Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Truth is in Contradiction Yet is One

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:49:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have reached a dilemma, a puzzle I must solve. The skeptic doubts the believer's testimony. He, or she, may go as far as to accuse the believer of being dishonest or deceived by one's own faculties. However, if the believer is given the benefit of the doubt in his, or her, own defense namely he, or she, is not lying and has not been deceived, shouldn't the skeptic be given the same charity in his, or her, accusations?

This creates a world of two realities: the world of the skeptic and the world of the believer. To accuse either one of lying or being deceived creates, yet, another world. Each and every person lives in his, or her, own world. Yet, these varied worlds are worlds of contradiction.

However, each and every person lives in a common world, a world not of division but agreement. The truth is in contradiction yet is one.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 10:06:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:49:00 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I have reached a dilemma, a puzzle I must solve. The skeptic doubts the believer's testimony. He, or she, may go as far as to accuse the believer of being dishonest or deceived by one's own faculties. However, if the believer is given the benefit of the doubt in his, or her, own defense namely he, or she, is not lying and has not been deceived, shouldn't the skeptic be given the same charity in his, or her, accusations?

This creates a world of two realities: the world of the skeptic and the world of the believer. To accuse either one of lying or being deceived creates, yet, another world. Each and every person lives in his, or her, own world. Yet, these varied worlds are worlds of contradiction.

However, each and every person lives in a common world, a world not of division but agreement. The truth is in contradiction yet is one.

Dude.
http://youtu.be...
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 11:17:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 10:06:12 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:49:00 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I have reached a dilemma, a puzzle I must solve. The skeptic doubts the believer's testimony. He, or she, may go as far as to accuse the believer of being dishonest or deceived by one's own faculties. However, if the believer is given the benefit of the doubt in his, or her, own defense namely he, or she, is not lying and has not been deceived, shouldn't the skeptic be given the same charity in his, or her, accusations?

This creates a world of two realities: the world of the skeptic and the world of the believer. To accuse either one of lying or being deceived creates, yet, another world. Each and every person lives in his, or her, own world. Yet, these varied worlds are worlds of contradiction.

However, each and every person lives in a common world, a world not of division but agreement. The truth is in contradiction yet is one.

Dude.
http://youtu.be...

Welcome to the Club: http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 11:28:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:49:00 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I have reached a dilemma, a puzzle I must solve. The skeptic doubts the believer's testimony. He, or she, may go as far as to accuse the believer of being dishonest or deceived by one's own faculties. However, if the believer is given the benefit of the doubt in his, or her, own defense namely he, or she, is not lying and has not been deceived, shouldn't the skeptic be given the same charity in his, or her, accusations?

This creates a world of two realities: the world of the skeptic and the world of the believer. To accuse either one of lying or being deceived creates, yet, another world. Each and every person lives in his, or her, own world. Yet, these varied worlds are worlds of contradiction.

However, each and every person lives in a common world, a world not of division but agreement. The truth is in contradiction yet is one.

Huh.. Are you making a horned dilemma...

We can assess the way we come to believe things via. objective means, and make educated guesses about how reliable those ways people come to know things are.

Ultimately everything we do in the real world operates off of testimony, including academic science etc., since you need to trust the people who wrote the papers are describing what they claim to observe (be it the numbers on their spectrometer, or whatever).

And even if they are reporting the numbers, measurements, experiences etc they actualy saw, that they actually infer what they are claiming they infer.

So we have the honesty of experience, and the logical progression of experience to claims about reality.

We can objectively assess all of these factors, so I really don't see your dilemma. It is fair to say what you apply to other people's honesty and cognitive faculties needs to be applied to your own position. It's for reasons like this that the Dunning Kruger effect exists, where people do not and in fact are incapable of seeing where their position objectively stands.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 11:37:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 11:17:31 AM, fazz wrote:
At 11/13/2014 10:06:12 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:49:00 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I have reached a dilemma, a puzzle I must solve. The skeptic doubts the believer's testimony. He, or she, may go as far as to accuse the believer of being dishonest or deceived by one's own faculties. However, if the believer is given the benefit of the doubt in his, or her, own defense namely he, or she, is not lying and has not been deceived, shouldn't the skeptic be given the same charity in his, or her, accusations?

