day?

13

We’ll need a context of course.

How about exploring one of your Truths in that context?

Again: There is what you believe is true about something in your head and there is what you are able to demonstrate that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe as well.

You believe that “here and now” Donald Trump is the president of the United States. And unless at this very moment he just died from a heart attack what you believe in your head is in fact objectively true. For everyone. How hard do you suppose it would be to demonstrate this?

Unless of course solipsism or dream worlds or sim worlds or matrix worlds supersede a real world and what you believe is all just subsumed in one of them.

You believe “here and now” that Trump is a great president. And that one of his greatest accomplishments was his response to the covid pandemic. Or you believe that the covid pandemic itself is all just a Big Brother, globalist scam.

Okay, demonstrate that all of this is true objectively. For everyone.

And, no, it doesn’t count to insist that just believing it is all the proof you need.

14

WendyDarling: Biggie, are you saying truth is subjective?< a yes or no answer will suffice."

K: the truth comes from having some sort of context and context is never
about “yes or no”… for example, Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, “What is the truth?”
following Jesus claim that he is “witness to the truth”…and in both questions,
context is needed to understand what is the “truth?”…just another story to
help us understand what is the “truth?”

Kropotkin

15

I find it interesting that both IAM and myself, asked Wendy for context of
her statement about “what is the truth?” at almost the exact same time…

if I were to guess as to ONE of the failures of the kids is that they refuse
to or cannot work out context of their statements…

everything comes back to “what is the context” of any statement…

Kropotkin

16

i’m going going to be a part of anyone’s stupid club
but i’m always checking the facts here brah
and calling people out
like when sil tried to use physics to give weight to his claims about workers exploitation
or when satyr tried to use entropy to make a point about “de-evolution”
or when kropo and ecmandu keep saying that the poor are getting poorer and wages are going down
or when saully was trying to say brazilians don’t protect the amazon
or prom’s little harebrained musings about communism
if i read something on here that sounds like bullshit
i’m going to call you out, bitches

17

you still haven’t backed up your claims kropo
i can wait

18

President Trump is the President of the United States. Fact

My proof, check who is sitting at the President’s desk in the Oval office.

19

I’ve said this three times on this board and I’ll say it again…

The entire science of capitalism is to figure out how to hold the most capital without revolt. Billions of dollars are spent on this science just to add one fucking more dollar to a billionaires wallet. The investment is paying off. These are first and foremost, business people. Spending billions to make 1 more dollar makes perfect sense to them.

Phoneutria, you are extremely naive about this and I’m giving you the intelligence to understand it

20

Next up: Wendy nails down all the facts below too. Let’s call them, say, Truths. :laughing: