| Subject: Good. |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12/13/02 1:43pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "I like philosophy" on 12/13/02 9:21am
>
>>Is there any objective truth to begin with?
>
>Yes. 2 + 2 = 4 is an example.
I don't think one can even say this is definitively, and the reason is that a) mathematics are merely symbols to represent what humans consider reality. and b) since we are limited to our memory and our senses to gather information about reality, we really don't know what is objective other than at a particular second we are experiencing something through our senses and memory. The proof of two plus two in reality is the observation of a greater quantity that we refer to as four. However, this is weak proof, because we have no way of knowing that there actually aren't five things there and one is simply one that humans can't gather with their senses. Further, it may be the case that another person asserts two plus two equals five, and maybe they are right. Maybe there are actually five things there to their senses. As we justify our defintion of two plus to two equals four with our senses and memory, I see no reason that they shouldn't be afforded the same justification, which leads me into my next point.
>>
>>It is one thing to suppose that because you've stepped
>>out in front of a car in the past, and you got hurt
>>you shouldn't do it again. It's quite another when
>>someone asserts moral truisms.
>
>True, but you seem to be missing the point of what I
>wrote here. I was talking about the fundamental basis
>of beliefs. Suppose you are hurt right now and your
>memory tells you it was the result of getting hit by a
>car. Well, how do you know you’re memory is
>ever reliable (confer the link)? Is the basis for
>that belief the same foundation for the belief in
>moral truths? Methinks so. Now if you don’t agree
>with what I believe to be the basic principle of
>belief, I’m welcome to suggestions.
It isn't a problem of the basis of belief that I'm attacking. I'm saying that if it be the case that our memory and our senses dictate truisms for morality as well as beliefs, then any person who has both senses and a memory can assert whatever it is they think to be true about reality and be equally valid about reality, nullifying the notion of objective truth by contradiction, if it be the case that the justification for our belief comes solely from our memory and senses. In other words, what one person believes intuitively is just as justified as another.
>
>>The logical extension
>>of your argument is that we should admit every and any
>>belief as a possible truism.
>
>That is not the logical extension of my argument at
>all. I think you may have misconstrued me. What
>exactly do you believe my argument is?
I believe your argument to be that ultimately beliefs are justified according to the mechanisms of memory and sensory input. You have used this to suggest that perhaps human life being sacred is a moral truism because you happen to think it is true based on these things. However, anytime it is asserted that the ultimate constituents are sensory imput and memory we have a problem. Different people believe different things intuitively. If the justification is that that memory and sensory input vindicate irreducable truths, then there are many sets out there of "irreducable truths" that are not compatible with one another. Something has to give. Either there is no objective reality, or sensory input and memory aren't the only ways of gathering information about "reality".
Damoclese
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 