kennethamy;127472 wrote:

By the ancient ways, polls?

And you know the polls are correct, how? They work?

HexHammer;127499 wrote:

And you know the polls are correct, how? They work?

If they are so questionable, why do we use them?

Truths are lies that work = plausible statement

Lies are truths that don't work = unplausible statement

What does it mean to work? = people will accept the statement and adhere it's teachings.

In the end it gives us pleasure = ..eeeh? Have to disagree, most people just gets spoiled and wants more, therefore gets unsatisfyed.

HexHammer;127448 wrote:

This scenario is idealistic for politics where truths are as rare as snowballs in Sahara.

Truths are lies that work = plausible statement

Does that mean that if that statement is works, then it is true. How do we determine that it is true that a statement works, by the way.

If the statement "truths are lies that work" works, then it is, by its own light, a truth.

We once thought matter and energy were separate. Although we now view them as interchangeable, our older relatively mistaken view was still useful as as lie.

Hex,

Truth is not a collective agreement, anymore than a lie is a collective disagreement. Collective agreements are only consensus, and working with these is cooperation.

For all practical purposes, consensus and cooperation is often the best that we can come up with, and if it works, then we consider it efficient.

When we start declaring this as a truth or that as a lie, very often we are only jumping to conclusions, nothing more.

S9

Hex,

Being rude isn't the same thing as being clever. I think you should go back and reread yourself if you want to know what you said. I don't have time for such as yourself.

S9

they only produce mastrubational metaphors.

Thanks for sharing your opinions.

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 09:19 PM ----------

kennethamy;127452 wrote:

If the statement "truths are lies that work" works, then it is, by its own light, a truth.

But, it is a truth only if it is true that it works. Which, of course, by your formula means that it is a truth only if it works that it works. But then, we have to ask whether it works that it works that it works. Isn't that true (by which I mean, of course, doesn't it work?).

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 03:22 AM ----------

Reconstructo;128362 wrote:

This is actually a deep statement. I created a character (a philosopher) whose name is Onanismo, which means masturbator. I don't think the above statement is the whole truth, but it does seem like part of the truth.

But you must mean, "the whole works" and "part of the works" don't you?

Reconstructo;127725 wrote:

But, it is a truth only if it is true that it works. Which, of course, by your formula means that it is a truth only if it works that it works. But then, we have to ask whether it works that it works that it works. Isn't that true (by which I mean, of course, doesn't it work?).

Truth as a White Lie is not some official position of mine. I see it as a trope useful for certain purposes. Also, what does it mean for a "truth" to "work"?

Of course "truth as a white lie" is anything but a practical technical definition. It's designed for eye-opening. I realize now I phrased it "truth is a white lie." Well, that pushes more buttons I guess. I suppose "as" is much closer to me real view than "is." "Philosophy as a nice as. "

kennethamy;128395 wrote:

Truth as a White Lie is not some official position of mine. I see it as a trope useful for certain purposes. Also, what does it mean for a "truth" to "work"?

Of course "truth as a white lie" is anything but a practical technical definition. It's designed for eye-opening. I realize now I phrased it "truth is a white lie." Well, that pushes more buttons I guess. I suppose "as" is much closer to me real view than "is." "Philosophy as a nice as. "

You take official positions on matters? What is your official position on whether the world is round, if you don't mind my asking? Tell me something eye-opening, though.

Reconstructo;128398 wrote:

You take official positions on matters? What is your official position on whether the world is round, if you don't mind my asking? Tell me something eye-opening, though.

The world isn't "round" independent of our human conception of round. We can't see out of our human form of life and the discourse we humans have developed over the course of time.

It may be that we discover or invent a way of seeing the world in 11 dimensions. Then we call the scientifically uneducated "round-Earthers" rather than "flat-Earthers."

This eye-opening is a free sample.

kennethamy;128445 wrote:

The world isn't "round" independent of our human conception of round.

Of course it is. Earth would have the shape it has even if there were no people.

Reconstructo;128593 wrote:

Of course it is. Earth would have the shape it has even if there were no people.

I think not. Also you didn't address the possibility of science taking a different view in the future.

Of course I can see where you are coming from. It's a "common-sense" view. But it was once common sense to conceive of the world as flat.

kennethamy;128595 wrote:

I think not. Also you didn't address the possibility of science taking a different view in the future.

Of course I can see where you are coming from. It's a "common-sense" view. But it was once common sense to conceive of the world as flat.

As I said, Earth would have whatever shape it has whether or not people existed. Science might take a different view about its shape, but why would that matter? It would still have the shape it has. The world was not flat when it was conceived as flat. It had whatever shape it had. Trapezoidal? I am not saying what the particular shape was. Only that it had some particular shape. Whatever people thought the shape was. Don't you think that is true?

Reconstructo;128598 wrote:

As I said, Earth would have whatever shape it has whether or not people existed. Science might take a different view about its shape, but why would that matter? It would still have the shape it has. The world was not flat when it was conceived as flat. It had whatever shape it had. Trapezoidal? I am not saying what the particular shape was. Only that it had some particular shape. Whatever people thought the shape was. Don't you think that is true?

I think you are neglecting the importance of the subject in perception. The ideas you are currently opposing to mine are mind-generated. Your idea of the world independent of human ideas is a human idea. The notion of the earth independent of human experience is an abstraction, a human mental model. Of course, I know what you mean, but I can't get behind it.

Any lie that is white-enough the Truth. & any truth that isn't white enough (f)lies?

I agree with you on this.

It show that we cannot have absolute truths or lies and that ultimately truths and lies are subjective.

It is like 'the cup is half-empty and half-full" at the same time.
It is a contradiction but it can be an acceptable truth or a lie depending from which perspective one looks at it.

Thus we can have situation like this,
The cup is 3/4-emtpy and 1/4 full or,
The cup is 1/4 full and 3/4 empty.

Nevertheless the above is only suitable in a philosophical forum not for normal conversation.

Reconstructo;128398 wrote:

You take official positions on matters? What is your official position on whether the world is round, if you don't mind my asking? Tell me something eye-opening, though.

hi there ! the world is a torus.....

As I said, Earth would have whatever shape it has whether or not people existed. Science might take a different view about its shape, but why would that matter? It would still have the shape it has. The world was not flat when it was conceived as flat. It had whatever shape it had. Trapezoidal? I am not saying what the particular shape was. Only that it had some particular shape. Whatever people thought the shape was. Don't you think that is true?