Amarth

I'm starting this thread so that other people can either critique mine, edit them, or write a whole new list of their own. I'm betting there will be some interesting responses here. You don't have to follow my pattern, just write whatever pops into mind.

My Truths:

-=If there is anything worth dying for, it's God.=-
(Now I know there are a lot of people who don't agree with this one, so I'd appreciate it if you guys would turn a blind eye towards this one.)
God is the greatest cause of all. He created us, saved us, loves us in spite of how terrible we are towards him. He is the perfect parent multiplied times infinity. We owe him everything, our life being merely the beginning.

-=If there is anything worth fighting for, it's Love.=-
The people out there who agree with the above, probably disagree with this one, but I see some very big hipocracies with fighting for God. For one big hole, Jesus was supposed to be the model human right? Jesus never once faught, and forbade it of his disciples. God doesn't want us to fight, he wants us to love. Love your enemies. You don't fight/kill people you love. Love on the other hand (the kind in a relationship, not the kind you have for friends) is definately worth fighting for. Love should make you want to protect, and so, if your love is threatened, you should not think twice before jumping into action. Once you've found love, you should fight tooth and nail to hold it forever.

-=If there is anything worth striving for, it's peace.=-
How great would the world be with peace? There is a part of me that says we should fight first, extinguish the evil and whatnot, but after thinking it through, I always come to the conclusion that we should establish peace first, then settle the rest with words.

-=I think therefore I am.=-
Yeah, I guess I'm not very original. When I'm in one of my wierder moods (sorta like right now) I try to prove to myself that there is such thing as reality, and I never can. What I can grasp as a firm truth though, is that at least my mind exists because it is here to ponder its existance. With that foothold, I find the strength to continue to question the rest.

-=There is nothing more important to one's happiness than friends.=-
Another one I think will get debated over, but I'm convinced that there is nothing that brings greater or more consistant happiness. I can think of no greater sadness than that which accompanies lonliness. Now, there are plenty of people with friends that are sad, y'know, people with friends left and right who always have company, but that does not make them exceptions to my rule. Their "friends" are not truly friends. To me a friend is someone you could tell anything to. I don't know many people with a lot of friends, because it takes a lot of time and energy to build up that much trust with someone. People who think they have a lot of friends, usually don't have any.

-=People who claim to have all the answers don't.=-
Goes hand in hand with:
-=People who claim to have none of the answers, have tons.=-
I've gotten little good advice from the people in my life who offer it freely. These people throw out knowldege freely like this, because the instantly accept it as true from whoever gives it to them. However, the nuggets of wisdom dropped from the thinkers and loners of the world are like gold. These are people who mull over everything that enters their head excessively and if they finally deem something worth passing on, then it usually is.

-=We must all survive.=-
No matter what's wrong or how bad you feel, you've got to press on if you ever hope to find the answers. Suicide is quitting. Those who kill themselves are selfish cowards. You'll never find truth or grow towards whatever ideal it is you hold to be true, be it power, righteousness, hapiness, or whatever if you're dead. This one truth makes my life much simpler, because it rules out what otherwise would be a big temptation in the hard times. The quest for truth that we're all on whether we realize it or not leads us into some hard times. In these times, we're often not strong enough to continue our quest, but if we just keep breathing, either God, or our friends, or just the currents of life will carry us out of them eventually. Survive.

That wraps mine up I guess. I'm not even completely solid on all of the above, and I'm definately not solid on the details I wrote. There are a few truths I'm struggling with and would like especially to hear your points of view on (well, I want to hear them all, but I figure if I write a few topics out that you may write some things that may not have crossed your mind otherwise). These are: drugs, laziness, happiness (yeah, I wrote one on this, bbut I'm not solid on it), power, responsibility. There are more, but these are the ones that pop into my head. I hope I helped someone or at least provided some interesting reading material. I hope I get lots of responses too! ^_^

P.S. I'm sorry I didn't do a better job of communicating what's in my head here, but I'm tired for one thing and for another I didn't want to make it so long as to scare everyone away from reading it... which I think I did anyway.

WarWagon

I think that if there is anything worth dying, living, or striving for, it's happiness. As to how one goes about reaching that happiness is up to them, but its happiness that makes life worth living.

Amarth

Hmmm, very good point. I don't know if I agree or not, but it's a very good point for sure. I'm gonna be stuck pondering this for a while. :-P

asaris

Well, I only have a few of these types of things, but here goes.

