Re:If you understand their form of Islam(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.29 3:43 (#20024903) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.29 3:02)
There are many different religions who hold only one God. Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism, YHWH in Judaism, Lord in Christianity, Zeus in Catholicism. So do you think those only one absolute Gods are the same but just the names are different or are they all different Gods each other?
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

Re:Actually(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.27 1:21 (#19998107) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.25 5:24)
Forgive is for give and forget is for get.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

Re:Nature makes the truth(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.23 2:16 (#19946851) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.18 3:23)
Your proposition contradicts itself since man is a part of nature. This dichotomy of man and nature has been deeply rooted in Western cultures. Anyway if so -nature makes the truth, God in your standard is very closer to nature that doesn't have intenstion.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

Re:Ther are many nice and useful parts(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.20 5:06 (#19918833) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.18 3:23)
You recommend we should love women in every details she has and that's simply what I've been doing.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

ullangoo wrote today at 1:16 AMAs I said above: "I have a headache" can't be verified by others. Still all logicians agree that the statement is either true or false - ordinary common sense says the same. I see no reason to claim otherwise.

ullangoo wrote today at 3:54 AMThere are what I call the personal truths. E.g. meditation may be the right thing for you but wrong for me. Therefore, "meditation is the right thing" is a meaningless statement - "right thing" is unqualified and undefined. The majority may hold that it is the right thing - but it could still be wrong for me. We can't take a vote on truths whether they are personal/subjective or objective.


ullangoo wrote today at 4:04 AMThe "self-evident truths" of your declaration are opinions. They are ethical statements. Now, there MAY be an ethical system that is true in the absolute sense - I won't rule it out - but if there is, we don't know how to identify it (yet). We have to live with the existence of several and hopefully learn tolerance.

