/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8986859]

Are there universal human truths?

[Anonymous No.8986866]

>>8986859
benis in bagina is the only one

[Anonymous No.8986872]

Numbers

[Anonymous No.8986880]

>>8986859
suffering

[Anonymous No.8986886]

>>8986859
Love.

[Anonymous No.8986891]

>>8986859
Yeah; you're gay.

Next question.

[Anonymous No.8986893]

>>8986886
It's a meme and one that would make most anons on this site throw up

But this anon, serious or not, is right

>>8986880
but then so is this anon

[Anonymous No.8986897]

>>8986859
Pain is an undeniable reality. And you can argue the "realness" of it all you want but the fact of the matter is that when you are faced with pain, you accept that it is real and will do almost anything to escape it. That's real enough to be considered a universal human truth - that pain exists and life is suffering.

[Anonymous No.8986913]

>>8986886
Wrong. Many people go their whole lives without being loved
>inb4 those people are subhuman

[Anonymous No.8987038]

>>8986859
Nope. We all inhabit a particular reality tunnel, which contains its own, subjective truths. People in different realities are not obliged to acknowledge them.

[Anonymous No.8987047]

>>8986859
>human

Getting real spooky in here

[Anonymous No.8987086]

>>8987038
How do you know that's true?

[Anonymous No.8987109]

There is and it is reachable, but only through nirvana.

[Anonymous No.8987113]

>>8986859
God is real

[Anonymous No.8987218]

>>8987038
>theres no universal truth except the truth that theres no universal truth
Youre pretty dumb

[Anonymous No.8987286]

>>8986859
Human beings, no matter their situation, will deviate towards contentment. When we are content, we look for possible problems due to inherent instinct for doing so. If there isn't a problem we wrack our brains to create one. Solving those problems either creates its own problem to solve, or a state of contentment in which a new problem is fabricated.

Happiness does indeed exist, but human beings will naturally accustom to whatever their happiness is, and become content. Human existence is a cycle of finding a problem, solving the problem, being happy, being content, and finding/fabricating a new problem to solve.

[Anonymous No.8987288]

What makes a bunch of chemical processes + electricity human is not suffering, but being aware of that suffering, knowing that it exists, its source, how to stop suffering.
Everything suffers but if anything would suddenly become aware of it, it would become human there and then, with all the goods and bads of it.

[Anonymous No.8987998]

>>8987038
>this is your brain on post modernism
JUST

[Anonymous No.8988005]

>>8987998
>he thinks skepticism began with post-modernism

Hey pseud

[Anonymous No.8988017]

>>8986859
what does that even mean?

[Anonymous No.8988054]

>>8986913
Yes but even if someone is unloved throughout their whole life (which I disagree with on a spiritual level, God loves everyone), they still will have loves of their own. If you mean only romantic love, yes, this can be hard to find but love as a feeling of compassion and empathy and acceptance of things and people one enjoys is most surely a universal truth for any human.

[Anonymous No.8988066]

>>8986859
b e a u t y
e
a
u
T
y

[Anonymous No.8988077]

>>8987218
>>8987086
Not that anon, but I hate these fucking excuses of an argument.

That anon is not saying what he is saying is an universal truth, not even that it is simply true by any standards, he is just saying it. Maybe it isn't true, maybe that anon knows it is not particularly a truthful thing, because he acknowledges that there are no absolute truths, nevertheless, it doesn't matter.

By his own argument, it's his reality tunnel. Feel free to disagree, he knows you are not obliged to take his word (again, by his own argument)

It's the same when people say "everything is relative" and idiots come by and say "ha! but then that too is relative!". Yes, that too is relative, what about it? Same with "everything is subjective". Yes, even that is subjective, so what?

[Anonymous No.8988106]

>>8986859
The Universe would be one's own will made visible (as an object) through time and space.

[Anonymous No.8988122]

>>8986859
I know of at least one.
>tfwnogf

[Anonymous No.8988139]

>>8986859

I think acceptance of some amount of displeasure and pain to reach fulfillment is a universal human truth or quality. Otherwise there would be no reason for anyone to do anything but lie around touching themselves all day until they starved.

