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.

 

Wisdom versus Logic....

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   

edit on 9-1-2016 by TAECOLE7 because: Wrong person




posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Now would be a great time to repost your pineapple theory, loved it!



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: auto3000









Defining a word does not mean that word is a truth about reality it simply means that is the message that word tries to portray.


This means that the only reference is what sounds reasonable in accordance to how you process logically. Other than logical absolutes themselves, this leaves you only in a state of defining reality by what makes sense to you despite objectively what it is....from a spiritual standpoint this leads to what is called a reprobate mind.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: auto3000




There is not intrinsic definition of the word mammal. Its a word in a language that we have agree means a particular thing.


Yes, words convey messages ...




here is no objective reference.....This type of thinking leads to this....I can only absolutely know what I can determine and there is no objective reference besides what I can determine....This is called total "subjectivity".


Your taking that out of context. I said there was no objective reference for the meaning of words. I didn't deny the existence of an objective reality. Words are a medium for information. Whether or not the information those words contain is true not based on the agreed upon meaning of the term but whether that term is reality actually contains what the information claims it contains.




Sure the two guys can disagree on what is best for killing prey, but either one or the other is telling the truth.



There is no truth in either position, because their stand points are subjectively based upon logical processes....what's best for killing prey is a subjective discussion.


Depends on how your using the word best. If you are talking about what is most effective then we could easily come up with an experiment to determine what was the most effective way to kill prey. The guys can prefer two different methods, but the fact of reality is one of those methods is actually more efficient at killing prey than the others. We defined truth as what actually is. Reality is the state of the world as it actually is. What makes a statement true is the it is coherent with objective reality.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Wisdom is the application of knowledge known. Man's wisdom is based upon knowledge known and is subject to change due the facts i.e. gender, time, location, etc and can be right or wrong to fit each individual .
Wisdom which is from above/God is based upon All Knowledge known amd is unchangeable due to it being Truth, Absolute and Pefect Law.
Facts are subject to interpretation but Truth must be revealed by the One/Jesus Who is True and the Truth.
Therefore, logically with the wisdom of man trying to reach God by believing with his mind will always come up short(really far) due to just the facts.
When, God/Jesus requires us to believe in the Heart; Receive Him and have right Relationship with Him and then by His Revelation your logic will increase due to the Truth.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: auto3000














What makes a statement true is the it is coherent with objective reality. And where is that objective reality referenced from? You can't say the mind or brain because that's where our awareness of it derives...



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: auto3000




No, there can be no facts about a specific state of mind...only charged activity that results from it....a person can't validly argue with a person about his or her own state of mind.


If your distaste for the color red is a mental concept that describes what is indisputably the case about your personal being then it seems to me it would be a fact that you do not like red. If it is not then it would be a fact that you lied when you said that.

A gentleman asked me to express my pineapple theory to you so here it is:

You simply cannot win an argument with a person who is insane. A sane person listening to your presentation may become convinced, but there is no way of convincing a person who is not sane of anything. For example, Lets say I am holding a pineapple in my hand and claim that it is a pineapple, but another person in the room instead claims that it is a tv remote. I would be completely incapable of refuting this persons claim as I would have no stronger proof other than a pineapple being in my hand. This person and I would have a fundamental disagreement about reality, and the only solution to this would be to the resolution of a mental illness. I find the above example, parallels to the discussions I have upon morality. For example I may say that torturing babies for pleasure is objectively evil. Yet there are those who would argue that morality is based on the subjective whims of each individual person. Those who argue this are simply calling my pineapple a tv remote. There is a fundamental disagreement about reality.

I have no stronger argument that the torturing babies for pleasure is objectively evil independently of anyone’s subjective preference than the self-evident fact that torturing babies is objectively evil. I cannot hope to convince anyone who disagrees with such things that objective morality is the truth behind reality as they simply are not in touch with reality.

Now in the above example what determines what is actually the case is whether or not there is actually a pineapple in my hand. The objective reference here is reality not definition of the word pineapple. "Pineapple" is a pattern of letters and sounds that refers to an object in reality. If me showing a person a pineapple is not enough to get them to see that pineapples exist then the issue is not that they don't understand the word pineapple and tv remote but that person and I have a fundamental disagreement about objective reality and no amount of definitions will clear that up.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It can only be true that you like or don't like something, the fact would be the color that you don't like...here's the conclusion of this....truth can never be a material reality, it can only validate the physical case....mammal definition is not what makes the mammal exist, it validates a factual reality, meaning, you can apply meaning to what you are looking at.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Sir, the pineapple theory is flawed due to the fact of individual relativity and cannot be applied to everyone but everyone can agree to truth that is how one relates to a subject even if one is insane.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Thank you! Sometimes ppl should agree to disagree.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

If a person lied then they just intentionally told something that was false...."told something false" a false statement about how they feel about a color.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: auto3000

remember...the opposite of fact is fiction, not false.



posted on Jan, 12 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Wisdom, asking yourself questions and giving yourself the correct answers.

Logic, applied wisdom to get the answers you never wanted.

Life...learning you are not wise.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: beenharmed

Yea.....quick question, your response...is that according to you?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join