Hi boagie;
Logos is a reference to its ancient Greek meaning. It has more than one meaning, or exact meaning. It can mean reason. It can refer to calculation, ratio, explaination, faculty of reason in discourse, and intelligible utterance.
I use Logos as a user name because I love and respect ancient Greek Philosophy. There is little that I do know, that is to say I gain much meaning and material to reflect upon through these ancients. Learning and reflecting is my most meaningful experience.
.................Logos

Logos,

I assume you agree then with what I have stated? If you like Greek philosophy perhaps you would enjoy PROCESS PHILOSOPHY,it is in much the same spirit and indeed has its begining with Heraclitus.Intution is a major component.Google process philosophy,Afred North Whitehead.It is refreshing!



Honk if you love Jesus!! :p

Hi boagie:
I understand your position, I do not agree with it. I observe your answers in defining your position consisted of restating your position. I also think it is clear from my post what my postiton is. So, that is that, and we can move on with our journey to gain some wisdom.
I went to reread the Heraclitus I have, but it had changed.
.................Logos

Logos,


"I agree with you that the perception of a given object ( the information obtained is via the sense organs and thus a different species would sense the same object with different sense organs ( or in a differing quality of a given analogous organ ). The fact that the worm sees it as a worm sees it, I see it as a 1994 Mazda and a physicist can see it on a sub-atomic level does not invalidate the reality of this particular existing in reality ( ultimate or otherwise ). Each is perceiving the object by means of its effects on his consciousness. The object is there and is detected by the sense organs. The 'bombardment' of stimuli picked up by the senses of the object can be summed up, organized, observed and determined as 'real' properties designating a given object as a particular. Science is a good example of the practice of this. The object exists whether one is aware of it or not. I purchased the truck in 2005. Though I had no awareness of it prior to this date, it existed nevertheless since its manufacture date."




The real point to be made was in the absence of consicousness there is nothing.Tell me the name of one physicist who would argue otherwise.


Update:Logos,It would seem you are in good company.

Whitehead, Process and Reality, 39), resurrects the Platonic notion that the qualities of objects exist independently of any perceiver. This position arises from the need for the actual occasions to take on "forms of definiteness"

Reality is in the mind. Reality is only what one perceives. No two people experience the exact same reality because no two people see the exact same thing in the exact same way. Seeing is not a physical process, it is a very subjective process based on past experience and no two people share the same experiences. Many people can physically "see" the same thing but when they each describe what they saw they will come up with respectfully different descriptions, even different physical descriptions even though they all supposedly "saw" the same event. Therefore, one person's truth is not necessarily, and highly most likely, not another person's truth.

hikari,

I agree,I believe that apparent reality is a creation,by creation I mean that the stimulus comeing from the objective world is processed by the mind thus produceing said reality.I believe also that in the absence of consciousness there is no objective reality.The fact that there are some slight variations in human consciousness does not negate this.






Christians for a three hundred year old flat earth---its their faith,you've got to respect that!! :p

Truth.........truth truth hmmmmmmmm. I see, feel, touch and taste yet are these things a truth or what my brain percives to be a truth, thus convincing my self that this is a truth.

Something to ponder, when my so called truths of my life are stored in my memory there is a record of them, when the record is destroyed will any "truth" that I believed to be true beforehand still be credible as a truth.

cut2thepoint,

Truth is a difficult concept to pin down but apparent realilty is pretty much what we take for granted,the fact that it is called apparent would indicate that truth is not an isssue.Experience is a relational concept between subject and object, most of the time we do not feel the need to question to deeply the truth of a given experience,most people never question the apparent.What indeed would be the truth of a hot cup of coffee,but coffee-- hot!!


Honk if you love Jesus!!:p

By all means, correct me if im wrong, but perhaps we can look at truth, not only from our standpoint as christans, scholars, muslims, agnostics, businessman or women, tribal warrior or whatever-whoever, but cross culturally for a second, as the human being. I think, for the nature of truth, and in the name of truth, we have to look at this topic as a discovery, rather than argument, because if truth is not in fact there, well, then is it the truth that there is no truth???

For us as human beings, there is such thing as truth. Wether we choose to philisopically look at the subjective aspect of "truth" and thus diminsh it's signigance, or to take the objective approach and recognize truth as a constructive process built upon our actions and foundations of everyday living--we often find ourselves in, and specifaclly our culture, telling our courts "the truth, the whole truth so help blah blah." We aknowedge it and never really think about it.

Yet, again, one may question, "what is truth?" Well Truth, I feel, is an objective reality based on concrete information, idealized to the best of our ability and knowledge. Take math for instance; we use numbers to symbolize specific variables. When used in real life, we find contradiction. Such as the fact that if i have two apples, well we difinitively know that i have two apples. But if we choose to subjectify the information, we break down the two fruits by maybe mass or circumfrance, thus proving the two are not, by truth, equal. However, numbers, like truth, are based soley on ideal, to the best of our definition. We have two apples that are not two apples.

