Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 5:04 pm wrote:>>>>>The problem is that such rhetoric is usually a preamble before saying .........And this is said by so many that we have thousands of such claims. This is why in philosophy we prefer to dispense with imaginary truths<<<<<
You are not speaking as a philosopher but as an antitheist, "imaginary truths" as you respond to what you merely IMAGINE I might say, and not to what I have said.
Incorrect. Since I am in fact a theist (Christian), you couldn't be more wrong. So am thus not even atheist let alone anti-theist, but I am a theist who appreciates the work of both philosophy and science, not sharing the delusion of many theists that life and thought begin and end with their particular religion.
The reason for calling them "imaginary truths" is found in your own words about how truth is only accessible to some being that only some people believe in. Thus it is not like the sun in the sky which anyone can point to or the laws discovered by science which anyone can demonstrate. Instead they are things which some people (including myself) choose to believe in but which could be no more than imagination as far as other people can tell.
Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 5:04 pm wrote:>>>>>>>>we prefer to dispense with imaginary truths which are supposedly supernatural and unchanging and instead look for truth with solid reasons<<<<<<<
Lets try part of the definition of philosophy """""the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."""""
I don't suppose you can tell me how one deals with the nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, without delving into that which is super (beyond) the natural.
Logic and observation -- those are the tools of the trade for philosophy. The supernatural which cannot be objectively observed but which some like myself believe in are thus part of a different subject of study called theology.
Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 5:04 pm wrote:So TRUTH, in the natural, IS, light as opposed to darkness, sound as opposed to silence, heat as opposed to lack of heat, Knowledge as opposed to ignorance, and finally TRUTH as opposed to lies.
Consider the following 3 dualities:
1. Absolute and relative: The absolute is based on reason while the relative is base on convention. Some things in life will always be relative because sometimes it is more important to have a rule than what the rule actually is, like which side of the street we drive on. But if we have a good reason why one thing is better then it is foolish to stick to the relative dictates of convention -- thus the absolute takes precedent over the relative.
2. Objective and subjective: The objective is based upon things which can be demonstrated and is thus reasonable to conclude must be true for everyone. The subjective is based on personal experience, so while that is the more immediate experience of truth there is no guarantee such things are the same for everyone and there can be no reasonable expectation that other people agree. But when we have objective evidence then it is only reasonable to set the subjective experience aside, so the objective must take precedence.
3. Secular and religious: The secular rule of law is the only thing which makes religious freedom possible, protecting us from the excesses of particular religions. And thus the secular must take precedence over the religious.
Since only the things based on absolute reasons, objective evidence, and secular safeguards can expect the agreement of others in a free society, it is unreasonable to make subjective religious knowledge/truth the basis for calling other people ignorant.
Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 5:04 pm wrote:Truth is that which expresses itself by possessing BEING. As opposed to a LIE, that expressed itself as an UNREALITY.
Now, all of this is RELATIVE to each other within the boundaries of Time and Space, or rather this Universe as it is expressing itself in all its finitude around us.
But these are claims which you cannot prove and without logical reasons (based on objective observations) it becomes even more relative to the thousands of religions and sects in the world.
Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 5:04 pm wrote:But yet this universe is FINITE, so just how REAL is it as it is only a matter of time before it is no more. So SOMETHING must exists super (beyond) the natural laws of this universe, laws that only came into creation as the universe did, and whatever that SOMETHING is that simply EXISTS, whether this universe does or not, that SOMETHING would be absolute BEING as it is not contingent upon time or space or this universe for it's existence.
You might believe the universe is finite, but you cannot prove it. Nor can you prove that there is an infinite being. I believe in an infinite God, but that is a matter of my own choice and faith and I will not discard rationality simply for the sake of intolerantly pushing my beliefs on other people.
Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 5:04 pm wrote:You can call it God or you can call it silly putty, but for this finite Creation to begin, something has to exists in and of itself, independent of that which knows only temporal expression.
I can well believe that you worship something like silly putty, both easily shaped to your own desire and upon which you can press any image which suits you (because this is something I see many religious people doing). This is not necessarily a completely bad thing, for a rational person should determine what kind of being it is good to worship or he might find himself worshiping a devil. But to be sure this can be carried too far, remaking God in your own image with your own values and motivations, so that you are effectively only worshiping yourself (though some here might not think this is a bad thing).
Brent696 » July 13th, 2018, 5:04 pm wrote:>>>>>>>>sounds like...
The truth that can be spoken is not the unchanging truth. Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu 4th century BC.<<<<<<
"""""""Laozi was an ancient Chinese philosopher and writer. He is the reputed author of the Tao Te Ching, the founder of philosophical Taoism, and a deity in religious Taoism and traditional Chinese religions"""""""
So thank you very much for clearly pointing out how philosophical my position is, [as opposed to] how unphilosophic yours seems to be.
Taoism is a religious philosophy.
What my religion teaches is the following: "“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get."
You demonstrate a rather bad habit of jumping to judgments, first that I am "anti-theist" and now that my position is "unphilosophical." This is a symptom of believing things without good reason for doing so.
-----------------
In any case, it is becoming rather evident that we are straying pretty far here from the topic of the thread which are the theories of truth in philosophy.