This creates a world of two realities: the world of the skeptic and the world of the believer. To accuse either one of lying or being deceived creates, yet, another world. Each and every person lives in his, or her, own world. Yet, these varied worlds are worlds of contradiction.

However, each and every person lives in a common world, a world not of division but agreement. The truth is in contradiction yet is one.

Dude.
http://youtu.be...

Welcome to the Club: http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net...

Sshhhhh. I'm hunting wabbits.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 12:29:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Huh.. Are you making a horned dilemma...

We can assess the way we come to believe things via. objective means, and make educated guesses about how reliable those ways people come to know things are.

Yet, that which is objective can only be known by a partial understanding.

Ultimately everything we do in the real world operates off of testimony, including academic science etc., since you need to trust the people who wrote the papers are describing what they claim to observe (be it the numbers on their spectrometer, or whatever).

And even if they are reporting the numbers, measurements, experiences etc they actualy saw, that they actually infer what they are claiming they infer.

So we have the honesty of experience, and the logical progression of experience to claims about reality.

We can objectively assess all of these factors, so I really don't see your dilemma. It is fair to say what you apply to other people's honesty and cognitive faculties needs to be applied to your own position. It's for reasons like this that the Dunning Kruger effect exists, where people do not and in fact are incapable of seeing where their position objectively stands.

The contradiction lies in the fact you are expecting objectivity from that which is subjective, namely human beings with a finite understanding. Using scientific instruments or methods to acquire this objectivity does not escape this paradox; for, the devices are, also, the products of the same subjective creatures.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 12:40:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 12:29:38 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Huh.. Are you making a horned dilemma...

We can assess the way we come to believe things via. objective means, and make educated guesses about how reliable those ways people come to know things are.

Yet, that which is objective can only be known by a partial understanding.

Ultimately everything we do in the real world operates off of testimony, including academic science etc., since you need to trust the people who wrote the papers are describing what they claim to observe (be it the numbers on their spectrometer, or whatever).

And even if they are reporting the numbers, measurements, experiences etc they actualy saw, that they actually infer what they are claiming they infer.

So we have the honesty of experience, and the logical progression of experience to claims about reality.

We can objectively assess all of these factors, so I really don't see your dilemma. It is fair to say what you apply to other people's honesty and cognitive faculties needs to be applied to your own position. It's for reasons like this that the Dunning Kruger effect exists, where people do not and in fact are incapable of seeing where their position objectively stands.

The contradiction lies in the fact you are expecting objectivity from that which is subjective, namely human beings with a finite understanding.

While the faculties we have are finite, the methodology we use (logic and reasoning) is necessarily objective.

Using scientific instruments or methods to acquire this objectivity does not escape this paradox; for, the devices are, also, the products of the same subjective creatures.

You are applying the terms objective and subjective too broadly and in an all-or-nothing manner, which is absurd.

Everything we do ties back to logic and reason, which is infallable (since it axiomatically gives true and falseness). At no point is human subjectivity of heurestics used in determine absolutes, it is a fact that no bachelors are married, for instance, and human subjectivity has nothing to do with it.

All things we know, whether they come inductively, or deductively are collary from logic and reason, so the best you can argue is either a mistake was made in the application of logic (which would entail some sort of contradiction), or that the sense experience that gives the 'inputs' into logical constructs is false.

It might be reasonable to argue against the latter, but you can use the former to see what it entails in each case if we assume sense experience in various situations is unreliable. I would like to think we have a generally good grasp of this now, and seek to limit the use of sense experience to the most reliable situations (e.g. reading numbers off of the thermometer, rather than using your finger to determine the temperature).
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 1:08:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:49:00 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I have reached a dilemma, a puzzle I must solve. The skeptic doubts the believer's testimony. He, or she, may go as far as to accuse the believer of being dishonest or deceived by one's own faculties. However, if the believer is given the benefit of the doubt in his, or her, own defense namely he, or she, is not lying and has not been deceived, shouldn't the skeptic be given the same charity in his, or her, accusations?

Sure. It really doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me whether or not someone believes my testimony. It would only be a problem in a hypothetical theocratic or totalitarian society that demanded one or the other.

