Do you believe "truth" exists?

[Fontaine]

I am a bit hypocritical there, because I have often advocated a certain perspective for being "closer to the truth" than the opposite perspective.

However, when you read something like this, you realize how much what we believe to be "truth" is actually personal bias, parti-pris.

For Friedrich Nietzsche, nothing was truth and everything was power or will to power. Ideas are mere evolutionary tools, vehicles for survival. I tend to agree.

Are we truly more "truthful" than GorillaWarfare on the subject of incels, or do we simply have a different set of bias and self-interest?

The interests of GorillaWarfare and the Wikipedia admin community are essentially to deny there is such a thing as involuntary celibacy in society (outside of this very particular community). Why? Probably because of several biases: feminism or hostility to evolutionary psychology. They don't even take pains to hide it. Our interests are essentially to advocate for the opposite viewpoint. Who is right? I say: the most powerful is right. The King is right.

And indeed, the GorillaWarfare version has come to dominate Wikipedia. Because she is an administrator, and nobody here is a Wikipedia administrator.

 

[Deleted member 1410]

objective truth exists but not objective morality. too many different cultures exist for that latter statement to lend any creedence to itself.

 

[Fontaine]

objective truth exists

So who holds "objective truth" here, GorillaWarfare or us?

 

[Zesto]

Waifus are truth.

Waifus are love Waifus are life.

 

[Deleted member 1410]

So who holds "objective truth" here, GorillaWarfare or us?

nobody does, only your god or gods do.

and if you're an atheist you're fucked.

 

[IsolationHurts]

So you basically agree with good old Nietzsche. I think it's kind of deluded to think that one can make any statement true with enough power. Not everything can be true (even if repeated one million times) and there are some truths that are as they are (true) even if a whole civilization and it's power opposes it (heliocentrism during middle ages or basic science for actual Muslims...)
So... No. Human power only can do so much against nature and how it truly is. But it is true that the humankind has an incredible skill that consists in ignoring the truth (still unknown) by self-delusion and conformism. Also, it's pretty obvious that personal, social, cultural... Interests and motivations can shape knowledge in various directions but... As I said... no amount of interests and power can create reality (and it's truth) according to one own will.
Sorry for bad english.

 

[Inbuddhist]

I'm a Mysterian myself, i believe that the truth exists, but that we will never discover it because we aren't wired to comprehend and proccess the ultimate reality of things and the universe.

I don't like Nietzsche though, i think his philosophy is self-defeating. If everyone is cynical, thinks only of himself and wants to be superhuman and dominate everybody, it will make it worse for EVERYBODY (including him), a universe where people are less cynical, care more about others would be better for EVERYBODY, including him.

Remember, no matter how cynical and "SUPERHUMAN" you are, only 1second, a gunshot and some crazy guy going ER separates you from death.

 

[PersonalityChad]

objective truth exists but not objective morality.

 

[Fontaine]

So you basically agree with good old Nietzsche. I think it's kind of deluded to think that one can make any statement true with enough power. Not everything can be true (even if repeated one million times) and there are some truths that are as they are (true) even if a whole civilization and it's power opposes it (heliocentrism during middle ages or basic science for actual Muslims...)
So... No. Human power only can do so much against nature and how it truly is. But it is true that the humankind has an incredible skill that consists in ignoring the truth (still unknown) by self-delusion and conformism. Also, it's pretty obvious that personal, social, cultural... Interests and motivations can shape knowledge in various directions but... As I said... no amount of interests and power can create reality (and it's truth) according to one own will.
Sorry for bad english.

I'm a Mysterian myself, i believe that the truth exists, but that we will never discover it because we aren't wired to comprehend and proccess the ultimate reality of things and the universe.

I don't like Nietzsche though, i think his philosophy is self-defeating. If everyone is cynical, thinks only of himself and wants to be superhuman and dominate everybody, it will make it worse for EVERYBODY (including him), a universe where people are less cynical, care more about others would be better for EVERYBODY, including him.

Remember, no matter how cynical and "SUPERHUMAN" you are, only 1second, a gunshot and some crazy guy going ER separates you from death.

Very interesting answers, thanks.

 

[SilentSoup]

There is objective truth. I don't think the bitter, crazy incel community holds the full truth, and the biased wikipedia editors don't hold it either.

I can have my opinions, but my opinions change- this suggests to me that I'm not necessarily holding the great truth either. Truth is like the holy grail, it's to be quested after. Maybe when I find it I'll find enlightenment?

 

[StaroRavager]

and if you're an atheist you're fucked.

It’s over

 

[Fontaine]

There is objective truth. I don't think the bitter, crazy incel community holds the full truth, and the biased wikipedia editors don't hold it either.

I can have my opinions, but my opinions change- this suggests to me that I'm not necessarily holding the great truth either. Truth is like the holy grail, it's to be quested after. Maybe when I find it I'll find enlightenment?

Good attitude.

 

[Henry de Montherlant]

Complicated issue tbh.

Truth has different meanings, a "popular one" (truth can change from an individual to another, "to each his truth"), and a more prosaic one, for which truth, as the perception of a unique reality, has to tend to an ideal unicity corresponding to the property of this reality (scentifical "truth", or "fact" to some extent).

