No Objective Truth = Anarchy

[scorpiomover]

My fault for bringing MBTI into it, but just because I am an INFP does not mean that I can't make truth claims

Fi-doms CAN talk about Ti. But Ti doesn't work like Fi.

Fi: "My arm is on fire. That's bad. Put it out"
Ti: "My arm is on fire. Is it really on fire? Check the temperature first, before putting it out. If the temperature read above 100C, it's too hot. Put it out. If the temperature is below 20C, it's cold. You imagined it was hot. You need a therapist."

Likewise, "no objective truth => anarchy", to Ti, says:
"Either there is objective truth, or there is not objective truth."
"If there is no objective truth, then everything is anarchic. Might as well get used to it."
"If there is objective truth, there everything might still be anarchic. If it's anarchic, get used to it. If it's not anarchic, get used to everything not being anarchic."

From an ethical POV:
"No objective truth => anarchy"
One Fi-dom: "I dislike anarchy. Therefore, there should always be objective truth, so there will never be anarchy."
Another Fi-dom: "I like anarchy. Therefore, there should be no objective truth, so there will always be anarchy."
Another Fi-dom: "I don't really care about anarchy, one way or the other. So whether there is objective truth or not, makes no difference to me."

Ethics doesn't really get you closer to knowing if there is objective truth in reality or not.

So anyone can verify truth. But it takes work, because you have to put your feelings aside while you're doing it, and can't allow yourself to be affected by your emotions, until AFTER you have reached and verified your answer.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Then objective truth does not actually exist because in this paradigm (pragmatism) truth is not a transcendent thing. And there are lots of ways to arrive at the truth without being a physicist such as philosophy.

(IFF) "objective truth" existed (THEN) it could be made explicit

the closest we can get is engineering and physics

but clearly, because of hume's guillotine, engineering and physics don't help much when facing questions of morality

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Ethics doesn't really get you closer to knowing if there is objective truth in reality or not.

bingo

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Like the symbol of the Tao, there's no clear and easy rule to follow that ties ethics directly and easily to logic. They are definitely connected. But it's an indirect link, that is just as reliable, but not that easy to understand the connections.

PRIMAL ETHICS
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY

What have they all in common?
Protect MY body.
Protect MY family.
Protect MY stuff.

Translation: F**k the world. F**k humanity. I only care about ME.

a broader view of this

includes the idea

that if we promote cooperation between individuals

this will serve to protect my individual rights

 

[scorpiomover]

We should all strive towards knowing what is true,

perhaps engineers and physicists can determine what is true by testing it

but for most things

and the most important things

we merely need to believe what is most useful

What is most useful for each person, is dependent on their circumstances. It's the same for you when you are in circumstances and they are in circumstances that are IDENTICAL. It's usually different when you are in different circumstances, even when they are insignificant (to you).

As a result, what is most useful for you, is very often what is least useful for others, and vice versa.

 

[Old Things]

My fault for bringing MBTI into it, but just because I am an INFP does not mean that I can't make truth claims

Fi-doms CAN talk about Ti. But Ti doesn't work like Fi.

Fi: "My arm is on fire. That's bad. Put it out"
Ti: "My arm is on fire. Is it really on fire? Check the temperature first, before putting it out. If the temperature read above 100C, it's too hot. Put it out. If the temperature is below 20C, it's cold. You imagined it was hot. You need a therapist."

Likewise, "no objective truth => anarchy", to Ti, says:
"Either there is objective truth, or there is not objective truth."
"If there is no objective truth, then everything is anarchic. Might as well get used to it."
"If there is objective truth, there everything might still be anarchic. If it's anarchic, get used to it. If it's not anarchic, get used to everything not being anarchic."

From an ethical POV:
"No objective truth => anarchy"
One Fi-dom: "I dislike anarchy. Therefore, there should always be objective truth, so there will never be anarchy."
Another Fi-dom: "I like anarchy. Therefore, there should be no objective truth, so there will always be anarchy."
Another Fi-dom: "I don't really care about anarchy, one way or the other. So whether there is objective truth or not, makes no difference to me."

