Would you like some racism with your sexism?

[Kevin Solway]

The reason for the lack may be purely cultural, rather than genetic. We just don't know.

Would you agree that a culture can only be as ignorant as the majority of the people who created it?

Culture itself is created by genetics, geography, chance, etc.

It's possible for a people who are genetically gifted to have an inferior culture, due to a whole range of other factors.

[hsandman]

Political corectness and pride/politics make mockery out of this debate. Take the bare facts and draw conclusions from them insted of this moral debate on "can we belive in what we see?!"

dhoges brought up intresting concept, which could be reserched by looking up breading records of dogs, how many generations did it take for something that is the size of the wolf to become the size of the rat? The changes made by the eugenics of the slavers are not so dramatic. You are not looking for truth if you are afraid of the answers. I am so sick of this gender strugle with your pathetic arguments and PC BS.
You are not seakers of the truth, you are just someone who thinks that they can use their intelect as a weapon in the gender war. well, to me your weapons look pathetic. Your pride means nothing to me also.

[Eternal_Tom]

Surely the difference between female and male philosophers is obvious?

philosophy (to my mind) is cold and ruthlessly analytical, devoid of emotion. Males are (for one reason or another) suited to this kind of environment.


Females on the other hand are warmer and more emotional, adding feelings to their ideas and therefore have a harder time expressing things in a purely analyical way...

all this really determines though, is that male-philosophy is different from female-philosophy, and in a (historically) male-philosophical field, female philosophy has yet to branch out. Assuming that female-philosophers dont exist or their type of thinking is wrong would just be gross arrogance and unworthy thinking for a philosopher.

[Kevin Solway]

. . . all this really determines though, is that male-philosophy is different from female-philosophy, and in a (historically) male-philosophical field, female philosophy has yet to branch out. Assuming that female-philosophers dont exist or their type of thinking is wrong would just be gross arrogance and unworthy thinking for a philosopher.

Since philosophy is about truth, rather than about emotional feelings, this means that women, as you have portrayed them, cannot practice philosophy.

We could of course redefine the word "philosophy" so that it concerns itself with, and puts value on, emotional feelings - but that would be the death of philosophy.

[Eternal_Tom]

that assumes that truth is devoid of emotion


but since truth is a human construct then it must encorporate all aspects of humanity,

i don't really believe that truth is a separate concept from humanity, existing in some distant corner of space waiting to be discovered, do you?


and if it isn't an "outside" influence, it must be an internal influence, and therefore subject to change from person to person and more than capable of being tied to emotion

[Bondi]

Nope, truth cannot be a human construct, since that would mean that there is no truth but individual truths, which is a contradiction in terms. In reality, one cannot monopolise a true idea as one's own, because it becomes a mere fantasy, losing all its scope and genuine being. (For instance, liberalism is an eclatant example of that. Or "New Age", which is all the same with its false idea of "everyone has an own way/truth".)

On the contrary, if an idea is true, then it belongs to all those who can grasp it. Only in this way can truth encorporate all aspects of humanity. That's why we can say that truth is independent from humanity as the only thing we can do is to strive and comprehend it. Everything else is delusion. If someone has a sentimental or emotional attachment to truth, that is due to his individual imperfection. There is nothing sentimental in truth.

[Pye]

Bondi writes:

If someone has a sentimental or emotional attachment to truth, that is due to his individual imperfection.

How then, are they going to love it?



.

[Leyla Shen]

Man.

Bondi wrote:

Nope, truth cannot be a human construct, since that would mean that there is no truth but individual truths, which is a contradiction in terms. In reality, one cannot monopolise a true idea as one's own, because it becomes a mere fantasy, losing all its scope and genuine being.

On the contrary, if an idea is true, then it belongs to all those who can grasp it. Only in this way can truth encorporate all aspects of humanity.

And this last statement is not a contradiction, how? By the use of the term “those” instead of “human”? How do you separate “an idea that belongs to all those who can grasp it” from a “human construct.” Is not everything you do and think a consequence of being human and constructing accordingly? In other words, how do you perceive and understand Truth outside of being human? What makes you, Bondi, non-human?

An animal, for example, functions -- albeit unconsciously -- on the basis of A=A. Its alignment with that Truth could be assumed to manifest as animal construct from the viewpoint of human construct, no?

To my way of thinking, “individual truths” would be defined as particularities of experience and knowledge, including the breaking, maintenance and expression of individual and/or group-held delusions. Indeed, whilst intimately connected to Ultimate Truth by necessity -- which would be that/those truth/s which is/are universal/absolute from the viewpoint of human -- they are not a direct and conscious expression in the light of Ultimate Truth (which is what makes them delusion, apparently!).