In the case here, we have a personnal truth from a feminist in power that is pushed regardless of other evidences disproving this "truth". A personnal opinion regarding reality, and taken arbitrarily as "true", is chosen over a truth relying on observable phenomenon blatantly disproving the said opinion.

In other words, an "official truth" is brutally suppressing a "factual truth"for no other reason than the personnal taste of one capricious person.

 

[Deleted member 13256]

"I think therefore I exist" is the only truth. Even then it's more like "something thinks therefore something exists" because assuming there is a self is a bit too much.

 

[IsolationHurts]

"I think therefore I exist" is the only truth. Even then it's more like "something thinks therefore something exists" because assuming there is a self is a bit too much.

Solipsistcel? lol. You can't lack female intimacy if you think there is really no other person in the world but you, don't you think?

 

[Deleted member 13256]

Solipsistcel? lol. You can't lack female intimacy if you think there is really no there person in the world but you, don't you think?

I still have beliefs but they are not based in any objective truth. I'm pretty sure everyone else exists but I can never know the truth.

 

[Dude420]

However, when you read something like this, you realize how much what we believe to be "truth" is actually personal bias, parti-pris.

We never see reality as it really is, we see what is adaptive, therefore, our mind can purposely guide us toward a false perception of reality.

 

[Deleted member 1252]

No. The universe itself is inherently relative, nothing is objective or concrete.

Having said that, for pragmatic purposes, things sometimes need to be treated as objective in order to achieve things.

 

[Blacktarpill]

I am a bit hypocritical there, because I have often advocated a certain perspective for being "closer to the truth" than the opposite perspective.

However, when you read something like this, you realize how much what we believe to be "truth" is actually personal bias, parti-pris.

For Friedrich Nietzsche, nothing was truth and everything was power or will to power. Ideas are mere evolutionary tools, vehicles for survival. I tend to agree.

Are we truly more "truthful" than GorillaWarfare on the subject of incels, or do we simply have a different set of bias and self-interest?

The interests of GorillaWarfare and the Wikipedia admin community are essentially to deny there is such a thing as involuntary celibacy in society (outside of this very particular community). Why? Probably because of several biases: feminism or hostility to evolutionary psychology. They don't even take pains to hide it. Our interests are essentially to advocate for the opposite viewpoint. Who is right? I say: the most powerful is right. The King is right.

And indeed, the GorillaWarfare version has come to dominate Wikipedia. Because she is an administrator, and nobody here is a Wikipedia administrator.

Truth is like a femcel. It shouldn't be exist bec. it is not rational. There is one rule in a humans life: live/die

 

[Dude420]

Aside from this subjective nuance I brought in my last post, from a theoretical standpoint I agree with this;

objective truth exists but not objective morality.

I believe Sam Harris is wrong when he says there is such thing as objective moral truth. Sam Harris use greater societal well-being as his premise to construct a basis for scientific morality, but what he doesn't acknowledge is that this premise is entirely subjective and also very vague when dealing with concrete problems with cascading effects which makes it difficult to quantify the well-being impact. Basically his premise is not objective, and if you were to say it was, his application can't be absolutely objective.

 

[Fontaine]

Complicated issue tbh.
Truth has different meanings, a "popular one" (truth can change from an individual to another, "to each his truth"), and a more prosaic one, for which truth, as the perception of a unique reality, has to tend to an ideal unicity corresponding to the property of this reality (scentifical "truth", or "fact" to some extent).

The popular meaning, currently, is not the subjective view of truth but the objective view of truth. Science is the great god of our generation. It's rather the learned man who today has seen how much "truth" is in reality ideological bias.

 

[Dude420]

@Fontaine do you agree with my views on truth and morality?

 

[Fontaine]

@Fontaine do you agree with my views on truth and morality?

I agree with your statement that we perceive reality in an adaptive way, the product of evolution, and not a real way. Robert Lanza explores this in his books Biocentrism. For example, a sound is not a sound but merely air vibrations. The apparatus to perceive sounds is an "artificial" creation that could very well never have occurred in nature, and only did so because it provided an evolutionary advantage for survival. A being who does not need sounds to survive does not perceive them; there is no such thing as "sound" on an objective level.

As to morality, my opinion is that all morality is subjective. What matters is the punishment if you don't respect it. Religious people threaten violators with eternal torture in Hell, which makes their view of morality more "important" than secular people's view; the penalties in case of disrespect are far greater.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Everyone here has, in aggregate, more or less said what I wanted to. There is clearly material reality - it is just not apprehensible with an imperfectly developed consciousness that is emergent from it (thinking theistically, if human consciousness is an autonomous "spark of the divine" it is still not divinity in its totality and the same problem is present). Even the more perspicacious among "I fucking love scientific, rational, awesome science" bugmen will admit that theories exist as limits, with independent and repeated corroboration driving a line (nearly) up against "truth" as it approaches infinity.

Truth is not consistent with a world that lacks unitary (or even dispersed) omniscience. The belief in "objective reality" is childish naïvety and hubris masquerading as intelligence and confidence. This lacuna in the fabric of conscious experience could be filled by a deity, belief in which is altogether more respectable than investing deferential credulity in organs of specialized "experts".