[Anonymous No.8988146]

talk shit, get hit.

[Anonymous No.8988156]

>>8987113
god is unsigned 32-bit integer, pleb.

>>8988054
>God loves everyone

he certainly had a hard-on for all those decent christian folk in Sumatra that he drowned in the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and Tsunami.

[Anonymous No.8988365]

>>8987086
>>8987218
Uuuuum... Yes, exactly.

[Anonymous No.8988767]

>>8988077
>ha! but then that too is relative!". Yes, that too is relative, what about it?
Its a fucking nonsensical paradox that its relative that things are relative because that implies theres relative objectivity but that makes no sense. You are a fucking buffoon if you cant understand why that doesnt work

[Anonymous No.8988864]

There's universal human Might.

[Anonymous No.8988875]

>>8988005
that's not skepticism lol

[Anonymous No.8988876]

>>8986859
Did someone say Universal Truth?

[Anonymous No.8989261]

Everyone dies.
And, although exaggerated slightly to sound better: Everybody lies.

G. House

[Anonymous No.8989263]

>>8988077
>That anon is not saying what he is saying is an universal truth, not even that it is simply true by any standards, he is just saying it. Maybe it isn't true, maybe that anon knows it is not particularly a truthful thing, because he acknowledges that there are no absolute truths, nevertheless, it doesn't matter.
Every assertion/affirmative sentence remits to what it is, and is a judgement about reality.
Nigga said every human bean in the world has his own individual view of reality, which would be inherently subjetive, incommunicable and untransferable. There's an obvious contradiction on asserting that.

[Anonymous No.8989265]

>>8988864
Sorry bub, but equality is the spook. Racial differences have been scientifically proven, and yet everyone in the west still worships the cathedral of equality

[Anonymous No.8989340]

>>8988156
Evil for the greater good or so they say.

[Anonymous No.8989353]

>>8986859
Nihilism.

[Anonymous No.8989475]

>>8987038
Well, us inhabiting a particular reality tunnel is just your subjective opinion man.

[Anonymous No.8989478]

>>8987038
>implying my reality tunnel isnt the exact same as yours on account of our basically identical genetic make-up

[Anonymous No.8989480]

There are only historical truths.

>>8986886
>>8986893
Love in our sense was made up 300 years ago

[Anonymous No.8989541]

>>8989265
>science is real
>races are real

[Anonymous No.8989559]

>"A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is 'merely relative,' is asking you not to believe him. So don't." - Roger Scruton

Post-modernists/relativists/etc BTFO.

[Anonymous No.8989608]

>>8989541
>implying science isnt real
Come on m8, now youre just being silly

[Anonymous No.8989615]

>>8988767
>>8989263
No, it's not a paradox. It only seems like so to you because you think every sentence uttered implies an objectivity within itself.

If I say to you "that wall is green, but that's just my opinion", there is no reason for you to reply "then why say it is green, if it is only your opinion?".

The true paradox is not within what that guy said, but the paradox that you find within yourself when you meet with sentences like that. Apparently, first we are looking for what this ultimate truth is and we are open to hear others about it (this religion, that idea, this science, this attitude, and so on) and clash these views. But then someone says there is no such objective truth and instead of actually hearing it, we turn to our own quest once again. Then, surely there feels like a paradox("it can't be True that there is no Truth"), only insofar as we are still looking for it.

If you ask "where is the apple?" and I say "there are no apples, just this orange", would you say "that's impossible, an orange is not an apple" and resume looking for the apple. The problem here is that the question "where is the apple" implies there is an apple(even though there might not be). In the same sense, by seeking this ultimate truth, you imply there is one.

>>8989263
>Every assertion[...]is a judgement about reality.
It might be an assertion about reality, but what reality? That anon is not addressing an objective reality, but a subjective one (not because he chose one over the other, but because he believes the former is actually a misinterpretation of the later). We must not take this difference for granted.