Ethics doesn't really get you closer to knowing if there is objective truth in reality or not.

So anyone can verify truth. But it takes work, because you have to put your feelings aside while you're doing it, and can't allow yourself to be affected by your emotions, until AFTER you have reached and verified your answer.

It's really not all about MBTI. I should not have framed things that way. My point was that I was the kind of person who is not overtly trying to manipulate people into believing the same thing as me. I USED saying I am INFP to make THAT point. The point is NOT that I am INFP and must adhere to everything INFPs adhere to.

"Might as well get used to it" is also a value. It is a value of apathy, meaning, to not change the way things are done. If you put an INTJ in the same position, they would very much want to change things from chaos to order because they have Te.

I would prefer to not derail this thread with talking about MBTI. I have a thread dedicated to my type already. If you want to comment on my type, please do so in the thread dedicated to that subject. I just made a post in that thread not too long ago and you have posted in it so it should not be that hard to find.

Then objective truth does not actually exist because in this paradigm (pragmatism) truth is not a transcendent thing. And there are lots of ways to arrive at the truth without being a physicist such as philosophy.

(IFF) "objective truth" existed (THEN) it could be made explicit

the closest we can get is engineering and physics

but clearly, because of hume's guillotine, engineering and physics don't help much when facing questions of morality

That does not follow. You have hidden premises in your argument. Why is it necessary that objective truth is not difficult to understand given objective truth exists? Please answer that question.

 

[scorpiomover]

Like the symbol of the Tao, there's no clear and easy rule to follow that ties ethics directly and easily to logic. They are definitely connected. But it's an indirect link, that is just as reliable, but not that easy to understand the connections.

PRIMAL ETHICS
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY

What have they all in common?
Protect MY body.
Protect MY family.
Protect MY stuff.

Translation: F**k the world. F**k humanity. I only care about ME.

a broader view of this

includes the idea

that if we promote cooperation between individuals

this will serve to protect my individual rights

But it still won't protect your individual rights, because then you'll have to give up some of what is your property now, and some of what you expect will be your property in the future, to co-operate.

So to value co-operation, you have to move away from "primal ethics", and understand why your primal ethics is all about "ME", so you can know how to do better than that.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

As a result, what is most useful for you, is very often what is least useful for others, and vice versa.

i don't disagree

are you trying to suggest this is some sort of "problem" ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

But it still won't protect your individual rights, because then you'll have to give up some of what is your property now, and some of what you expect will be your property in the future, to co-operate.

that's the hierarchy

it makes sense to sacrifice property to protect yourself and your family

it makes sense to sacrifice family to protect yourself

the definitions

of "self" and "family" and "property" are flexible

also

not strictly physical

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

so you can know how to do better than that.

please explain

 

[scorpiomover]

so you can know how to do better than that.

please explain

The point of co-operation is to co-operate, to act more like the cells in the human body, They work for the whole and achieve much more as a result, by being much more efficient when fulfilling the goals of the whole, than they would be when only working for themselves.

They do this, by looking for the things they are good at and find easy to do, that the other cells need desperately but would struggle to do for themselves. Then they become much more efficient, by making themselves aware of what they can do for themselves, and what they can do for the group.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

The point of co-operation is to co-operate, to act more like the cells in the human body, They work for the whole and achieve much more as a result, by being much more efficient when fulfilling the goals of the whole, than they would be when only working for themselves.

the best way to protect yourself and your family and property

is to cooperate and to promote cooperation

this seems almost too obvious to mention

 

[scorpiomover]

The point of co-operation is to co-operate, to act more like the cells in the human body, They work for the whole and achieve much more as a result, by being much more efficient when fulfilling the goals of the whole, than they would be when only working for themselves.

the best way to protect yourself and your family and property

is to cooperate and to promote cooperation

this seems almost too obvious to mention

Lots of people think the best way is to have more locks, more guns, more power, and to take away any possibility of poer being held by anyone who might challenge you and disagree with you in public.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Lots of people think the best way is to have more locks, more guns, more power, and to take away any possibility of poer being held by anyone who might challenge you and disagree with you in public.

i mean, that is one option

but i'm not sure how you're going to get any guns or locks

unless you cooperate with someone

i don't think anyone is going to make them from scratch all by themselves

 

[scorpiomover]

Lots of people think the best way is to have more locks, more guns, more power, and to take away any possibility of poer being held by anyone who might challenge you and disagree with you in public.

i mean, that is one option

but i'm not sure how you're going to get any guns or locks

unless you cooperate with someone

i don't think anyone is going to make them from scratch all by themselves

As long as the other people also don't, so they can't use them against me either.