-=Anything worth living for is worth dying for. It's a small step from something's being worth dying for to something's being worth killing for=-

-=There is evil in the world=-

-=The statement "All people are equal" is meaningless=-

-=Peace is not worth having without justice=-

I'd explain them, but I think they're pretty self-explanatory.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

door

hate to nitpick (no I don't)

But I think therefor I am, in the cartesean model (and therefore all after) is a fallacy.

The only thing known is "I have thought" therefore there is some me to have it- but the "me" might only be a pebble being transmitted some set of "thoughts" by another being.

Actually, I shouldn't nit pick too much because these "truths" aren't truths at all, only beliefs.

There are few, if any, truths in this world. But the BELIEFS you have seem noble and good.

:::OshnSoul:::

A saying I created one day, which I know has been said, I am sure, but with different wording:

"What you beleive in becomes your Truth."

Basically, everyone is entitled to their own & Don't be afraid to live it. We all have our different ideas and perceptions of Truth- but basically it's our own Truth. No wrong in that. There isn't One Truth but the One Truth of You is what you are out to discover- not the "One Truth" that's out there. It's the one that's within you that makes you you.
Your Truth is what you gather of the world and thus decide from that who you are. Living to your utmost passions & feelings IS your Truth. That's simply who you are.

Asuka{eve}

The truth is you are going to die. Depending on what you believe you are taking the most important gamble in your life. You might find that you are in heaven being rewarded for your faith or you might find your self in hell. You may sit in purgatory or maybe be punished by some faceless being listing all the supposed crimes comitted in your life. You may also simply just cease to exist, put 6 feet under in the ground and after a few generations completely forgotten, oblivion.


oh. and this is my 250th post I get avatar now. yay.

tecoyah

Truth is a Lie, perception of truth is reality.

If there is anything worth dying for, it is God-

Jihad is a great example of this in action.

If there is anything worth fighting for, it is love-

True love is passive, Fighting is violent, the opposite of love.

If there is anything worth striving for, it is peace-

Very much in line with my opinion.

I think , therefor I am-

My computer cannot "think" for itself, yet it "is".

There is nothing more inmortant to one's happiness than friends-

True happiness comes from within, and requires no outside influence.

People who claim to have all the answers don't/ those who claim to have none, have tons-

Generally accurate, with notable exceptions.(Albert Einstien, Steven Hawking.......etc)

We must all survive-

None of us, in this form, will survive. This belief is a setup for automatic failure.

You asked for input, and there you have it.

My perceptions:

Your ability to learn life lessons, will define who you become.
Who you become, defines the meaning of life

What you expect from life, defines your dissapointment.
Your level of dissapointment, defines your internal happiness.

What you expect from others, defines your relationships.
Your relationships, define many of your life lessons.

You create your expectation.
You are in charge of your own fulfillment.

Life is Hard.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

door

A retort to the "My truth" theory-

Can something be both true and not true? of course not! Yet many people have contridicting "truths".

It is ignorant and actually the best case of bad faith to believe in personal truth. All it does is excuse people from seeking out any truth.

If I bought into the nonsense of relative truths, or "whatever I believe in becomes the truth" I could believe I should kill and rape etc etc. ad nauseum, and that would be a TRUTH (notice, a truth is a must, necissary. If it is truth that I should do X, that means it is Necissary I do X)

Further, epistemological reasoning shows a difference in beliefe and Truth, so you can't simply equate (truth is what we believe).

I can believe you are not here, and make that a "personal truth" but that doesn't mean you are not here does it?

So I am willing to grant that "personal truth" does exist. But it isn't actually truth at all, just belief.

So you either wrongly believe that TRUTH is what you believe (which is a trapping of insanity) or you agree and believe TRUE truth isn't belief (your post seems to grant this) but personal truth is belief and its okay to have personal truths.

So by you saying personal truth is belief, you are simply pointing out a definitional sameness. Or as some call it being redundant.

Of course one MUST have beliefs to function, and if you didn't believe that the beliefs were truths you couldn't function at top ability. To illustrate this, what if you didn't believe that food was needed for survival in TRUTH. You would die of course.

But here is the BIG idea of all this. Belief in truths is not KNOWLEDGE of truth, but rather HOPE in truth.

Knowledge is different than belief. Knowledge comes from sensations and experiences, while belief comes from a lack of knowledge, and where the knowledge isn't hope replaces.