This creates a world of two realities: the world of the skeptic and the world of the believer. To accuse either one of lying or being deceived creates, yet, another world. Each and every person lives in his, or her, own world. Yet, these varied worlds are worlds of contradiction.
Yes, and so much so that the well being of individual lives have been/are violated at times.


However, each and every person lives in a common world, a world not of division but agreement. The truth is in contradiction yet is one.
One view is not meant to rule over another. If God exists (as I believe He does), What is evident about God is that choice is a major factor.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 11:46:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
While the faculties we have are finite, the methodology we use (logic and reasoning) is necessarily objective.

Saying we are subjective however that which is a product of us is objective is, clearly, a contradiction. How can that which is partial give birth to that which is not?

Using scientific instruments or methods to acquire this objectivity does not escape this paradox; for, the devices are, also, the products of the same subjective creatures.

You are applying the terms objective and subjective too broadly and in an all-or-nothing manner, which is absurd.

Saying objectivity is impartial and subjectivity is partial are fair definitions. To say otherwise is to dismiss thousands of years of philosophical consensus.

Everything we do ties back to logic and reason, which is infallable (since it axiomatically gives true and falseness). At no point is human subjectivity of heurestics used in determine absolutes, it is a fact that no bachelors are married, for instance, and human subjectivity has nothing to do with it.

It is the subjective mind, the human mind, that gives meaning to, "...(N)o bachelors are married...,". If the mind is subjective and meaning is its product, how is meaning not also subjective?

All things we know, whether they come inductively, or deductively are collary from logic and reason, so the best you can argue is either a mistake was made in the application of logic (which would entail some sort of contradiction), or that the sense experience that gives the 'inputs' into logical constructs is false.

It might be reasonable to argue against the latter, but you can use the former to see what it entails in each case if we assume sense experience in various situations is unreliable. I would like to think we have a generally good grasp of this now, and seek to limit the use of sense experience to the most reliable situations (e.g. reading numbers off of the thermometer, rather than using your finger to determine the temperature).
MEK
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 12:39:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If the mind is subjective and meaning is its product, how is meaning not also subjective?

Ok, slow down. The "mind" is NOT subjective. Our interpretations from processes of our mind are subjective but does not mean that this perceived subjectivity is or is not congruent with objective truths. For example, if I perceive a pen dropping to the ground, this is both subjective (perceived from me) and objective (anyone else observing this pen dropping and anyone being able to repeat the said observation). In this illustrated example, subjectivity is aligned with objectivity. In order for beliefs to be objective, they need to be verified with repeatable experimentation. If they cannot - the belief is speculation at best but most importantly not reliable as a truth claim.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 7:50:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If the mind is subjective and meaning is its product, how is meaning not also subjective?

Ok, slow down. The "mind" is NOT subjective.

If the mind is partial, meaning it contains incomplete knowledge, then, it is indeed subjective.

Our interpretations from processes of our mind are subjective but does not mean that this perceived subjectivity is or is not congruent with objective truths. For example, if I perceive a pen dropping to the ground, this is both subjective (perceived from me) and objective (anyone else observing this pen dropping and anyone being able to repeat the said observation). In this illustrated example, subjectivity is aligned with objectivity. In order for beliefs to be objective, they need to be verified with repeatable experimentation. If they cannot - the belief is speculation at best but most importantly not reliable as a truth claim.

I agree our knowledge is subjective in that it's bias and objective in that it's agreeable, but to say our own experiences are not each in themselves reliable and true is something I find disagreeable. My experience may not be true for you or anybody else, for that matter, but it's true for me; and, unless I have reason to doubt it, for me to say otherwise is being dishonest not only with you but, also, myself.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 7:56:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 12:29:38 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The contradiction lies in the fact you are expecting objectivity from that which is subjective, namely human beings with a finite understanding. Using scientific instruments or methods to acquire this objectivity does not escape this paradox; for, the devices are, also, the products of the same subjective creatures.

Hence why those who speak of heaven are Poisoners!
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 8:07:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 7:56:05 AM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/13/2014 12:29:38 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The contradiction lies in the fact you are expecting objectivity from that which is subjective, namely human beings with a finite understanding. Using scientific instruments or methods to acquire this objectivity does not escape this paradox; for, the devices are, also, the products of the same subjective creatures.

Hence why those who speak of heaven are Poisoners!