What is 'Truth' ?
2007.07.18 3:23

Truth includes things that have already verified. Truth doesn't include things that have not verified yet. Does truth include things that cannot verify? Some people insist that 'God is almighty, it's truth.'
List all Journal entries
What is 'Truth' ? I am willing to help test Slashdot's New Discussion System.
What is 'Truth' ? Preferences Top 11 comments Search Discussion
Display OptionsThreshold: -1: 11 comments 0: 10 comments 1: 9 comments 2: 5 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
"Truth"?(Score:1, Flamebait)
by johndiii (229824) * <.moc.tsolima. .ta. .iiidnhoj.> on 2007.07.18 5:03 (#19892077) (Last Journal: 2007.07.19 8:54)
Truth includes things that have already verified. That is a meaningless statement. Verification is the process of determining whether or not something is true. All that you are doing is defining "truth" as those things that are known to be true. That isn't a good definition, though. "Truth" is all those things that are true, whether or not they are known as such. Your definition also might include things in "truth" that are actually not true, due to mistakes or flaws in the verification process. And it doesn't account for things that are formally undecidable, as per Gödel's incompleteness theorem (which states that any sufficiently powerful formal system contains propositions that are true but not provable within the system).
--As you wish.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:"Truth"?(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.20 3:28 (#19917923) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.18 3:23)
Thank you for your very useful comment. There are many things to consider in each point you made in your comment. I'll enbrace them in writing next articles.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
[ Reply to This Parent ]
Short answer: Yes(Score:0, Redundant)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2007.07.18 8:30 (#19894803) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2007.06.10 2:25)
Does truth include things that cannot verify?Jondiii got it right; truth exists independently of our knowledge of it, and therefore verification isn't the point. This doesn't mean that verification isn't important, for we all want knowledge of truth.
Our lack of knowledge naturally means that we are inclined to disagree, but our disagreement doesn't change what is true; it only changes our opinion of it.
--My Amigos. Your Amigos.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Short answer: Yes(Score:2)
by johndiii (229824) * <.moc.tsolima. .ta. .iiidnhoj.> on 2007.07.19 12:15 (#19910081) (Last Journal: 2007.07.19 8:54)
Interesting moderation in this JE, don't you think?
--As you wish.
[ Reply to This Parent ]
Re:Short answer: Yes(Score:1)
by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on 2007.07.19 12:24 (#19910155) (Last Journal: 2007.07.19 23:11)
Yeah. Looks like you have a doctrinaire Christian in Mercedo's friend list. Morosoph gets knocked, and even the lengthy anonymous comment is modded down - like that matters in a JE for someone with no UID!Style is a good way to ID the ACs, tho'. I notice typographical and punctuation convention "tells" that give some regulars away. Foolish to mod such a post down - just an expression of anger.All Love,Jeremiah "secret pre-Raphaelite and Byronic romantic" Cornelius
--So I pass that on to you.Write it down, and put it in your computer, so you can forget it.
[ Reply to This Parent ]
Philosophy and Religion(Score:1)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2007.07.19 22:58 (#19913619) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2007.06.10 2:25)
I am concerned with the state of debate over the internet, mostly with USians. Is philosophy to once again be minimised, even oppressed in the light of its threat to doctrinare belief?
I suppose that arguably Mer Cedo is reaching for faith, and in answering his statements about the nature of truth, we are failing to take his attempts at faithfulness seriously. Mer Cedo has stated elsewhere that he views reality as subjective, so that verificiation, consensus and belief, rather than pre-eminent existance are his stating points; to some extent, we're being cheeky with our answers that assume the objectivity of anything that deserves the title of "truth".
I've met this kind of relativism surprisingly frequently from Christians; perhaps it is in part a response to neo-darwinists and other (frequently atheistic) scientists and their fans claiming objectivity. It's much easier to carve a space for one's preferred beliefs in a relativistic space than in an environment where truth is considered to be singular, if unknown, so that relativism is a considerably more effective shield for one's faith in a hostile environment. Additionally, those who tend to look for biblical quotations for strengthening their arguments are already using thinking in a manner that is closer to the relativist than that of the scientist, or mathematician.
On top of that, there is the curious inversion of Leo Strauss's thesis in his book "Persecution and the Art of Writing", where Strauss's analysis of how thinkers obscured their thinking from the casual reader so that their work, and frequently themselves would survive, or (and the theistic side) so that their work would not be used for the persecution of philosophers despite the authour's disagreement with them. The inversion being that a "responsible" thinker is now expected to write in such a way, so as to leave the masses ignorant.
Sadly, Strauss writes in a style where he expresses forcefully what the writer that he is commenting upon is saying, so that it is easy for the careless reader to take Strauss's rendition as Strauss's view, but if you do that, you end up with contradictions between he views as he's commenting upon different writers, as if he has no mind of his own. Better to look to what he says about Thucydides regarding his commentry on the Peloponnesian war (City and Man, paperback ed. 1978, page 144):
"...the fact that a Thucylidean character expresses a given view proves that that view was known to Thucydides; it may therefore be used for completing a view stated by Thucydides himself if the former view is evidently implied in the latter view. Far from impairing Thucydides' reticence, the speeches only increase it. Since he is so reticent regarding the universals and the speeches are so rich in pithily and forcefully expressed statements regarding them, he as it were seduces the readers into taking these statements as expressing his own view. The temptation becomes almost irresistable when the speakers express views which no intelligent or decent man seems able to gainsay."That Strauss himself is so hard to read is a feature that I like about Strauss; I feel that he isn't telling me how I should think. Many people see a sinister motive in his enigmatic presentation; particularly political readers who want to know which side someone is on, rather than consider the ideas presented in their own terms. To my mind, Strauss is treating the reader as an adult. It is a shame that so many of his readers are small-minded partisans.
--My Amigos. Your Amigos.
[ Reply to This Parent ]
Re:Philosophy and Religion(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.20 4:06 (#19918193) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.18 3:23)
I am as scientific as I have been. But what scientific means is problematic. In ancient times people believe heavy objects drop faster than light ones, the earth is flat, the earth revolves around the sun. Basically many people who learned science know those three statements are not true. But in our ordinary life those three are very correct and true. My point is that the truth changes if conditions change too. I'm not going to undermine the value of science.
I suppose that arguably Mer Cedo is reaching for faith,
I am secular, I used to be, will be so forever.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
[ Reply to This Parent ]
Hah!(Score:1)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2007.07.19 23:13 (#19913807) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2007.06.10 2:25)
Well I probably deserved it, mis-spelling your pseudonym as I did!
--My Amigos. Your Amigos.
[ Reply to This Parent ]
Re:Short answer: Yes(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.20 3:42 (#19917985) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.18 3:23)
Your statement is simply correct.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
[ Reply to This Parent ]
Truth is Absolute Reality(Score:-1, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on 2007.07.18 15:49 (#19897819)
Truth is not mediated by the senses, the intellect, nor the psyche.The world is a veil on Truth.God is Truth."Other than God" is a ludicrous fallacy. There is only Truth, "Other than Truth" does not, by its nature as fallacy, exist.Haqq, Brahma, Tao. The names of this endless ocean are many - its essence is the Unity, not the many names given under the shadow of the apparent world.The Delphic Oracle says: "Know thyself, and thou shalt know the Cosmos."Jesus says: "the Kingdom of Heaven in within you."Saint Clement says: "He who knows himself knows God."Gautama Buddha says: "Look within. Thou art Buddha."Siddha Yoga holds: "God dwells within you as You."In the Q'ran is written: "He who knows himself knows his Lord."Seeking other than the Truth is self-deception, but Truth cannot be attained by intellectual means.
One night, Nasruddin's neighbors found him, crawling around on his hands and knees under a lamppost."What are you looking for?" they asked him."I've lost the key to my house," he replied.They all got down to help him look, but after a fruitless time of searching, one neighbor thought to ask him - just where he had lost the key in the first place?"Oh. In my house!" Nasruddin answered."Then why are you looking under the lamppost?" he was asked, impatiently.Nasruddin replied, "Well, it is dark in my house, of course!The lamp of intellect does not illuminate the house. When Diogenes as similarly asked why he carried a lamp in the broad daylight, he responded "I am looking for one that knows the truth!" The lesson of this was lost on those who have recorded the deeds of Diogenes - and his rivals branded him "cynic," meaning one who barks meaninglessly like a dog and not engaging in proper philosophical discourse. The lamp of discourse would never illuminate the abode of truth - and in misunderstanding he is even misquoted today as one looking for "an honest man."All of this is the essential teaching of Jesus, as relayed by the Secret Gospel of Thomas, destroyed by the Priestly enemies of Truth:
"Jesus said, If your leaders say to you "Look! The Kingdom is in the sky then the birds will be there before you are. If they say that the Kingdom is in the sea, then the fish will be there before you are. Rather, the Kingdom is within you and it is outside of you."(Saying 3a)"His disciples said to him: Show us the place you are, for it is essential for us to seek it. He responded: He who has ears let him hear. There is light within a man of light, and he lights up all of the world. If he is not alight there is darkness."(Saying 24)"Jesus said: When you give rise to that which is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not give rise to it, what you do not have will destroy you."(Saying 70)That "Man of Light" is the only one who can teach how to find this. Some are struck with realization, but they are unable to explain what they witness. They are rarer than proverbial hen's teeth! But the Truth is known to some in every time - they are hidden from the insincere seeker, by the same ignorance that caused Diogenes to be misunderstood, down to this very day.The Man of Light would not be accepted by ordinary seekers - he would not appear "holy" - even ridiculing many of the pieties of religion. He will have both fools and sages among his followers, and contempt for this condition hides his being from the casual seeker. Without knowing they have done so, they fail even the very first test.I guess that leaves us with Bayazid Bestami, who I will quote - like a tape recorder, accurately but not comprehending:
"I never saw any lamp shining more brilliantly than the lamp of silence."
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Truth is Absolute Reality(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.20 4:10 (#19918249) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.18 3:23)
Whoever you are thanks for posting this comment. It contains a lot of useful information.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
[ Reply to This Parent ]

Thank you for your very useful comment. There are many things to consider in each point you made in your comment. I'll enbrace them in writing next articles.

Re:A nipple is not a sex organ(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.18 1:26 (#19888869) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.17 1:14)
Really? I didn't know that! :)
The term sex is narrowly used for pornographically, sexual act or sexual pleasure. But sex biologically means reproduction, unification of gamete and semen, further growth and feeding children of course. Sex includes feeding children in the first place in definition.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

mercedo wrote today at 12:46 AMYour reply is likely to be an optimal answer.

Re:Bollocks(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.17 0:04 (#19876423) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.16 2:34)
My asumption was as follows.
Men used to be in his mother's womb, in there he had been nourished through umbilical code. I must say he had been passive. Those who feel affectionate to hips must have a strong yearning to the state in the womb, where he was able to stay in passive protection.
But once he got out of his mother, he had to start feeding himself. Its first step is to suck the nipples of his mother. This action is based on his intention to fulfil his hunger and this is the very first step of socialisation. This action is active. Those who love bosoms are more socialised than the bottom lover, because sucking the nipples is first active action to people other than him.
Mother complex is in other words the desire to be protected by his original homebase.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

Re:What if(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.17 0:12 (#19876529) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.16 2:34)
I remember I was particular about women's hip for a long time when still I was in minor. Time goes by, I realised hips are only for artistic appreciation. Besides hips are not sex organs, but nipples are.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

Re:This is(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.16 3:28 (#19869233) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.16 2:34)
This was my philosophical conclusion and I was amazed to hear there was a precedent.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

Obsessed

Obsessed
2007.07.14 4:15

Someone who claims something is danger more than 5 times in ten minutes talk is the very danger itself from the viewpoint of something.

Re:No(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.14 4:05 (#19851927) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.14 2:26)
God resurrected himself. I think you get the message.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

Re:Cain & Abel(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.11 1:09 (#19814323) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.10 3:19)
If they are friendly, their power adds up to more than 2. If they hate one another, one of them goes so far as to kill another one.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

Re:Hamlet?(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.11 0:58 (#19814181) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.10 3:19)
The title Hamlet refers to late King Hamlet, not his son who went mad.
Father Hamlet appeared in his son Hamlet telling he was killed by his younger brother. I think the main theme of this famous play is the overwhelming influence of Father Hamlet even after he was killed by his younger brother who also married his wife. I think Shakespeare didn't give the son of late King Hamlet a name emphasising how feeble and fragile his son's character was. Son Hamlet and Ophelia are described as they lived in a fantasy in comparison with the realistic and strong figures of Father Hamlet, his brother, his wife.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

Re:Ask Sir Richard Francis Burton...(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.10 3:23 (#19803577) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.10 3:19)
This is something like slash, slash, slash, dot dot.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

Re:Ask Sir Richard Francis Burton...(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.09 1:46 (#19790335) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.08 2:11)
It is persuasive to explain the term sumsum was used like shiboleth, to differentiate his people from other people. Only those who can pronounce the word properly can get access to treasures anyway. I always perplexed in r and l sounds. Koreans pronounce t in the place of d sound, etc.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

mercedo wrote today at 2:46 AMYeah, my question is why sesame was particularly chosen in a magic word. Does sesame have special sense in Arabic world? We can just accept the expression as you pointed out if the cave was actually called Sesame, but I think it's not likely ;)

Re:This is the kind of Manichaenism
The finding of monotheism is closely related to the establishment of self. Still people believe in animistic omnipresence of gods, their identity as independent humans was ambiguous.
--
Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

Witness

Re:That explains(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.07.06 22:53 (#19766633) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.07.06 2:37)
I have two witnesses, so I don't intend to be a witness.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters