This topic was started in Feedback, but maybe it is more interesting to discuss it here amongst the 'philosophers'.

Yeah, but I'm a radical philosopher of FULL TRUTH, and this terrifies most people as they hate the truth.
I've already scared the hell out of most people in the earth science section.

I haven't even gotten started at this joint yet.

You can address me as the "Prophet of Full Truth"

You should start a thread in which you describe the difference between empty truth and full truth.

Monkey

In a nutshell, someone who pursues full truth utilizes their entire human toolkit, which is rationality, intuition and biological knowledge, and the rest are "empty" headed cunts.

All clear?

Not really, since you use vague terms.



What are your thoughts?

haha , you started the thread for him ? :D

btw , i´m sure there is something like "full truth" , but maybe it´s the wrong label !
in my opinion full truth is just a FACT

I have some questions:

Can a 'cunt' not have the full truth?

The 'biological knowledge' you talk about cannot possibly be used to pursue the full truth, since we know in biology that we hardly know anything. How can you pursue the full truth with a handicapped scientific discipline?

Is the human brain capable of being rational?

Doesn't intuition go against rationality?

I think Rationality, the basis of Logic, is like a flawed computer program... it works great with most things, but sometimes it can and does go against humanity. Rationality is subjective, it can never be perceived in exactly the same way by 2 different people. What seems logical, rational and correct for you may be detrimental to something else.

Examples: Hitler thought it was rational to start WWII and several millions shared his rationality enough to do his bidding. Most Israelis think it's rational to steal Palestinian land. Millions of Americans thought it was rational to vote Bush into power... and it goes on.

I think the mistake most humans make is when they think that rationality is somehow above intuition. I feel that it's irrational NOT to listen to your intuition, I've proved that my intuition works, time and time again, but that's not saying that my intuition is irrational.

I would love to argue about full truth and empty truth, but shouldn't someone tell that guy that the thread has been placed here, so we can actually argue (I mean debate ;) ) with him?

My first question would be in regards to the "entire human toolkit." Would this include drugs?

Also, what about conflicting "full truths?"

Monkey

Can a 'cunt' not have the full truth?

I guess so, but the best thing for a cunt is the full penis.

The 'biological knowledge' you talk about cannot possibly be used to pursue the full truth

Biological knowledge are signals we receive, such as goose bumps, hairs on the back of your neck and so on.

Is the human brain capable of being rational?

Yes, rationality is applied logic.

Doesn't intuition go against rationality?

intuition

SYLLABICATION: in·tu·i·tion
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: nt-shn, -ty- KEY

NOUN: 1a. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See synonyms at reason. b. Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight.
2. A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English intuicioun, insight, from Late Latin intuiti, intuitin-, a looking at, from Latin intuitus, a look, from past participle of intur, to look at, contemplate : in-, on; see in–2 + tur, to look at.
OTHER FORMS: intu·ition·al —ADJECTIVE
intu·ition·al·ly —ADVERB

Intuition is in a sense, before rationality, and in conjunction with reason it becomes intuitive knowledge.

I think there are some knowledges that are "hard facts" and some knowledges that are more floating, these knowledges that are floating can be known using intuition (and might also be different in different situations), the full truth might then be a mix of these two.

I also think that we can use intuition to look beneath the surface of the "hard facts" and maybe see faults that are in them. I think that true intuition requires inspiration, that you feel that you can comprehend it (even though at first you can't), sorta like making room for it.

Monkey

Biological knowledge are signals we receive, such as goose bumps, hairs on the back of your neck and so on.


Those biological signals were acquired to get you through the day alive and well in most occasions.

You can't trust those kind of signals to inform you on the full truth.

You can't trust those kind of signals to inform you on the full truth.

Monkey

Full truth is maximum knowledge, it's unlikely to be absolute knowledge, but it's better than constraining yourself to the rational or the exlusive dictates of scientism.

Intuition+biological knowledge+rationalitry=full truth.
I consider rationality to be the pack-horse, it does the bulk of work, but I'm not going to ignore my intuitive impulses because it's unfashionable within this particular paradigm.

hey , you treat "full truth" like a bitch , don´t you ? ;)
intuition and rationality are meaningless shit --- facts are true

hey , you treat "full truth" like a bitch , don´t you ? ;)
intuition and rationality are meaningless shit --- facts are truewhat "facts"? Say one fact about the real world that is true (that humans haven't constructed themselves - like 1+1=2...)

intuition and rationality are meaningless shit --- facts are true

Did we ever use rationality to develop these facts?
Do you understand this is a science/philosophy message board, and that ideally the people who post should have a functional mass of brain tissue?