Except I believe in contradiction. The point I'm trying to make is he doesn't but does.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 8:13:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 8:07:34 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/14/2014 7:56:05 AM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/13/2014 12:29:38 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The contradiction lies in the fact you are expecting objectivity from that which is subjective, namely human beings with a finite understanding. Using scientific instruments or methods to acquire this objectivity does not escape this paradox; for, the devices are, also, the products of the same subjective creatures.

Hence why those who speak of heaven are Poisoners!

Except I believe in contradiction. The point I'm trying to make is he doesn't but does.

so would you be ok with
expecting objectivity from that which is subjective, namely human beings with a finite understanding.
???

b/c it seems to me that will produce random errors which cause you to be out of sync with reality.

Being out of sync with reality is apt to bring you into conflict.. Either internal conflict or social conflict, or conflict with the natural world.

Better just to accept your understanding for what it is, and act as best you can, then to reach beyond your capability and fail so Utterly hard that you ruin what you've got.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 8:18:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The truth is in understanding your capabilities, and not reaching beyond them, but taking things as they come and being open to change.

It's not a hard and fast truth, but a spontaneous one.

All hard truths are lies. :P
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 8:31:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
so would you be ok with
expecting objectivity from that which is subjective, namely human beings with a finite understanding.
???

Yes.

b/c it seems to me that will produce random errors which cause you to be out of sync with reality.

Who said error did not exist? Things are real and unreal. Things are agreeable and disagreeable.

Being out of sync with reality is apt to bring you into conflict.. Either internal conflict or social conflict, or conflict with the natural world.

Who said conflict did not exist?

Better just to accept your understanding for what it is, and act as best you can, then to reach beyond your capability and fail so Utterly hard that you ruin what you've got.

Life is made of understanding and perplexity, success and failure, triumph and ruin. Denying one side of the equation does not make it go away.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 8:47:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The truth is in understanding your capabilities, and not reaching beyond them, but taking things as they come and being open to change.

The truth is, also, in understanding your weaknesses and transcending your self and rejecting things and remaining the same.

To say the truth is, only, this and not that is to only present one side of reality.

It's not a hard and fast truth, but a spontaneous one.

All hard truths are lies. :P

All half truths are both true and false.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 11:24:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 8:47:31 AM, s-anthony wrote:
The truth is in understanding your capabilities, and not reaching beyond them, but taking things as they come and being open to change.

The truth is, also, in understanding your weaknesses and transcending your self and rejecting things and remaining the same.

1st dissolution of your contradictions is easy
Understanding your capabilities = Understanding your weaknesses
Perhaps more properly it should be called understanding your nature.

2nd dissolution is a bit tougher b/c it's vague
In the way most people would mean "Transcending Yourself", like to suggest a person acts in accordance with some Universally Benevolent or all-accounting for moral framework... It's one of those unsupported false definitions of greater reality that can cause struggle with that greater reality..

Taking the Broadest of perspectives, in a sense Dissolves yourself into the world... recognizing that hard boundaries between yourself and the world don't exist..
(But such a perspective does not evoke the shoulds we associate with our particular perspectives)

However, this isn't transcending yourself, it's recognizing the nature of your "self" in a broader context... And so that would be part of understanding yourself (1).

The only way to Accord with that reality that reality that is Broader than yourself is to Accept reality as it presents itself, Accepting Yourself, and reality as it comes.
So in that sense to accord with that greater reality doesn't involve going Beyond yourself, rather it requires accepting the spontaneous perspectives that immediately present themselves to you, and not clinging to old ones at the expense of new ones coming along.

This According with Reality which involves accepting your spontaneously generated perspectives(self) is related to why the next contradiction you suggest shouldn't even be dissolved

3. Rejecting reality as it presents itself is called nihilism, and is a rather Unhealthy way to live.
Perspectives are naturally and spontaneously generated, and you cannot possibly come up with a more straightforward method for struggle than constantly denying what is spontaneously evoked.

4. Similarly, If by Remaining the same you mean Not being open to change, that will cause struggle when new perspectives come a knocking.
MEK
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 5:22:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 7:50:05 AM, s-anthony wrote:

I agree our knowledge is subjective in that it's bias and objective in that it's agreeable, but to say our own experiences are not each in themselves reliable and true is something I find disagreeable. My experience may not be true for you or anybody else, for that matter, but it's true for me; and, unless I have reason to doubt it, for me to say otherwise is being dishonest not only with you but, also, myself.