>own individual view of reality, which would be inherently subjetive, incommunicable and untransferable
There is no connection between having individual views of reality and not be able to communicate it. That is a very strange view of communication, because, afterall, if there were no difference between two views, there would be nothing to communicate. Besides, whether it is untransferable or not is a different matter. We can definitely talk to each other, but we must not assume we understand each other. We may know very well what we are saying, but we can't know what the other hears.

I turn to that example again: "that wall is green, but that's just my opinion". There is nothing contraditory about saying that. It may seem that "that wall is green" would be an objective claim which wouldn't fit along with opinion. But look how much easier it is to accept if I turn the sentence around: "in my opinion, that wall is green". In other words, that wall is green only insofar as it appears to be within the scope of my opinion (outside of it, nothing is claimed).

It is the same with that anon and the other previous examples. The "ground zero" here is not the objective reality that is then described as a subjective one. It is a subjective reality to which some ascribe an objectivity, an objectivity that one can claim to be false.

[Anonymous No.8989618]

>>8989559
Why can't the writer write about relative truths and why can't the reader be reading relative truths?

Relative truths doesn't mean there aren't truths, just that they are relative.

[Anonymous No.8989620]

>>8989559

Grab her right by the relativism

[Anonymous No.8989626]

Dominance Hierarchies
Dreaming
Need for socializing especially at a young age

[Anonymous No.8989629]

>>8989618
A relative truth is a logical contradiction.
Either it is true or it is relative (e.g. an opinion, a preference).

[Anonymous No.8989653]

>>8989615
Rationalization hamster: the post

Come on try again:
>It is true that everything we know is relative
Either your statement is relative and thus self-defeating.
Or you have some objective way to claim knowledge, which contradicts your claim.

There is no way out of logical contradiction. Unless you're willing to cuck yourself on post-modernism.

[Anonymous No.8989660]

>>8986880
This
>>8986913
I don't think this is exactly true.
Everyone experiences love in someway or another.
Whether it's a mother's love, admiration from someone, or love from a partner.

[Anonymous No.8989672]

>>8989629
And why can't you write preferences and opinions, and read preferences and opinions? Why would anyone "not believe" those? In a world of relative truths (or preferences and opinions), how could one even lie?

It is a logical contradiction only if you think "truth" is an object in itself and not a quality of the relationship that you have with what you perceive. That is, something is true when I perceive it as true. To oppose truth with relativity also gives a bad name to opinions themselves, as if there was some things that we claim which come from an (assumed) objective reality and some things which were "mere opinions" that would come from nowhere. Opinions come from how we perceive reality, so they are always true to the one who holds them. The two things are merged (better say, they were never separate). This is what realitive truths are about.

[Anonymous No.8989678]

>>8989653
The crucial point is here:
>Either your statement is relative and thus self-defeating.

I think that statement is relative. I just don't think that is self-defeating at all. Try to explain to me why that is self-defeating.

My claim is that this "defeat" occurs when you try to "win" by expressing an objective universal truth. Which is not necessary what is going on when such statements are made. You can't lose in a game you are not playing.

[Anonymous No.8989686]

I think therefore I am.

[Anonymous No.8989700]

What is a "human truth"?

[Anonymous No.8989773]

>>8989478
>implying two different sensory systems can possibly perceive the same reality tunnel

[Anonymous No.8989793]

>>8986880
Existentialists GTFO.

[Anonymous No.8989812]

>>8989478
When you go to sleep or at noon, are you the same? When you are old or when you are young, if you are drugged or not, if your pressure is in this or that range, if you are in a bad mood or not, if you just got kicked out of your house or just got a job, aren't you different all the time? You don't even have the same reality tunnel as you had 5 min ago.

[Anonymous No.8989822]

>>8986897
Oh dear. This is what happens when emo kids indulge in philosophy. Because their lives are defined by self-pity, they think everybody else's must be too.

>Pain is an undeniable reality
False. The power to accept or deny is yours.

