Posts by Harold Doyle3

Amanda Jackson5 said:It’s a bit of both, really. They are, because they both represent a state of absolute, immediate indeterminacy. But they aren't, because their actual definitions sit on completely opposite sides of the spectrum. That’s why you can't really pull them apart; you have to view them as part of the same unified concept.

Is that what metaphysics deals with? Colloquially speaking, I mean—half-truths?

Amanda Jackson5 said:Facts have an opposite, obviously. It’s basically anything that doesn't qualify as a fact. As for what a "half-fact" would even look like, I honestly couldn't tell you—I don't think I've ever actually used that term in my life. You hear people toss around "half-truths" all the time in casual conversation, sure, but if we were sitting in some high-level philosophy seminar or a logic lecture, that wouldn't really hold much water.

I can't say I've ever really understood why people get so worked up about Orah. It’s one of those things that seems to occupy way more headspace than it actually deserves, almost like watching someone try to explain the intricate nuances of a local deli sandwich when we all know it's just bread and meat. It feels like a lot of noise over something that doesn't fundamentally change the landscape, much like how some folks obsess over a minor policy tweak at a company like Starbucks while ignoring the fact that the coffee is still just coffee. You have to wonder if there's some deeper subtext I'm missing, or if it's just another case of people finding excitement in the mundane. kaže:
If you think the absence of a fact counts as its opposite, you’re missing the point entirely. It doesn't work like that. If you take "nothingness" and pair it with an actual "thing," you just end up back at the thing itself—it's like trying to subtract zero from a dozen apples; you aren't left with anything different. And if you try to pit a thing against its direct opposite, they don't just cancel each other out into a void; instead, you usually end up with some kind of messy synthesis made of whatever scraps are left over, which means they weren't truly opposites to begin with.

The negation of an object—or even just the concept of a non-thing—basically encompasses everything that fails to qualify as a tangible entity. It’s easy to get lost in the weeds here, but we have to acknowledge there's a massive landscape of entities out there that simply aren't "things." In its purest sense, a non-thing is nothingness. And if you want to play the philosophical game, the direct opposite of that void is existence itself.

That’s fair enough, but I’m really just trying to use it in its actual, intended sense—you know, from a more philosophical standpoint, like when you're diving into metaphysics or logic.

I’m with you there. Truth is really just an epistemological concept—it’s all about that complicated tug-of-war between the subject and the object, or more simply put, the friction between what we perceive in our heads and what actually exists in reality.

There isn't some grand sequence of events here. We’re just playing around with colloquialisms at this point. Truth doesn't come in layers or stages; there is only one version of it, which is simply when a person holds an accurate perception of the reality existing outside themselves.

I’m on the same page as you there, but what I’m really chewing on is the philosophical distinction between truth and a fact—you can't really untangle them until we pin down some solid definitions for both terms.

Look, I hate to be the one to double down here, but I’m sticking to my guns: 2+2 equals 4, period. It doesn't matter how you slice it or what angle you take; it's a baseline fact, and unless someone can walk in here and actually dismantle that logic with a coherent, rational argument—which, let's face it, isn't happening—it remains the truth. Sure, we could play around with the idea that 2+2 equals whatever we want it to for the sake of some poetic flair or creative license, but that's just playing with semantics; it doesn't change the reality of the math. I suspect the real friction in this conversation stems from people blurring the lines between concrete facts and abstract concepts. You can get away with mixing those two worlds in specific arenas, like when you're navigating the nuances of high finance or interpreting a piece of modern art, provided everyone implicitly agrees on the rules of engagement. But outside of those niche contexts, trying to blend them just results in a lot of noise without any actual substance.

🤔 Didn't you claim once upon a time that "nothingness" and "being" were actually the exact same thing?

Amanda Jackson5 said:If we follow that line of reasoning, everything would have an opposite, which would mean everything is relative, and we’d quickly run into a logical mess. The opposite of truth is a lie; the opposite of good is evil, so by that logic, both good and evil become relative. The opposite of life is death, making life relative too. Even the opposite of existence is nothingness, so existence and nothingness would be relative, and so on. Using that same flawed logic, the opposite of a fact is a non-fact, which would somehow make the fact itself relative. But obviously, having an opposite isn't the same thing as being relative. Relativity just means something is defined in relation to something else, and that "something else" doesn't necessarily have to be its direct opposite. You wouldn't say truth is relative because it depends on lies; rather, it's considered relative because it isn't absolute. It’s much like facts—either they exist or they don't. And really, the exact same rule applies to truth: it either exists or it doesn't.
Now, let's look at how Wikipedia defines it:
"Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality."
(Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality)

I think a fact doesn't actually have an opposite. What even is a "non-fact"? Or a "semi-fact"? With truth, it's clear what a "half-truth" or a "lie" is.

If a thing (or a fact) doesn't exist, that isn't its "opposite," because "not existing" plus "a thing" just equals the thing itself, whereas a "thing" and its true "opposite" would result in "nothing" (they cancel each other out). Or they might produce some sort of synthesis from leftovers that don't actually cancel out, which means they aren't truly opposites.

Mark Torres14 said:Look, the terms "truth" and "fact" are so broad I doubt they can even exist independently. There's always someone's version of the truth—absolute, relative, whatever—and you could slap those same adjectives onto the word "fact" too.

Honestly, I think it would be more accurate to just use the terms "half-truth" and "half-fact."
Now, "half-truth" makes a certain amount of sense... but "half-fact"? 🤔

Amanda Jackson5 said:I’m sitting here just as lost as everyone else, basically waiting by the mailbox for three days straight hoping someone might finally explain the nuance between what counts as a cold, hard fact versus what we call the truth.

