mistyfox812 said:The big question is: HOW can we actually know what's true? Or even better, WHO knows the truth? Unless we actually know it (or someone else does), there’s no way to measure how far off we are from it. Otherwise, it's all just an illusion.
I'm definitely not saying that what the majority thinks is the same thing as the truth—not at all. I just feel like communication is basically this desperate attempt to bridge the massive gap that exists between every single one of us. Sure, people love to talk about a "higher consciousness," a "collective mind," or whatever, but you can't prove any of that stuff. So we're stuck with language, which is such a crappy, insufficient tool for trying to trade our individual "truths."
I'm not claiming to know what the "real" truth is, I'm just saying it feels out of reach—to put it super simply: "it doesn't exist" for us.😉
Well, yeah, but that "super simple" part is exactly where the trouble starts. Because if you say truth doesn't exist, then as far as I can see, talking becomes either totally pointless or it's just everyone trying to agree with each other. If we don't write off talking as pointless—since we're literally doing it right now and trying to be clear—then we're left with the second option: speech is just social alignment. And that would mean the majority is automatically "right," and anyone who doesn't fit in is "wrong," because if there's no truth, there's no "right or wrong," just "aligned or unaligned." If we reject *that* idea too (which I think both you and I have), then honestly, it feels like there *has* to be some kind of truth out there. I mean, I think there's a standard for truthfulness—whether it's obvious or hidden—that isn't just some social contract or a group agreement, but something universal.
Just because we can't clearly see that standard, or maybe it isn't explicitly laid out, doesn't mean it isn't there.
When I use the word 'standard,' I don't mean like a ruler you can hold in your hand, but more like... 'the true measure.'
swiftcobra15 said:Just because everyone agrees doesn't mean there's one truth out there. Talking is really just our attempt to align our own truths—not like we're voting on them or anything😁—because at the end of the day, humans are social animals. We can't survive without each other. ;
Can one single person actually get closer to the truth than everyone else combined? Honestly, I think they can. If that’s true, it means truth isn't just whatever the majority opinion in the US decides; it's something that can totally clash with what people believe. Truth can be disruptive. Sometimes it's so blunt you can't dodge it, even if everyone wishes they could. To me, it feels like truth exists, even if it's a rare find.
Bringing all those different pieces together into one whole... yeah, that's basically what the concept is all about.
MY BAD: totally hit "edit" instead of "quote" by mistake and completely butchered the N&N post - swiftcobra15
N&N: A single perspective never tells the whole story. But just because truth is subjective doesn't mean there isn't some actual truth out there...
swiftcobra15: Doesn't mean there's just one single truth, either. Conversation is really just our way of trying to align our own truths (not just vote them into existence😁), because at the end of the day, humans are social creatures who can't survive without each other.;
"A thing isn't just a collection of its traits. Like, raisins are part of a cookie, right? We say there are raisins *in* the cookie or it's a raisin cookie. But at the end of the day, those raisins *are* the cookie too. They're part of the whole. And honestly? You’re just as much a part of whatever you make up."
J. Edgar Hoover, Encyclopedia Nullified, entry for 'absence'
mistyscout2 said:Do you guys think double majoring in philosophy alongside English or maybe American Studies actually pays off down the road? Whether it's teaching or some other career path, I don't care—just wondering. How many people here have done this, and what’s the vibe (either your own experience or just stuff you've seen from friends)? I feel like there are plenty of people out there doing it, but I really want to hear from others. I'm thinking about signing up; honestly, I'll probably end up at a philosophy department regardless, but I'm just not sure if it's a smart combo. English is my main thing for sure, while philosophy is one of those "heavy hitter" subjects I'd love to pick up.
English paired with philosophy? That's a killer combo. Use English to get the job, use philosophy to feed your soul (though, fair warning, there are a ton of unemployed philosophy professors out there lol). Just follow your heart.
mistyscout2 said:Second thing—why are so many unbearable jerks unable to handle someone being passionate about something, specifically when it comes to philosophy or the humanities? It honestly makes me sick how some people act, even if they're just being verbally toxic.
Even though Pandora gave great advice about using your own disgust as a way to understand the situation, I gotta say that being intolerant toward passion (what those jerks do) and being intolerant toward intolerance (what mistyscout2 is doing) aren't exactly the same thing.
