While studying and debating philosophy for about the last ten years or so, I have both become partial to nihilism/skepticism as well as wonder if some of the ideas and beliefs I have I should try to share with others. One of the ideas I find relatively useful is the idea that the only truth is that there is no truth. Some people get the concept without any issue (and wonder why I even bother why I waste time bringing up something so obvious), and other people get really upset that I even suggest that there is no truth and/or everything is merely subjective. Here is part of my notes (likely copied from posts I made in other forums) where I described the concept:

=======================================================
Concept X
The only truth is that there is no truth.
(ie. A truth is a mental construct/represtation and/or label of a real world thing
but a real world thing or the so called thing-in-of-itself has more to it than
we know about or at least has more to it that we can't rule out there is something
important we don't know. Because of this issue it is best to label a 'truth' as either
a mere fact/data (ie. data/fact are transient while 'truths' are not) or as an opinion.
The only exception I know of is that while mental truths, such as 1+1=2, are almost
always true it is hard to say whether they are true because they are really true or
whether they are merely true because we say or perceive them to be true.)

=======================================================

I remember coming up with the idea even before studying philosophy, but realized that the concept isn't that different than when Hume claimed "you can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'", or certain things said by Kierkegaard about morality being subjective.

I know this isn't a board about philosophy, but after reading one of failboat's posts suggesting that I create a blog/share some of my ideas,etc I thought it might be helpful to bounce some of my ideas with people on this forum first (and cut and paste some of them to a blog or something later on) so I have some idea which concepts are too crazy and/or not useful and which ideas are useful.

BTW, My original account that I used to debate philosophy can be found at the following URL if anyone is interested in looking at my work there, however since the site changed owners and is now mismanaged/defunct I can't say whether if much of the site is still accessible. I know if I go to the Internet Archives/the Wayback machine I can still find some of my stuff there.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/membe...-7948.html

(04-09-2017, 08:34 PM)dclements Wrote:  While studying and debating philosophy for about the last ten years or so,  I have both become partial to nihilism/skepticism as well as wonder if some of the ideas and beliefs I have I should try to share with others.  One of the ideas I find relatively useful is the idea that the only truth is that there is no truth. Some people get the concept without any issue (and wonder why I even bother why I waste time bringing up something so obvious),  and other people get really upset that I even suggest  that there is no truth and/or everything is merely subjective. Here is part of my notes (likely copied from posts I made in other forums) where I described the concept:

=======================================================
Concept X
The only truth is that there is no truth.
(ie. A truth is a mental construct/represtation and/or label of a real world thing
but a real world thing or the so called thing-in-of-itself has more to it than
we know about or at least has more to it that we can't rule out there is something
important we don't know. Because of this issue it is best to label a 'truth' as either
a mere fact/data (ie. data/fact are transient while 'truths' are not) or as an opinion.
The only exception I know of is that while mental truths, such as 1+1=2, are almost
always true it is hard to say whether they are true because they are really true or
whether they are merely true because we say or perceive them to be true.)  

=======================================================

I remember coming up with the idea even before studying philosophy, but realized that the concept isn't that different than when Hume claimed "you can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'", or certain things said by Kierkegaard about morality being subjective.

I know this isn't a board about philosophy, but after reading one of failboat's posts suggesting that I create a blog/share some of my ideas,etc I thought it might be helpful to bounce some of my ideas with people on this forum first (and cut and paste some of them to a blog or something later on) so I have some idea which concepts are too crazy and/or not useful and which ideas are useful.

BTW, My original account that I used to debate philosophy can be found at the following URL if anyone is interested in looking at my work there, however since the site changed owners and is now mismanaged/defunct I can't say whether if much of the site is still accessible. I know if I go to the Internet Archives/the Wayback machine I can still find some of my stuff there.  

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/membe...-7948.html

Truth is relative to the person that perceives it. What I think is truth is certainly not what others think of as truth. What people believe as truth also changes from generation to generation, culture to culture, and is sometimes relative to the language people speak and the culture we are brought up in.