I think you unnecessarily limit your definition of human. Why?

[hsandman]

Man.

Bondi wrote:

Nope, truth cannot be a human construct, since that would mean that there is no truth but individual truths, which is a contradiction in terms. In reality, one cannot monopolise a true idea as one's own, because it becomes a mere fantasy, losing all its scope and genuine being.

On the contrary, if an idea is true, then it belongs to all those who can grasp it. Only in this way can truth encorporate all aspects of humanity.

And this last statement is not a contradiction, how?

It is not contradiction because truth is a combination of "facts". for example simple truth "tree fell in the woods". There can be only one truth (lets call it X for clarity), the (fact a) of such event actualy happening and (fact b) it being accuratly identified. Other truths would not be true if they would not contain both facts together.

By the use of the term “those” instead of “human”? How do you separate “an idea that belongs to all those who can grasp it”
from a “human construct.”

Animals or any living being in fact can grasp the "some" of truth by the fact of such event actualy happening and it being acuratly identified. That does not mean that the absolute truth does not exist just becouese we can not identify with absolute certainty how close we are to it. Truth is not a human construct. reminds me of that question (if you dont look at the moon does it mean that the moon is not there?) The Human construct would be reconstruction of such truth and how close humanswould get to it. As with prediction of future only backwards to the couse from results. In both instances we would not be able to tell how close we are to the real truth or X without verification of the (fact a). How close to Future truth human construct is would be arived at eventuly when (fact a) happens. Hence thetruth and human construct are two separate labels for two different things. human constructs can be many,each different distace from the only real truth.
From this i would deduct that what you mean that there is no Lie. you know that excuse "Not telling the truth is not same as lie." ? well from the above it follows that everything is human construct that is not absolute (X) truth. the only difference is you perception of the distance of the human construct to the (X). If its too far (how long is a piece of string?) then you can call that human construct a lie.

Is not everything you do and think a consequence of being human and constructing accordingly? In other words, how do you perceive and understand Truth outside of being human? What makes you, Bondi, non-human?

How does this work as a proof or what does it have to do with proving multiple truths anyway?

An animal, for example, functions -- albeit unconsciously -- on the basis of A=A. Its alignment with that Truth could be assumed to manifest as animal construct from the viewpoint of human construct, no?

Ahh, here we go now you are calling your human construct different name just becouse it has been constructed by animal animal construct. (why not call it perception construct? would be easier i think.) Animals having inferior perception constructbuilding machines (brain) would not be as close to the truth as a human with incomplete (fact a) and (fact b), but it would not be individual truth. hence should not be called truth. just makes it confusing. There is only one truth. This tendancy of taking same word and using them for different meaning is confusing and hence idea of multiple truthts in my opininon.

To my way of thinking, “individual truths” would be defined as particularities of experience and knowledge, including the breaking, maintenance and expression of individual and/or group-held delusions. Indeed, whilst intimately connected to Ultimate Truth by necessity -- which would be that/those truth/s which is/are universal/absolute from the viewpoint of human -- they are not a direct and conscious expression in the light of Ultimate Truth (which is what makes them delusion,
apparently!).

now you are contradicting your previous statements :S and using word combination "individual truths" guess it is just bad word selection after all?

I think you unnecessarily limit your definition of human. Why?

Well thats question i cant answer, because im not bondi :P ohh this is not for me after all :S ups.[/quote]

ps. inteligence is the tool with wich you can judge the perception constructs and how far they are from the real truth. The higher the inteligence the better the jugement and hence rebuilding the perception construct that matches closer to the reality (truth X) of course some constructs can not be matched to truth "perfectly acuratly" becouse of limited chanels of perception. Higher inteligence can assemble perception construct with closer proxy to truth with less facts/information, just as it can do a puzzle with missing pieces and the distance/resemblance of the construct to reality can only be guessed at by comparing similar constructs that you have built of other things that you can verify (fact a) and (fact b) how close they are to original. (tests,puzzles,jigsaws,prediction,etc,etc) are good example basis of such jugement.They fallow the laws of Logic, thus the better is your logic the better is your jugement and the closer is your perception constuct to truth. Another test of how close your perception construct is to the truth could be if your perception construct resembles some one elses perception construct who is usualy also correct with building perception constructs that most closely resemble later verifiable facts. such as solutions to logic problems or math problems etc. The problem with that test is that somone can "set up" a perception construct that would appier to carry favourable advantages to the carier/propogator of such construct thusly spreading via verbal information chanell. Since verbal chanell is important to us as a another perception chanell of the world around us, it is possible for this perception construct to spread from person to person easily even though it might not be correct/far from truth and in fact harmfull to the carier. It has to promise to reward the propogation of itself to carrier. religious dogmas and many other similar perception constructs that promise such rewards are in fact are a virus propogated by cariers reciving some sort of reward for doing so, such as ego reward making the carier feel/be special or monetary reward such as priests/polititions/whoever recive for probagating "differnt truth" also known as lie, only this lie is propogating because of its usefulness. (yes i know my spelling/grammar is horrible, but i hope it does not detract meaning from my message) And here is where i want the comparison of my perception construct to your perception construct of the truth ;) It is important for the language, being the medium or the tool for the comparison, to be "in sync" so i guess most of the time you are callibrating the language when you speak of philosphy.To me philosophy is just that, calibrating a information chanell between conciousness and other conciousneses :) as in just sharing statements about the obvious. I envy matematicions and their highly calibrated language, maybe its time for me to learn it, insted of labouring at the english :S