Like someone with the belief of an afterlife. They have FAITH that it is so, but they cannot KNOW (and so it is HOPE they have, or a belief; they do not have knowledge).

Whats the importance of this? With knowledge-based 'ideas', they are TRUTHS in our minds, and belief based ideas are HOPES in our hearts. (let me point out that the TRUTHS we 'believe' are believed EVEN STILL in hope that we are right about it being a truth. The reason we still must have a bit of hope even in what we think is truth is because we all have had things we took as true that ended up being false, so the possibility of us being wrong exists. But none-the-less these 'truths' are BELIEVED as truths, whereas the others are BELIEVED as HOPES.

Their is nothing wrong with having hope as well as truth. But these shouldn't be muddled and confused with one another.

So the list of your "truths" aren't Truths at all (unless you claim to have un-confusable evidence for them) but rather hopes.

Now that I have said that, they, for the most part, seem like good hopes, based on some knowledge (if not quite enough to make them truths).

---

I harp on this because I see too many people who have "personal truths". This is inauthentic in its very idea. Taking something not known as a truth can lead to terrible things. At the very base it leads to closemindedness, since your beliefes seem sufficient for truth, all other truths shown to you can simply be "believed" away. This is dangerous, to say the least.

door

techoya-

your view on the world (thankfully based in perception and analysis, and not hope) seems to lack a few elements, and I am interested in how you handle this lack (Im not patronizing, Im being honest here).

Your perceptions about relationships only level out YOUR hopes for them (expectations). What about the others hopes for you? Doesn't that also define relationships? If I have hope X and the person doesn't fulfil that X, sure that defines my relationship. BUt a more honest approach would be to say that I have hope X, they have hope Y, I don't give Y, they don't give X. So therefore if my hope X is greater than my hope ~Y(thats not y) I should give Y.

Wouldn't you agree? That we are better agents (better meaning more actualized in who we are and discovering all we can) by treating others as agents?

Also, you seem to tread the waters of existentialism- so I agree, you make your own expectations.

Now to nit-pick again

Your rebute to the "I think therefor I am" is illogical- it doesn't disprove the syllogism to show cases where something DOESN'T think and still is- its a fallacy to think so- let me illustrate

x- think, y- am


1) X then Y
______________________
2) (conclustion) not X then not Y
3) not X and Y
_____________________
4) Fallacy


- this is your argument: if I think, therefor I am it must also be if I don't think I must not be. But computers dont think and they are, so it cannot be I think therefor I am.

the problem is the first part- it isn't truth that if x then you, it must also be ~x then ~y. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, even though some make it often (so don't feel stupid).

all x then y means is that X is SUFFICIENT for Y and Y is NECCISSARY for X.

So with an X you will always have a Y (because X alone is enough to guarentee Y). So you will never have an X without a Y. But you can still have a Y without an X-
with a Y you don't know that X exists, but only that it is possible that X exists (because Y is Necissary for X to exist- not the otherway around).

To illustrate this proof take this claim- all fathers are men. so : father then Man. This is true correct?

What you intended to do was show that if the first was incorrect (I think/ Father) the second must also be incorrect. But think about it!

father then man
your conclusion : ~Father then ~Man

But everyone knows that just because a person isn't a father doesn't make him not a man! I'm not a father, and I'm definitly a man.

Does this all make sense then?

What you tried to do is show that if Im not a father I cant be a man;

so father is X and man is Y:

1) X then Y
______________________
2) (conclustion) not X then not Y
3) not X and Y
_____________________
4) Fallacy


- Look familiar? thats cause it is the SAME exact argument you brought.

So just because a computer doesn't think doesn't mean it wont exist under the logical argument x then y. So I think then I am isn't contridictory AT ALL with I don't think then I am. They can both be true!

In fact, your computer doesn't think, and it isn't an I AM because it has no perception of itself as a self apart from all else! so the sylogism I think therefore I am couldn't be applied to it anyway-

I'm just hoping that you will pick up on this logical truth here and realize your mistake (a common one actually).

in Logic, and Math, there are TRUTHS (it is just that these truths are meaningless without something REAL attached to them)

door

also, techoya, most of your "TRUTHS" are not truths, but rather Likelyhoods- You must admit.

You yourself admit that there are exceptions to your rules.