Also, as long as I have at least one blacksmith in my in-group, then I can get locks and guns and use them to kill my enemies.

 

[Old Things]

Lots of people think the best way is to have more locks, more guns, more power, and to take away any possibility of poer being held by anyone who might challenge you and disagree with you in public.

i mean, that is one option

but i'm not sure how you're going to get any guns or locks

unless you cooperate with someone

i don't think anyone is going to make them from scratch all by themselves

As long as the other people also don't, so they can't use them against me either.

Also, as long as I have at least one blacksmith in my in-group, then I can get locks and guns and use them to kill my enemies.

 

[Old Things]

@LOGICZOMBIE, you going to answer my question now? Or do you not care about fair dialog?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

As long as the other people also don't, so they can't use them against me either.

Also, as long as I have at least one blacksmith in my in-group, then I can get locks and guns and use them to kill my enemies.

think of

PRIMAL ETHICS

as less of a prescription

and more of a description

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

@LOGICZOMBIE, you going to answer my question now? Or do you not care about fair dialog?

it seems obvious to me that any "discussion" "conversation" and or "debate"

will move in many directions, because nearly everything is in some way related to nearly everything else

so when you suggested i was "off-topic" or "red-herring" or whatever

i examined WHY maybe you imagined this was the case

and i found that i was simply responding pretty directly to your own comment

which was also conceivably "off-topic"

but you claimed that your comment was simply responding to someone else's comment

i was doing the same thing

you inadvertently defended my own action



i didn't think i had to spell this out

 

[Old Things]

@LOGICZOMBIE, you going to answer my question now? Or do you not care about fair dialog?

it seems obvious to me that any "discussion" "conversation" and or "debate"

will move in many directions, because nearly everything is in some way related to nearly everything else

so when you suggested i was "off-topic" or "red-herring" or whatever

i examined WHY maybe you imagined this was the case

and i found that i was simply responding pretty directly to your own comment

which was also conceivably "off-topic"

but you claimed that your comment was simply responding to someone else's comment

i was doing the same thing

you inadvertently defended my own action



i didn't think i had to spell this out

My question to you directly relates to the OP.

Why is it necessary that objective truth is not difficult to understand given objective truth exists?

Literally, the same two words are in the question that the OP is about.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

That does not follow. You have hidden premises in your argument. Why is it necessary that objective truth is not difficult to understand given objective truth exists? Please answer that question.

the argument in support of "objective truth"

is to support a concept of "objective morality"

and "objective morality" is presented as the opposite of "subjective morality" or "situational ethics"

ok

so it follows

that (IFF) morality is not a matter of opinion (THEN) morality is set in stone

and (IFF) morality is set in stone (THEN) it should be extremely easy to write down

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

 

[Old Things]

That does not follow. You have hidden premises in your argument. Why is it necessary that objective truth is not difficult to understand given objective truth exists? Please answer that question.

the argument in support of "objective truth"

is to support a concept of "objective morality"

and "objective morality" is presented as the opposite of "subjective morality" or "situational ethics"

ok

so it follows

that (IFF) morality is not a matter of opinion (THEN) morality is set in stone

and (IFF) morality is set in stone (THEN) it should be extremely easy to write down

Wrong. You still have hidden premises that I don't know. The question was not about objective morality but about objective truth. So you were doubly wrong in this post.

 

[scorpiomover]

As long as the other people also don't, so they can't use them against me either.

Also, as long as I have at least one blacksmith in my in-group, then I can get locks and guns and use them to kill my enemies.

think of

PRIMAL ETHICS

as less of a prescription

and more of a description

That is how I am seeing it.

