Based on my recent Theory of Reasonability, I have developed a rather concise method of studying and detecting truth-claims within the Human Animal.
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=164302
Let’s take a series of statements and inspect their truth-validity:
-
You’re stupid!
-
The sky is blue.
-
God exists.
-
UFOs exist.
#1 “You’re stupid!” In response, a person must judge “yes” or “no” to the statement, therefore making it real and making it subjectively true.
#2 “The sky is blue.” This response is more “objective”. The answer “yes” is already agreed upon. By saying “no”, you are merely disagreeing with the claims of many other people. This is merely a problem of changing a quantity of minds–the higher the number of concepts you must change, the “harder” it is to change the truth-validity of the content.
#3 “God exists.” This response is the most “objective” of all. The answer “yes” is already agreed upon, henceforth building “Western” thought as it is currently known. By saying “no”, you are not merely disagreeing with the claims of many other people, you are also disagreeing with the “direct” concepts and reasons that the Word of God has been built on. In order to change the truth-validity of this statement, you can not simply change a quantity of minds, you must change the whole theory of space-time itself…
#4 “UFOS exist.” This response is a “yes” or “no”, but with what kind of validity??? If you say yes, then what is being said? If you say no, then what is being said?
How does a person verify a statement??? I have come across a solution… A person must verify a statement at the [source] through [reason]. Where does the source ultimately begin? It begins in the [self]. Based on every statement above #1-4, it doesn’t matter what [other] people think, it matters what [you] think primarily, which is appropriate to my Theory of Reasonability. In other words, “yes” & “no” depends upon your [self] first. Therefore, in order to understand and subsequently know any information of “space-time-reality”, you must allow yourself to be drawn to the [source]. Who is the speaker and what words are coming out of his/her mouth??? Does this speaker assume validity with confidence?
If a speaker assumes validity of a statement with confidence, “Yes, UFOs do exist!”, then the burden of proof is upon them (subjectively-objectively) to state [why] it is true!!! If the person refuses to answer, then they are Withholding Wisdom of their [self] for very specific reasons. Some of these reasons are rather basic, since humans are animals and we are predictable. However, when a person is withholding wisdom, they may be doing it for a [reason] that “you” are ignorant of. By pursuing these sources with a high degree of effort and confidence of your reasonability, you will eventually walk a path towards its end. You will find who lies and who tells the truth.
So, let us examine, “UFOs exist”. First, “I” my [self] must decide whether “I” believe the phenomenon is [real] or [act][-ual] in space-time-reality…
Do I? Why?
Do you? Why?
When a phenomenon is tracked, like all reasons themselves, you will be led to the proper conclusions. You will “see” the truth of [things].
P.S. If you’re connected with the CIA, get in contact with me ASAP.