James Lee77 said:So, I think I get your point: basically, gravity didn't even exist before Newton because nobody had agreed on what it was yet. Then, once Newton showed up, it suddenly became a thing. And after Einstein, it still exists, but it shifted because he convinced everyone to buy into his theory—which is kind of different from Newton’s anyway. So, if Landauer manages to talk everyone into his theory, I guess gravity just vanishes?
I bet this is just another one of those little intelligence tests you're throwing at us. 😉
With every new discovery, we craft new truths. In other words, truth itself is fluid. We humans aren't perfect, and we certainly don't possess absolute knowledge of everything; we simply reach a point where we collectively agree on what we’ll accept as truth or fact at any given moment. That seems to be how it works with science and all these complex subjects. For instance, did you personally sit down and calculate that the Earth revolves around the Sun, or did you just accept the societal consensus that emerged from years of rigorous debate and proof? If you didn't do the math yourself, then you're technically rejecting the general agreement. You end up being labeled a flat-earther or a lunatic, simply because your individual perspective—your very existence, since you walk around on what feels like level ground—clashes with the established consensus. It's a bit of a trap, isn't it?
But when you strip it down to pure logic, things are much more straightforward. For example, anyone capable of thought will inevitably hold opinions. We can all agree on that, can't we? That's one thing we won't have trouble settling.
James Lee77 said:But honestly, how can we even be sure that in twenty, fifty, or maybe even a hundred years, they won't just decide this whole thing is garbage? I mean, if they agreed on one thing before and then flipped the script completely, how do we know they won't just change their minds again?
If that's the case, then we're just waiting for a new "truth" to be handed down. You brought up gravity, for instance... look, we accept gravity as an absolute fact today. But right now, you could hold the (incorrect) opinion that gravity doesn't exist simply because there's a collective social consensus that it does. The moment someone actually proves gravity isn't real, only then could we collectively agree that the force itself was a fabrication.
You mentioned I should have gone into more detail, arguing that it can't just be about consensus. Well, I could have written a whole essay, truly, but I figured I'd just kill two birds with one stone here. Usually, when something is true, it's straightforward enough to say plainly. Honestly, I saw this as a bit of a little IQ test—just to see if anyone would stop and give it a second thought. And what did I get? Zero votes.😁
James Lee77 said:But I mean, there are definitely times where people claimed stuff and everyone just collectively decided they were crazy. Then later on, it turns out they actually were right (or, I guess, we just all agreed they were right now).
I could even give a specific example—there was this guy who was labeled a total crackpot, basically treated like he was losing his mind. Now, people think he was spot on: https://bkoznjak.wordpress.com/2021/...lice-znanosti/
So, like, was it actually true back then that he was a crackpot, or did the "truth" just change? Or maybe he was always right, and we just hadn't reached a consensus on it yet?
Oh, absolutely. Though, looking at what you’ve laid out here... I suppose I’d call it a "truth in the process of becoming." For something to be accepted as fact, people eventually have to be convinced, and ultimately, they have to reach an agreement that it is indeed true. With more complex topics, nothing happens instantly. You need this whole long-winded process of critique, argumentation, and rigorous proof before we can finally settle on and accept a new reality. In the end, I suppose my point stands again. Because, you see, when that particular saying first surfaced, nobody considered it true because they couldn't quite agree on its accuracy. But after the whole proving process played out, they realized they were mistaken and reached a consensus that it really was the truth 🙂
James Lee77 said:Alright, so how many people actually have to agree before something becomes official truth?
I mean, look. For something to be an absolute truth, it either has to be so blindingly obvious that denying it makes you sound completely unhinged—like trying to argue that gravity doesn't exist while you're falling off a skyscraper—or it has to be able to withstand intense scrutiny, passing every single logical test without leaving any room for doubt.
That’s really the only way we can verify anything as truth. Everything else? Well, that's just someone's opinion.
If I were drafting a victory speech, this is how I’d approach it.
I don't personally find that response to be particularly satisfying, so instead, I’m going to act as if my own answer was the one that swept the polls. With that in mind, I'll go ahead and pose a brand new question...
James Lee77 said:But look, your answer got zero votes. So, we basically all agreed your take was trash. That means it’s wrong, because there isn't any other truth besides what we decided on together. I mean, it doesn't make sense for a bad answer to be true—if it were actually true, it would have been a good one. And if it were good, we definitely would've voted for it and agreed it was right.
I’m not disputing that you all voted for the answer you liked best. That’s why it gathered those votes, and that part is factual. We can certainly agree on that much, right?
The thing is, though... that answer didn't get a vote from everyone. I didn't cast one myself, and honestly, I wouldn't have even if I had, because I find the whole thing completely invalid. So, it wasn't some grand universal consensus; it was just a handful of you who liked it.