>you accept that it is real
Now you're getting it, though you just contradicted yourself.

>That's real enough to be considered a universal human truth
What the fuck kind of cognitive somersault is this? Because you're in pain, everybody is?

>that pain exists and life is suffering.
Pure projection, and the very essence of subjectivity.

[Anonymous No.8989831]

>>8989672
Perception is not a valid methodology for truth. Only replication (which englobes objective perception) is.

Again, if you're logically inclined, you should start with the the three laws of logic and then see that "relative truths" violates them.

[Anonymous No.8989834]

>>8989653
>There is no way out of logical contradiction.
Correct. Because logic is a model, and all models are imperfect. Every logical system ultimately disappears up it's own arse. e.g. the old "This statement is false" assertion.

>Unless you're willing to cuck yourself
You just went full relativist.

By the way, if you've been keeping an example of universal truth up your sleeve all this time, we're all just dying to hear it.

[Anonymous No.8989835]

>>8989686
I believe you. But there's no way for me to know that you're really thinking. Hence it's not a universal truth.

>mfw no insult intended

[Anonymous No.8989846]

>>8989678
>Try to explain to me why that is self-defeating.
If everything we know is relative, you can't then say that you are correct because being correct assume a standard of truth.
In short there is a contradiction between the form and the content. The content says "everything is relative", the form says "I have an objective standard for truth".
If everything is relative, you can't know anything. Which is a further contradiction because you know at least one thing that "everything is relative".


Another way to look at that:
Is it fair that you are trying to show that I'm wrong?
If I can be wrong, there is necessarily such a thing as being right.
Then you say you are not playing the game of truth.

Look if you can't see these paradox, it's fine but you really look like someone who don't understand basic logic.

[Anonymous No.8989850]

>>8989822
Have you tried not breathing for an hour (or a year)? Can anyone do it?

I know it is a stupid question but that is in a good way in my opinion to trigger pain or suffering.
How then would you argue that pain is a subjective reality?

[Anonymous No.8989853]

>>8989831
>Perception is not a valid methodology for truth.
Then there's no way for humans to verify truth. Which is a pity, because it's only humans who have a concept of truth.

>Again, if you're logically inclined, you should start with the the three laws of logic and then see that "relative truths" violates them.
So Aristotelian logic is violated. So what? All systems of logic are violable.

[Anonymous No.8989857]

>>8989850
And yet there are people who get off on sexual asphyxia. For them it isn't pain, but pleasure.

It's all about how you judge the sensory signals. I'm not denying that the vast majority of people find suffocation unpleasant, and with good reason, but ultimately it's a choice they make for themselves.

[Anonymous No.8989863]

Death is the only thing that people can be relied upon to do so.

[Anonymous No.8989864]

>>8989853
Oh dear.

Read me again
>Perception is not a valid methodology for truth.
>Only replication (which englobes objective perception) is.
It's called the scientific method. You cannot verify truth if it is only perceived but not replicated.

>So Aristotelian logic is violated.
Yes, that's the issue. It's the most basic methodology for distinguishing truth from falsehood. You can go against it but you need to make a case for it.
Also being violable does not mean that you end up being right.
If you say that gravity doesn't exist and you jump off a cliff, you can't expect not to die.
Being optional doesn't mean that a framework is not objective

[Anonymous No.8989873]

>>8989857
As far as I understand sexual asphyxia is finding the sweet spot between restriction and panic.
They do experience both, they just find pleasure in finding the correct subjective ratio between forceful restriction and pain. Just like I do when I try to stay under the water to swim.

I really don't see how sexual asphyxia is an argument against my position. Care to elaborate further?

[Anonymous No.8989877]

>>8989340
who benefited from their deaths?

[Anonymous No.8989879]

sweet creeping jesus fuck, do we need a /philosophy/ forum so we can get all these etiolated cocksuckers out of /lit/ and into containment.

[Anonymous No.8989885]

>>8989879
What about a quarantine for people like you? Hiding a thread is not that hard.