Love and Violence aren't opposits logically- perhaps in your perception it would seem impossible to be violent to those you love. But this is not so in reality-

First violence defined: simply put, it is the taking away or interupting of anothers autonomy (with scale of course). So to do something against an agenst wishes (give them a shot of ant-venom) might be a tiny violent act, since the WISHES of the agent aren't increadibly strong. Killing someone, on the otherhand is INTENSLY violent since to live is the primary wish of most everyone.

If you want to define it as something else, you will have problems- since the physical acts involved can be removed and it still be violent it seems. Don't equate violence with gore, please.

so if my interpretation and definition is correct (and most modern scholars would agree) then sometimes love CAUSES violence and can both exist harmoniously in an agent.

If I love my child, and I spank them to teach them not to do something dangerous again, I am loving and violent. But if your against spanking, then what if I make him take his medication against his will so that he wont die of pnemonia. Or how about if I step in the way of a gunshot for my wife, even if she would will that SHE die instead of me? Thats my LOVE breaking her autonomy. So I am violent and full of love.

SO love and violence cannot be opposits.

Also, while peace is a good and nobel goal, it cannot be, itself, the ultimate goal. Why peace? because violence is bad (thats the normal answer). or because it allows the betterment of mankind through progression. Either way it isn't the love of peace but rather the hate of violence or love of some other thing.

Once this is realized, the TRUE desire of your hearts can be sought. Why peace? if it is because violence is bad, we should do everything possible to stop violence in a lasting way for the most people. This, sometimes, requires violence itself.

1 man will kill 1000 and he is doing GREAT violence; he can be killed and that is the only way to prevent it. so I must do violence to prevent violence. OR perhaps all I must do is imprison him. But he doesn't want to go to prison. So I must catch him, knock him to the ground, and cuff him. I must also do violence by removing his autonomy in jailing him.

It is easy to reap the benefits of War and Violence while attacking them isn't it? Peace is kept, not caused. All of history should prove this as the most likely of possibilities by far.

So what then? I say that since violence is bad, we must prevent violene maximally. So the least violence needed to prevent the most violence is the correct action then right?

tecoyah

Wow........

That is an enormous amount of personal insight, I commend you for the effort. Please note my response was generalized, rather than an in depth interpretation of Amarths' post. While I am truly impressed at the points you have made, perhaps you misinterpreted the underlying purpose of my reply.

*Truth is a Lie, Perception of truth is reality*

Note I did not claim my statements as truths, and in fact anticipated something along the lines of your rebuttal.
These statement began with one line.

* My perceptions*

That is all they are, and all they ever could be. Had I known someone was going to use the scientific method to break down my statements, I may have attempted to create more clarity.

Oh.. and don't worry, I don't feel stupid, and I likely never will.

As there are far too many points of contention in your elaborate series of truths, I will refrain from commenting , or rebutting the differences in our view of things. I will simply say you are right.

Hope you do well in your college philosophy courses.

*Edit for Grammar*

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

noahfor

BURN

Hey. I just started reading Beyond Good and Evil, and he starts out talking about truths. Seems like everyone is talking about truth, and I'm not sure where this is coming from. I need like a foundation. Can someone give it to me? What is truth? If I didn't know better I'd say it's true that I'm sitting in front of a computer, but this idea of truth seems too simple for anyone to be thinking about. Is the only truth that I am conscious. Can we all know only that? Can someone help me out.

I know this was supposed to be off limits but... God doesn't need people dying for him. He is God. He doesn't need anything. Anything he wants he gets, so why is God worth dying for if he doesn't need you to die? God can't want anyway because then he'd be being controlled by wants, and if God is God then he can't be controlled, but then without wants or desires why does he act?

guinnessgurl

back to the beginning....

one truth i firmly believe in is that 'you cannot stop a war by participating in one'....

__________________
Don't go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail - George Eliot

tecoyah

It was not meant as a Burn....They really are quite fun.

No single person can answer, with any accuracy, just what "Truth" is.
As for a foundation, I honestly think that personal perception is the starting point. Truth is based almost exclusively on ones ability for critical thinking and is thus directed by it. The Colour blind example is one of my favorites. As follows:

Johnny is colour blind, Due to differences in the shape of light receptors in his eyes he actually sees red as green.
Jill was born without the misshaped receptors, and thus sees red as would the majority of th population. To Johnny, there is a red colour, yet it is not the same one that Jill knows is the "true" colour red.

