It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How do people who believe 'There is no truth' function in society?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear



But no, we humans had to invent god as a cover, to give us permission
to kill people who look different from us and think differently.



Is that why we invented God?

To give us permission to kill? To give us permission to judge those different?

I think it more likely we invented God as a concept to deal with weather, fire, flood and elements we couldn't at the time God was "invented," control nor conceive of in any other way, explain and attempt to survive.

We rationalize as humans our desire to kill or judge independently of God.
One has nothing to do with the other. In my opinion, of course. And I know nothing. Of course.
tetra




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50

And I filter through all of those things, I don't just blindly accept the status quot.

I don't trust the media, I don't worship the almighty dollar, and while forced to live in a society that sells me shoes by near slave labor in some poor country, I don't have to agree with it.

I certainly don't trust the society I live in, if I did, I wouldn't push to try and improve things for the better.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50

Read the book if you haven't. I'll stick with my definition.

Kev



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
I was hands down the worst person in my life when I was an atheist. I thought that if there was no good or bad, I could do whatever I wanted and it didn't matter... As long as I didn't get caught.

I assume this is the same mentality held by a lot of the powers-that-be that sacrifice the well-being of others for profit.


I was hands down a terrible person when i was a theist.
I'm not joking or being contrary.

Well, I'm not an atheist, an agnostic or a theist right now..
I just live by 'Don't be an asshole' and it serves me very
well.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement
a reply to: cooperton

While I agree with the validity of your point, I find it rather distressing that some people need to believe in the threat of eternal damnation in order to have a set of morals.


I agree with that too. Plato said that it would be better for someone to adhere to the truth for selfish reasons rather than not at all. Ideally, you aspire for truth because you know it is the right thing to do, and not because you fear any punishment.

My point was, when I was an atheist back in high school, it gave me reason to do bad things, because I did not think there were consequences for my actions (unless I got caught). I guarantee many malignant billionaires have a similar philosophy.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

As opposed to feeling bad and asking for forgiveness then doing it again, oops damn my human failings, good thing Jesus will forgive me.

There are people on both sides of the fence doing that.

Is all a matter of what mental hurdles you can and are willing to jump through to convince yourself of what you desire.
edit on 8/3/2015 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   


"There is no truth. There is only perception." - Gustave Flaubert

If someone really believed that, it would have ramifications in every area of their life. I would think that it would make one unable to function in society.


We can never know truth; we can only describe it from a personal perspective using philosophy. Your OP is a perfect example of what Gustave Flaubert was trying to express. Therefore, I find your entire post ironic in the sense that you seem to disagree, yet, your perception on the matter actually prove Flaubert's point.

The sky is Blue.

Is that truth or perception? Is the idea of the sky being blue moulded by external conditioning of what we choose to label blue?

Most would agree that the statement is true based on what we are taught what this shade we are seeing with our eyes is. But is it "Blue" or is it just a colour (another concept of mind identification, btw) that we all agree to "label" blue?

Perceptions are moulded by what we "accept" as true based on what we are conditioned to believe when weighing facets of life.




Let's consider some of the choices one must making when starting a business:

1. What products/services should be offered?

Market research is necessary to make a good decision on this issue. However, one who believes there's no truth wouldn't see any value in market research. Such an individual could never admit that one product or service would be more successful than another because that would contradict their worldview.


@"However, one who believes there's no truth wouldn't see any value in market research."

Is that above statement fact (truth) or your opinion (perception)...?

@"that would contradict their worldview."

You are unconsciously admitting that perception is all that exist in that above statement.



2. What prices should products/services be sold for?

Making a decision here would also involve a contradiction of their worldview. How can there be a "market price" that yields a high enough profit margin to make the company successful if there's no truth?

3. Location

Obviously, the old maxim, "Location, location, location" could not be admitted to be true.

4. How do you determine who's most qualified to hire?


I do get where you going with all that based on business minded perspective. In life, we have established parameters to work within. Some choose to work within that box of established parameters and some like to think outside of it...despite being within that same box always. The former usually fails whereas the latter succeeds. This is why despite your valid points above, those that do adhere to those points outlined above find success where others fail. How come all entrepreneurs who play by the same rules above do not make it... and some do?

If there were any real truth to what you outlined above, all who adhered to that mode of thinking and application would find success...



If you believe there's no truth...


Can you define truth without using Webster's Dictionary to define (describe) what it means? What is truth outside of a societal agreed upon concept of what it means or what it entails...?



how do you come to grips with the fact that some professions require special training, education, experience, etc.? All of those things contradict your worldview.