While you guys were busy having this deep, meaningful dialogue 🙂, I was just over here by myself (not in the best way lol) typing up this massive, mile-long lecture 🙂 which you can actually go check out in that new thread I just started. I mean, if those "higher forms of matrix consciousness" (or whatever you want to call them) are actually working, then it makes sense that I spent my solo time rambling about the exact same stuff you all are discussing right here. Catch ya later. 🙂
mistyfox812 said:Some things are just better left alone. Trying to remake a masterpiece usually ends up being pretty pointless.
Alright, finally sat down to watch it, so now I can officially disagree with myself. 😁 Even if it doesn't quite hit the heights of the original—or even the usual high bar set by the Coen brothers—it’s still a blast. That Pancake guy was great, and Wayans actually holds his own (turns out he can be hilarious when he's kept on a leash).
And honestly, that powerhouse actor totally settles the whole Griffin debate from that old "your casting for Alan Ford" thread. Wayans would actually make a solid Bob Rock. 😁
If some things are just better than others, I guess that means those better things have more quality, right? But seriously, how do you actually define "quality" if you strip away all the objects that possess it?
If we can't define what quality is, how do we even know when we're seeing it? And honestly, how do we even know it exists in the first place?
Quality usually hangs out in a pair with quantity.
Like, if light changes color, we experience that as a qualitative shift—you know, changing a property that doesn't just turn into another one. But then physics comes along and reduces our observation of red turning into blue down to a quantitative change, basically just a shift in wavelength.
So here's the kicker: can *every* qualitative change be boiled down to a quantitative one? For instance, can the fact that one guy is smarter than another be reduced to some quantitative difference? Like, he just has more of this thing we call "intelligence"? In a way, yeah, we've got IQ tests that give us these numerical, quantitative indicators. Can the fact that one girl is prettier than another be reduced to a number? Like she has more of a quality called "beauty"? People try to do that with stuff like Miss USA pageants, where one girl gets a 9.84 and the other gets a 9.92 or something. But let's be real, that isn't a true measure of beauty. The extreme version of this obsession with turning everything into numbers and quantities is just measuring everything by money. It's like money is this supposed universal yardstick. More cash equals more "quality." But honestly, that just wipes out all the actual qualitative variety and leaves you with nothing but raw numbers.
I'm just trying to show here why this whole push to represent reality as nothing but pure numbers totally falsifies what's actually real.
Logic is basically just this formal discipline. If Savannah is bigger than Washington, D.C., but smaller than a small town in rural America, then Washington, D.C. is definitely smaller than that small town in rural America. That’s a true statement. It doesn't even matter what "Savannah," "Washington, D.C.," or "small town in rural America" actually mean or how big they really are. You could just swap them out for A, B, and C to make it look more official: If A is greater than B and less than C, then B is less than C. And that works for any A, B, or C you throw at it. So, basically, logic totally ditches the idea of truth being about "matching reality to words" and just focuses on whether the statements themselves are internally consistent.
Look, I’ll be the first one to admit that logic isn't the ultimate way to communicate. Sometimes poetry can convey or show the truth way better, even if it doesn't care about logic or grammar. Truth in speech—logos, if you want to get fancy—isn't always logical truth.
But when we're playing in the sandbox of logic, all that matters is the structure of the statement, regardless of what it's actually about.
The Liar's Paradox is huge because it's such a simple, historical example of a logical paradox caused by self-reference. That whole concept became a massive deal in the 20th century because it exposed the flaws in trying to ground mathematics through logic—specifically regarding Gödel's theorems. I won't try to explain those theorems myself; I read about them once and think I got it, but honestly, I've forgotten most of it. All I remember is they get super messy if you try to be precise, which you absolutely have to be when you're talking about the link between logic and math. Anyway, just wanted to share that much to show the cool possibilities hidden in this paradox. If anyone's interested, go grab a copy of the book on Gödel's theorems.
Eric Bennett79 said:Look at the statement "The truth is that three is five" – that’s just semantically nonsense and totally contradictory. It's a logically flawed claim right from the jump because, well, the whole idea of "truth" relies on a description actually matching reality. Since three obviously isn't five, the sentence is broken before you even get started. It's the same deal with an autoreferential claim like "this sentence is false." That one is paradoxical from the get-go, and there's honestly no point in overanalyzing it because any conclusion we reach is just gonna loop back to that same starting problem. Any kind of contradictory claim should just be tossed out immediately.
