Apparently pronouns aren't your forte. Go look up "your;" it will blow your mind.

In a certain sense yes, since philosophy deals with the truths, realities, and mysteries of human experience, language, and culture that cannot be reduced to factual answers. And yet the discursive elements of philosophy often hold greater, deeper truths than factual ones.

That makes no sense. How is there a misunderstanding? Why is the partner who got cheated on telling the truth and how do they get to decide what the truth is? And if everyone always has their own truths, isn't everything a misunderstanding?

↪John Harris I was just playing along with your original example, I wasn't really playing that far into the question. But dont avoid my question,

I'm not avoiding your question. I don't know what you mean by relationship or misunderstanding. What do you mean by those?

How do you know what a relationship is? How do you define a "misunderstanding? You seem pretty confident in those.

Not if the other person was the one who cheated.

Facts are events and other phenomena whose actual existence depends on their being True. Many truths like "you were cruel" or "you ended the relationship" are dependent on both factual truths and discursive truths which are the syntheses of facts.

That didn't say anything. What kind of opinion is iit? What differentiates it from other opinions? because your definition of truths allows for biases and experiences, too.

John Harris I see truth as discernable and fact as measurable

Not if it's a relativity. That makes discernment irrelevant.

If truth is just a relativity, it's pointless to call it a "truth." Just call it a relativity. And how do you differ truth from opinion?

I asked you a question. What do you mean by truth and what do you mean by fact. I can't answer your question until you tell me that.

So, why are you here? To continue a discussion or just to argue?

What do you mean by truth and what do you mean by fact?

No, it's not. It's like saying euphoria is the extreme of happiness. Would it clarify things any further if I said Truth is what marks real events, things that actually existed and exist, and accurately describes the condition of present and past things?

Truth is the essence of what is true.

John Harris I'm going to go another step and say that truth is present when fact is not sufficient.

Not always.

however, would you agree that for someone in China during the Holocaust, their truth is that they are not experiencing the Holocaust, however, the fact is that there is a holocaust going on

However, wouldn't you agree that's irrelevant since that person in china's experience does not determine the truth of the Holocaust. If that were true, someone in China not knowing you exist would make you not exist.

Fact does not change, however, my truth is that because I look a certain way, I am treated a certain way.

Fact does not change your truth isn't Truth and isn't always true. So what you think is rarely relevant to whether things are true or not.

You may look different and are therefore treated differently, but when we come together and tell the stories about how we are treated by the same individual, our truths are different, I would closely relate truth to the experience, but I'm not saying that I am relating them or saying that they are the same thing.

What you're calling "truths" aren't "truths." They're opinions.

16
and if that is the case, then you can't fight fact with truth, but you can fight truth with fact. I would say that this argument is much like my argument about the brain/mind.

No, it is not the case, and there are no facts without truth. Sorry, but the Holocaust happened. That is the Truth, and those denying it are making untruthful statements.

Would you agree that Truth is relative to the beholder? An oppressor has a different truth than the oppressed, yet a truth they hold nonetheless. The oppressor may believe that he is doing all good, and the oppressed may believe that they are being treated unfairly

No, it's not. Otherwise what Holocaust deniers are saying when they deny the Holocaust happened would be just as true as what those saying it did happen are saying.

Thanks for confirming what I posted above and suspected about your thinking "abilities."

Don't you dare Don't you dare make assumptions about what I care about. you couldn't possibly know that. I joined this forum for a reason and it was not to deal with arrogant people like you who are so stifling that anything other than ridiculous arguments ensue because you don't know how to have a civilized discussion. you are the one that defaults to attacks that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, you are the one who jumps to conclusions and likes to upset people not out of an avidness to learn about philosophy, just out of a need to prop yourself up on personal attacks. If you really cared about the quality of discussion here, you would leave your arrogant, nasty remarks out of it.

I stopped reading this at "don't you dare" which confirmed everything I said about you and your pretentious theatrics. So, you and I are done too. I won't read anymore of your posts on this thread.