You are confusing agreed upon societal concepts (collective philosophy/world view) with the concept of truth. What makes one thing true and another false is determined by what we have been conditioned or taught regarding the issue. In other words: truth is subjective in nature and very much just perception moulded by what we agree is true or false.

Again, your OP proves the point.

Now, if one were to state: "I don't believe jumping of a skyscraper without a parachute will cause me death;" is contradicting the immutable and fixed laws of physics (truth). Yet, their perception (worldview) concerning the matter is all that remains...















edit on 3-8-2015 by Involutionist because: grammar and punctuation SUCKS!



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 04:09 AM
link   
There is no truth?
Is that true?



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 04:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I believe there is no truth. But then again i don't function right and am very un-social

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Well said.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 04:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Profusion

I believe there is no truth. But then again i don't function right and am very un-social

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Well said.


Was ist denn los mit dir?

How about a song to get your mind straight, Peeple. Self-pity will do naught for you.

www.youtube.com...
edit on 4-8-2015 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 05:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion

"There is no truth. There is only perception." - Gustave Flaubert.


The truth is hidden in plain sight!!

Is Gustave Flaubert saying that 'perception' is what there is?
To 'perceive' is to be aware.

Is this text appearing? If so, how so?
Is there awareness present? Is this text being perceived?

There is 'seeing/knowing' (perceiving) and all that can be known appears within it and is never separate from it. What appears within the 'perceiving' is constantly changing - but 'perception' (awareness) is constant.



posted on Aug, 4 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement
a reply to: theMediator

Right, and you could do this all day to make historical philosophical quotes less poetic. It proves nothing, though makes them a lot less memorable.

"One man's trash is another man's treasure"
"Don't be throwin' that out someone else might want it!"

You see?


Brilliant




originally posted by: Profusion
"There is no truth. There is only perception." - Gustave Flaubert

If someone really believed that, it would have ramifications in every area of their life. I would think that it would make one unable to function in society. Let's consider some of the choices one must making when starting a business:


Language is not exact. "Truth" can mean many things.

Of course we have everyday truths like the sky is blue and whatever. And they are useful to us. But at a deeper level there is no truth. We don't actually know anything about the world, about things as they actually are, in and of themselves. We only know of what the seem. There may be truth out there somewhere, but it is not ours. Truth does not belong to us.

We do not see or think about the actual things, only constructs based upon our senses and reason. This is what Kant talks about with his thing-in-itself as opposed to the phenomenon, the thing as it appears to the observer.



posted on Aug, 5 2015 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Subnatural

Starred your post because it resonates with my personal philosophy.



Language is not exact. "Truth" can mean many things.



I agree.



Of course we have everyday truths like the sky is blue and whatever. And they are useful to us. But at a deeper level there is no truth.


I find that statement contradictory, yet understand what you mean on a deeper level, or at least perceive that I do.



Of course we have everyday truths like the sky is blue and whatever.


I view that above statement as subjective perception being mistaken as objective fact.

We have a collective agreement that the sky is blue, but is it really?

"The sky is a certain shade" would be an everyday truth and more accurate statement, because it reflects an objective fact. The sky is NOT blue. We are conditioned as a whole to believe that particular "shade" of what we identify as the sky is called blue and this reflects a subjective collective agreement, which proves this following statement true:



But at a deeper level there is no truth.


I agree, upon deeper examination, one would conclude the sky is indeed NOT blue. Again, we only choose to label it blue based on what we are taught each spectrum of light (where colour is derived) that we are seeing is called. We give each spectrum of light an identity by assigning it a name. We all agree on the type of shade we are seeing when we look up and say; "it's blue" based on this conditioning and agreement.



We don't actually know anything about the world, about things as they actually are, in and of themselves. We only know of what the seem. There may be truth out there somewhere, but it is not ours. Truth does not belong to us.


This I agree with you deeply. I personally believe the only truth is there is no absolute truth; only perceptions.



We do not see or think about the actual things, only constructs based upon our senses and reason. This is what Kant talks about with his thing-in-itself as opposed to the phenomenon, the thing as it appears to the observer.


I agree. The thing in itself has no substance of its own. It can never be defined wholly without referencing other things to describe it. Everything is a construct of mind. Btw, Kant was a champion in his own right.



...thing-in-itself as opposed to the phenomenon


@The thing in itself -is unknown yet observable phenemenon, such as the colour of the sky (objective reality).

@As opposed to the phenomenon -interpretation of the spectrum of light we see when we look at the sky (subjective reality).

The sky is not blue.

Respectfully,

Involutionist








edit on 5-8-2015 by Involutionist because: grammar and punctuation SUCKS!



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join