Monkey

Full truth is maximum knowledge, it's unlikely to be absolute knowledge, but it's better than constraining yourself to the rational or the exlusive dictates of scientism.

Intuition+biological knowledge+rationalitry=full truth.
I consider rationality to be the pack-horse, it does the bulk of work, but I'm not going to ignore my intuitive impulses because it's unfashionable within this particular paradigm.

it is all a bit pointless isn't it. There is no way in which you can check the validity of your full truth, since it seems to be personal and biased.

The only thing that's biased Monkey is your decision to exclude all modes of knowledge that are not rational....you do this as it's part and parcel of scientism.

The only thing that's biased Monkey is your decision to exclude all modes of knowledge that are not rational....you do this as it's part and parcel of scientism.

You assume too much. I never put forward my position on the subject of 'full' truth.

Humans are not rational, are not capable of being consistently rational and there is no Truth, just small little tiny truths, which constantly change and adapt, or disappear.

umm, truth is truth, it can't really have adjetives around it unless it's refering to the truth about a specific thing. Like in court people are asked to tell the whole truth, but that just means not to leave anything out of what they saw or experienced.

Maybe that's what David means, is that he doesn't leave anything out of his discriptions of things? Who knows, but i don't really see a point to this thread unless you people just want to bash the guy which it seems you're already starting at.

You assume too much. I never put forward my position on the subject of 'full' truth.

Monkey.

Full truth is the maximum that humans "can" know, it isn't every piece of info that "can" exist, but the reason why people typically reject intuition is because science's axiomatic basis excludes it, this metaphysical basis is limited as far as life is concerned but very effective as far as investigating the physical realm.

Now, as our current paradigm is that of scientism, it seems quite reasonable for me to assume that if you aren't supporting me, it's because of the influence of scientism.

It's foolish to have various modes of knowing/suspecting at our disposal and excluding them because those who are infatuated with scientism{science is OK, scientism isn't IMO} exclude it at what they consider the "fundamental" level.

For example, the supernatural realm is ruled as non-existent on the say so of science's axiomatic metaphysical basis....I consider knowing the supernatural realm exists is possible intuitively{I reject revelation as a historically proven failure}.
Revelation=hallucination or lucid propaganda.

Humans are not rational, are not capable of being consistently rational and there is no Truth,

Objective truth exists, but reference frames must be virtually identicle for reaching objective agreement.

The truth is what we "can" know, and we know things by using our modes of knowing, ie, reason, intuition/biological knowledge.

Maybe that's what David means, is that he doesn't leave anything out of his discriptions of things?

That's right Zag, I don't leave out any of the modes of knowing.

Who knows, but i don't really see a point to this thread unless you people just want to bash the guy which it seems you're already starting at.

Hahha, I can't be bashed by freaks who support scientism, as only the truth hurts, and they ain't got it...LOL.

Monkey.

Full truth is the maximum that humans "can" know, it isn't every piece of info that "can" exist, but the reason why people typically reject intuition is because science's axiomatic basis excludes it, this metaphysical basis is limited as far as life is concerned but very effective as far as investigating the physical realm.

Now, as our current paradigm is that of scientism, it seems quite reasonable for me to assume that if you aren't supporting me, it's because of the influence of scientism.

It's foolish to have various modes of knowing/suspecting at our disposal and excluding them because those who are infatuated with scientism{science is OK, scientism isn't IMO} exclude it at what they consider the "fundamental" level.

For example, the supernatural realm is ruled as non-existent on the say so of science's axiomatic metaphysical basis....I consider knowing the supernatural realm exists is possible intuitively{I reject revelation as a historically proven failure}.
Revelation=hallucination or lucid propaganda.



Objective truth exists, but reference frames must be virtually identicle for reaching objective agreement.

The truth is what we "can" know, and we know things by using our modes of knowing, ie, reason, intuition/biological knowledge.

smells like postmodernism

Seems like you were unable to contradict it and chose to label it, LOL, don't forget, truth is what makes sense, not just what you want Mr dogmatist.

Seems like you were unable to contradict it and chose to label it, LOL, don't forget, truth is what makes sense, not just what you want Mr dogmatist.

personal experiences are difficult to contradict.