Debate: lixluke interviews sisyphus__ about truth

T

Tnerb

Banned
Banned
Moderator note: Participants in the debate are lixluke and sisyphus__. Other members may discuss the debate in the discussion thread, [thread=89129]here[/thread].


Hi, this is a debate in the professional debate forum and I had intended to lye down the rules first.

Rule 1:
It is a conversation/interview of me by lixluke about his claims of knowledge. Therefore, there may be no talk related to the interview personally between us, and instead is debated more in random fashion.

Rule 2:
lixluke may ask any question desired, and may procede with interview however he decides to do so.

Rule 3:
lixluke must agree to the interview.

Rule 4:
sisyphus__ must agree to the interview.


The goal of the interview is understanding his claims which are misunderstood, and my disagreements are now interviewed.

I agree to the interview lixluke, do you.
 
OK.

Question #1:
Is there anything you do not understand about the explanation I provided regarding what knowledge and belief are and how they relate/work?
 
lixluke said:
OK.

Question #1:
Is there anything you do not understand about the explanation I provided regarding what knowledge and belief are and how they relate/work?
Click to expand...


Hi lixluke.

You know man I changed my subtitle mainly for our debate / discussion here today.
There is a lot that I don't understand because there's a lot that doesn't add up, is not very clear to me, but I think it could, But I don't see how.

I would be interested hearing your thought about how truth works without someone criticizing you.

So in answer yes. There is things that I don't understand because I can't relate the meanings in the best way.
:shrug:
 
Rule 5:
Discussion must be sensitive to feelings of other person in question (in this case only the person being interviewed and perhaps the interviewer indeed also.) However discussion amongst the others may proceed as according to the other rules established already.
 
Question 2:
It is important to approach everything without presumption. There is no reason to presume subjectivism. There is no reason to presume anything before approaching material.

The information I provided only applies within the parameters of logic. I even state the importance of not presuming logic on rule#1.
Thus here are 2 posts that I made with lots of information on the subject matter. I tried to make them as clear as possible so that people can understand it.

Posts:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2121067&postcount=192
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2121067&postcount=193

What is not clear/what doesn't add up?
 
lixluke said:
Question 2:
It is important to approach everything without presumption. There is no reason to presume subjectivism. There is no reason to presume anything before approaching material.

The information I provided only applies within the parameters of logic. I even state the importance of not presuming logic on rule#1.
Thus here are 2 posts that I made with lots of information on the subject matter. I tried to make them as clear as possible so that people can understand it.

Posts:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2121067&postcount=192
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2121067&postcount=193

What is not clear/what doesn't add up?
Click to expand...

I kind of agree with you... Were it not for my state of mind... Actually I've been very active today, but that doesn't change things.

I agree with you logic is important- I haven't found it much use but see that it has a great one when used rightly. I am not fully aware of it as I have seen so many definations. It seems to get complicated at deeper levels. But I assume you mean logic to mean,

"This is true."
"This (X) is also false."

This is illogicial.

Logical or "logic" seems to work in many ways, all of which are clear to us. Agreed?

And as I say repeatedly over and over again, Logic and this Forum do not always mix, the forum is debated by some of the greatest minds in the world just about it, and still they can make little sense of it.

It's therefore my task to tackle the manner in an appropriate way.

But that is a lot of information (about your post#1) for me to digest. I would suggest that it does, but requires scrutinety. Perhaps truth is more interesting than many people would admit and silly arguements are insane.

I guess that you'd say, when you say truth is independant of human observation, this leads one to wonder about the concreteness of the information you're presenting.
This is my opinion only.

The reason it doesn't add up is that it is crude, even vicious attack to the foundations of knowledge. The rule after the one stating that truth is indepenant is my one in question.

The reason it doesn't add up is that it has to agree with other people.
Stating ... eh. It does make sense I suppose at first when carefully reading it, but requires a lot of focus.