[Leyla Shen]

You know, this communication shit is not easy at the best of times for a number of reasons.

I have no problem with spelling and grammar if you are managing to get your ideas across despite it. However, I do wish you'd get the italics thing right. It's a bit of an eye-sore.

I'll read your post properly later and respond.

[hsandman]

the html code is not working properly. will try to fix it. i do agree with the ayesore coment :P .. smilies are not working either :(

[Bondi]

(...) In other words, how do you perceive and understand Truth outside of being human? What makes you, Bondi, non-human?

Understanding truth. :) (Yeah, it may seem "circular reasoning", so let me clear it up a little bit.)

You touched upon a relevant point:

I think you unnecessarily limit your definition of human. Why?

How do you define "human", then?

I should have defined that, instead of just relating to the everyday sense of the word. In the context, when I say "human" I mean a state of being and/or consciousness (as 'being' and 'consciousness' are not two separate things but two aspects of the same Reality). Returning to my statement ("if an idea is true, then it belongs to all those who can grasp it"), now you can see the difference: a true idea can be grasped by any being "who" is capable of understanding it.

If I define things in this way, I hope you can see that I don't limit 'human' unnecessarily. Being human is necessarily a limitation in comprehending truth.

[Bondi]

Bondi writes:

If someone has a sentimental or emotional attachment to truth, that is due to his individual imperfection.

How then, are they going to love it?

See above.

[Leyla Shen]

I'm going to have to come back to this thread...

[Leyla Shen]

hsandman wrote:

It is not contradiction because truth is a combination of "facts". for example simple truth "tree fell in the woods". There can be only one truth (lets call it X for clarity), the (fact a) of such event actualy happening and (fact b) it being accuratly identified. Other truths would not be true if they would not contain both facts together.

My point is more along the lines that the idea of a “tree fell in the woods” is a human construct (built on sensor perception and the faculty of reason) regardless of whether or not a tree fell, which is another question altogether.

Yes, either a tree fell or it didn’t fall. But if I wasn’t there to hear it, it didn’t make a sound because for me to hear a sound requires my ears to be within a certain vicinity of the soundwaves. Course, if you were there, it did make a sound through your ears -- but maybe you are deaf. Maybe it fell on your head, in which case I would need to examine your body with the tree in question on top of it before I knew that for sure.

LS: By the use of the term “those” instead of “human”? How do you separate “an idea that belongs to all those who can grasp it” from a “human construct.”

h: Animals or any living being in fact can grasp the "some" of truth by the fact of such event actualy happening and it being acuratly identified. That does not mean that the absolute truth does not exist just becouese we can not identify with absolute certainty how close we are to it. Truth is not a human construct. reminds me of that question (if you dont look at the moon does it mean that the moon is not there?) The Human construct would be reconstruction of such truth and how close humanswould get to it. As with prediction of future only backwards to the couse from results. In both instances we would not be able to tell how close we are to the real truth or X without verification of the (fact a). How close to Future truth human construct is would be arived at eventuly when (fact a) happens. Hence thetruth and human construct are two separate labels for two different things. human constructs can be many,each different distace from the only real truth.
From this i would deduct that what you mean that there is no Lie. you know that excuse "Not telling the truth is not same as lie." ? well from the above it follows that everything is human construct that is not absolute (X) truth. the only difference is you perception of the distance of the human construct to the (X). If its too far (how long is a piece of string?) then you can call that human construct a lie.

Hm. That’s not what I think at all. I think you are adding more to what I have said than I have actually said. However, I am very interested in how exactly you came to deduce the above on the basis of what I have written to this thread.

