Honesty is overrated. Lying is a social act that greases social interaction.

How are you doing?

Great! (even though my cat just died) — Benkei

In small instances you are right, as soon as you go beyond what is considered "white" in "white lies" then honesty is paramount, not only to self development as seen in this thread but also in terms of how lies may negatively affect others.

It's just a preference I have. Different people can have different preferences. — Terrapin Station

And is that preference of yours reasonable?

Do you have anything else to add in this conversation apart from listing "your preferences"?

I think there has to be something like a minimum overlap. It seems to me that you are framing this more like a one/zero or yes/no situation, as if we will only listen to clones of ourselves and therefore never get any useful feedback but only an echo chamber. Instead I think we filter out those who reject our basic assumptions or values. This isn't necessarily unwise. To question basic assumptions and values is pretty much what I understand to be a spiritual crisis. Admittedly such a crisis can lead to a breakthrough as well as disaster. Still, when we feel attacked we usually double down. Reason becomes secondary to preserving "face," again not necessarily unwise. We favor those who appear strong.

On the other hand, if we are quite sure of these basic assumptions and values, then we'll probably only have contempt or pity for those who do not share them, if not hatred. I've seen political arguments on Facebook that got nowhere. Both sides just end up angry that the fools on the other side refuse to see reason. — R-13

Yes, I agree with everything you said. What was strange about this conversation is that we agreed on almost every basic assumption and life values except a few like hard drug use and how one ought to live their life in regards to how often they should spend in analysis of ideas. This person has a degree in philosophy mind you ;)

What my point is though is that by listening to opinions of those who have differing positions on basic assumptions and life values, we can come to a more holistic understand of ourselves. To do otherwise is to filter out dynamic possibilities of perspective and only have, as you say, "little clones of ourselves" to listen to and reciprocate what we feel to be true.

People who can't do this end up becoming offended, end up feeling "attacked" and end up doubling down and trying to preserve "face". If one is without ego then this does not arise because one is either self-assured in some manner or knows that it really isn't that important and truth is not relative to one individual.

I read your piece. I wanted to state that before I gave my simple answer; PRIDE. — Lower Case NUMBERS

Yeah, thanks mate... I am sure this was ego. If you are a prideless, you don't care about what nasty things others say about you, you just take it all on board and don't get upset about anything and use the advice/information where necessary. Filtering it out by only accepting it from those who you deem worthy is just a way to protect the self from insecurity.

Usually people aren't comfortable with in-depth analysis or critique of their character traits and personality unless they feel particularly safe, comfortable and relaxed, trust the other person to not misuse (or misplace) the information, — zookeeper

Why?

people for whom that sort of thing comes easily probably have a way above average likelihood of being somewhere on the autism spectrum. — zookeeper

Why?

According to meta-philosophical eliminativism, things like "positions", "theories", "doubt", "principles", etc. are "human constructs" in the sense that they are merely methods of organizing data and can be eliminated naturalistically in the same way the eliminativist materialist believes that "belief" and "desire" can be eliminated, including the belief in eliminativist materialism as well. — darthbarracuda

i.e. philosophical only insofar as we have no other more precise method of understanding the matter. In this eliminativist approach, which is naturalistic and scientistic, nothing is inherently impossible to study scientifically; the only constraint is that we have no current method of doing so. — darthbarracuda

I don't see why this wasn't included in eliminative materialism to begin with:

"Eliminativism about a class of entities is the view that that class of entities does not exist.[4] For example, materialism tends to be eliminativist about the soul; modern chemists are eliminativist about phlogiston; and modern physicists are eliminativist about the existence of luminiferous aether. Eliminative materialism is the relatively new (1960s-1970s) idea that certain classes of mental entities that common sense takes for granted, such as beliefs, desires, and the subjective sensation of pain, do not exist.[5][6] The most common versions are eliminativism about propositional attitudes, as expressed by Paul and Patricia Churchland,[7]and eliminativism about qualia (subjective experience), as expressed by Daniel Dennett and Georges Rey.[2] These philosophers often appeal to an introspection illusion."

A belief or desire is relatively close to being a theory, principle or attitude except that they usually pertain to something concrete in the world that is objectively measurable. Desires and Beliefs however are more subjective and prone to fault.

"Many problematic situations in real life arise from the circumstance that many different propositions in many different modalities are in the air at once. In order to compare propositions of different colours and flavours, as it were, we have no basis for comparison but to examine the underlying propositions themselves. Thus we are brought back to matters of language and logic. Despite the name, propositional attitudes are not regarded as psychological attitudes proper, since the formal disciplines of linguistics and logic are concerned with nothing more concrete than what can be said in general about their formal properties and their patterns of interaction. One topic of central concern is the relation between the modalities of assertion and belief, perhaps with intention thrown in for good measure. For example, we frequently find ourselves faced with the question of whether or not a person's assertions conform to his or her beliefs. Discrepancies here can occur for many reasons, but when the departure of assertion from belief is intentional, we usually call that a lie."