Look, truth can be subjective—it has an opposite, which makes it relative. But a fact? A fact doesn't have an opposite. It either exists or it doesn't. Simple as that.

Calling something "the truth" is just a pathetic way to label a fact.
Pathos kills everything—love, passion, even the pursuit of wisdom itself.

Truth might be a matter of perspective, but a fact? A fact is set in stone.

Because it’s how we go about chasing our own desires.
We even build the very weapons used to tear down what we’ve made.

steelridge58 said:👍

ruggedraven36 said:

I've always felt like a bit of a clumsy soul when it comes to navigating the great outdoors, but there’s just something about hitting the trails that makes me feel more alive than anything else. I guess you could call me a hiker, though I usually spend more time tripping over tree roots than actually looking at the view, which is pretty typical for me, really. Still, nothing beats that feeling of finally reaching a summit after a grueling climb, even if my legs are shaking like leaves in a storm by the end of it. kaže: At the end of the day, philosophy still hasn't actually managed to wrap its head around those fundamental questions it started with in the first place—you know, the big ones like who I really am, where I came from, where I'm headed, and what the point of any of this is.

It honestly reminds me of Paris—that whole idea that we’re just tossed into this world without any kind of roadmap or instruction manual.

If you ask me, this whole situation just can't be separated from the question of ethics.
And that brings us right back to the whole issue of borders.
It really boils down to a question of ethics, doesn't it?
I guess what we’re really talking about here might just be the sheer breadth of what's actually possible.
Or, what can a man even do about it?

We always end up bending ethics to fit "field conditions"—you know, the current zeitgeist and historical context. It’s nothing new.

ruggedraven36 said:The guy’s got plenty of both—objectivity and subjectivity, if you can even call it that.

...says the human-centric egoist.☕

ruggedraven36 said:What's wrong with being an anthropocentrist? I am one—and I say that with zero apologies.

Objectivity.

Nicholas Grant20 said:And then you'd probably just get told that the guy is the one who invented UX anyway.

ACreator with a capital C!😁

Sandra Murphy33 said:Since philosophy hasn't actually managed to crack the code on what a human being is—leaving religion and science to fight over the scraps of an answer—everything else feels like it’s just drifting aimlessly in the void...
It's surreal. There is simply no solid ground to stand on.

The search for "Who am I?" remains an ongoing investigation.

I say we just build a UI and let it give us the answer ourselves.

James Lee77 said:Man, you actually nailed it. "Being lacks substance." I mean, if something doesn't have any substance, what does it have? Nothing. And what is it that lacks substance? Nothingness. So, Being basically just turned into nothing.

So what is nothingness? It's just the thing that has no substance. Nothingness is basically... Nothingness somehow exists. How? Just like anything else that lacks substance. You're calling that "Being." "Being lacks substance." Basically, nothingness became being.

The way Being shifts into nothing is just vanishing. And when nothing shifts into Being, that's becoming. So, vanishing and becoming? That's just "becoming" itself.

Yeah, I actually went back and forth on this exact point with Sigmund (by the way, where is he? I hope he's doing alright; if he’s just taking a break from posting but still lurking, well, cheers to you, Sigmund!)

That whole process of being turning into nothingness? It's just shifting from hollow to empty.

So, what’s your take on the difference between who you are right now and who you were three days ago?

Are you any "less" you if, heaven forbid, you lose an arm in an accident? Or if you just happen to forget an experience?

ruggedraven36 said:I have no idea what you're even asking me.

Is pure me really any different from pure garbage?

ruggedraven36 said:I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve dropped a clumsy phrase on this forum, only to catch it later—usually, I just stay quiet and hope nobody else notices my slip-up. Case in point: I just used the expression "apply dialectics." It’s nonsense. You don't "apply" dialectics—that's not how it works. Dialectics teaches us that the method is inseparable from the substance itself, not some external tool you just slap onto a subject from the outside.

So essence has no content? Is there no dialectic there?
By what method did Hegel arrive at being—the transition from essence to non-essence and back again?

ruggedraven36 said:It's both—simple as that. If I didn't stay fundamentally the same, I wouldn't be able to grow at all. Otherwise, it wouldn't even count as my change.

If what stays the same is the essence... then what changes is just the byproduct, right?

ruggedraven36 said:Look, whenever anyone starts talking about "who they are," they’re really just talking about their whole damn self. Why would I be any less me—or not exist at all—if I stripped away the very things that make me unique? The "Who am I?" question is universal, sure, but... It’s more than just that. It’s a universal question, really. I can't tell you if this thing is just me—some deep-seated personal quirk—or if it's something specific that isn't part of my DNA. The truth? It’s both. You can't untangle them. They're fused together.

The line between the individual and the collective is so blurred it’s almost pointless—once you pin down one, you’ve basically grabbed the other by the throat. It's all the same thing. When someone starts baring their soul about their own specific, messy life experiences, anyone listening realizes they're just looking at a mirror of their own universal human experience. And vice versa—you start talking about those big, sweeping "human truths," and suddenly everyone’s seeing their own personal struggles reflected back at them. It's a loop. You can't have one without the other.

Is the "you" sitting there right now exactly the same person who was here, say, three days ago... or have you changed?

ruggedraven36 said:So, what’s this "procedure"?

Dialectics!

Why on earth aren't you applying Marx right now?
He actually laid out a specific procedure for how to answer that very question.