The point is that many observations are interpreted in the way we are all willing, or able to experience them. But that will only be the truth we create, in light of our personal perception of the data.

As for the "God" debate.....sorry I have to pass. Been there, Done that so often it no longer gives me pleasure to discuss it.
But, I will give you Kudos for your take on this issue.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

door

As far as your first reply Tecoya- I assume you were being sincere, but I do tend to have a problem with my assumptions.

If I offended you or anything, I apoligize.

As far as my nit-pick nature, I tend to only get on people who espouse to know something, and seem to truly be searching for answers, since I am the same way (saying I 'know' things, while also knowing the falibility of that knowledge etc.). I would want others to correct my fallacies for example in a polite way. If I failed at being polite, I apoligize. If you don't want to become more accurate in your scope of knowledge etc, then I also apoligize and I'll just let things I see slide from now on. No one made me boss or teacher here or anything- its just an issue of the golden rule- I'd want to be corrected so I correct.

As far as your claim that there can be no truths KNOWN- that is also, itself a truth.

Thats the problem with any non-objective view-

For you to state that Truth is unknowable (true truth) is to espouse to know something about truth- objectivly and in reality- namely that no one can know a truth.

Your truth, is by your own argument, flawed. Maybe someone can know absolute truth. You MUST grant that if you say no one can know absolute truth because you can't make your claim an absolute truth then. But then you have a contradiction. Argh the world of truths and dares.

You could just say, "there is only one truth, and that is that their are no knowable truths" but that seems a bit 'jumpy' since if there is ONE their may be more.

But when I talk of "Truth" I am speaking of what the mind comprehends as "Truth". Epistemically, thats the only way one can have good discourse, since as long as their is ANYTHING unknown, nothing can be TRUELY known.

But...aren't their SOME truths? 1+1=2? how about x=x? These seem a priori truths don't they? Maybe not~!

And as far as the sarcasm about correcting your grammer, your asking for the wrong person. All my years in 'schoolin' and my grammer is nearly as bad as my spelling.

And I have enjoyed my college courses, but I am well removed from those now-

Honestly though, I have respect for your comments as they seem well thought out. Thats the only reason I even replied to you. You should take my criticisms as admiration, rather than disdain.

But I will do whatever it is you ask- if you think I'm being rude or you just don't like criticism, I wont go against your will.


Now I have a question for you, cause I sure as hell can't figure out an answer!-

Do truths exist if they exist for everyone to percieve? In this case, things like emotion and color don't count cause not everyone percieves them the same. But math, logic (which I suppose is synonomous with math ) and perhaps other things might be truths? If not why?

And then the eternal question- because I can't know at least MOST things, how should I act about my 'subjective truths'- those that I believe and know are true (but know only so far as my perceptions give me the knowledge)- since I might be wrong?

:::OshnSoul:::

We are all searching for the same thing- Truth. Our spirituality.
But we all look in and stir up in all the places that won't have it. We keep looking outside of ourselves for it, and blaming that which isn't what we beleive. That won't get us anywhere, except for deeper in a hole of unpeace and seperation. We could choose to see that we can have different beliefs, and that what others beleive in is okay, we can accept and respect the differences, and still get along. If we didn't have diversity in the world, let alone in our everyday interactions and in our country, then we might as well be "cogs of the big machine" and just simply have no freedom of choice at all. That is what is reflected in how the US Govt. & State Govt.s have gradually created for its citizens. We can see how other countries around the world- some are very strict and run only one way, which tends to raise chaos- and then the countries in which are quiet and aren't erupting of disagreements, upheavals, and contreversy. Truth is we have the right to as individuals, and until we see that, we will never get along.

tecoyah

Door,

It seems we have a misunderstanding that needs to be clarified.
I have taken no offense, as you have given no reason for me to do so. The *edit for grammar* is simply a way to tell others that I corrected a piece of my post (in this case I spelled "and" with a b).
You seem to be taking my reply as an attack, which was not my intention, and rarely is.
I do not claim to "know" anything, as I thought was plainly laid out in the way I phrased my post. If indeed this was unclear, that would be a mistake on my part, I apologize.

Yes, I was sincere, and here we have our first issue with the dynamics of this discussion. The assumption of sarcasm is unwarrated, and relatively insulting, but that may very well be irrelevant. However, in your reply you do tend to attempt to play the higher intellect card, Please refrain for the benefit of us both.

