Objective truth - from a Buddhist perspective #01

Lix, you are once again managing to demonstrate a weak grasp of the English language. You are saying you don't agree with my understanding of your position and then in the very next sentence reconfirm my understanding of your position.

Furthermore, your subsequent paragraphs utterly misinterpret my points. I am not proclaiming standards of justification, but I am saying that knowledge does require some standard of justification - as otherwise, for example, a random guess would be considered knowledge - which noone, seemingly other than you, accepts as being knowledge (assuming the guess is true).

The rest of this is entirely ironic, methinks - in that you are claiming I am proclaiming standards, when you are proclaiming as fact an entire set of "rules" - rules that noone else in this forum or in the philosophy of knowledge accepts.

You just do not seem to get it...
You are stating a set of rules as a fact - but provide no support for them - other than to restate them and claim everyone who disagrees to be wrong.
Everyone else tells you that these rules are untenable and not acceptable to anyone else.
Everyone else then goes and continues their discussion of knowledge, objective truth etc, but you keep trying to beat us over the head with claims of factual rules that we have ALREADY REJECTED.

If you disagree with our rejections the you need to demonstrate why we are wrong - and not just say words to the effect of "You're wrong. I posted the rules, why don't you follow them."

Your rules are NOT fact (unless you can show them to be - which you haven't done yet).
Your rules are NOT accepted by anyone else here other than yourself.
And yet you continue again and again to try to force them into the thread, derailing thread after thread after thread as we try to explain why they are not accepted.
And all we get is "you're wrong" and further paragraphs that clearly show you understand little of what we are saying to you.

If you wish to try to persuade others that your rules are the only rules that are acceptable with regard knowledge, then start your own thread for that very discussion - but please do NOT derail thread after thread when we have already rejected those same rules.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If I may be so bold:

NOTE FOR FURTHER POSTERS IN THIS THREAD...

I SUBMIT THAT FURTHER DISCUSSION SHOULD MAKE THE ASSUMPTION THAT LIXLUKE's "RULES OF KNOWLEDGE" ARE NOT CORRECT.

IF LIXLUKE WISHES TO START A THREAD TO DISCUSS WHY HIS RULES SHOULD BE ADHERED TO, THAT IS HIS PEROGATIVE, BUT I SUGGEST THAT FURTHER DISCUSSION IN THIS THREAD ASSUMES THAT HIS RULES ARE, AT BEST, INADEQUATE.

WHETHER HIS RULES ARE CORRECT OR NOT I PROPOSE TO LEAVE TO ANY THREAD DESIGNED FOR THAT PURPOSE.

THIS THREAD SHOULD CONTINUE AS IF THOSE RULES ARE INCORRECT - AND WE WILL TAKE ACCOUNT OF THIS ASSUMPTION INTO ANY CONCLUSION REACHED.

Moderators, if I am out of line with this post, please feel free to delete the post, but please can I ask that you PM me to advise as to where the line is on such matters, so that in future I can remain within.

Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ahh I see Lix is at it again!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lix can I ask you to clearly define in your own words:
truth
absolute truth
knowledge
absolute knowledge
&
belief
?

 

I don't have much time to write as I have performing group this weekend.

Truth is a quality of actuality. Something is either true or false. Truth is absolute, and independent of human observation.

Belief is anything an observer concludes as true.

Knowledge is a type of belief. (Thus, it is impossible to say that somebody no longer has a belief, but has knowledge.) Knowledge simply when a beleif is true.

Justification simply leads a person to a belief. Having some sort of justification which can be anything does not necessarily mean that the person has knowledge. That is impossible.

Absolute knowledge is the state in which on has knowledge of all without existence of misconception.

 

I'll give it a shot because I am very very bored:bugeye:

Truth,
Truth is... (here lixlukes like...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)...
The truth of something, the truth is out there, the truth. Truth. What is truth. Truth then must be, a word, for starters. Truth, also, must be, for the most part just a word, describing some thing you know pertains to something.
Obviously has a few usages.
I won't get into these.