So, if I see Elvis Presley standing in front of me and no one else can see him - this would be considered my own personal experience. It would also be a delusion. Would you still call this "reliable and true"?

If the mind is partial, meaning it contains incomplete knowledge, then, it is indeed subjective.

How do you know the mind has incomplete knowledge?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 10:17:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:49:00 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I have reached a dilemma, a puzzle I must solve. The skeptic doubts the believer's testimony. He, or she, may go as far as to accuse the believer of being dishonest or deceived by one's own faculties. However, if the believer is given the benefit of the doubt in his, or her, own defense namely he, or she, is not lying and has not been deceived, shouldn't the skeptic be given the same charity in his, or her, accusations?

This creates a world of two realities: the world of the skeptic and the world of the believer. To accuse either one of lying or being deceived creates, yet, another world. Each and every person lives in his, or her, own world. Yet, these varied worlds are worlds of contradiction.

However, each and every person lives in a common world, a world not of division but agreement. The truth is in contradiction yet is one.

Life is a paradox which includes all opposites.
You cannot have truth without a lie and vice versa. Neither can exist without the other. If they did no one would be able to judge it as being truth or lies because there would be nothing with which to compare it.
All things are exactly what they are. Whether humans judge them as being correct or incorrect, right or wrong, good or bad, truth or lies is a matter of perception which is subjective to human judgment.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 1:17:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
1st dissolution of your contradictions is easy
Understanding your capabilities = Understanding your weaknesses
Perhaps more properly it should be called understanding your nature.

Correct. Accepting both sides of the equation as being one and thusly agreeable dissolves contradiction.

2nd dissolution is a bit tougher b/c it's vague
In the way most people would mean "Transcending Yourself", like to suggest a person acts in accordance with some Universally Benevolent or all-accounting for moral framework... It's one of those unsupported false definitions of greater reality that can cause struggle with that greater reality..

As I speak of transcending one's self, I mean to say the effect one's self has on others. The relationship or the connection one's own self has with the world around it. If one's self were not transcendent, it would be confined by its own borders; it would not be able to grasp the world beyond itself.

Taking the Broadest of perspectives, in a sense Dissolves yourself into the world... recognizing that hard boundaries between yourself and the world don't exist..
(But such a perspective does not evoke the shoulds we associate with our particular perspectives)

I agree.

However, this isn't transcending yourself, it's recognizing the nature of your "self" in a broader context... And so that would be part of understanding yourself (1).

Agreed, but as long as we define ourselves, there will be that which is not our selves. In seeing a relationship between our selves and that which is not our selves, there is transcendence. If we were completely dissolved into the world, meaning we no longer existed, self-transcendence would no longer exist, at least not as we presently know it.

The only way to Accord with that reality that reality that is Broader than yourself is to :Accept reality as it presents itself, Accepting Yourself, and reality as it comes.
So in that sense to accord with that greater reality doesn't involve going Beyond yourself, rather it requires accepting the spontaneous perspectives that immediately present themselves to you, and not clinging to old ones at the expense of new ones coming along.

I understand that which you're saying and from where it is you're coming, but as long as there's a you, there will continue to be that which is not you. In agreement, we do indeed enlarge our borders; but, as long as there is that which is agreeable, there will be that which is not.

This According with Reality which involves accepting your spontaneously generated perspectives(self) is related to why the next contradiction you suggest shouldn't even be dissolved

3. Rejecting reality as it presents itself is called nihilism, and is a rather Unhealthy way to live.

Without rejection, there is no acceptance; that which we accept is defined by that which we do not.

Perspectives are naturally and spontaneously generated, and you cannot possibly come up with a more straightforward method for struggle than constantly denying what is spontaneously evoked.

To live is to struggle.

4. Similarly, If by Remaining the same you mean Not being open to change, that will cause struggle when new perspectives come a knocking.

If nothing remained the same, there would be nothing to change. In other words, one's identity is known by it's permanence; and, without an identity, there is nothing to change. If your identity were in a constant state of flux, it would not remain the same long enough for anyone to know that which is being changed.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 2:02:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, if I see Elvis Presley standing in front of me and no one else can see him - this would be considered my own personal experience. It would also be a delusion. Would you still call this "reliable and true"?

