@tim wood :rofl: Can you not read timmy!? I've wrote several times now how you distinguish truth from falsehood. The accuracy of the description. If you call a Cat a dog your description is inaccurate it is false.
Same way I know if water is hot. The water feels hot.
Feelings are what? Descriptions.
In your dogmatic confusion you are unable to digest clear common sense and so must strawman and make incorrect assumptions.
Still waiting for your refutation brother. :brow: :cool:

@tim wood Tell me a truth without describing in some manner?
Not truth is an inaccurate or bad description.
Truth is an accurate description.
You can tell the difference between a bad or inaccurate description can you not Timothy?

@tim wood Wow! This is next level bufoonery!
Truth being subjective or intersubjective doesnt make it any less absolute. Your example is bizarre and a strawman. I've said repeatedly not every description is true or accurate.
I will tell your mythical guy tim is delusional and tell your guy hes a dweeb for listening to bad descriptions!
Truth is description. Not every description is truth.
Seems a pretty clear truthful description timmy.

@Punshhh jesus is describing his version of ",truth" to his disciples. Saying IS describing.
I read this as jesus being an Elitist political priest.

@tim wood It's great the way you ignore posts and just keep asking questions in your not so subtle socratic subterfuge.
I've never met you or had any monetary transactions with you so your description is false. And it won't be the first time you have been wrong or inaccurate! Monsieur strawman!

@jorndoe Its wonderful how many philosophers cant read properly or seperate their minds from straw men categories!
What makes you think I was saying there arent things that exist seperate from humans? And do you really think describing entails idealism?
You obviously didn't get my cake reference.

@jorndoe I dont see what occasionally making a mistake in describing means to this conversation.After all who describes and corrects the mistake?
Yes we describe new things all the time. You describe it as discovering.
Self elevation as opposed to what? Self deprecation? And the elevation of "knowledge" to some impersonal force given to scientists and philosophers? Elite much!
And not subjective idealism,but subjective descriptivism.
Yummy! Cakes are real!

@tim wood If i describe the sky as blue and someone says no and describes it as yellow with rainbow streaks then its safe to day I can say their description is false,not true.

@DingoJones Yep. I think you got me now. I'm not equating every description with truth.

@DingoJones As I have already stated above all truths are descriptions. And some descriptions are false.
The key is that all truths are descriptions,not that all descriptions are true.

@DingoJones No,I'm saying truth is human description. And there are varying levels of the accuracy of those descriptions. Something misdescribed would be false.

@DingoJones Human assertions are the source of truth.
But some assertions are inaccurate or false.
There is no truth independent of human perception.

@tim wood Read my post and your answer is there.
So you find it difficult to tell the difference between a false description and an accurate one?!
Its really not as obscure and difficult as you make out.
The distinction between knowledge and opinion is much misused. An opinion can be knowledge and vice versa.
But both are subjective or intersubjective. Only dogmatists and platonists put forward their opinion that truth Is seperate from human assertion.

@Gregory Walking to the shops today a bird flew near me. Right there I thought so people are Really saying that was fate or the bird and I had no choice but to both be there at that exact time!!! Determinism is ludicrous. 100% we have free will. And the slightest perusal of a life emphasises and proves that. In fact,if not for academic philosophy and materialism it would never even be a question.

@tim wood I have explained the nuance to what I am saying many times. There are varying degrees of accuracy of description. Some Descriptions are better than others.
Some are general some specific. And some descriptions are so poor or dishonest we call them false even though the speaker may call or think they are true.

@tim wood If you mean no truth separate from subjectivity then yes I live my life exactly like that.
Man describes,that is truth. From where do you timmy get your truth? Non human sources?

@Frank Apisa Well if 180 reads your current post I see no reason now for any further misunderstanding of your position.

@tim wood I defy anyone on this forum to refute the fact that truth is a Description.
Banno already ran away tail between his analytic legs.
I've already dealt with your strawmanning and your procrustean appeals to authority.
You already got blasted on another thread for your ludicrous generalisations.
Time to actually have original thoughts friend. Put your dictionary and textbooks down and really think.

@tim wood Your bite is that of a kitten. Amateur academic philosophy that deals with so called paradoxes
and such like are for pendants and appealists to authority.
All truths are descriptions. Refute that timmy. :cool:

Here is that word "objective" again!!!
Is science or philosophy objective? Truths independent of the observor???? Well who verifies that?
Obviously the scientist must have a view from nowhere. The god eye view! Such hypocrisy and double standards by the hyper anxious.

@3017amen Yep. It would be nice if folks actually took theists or spiritual people on their merits rather than strawmanning. A lot of good discussions could be had if folks didn't go into shock and all defensive when they find a theist who is articulate and has some good ideas and contributions. And I speak as a non theist.

@tim wood Speak English please.