(04-09-2017, 10:16 PM)Adde Wrote:  

(04-09-2017, 08:34 PM)dclements Wrote:  While studying and debating philosophy for about the last ten years or so,  I have both become partial to nihilism/skepticism as well as wonder if some of the ideas and beliefs I have I should try to share with others.  One of the ideas I find relatively useful is the idea that the only truth is that there is no truth. Some people get the concept without any issue (and wonder why I even bother why I waste time bringing up something so obvious),  and other people get really upset that I even suggest  that there is no truth and/or everything is merely subjective. Here is part of my notes (likely copied from posts I made in other forums) where I described the concept:

=======================================================
Concept X
The only truth is that there is no truth.
(ie. A truth is a mental construct/represtation and/or label of a real world thing
but a real world thing or the so called thing-in-of-itself has more to it than
we know about or at least has more to it that we can't rule out there is something
important we don't know. Because of this issue it is best to label a 'truth' as either
a mere fact/data (ie. data/fact are transient while 'truths' are not) or as an opinion.
The only exception I know of is that while mental truths, such as 1+1=2, are almost
always true it is hard to say whether they are true because they are really true or
whether they are merely true because we say or perceive them to be true.)  

=======================================================

I remember coming up with the idea even before studying philosophy, but realized that the concept isn't that different than when Hume claimed "you can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'", or certain things said by Kierkegaard about morality being subjective.

I know this isn't a board about philosophy, but after reading one of failboat's posts suggesting that I create a blog/share some of my ideas,etc I thought it might be helpful to bounce some of my ideas with people on this forum first (and cut and paste some of them to a blog or something later on) so I have some idea which concepts are too crazy and/or not useful and which ideas are useful.

BTW, My original account that I used to debate philosophy can be found at the following URL if anyone is interested in looking at my work there, however since the site changed owners and is now mismanaged/defunct I can't say whether if much of the site is still accessible. I know if I go to the Internet Archives/the Wayback machine I can still find some of my stuff there.  

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/membe...-7948.html

Truth is relative to the person that perceives it. What I think is truth is certainly not what others think of as truth. What people believe as truth also changes from generation to generation, culture to culture, and is sometimes relative to the language people speak and the culture we are brought up in.

Yep! I more or less agree.

I guess in theory if a being could perceive EVERY aspect of an issue, every emotion and/or thought a person could have, the consequences of every action, etc, etc (or in other words be omniscient) they might either have actual access to objective truth or something closer to it than what we have. I don't know what it might take to get access to unbiased objective truth, but the more aware of reality and/or it's complexity the closer one potentially can get to objective truth. Sort of like how the character from 'Limitless' has the ability to understand and grasp things we usually can't (ie. through limited omniscience), he potentially could have access to an aspect of objective truth that we do not. Also as science and technology progresses it is plausible we will have a better understanding of certain aspects of objective truth than is possible right now, although of course this isn't a given.

Do you ever wonder why people get so upset when you, or anyone for that matter, puts forth an alternate perspective? I think people become very uncomfortable when their comfort zone is breached.

People will generally defend their comfort zones aggressively

(04-10-2017, 08:00 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Do you ever wonder why people get so upset when you, or anyone for that matter, puts forth an alternate perspective? I think people become very uncomfortable when their comfort zone is breached.

I definitely know what you mean. If I try to talk about philosophical issues with people face to face they either agree with me and are happy that at least one other person thinks as they do, or they nearly want to kill me; even if I try to use a position that is only slightly different than their own. This is even true of my brother Allan who is smart enough to pass the Mensa test and able to work at MIT. Any time I talk to him I have to be extremely careful not to talk about stuff that doesn't fit in with how he likes to view things even though he is an atheist.

If I couldn't post anomalously on a forum, I could never talk/argue about certain subjects as I have. Even on forums it can be difficult. However I realize I'm not above the occasional emotional outburst/trolling myself as I recently got upset with someone who disagreed with me and I got more hostile than I should have.

(04-10-2017, 08:35 PM)Octo Wrote:  People will generally defend their comfort zones aggressively

I forgot the psychological term for it, but I'm pretty sure there is a phrase that is used when people are faced with information that doesn't fit their schema of how they view the world and they either get hostile and/or block out some or all of the information regarding what they experienced.

In the Greek play Oedipus when Oedipus is trying to find out who killed the previous king, he is told that is was several men that killed him and the servants he was traveling with. After being told this instead of talking about the group that killed the king, he talks about the lone man who murdered them all; which implies that he already knows that it is he that carried out the deed since it is kind of unusual for one person to kill around fifty people and to do it with their bare hands no less. During the rest of the play Oedipus does nearly everything both to find out who killed the king yet ignore anything that someone might say to make him realize that it was he who committed the crime.