There's absolute consistency in what I said and you didn't show otherwise. You're either deluded or just lost. Either way, you and I are done. I won't read anymore of your posts.

If you want to make pathetic allegations, you need to actually quote me. What a shock, you're afraid to do so.

So, don't ask for the impossible, and pretend that my inability to do so in any way supports your contentions. I am now not even sure what your position is, since you seem now to be inconsistently claiming that you allow for the same possibility that I do (which if it were true would make your initial disagreement with me totally senseless).

So, you admit such a thing--like the soul--is impossible to be found. Good; I'm so proud of your growth. I allow for the possibility we might not have found something yet; I don't, and never have, allowed for the fact it cant' be found.

I'm sorry you never heard of Infra-red, sonar, or radar.
— John Harris

What are those if not mechanical extensions of the senses?

They're not extensions since they don't connect to the actual organ. They are heighteners and expanders of the senses that allow us to detect which the senses alone cannot detect. Key element at the end.

I don't have to show how something natural that might not be capable of being found could avoid being found, because I haven't claimed any such thing exists, merely that it might exist

And if you're asserting that something that can't be found might exist, you need to show how. The fact you have failed to do so undermines your claim. I'm not surprised.

And since you corrected me for the assumption--that I didn't make--that all things natural can be found, then it is on you to show how something natural could avoid being found, with all our exhaustive finding methods.
— John Harris

So, you are now saying that you. like me, allow for the possibility that not all natural things can be found? Really???

No, I didn't say that there at all. But thanks for proving you can't show how something natural could avoid being found, with all our exhaustive finding methods. I wasn't expecting you could.

This is a philosophy forum, Locks, not the "try hard to show you know philosophy by resorting to cheap on-line tacts" forum. Maybe you could start one...:)
— John Harris

I'm here to learn about philosophy, not to try hard to show I know it. The only one getting in the way of that, is you.

No, all those "oh mys" and gaslighting show you care more about cheap pretension than making arguments. Considering the quality of your arguments, I'm not surprised. So, you probably should be moving on.

i realize you'd like to believe you always point out really good and meaningful things but we're squabbling over what you think is hollow and pretentious right now. and again, all you pointed out is that we have differing opinions, just in a really acerbic manner.

so, if you could move on, please do. otherwise i've nothing more to say to you.

No, I've pointed out much more than we have differing opinions. Since you've had astounding difficulty figuring that out, I suggest you move on.

I know you're not very good at it, but try making arguments more, and try trolling less.

↪John Harris

So Logical positivism is not "real Positivism" now? :-}

You're starting to look like a bad joke, man.

I never said that at all. So, you're straight up looking like a bad joke, man...:)

No, I've had to make it a second time because of your hollow, erroneous "oh, my" post. If you didn't want a response, you should have avoided posting the erroneous statements you made there. And I had every reason to point out it wasn't a good point, since even what you thought he interpreted was a considerably faulty point.
— John Harris

and I'm sorry my 'oh, my' made you feel defensive. next time I will remember that shock and surprise doesn't bode well with you.

Oh boy, and here comes the adolescent gas-lighting. This is a philosophy forum, Locks, not the "try hard to show you know philosophy by resorting to cheap on-line tacts" forum. Maybe you could start one...:)

Now actually back up your claims with support from Comte and real Positivism or move on. You've just been wasting everybody's time.

Listing all my non-positivist statements and erroneously calling them positivist isn't showing anything except how wrong you've been. — John Harris
You're not even capable of owning your own statements or making an argument for them. All you can do when challenged is resort to insults. — Wayfarer

No, that's you as you make no arguments for none of your statements. I own up to all my statements, just not your nonsensical claims their positivist. Sorry.