[Anonymous No.8989890]

>>8986897
yes
>>8989822
read Junger

[Anonymous No.8989894]

>>8989879
Lemme guess, you would rather have a "tfw no /lit/ gf" thread?

[Anonymous No.8989895]

>>8989864
If I'm being dense, then feel free to expound. I only took one course on metatheory of logic, and that was 20 years ago. Anyhow ...

>It's called the scientific method.
Where results depends ultimately on the perceptions of scientists.

>You can go against it but you need to make a case for it.
No you don't. A single counter-example is sufficient to disprove a logical assertion. I'm guessing you're not a mathematician.

>Also being violable does not mean that you end up being right.
Nobody said that (whatever you mean by "right" ...)

>If you say that gravity doesn't exist and you jump off a cliff, you can't expect not to die.
And I definitely didn't say that!

>Being optional doesn't mean that a framework is not objective
We're talking about objective truth, not objectivity per se. That objective framework may well contain "truths," but they're not necessarily verifiable in other (equally objective) frameworks. And in the end, all such frameworks depend on axioms which, not being proven, need not be accepted as true.

[Anonymous No.8989905]

>>8987286
>deviate towards
I don't quite understand this word choice. This is probably because you don't know what the word deviate means.

[Anonymous No.8989910]

>>8989873
In a nutshell, I'm saying sensory signals aren't interpreted the same way by everybody. In fact, the same sensation might be interpreted different ways by the same person, depending on circumstances. Therefore they can't give rise to an objective truth.

I'm not denying that any sane person would find suffocation uncomfortable. But unless you can definitely say everybody will, it's not a universal truth. Quibbling perhaps, but that's inevitable in philosophical arguments.

Hell, there are even people who think death might be pleasurable: that the body is flooded with endorphins, and life ends with a mind-blowing DMT trip. I hope it's true, but I can't know it for sure ...

[Anonymous No.8989915]

>>8989895
>Where results depends ultimately on the perceptions of scientists.
Let's take colors. Let's assume everyone see colors differently. The scientific method argues that colors is wavelength which is an objective and replicable measure. It does not depends on the perception but on the replication of that perception.

>A single counter-example
We agree there. That's what I call by making a case: it's either providing evidence to the contrary or making an argument on why the theory is not valid.

For the last point, I don't know what you are trying to argue. A framework does not contain perfect knowledge, it only proposes a way to differentiate claims between true and false - according to that framework.
If something is found true, you then can use other frameworks to triangulate what is true and what isn't. You can then have a transdiscplinary approach.

[Anonymous No.8989916]

>>8989890
>subjectivity: the post

[Anonymous No.8989920]

>>8989910
Let's say I am colorblind. Does red do not exist?
I think you are making the case that red does not exist because one person see red differently.
I would then argue that red is a given wavelength and does objectively exist whether perceived by everyone or not.

Same with pain, pain can be measured objectively (let's take skin conductivity). Whether it is experienced as such is not an argument against the existence of the phenomenon, but its perception. And we all know that human perception is not perfect, that's why we need objective way to measure, quantify or experience something.

[Anonymous No.8989923]

>>8989915
Oh, I'm glad you chose this example:-

>The scientific method argues that colors is wavelength which is an objective and replicable measure
Whoah, you mean light is a wave? Because I say it's composed of discrete particles (which, I believe, is a replicable measure ...)

But assuming for a moment that light has a wavelength ... I assert that there is no way to determine it, except to an arbitrary degree. What's more, any two instruments used to measure wavelength will produce conflicting results (to say nothing of any human error that might creep in.) Are you really sure this measurement is as replicable as you say it is?

[Anonymous No.8989940]

>>8989920
>Does red do not exist?
What if I said no? As you're aware, "red" is merely a perception, not a reality.

>I would then argue that red is a given wavelength and does objectively exist
For you, this is what red is. For others, not so much. And that "given wavelength" is purely notional. Try detecting light at any "given wavelength" and you'll never find it; at best, you'll detect minute variations thereof.