It's reliable and true as long as it's reliable and true. That which you trust, or in which you have faith, is that which you find to be true; if you did not have faith in that which you were experiencing, delusional or not, you would not find it to be true. However, if you had faith in your experience, even if it were a delusion, if something or someone were to contradict it, you would not find him, or her, reliable or true. No one can tell you that which is reliable and true unless your reliability and faith in him, or her, exceeds your reliability and faith in that which is deluding you.

If the mind is partial, meaning it contains incomplete knowledge, then, it is indeed subjective.

How do you know the mind has incomplete knowledge?

Because, it objectifies the world.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 2:09:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 10:17:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:49:00 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I have reached a dilemma, a puzzle I must solve. The skeptic doubts the believer's testimony. He, or she, may go as far as to accuse the believer of being dishonest or deceived by one's own faculties. However, if the believer is given the benefit of the doubt in his, or her, own defense namely he, or she, is not lying and has not been deceived, shouldn't the skeptic be given the same charity in his, or her, accusations?

This creates a world of two realities: the world of the skeptic and the world of the believer. To accuse either one of lying or being deceived creates, yet, another world. Each and every person lives in his, or her, own world. Yet, these varied worlds are worlds of contradiction.

However, each and every person lives in a common world, a world not of division but agreement. The truth is in contradiction yet is one.

Life is a paradox which includes all opposites.
You cannot have truth without a lie and vice versa. Neither can exist without the other. If they did no one would be able to judge it as being truth or lies because there would be nothing with which to compare it.
All things are exactly what they are. Whether humans judge them as being correct or incorrect, right or wrong, good or bad, truth or lies is a matter of perception which is subjective to human judgment.

I agree, but I would like to add all things are, also exactly, that which they're not.
MEK
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 11:32:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 2:02:08 AM, s-anthony wrote:

"It's reliable and true as long as it's reliable and true."
Well, this is just a circular statement and does not add anything in support of your position.

"That which you trust, or in which you have faith, is that which you find to be true; if you did not have faith in that which you were experiencing, delusional or not, you would not find it to be true."

Ok, so if I trust that I am seeing Elvis sitting in my living room, I can expect this delusion to be true? Based on your above argument - anything in which I have perceived faith would be true.

"However, if you had faith in your experience, even if it were a delusion, if something or someone were to contradict it, you would not find him, or her, reliable or true. No one can tell you that which is reliable and true unless your reliability and faith in him, or her, exceeds your reliability and faith in that which is deluding you."

So, If I believe and trust and have faith in my delusion that Elvis is sitting in my living room and a friend comes over and tells me that there is no one in my living room, including Elvis, I should believe my friend is trying to delude me by contradicting my belief that Elvis is in my living room?

Your entire argument is based on the logical fallacy of "appealing to faith" which does not support any logical position.

Lastly, I asked, how do you know the mind has incomplete knowledge? To which you responded, "Because, it objectifies the world."
I have no Idea what this means and appears to be a meaningless non sequitur. Would you care to explain this further?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 2:37:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 2:09:34 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/14/2014 10:17:53 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:49:00 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I have reached a dilemma, a puzzle I must solve. The skeptic doubts the believer's testimony. He, or she, may go as far as to accuse the believer of being dishonest or deceived by one's own faculties. However, if the believer is given the benefit of the doubt in his, or her, own defense namely he, or she, is not lying and has not been deceived, shouldn't the skeptic be given the same charity in his, or her, accusations?

This creates a world of two realities: the world of the skeptic and the world of the believer. To accuse either one of lying or being deceived creates, yet, another world. Each and every person lives in his, or her, own world. Yet, these varied worlds are worlds of contradiction.

However, each and every person lives in a common world, a world not of division but agreement. The truth is in contradiction yet is one.

Life is a paradox which includes all opposites.
You cannot have truth without a lie and vice versa. Neither can exist without the other. If they did no one would be able to judge it as being truth or lies because there would be nothing with which to compare it.
All things are exactly what they are. Whether humans judge them as being correct or incorrect, right or wrong, good or bad, truth or lies is a matter of perception which is subjective to human judgment.

I agree, but I would like to add all things are, also exactly, that which they're not.