Thus it is eliminativist in that it attempts to eliminate philosophical positions entirely, including eliminativism itself, i.e. eliminativism is a temporary tool, a stepping-stone, needed to understand why these tools aren't actually needed, similar to a trust fall or a leap of faith. Once the leap is done, the philosophical position is no longer needed, as there will be no need for positions anyway, since the very nature of knowledge will be elucidated by a perfect science. — darthbarracuda

But how can you have science without positions of any kind? Do you mean scientific fact will make positions redundant? Isn't fact just a kind of position on something given what the factual data is?

This leads to the almost soteriological conception of inquiry; by embracing meta-philosophical eliminativism, our crude theories and positions will eventually be left behind as we transcend "that kind" of knowledge and approach a singularity, fully self-contained and self-justifying in its own right. — darthbarracuda

It sounds like you think we will eventually come towards knowing absolute truth. knowledge that would be self-justifying in it's own right. I thought knowledge and truth was always relative?

Besides, in the sexual type, there’s the proverbial whamo-over-the-head-with-a-club of cavemen verses the mutual-this-and-that version; both types of guy can utter the words of love to partners. Furthermore, both versions can result in reproduction; and both can result in the father sticking around for the new brain (though the new brain’s mother typically gets treated differently by each). Then there the whamo-over-the-head guy that mimics the mutual-this-and-that guy but isn’t (players I think these guys are called; fakes to be more clear about it). So there’s something to be said about the difference between possessiveness in relations—replete with emotions that lead to offspring—and what is intended by the term love, which sometimes leads to no offspring at all.

Which isn’t to say that I can’t emphasize with the given quote. — javra

Be careful not to confuse ego with love. attachment, possessiveness, domination... they are not love

when a women pines for her man, that is not love, that is attachment.

Too narrow a definition. What of parental love? Fraternal? These too can lean toward possession/dominion or not. — javra

the same thing. Love is merely a means of fooling the human brain into reproducing. Parental love (as i already said) exists to create strong emotional ties that make brains stick together for the safety of new brains. Fraternal is for survival, much like compassion or empathy. I don't believe in love other than in male/female romantic/sexual relationships, if it isn't that then it is just called "friendship".

You still haven't proven anything about the objective. — m-theory

nor have you, i refute it exists (at least in the way we think it does or that it can be obtained truthfully), you postulate it does exist but can;t provide evidence for it...

looks like I win

This is not an objective fact

Nothing you have here has any consequences for objective facts. — m-theory

thats because there ARE no objective facts, there is no such thing as that. EVERYTHING is subjective. So you can't say "that is not objective fact" because such a thing doesn't exist.

now how about we talk about your bigotry in not conceding you were false in saying 6 foot is an objective fact?

You were saying 6 foot is objective fact. can't be proven.

objective facts don't exist. there is only subjectivity, that is all you know that is all you will ever know!

anything you claim is objective fact is a subjective interpretation.

now how about we talk about your bigotry in not conceding you were false in saying 6 foot is an objective fact?

It is not an objective fact that it is impossible to find any objective facts.
See the pattern yet?

By definition you have not refuted anything about objective facts.
At least not without being self refuting. — m-theory

You keep telling me I am saying it is an objective fact that it is impossible to find any objective facts. What is wrong with you? We have already established that it is subjective fact AND have repeated that it is about 3-4 times... seriously?!?!

now how about we talk about your bigotry in not conceding you were false in saying 6 foot is an objective fact? You know 6 foot is an interpretation of sensory information and there is no objective fact about that.

No it's a subjective fact, and you won't ever find any objective facts because that is impossible via what reason can tell us. And plus, you say you only care about objective facts?? now how about we talk about your bigotry in not conceding you were false in saying 6 foot is an objective fact?

Yes but it is not an objective fact.
So why should I care?

It does not refute anything about objective facts. — m-theory

So you should only care about objective facts? They don't exist, as far as we know any way. now how about we talk about your bigotry in not conceding you were false in saying 6 foot is an objective fact?

We can't go beyond subjectivity
is refuted
if it is supposed to be an objective fact — m-theory

it is a subjective fact, as i stated already which you continue to ignore... now how about we talk about your bigotry in not conceding you were false in saying 6 foot is objective fact?