As for the critique, please do. But also realize my statements are made within the context of perception, not truth.

*Truth is a Lie, Perception of truth is reality*

This is a general statement, and with the statement comes the obvious interpretation that it cannot be true.

Please note (again) that at no time have my perceptions in this thread indicated a direction of "Truth", in fact they have been in direct opposition of such.

As far as your questions, Yes there are obvious truths that most people will likely understand, and create an acceptance of. Thus we have the Scientific Method. Math ,Logic, Quantum Theory, Relativity.....etc are not in any way the same in my opinion. As they all have aspects that require individual interpretation, this is what creates progress in these fields.

When you delve into subjective truths, you enter the realm of spirituality, and this is as grey as it gets. I cannot, and will not give any direction in this area, to someone of opposing belief. It would be inapproriate and goes against my guiding principles to subject others to my understanding of the un-knowable. Should someone be of like understanding in this area, we often have extremely enlightening exchanges, and learn (I would hope) much from each other. Perhaps another time.

Enjoy

*edit*( yeah...I've had a bit of brandy)

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

noahfor

Can you explain this further. If it is known that "you" have thought than wouldn't it be known that "you" exist. If the "you" doesn't exist then "you have thought" can't be known because the "you" must exist just to make that statement. It's like saying I have thought, but I don't exist. I'm probably going down the wrong path with this.

door

No no, its a good question and it does need clarification-

essentially, it is altogether possible that you don't exist still, but In a more complex way (even with I think t herefore I am).

SOMETHING still exists. But most people, when asked who they are, would say they are not their body alone, and nor their mind. Many would say they are their desires. I believe we are our choices. Thats who we are- what we choose to make of ourselves.

So the identity YOU or I only exists based on something uniquly chosen.

If you said, "I am X" and X is a makeup of 50 things, like a body Y, and a brain Z and genetics W etc. then that would be "YOU".

Here is where I think therefore I am gets caught up (two places). First, (other than the fact that it isn't a logical syllogism, but is still treated as such) How do you know "I think"? The best you could say is I percieve thought. But what if that "I" was only perception? What if you had no body. What if, in fact, you had no mind or desires or soul or anything unique, and everyone in the universe shared all the same perceptions as you. You have no control over them, even though you might THINK you do. And all things, then, in the univers, are one. What "I" is, then, isn't the same as what "I" is in your perception. So "I" don't think.
- I may have left this somewhat muddled so let me know

The second problem is that "I" THINK. Maybe I don't think, but only percieve. The same groundwork for the first problem applies here.

The conclusions can be used to formulate an even more improboble reality- I don't think, perhaps I don't exist- but this is a MISTAKE! All that my argument can give us is Perhaps I don't think- yet I still would be. or at least SOMETHING would be, and that something is at least in part, what I am.

So, basically, I think isn't actually known. I am still is. So the "I think" part of I think therefore I am is unnecissary. Its clear that something else alltogether tells you "I am".

My belief here is that Descartes was a genuis who didn't benefit from 18th century post Hegalianism (obviously) and so he didn't think about perceptions as seperate from thought (he did actually, but not in completeness). Because of this, he should have gone "I percieve, therefore I am" even if "I" isn't what I think "I" actually is.

So- "Think" MIGHT not get us anywhere at all since it might not be happening; "I" percieve might still be lacking cause I am assuming an "I" even still. But I can say, I percieve- something exists which must percieve something else. I am aware of that perception. So I must exist to percieve the perception.

Blargh this is difficult for me t o explain- if you want, you can do a Descartes websearch for "I think therefore I am problems" etc.

noahfor

Ok. I completely agree. When I started reading and you were saying what makes "you", I was thinking that I am just the awareness of "my" thoughts and senses. However, when I hear "I think therefor I am" I take "think" to mean "perceieve" and I to be that perception, exactly what you said, so I guess it's all how you interpret the statement.

Manic_Skafe

The only truth is that there is no truth. What I believe may be true to me but I view it as being no more true than anyone else's view of what is true. Everything is a matter of perspective.

There's much more to this life than we could ever imagine but if we try to see past ourselves and this moment and try to look deeper within ourselves than all the answers will come.

Even if you lie to everyone you know - never lie to yourself.

There's far too much potential for every moment to waste it in self loathing, self pity, etc. Live your life learning from your mistakes, apply what you've learned to your future, and live without regrets.

Blowjobs = good.