@3017amen I think a lot of people do not understand that all truths are subjective and inter subjective. The word objective is a much abused word and is really a nothing word. A word used to control and shut down ideas and dialogue. And the concept god Is used in differing ways,literal metaphorical or conceptual.
Truth is Description. Some descriptions are better than others. But descriptions should be based on lived reality not the formal logic/biases of academic philosophy or academic science. Life is eminently obviously Spiritual and debating endlessly especially when there are entrenched positions is not productive.

@Frank Apisa You are saying you dont have enough ambiguous evidence to decide either way on this question,and that is true according to you personally. And I dont see a problem with that. If you say that nobody can make a judgement either way I disagree with that. I think 180 is disputing your reason that nobody can make a judgement either way,although the dialogue has become pedantic repetitive and personal now. Standards for proof can also be used disingenously by posters.Certain materialist atheists seem to get very anxious over and spiritual talk. This thread Is 30 pages and no mutual understanding!

@NOS4A2 I agree! See,if you say the individual determines or controls his actions then freewill is proven.
The rest is nonsense and dodgy semantics. How folks make a case for refuting their own sphere of personal control is bizarro!

Why not call it "possibility" or clarifying the unknown?
Doubt is such a misused concept.

A lot of y'all gonna be in for a shock or a treat when you pass!
And witty? This worship of this buffoon who thought he ended all philosophy and rendered any talk about experience as ineffable or nonsense. Wittys language games were dogmatic horsehit. Yes language can create misleading dichotomies and questions. Yes Language including feelings IS philosophy. But Language which excludes experiences which multiple people have? Nope,that's not linguistic analysis thats behaviorism and scientism.

@Hippyhead Love this story! I think a lot of people would be surprised how often this kind of thing happens. To those who want proof and such like these experiences are
very instructive as also NDEs.
As long as science discounts using or investigating personal experience it wont have any satisfactory answers for these matters.

@Shawn Essentialism is essential!
I would say essentialism is like a minimal or necessary description. Necessary qualities. I say this because the platonic or aristotelian
essentialism is nonsense. Just positing unobservsble abstract entities.

You get these kinds of false conundrums if you dont factors in Innate knowledge. Innate ideas.
If knowledge is Description then it makes no sense to suggest we start off with "zero Description" or a blank slate.

The US left is a cesspool of Identity politics and interfering with individual freedom.
Kamala Harris fits right in. Its notable that she is considered "black" when she has an Indian mother.
This highlights the absurdity of "race" as a descriptor and the purely political reason for identifying as a particular race. The left loves its racism and sexism.

@Judaka :rofl: I think sir banno made this into his personal political soapbox. Oh bannos life and death struggle is riveting!

What a disingenuous reply! Took Judakas words and changed the obvious meaning of his sentence.
Then virtue signalling to finish.
Ah,honesty,would that people valued that!

@Banno What is this particular building you are referring
to which is so important for everybody to access?
Most public buildings I know have ramps and lifts anyway.
Yours is the typical political sophistry. Blow up and highlight a simple specific issue then categorise and shame anyone who disagrees with your crass generalisations and political ideology.
It's like charities that try to shame people into donating .
@Judaka Its expressly obvious how banno operates yet even with all these quotes you highlighted he will try to weasel his way out,obfuscate and make others seem in the wrong.
Typical gaslighting nonsense. I really enjoy his posts as they highlight the psychology of the sophist the ideologue the politically correct dogmatists.
Banno did not have sexual relations with that woman!!!!
If only banno knew my skin color and economics,His arguments about "privilege" would then be self refuting.

Nothing curious here mate.
It's obvious your agenda when you talk about privilege.
It's not a neutral word. And your low key dispassion and feigned curiosity is totally disingenuous. Judaka described you well.
You are A politician not a philosopher. To be a philosopher
requires honesty.

@Pantagruel I will have a little look. I read some of poppers work on historicism years ago. I do like his take on plato and there NOT being laws of history.
Many thanks.

More preaching of predestination!
Whatever is said by the determinist is false because he couldn't say anything else! His intellect couldnt decide between two theories! His intellect is not free. He is an automaton and automatons cannot think.
Where does the word freedom come from? Who determined it to become an actual word!!!!!

@Gary M Washburn I'm fascinated with this concept of elites trying to ruin love with the concept of being. I myself agree with this idea.
In a non heideggerian context how would you explain
your idea?

@Daniel I think we have to be extremely careful with reductionism in this analysis. There are always multiple thoughts and feelings present simultaneously,we can focus and abbreviate on one but even a single thought Carries a context of other thoughts/feelings and implications.
Thought as multiplicity and continually evolving.
Asking for a unit of thought is similiar to asking for a unit of duration. Duration in terms of felt time not clock time.

@Pantagruel I couldn't agree more! Poetry is the most elegant and accurate description of reality and human Intellect. No wonder plato and muhammed hated poets!
The truth hurts the ideologue and propagandist!
Poetry is the most sublime Logic.
Poetry is the true Phenomenology.