As for pain, it definitely can't be measured objectively, if only because sensory systems are by nature subjective. And even then, it depends on the subject interpreting sensation as "pain."

[Anonymous No.8989945]

>>8989923
Well that's true in the sense that there are what we call uncertainty, which is a limit of technological and practical engineering, not a theoretical one. So yeah it is replicable plus/minus uncertainty.

I think you want to argue that imperfect knowledge is not perfect truth, which I do understand from a pragmatic standpoint. But that's only because of incomplete knowledge and imperfect technology.

[Anonymous No.8989961]

>>8989940
>"red" is merely a perception, not a reality.
No, you are incorrect a light with a frequency of 780 nanometers (red) is measurable even without human. Same for ultrared or infraviolet.

Try putting your eye against an invisible laser and then argue that "the damage caused do not exist because I did not perceive it".

You are confusing two things: the phenomenon itself and its perception.
We have three cases: a phenomenon can exist without being perceived, a perception can take place without being real, and a phenomenon can be both perceived and be real.

> Pain cannot be measured objectively
While there is uncertainty, I would like to suggest to you to look into skin conductivity. That's what is used in stud to quantify different physiological reactions.

[Anonymous No.8989972]

>>8987038
Wonderful reductio ad absurdum of po-mo bullshit, chap.

I think you might have fully realised the narcissistic-individualism of right-libertarianism.

[Anonymous No.8989977]

>>8989972
>pomo is right-libertarianism
What? Pomo is left leaning if not outright communistic.

[Anonymous No.8989989]

>>8986859
Of course

[Anonymous No.8990008]

>>8989977
Pomo is an acquiescence to neoliberalism.

It fails to critically engage with anything -- pomo refuted the likes of Adorno and Horkheimer.

[Anonymous No.8990058]

>>8989615
You can't so willfully evade the axioms of language. Language is a structure used to approximate truth. It either does or does not

[Anonymous No.8990066]

>>8989834
>Because logic is a model, and all models are imperfect
Holy shit language trap language trap weooo weoooo

[Anonymous No.8990092]

>>8989961
>No, you are incorrect a light with a frequency of 780 nanometers (red) is measurable even without human
I thought we were talking about redness? Because light of 780 nm is not necessarily red. Some people might see it as colourless, or even green.

(Incidentally, you notion of a photon 780nm long is just that - a notion. Just try catching one of those in real life. This is the problem with scientists: they work with models, not reality. They confuse the map with the territory. No wonder they find new models so difficult to grasp ... see Einstein's reaction to the Copenhagen Interpretation.)

>Try putting your eye against an invisible laser and then argue that "the damage caused do not exist because I did not perceive it".
If it's all the same ... no thanks.

You appear to be arguing that there is an objective reality. Maybe there is, but there's no way it can be known objectively. Two people will always see it differently, and therefore there can be no universal truths about it.

[Anonymous No.8990097]

>>8989972
I smell the pungent outrage of Abrahamic religion. Murcan much?

[Anonymous No.8990115]

>>8989972
Dunno why you're so afraid of a reductio ad absurdum - it's where all modes of logic ultimately end up.

This statement is false.

[Anonymous No.8991310]

>>8988767
>>8989559
>>8989653

If we look at the group of universal human truths and say "this group is empty". That is not a universal human truth, rather it is on another layer of abstraction, it is a truth about universal human truths.

Say we look at many different groups 1-9999 (Each group would be things true in a different human experience). Now lets make group A of things true in all of them. This group can be empty with no contradiction because the information that group A is empty is meta information ABOUT group A, it doesn't belong IN it. Instead it belongs in group B, things true about group A. Putting the information that A is empty in group A makes as little sense as putting it in groups 1-9999.

[Anonymous No.8991840]

>>8986859
Of course.

[Anonymous No.8991852]

>>8986859
> universal human truths
Women are cunt

[Anonymous No.8991858]

Anxiety and Ideology. *sniff*

[Anonymous No.8991877]

>>8986859
DNA, Cells, At least part of a brain, ect.