Man, saying "The truth is that three is five" is just plain old wrong. There's zero paradox involved there. But when you say "this sentence is false," *that's* where the paradox kicks in, strictly because the sentence is talking about itself. Honestly, comparing those two things is a total stretch.
feralharbor2 said:But look, it's actually super obvious—those kinds of Paradoxes are just total nonsense. It's because a sentence like "this sentence is true" doesn't actually carry any semantic weight. Truth is basically just how a statement matches up with something real out there in the world (otherwise, talking about correspondence makes zero sense). So, logic here is just trying to draw conclusions from statements that don't mean anything, which makes the whole process pretty pointless. There isn't a real Paradox happening here; it’s more like people just fail to see how stupid it is to mechanically apply formal logic without actually looking at the content, you know? The semantics.
Yeah, I get that. That Paradox is meant to show that even logic itself has its limits. Since we tend to treat logic like this ultimate, universal truth, it's pretty wild to see exactly where it starts to break down.
Actually, the original Liar's Paradox did have some actual semantic substance, even if it hit the same point. It went like, "All Cretans are liars"—said by a Cretan (basically a guy from Crete).
And honestly, the way DJ_Beli12 put it really highlights the flaw in skeptical arguments: saying "There is no absolute Truth." Because when a skeptic says that, they're treating it as something that's always and everywhere valid—which makes it an absolute Truth. So, they end up failing to actually practice the very relativism they're preaching.
Turns out our totally hypocritical, half-baked traffic laws actually have some measurable perks—like, way fewer people dying on the road. I hear this all the time, honestly. It’s like those super liberal laws that basically trust citizens to be free and responsible just end up being weaker (evolutionarily speaking 😉) than these annoying, hypocritical rules that treat us more like toddlers or teenagers going through puberty. Maybe there's actually something big to be said about Americans after all. Too bad.
DJ Khaled said:My bad, I totally thought we were hanging out in some deep philosophy forum here... BUT LET'S ASSUME we are! The whole point isn't even about finding the truth, it's about the paradox created by the example itself. 😉
Look, if you're gonna do this, formulate the paradox properly—you know, the way it was laid out two thousand years ago. We're talking about the Liar's Paradox. Is the statement "this sentence is false" true or false? If it's true, then it's actually false. But if it's a double negative, then it's an affirmation, which means it's true only if it's false. Total paradox.
I can't find a single thread... is it seriously possible that nobody has anything to say about this movie? If nothing else, it looks stunning, honestly just like a Delft painting. Here’s my little brain dump after watching it.
A Frozen Tragedy It’s pretty obvious as the movie unfolds that everything is heading toward a total disaster. He’s gonna lose his family and any chance at doing what he lives for, and she’s gonna lose her entire world—her family, her reputation, basically any way to fit back into society. People always throw around that line: "We'll stay together even if the world ends." But here, that’s literal: the price of them being together is the absolute destruction of his world and hers, the whole reality she exists in. When his wife tells him, "Get out of my house," everything is laid bare. It's one or the other. He chooses his own world over hers, which kind of halts the tragedy. In a weird way, there's a > vibe because she ends up marrying some young, hot butcher, so she isn't a maid anymore. And he keeps painting, having actually made money off the work. But still, you can tell "it's just not it." The real tragedy is that the heartbreak is unavoidable. If a person rebels against their place in the world—refuses to accept it—fate punishes them for that hubris, for defying the "will of the gods." But if they don't rebel and just swallow their fate and accept where they belong, you're left with this bitter taste that "this isn't it."
All that's left for a person is art. That's the one place where you can push past the boundaries of destiny without the gods coming after you. In art, "it" can finally be achieved without the unbearable consequence of tearing your whole life apart. In the Delft painting, Gretchen becomes who she truly is: the "Girl with a Pearl Earring." And the version of her captured in that painting feels way more real than the actual reality of her being a maid or a butcher's wife.
I’m pretty sure I’m gonna die one day. And honestly? I have zero clue when. It’s totally possible that today could be my last ride on this planet. But man, I am certain about one thing: when that moment actually hits, I don't want to be sitting there thinking, "Wait, what the hell was I even doing with my final day?"
I guess that’s about the only thing I’m actually sure of.
restlesseagle15 said:Honestly, you could argue that nobody is just looking for safety.
But then again, there probably aren't any people out there—not really—who don't want security at all, which is basically what this whole thread is built on.
Here’s the real kicker: is that sense of security actually everyone's top priority, like how Nemesis represents it? Or is it the kind of thing that makes some people think of death—you know, like being buried six feet under? It’s something a lot of folks would happily run away from, choosing to dive headfirst into risk or total uncertainty instead.