No I am saying that what you said is not objectively true.
At least not without being self refuting. — m-theory

What that 6 foot is only an interpretation? how is that self refuting?

lol, you are trolling me right now? — m-theory

Pretty much, but sort of true... you did concede. First u said there was objective truth (6 foot) now u say that there is only subjective truth... there is only interpretation, no objective truth anywhere.

The sooner you admit that the sooner you can die and stop posting stupid comments on here... jk :P

Why can't you just admit you were wrong m-theory? You have too much ego, that is why! just say "intrapersona, i was wrong. 6 foot high doesn't exist objectively, it is a subjective interpretation of a socially accepted standard of measurement OF sensory information that says NOTHING about objectivity".

But no, you can't do that can you? Know why? Caus your a bigot!

Then you can't say it is an objective fact that we can't go beyond subjectivity.
That would be self refuting. — m-theory

Like I stated in that sentence already "these are truths about subjectivity... as are all truths. In fact can't say anything about objective truth."

So of course what I am saying is subjective truth...

I can't prove it to you.
I am fine with that, as long as you agree that some things a true involuntarily and that it is practical to use measurements. — m-theory

I don't agree with you that it is involuntary and practical... I MADE THAT ASSERTION TO BEGIN WITH! You were the one who came along and tried to say that 6 foot tall actually exists in the world... but now you have been proven wrong and are too much of a piss ant to concede and say you were wrong.

It is not an objective fact.
After all you can't go beyond subjectivity remember. — m-theory

So it it isn't a fact that you can't go beyond your subjectivity because you can't go beyond subjectivity? seems circular to me.

Like you said in this thread already, these are truths about subjectivity... as are all truths. In fact can't say anything about objective truth.

Nevertheless this is a subjective truth for all people. So stop trying to make out like there is objective truth like 6foot tall.

The point I am making is that, for practical purposes, some things are less subject to interpretation than others.

The sooner you embrace this fact the better off you will be. — m-theory

That is true, a shadow of a shark in the water is more open to interpretation than if it is clearly attached to your leg BUT, does the shark have objective existence just because it is chewing on your leg?? This is practically less subject to interpretation... but that is only practically and that is NOT what we are talking about so don't confuse the two..

We are talking about absolutely, you are trying to say there exists objectivity and yet you can't prove it yet. You just have some failing statements like saying "does a tape measure interpret".

The fact is you can't go beyond your subjectivity, and all you have are inferences about objectivity. That is A FACT m-theory, don't you get that?

“If you love a flower, don’t pick it up.
Because if you pick it up it dies and it ceases to be what you love.
So if you love a flower, let it be.
Love is not about possession.
Love is about appreciation.”


― Osho

The need to say this by Osho indicates that one's impulse when feeling love is to possess.. so what is love about? Is it a desire to possess? is it a desire to appreciate, and cherish and elevate? is it both? (which many times can't actualize).

Is the type of love that leads one to want to possess different to that which leads one to want to commit subservience for the sake of the beloved? If so, why do we still refer to these different types with the same word: "love"?? — DP Brah

Love is merely a means of fooling the human brain into reproducing.

Once a nervous system develops to a certain degree of complexity, so too has to the means by which reproduction becomes established between those brains. So instead of just fucking each other senseless, you got strong emotional ties that make brains stick together for the safety of new brains.

That is a nice quote from an otherwise horrible man who fooled many people and stole a lot of money. Google Raj Neesh (his previous name) and you will see how much of a spiritual deceiver he is.

If your life depended on it.
Would you rather I simply guess what is 6 ft, or use a tape measure? — m-theory

the fact that you guess something does not have anything to say about the proof of objectivity. Where is 6 foot exactly? Is it 0.0000000000001cm above 5.9999999999?

Things don't exist how you think they do, the sooner you embrace it the better.

yes, but you misphrased that. We don't use tapes BECAUSE they don't interpreted... an interpreting tape measure would be useful albeit sci fi... we use tapes as a tool.

No

I don't need to, the answer is already in my responses. Stop asking stupid question like does a tape have consciousness and try to see how ridiculous you are sounding. You are trying to prove objective states actually exist, lol... good luck mate!

How, exactly, does "your mind" measure anything all by itself? — Bitter Crank

You just asked me to explain how sensory information is integrated within the nervous system? Or to paraphrase "how can you calculate 2+2 with your mind at all".

Sensory experience is integrated and formed to make a model of reality, then stupid people like m-theory end up thinking an actual world out there exists instead of them seeing sensory information about something which we know nothing of apart from small portions of data exclusively coming through our sensory apparatuses. It is absolutely foolish to think you have some footing over what objectivity is.

Do you agree that tapes do not have minds and thus do not interpret what is being measured?

