I don't know. Dip a toe in the water, and lets find out.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
100% surity. Does it exist
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
I don't know. Dip a toe in the water, and lets find out.
We Never Know
No Slack
In the thread title... "100% surity. Does it exist" that is the point.
@sun rise in post #2 got that right off.
Last edited:
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
I'm allergic to butter.
Some olive oil should be fine.
Okay, and I said...you don't need 100% certainty to be reasonably confident about things. So whether it exists or not, we can still reasonably say folks are wrong about this or that if we have evidence.
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
You've done this type of thing before.
I have too much spare time.
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
Evidently.
I don't need to acknowledge when I'm being subjective since like everyone else I'm subjective all the time. But perhaps I'm a little more self-conscious about the potential problems of subjectivity than some. That, for example is why I think we can often distinguish accuracy from error in statements about the world external to the self ─ a pleasure you've denied yourself.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
The world can't in the strong sense be totally external to the self, because then you have a strong ontological duality.
The world is in part in you as you, not in you as other humans and not as humans as such. There are 3 parts, the objective, the intersubjective and the subjective.
Your subjective model is that only the real world matters, but that is subjective because it matters to you. To me all 3 parts matter, but they matter differently.
Not quite. My model says that truth is a quality of statements and that a statement is true to the extent that it accurately reflects objective reality ─ the world external to the self. And that a fact is an accurate statement about an objectively existing state of affairs.
And yes, for me, you're part of objective reality, while my pov is, as I said, subjective. And at the same time, if not for you then for the overwhelming majority of other people, I'm part of objective reality, while from the pov of each of them, their own view is subjective while everyone else is part of objective reality.
There are various nuances in there, but that's the working outline.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, but your model is not objective as your model. I don't accept your model, because I accept that you are subjective as you.
You operate with a duality. I operate with at least 3 facts.
So here is one definition of objective that allows for several subjective humans:
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
There is individual thought in all humans and objective in this sense is independent of all humans and not just you.
In effect you are saying that my individual thoughts is not individual, because they are not individual to you.
Yet I still individually answer: No!
That is, I take it, three accurate statements about objectively existing states of affairs.
I think mine is tighter and neater ─ a thing has objective existence if it exists in the world external to the self. (Thus I think microorganisms are real, and I proceed, as does physics, on the basis that there are such real things as quarks and other denizens of the subatomic zoo, although contrary to your definition you can't see them without special instruments, if at all.)
I'm not saying anything even vaguely resembling that. I fully acknowledge your own subjectivity.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
As long as you don't understand that I can effect think and act differently than you, then we won't agree.
To me there is no single self and thus I think and act differently.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Not sure if anyone's mentioned this before, but we can have mathematical certainty about certain things... the Pythagorean theorem, for instance, lets us be certain about the angles of a right triangle.
In matters of a posteriori truth, we can not have 100% surity about any claim, but this is a good thing.
Via the human imagination, we can raise an infinitude of doubts. Once those doubts are resolved, we can attain a higher level of certainty. But we can never enter a 100% doubt-free situation. Which, again, is good... because that means our brains are still working.
In matters of a posteriori truth, we can not have 100% surity about any claim, but this is a good thing.
Via the human imagination, we can raise an infinitude of doubts. Once those doubts are resolved, we can attain a higher level of certainty. But we can never enter a 100% doubt-free situation. Which, again, is good... because that means our brains are still working.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
The problem is that there is no "we" in the strong sense, because there is some limited variation.
Of course I understand you can effect, think and act differently from you. You're not me, and you have your own subjectivity ─ as I've just been saying at length.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Then there is no single self as the Self. You are one self and I am another. And I am not objective just because I am not you.
Yup!!!
Ya nailed it!!!
YEA!!!
Yes, to me you're part of objective reality, and to you I'm part of objective reality. To an onlooker, we're both part of objective reality.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Now you are not a part of objective reality to me according to at least one understanding of objective.