I don't know if they are the same thing but I think it is pretty close.

(04-09-2017, 08:34 PM)dclements Wrote:  While studying and debating philosophy for about the last ten years or so, I have both become partial to nihilism/skepticism as well as wonder if some of the ideas and beliefs I have I should try to share with others. One of the ideas I find relatively useful is the idea that the only truth is that there is no truth. Some people get the concept without any issue (and wonder why I even bother why I waste time bringing up something so obvious), and other people get really upset that I even suggest that there is no truth and/or everything is merely subjective. Here is part of my notes (likely copied from posts I made in other forums) where I described the concept:

=======================================================
Concept X
The only truth is that there is no truth.
(ie. A truth is a mental construct/represtation and/or label of a real world thing
but a real world thing or the so called thing-in-of-itself has more to it than
we know about or at least has more to it that we can't rule out there is something
important we don't know. Because of this issue it is best to label a 'truth' as either
a mere fact/data (ie. data/fact are transient while 'truths' are not) or as an opinion.
The only exception I know of is that while mental truths, such as 1+1=2, are almost
always true it is hard to say whether they are true because they are really true or
whether they are merely true because we say or perceive them to be true.)

=======================================================

I remember coming up with the idea even before studying philosophy, but realized that the concept isn't that different than when Hume claimed "you can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'", or certain things said by Kierkegaard about morality being subjective.

I know this isn't a board about philosophy, but after reading one of failboat's posts suggesting that I create a blog/share some of my ideas,etc I thought it might be helpful to bounce some of my ideas with people on this forum first (and cut and paste some of them to a blog or something later on) so I have some idea which concepts are too crazy and/or not useful and which ideas are useful.

BTW, My original account that I used to debate philosophy can be found at the following URL if anyone is interested in looking at my work there, however since the site changed owners and is now mismanaged/defunct I can't say whether if much of the site is still accessible. I know if I go to the Internet Archives/the Wayback machine I can still find some of my stuff there.

There is truth it's just not apparent even to those that can see it. I mean truth of the environment you're in and truth of the "God" here. However, this place is not designed for you to gain that truth to protect the energy harvesting going on here. Here's what's going on: splintering (creating "alters" of your soul so they can feed off of them), forced reincarnation (not necessarily as a human) by consent to a system that allows for it (read the fine print in your religions), elimination of memory/historical record, complete manipulation of people from the outside in and the inside out (programming), oroborous, sex magick.

You have to survive in the wilderness (land of the dead) a long time and be out in public every day to see some of these things and understand how they trace across all religions/mythology. Only experiencing it will you see this. It's not chakra ascension (that's an artifice within the matrix) that's going to get you out, it's knowing the truth and where you need to go after death that will do it. Return to the eternal realm.

There is literally nothing to learn here...that's not it's purpose it's not training, it's a prison.

(04-11-2017, 08:17 AM)Anonymous Kritter Wrote:  There is literally nothing to learn here...that's not it's purpose it's not training, it's a prison.

Good assessment. The most we can do is make the best out of it. A quest for truth and enlightenment is always a quest, people will never truly find either because they are not available in prison. If they claim to have found either they are lying or very much insane.

Right Strigoi , 'cept ,,, not exactly a Prison ,

Insane Asylum is a little closer to correct term .

Quote : " From Space , a Beautiful Place ,,,, a Closer look reveals the Human Race ,,
Full of Hope , full of Grace ,,, but ,,, Dead Set to lay all to Waste "

( Grateful Dead ,,, song ,,, Throwing Stones )

I didn't come here to change people ,,, I'm here to rescue the their House from their
attempts to burn it to Hell .

As Critique , Opening Verse to the Song " Throwing Stones "
by the Grateful Dead .

~~~~~~ Begin ~~~~~~~~~

Picture a bright blue ball
Just spinning, spinning free
Dizzy with eternity
Paint it with a skin of sky
Brush in some clouds and sea
Call it home for you and me
A peaceful place or so it looks from space
A closer look reveals the human race
Full of hope, full of grace, is the human face
But afraid, we may lay our home to waste
There's a fear down here we can't forget
Hasn't got a name just yet
Always awake, always around
Singing ashes to ashes all fall down
Ashes to ashes all fall down

~~~~~~~~ End ~~~~~~~~

Perhaps the Most Succinct , as well , Opens in your Mind , a Vision of our World .