__________________
"Porn is a zoo of exotic animals that becomes boring upon ownership." -Nersesian

gorpa

I am also a little unclear as to how we arrived at the conclusion that "I think therefore I am" is a fallacy. Regardless of where thought originates it is still at least perceived by us. I am aware of myself therefore I exist.

I suspect the hiccup may lie in perception of self though. Say, for example, that I am a computer program that has no physical being but I live in an entirely convincing virtual world. I may not be the physical being that I think I am but my consciousness still exists. Another example: same situation, but this time I have no original thoughts. Instead all thoughts I have are sent to me by the user of the computer I am in. I exist only as a part of the greater whole that is the mind of my user, but even though I am just a part I am a part with awareness of self. Therefore I exist.

Maybe I just mistook the meaning of the argument. If that is the case I would appreciate it if someone would explain in a little more detail. Thanks a bunch.

gorpa

Oops I missed door's earlier post.

Door- I can see where you are coming from, but I would like to make one little criticism. The context of Descartes meditations is very important to understanding what he was saying. When he made the declaration "I think therefore I am" he was approaching the problem of existence from a completely internal perspective. (He completely isolated himself while writing his meditations to eliminate any biased or prejudices...easier said than done.)

Regardless of what the rest of the universe perceives, you still perceive it too no matter how you choose to define yourself. Existence is self evident. I think the real problem with reading someone else's thoughts on philosophy is that definitions and implied meanings are often perceived in different ways. To Descartes "think" probably had a much broader definition than the one you seem to be attributing to it. Likewise, I don't define thought and perception as mutually exclusive.

Additionally, simply because a thought doesn't originate in our own physical brain doesn't mean that we didn't have it. This is where the problem of a definition of self comes into play. If I define my "self" as a physical body, and a spirit/mind, and nothing else then it is entirely possible that a thought originating elsewhere could be seen as not my own. However, if my "self" is taken a step further to include that thing from which my thoughts are sent it ceases to be an issue. Like i said in my earlier post, even if you are part of a whole, the part still exists.

It seems to me that there are 2 absolute truths at least: 1) I exist(due to perception, thought, what have you) and 2)something else exists (cause of my perception, or thoughts if you prefer)\
even if those 2 things are part of the same whole the parts are immediately distinguishable and therefore exist separately.

As always I may be wrong, if you can tell me what I'm missing I really would like to hear about it. Also sorry about running on.

gorpa

Godammit I just thought of something else: Occam's razor is a good thing. Wrap your noodles around that.

Ok that's the last one I swear to god.

asaris

Gorpa -- the objection to Descartes' cogito that I'm most familiar with comes from Husserl. He argues that the proper conclusion to be drawn from 'I think' is 'there is thought'.

Manic Skate -- the statement 'the only truth is that there is no truth' is self-contradictory on its face.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Manic_Skafe

In a litteral sense yes, however, the statment was used simply because I didn't feel like going into great detail. I posted a phrase that I assumed would be universally understood - that evidently wasn't the case.


Since my previous explaination wasn't enough, I've decided to cut and paste this tid bit of an explanation I've given from one of the several explainations I've made about this same topic:

Truth is a matter of percpetion - there are an innumerable amount of factors that help shape us into who we are and how we view things thus shaping how we percieve things. Since we can't control these factors, our point of view, and how we view things, what one person views at the truth is no more right or wrong than anyone else's view of what is true simply because it's just the result of what we have no control over.

It all stems from the view that realistically there is no choice. We're shaped into who we are and the person we are determines what choices we make and so....

I think you catch my drift.

__________________
"Porn is a zoo of exotic animals that becomes boring upon ownership." -Nersesian

:::OshnSoul:::

Very well put! But I see it as if you lie to someone else, you are lying to yourself as well.

Shoan Edoras

Sleeping is nice.

Eating feels good.

Schoolwork is boring.

Girlfriends are irritating.

Video games are fun.

Creating is fulfilling.

Fighting is never bad.

Killing is never good.

Sinners can always be redeemed.

I can't hold something against someone who apologizes.

Anger is human.

Sadness is natural.

True friends are easiest to find in conflict.

True enemies do not exist.

Revenge is usually unfulfilling.

The bugle just sounded. Time to go to the next class.

Amarth

Revenge is usually unfulfilling? I can't think of a single time in my life where I got revenge on someone and actually felt (not just logically deduced) that I had done something worthwhile.