This equation can be said the same for actions and motivations. We know a specific action occurs based on newtons equation (every opposite reaction). And not tot continue towards the sciences again, we have to look at action and motivation. Again, lets say i slapped some guy in his face with myfist. The truth is, i hit him...Now, either i could subjectify the truth, and say i went to slap a bug off his face, or tell the truth that i hit him maliciously. Truth, must be searched for... because lets say that for the respect of truth, i use the honest option, and say i slapped him. The next search of truth is "why did i slap him?" after that its "why did it have to be a slap?" and so on and so forth... now if i chose to lie, nothing would be preventing me from slapping another individual, regardless of wehter i wanted to or not. however if im truthfully conscience of why i slapped the gentleman and why it was a slap, i have control over myself wether id like to slap the next guy or not.


Does this make sence to anyone? Because i can elaborate more on different areas if im just rambleing on and on whithout any typoe of coherence...

Hi gnosis,

I do not understand why you have such difficulty with truth being subjective,indeed all meaning being subjective.The harshest realization I would think is when someone breaks through to a nihilistic understanding that there is no objective meaning.This realization does not leave a lot standing but it does leave perhaps the greatest understanding man could wish for,for the only thing left is the idea that all things are relational.It is out of a relational situtation that all things arise and it is a relational situtation which gives duration to the beings of said objects.All reality then,is relational.

The relational nature of all reality almost assures us even if we are aware of this fact,that we will take it for granted for there is indeed no other possiablity.You have asked what is truth,truth is a relation between a subject[person]and an object[world].Truth is the condition or state precieved by the subject of object relative to itself--example something is said to be hard realitive to the subjects inability to penatrate said object or with what ease or difficulty this is accomplished.

Your examples with the apples whether there be two apples or by mass there is just apple draws us into a dialogue on duality and non-duality,still reguardless of the measure it would still be relative to a subject.

Your getting into action and its modivations seem a little off topic but fear not,I do have an opinion.All action is first selfish or it would never be done.If I am compassionate towards my fellow man,it is because I wish to see myself as this type of individual.If I acted without compassion I would not be able to maintain the belief in myself as a compassionate person,only then comes the benifit to the individual in question.


Death,a relational rearrangement?:rolleyes:


To new comers,be aware this is a Christian site,they do not put it up front.:eek:

First off, Boages, id like to thank you for the reply, as well as the kind welcome.

But getting back into the thick of the discussion, to the subjective/objective apparition that i may have miscommunicated; that i may be against a subjective duality towards truth? or w/e, i appologize for not elaborating, and ill explain the favor i portray toawards objective construction. In truth, we understand first off:

That there are in fact the two components to truth-- the subjective and objective side. Call it duality if you want, i mean i guess it could follow under someones definition of it...but that there is necessity for the two...its wht keeps us searching for "truth." For example, we observe our world, via sences, and we find and stamp it with a recognisable definition, so we can revert back to it, or like you noted with what i agree with, that "truth is a relation between a subject[person]and an object[world]" Now, having stamped an object with a definition, others begin to look at it subjectivly, where we find flaws in the definition we 've objectivly givin it, and we exploit those flaws. This is where i favor the objective man, because almost anyone can be judegemental, and find flaws in a working condition. EX I build you aa house, and you say its not warm enough to be defined as a "house"...so i make it warmer... you then say its not high enough to be a "house," so then i build an addition to it...you then tell me its finally become a true house and i am free to go...until five years down the road when everyone else on your block has a hot tub, to which you tell me, a true house has a hot tub...and what youve built is not a true house.

This is how i descreibe the correlation between subjectifying truth (in action), and objectifying further...

As for the assumtion that everything anyone does is out of selfishness? I beg to differ really quick. i sense that if your a christian, then you believe in self sacrifice; that one has the ability to elect another humans favor above his own, for the sake of that other human and for their well being...

Psycologically, we look at the battered wife. Why, after recieving beating after beating after beating, does this wife remain with her husband? Is it because its solidifying her own existence??? For one, she might have kids who need the suppoting income of the father...or without kids--because of the self essteem (or lack of self esteem) she has toawards herself...that this individual diserves the right to beat her, even though it goes against her own well being...

gnosis,

I do not think we really disagree here about the nature of subject and object or subjectivity and objectivity.The apparently reality is that yes indeed they are separate.On the other hand truth being a subjective evalution of a relation between either subject and object or objects[plural] and subject.The evalution is a mental process but in order to affirm its truth it must be related back to the objects within the objective world.In some sense though they cannot be said to be separate,for take object away from subject and there is nothing,take subject away and there is nothing."Subject and Object stand or fall together,together is reality.

There is a more indepth disscussion about the said selfishness of all actions in the tread so named on the boards.If you chose to join that discussion you would be most welcome.For the most part it is true,perhaps not absolute but I am sure that it is functioning very well in the faithful,it all comes back to self-interest.The whole idea is to get saved is it not?

PS: Please if you join the discussion on this,read the link which is provided which was the stimulus for starting the thread "All actions are first selfish."Mark Twain,"What is man" is the said link.

