Posts by Adam Martin

Amanda Jackson5 said:Well, you've certainly given me something to chew on. I suppose I wasn't being quite clear enough. Objective truth is a massive headache in its own right, but if we just look at it through the lens of everyday life—say, when we're discussing those undeniable, proven facts you find in a science textbook—then there are definitely clear criteria. We know the Earth orbits the Sun and that water is made of H2O molecules; those aren't matters of opinion. When it comes to values, though, we don't even need criteria at certain levels because, take a traditional, conservative community for example, those values are just assumed to be unquestionable, intuitively obvious, or even divinely ordained, so people don't debate them; they just live by them. But once a society fractures into various subcultures, each building its own ethical, aesthetic, and interpretive frameworks, you end up with a messy web of competing value systems. It leads to a breakdown in social cohesion, but that's a conversation for another day. As for how multiple philosophies can all be partially true, that was settled by the Hegelian synthesis and the ultimate conclusion of all philosophy: that truth is a whole.

Okay, this makes sense. But I see a potential circular definition problem here. Basically, we're defining truth as a scientific fact right out of the gate, then layering on stuff that isn't scientifically provable but we still call "true." Let's agree that we can't assign value to a scientific fact. The fact that water is H2O doesn't have a "value"—positive or negative. It just is. With philosophy, we start having preferences, but Hegel clearly pushed back against that, trying to make it as unbiased and objective as the laws of nature. The less certain a fact is, the more subject to valuation it becomes. Since we aren't 100% sure if something is true, we try to rank it, which leads us to assign it a positive or negative value.

So, you could flip it and say that what is "true" is what we *can't* value, while anything we *can* value is somehow distanced from the truth, or we're just unsure of its status regarding the principle of truth. Because of that uncertainty, we try to objectify it by assigning it a value. Back in the day, in stable social communities, these values were uniform and unquestioned. But now, with the rise of subcultures and pockets of misinformation or nonsense popping up within the dominant system, the problem becomes unsolvable again. Put simply, we can't separate the wheat from the chaff because we lack reliable criteria. Not to mention that "scientific truth," much like "philosophical truth," has lost its status as an absolute. It can be challenged by any other truth claiming universality—artistic, religious, spiritual, etc. If things were different, "creationists" wouldn't even be allowed to debate "evolutionists." And to make it even wilder, even among scientists, there are people who should theoretically share one single truth, yet they don't.

Amanda Jackson5 said:We really need to draw a line between truth and objectivity versus what we call "values." One side of that coin relies on much more concrete, measurable criteria, whereas values are essentially just a reflection of our collective spirit and whatever social norms happen to be in vogue at the moment. It’s pretty common sense, really—everyone knows that not everything carries the same weight or importance.

Respectfully, man, I have to disagree. Collective vibes and traditions might be limited, but they actually provide pretty solid benchmarks for values. Plus, an individual can totally develop their own set of standards too.

Truth and this whole "objectivity" thing are actually the ones without clear rules. Proof? If that weren't the case, you wouldn't have a hundred different versions of truth or a hundred different philosophies out there—all claiming to be true. 😂

ironmarlin1 said:This entire thread brings to mind that fat moray eel—but in a completely different sense. It’s all those utterly pointless tangents about politicians drifting into deep philosophical discussions, or being interrupted by tedious news cycles involving Luka Bebić, Pride parades, San Diego, and local eccentricities like Kerum. Or, at least, that’s just my hunch.

People certainly do think, I’ll give them that much. It’s just that, more often than not, they aren't actually dwelling on the things you imagine they are when you're busy theorizing about what's going on inside their heads. It seems like you were about to say something—perhaps a thought that was cut short or an idea that was just beginning to take shape? It feels a bit like standing at the edge of a vast canyon in Arizona, staring into the mist, waiting for the landscape to reveal itself, only to have a sudden gust of wind sweep the view away before you can truly grasp it. If there was a point you were trying to drive home, please, do continue. I’m all ears. Think about it. Almost every conviction we hold, or even just a single sentence we utter, is the byproduct of an actual, structured thought. You might find yourself disagreeing with a particular sentiment, or perhaps you feel it’s trivial and misses the mark entirely, but that is a fundamentally different diagnosis than the claim that people simply aren't thinking—that they are merely "surviving." To suggest that humans are operating on pure instinct alone, devoid of cognitive processing, is a fallacy; after all, true survival would be an impossibility without the capacity to think.

I've got my own take on this. Honestly, you just can't write a post as good as mine, so you're acting jealous and trying to gaslight me. I only brought those topics up because the OP mentioned a specific type of political correctness and tolerance that forces people to argue based on current politics. You just aren't thinking deep enough to see that.

People definitely think. It's just that maybe they aren't thinking about the things you think they should be thinking about. But pretty much every solid belief or statement is a formed thought. You might disagree with it or feel it's trivial, but that's totally different from saying people don't think and are just "surviving." You can't survive without thinking.

That Flaubert guy you're into wrote the "Dictionary of Received Ideas," which is basically a catalog of recycled nonsense found at the end of "Bouvard and Pecuchet." Now, are you going to tell me that Bouvard and Pecuchet—who are basically just clueless, ridiculous small-town folks in the book—came up with those ideas themselves? Nope. They just grabbed them, just like we do today. That line about "every formed belief being a formed thought" sounds exactly like something pulled straight from a textbook; it doesn't feel like an original thought to me. And sure, people think when they're surviving—they make choices and weigh options—but they aren't forming real opinions. Doing that requires a level of abstract thinking they just don't need in their day-to-day lives.

I see what you're doing—trying to tear down any standard for having an opinion, using that whole "opinions are like butts..." line. And honestly, you're spot on.

There’s another messy layer to this. Back in the days of totalitarian regimes, the Party held the monopoly on "correct" thinking. In those dark eras, they had this concept of "self-criticism," where you'd basically have to repent because your views didn't align with the party line. It wasn't some joke; you could end up at Alcatraz or facing an interrogation just for a "verbal offense" until you finally swallowed your pride. This whole system was cooked up during the Inquisition, and even the sacrament of confession is pretty much the same thing. Even Luka Bebić’s quote about defending an opinion different from his own traces back to those vibes.

Things are different now.
Nowadays, people feel forced to repent simply because they disagree with the crowd; they're labeled "unconstructive" just for being different. Nobody actually cares what they think unless they have money to back it up. We don't even hear the opinions of the wealthy, because why would they bother sharing them with us? They're too busy executing their own plans to give us a heads-up.

It’s become more important to parrot someone else's view than to actually have your own.

Why? Because most people aren't really thinking anyway. They've got better things to do than contemplate life. They’ve got shopping to do, or just trying to survive. They care about sex. They're busy testing out new toys. So, the system frees them from the awkward burden of actual thought and the need to have opinions on important stuff—they just need to accept the "alternative" views that are served to them on a silver platter. For example: "I accept that Pride parades are good and necessary. I don't really have a personal take on it, but whatever. I accept a different opinion from my own, which I don't even have." It's way more efficient—no coercion or interrogations required, and the result is basically the same. 😁