Let's see let me go on.


~~~~
Reading your knowledge rules (honest here), they do sound good but one asks, What's the point?

And I would ask you, to show me what someone has disagreed with you that way we can find out if your quality of sci-forums needs fixin'.

To put it bluntly, there's good quality but a lot of disagreement....

Now to ask me about the validy of your position would be a different matter. Your sentences are very flawless almost without much disagreement to be noticed.
Publishing it or provoking it on a forum which inspires heat, is probably what causes the most trouble.

:)

So I answered you, please continue with athe discussion that way the tape recoreder doesnt' run out of batteries!
 
I understand the below as the heat of sciforums by the way..............................

“ Originally Posted by lixluke
I did make an explanation. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean I did not explain it. ”

You can obviously convince yourself, but it's clear to everyone else that you did nothing of the sort.

An explanation is the reasoned support of a conclusion through the use of a valid argument.

All you did was to supply a few assertions.

No matter how many times you pedantically assert the notion that you've formulated an explanation, the fact is, there was none provided in this thread.

Good luck.
Click to expand...
 
Understanding the truth is very important. The information I presented allows us to do so. I have explained how knowledge works. Understanding of exactly how knoweldge works is very important in any topic.

The purpose in everything is always truth. Understanding truth. Arriving at truth. I'm not talking about conversations about our favorite color or fun things we did today. I'm talking about understanding of the world around us. Pursuit of knowledge/truth/understanding. In order to do so, and discuss any such topic, it is very important to understand how knowledge works.

The overall goal in any discussion is to arrive at the truth. A person might say X is true. Another person may agree/disagree and provide more insight/feedback. The original person might clarify or whatever. Regardless, each person has the same purpose of arriving at the truth. Truth is everything. Truth is the whole point.

It is completely impossible to fulfill the purpose of discussion without operating within the parameters of logic. It is very important to understand how knowledge works in order for people to understand their relationship with the truth. The problem is that discussions are riddled with misconception of how knowledge works. Thus I present information in order to make it as clear as possible how knowledge works.

You cannot presume that truth has to agree with people. It doesn't have to in order to be true. Agreement has absolutely no effect on truth. You have truth. Then you have human perception of the truth. Truth is not dependent on perception. Perception is dependent on truth.

There is nothing more solid and concrete than truth being independent of observer. If truth was dependent on observer there would be no solidity in anything. Truth changes according to the whims of the majority. This of course is impossible in logic. Within the parameters of logic, truth cannot and is never dependent on the observer. This fact is exactly what makes truth concrete.
 
Sheesh slow down this is an interview here its not like I'm gonna understand a full book in 2 seconds!

Let me think for a second. Gotta go pour some tea.
 
Understanding the truth is very important. The information I presented allows us to do so. I have explained how knowledge works. Understanding of exactly how knoweldge works is very important in any topic.

The purpose in everything is always truth. Understanding truth. Arriving at truth. I'm not talking about conversations about our favorite color or fun things we did today. I'm talking about understanding of the world around us. Pursuit of knowledge/truth/understanding. In order to do so, and discuss any such topic, it is very important to understand how knowledge works.
Click to expand...

Hi, you have valuable insights and suggestions.
Thank you.

I usually try to unfortunately understand absolute truths, certain truths, particular truths.

Do you agree, that everyone is different is a truth?
I remember a very long time ago. I was interested in what I would call "Systematics". And I wrote something quite similar to what you wrote using the same "incompleteness" (there's usually going to be incompleteness anyway but does it matter).

Maybe its possible to assign some truths to some qualities.
Kant calls this "a-prori".

I guess its ok for him to do that because it sets a "limit" or restriction or something-however you would call what I present here, its my belief that there is no a-priori unless you first classify or categorize, "A-priori".

What I disagree with is the statement that you're discussing absolute truth in a procritic invironment.
 
It's not like I disagree with you. I just don't believe, that truth is independant of anything. An "absolute truth" realm. Or something. It just isn't fully explained anyway.
 