James Lee77 said:Look, I just laid it all out for you. Let me try one more time.
If we decide that the truth is whatever we collectively agree on, then anyone who pushes back against that agreement is automatically wrong by default—since there isn't any other version of the truth besides the one we settled on.
Do you see where I'm coming from?
Sure, but we really need to break this down... dissect what’s actually happening here and where the "truth" in an agreement actually lies. In this specific instance, the "truth" is simply that you all liked that particular answer the most, so it won. That's just how it works. It's a plain fact.
Now, like I was saying, there's that old saying—everyone's opinion is like their own backyard fence; everyone's got one. That’s another thing we can all agree on, right? Everyone capable of thought has an opinion. Even someone lost in a daydream, or someone high on something making totally detached claims, or even someone struggling with severe OCD who thinks stepping on a crack in the sidewalk will bring about some sort of catastrophe... they all have opinions too.😁
James Lee77 said:But look: we all basically "agreed" that your answer was total garbage—like, we collectively gave it zero stars—yet you’re still out here claiming it’s the "most accurate." How does that even work? I guess what you're saying is that one person—you, for example—can just be right even when they're going against the consensus of everyone else here?
I can see that you all reached a consensus on what might be the absolute worst take on this topic... though, honestly, that's probably because I wasn't active in the comments thread to defend my position.
Look, if you truly believe my argument doesn't hold water, please, go ahead and explain why. I won't have any trouble letting go of the version you guys decided on.
Man, I put my heart into that answer and it got absolutely zero votes. 😁
I’ve always felt that truth is really just whatever we can actually reach an agreement on. It sounds a bit simplistic, maybe even a little cliché, but look at gravity. We can all sit here and agree that gravity is a real, tangible thing, right? So, by that logic, gravity becomes our truth—an undeniable fact.
Then again, you know how people say it... an opinion is like a backside, everyone’s got one. 😛
Sandra Murphy33 said:"All descriptions of reality are merely temporary assumptions."
Buddha
(Quote: "The future of civilization depends most heavily on the relationship established between the two most powerful forces in history: science and religion," A. N. Whitehead)
I find myself nodding along here. It’s funny, really... how many times have we all sat there, absolutely certain of something, only to be proven completely wrong moments later? Or even looking back at the history books—how many "scientific certainties" from a century ago were just tossed out the window once a new discovery came along? I suppose that's just the constant rhythm of human society, isn't it? Always shifting, always adjusting.
Maybe she should try writing something in that vein regarding 🙂
ruggeddriver21 said:A principle without an actual argument is basically just food without any seasoning. Without explaining the cause-and-effect behind it, you don't really have a principle; you just have a rule. I honestly think only people who truly grasp how their actions ripple out to affect the community should be claiming to live by principles. In reality, we don't hold onto principles for our own sake—we do it for everyone else. It’s really just a way to add value to our lives, or maybe just a little way to polish up our egos.
Just imagine this: "I don't buy American products because of my principles." "I won't touch pistachios because they're sourced from Iran." "I refuse to spend a dime on a telecom company owned by foreign interests."
Most of the time, "principles" are nothing more than window dressing without any real substance. They're just another way for us to signal something to the people around us.
Without principles, you aren't really anyone. You have to have them just to possess a legitimate opinion.
So, the whole debate regarding principles is actually a distinction between good, well-founded ones—built on solid arguments—and bad ones, which are trivial or driven purely by ego.
Take this, for example: a principled person will stand up for justice as long as the facts support it. Meanwhile, someone who lacks true principles might still claim to have them, but they are poor principles, so they'll side with whatever benefits them through some crooked logic. Lately, everyone seems to be talking about "authenticity," but honestly? That's just a synonym for being principled.
This whole topic ties in perfectly with that discussion we had about free will. It’s really just two sides of the same coin, isn't it? I mean, in some abstract, philosophical sense, sure, free will exists—but in the actual day-to-day practice of living? Not really.
Just look at how much influence the media can exert over someone's perspective. And it isn't even just about direct brainwashing; it's deeper than that. Our entire social biology kicks in, where people end up echoing the exact same talking points they hear just to feel like they actually belong in the modern era. It becomes this endless, enchanted loop. I mean, think about how many times you've heard people using "2021 was a turning point" as their go-to argument 😁 The reality is that far too few people actually think for themselves. Most people just opt for the path of least resistance. When you sit down, do the math, and realize what the truth actually is, you see it clearly: people become easy to manipulate when you play on those biological instincts we all carry.
I know, I've been through it a few times now. Right now, I'm spending my time with The pity and Dungeon crawl stone soup.
Then again, there are much more complex titles out there... things like Cataclysm DDA, which really leans into that deep marriage of rogue-like mechanics with hardcore survival and crafting. Or you’ve got Battle brothers, which brings a whole different level of tactical depth to the table.
