? And, were you, when you did, trying to feel superior? Or was it your motive to get the A? I might also ask you why you wanted to get the A. To feel superior, or because you believed you deserved an A?

Yep, I think it had more to do with getting an A and feeling superior. There was lots of competition in school. Part of the human experience. As I said, people at times like to feel superior to others. Hierarchy is one aspect of human existence. No hierarchy is another. In Eastern philosophy there is Confucianism which adores hierarchy, and therefore warmly embraced by everyone higher on the hierarchy. And then there is Daoism, which sees things are round and equal. Each has its place in the world, and I wanted my A!

Rich

How about that you believed you deserved the A?

At the time I thought I deserved it because I was caught up in the game. Nowadays, it means nothing to me. I've changed.

Rich

Well, we say that Quito is the capital of Ecuador is true (I don't think we call it true, not in English), but we say it is true because we believe it is true. If we said it was true without believing it is true, then we would be lying. Isn't that right? And it is true that Quito is the capital because Quito is the capital. If it were not the capital, it would not be true that it was the capital. Consensus comes in when the question is whether our belief that it is true is correct. If there were not consensus, then that would be reason to think I was wrong in thinking that Quito is the capital.

So life goes on, and I continue to look for new ideas to make life interesting. And what I say is neither True nor False, just observations coming from my Individual Consciousness that is exercising its creative faculty and its ability to observe and speak.

I believe you're trying to make a distinction between two different "truths". One solely based on belief consensus, and the other solely in agreement with fact or reality. I received this impression when you stated, "I don't think we call it true" in reference to the capital (which I got the impression would fall under the former of the distinctions).

I, on the other hand, don't believe there to be a separation. The notion of "truth" I'm referring to is in agreement with fact or reality while also based on intersubjective agreement. Consensus is what matters - this defines "reality" (as far as it applies to our communication; who cares *what is* when we're not around)

If one were to say, "The capital of Ecuador is Quito", we would call this true as we consider the capital of Ecuador being Quito a fact. If we said there was a chair in a room and there really was a chair in said room, we could say, "It's true there's a chair in the room". Verification by others would allow us the recognitition that we "told the truth".



Once again I'm getting the impression you're applying some mystical overtone to "truth". Simply, when one says "truth" (the notion I'm speaking of, at least) they are referring to something in agreement with fact or reality. Though we are each viewing from individual consciousnesses, we can have intersubjective agreement on things. An example would be if we pointed at a chair in a room and there actually was a chair in said room. We could both proclaim, "There is a chair in the room", and in this case, this proclaimation would be deemed "True".

Keep in mind that I see where you were going with this, and I understand your neutrality. But there's no need to burden semantics and overcomplicate the common usage of a word.

Though we are each viewing from individual consciousnesses, we can have intersubjective agreement on things. An example would be if we pointed at a chair in a room and there actually was a chair in said room. We could both proclaim, "There is a chair in the room", and in this case, this proclaimation would be deemed "True".

What are we to reference when we state, "The capital of Ecuador is Quito"? That is, how do we verify the sentence "said of what is, that it is"?

"Capital" is an abstract notion. Physically speaking, there is no verification until after our agreement (until after we agree those buildings are part of the city). Intersubjective consensus of semantical meaning is all we have.

I see what you're saying, but I don't quite understand how to place the horse before the cart.

i still think we are just dreaming this whole damn thing.

Hi,

The interesting thing is that in one type of dream (call it the mind viewing something), there are dimensions of space and time. This is commonly referred to as the awake state. And in another type of dream, called the asleep state), these dimensions do not exist. Isn't that odd?? I actually started a thread on this over here as an example of Free Will:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-mind/4730-example-free-will.html

I pose the question, whether the switching from one state to another is not an example of Free Will?


Rich

When I wake up in the morning, it is because of a loud alarm clock, and is certainly not of my own free will.

I don't have an alarm clock.

But, listen, here is a perfect experiment for you. Don't turn on the alarm clock tonight (of course, you have a choice to turn it on if you want). Then see if you wake up in the morning. If you wake up, make a posting. If you don't wake up, I'll know you are asleep. If you never wake up ..... Well then, what you say is True - you need an alarm clock. :surrender:

Rich