Just because something is not what it appears to be does not mean it is not what it is.
A paradox is something which appears to contradict itself but does not really contradict itself at all.

All things are what they are regardless of human perception and opinion.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 6:20:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"It's reliable and true as long as it's reliable and true."
Well, this is just a circular statement and does not add anything in support of your position.

"That which you trust, or in which you have faith, is that which you find to be true; if you did not have faith in that which you were experiencing, delusional or not, you would not find it to be true."

Ok, so if I trust that I am seeing Elvis sitting in my living room, I can expect this delusion to be true? Based on your above argument - anything in which I have perceived faith would be true.

It would be true for you until you're convinced to believe it's not.

"However, if you had faith in your experience, even if it were a delusion, if something or someone were to contradict it, you would not find him, or her, reliable or true. No one can tell you that which is reliable and true unless your reliability and faith in him, or her, exceeds your reliability and faith in that which is deluding you."

So, If I believe and trust and have faith in my delusion that Elvis is sitting in my living room and a friend comes over and tells me that there is no one in my living room, including Elvis, I should believe my friend is trying to delude me by contradicting my belief that Elvis is in my living room?

There's no should about it. You either believe your friend is telling you the truth or you don't.

Your entire argument is based on the logical fallacy of "appealing to faith" which does not support any logical position.

How is believing something is true not an appeal to faith?

You say it doesn't support logic and, yet, you appeal to it, yourself. Whether you admit to it, or not, you too have beliefs others may find illogical. If you didn't, there would be no disagreement. You have faith in your logic, believing it to be true; if you didn't believe it, for you, it would not be true but false; however, there are others who may not agree with you.

Lastly, I asked, how do you know the mind has incomplete knowledge? To which you responded, "Because, it objectifies the world."
I have no Idea what this means and appears to be a meaningless non sequitur. Would you care to explain this further?

The objective or real world is the world of objects, or things; it's that world we call tangible or concrete. It is because of our limited perceptions' interactions with the material world, the phenomenal world even exists. Our perceptions of things are made of that which we can perceive and that which we cannot. If we were able to experience all frequencies of electromagnetism, the world would be a very different place, our experiences of these objects would be completely redefined. It is each of our perceptions interacting with the material world that gives objects their shape and color; it is our perceptions' relationships with the material world that defines our experiences with these objects, or things. In other words, it objectifies our world.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 7:34:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just because something is not what it appears to be does not mean it is not what it is.
A paradox is something which appears to contradict itself but does not really contradict itself at all.

All things are what they are regardless of human perception and opinion.

A thing is an object because of the material world's interaction with the world of ideas. In other words, our perceptions objectify the physical world; it is because of our inability to experience all frequencies of electromagnetism an object takes its shape. It would be a very different world, indeed, if we were able to experience the full spectrum.

It is true a paradox in and of itself does not contradict itself. It is also true without contradiction it has no meaning. Identity is born in the midst of agreement and disagreement; things must contradict themselves to have individuality. If all things were agreeable, all things would be the same and individual differences, or distinctions, would not exist. If all things were disagreeable, association and therefore integration would be impossible. In that we can relate to one another, we are integrated into one collective; in that we disagree with each other, we are individuals.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 9:20:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 7:34:04 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Just because something is not what it appears to be does not mean it is not what it is.
A paradox is something which appears to contradict itself but does not really contradict itself at all.

All things are what they are regardless of human perception and opinion.

A thing is an object because of the material world's interaction with the world of ideas. In other words, our perceptions objectify the physical world; it is because of our inability to experience all frequencies of electromagnetism an object takes its shape. It would be a very different world, indeed, if we were able to experience the full spectrum.


You are basically saying the visible and invisible interact. I agree with that. Not all "things" are "objects". There are many things which are concepts. Concepts are abstract and invisible and only manifest through actions and reactions of physical objects. I think people are capable of experiencing as much of the spectrum of life as they want to experience.

It is true a paradox in and of itself does not contradict itself. It is also true without contradiction it has no meaning. Identity is born in the midst of agreement and disagreement; things must contradict themselves to have individuality. If all things were agreeable, all things would be the same and individual differences, or distinctions, would not exist. If all things were disagreeable, association and therefore integration would be impossible. In that we can relate to one another, we are integrated into one collective; in that we disagree with each other, we are individuals.

