Is there a common set of universal truths?

Gisteron wrote:

Br. John wrote: Fyxe is possibly the same person as Kyrin Wyldstar and VixensVengeance

Br. John wrote: PM

If you are already happy to plant a seed of thread derailment anyway, why not present your case in public? You made the (possibly) accusation in public, too, so what's the issue?

PM

Br. John wrote:

Gisteron wrote:

Br. John wrote: Fyxe is possibly the same person as Kyrin Wyldstar and VixensVengeance

Br. John wrote: PM

If you are already happy to plant a seed of thread derailment anyway, why not present your case in public? You made the (possibly) accusation in public, too, so what's the issue?

PM

As you can see from the post you quoted, I did not ask for (a private revelation of) evidence. I asked why you wouldn't present your case in public, if you are already willing to make the accusation in public.

Ima try and answer all questions. I don't know what the middle part means though? so Ill ignore it.


Gisteron, should I change my statement from there must be to there might be? I but must because as Jedi don't we all believe in the force? no matter what the individual belief comes to become there is this idea that we all believe in just "The Force". Just the name used for this underlying thing or idea? the other points after all are based on that same agreement - that the force (whatever that is) exists.

As for getting taught not to believe in in, well I can see your point, I think its actually both. some teach to believe and some teach to disbelieve.




Ob1shinobi, I guess I should say MY system of knowledge. and not A system but a system seems the same to me as my system. I don't think its based on faith but belief. I have seen evidence of it, but that is allreally beside the point. I was the one who build the system I presented and the how was by experience and interaction I feel was real. But I didn't do this thread to argue for my belief. I wanted to go underneath that and see if Im wrong.

I think there may not be the physical evidence but spiritual evidence and that evidence is that we all believe something exists beyond what we see because of some reason that is subjective. if a bunch of subjective ideas are the same is there some underlying cause for this? There MAY BE, would you say?

I don't want to get into the whole whats on your desk stuff because that's a claim of ability that you already reject. I was just asking if you believe in some form of something like the force? it doesn't matter what it actually is I just wonder if you think it exists at all or does not exist.




Caesar, I was trying to stay away from any system including platos. I am just wondering about whats underneath that, anything at all? if so why do you think so?


Adder, what im tying to find is the reference, the anchor or underlying principle that can be agreed to. do you think, is there something rather than nothing and if something I don't want to know what you think it isthough because that's a system/.

Fyxe wrote:
Caesar, I was trying to stay away from any system including platos. I am just wondering about whats underneath that, anything at all? if so why do you think so?

I wrote exactly what I thought. Read it again.

And it's kinda hard to stay away from a system when the "truths" you are proposing have already been an established ontological system for over 2000 years.

Well I'm not looking for truths so much as principles or essences. Do you believe there is such a thing and if so what would you say it is?

A well-defined purpose is key to making a convincing argument on any subject.
In philosophy, we are taught to eschew the superfluous, to abandon the mendacity of the unnecessary, so that an argument is clear, concise, and stands alone in its dispassionate intellectual fervor towards logically valid persuasion.
In other words, a sound argument is free of embellishment, of the inconclusive niceties that appeal to vapid emotionalism.
A sound argument stands on its own feet, it is independent in its solidity, and is supported by its inherent strength alone.
One must keep this in mind and hold true to these principles in order to preserve one's intellectual integrity.
Unless one is a politician of course. 

But yes, there certainly is an undefinable essence to reality, some mysterious incorporeal substrate that binds mind and body to reality.
What it is, I cannot say. As I have previously stated, this is vast, complex, and abstract, something that is difficult to put into words, let alone effectively communicate with others.
One must either base their beliefs in this matter on pre-existing ideas or come up with their own perspective.
However, this is difficult to do, as most possible perspectives on the ontological have already been expressed, in a more concise and eloquent manner than I could ever hope for.
So I shall simply settle for a synthesis.

CaesarEJW wrote: A well-defined purpose is key to making a convincing argument on any subject.
In philosophy, we are taught to eschew the superfluous, to abandon the mendacity of the unnecessary, so that an argument is clear, concise, and stands alone in its dispassionate intellectual fervor towards logically valid persuasion.
In other words, a sound argument is free of embellishment, of the inconclusive niceties that appeal to vapid emotionalism.

Wait, what's the deal with ontology, then? :silly:

On a more serious note, though, how does

But yes, there certainly is an undefinable essence to reality, some mysterious incorporeal substrate that binds mind and body to reality. What it is, I cannot say. As I have previously stated, this is vast, complex, and abstract, something that is difficult to put into words, let alone effectively communicate with others. (emphasis added)

make any sense? What is this sort of 'certainty' you speak of that can persist on things that are, as you put it, 'undefinable'? And what about it is not superfluous, or clear, or concise, or maintained for a belief without emotional appeal?

One must either base their beliefs in this matter on pre-existing ideas or come up with their own perspective.

Must one, though? Can one not withhold belief until something, anything remotely compelling is presented?

Serious question
- the symbol g. The numerical value for the acceleration of gravity is most accurately known as 9.8 m/s/s.
Universal truths ? Like this or

Natural truth by natural law

4 seasons emotions change with changing of seasons?

Math
Comprehensive ideas
Science
Things like that ? I do want to understand

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: The numerical value for the acceleration of gravity is most accurately known as 9.8 m/s/s. (emphasis added)

After literally some 10s or so of typing it into google and clicking the first result:

Wikipedia wrote: At different points on Earth surface, the gravitational speed gain ranges from 9.764 m/s² to 9.834 m/s² depending on altitude and latitude, with a conventional standard value of exactly 9.80665 m/s² (approximately 32.17405 ft/s²). This does not take into account other effects, such as buoyancy or drag.

So no. Not "most accurately known". It's not even really a constant at all. At most there is a convention, an agreement to use one exact value as a unit where applicable.

Gisteron wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: The numerical value for the acceleration of gravity is most accurately known as 9.8 m/s/s. (emphasis added)

After literally some 10s or so of typing it into google and clicking the first result:

Wikipedia wrote: At different points on Earth surface, the gravitational speed gain ranges from 9.764 m/s² to 9.834 m/s² depending on altitude and latitude, with a conventional standard value of exactly 9.80665 m/s² (approximately 32.17405 ft/s²). This does not take into account other effects, such as buoyancy or drag.

So no. Not "most accurately known". It's not even really a constant at all. At most there is a convention, an agreement to use one exact value as a unit where applicable.

Yes that - is that what ya mean? That type of universal truth that can be tested and perfected as we grow and learned and used... does that count as universal truth here ?