I mean, what do you even mean by "games"? It’s not all one thing. For instance, I personally can't stand most mainstream titles—either they're way too easy and I lose interest immediately, or they're so heavily driven by narrative that it feels less like playing and more like sitting through a movie. But then, I have a real soft spot for roguelikes. You know, those games where you only get one shot at it? If you screw up, you're back at square one, even if you've already sunk three full days into a single run. I look at them as a sort of mental workout. The whole core loop is built around avoiding stupid mistakes, and since no plan ever survives contact with reality, you're forced to learn how to actually adapt using whatever scraps or tools you happen to pick up along the way.
Beyond roguelikes, I also find myself gravitating toward card games and chess.
So, really, you can't just lump all video games into one big bucket. The genres can be worlds apart from each other.
ruggedraven36 said:There’s no such thing as that kind of lunatic. Nobody just wanders through life acting totally at random—well, maybe when they're picking numbers for a Powerball ticket, but that's about it.
Well, there isn't one, really. I was being more symbolic with my phrasing, you see? Just trying to point out that everyone operates under some kind of set of principles, though whether those principles are good or bad is the real question. When people say someone lacks principle, or doesn't have any values, what they're actually implying is that the person's principles are rotten—like, fundamentally corrupt.
Anyway, the whole point of the old saying is that a man stands by his word, while a fool... well, a fool just gets dragged along.
Maybe things would click for you if you used the American term for "principle"—you know, a core set of values. Everything you do should be guided by some sort of underlying principle, unless, of course, you're just a complete lunatic acting entirely at random without any rhyme or reason. Without a foundational principle, you don't even have a starting point from which to actually think or build an argument. So, when you claim that only fools stick to principles, you’ve actually got it backward. Fools have weak principles—that's precisely why they're fools.
Take what you wrote earlier, about how an ox is judged by its horns while a man is judged by his word. Just think about that for a second. What kind of man can you actually hold to his word? Can you really hold a fool to his word? It's a stretch...
At the end of the day, someone with solid principles is usually quite careful about making promises. Meanwhile, a fool will promise the moon to anyone who asks, and I think that's exactly the point of the old saying.
Ideology isn't wisdom, and it certainly isn't philosophy. If anything, I’d argue it’s often the direct antithesis of wisdom, because its whole purpose seems to be shoving people into these tiny, rigid little boxes of behavior based on whatever social engineering trend is currently in vogue. Every ideology eventually collapses or morphs into something else, and honestly, that’s just because it inevitably clashes with human nature. That’s why you could almost call ideology the opposite of wisdom; wisdom strives to be universal and timeless, whereas ideology is always chasing the next fad. It’s honestly a bit disheartening to see people conflate ideology with philosophy, but what can you really expect
Wisdom is just a concept you can apply to any facet of life. It doesn't have a shred of connection to ideology. I tend to define wisdom as a way of acting in the moment to achieve a desired outcome—sort of like a physical formula for living that remains completely neutral. That means you can have tactical wisdom, street smarts, athletic intuition, and so on... basically, whatever you need it to be.
The issue here—and I think this is why people get so confused—is that nowadays, everyone seems to be pushing this version of religious, "positive" wisdom. It’s all sunshine and rainbows, right? So people look at that and think, "Well, that’s all there is." But then you actually sit down with Sun Tzu’s *The Art of War*, which is packed with its own kind of profound insight, or you look at how the Romans handled every single barbarian tribe that came their way with such calculated wisdom 😁 It's that old classic concept, isn't it? Bread and circuses... just feed them and distract them, and you can rule the roost
gentlerider7 said:But look, let's be real, those aren't "wisdom" per se; they're just things a wise person might suggest, but if being "wise" just means being pragmatic, then we might as well define a sage the same way we define a corrupt politician.
Wisdom can actually be quite destructive to society if it only serves the individual—that is, if someone is clever enough to live a life where they never have to feel a shred of guilt. A perfect example would be Marshall; he could mandate socialism for the masses while spending his days smoking Cuban cigars and chasing starlets on a private yacht. Honestly, even some US Presidents have been more "socialist" in their reach than he ever was. The problem is that wisdom often serves the self rather than the community.
It's similar to how you wouldn't call an obese man "wise" when it comes to his physical health. His own choices led him to a state of lethargy and immobility, which is clearly not the result of wise decision-making.
At its core, what people call wisdom is often just cunning—like someone playing a game to win.
Harold Doyle3 said:At its core, wisdom is just the art of living.
Yeah, exactly... if you think about it, even something like meditation—or maybe specific breathing techniques—could be considered wisdom. It’s about having that control, you know? Being able to actually influence the chemical reactions happening inside your own body. And then there's fitness, or just being mindful about what you eat... those are all forms of wisdom too.
You put that really well, kept it concise. That's the kind of wisdom we need more of. 😁