Many things appear to contradict themselves but they are the like any paradox which does not really contradict itself at all. It only appears that way to those who do not comprehend the truth of the paradox. Black and white is needed in order to see either clearly. Opposites work together for good.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 9:42:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:49:00 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I have reached a dilemma, a puzzle I must solve. The skeptic doubts the believer's testimony. He, or she, may go as far as to accuse the believer of being dishonest or deceived by one's own faculties. However, if the believer is given the benefit of the doubt in his, or her, own defense namely he, or she, is not lying and has not been deceived, shouldn't the skeptic be given the same charity in his, or her, accusations?

This creates a world of two realities: the world of the skeptic and the world of the believer. To accuse either one of lying or being deceived creates, yet, another world. Each and every person lives in his, or her, own world. Yet, these varied worlds are worlds of contradiction.

However, each and every person lives in a common world, a world not of division but agreement. The truth is in contradiction yet is one.

God's chosen believers do not have the knowledge of God that us saints possess. We saints are directly taught by our Creator about the past, present and future. He also teaches us how we were created.

Believers get to know God indirectly in many different ways. They can only believe what us saints preach to them. If they don't believe everything but remain as friends, they are not known as antichrists, one's who reject the spoken Word ( Truth ), which means hate in these prophecies;

Jeremiah 6
10: To whom shall I speak and give warning, that they may hear? Behold, their ears are closed, they cannot listen; behold, the word of the LORD is to them an object of scorn, they take no pleasure in it.

John 15
18: "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.
19: If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
25: It is to fulfil the word that is written in their law, `They hated me without a cause.

2 Corinthians 3;
14: But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away.
15: Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds;
16: but when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed.
17: Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

Luke 6
22: "Blessed are you when men hate you and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man!,

The Son of God is the invisible knowledge of God that contains the past, present and future, where we all exist. This is also known as the Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven, Christ, Messiah, Voice of the Lord, Word of the Lord, Jacob, Zion, Breath of Life, Tree of Life, Book of Life, etc. This is our spiritual existence.

1 John 5
19: We know that we are of God, and the whole world is in the power of the evil one.
20: And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding,
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 11:28:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just because something is not what it appears to be does not mean it is not what it is.
A paradox is something which appears to contradict itself but does not really contradict itself at all.

All things are what they are regardless of human perception and opinion.

A thing is an object because of the material world's interaction with the world of ideas. In other words, our perceptions objectify the physical world; it is because of our inability to experience all frequencies of electromagnetism an object takes its shape. It would be a very different world, indeed, if we were able to experience the full spectrum.

You are basically saying the visible and invisible interact. I agree with that. Not all "things" are "objects". There are many things which are concepts. Concepts are abstract and invisible and only manifest through actions and reactions of physical objects. I think people are capable of experiencing as much of the spectrum of life as they want to experience.

Abstracts can be made concrete, or objectified; we often take emotions such as happiness, sorrow, and anger and we put very real faces on them. An example of this is the use of emoticons to express our feelings. I know a smile on someone's face does not always correspond to the way someone is actually feeling but we for the most part take a smile to mean someone is happy. In other words, emotions are abstract but are also concrete. If an emotion were merely abstract, there would be no physical representation of it. We could not say this is the way happiness, anger, or sorrow looks.

It is true a paradox in and of itself does not contradict itself. It is also true without contradiction it has no meaning. Identity is born in the midst of agreement and disagreement; things must contradict themselves to have individuality. If all things were agreeable, all things would be the same and individual differences, or distinctions, would not exist. If all things were disagreeable, association and therefore integration would be impossible. In that we can relate to one another, we are integrated into one collective; in that we disagree with each other, we are individuals.

Many things appear to contradict themselves but they are the like any paradox which does not really contradict itself at all. It only appears that way to those who do not comprehend the truth of the paradox. Black and white is needed in order to see either clearly. Opposites work together for good.

It's a very difficult task to separate the world and its appearance. In fact, I believe it's impossible. Even if we were to accomplish this tremendous feat, it would be meaningless. For instance, day appears to be in opposition to night. It is this opposition that gives each meaning. If day and night did not contradict, or oppose, each other, there would be no lines of distinction; there would be no division or variance.