It's a description of what matters to you.

Yougov polls reported that since 2,000, young people have been stating that the 3 things most important to them, are their friends, their family and themselves.

 

[scorpiomover]

View attachment 8194

Stalin got extreme. Hitler got extreme. They were just protecting their friends, family, property and themselves.

 

[Old Things]

View attachment 8194

Stalin got extreme. Hitler got extreme. They were just protecting their friends, family, property and themselves.

Power corrupts and all that.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Wrong. You still have hidden premises that I don't know. The question was not about objective morality but about objective truth. So you were doubly wrong in this post.

• Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind. If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it is labelled objectively true.

Subjectivity and objectivity (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

That is how I am seeing it.

It's a description of what matters to you.

Yougov polls reported that since 2,000, young people have been stating that the 3 things most important to them, are their friends, their family and themselves.

that seems to confirm the validity of PRIMAL ETHICS

do you have a proposed alternative ?

 

[Old Things]

Wrong. You still have hidden premises that I don't know. The question was not about objective morality but about objective truth. So you were doubly wrong in this post.

• Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind. If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it is labelled objectively true.

Subjectivity and objectivity (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And why should that be easy to understand what is objectively true?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Wrong. You still have hidden premises that I don't know. The question was not about objective morality but about objective truth. So you were doubly wrong in this post.

• Something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of a mind. If a claim is true even when considering it outside the viewpoint of a sentient being, then it is labelled objectively true.

Subjectivity and objectivity (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And why should that be easy to understand what is objectively true?

objective truth is identical to all possible observers, unbiased, and not open to interpretation

therefore

it must be OBVIOUS



in other words

"easy to understand"

 

[Old Things]

objective truth is identical to all possible observers, unbiased, and not open to interpretation

I disagree.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

objective truth is identical to all possible observers, unbiased, and not open to interpretation

I disagree.

then please present your personally preferred definition of "objective truth"

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Also, as long as I have at least one blacksmith in my in-group,

there is likely to be quite a bit of competition for the services of that blacksmith

i hope you have something valuable to trade

 

[Old Things]

objective truth is identical to all possible observers, unbiased, and not open to interpretation

I disagree.

then please present your personally preferred definition of "objective truth"

I did not disagree with your definition. I disagree with what you think that implies for humans who are finite to a time and location.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I did not disagree with your definition. I disagree with what you think that implies for humans who are finite to a time and location.

what part of "identical to all possible observers, unbiased, and not open to interpretation"

makes you think that "objective truth" is really really difficult to understand ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I did not disagree with your definition. I disagree with what you think that implies for humans who are finite to a time and location.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I agree we're talking about the rise of societies but not necessarily the fall. Society is built on and sustained by lies. Don't agree? So every religion is true? Secular beliefs are true? Governments don't lie? There are many societies built on many "truths". The belief doesn't need to be true for it to hold people together.

100% THIS

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I did not disagree with your definition. I disagree with what you think that implies for humans who are finite to a time and location.

(IFF) objective truth is identical to all possible observers (THEN) if even one person can perceive it, that means ALL POSSIBLE OBSERVERS necessarily perceive it, without any variation in scope or clarity

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Pay. I meant pay. Who is going to pay for the welfare?

Ending Chronic Homelessness Saves Taxpayers Money​

A chronically homeless person costs the taxpayer an average of 35,578 per year. This study shows how costs on average are reduced by 49.5% when they are placed in supportive housing. Supportive housing costs on average 12,800, making the net savings roughly 4,800 per year. Congress will need to invest in permanent supportive housing to drive progress while reducing tax payers’ spending. Congress should provide at least the 2.487 billion in the House bill for HUD’s Homeless Assistance Grants in FY 2017.

Ending Chronic Homelessness Saves Taxpayers Money

A chronically homeless person costs the taxpayer an average of $35,578 per year. This study shows how costs on average are reduced by 49.5% when they are placed in supportive housing. Supportive housing costs on average $12,800, making the net […]

endhomelessness.org

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Holy macaroni. This is so cringe.