Absolute truth...
Absolute truth, I cannot understand what absolute truth is, but I believe it would be absolutely true, absolute truth must be absolute truth... "truth"?
"it is an absolute truth that I am typing right now" is not an absolute truth.
In fact, I don't believe that there is any absolute truth.
If there was, then it would be very bizare.
Absolute truth of such a statement in lixluke usage is absolute truth that x is true therefore x is true, kind of thing, but that is more about what is certain and not certain.

Knowledge...
Knowledge. I have knowledge, of a particular issue, of a particular study, of a particular understanding, of a ability to type, to understand certain things. These knowledges are mine, I guess.

Absolute knowledge...
Absolute knowledge?
Knowledge that is absolute, absolutely true, absolute knowledge must probably not really........... exist by some standards.

Belief...
I believe... that what I said is somewhat good, and is a step in the right direction, by some form. This is my belief, and it is my belief that it is true, but it is also just a belief. I believe in God, too, somehow, or some way, but I don't know if my belief, is right, but its a belief all the same.

 

Lix,

Undoubtedly truth must be absolute as it can not be reduced to less that true to remain true.
So something that is true can never be false.
And as you say it is only misconception of the truth that renders our perception of it false.
I agree that truth is independent of human observation however for us to perceive it we must allow ourselves to believe in it's existence as truth.
Disbelief in what is true renders the truth unavailable to our perceptions is essentially what I am saying.

If justification leads to a lie or fallacy but we believe that fallacy as true due to that justification then we have just rendered the truth unavailable, thus an open mind is essential even with our "self justified beliefs".
In fact the more strongly you need to justify a belief the more you need to look at that belief because truth requires no justification only beliefs do. IMO [ of course]

It is interesting to note that belief is usually a personal thing, where as knowledge tends to be more shared or social.

From a psychological aspect the reason for belief being most often personal is because belief is inherently loaded with doubts and "vanity" prevents us from declaring them as public property, simply because we know we are still attempting to find a solution to remove those doubts [ with our justifications]

The believer also is acutely aware that their belief is contrary to other perspectives. [ again realizing that a belief is only a stepping stone to wards the truth.]
Internet forums are loaded with people who attempt to share their beliefs in an anonymous fashion using the INTERNET as a medium to aid in resolution and maturing of those beliefs. Anonymity granting license to that expression and search.

Belief of course is individually justified thus it is pure subjectivity no matter how you justify it.
Science of course has processes to remove individual beliefs from the final assessments... as you already know..

We all have knowledge of truth but as I suggested it is in the individual justification of the knowledge that reduces the truth to fallacy.
"The Buddhist monk asks the student to describe what he sees and in doing so knows that he has just asked the student to falsify his knowledge of the truth about the tree."

Rather the monk could ask "Student, what do you experience of the tree?"
The student would probably say "not a lot" and the monk would probably respond with, "when you stop thinking tree or creating tree and start to experience the tree you will start to know the tree"

So the threads topic is about how the need to justify the truth of our experiences renders those experiences unavailable as a truth to ourselves and others.
Thus applying reduction to the whole truth renders the whole truth less that the whole truth thus creates a fallacy.

which is in the Provence of a mythical all knowing God ....
yet in a single instant of time one may capture mentally all the knowledge there is and then spend eternity applying reduction to it to try and understand that knowledge. [thus it is impossible to understand yet very possible to have - another thread perhaps?]
Of course the above is just my opinion based on beliefs that have some justification....and of course are inherently false and wrong [ as justified by the above] ha

 

I once had this interesting conversation with a Christian evangelist [ on the side walk]

which highlights this issue of self justification.

I ask him " Do you worship and believe in the creation or the creator?"

By saying this I am asking " do you believe in your justification more than you believe in what you are justifying?"

If one falls to the arrogance of believing in the self justification used is absolutely true then you have socio pathology or to be blunt "insanity" due to the accidental in most cases believing more in the justification rather than the truth you are attempting to justify. Arrogance in our belief in our own justification is the hallmark of insanity.

eg.

Adolph Hitler - Mien Camph.
Stalin
Marx
Mao
Clinton - Lewinsky
Booth - A. Lincoln
Napolean B
and so on...

so holding a justification as absolute truth is part of why the truth is unavailable. And close mindedness prevails in society.