OKay cool, except the fact that, is it true sacrifice, if the motivation is to be saved? I personally dont think so...with that argument, the motivation is of the ego, and the sacrifice is not self sacrifice, rather its self depletion for the self, by the self...because if the sacrifice is genuine, its not for a personal saving, rather for humanity collectiely, then and only then is it truly a self sacrifice (in the name of christianity)



new idea? how about 'Truth exists as proven with its given set of circumstances' --true or false?

gnosis,

If the modivation is to be saved,it is indeed the subjects self-interest we are then talking about,there are rewards promise for certain behavours.The faithful wish to have immortal life in the presence of god,I think it is pretty clearly an issue of self-interest.

New idea: How about truth exists as prove within its given set of circumstance---true or false?

I am not certain I am understanding the question.Are you stateting that every truth is relative to a certain context[circumstances].If so yes,the context is subject and object,or subject and objects,I do not think it necessary to establish the objective world because both subject and object belong to said context.

"Truth exists as proven with its given set of circumstances" = idea of moral relativism...

...But is it possible to be a follower of christ, and not believe in an afterlife? to follow the practices he himself lived by, for a better humanity? if so, id conclude that there is in fact such things as sacrifice, without personal gain

gnosis,Shaboink!

It sounds like you are in a bit of a struggle with yourself,the ideas you cherish about what your nature is will determine the quality of your behaviours.It is the action of these behaviours which in turn reinforce your personal beliefs about your own nature.So first the idea generates an action and then the action[behaviour]reinforces the idea you have of yourself,it is in your self interest to do a behaviour which is consistent with the beliefs[ideas]you have of your own nature----if they are not consistent you then be come somewhat distrubed.So,no there is always personal gain in one form or another,but there is nothing wrong with that,that is perfectly healthy psychology and it cannot be any other way.:eek:

haha thanks boagie,

i dunno if this corresponds with the thread, but i guess it kind of has to do with the idea of sacrifice we were referring to earlier. its a true story and even though it may not follow under a certain category, i think we can all benefit from it.

Since this is an anonomious website, i feel i can honestly say that ive had mental problems in the past, that needed medical attention. i mention this because it serves to understand the idea of personal sacrifice for a greater good, of this earth, for this earths greater good, the greater good of the earth.

anywho, i was hospitalized on a mental health unit for a breif period of time. i met with characters of all different types, problems, backgrounds and beliefs. But this once, on the floor of a psychiatric ward, an insolent fellow named David, a man prided on the fact that he had been arrested for a number of different charges, that he never took any shit from anyone, and he had seriously tried to kill another human being, stole from my room, a red colored pencil from a pencil set I had used daily --to pass time and to cope with the various changes I was undergoing at the time-- and placed it in his front pocket, for show, and to say to me "Through your hands up, and lets go ." After seeing this, I approached him, and as I approached, he threw up his hands and punched me in the face. At that point, I had numerous options, one of which, the one I really wanted to execute, was to beat his ass senselessly; and honestly, with the way I was brought up, not retaliating was the wrong option; it was unjust and despicable, because not only would it have been a mark of disrespect against me, but it would have been a flag for future fights. However, instead, I decided to let him keep the pencil, as well as what physical health he had and what I wasn't willing to take. I would have hurt him. After much thought, of what was the right thing to do, after talking with a brief roomate, for the time I had spents there, a roomate who was perhaps the most devout Christian I had ever met, the next day and I sat down with him for breakfast. Later, I ate lunch with him, as well as dinner. I walked the halls with him. We stared chatting. The next day I bought him a carton of cigarettes, the day he was set to leave. He took the carton of ciggarettes, and donated them to the that I was on. I knew he smoked the type of ciggarettes i bought him, and he loved them too. Still, he decided to donate them. He gave me a hug, and he left. I ask now, of what benefit was it to me to do this. Why had he donated those ciggarettes to the unit. And did my act of "christianity" rub off on him? Because none of it was of a viciously horrible after life, or the other extreme, to enter the "Pearly Gates of Heaven"


Either or, maybe the stories stupid, and has nothing to do with the thread or the website. but maybe it does...

gnosis,

Actually you sound like you are acting out of compassion,Christianity does not have to be the source of that compassion but if it is useful to you as a guide then by all means use it and call it what you will.It does not sound as if your upbringing could be responsiable for the kindness and compassion that you have shown.If your beliefs about yourself are of a careing compassionate man,then you must act/behave in ways that support that belief and if it does not feel entirely natural to you,it will feel natural with repeat acts/behaviours that strengthen that characteristic of compassion.

I might add it sounds like a more intelligent man is emerging, the fact that you are pondering your own behavior is more than the average man does.Decide,no small task,what characteristic you wish to incorporate into you character and incorporate them through actions/behaviours,not necessarily easy to do but the only way to form character.Once you have decided on the nature of your character, be proud of it, honour it in behaving in character.Remember virtue is not something you think and/or claim,virtue is what you do,if you do not do it,it is not a virtue for you.


"Be kind to everyone you meet,for everyone is on a difficult journey" Plato I think!