Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

clock40man

Core Member
  • Content count

    9,154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About clock40man

  • Rank
    Core Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    xxxx
  • Enneagram
    5w6

Converted

  • Homepage
    http://www.ahistoricaljesus.com
  • Interests
    Reading, Stoicism, Philosophy
  • Gender
    Male
  • Personal Text
    "But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attacks from both sides; this No Man's Land is philosophy."
    Bertrand Russell
  1. It seems to me that, considering that it is the case that "facts don't feature in your metaphysics ", and considering the way you describe how you use the word truth, I can only conclude that when you say "truth", you mean, "my opinion", or in some cases "other people's opinion." ("that contradicts what very knowledgable people have told me".) In your metaphysics, is there anything more substantial than opinion?
  2. Worst opinion? How about any variation of, "All is opinion and all opinions are equal..."? Even the opinion that all opinions are equal is pretty bad.
  3. Well, according to Wiki, There are various theories about just what it is that makes true statements true... ...... added to this post 43 minutes later: How would everyone answer the question : "What is the difference between truth and mere opinion?" Is there a difference?
  4. This is the entire quote... Based on what I've read about the subject, when ancient philosophers used the term "eudaimonia", they meant something like "flourishing as a human" or perhaps, "living the best life possible", or "living well as a human."
  5. So, IF you do reject the idea that anyone could meaningfully say, "this is true for me", THEN what do you mean by truth? I'm still trying to work out the nature of our disagreement. If truth, then sometimes people Are wrong. We do agree that people Can be wrong, correct? Can you state the nature of our disagreement? Is it the case that when you say, "that is wrong", you mean, "that's internally inconsistent" or "that's far less likely that XYZ alternative", or "that contradicts what very knowledgable people have told me." ? Because you also appear to be rejecting the idea that truth is merely a matter of opinion...
  6. Before I started reading about philosophy, and before I took a philosophy of ethics class, I just had a vague idea about right and wrong. I tend to think that everyone has their own moral theory, but not everyone has taken the time to work out exactly how they think about morality, or has tried to determine if the way they think about morality is consistent. Not everyone takes the time to think about what it means to be wrong (or if it is even possible to be wrong) about morality. Now I think of morality as being either objective (what is right or wrong is not determined by culture or preference, but rather by objective moral principles), OR relative (culture determines what is right or wrong) or subjective (personal preference determines what is right or wrong). It's also possible to be a moral nihilist- to believe that there is no right or wrong. Emotivism is the belief that all talk of morals and ethics is only an expression of emotions. If objective, there are several main theories.... Virtue Ethics, Kantian Ethics(rules or duties), Utilitarian Ethics(consequences), and some people believe that God or some other deity determines what is right or wrong (Divine Command Theory). I find Virtue Ethics to be most attractive, more specifically Eudaimonist Virtue Ethics.   but, I acknowledge that most Eudaimonists of the ancient world found slavery to be perfectly consistent with their ethical theory.... I like the theory behind Eudaimonist Virtue Ethics, but I also consider what type of world I'd like to live in, and I consider what would be best for all humanity.
  7. @Othesemo I should have just stopped the conversation here. My premise has always been, "facts exist". You don't accept that premise. Another of my premises is that some beliefs are false. It appears you do accept the premise that some beliefs are false. Regarding the brain in a vat thought experiment? I don't think it's a useful concept. I understand that your metaphysics doesn't include the concept of facts, and yet you also believe that you can determine when someone is wrong. It follows that you don't believe that all beliefs are true. My metaphysics allows me to say when someone has an incorrect belief... I would say, "that belief is not consistent with the facts". Sans facts, what do you mean when you claim that someone is wrong (has a false belief)? Would I be correct in assuming that you reject the idea that truth is absolute or objective and instead believe that truth is relative or subjective?
  8. @Othesemo Okay. So, you're not denying the existence of objective facts.. you're just saying that even if they don't exist, people could still be wrong? In a world w/o objective facts, what would it mean to be wrong? It looks like we need to have a discussion about "objective facts independent of humanity's perception". <--- what do you mean by that?