And again you make two more false claims about me and positivism,
— John Harris

OK to ease your soul, here are a few examples of Thanatos Sand/John Harris advocating positivism.

if the soul is natural, it would have been detected by now. There's just no chemical entity/human part that could escape sciences exhaustive means of detection.
— Thanatos Sand

Scientists have done a pretty good job explaining matter and energy and explaining how that's all the universe is made of, with dark and anti- matter being material forms.
— Thanatos Sand

It's based on the well-supported assumption it hasn't been found yet in a world that has been well-scanned by near-exhaustive means.
— Thanatos Sand

Scientists have done a pretty good job explaining matter and energy and explaining how that's all the universe is made of, with dark and anti- matter being material forms.
— Thanatos Sand

Rejecting a notion that hasn't been supported by science or the laws of physics, and is undercut by all we know of those things, isn't mechanical thinking, but rational thinking.
— Thanatos Sand

All of these are textbook cases of 'verificationism':

Verificationism, also known as the verification principle or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is a doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies).

Verificationism thus rejects as cognitively "meaningless" statements specific to entire fields such as metaphysics, spirituality, theology, ethics and aesthetics.

this is exactly what you're saying throughout this thread, and the only defense you can offer, is that you're not, actually, saying it. You can't even own your own statements.

LOL. Listing all my non-positivist statements and erroneously calling them positivist isn't showing anything except how wrong you've been.

And now you're throwing out verificationism at me without backing it up as well. I'm sorry, Wayfarer, but children pick out philosophical terms and erroneously throw them at people. Adults actually use them correctly and back up their usage. I suggest you finally join the latter.

And I don't have to make a defense against false statements you fail to back up. And the only defense to that you can do is stare into space and realize I'm right.

I have not assumed anything either way but have instead eschewed assumption and allowed for the possibility that "something natural has the ability to not be found by all the exhaustive means we have of finding things". There certainly seem to be some careless readers here!

The only careless reading has been yours. I read and addressed your posts well and clear. And since you corrected me for the assumption--that I didn't make--that all things natural can be found, then it is on you to show how something natural could avoid being found, with all our exhaustive finding methods. If you can't do that, your correction was just trolling.

Also you tendentious phrase " all the exhaustive means" is just the senses, and explanatory inference, as I already explained.

My phrase wasn't tendentious at all; I suggest you go look up the words. And no, we have many means besides the senses in those exhaustive means. I'm sorry you never heard of Infra-red, sonar, or radar.

↪John Harris Deep like the pits of hell?

No, deep like your nether regions...:)

Thanatos has no soul.

I have a deep soul. Buxtebuddha has no soul and no cerebellum.

But regardless, almost every statement you have made in this thread has been textbook positivism, along the lines of 'if 'the soul' was real, then science would have found it, and as science hasn't found it, then it must not be real'.

And again you make two more false claims about me and positivism, failing to back your false claims in any way. Nothing I've said has been textbook (or any) positivism; everything you've said has been absurdism. And until you actually back up your false claims, absurdism they will remain.

I'm not surprised; you have no idea what positivism, and many philosophical concepts, actually is.
— John Harris

I'm sure I'm not the only participant here who notices that your typical modus operandi is to mock, belittle and condescend to anyone who tries to interact with you.

Whatever other participants say is irrelevant. That's your modus operandi you described as I didn't mock or belittle you and the only one who has been condescending is you, just saying I'm wrong without backing it up in any way.

Good point, though I don't think it's an unsupported assumption, however supported assumptions don't make them absolute. Undoubtedly some natural things haven't been found or defined yet, but could be capable of being.
— Locks

Can you explain how the assumption that everything that is "natural;" is capable of being found is supported?

The better question is can you explain your erroneous assumption that something natural has the ability to not be found by all the exhaustive means we have of finding things? If you can, you could win a Nobel prize. You've made pretty clear you can't.

That's why something being actually found is vital.
— John Harris

Which, again, is positivism.

Which, again, is not, and you haven't backed up that claim in any way. I'm not surprised; you have no idea what positivism, and many philosophical concepts, actually is.