He's just a guy just like us I am hearing some background noise and I'm talking to it sorry lixluke. :D Yeah though like I'm saying good points.
 
sisyphus__ said:
Hi, you have valuable insights and suggestions.
Thank you.

I usually try to unfortunately understand absolute truths, certain truths, particular truths.

Do you agree, that everyone is different is a truth?
Click to expand...
What? It is logically impossible for truth to be dependent on the observer. There is no logical reason to presume that truth is relative. Absolute truth is a logical necessity. It is invalid within the parameters of logic for truth to be relative.

Truth cannot be apprehended other than through logic. Logic is practical. A discussion can go nowhere and is completely pointless unless it abides by logical parameters. There is no practical purpose for discussion outside of logical parameters. There is no purpose in approaching truth as relative. There is no point in approaching any subject matter under a logically invalid presumption. Knowledge works according to logic and absolute truth. Everything works logically according to logic and absolute truth. It is absolutely true that truth is not relative. It is logically valid that truth is absolute. Why then insist on defying all reason and logic, and abiding by irrational subjectivism of truth being relative?
 
It's been said that truth isn't absolute and independant of the observer, Luke. I don't want to talk about that because I :
is no logical reason to presume that truth is relative. Absolute truth is a logical necessity. It is invalid within the parameters of logic for truth to be relative.

Truth cannot be apprehended other than through logic. Logic is practical. A discussion can go nowhere and is completely pointless unless it abides by logical parameters. There is no practical purpose for discussion outside of logical parameters. There is no purpose in approaching truth as relative. There is no point in approaching any subject matter under a logically invalid presumption. Knowledge works according to logic and absolute truth. Everything works logically according to logic and absolute truth. It is absolutely true that truth is not relative. It is logically valid that truth is absolute.
Click to expand...

A lot of what you're saying is true and insightful but on the verge of insane as I was trying to mention.

I can't accept luke that objective truth is independt of observer... I can't accept that.... uh.... dear lord. I am yelled at for being irrational. Sheesh, sorry. But I still disbelieve with some of your statements. Even if they are true somehow.
 
We agree, mr audience member, but lix and i's discussion is different when compared with your postings.
I do that sometimes... sheesh..
 
sisyphus__ said:
It's been said that truth isn't absolute and independant of the observer, Luke. I don't want to talk about that because I :


A lot of what you're saying is true and insightful but on the verge of insane as I was trying to mention.

I can't accept luke that objective truth is independt of observer... I can't accept that.... uh.... dear lord. I am yelled at for being irrational. Sheesh, sorry. But I still disbelieve with some of your statements. Even if they are true somehow.
Click to expand...
What is on the verge of insane is not logical universlism. What is on the verge of insane is irrational subjectivism.

The question still remains. Why then insist on defying all reason and logic, and abiding by irrational subjectivism of truth being relative? Why accept insanity/irrationality over sanity/rational logic/reason?
 
It's the only position which makes me happy?

I forget to mention, that subjectivity is undefined here. I usually prefer a position of truth over a position of creation. Not to say that creation is in itself false, -

By the way to defend my position if you may....
My subjectivity isn't insane it's true. It isn't on the verge of insanity either. I put up with hardley any peoples stress and yet I suffer. It isn't insane. It's simply stating that "I see no objective truths which are able to be called objective by me at this point, and so I don't care for them too much! Also, it is true that it is all a little bit wacky, and leads to a clear mind."

So I keep an open mind for the most part.
I usually prefer discussions where one side isn't losing dramatically while I'm acting foolish to defend the errors.
They have been spotted out.
I prefer discussions of quality, acceptability, etcetera. Everyone is different- but you can create anything.
 
lixluke said:
What is on the verge of insane is not logical universlism. What is on the verge of insane is irrational subjectivism.

The question still remains. Why then insist on defying all reason and logic, and abiding by irrational subjectivism of truth being relative? Why accept insanity/irrationality over sanity/rational logic/reason?
Click to expand...

I don't know.
I'm not doing anything irrational anyway. And it is irrational to claim you know everything- especially universal truth being independant from you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top