  9. Are there any situations where you think people are incorrect? Can you state the nature of our disagreement?
  10. Correct.
  11. @vertebrate Interesting. I know a little about Wittgenstein. For me, this thread still comes down to the question, "Is it possible to be wrong about one's beliefs?" Or is it rather the case that all beliefs are true? I don't know what it would be like to live in a world where all beliefs are true.
  12. So, you do acknowledge there are objective facts that are outside of humanity's perception? If someone tells me that they believe life exists on other planets, then I don't know if he is right or wrong, because that fact is not something that can be perceived by humanity. The question, "is there life on other planets?" does have an answer. The answer is either "yes" or "no". ...... added to this post 4 minutes later: Really? That seems like a radical claim. We don't know if there is life on other planets, and we may never know, but it is still meaningful to ask, "is there life on other planets?" The same goes for questions about the past. I can ask, "was there a mammoth on this location exactly 20,000 years ago?" We will probably never know the answer, but the question does have meaning.
  13. Is it the case that all opinions/beliefs are true? Or is it the case that one can be wrong about an opinion/belief? If one can be wrong, then what would it mean to be wrong about a belief/opinion? ...... added to this post 4 minutes later: It seems to me that it is the case that some opinions and beliefs are incorrect. It is possible for one's belief or opinion to be wrong. What does it mean to be wrong? It means that one's opinion or belief doesn't agree with the facts, or what is true, or what is the case. It seems to me that If Not facts (and if Not Truth), Then it must be the case that no opinions are wrong/false/incorrect. ( how to determine which opinions are true, and which are not?) So, to relate it back to whether or not man is the measure of all things. I'm assuming that the assertion "man is the measure of all things" is a denial of the existence of facts (and/or truth).
  14. Funny you should mention this. I've been reading a lot of Stoic material, and they often remind themselves of these facts. Everyone you know will die, you will die, the universe will one day suffer heat death, or be destroyed somehow... They reminded themselves of these facts as a way to remind themselves of their place in this universe. But they didn't conclude that "nothing matters anyhow"... Their conclusion is that each of us makes judgements about everything that is not in our direct control, and one of the things that is not in our control is the nature of the world around us- so presumably, they would say you have the right and the power to make the judgment that "nothing matters anyhow". They concluded that the only thing they could control was their own judgments and actions. And they came to the conclusion that no matter what, virtue is necessary and sufficient to truly flourish as a human, and that virtue is an end in itself. (they also believed that everything not in our direct control was an indifferent - something that they didn't concern themselves with). Presumably, you understand that we can have correct beliefs or incorrect beliefs. Is your belief that "nothing matters anyhow" correct? Or could it be the case that the facts are correct (everything will be destroyed) AND there are things that do matter? And/Or could it be the case that we can do nothing about the fact that everything will be destroyed, we have no control over that reality... and we should concern ourselves with what we can control?
  15. What conclusions have you drawn? Seems to me that either it is the case that facts exist, or it is the case that all is opinion. If all is opinion, is there any way, any reason, to give some opinions more weight than others? If you conclude that all is opinion, then do you also believe that the belief that there are facts is also a viable opinion? Seems to me you are stuck... Me: It is the case that there are facts Othesemo: No, it is rather the case that all is opinion. Me: Is that your opinion? Or are you stating a fact? ...... added to this post 4 minutes later: I initially misunderstood what you are saying here. You're saying that you believe it could be the case that humanity IS the measure of all things, AND there is something independent of humanity's perception? Seems to me that if man is the measure of all things, then you must also believe that physical objects wouldn't exist if man ceased to exist. That's what I'm saying. I'm saying that even if man didn't exist, then there are things (physical objects) that would still exist. I'm also saying that there are some things that we could call facts, that are the case, no matter how many men do or don't believe them (like the speed of light,,, and the fact that if a man falls off a tall enough cliff-sans any contrivance, he will die). I'm also saying there are some things that we could call facts, that are the case, no matter how many people know (or don't know) it to be the case (it is either the case that life exists on another planet, or it is the case that life does not exist on another planet).