Where does money come from? People who produce value. So you want to take money from people who produce value and give it to people who produce no value. Why? Because they produce no value? This does not make sense.

33 Sell your possessions and give to those in need. This will store up treasure for you in heaven! And the purses of heaven never get old or develop holes. Your treasure will be safe; no thief can steal it and no moth can destroy it. 34 Wherever your treasure is, there the desires of your heart will also be.

 

[Old Things]

objective truth is identical to all possible observers

That's exactly what I am questioning. What metaphysical law are you using to say all minds need to view what is independent of mind to be objectively true?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

That's exactly what I am questioning. What metaphysical law are you using to say all minds need to view what is independent of mind to be objectively true?

(IFF) different humans can view the same thing differently (THEN) that thing is SUBJECTIVE

(sometimes good and sometimes bad and sometimes neutral based on the context)

 

[Old Things]

That's exactly what I am questioning. What metaphysical law are you using to say all minds need to view what is independent of mind to be objectively true?

(IFF) different humans can view the same thing differently (THEN) that thing is SUBJECTIVE

(sometimes good and sometimes bad and sometimes neutral based on the context)

You really need to stop doing these "if, then" things because there are almost always hidden premises when you do that.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

You really need to stop doing these "if, then" things because there are almost always hidden premises when you do that.

can you please be slightly more specific

 

[Old Things]

You really need to stop doing these "if, then" things because there are almost always hidden premises when you do that.

can you please be slightly more specific

Most of the time when you do an "if" the "then" does not necessarily follow.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

You really need to stop doing these "if, then" things because there are almost always hidden premises when you do that.

can you please be slightly more specific

Most of the time when you do an "if" the "then" does not necessarily follow.

(IFF) different humans can view the same thing differently (THEN) that thing is SUBJECTIVE

(sometimes good and sometimes bad and sometimes neutral based on the context)


can you use this conditional statement as an example and explain exactly where you see an error

 

[Old Things]

You really need to stop doing these "if, then" things because there are almost always hidden premises when you do that.

can you please be slightly more specific

Most of the time when you do an "if" the "then" does not necessarily follow.

(IFF) different humans can view the same thing differently (THEN) that thing is SUBJECTIVE

(sometimes good and sometimes bad and sometimes neutral based on the context)


can you use this conditional statement as an example and explain exactly where you see an error

The statement is correct, however, that was not what your original premise was that "(IFF) objective truth is identical to all possible observers (THEN) if even one person can perceive it, that means ALL POSSIBLE OBSERVERS necessarily perceive it, without any variation in scope or clarity" But that's the thing. It is not necessary for everyone to view the same thing for something to be objective. I can be a 2 year old and have no idea that 2+2=4 but that does not in any way invalidate whether 2+2=4 because 2+2=4 is true even if no one knows about it.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

But that's the thing. It is not necessary for everyone to view the same thing for something to be objective. I can be a 2 year old and have no idea that 2+2=4 but that does not in any way invalidate whether 2+2=4 because 2+2=4 is true even if no one knows about it.

mathematical statements are conditional statements

if you believe mathematical statements are "objective"

then we need to revisit your personally preferred definition of "objective truth"


because some people might think a particular instance of 2 - 2 = 0 is a "good thing"

and someone else might think that exact same instance of 2 - 2 = 0 is a "bad thing"

 

[Old Things]

But that's the thing. It is not necessary for everyone to view the same thing for something to be objective. I can be a 2 year old and have no idea that 2+2=4 but that does not in any way invalidate whether 2+2=4 because 2+2=4 is true even if no one knows about it.

mathematical statements are conditional statements

if you believe mathematical statements are "objective"

then we need to revisit your personally preferred definition of "objective truth"


because some people might think a particular instance of 2 - 2 = 0 is a "good thing"

and someone else might think that exact same instance of 2 - 2 = 0 is a "bad thing"

You are confusing what the word "objective" means. Things that are objective do not depend on preference.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Things that are objective do not depend on preference.

i see

so in other words

objects

and strict claims about objects

are

always

completely divorced from AXIOLOGY