If so wouldn't you agree that is the very reason for using a tape, so that when I say 6 ft, and you say 6 ft, we can refer to something that is not just an interpretation but a thing which is consistently a given finite length? — m-theory

Very simply, tape=sensory information -> You = Your brain -> Tape goes in to your brain and then you infer that there exists an outside world with "objectively measurable quantities".

Then you end up posting on forums that objective states actually exist because "I CAN SEE THEM WITH MY EYES" Therefore they are objective lol

Shouldn't we be discussing that Pussy IS Really a Source for Meaningful Life and Optimism? Sorry... I meant "relationships"?

No I measure with a tape, which does not have a mind. — m-theory

Omg, are you stupid man? The tape is IN your mind? ffs! EVERYTHING is just interpretation.

Shouldn't we be discussing that Pussy IS Really a Source for Meaningful Life and Optimism? Sorry... I meant "relationships"?

I am 6 ft tall in the sense that this is what I will measure.
Others, nor myself, cannot simply decide that this is not what I will measure.

It is not subject to interpretation as far as the measuring mechanism is concerned. — m-theory

Yes it is, EVERYTHING is subject to interpretation. You measure your height WITH YOUR MIND and not with an objective computer than confirms absolute objective truth which would be impossible because you are stuck in subjectivity.

You say "I am 6 ft tall in the sense that this is what I will measure." and don't even realize that by saying "I measure" confirms you to a position of complete subjectivity. To say "I measure" means to say I am subjective and I will subjectively measure this height.

This all goes to show that life is just a living nightmare. — Bitter Crank

Yep, just how are wrapped up in knots people are in their own minds to the point where they think they aren't being hypocritical and won't listen to anybody who says otherwise. They will only accept self-validation from people who are "worthy" which indicates a screening mechanism for confirmation-bias about their own personality.

No sir e bob, if you want to learn about yourself then you take in EVERYONE'S opinion of you and even ask for it. The best kinds of people speak what they feel and don't hold it in, like wise the best kind of people are open to all opinions and look for the truth in them and don't deny others opinions because they don't feel they have any value. For instance, my ex is a bitch who blocked me on facebook, but I would love to hear her opinion of how she perceives me because it is negative. Yet this friend would openly deny any opportunity to reflect on someone's opinion that is negative towards them... Clearly something is wrong with them, they are insecure about themselves and can only tolerate opinions from people they trust.

Why would you need argumentation for it? It's a matter of what people desire, what they prefer. — Terrapin Station

Yes, but the whole of society reflects on what is preferable and what is not. They judge. That is the reason why psychedelics are illegal yet coffee and ethanol is legal, because they judged it and argued against it and it became criminalized.

So if you want to agree with this friend of mine in that they have a "reasonable" method of dealing with people's thoughts/opinions then CLEARLY it is incredibly stupid to just walk around saying "I like that" "I don't like that.". You explain WHY it is you like it, WHY I might be wrong in this context... I thought you would've known this throughout ALL of your postings on the philosophy forums by now. Can you imagine if a professor did what you are doing? "Pffft, don't even both writing your essay on what sartre thinks kids, why would you need argumentation for it? Just write whatever you desire, what you prefer and don't even argue anything, heck just tell me about elephants and unicorns".

It is not voluntary that I measure 6 ft, whether I measure or someone else does. — m-theory

Doesn't matter whether it is volentary or not, this is not about freewill. All you have is your observation of 6 foot and other peoples observations of 6 foot. You infer truth from the fact that other people are telling you you are 6 foot, if everyone told you you were 2 foot tall and you looked 6 foot, you would be in quite a mess.

THEREFORE, we don't really know how tall you are... we can only guess by what we see. Which is all we are actually describing anyway. When I say you are 6 foot tall, what is implicit in that is that "to my sensory experience and possibly others" you appear 6 foot tall, or at least that is what is being show to me from external reality. THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH THAT IS READILY PERCEIVABLE, IT IS ONLY AN INFERENCE. Come on man, you know better than this bickering nonsense, you know this!

Measured by someone else's mind?

In your mind only

Philosophy divorced from science is pure, unaided speculation without natural constraints (it can come across more like intellectual art than actual inquiry; everyone tries to make the most aesthetically pleasing or excitingly surprising theory, even if it's outlandish), and science divorced from philosophy makes it crude and dogmatic. — darthbarracuda

That reminds me of "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." which should actually read "Science without Philosophy is lame, Philosophy without science is blind."

If science is about facts then who is doing the interpretation? Scientists? Aren't philosophers the masters of interpretation?

This reminds me of the sectarianism in the churches hundreds of years ago that prohibited the manufacturing of literature etc. Bastards, just like scientists. Narrow minded pricks who think their interpretations are WIN.