 

OK, and belief is belief. What does this tell us? Not much...

Ahem

Belief is a choice, a decision made about experience and how to react to it.

Hence my claim that belief tends to be immediate, but knowledge is remembered, as a set of 'things that work' in explaining the world and how to react to it. Belief is a preference, knowledge is a trend -- somewhat like how the weather is a preferred outcome, of climate trends (the earth 'remembers' what to do).

 

What are you talking about? How is belief a choice? Belief is completely involuntary. You cannot choose what to believe.

If you believe there is a runway in front of you, something compelled you to that belief. That something is justification.

Same thing if you believe there is a computer in front of you or if there is an apple in your hand. Or the fact that putting components together gives you a functioning computer or device.

Wrong. How do you come up with these things from what I say? A belief that is in antithesis of the matter is what renders that belief misconception.

There is no real purpose of using the term "disbelief" because all beliefs that X is true are disbeliefs that not X is true.

Justification leads to belief. That belief can either be knowledge or misconception. However, it can NEVER render truth unavailable simply because of the rules:

Because realization exists there is no such thing as truth being unavailable. The process that leads a person from inconclusion to conclusion is justification. The same exact process (justification) is what leads a person from a conclusion to its antithesis conclusion.


Aside from that, I was in a car with all these buddhists today talking about something. And one of them mentioned how meditating/praying for wisdom can provide you with answers. In my own experience, if I needed to come up with something like speech or anything is to stop thinking about it/stop trying. The best thing for me to do is clear my mind and just let ideas flow to me. And they come whether from the subconscious mind or from divine or whatever. Sometimes clearing your mind allows ideas to flow.

 

You are going around and around a track here, which is the one you've been on for a while with this 'justified belief' thing. Either stick to a meaning or don't use the term. Justification depends on experience (observation).

Can you choose to believe there's a runway where you expect it to be? You can't choose to believe what you see or hear - that's the involuntary part.

So you're saying justification leads to conclusion, and you can't choose what to conclude??

 

Yes. You don't choose it. And there is no such thing as a belief without some form of justification. Nor is there such thing as some sort of standardized form of justification that converts a belief into knowledge. Knowledge simply doesn't work that way. The laws of physics are not determined by anybody in the sense that people create these laws. They are simply understood by humans. The same goes for the laws/rules of knowledge. The rules of knowledge apply universally. It doesn't matter what definitions or terms people "prefer" to use. You can use any word you want to replace any word I have used. The operations/laws remain intact. If a belief is simply a conclusion that something is true, then there is no reason to impose any other preconceived notions about what a belief is into that. Belief is just a term used to describe a particular state. And that state is one of 2 and only 2 possible states an observer may possess and there is nothing they can do about it.

 

Of course they can "do something about it", they can change their mind.

 

Wrong. Whether or not somebody changes their mind, the facts remain the same. There are only 2 possible states an observer can possess, and there is nothing anybody can do about it.

 

Wrong!
So very wrong!
There is a third state which you can not possibly see...because you are psychologically locked into a binary system of logic.

 

Lix,
A hint:
"What is one of the key differences between the logic used by a binary computer and the human mind?"
maybe someone else would like a shot at it...

 

How are the facts determined, and by who?

If someone changes their mind, then they're usually seeing the 'facts' a different way. But facts aren't independent, there are no facts that exist independently of observation. Seeing landing lights might cause a pilot to change their mind about what to do. A ship's captain seeing an iceberg up ahead might too.

Facts aren't something that 'remain the same' because facts are interpreted. Most people believe the sun is a fact, not many people change their mind about the sun being up, if it's daytime. But lots of other things aren't that simple, and are open to interpretation.

 

This doesn't change anything. This doesn't take discussion anywhere.

Again. Just because somebody changed their mind doesn't mean that the facts have changed. There are only 2 possible states an observer can possess. Belief and inconclusion. Changing your mind has no effect on this.

 

No, you can come to the conclusion that you don't believe.

You are confusing 'know' with 'believe' in your assertion lix. You often fall into that trap.

 

No I am not confusing anything.
It is clear and present: