Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BugsRucker t1_ixakey4 wrote

Reply to comment by bumharmony in On the advantages of believing that nothing is true by Vico1730

If I interpret what you've meant correctly then you can't have truth unless you have more than a single party that to agrees to it?

1

bumharmony t1_ixc1x0a wrote

Actually truth requires 100% unanimity.

Because this is never the case, we got different schools of thought, religions and churches, languages, political parties.

But it does not mean that we would not have common raw observations or basic logic even though we disagree about the further, for example metaphysical implications of them.

1

BugsRucker t1_ixcht9u wrote

>Actually truth requires 100% unanimity.

>Because this is never the case...

So, the op article is true.... nothing is true!

It bothers me that mental constructs are so ambiguous and yet so ubiquitous.

1

bumharmony t1_ixdvodu wrote

If we are searching for something that does cannot be evidenced to exist, then it is not possible to say that x.....y are not true.

If I pull a concept out of my ass and say that nothing is this x, it is different thing to say as we should that the whole concept does not exist rather than trying to catch that false question setting like dogs. Because of course saying that nothing is x is not innocent but a way of doing something, implying obligation etc. For example the justification of capitalism is that no morals can be measured so we should welcome laissez faire.

2

iiioiia t1_ixd5f8q wrote

> Actually truth requires 100% unanimity.

Let's say someone asserts that there is a ticking time bomb planted at some location, and there is a dispute between people on the matter. As long as the dispute remains, does that prevent the bomb from exploding?

1

bumharmony t1_ixduun8 wrote

Idk what you want to say with that. There is no bomb or if there is may be you should call the police. Im only saying that there may be a procedure for something but outcomes are no longer possible. One could possibly know how to catch butterflies but he/she could actually catch them any longer if they had become extinct.

1

iiioiia t1_ixdwgib wrote

I'm not saying so much as I am demonstrating how a person behaves when a point is raised that conflicts with their presentation of reality. In this case, you dodged the question - in my experience there are < 10 standard behaviors, and this is one of them.

0

bumharmony t1_ixe9x1p wrote

Sounds like opportunism rather than serious search for truth.

2

iiioiia t1_ixeajr3 wrote

Speaking of truth: it may sound like opportunism, but is it actually?

0