Subjective Proof

[atanu]

Personal : belonging to or affecting a particular person rather than anyone else.
Do you want a link to google?

Yeah. The below is from WIKI:

A person is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility.[1][2][3][4] The defining features of personhood and consequently what makes a person count as a person differ widely among cultures and contexts.

In addition to the question of personhood, of what makes a being count as a person to begin with, there are further questions about personal identity and self: both about what makes any particular person that particular person instead of another, and about what makes a person at one time the same person as they were or will be at another time despite any intervening changes.​

Not very simple actually.

So, I asked you "what is 'personal' exactly to you? And what is personal freedom for gaining objective knowledge?

Just asking out of curiosity.

 

[atanu]

I have a philosophical topic for this thread, but it directly impacts revealed religion. The topic is subjective proof, i.e. knowledge that is private, which is to say for one person alone to know.
​

- Evidence that convinces one of the truth is proof.
- Proof is objective, such that anyone who approaches it can know it.
- Proof can be private, in that a person alone has followed the evidence or threads of logic to arrive at the conclusion that is believed.
- Hence, while the truth is available to be revealed to anyone, it is not necessarily the case that anyone can arrive at the truth.

Objections?

No objections at all.

Suppose, I have personally tasted a kind of mango. I have proof that it's taste is fabulous. It is easy for another fellow to verify that. But in matters of revealed religions it may not be so simple yet the private proof holds.

 

[ChristineM]

Yeah. The below is from WIKI:

A person is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility.[1][2][3][4] The defining features of personhood and consequently what makes a person count as a person differ widely among cultures and contexts.

In addition to the question of personhood, of what makes a being count as a person to begin with, there are further questions about personal identity and self: both about what makes any particular person that particular person instead of another, and about what makes a person at one time the same person as they were or will be at another time despite any intervening changes.​

Not very simple actually.

So, I asked you "what is 'personal' exactly to you? And what is personal freedom for gaining objective knowledge?

Just asking out of curiosity.

Person : a human being regarded as an individual

Personal : belonging to or affecting a particular person rather than anyone else.

Note the difference


To me personal is as the definition of personal... I dont need to make anything up to massage superstition.

Your last is irrelevant, however, anyone is free to obtain knowledge of what is and what objective.

 

[Windwalker]

I provided dictionary definitions, are you willing to do the same?

Why would I quote a dictionary as a source of authority on philosophical topics? Why even bother to read about a subject at all, if all you need is to reference a dictionary? Is that the foundation of your worldviews?

 

[ChristineM]

Why would I quote a dictionary as a source of authority on philosophical topics? Why even bother to read about a subject at all, if all you need is to reference a dictionary? Is that the foundation of your worldviews?

That explains so much and you dont even realise it.

Even philosophy needs common definitions so people know what it is talking about.

 

[David T]

Another way to state this is linear vs. non-linear. Linear perception, science, has its place and is included in the non-linear, but it is not the end-all-be-all Truth of reality. Linear language has its functions, but to mistake that as defining Reality is an error of perception.

Yes... I understand that all too well. Way all to well. Spot on.

 

[Windwalker]

That explains so much and you dont even realise it.

Even philosophy needs common definitions so people know what it is talking about.

LOL!

 

[allfoak]

Mmmm…. Maybe not.

If I don't determine the direction of my own life then who does?

 

[allfoak]

You want definition?

Subjective : based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Objective : not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

The definitions are terrible.
The dictionary is not very helpful to discussions like this.
The dictionary will just take you in circles like it always does.
There is no way that those definitions could ever describe the process that we go through to determine what is and what is not truth.

 

[atanu]

Person : a human being regarded as an individual
Personal : belonging to or affecting a particular person rather than anyone else.
Note the difference

What is your definition or your understanding of an individual separate from you? By what objective criteria you decide that there is another person separate from you?

Your last is irrelevant, however, anyone is free to obtain knowledge of what is and what objective.

Not so fast please.

 

[ChristineM]

LOL!

That also is very telling.

So... It seems you believe philosophers make words up and expect people to know the meaning. Correct me if that is incorrect.

 

[ChristineM]

The definitions are terrible.
The dictionary is not very helpful to discussions like this.
The dictionary will just take you in circles like it always does.
There is no way that those definitions could ever describe the process that we go through to determine what is and what is not truth.

If people want to make up definitions to massage their own ego, they are welcome. Me, I'll stick to the internationally accepted dictionary definitions.

 

[ChristineM]

What is your definition or your understanding of an individual separate from you? By what objective criteria you decide that there is another person separate from you?

Not so fast please.

I will repeat in case you missed it first time

Person : a human being regarded as an individual


Why not so fast, i was replying to your post

 

[Windwalker]

That also is very telling.

So... It seems you believe philosophers make words up and expect people to know the meaning. Correct me if that is incorrect.

Philosophers take commonly used words, such as "faith" and give true depth to them, far beyond what you will find in the surface meanings reflected in common use. The understanding of philosophers goes far deeper than what people get from just reading dictionary definitions as a substitute for actual knowledge on topics. You don't get an education from a dictionary. That you seem to suggest dictionaries work well as a substitute for exploring depths of understanding, says something telling as well.

 

[ChristineM]

Philosophers take commonly used words, such as "faith" and give true depth to them, far beyond what you will find in the surface meanings reflected in common use. The understanding of philosophers goes far deeper than what people get from just reading dictionary definitions as a substitute for actual knowledge on topics. You don't get an education from a dictionary. For you to suggest otherwise, says something telling as well.

So what you are saying is philosophers distort the accepted meaning of words so they appeal to people who don't understand the meaning of words?. Fair enough

 

[Windwalker]

So what you are saying is philosophers distort the accepted meaning of words so they appeal to people who don't understand the meaning of words?. Fair enough

No. They create the meanings, and the common minds distort them into an image reflective of their own limited perspectives. They get "dumbed down" in other words.

 

[ChristineM]

No. They create the meanings, and the common minds distort them into an image of themselves.

The common minds take the meanings of words as commonly understood. If you are happy with manipulation of words to massage egos than thats up to you.

 

[Windwalker]

The common minds take the meanings of words as commonly understood. If you are happy with manipulation of words to massage egos than thats up to you.

If you are happy making excuses for you own ignorance by quoting scripture (I mean the dictionary), knock yourself out. Here's what I wrote about dictionaries and the proper understanding of their uses and weakness some time back when encountering others like you who cheat knowledge by quoting dictionaries as if they were "The Word of God". Citing essentially, "It's not my ideas, it's God's!"

The authors of dictionaries are usually some kind of committee. Based on the amount of work a dictionary requires they cannot all be experts in all the relevant fields for every word - you would have to have the entire faculty of several universities working on every dictionary for that! Terms often are loosely defined, sometimes in ways that do deviate from how they actually are used in the relevant fields.

Dictionaries, like every other sufficiently large work made by humans, contain approximations, errors, flaws and oversights. You should not rely on dictionaries to limit understanding to words. At best, they are a starting point, but to really understand words you have to talk to those within the relevant fields. They are the authorities, not dictionaries.
​

Do with that knowledge as you wish.

 

[ChristineM]

If you are happy making excuses for you own ignorance by quoting scripture (I mean the dictionary), knock yourself out. Here's what I wrote about dictionaries and the proper understanding of their uses and weakness some time back when encountering others like you who cheat knowledge by quoting dictionaries as if they were "The Word of God". Citing essentially, "It's not my ideas, it's God's!"

The authors of dictionaries are usually some kind of committee. Based on the amount of work a dictionary requires they cannot all be experts in all the relevant fields for every word - you would have to have the entire faculty of several universities working on every dictionary for that! Terms often are loosely defined, sometimes in ways that do deviate from how they actually are used in the relevant fields.

Dictionaries, like every other sufficiently large work made by humans, contain approximations, errors, flaws and oversights. You should not rely on dictionaries to limit understanding to words. At best, they are a starting point, but to really understand words you have to talk to those within the relevant fields. They are the authorities, not dictionaries.
​

Do with that knowledge as you wish.

And your doctorate in linguistics was earned where?

I am not interested in your delusions about what words should and should not be accepted just because the accepted definition pops your bubble.

How do you think people would communicate effectively if they ignored dictionaries and instead made up their own bull... Ahh right.

Oh and how long have you been arbiter of gods ideas?

 

[Windwalker]

And your doctorate in linguistics was earned where?

I assume you have a doctorate in linguistics? If not, then how are you assuming your "dictionary only" approach to knowledge is the one true path to education?

I am not interested in your delusions about what words should and should not be accepted just because the accepted definition pops your bubble.

All I am saying is the "common use" of words, is just the surface meanings, which when you explore beneath the surface, has far greater depth that what the common use conveys. I'm honestly not sure how you could argue otherwise rationally. I've never connected atheism with anti-intellectualism, but I am rethinking that assumption on my part based on our interactions.

How do you think people would communicate effectively if they ignored dictionaries and instead made up their own bull... Ahh right.

They are using their brains to understand there is more to truth that what average "common" assumptions of truth and meaning are. They are explorers of truth, which you, glibly, call "egotism". That's the same sort of response you get from fundamentalists against institutions of higher education, "them damn intellectuals from out East thinkin they know everything!." This was the birth of modern fundamentalism in response to modernity. Your thinking and rhetoric appears to mirror theirs well.

Oh and how long have you been arbiter of gods ideas?

?