For example, the following paragraph further details where the issue was for me:

LS: Is not everything you do and think a consequence of being human and constructing accordingly? In other words, how do you perceive and understand Truth outside of being human? What makes you, Bondi, non-human?

Then you wrote:

How does this work as a proof or what does it have to do with proving multiple truths anyway?

By now, it is very clear to me that I have not made myself clear to you. :)

LS: An animal, for example, functions -- albeit unconsciously -- on the basis of A=A. Its alignment with that Truth could be assumed to manifest as animal construct from the viewpoint of human construct, no?

h: Ahh, here we go now you are calling your human construct different name just becouse it has been constructed by animal animal construct.

What? Are you an animal or are you calling me an animal?

h: (why not call it perception construct? would be easier i think.) Animals having inferior perception constructbuilding machines (brain) would not be as close to the truth as a human…

So, there’s something wrong with the way I make the distinction between human and animal but not the way you do to arrive at this “perception construct”?

h: …with incomplete (fact a) and (fact b), but it would not be individual truth. hence should not be called truth. just makes it confusing.

Here, I can agree. My quotation marks around “individual truth” were meant to highlight this. From the viewpoint of the postmodernist, for example, not calling it a truth would do less good than harm. They tend to harp on about the fact that you do not allow them possession of the word rather than the substance of the conversation.

h: There is only one truth.

Really? What is it?

This tendancy of taking same word and using them for different meaning is confusing and hence idea of multiple truthts in my opininon.

Refer all of the above.

More later.

[Leyla Shen]

hsandman wrote:

It is important for the language, being the medium or the tool for the comparison, to be "in sync" so i guess most of the time you are callibrating the language when you speak of philosphy.To me philosophy is just that, calibrating a information chanell between conciousness and other conciousneses :) as in just sharing statements about the obvious. I envy matematicions and their highly calibrated language, maybe its time for me to learn it, insted of labouring at the english :S

I agree with your emphasis on in-sync language insofar as it facilitates the propagation of ideas: truthful and untruthful. Unfortunately, I do not agree that in most cases philosophy is a matter of calibrating language since that appears to assume that every human is necessarily possessed of a consciousness of truth: that most are, in fact, truthful. Most of the time, philosophy is a matter of bringing Truth into the light and language is the means with which humans do so.

Philosophy, at its best, refines one’s faculty of reasoning through individual subjectivity and abstract thinking. The field of the sciences address the objective world through the application of rules and rituals, developed through the experimentation and observation of chains of cause and effect. They need a laboratory of rats and chemicals, Bunsen burners and petrie dishes, atoms and molecules, spin and electromagnetic forces, bosons and fermions, particle accelerators and government appropriations.

There have been many men who have contributed to the sciences who yet had not resolved the question of God and the concepts good and evil. Maths will not help you here. Only philosophy can do this. This is the difference. It may appear slight to some, but it isn’t, necessarily. What they do seem to have in common, when they are both of high quality, is reason: that very thing that appears to separate man from everything else.

A brain surgeon can repair the warm, grey matter underneath your skull by removing a tumour. He may even be able to disable your notions of God and concepts of good and evil accidentally -- or on purpose. But he can’t take out your ideas and memories, recalibrate them, and put them back in whilst keeping you fully conscious of this act.

Maths is no different in this regard.

[Leyla Shen]

Hi, Bondi:

I should have defined that, instead of just relating to the everyday sense of the word. In the context, when I say "human" I mean a state of being and/or consciousness (as 'being' and 'consciousness' are not two separate things but two aspects of the same Reality). Returning to my statement ("if an idea is true, then it belongs to all those who can grasp it"), now you can see the difference: a true idea can be grasped by any being "who" is capable of understanding it.

But isn‘t that just stating the obvious? It still doesn’t say anything about truth. Or am I still missing something?

If I define things in this way, I hope you can see that I don't limit 'human' unnecessarily. Being human is necessarily a limitation in comprehending truth.

OK, I’ll tell you what I “see.“ I still think that there is an error in saying that being human (using the standard definition of mind, body, intelligence through evolution, faculty of reasoning etc.) is necessarily a limitation in comprehending truth. If this were true, no human would have been able to do it thus far. That, my dear, includes you -- does it not?

Was the Buddha (or any wise/enlightened man you can think of) not -- at least once upon a time -- human? If so, how unlimited, then, is a Buddha’s possession of truth by the fact of his having been human necessarily being a limitation? He doesn’t just suddenly lose brain and sensory perceptions and all function that goes along with it, does he? Do you suppose, for instance, that his brain/brain patterns might look a little different to the average man’s by available scientific measures?

