Truth Absolute?

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Suburbanite And what I am saying is the subject object distinction, the Existence vs Mind, or Me vs World concept, is as fabricated by language as any other concept, and if we could only describe the world in a way where the self and everything else were talked about as the same thing, we would see them as the same thing. The ocular metaphor of perception is wrong, it is description, we describe things in relation to other things, we don't discover anything, we only re describe it.

If we were to take language out of the mix, if humans couldn't communicate where would that leave us?

[Suburbanite]

Probably like some kind of super monkey. Why?

[Objectivist]

If humans didn't have language would existence cease to exist? Would existence change? Would the way we view existence change? Would the way we gain knowledge form existence change?

No.

[Suburbanite]

You're only saying that. It isn't that existence would cease to exist, I am making no metaphysical claims like that; again my point is that you're describing the world in a way which allows you to see things as "existing". To you, there is something substantial to the concept of "existence" but to me I still see us as Wittgenstein's flies in a fly trap, limited by the limits of our language. Example, a limit to your personal vocabulary, is that you think I'm making a metaphysical claim. I'm claiming there are no claims to make, we're trapped and repeating ourselves.

[J. Askiloupos]

on the contrary, i'm fairly discontent with myself but somehow you are all just.. so much worse... it's terrifying in a way... it.. it... makes me want to die... ..you.. you people.. (all of you..) you make me want to die...

Objection A: What was the point of posting your arrogance-loaded chatlog on a forum about the discussion of truth?

Objection B: You constantly insult others in your posts here- Why?

Statement: Get on topic and stay there, or you are more than welcome to get the bloody hell off this thread, as no-one here appreciates your meaningless drivel.

[J. Askiloupos]

I think that you are on quest that goes beyond Homo Sapiens' perception, since a subjective form of truth is the only one we accomodate within ourselves.

Then we must widen our horizons as a species as to what we may accomodate. We must discover a way. The best way I can think of to do this is to bring up a society of born philosophers- thinkers trained from an early age to question, to search, to ever push their intellectual limits. Sometimes, I wish for a small country to run (Sealand would be nice), in order to test such things- a social experiment on the order of the 19th-century bids for Utopian society.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Suburbanite I'm claiming there are no claims to make, we're trapped and repeating ourselves.

One has to make claims in order to live...

How are we trapped? And what do you mean by "repeating ourselves"?

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Objectivist One has to make claims in order to live... How are we trapped? And what do you mean by "repeating ourselves"?

Yes, you do have to assert things, haha. But, I like to assert ametaphysical claims, like I have been in this thread. I like to tell people things like "its all in how you describe it".
As far as trapped, I'll tell you about Wittgenstein's metaphor of the fly trap. He says we are like flies, stuck in a fly trap, because our language can never let us see beyond itself. That is to say, we can't describe something in terms unfamiliar to us. Some say, the more words and ideas you absorb in life perhaps the larger your fly trap becomes, but it still limits you. This is just Wittgenstein, not really my point of view per ce. The problem as I see with the fly trap metaphor is that is presumes there is something to discover beyond the fly trap, when the truth is language isn't lightly touching upon the medium of reality, discovering its essence and communicating it, instead it is making it all up. But I'm drifting...
Now, about repeating ourselves. Metaphysical claims go circularly. Oh, I believe the mind is real the controls reality, oh no i say the physical world is real and affects the mind, no its giest, no this no that. Philosopher should concern themselves with more important things, don't you think?

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Suburbanite Now, about repeating ourselves. Metaphysical claims go circularly. Oh, I believe the mind is real the controls reality, oh no i say the physical world is real and affects the mind, no its giest, no this no that. Philosopher should concern themselves with more important things, don't you think?

Metaphysics is the cornerstone of every other part of philosophy. The very first thing a philosopher has to discover is metaphysical (whether the philosopher consciously denies that he has to make metaphysical claims or not is irrelevant, the mere fact that the philosopher is concerned with more "important" things is an admission of certain metaphysical claims)

[Suburbanite]

I would argue instead that it is a barrier stunting philosophical growth, which has largely concerned itself with the "problem" of metaphysics.