Also, defining “human” as simply a state of being and/or consciousness could mean that you might as well lump insects, aliens (speculative: interplanetary life-forms other than earthlings), dogs, cats, fish and lizards in this one category since they all have assumed states of being and/or consciousness. Is there really no useful reason to distinguish between these things and a human in serving truth?

Alternatively, you might mean in your above definition that a state of being and/or consciousness is, in fact, consciousness as opposed to unconsciousness. In this case, your human is the wise man -- or not far off. I don't know what that makes everyone else, though. Animal, I guess -- no?

[Bondi]

In fact, this dispute of ours well demonstrate that being a human is a limitation of understanding truth. I do state the obvious. It seems for me, at least, that – strangely – the more obvious a thing is, the more difficult to recognise and get to know it. Defining 'human' as a state of being not just "could mean", but do mean that we "lump insects etc. in one category". I'm glad you noticed that. There is really no reason to make a distinction between beings based upon their appearances. The only distinction is their state in understanding truth. Which renders speculative not only the question of interplanetary life (which is in itself a juvenile fiction unworthy of any philosophical consideration, though), but also makes it obvious that to "think" animals and vegetables and other human persons have a separate consciousness of their own is the very same kind of fantastic speculation. A 'state of being' is not a state made up by a total amount of individual beings in the universe I can experience. By definition, there is only one own consciousness, that is my consciousness. Philosophically, it is the most exact to phrase everything in first person singular.

Searching for a Buddha by analysing "brain patterns" and such would be more absurd than judging a wine by its bottle – just have to taste it instead. Even a Buddha is no different from other individuals in his mere appearance as a human. Just have to "taste" the thing which makes him different in reality – that he is a direct appearance of truth. And it still doesn't say anything about truth to common people. First you recognise the Buddha, then you realise the Buddha.

[hsandman]

A 'state of being' is not a state made up by a total amount of individual beings in the universe I can experience.

You ment "earth" insted of "universe" right? or what did you mean by:

the question of interplanetary life (which is in itself a juvenile fiction unworthy of any philosophical consideration, though),
but also makes it obvious that to "think" animals and vegetables and other human persons have a separate consciousness of their own is the very same kind of fantastic speculation.

? you call it fiction and then in the same "breath (expr)" you say "individual beings in the universe"

Can you just choose one and stop confusing others with your "fuzzy logic"?

[Bondi]

You should first clean up your fuzzy (mis)spellings, perhaps.

No, I meant universe. Which is quite comprehensible to anyone who is not addicted to an anthropomorphic misconception of the universe. Stop watching Star Trek, mate...

[Leyla Shen]

Well, I get where you're coming from, Bondi. But...

There is really no reason to make a distinction between beings based upon their appearances. The only distinction is their state in understanding truth.

That's a contradiction if ever I've seen one. And I agree, it's a pretty good reason to make a distinction.

I mean, I don't see you posting to the Alumni of Locusts currently planning a crop takeover.

[hsandman]

You should first clean up your fuzzy (mis)spellings, perhaps.

No, I meant universe. Which is quite comprehensible to anyone who is not addicted to an anthropomorphic misconception of the universe. Stop watching Star Trek, mate...

That was exactly the kinda meaningful reply i expected from you, mate :) "No, I meant universe."

And you wrote "A 'state of being' is not a state made up by a total amount of individual beings in the universe I can experience."

a ) i want apple.
b ) you want apple?
a ) no, i ment apple.

I hope you have not traveled too far from realm of reason, its good to have good grammar and vocabulary, but its no consolation for lack of logic. Well my last reply to you, unless you start making more sense to me. i hate dissorder of thought from "fuzzy" minds, and yours seems to be beyond redemtion.

[Bondi]

Read them over again, then. If I had written "earth", that would have been a contradiction with my statement that I don't find "extraterrestrial life" philosophically valuable. (With writing only "earth" I would suggest that I believe in "non-earth", i.e. "extraterrestrials", see?) I don't blame you, but I can't help if you want to imagine that "there is Earth" and "there are little green aliens on other planets similar to Earth" and "these make up a universe". I hold the idea of Universe much more philosophic than to give it up to such daydreamings.

[Bondi]

I'm sorry, Leyla, "my dear", but I'm too tired to play these games.

You should do a little bit of background reading on QSR's definitions. As it is their forum, I mostly use their expressions in my posts to avoid lengthy definitions -- i.e. philosophy, appearance, truth, understanding etc.

[Leyla Shen]

Really?

What do you suppose Woman is all about, then?

That's rhetorical. I, too, think we are getting nowhere.