Nietzsche is correct in associating power and truth, the latter of which is made possible by the former. The death of God has yielded to a succession of impermanent "realities" curated from a small portion of the total body of "facts" in the world. Those who control the dissemination of information - its release and its legitimation - control "truth", control the form that collective bodies and their constituents take.

Normies are made by the normal. Feminists were made by feminism. Redditors were made by Reddit.

 

[Dude420]

I agree with your statement that we perceive reality in an adaptive way, the product of evolution, and not a real way. Robert Lanza explores this in his books Biocentrism. For example, a sound is not a sound but merely air vibrations. The apparatus to perceive sounds is an "artificial" creation that could very well never have occurred in nature, and only did so because it provided an evolutionary advantage for survival. A being who does not need sounds to survive does not perceive them; there is no such thing as "sound" on an objective level.

As to morality, my opinion is that all morality is subjective. What matters is the punishment if you don't respect it. Religious people threaten violators with eternal torture in Hell, which makes their view of morality more "important" than secular people's view; the penalties in case of disrespect are far greater.

Thanks for the reply I agree with what you said. I would add to your first remarks that not only our brain creates the sound out of waves but it will falsely perceive the sound of objects coming near you as closer than where they were they really are because it is adaptive to have an additional fraction of second to react to incoming danger than the cost it entails to have a false representation of reality. About your following paragraph, like I discussed with you before I agree generally speaking, but you have to enter faith in the equation on top of the severity of punishment to comprehend his efficiency, and it is trickier to make people believe in dogmatic beliefs as such. Which is why, in a world where individual are becoming further scientifically educated, religions are becoming less and less efficient in enforcing their dogmatic morality.

You seem like a pretty smart dude, I would be curious to know your favorite books list?

 

[deepthroat]

What ''truth'' are you seeking anyway, I read through posts and nobody specified anything as for what the "truth'' is about? I mean it's so universal term. I believe that truth exists now fuckin tell me what it is.

 

[uninstall]

objective truth exists but not objective morality. too many different cultures exist for that latter statement to lend any creedence to itself.

both

objective truth and objective moral exist

humanity's greatest fear is that there are absolutes

 

[Dude420]

What ''truth'' are you seeking anyway, I read through posts and nobody specified anything as for what the "truth'' is about? I mean it's so universal term.

1+1=2 is the truth, fact of reality. Can't be disproved.
What leads to happiness? You have a bunch of "scientific" answers, of so-called truths, none of them will give you the objective truth since happiness is too intricate for us to grasp. As for basic maths, we suspect there must be nonetheless an objective answer to that question.
(but that's under the assumption that the universe works within a causal logical framework, it obeys laws, not randomness or other unlogical processes, and that haven't been 100% proven)

 

[The Abyss]

There are the "facts" & whatever the hell ppl want to believe; nothing more. All that changes is what is presented as truth depending on who is in charge.

 

[Deleted member 5861]

Its objective truth that im posting on incels.is

 

[deepthroat]

@Dude420 I think I got ya. So truth behind all of material world and processes that are taking place in it? It's inconceivable, behaviour of conscious beings is mathematically unpredictable and if you go with approximations you will never get the real truth. Universe is also unpredictable, there is simply too much quantum data in constant flux that are impossible to work with on meaningful scales. Not mentioning entropy and causality. I believe that you can get close to the truth as much as you want, however no conscious intelligence will be ever able to fully grasp all of it. It depends on what is your truth and where you set it at.
Now for the original purpose of the thread, as who has more truth or who posses more legit information. Every single thinking is subjective however an autor is educated. So everything is biased. It's a false idea that you can apply mathematical precision on subjective thinking.

 

[Dude420]

@Dude420 I think I got ya. So truth behind all of material world and processes that are taking place in it? It's inconceivable, behaviour of conscious beings is mathematically unpredictable and if you go with approximations you will never get the real truth. Universe is also unpredictable, there is simply too much quantum data in constant flux that are impossible to work with on meaningful scales. Not mentioning entropy and causality. I believe that you can get close to the truth as much as you want, however no conscious intelligence will be ever able to fully grasp all of it. It depends on what is your truth and where you set it at.

Yes, all of what you said made sense to me, I can see your logic. But my personal view is that life is deterministic and one day we will find the unified equation that could explain the universe in his entirety (but too predict the future you would need to enter all the data about the current state of the universe, and have a computer performant enough to process all of this). About quantum mechanic which you could argue disprove my logic, I believe we might haven't fully grasped is logic/predictable nature yet. So I believe conscious beings are predictable, free will is illusory, our brain obeys the laws of physic, but we haven't figured out how to solve the puzzle yet, so we do not hold the objective truth about human nature/human behaviors.

 

[Deleted member 12355]

2+2=4

 

[Dude420]

2+2=4

The truth has been spoken

 

[deepthroat]

Yes, all of what you said made sense to me, I can see your logic. But my personal view is that life is deterministic and one day we will find the unified equation that could explain the universe in his entirety (but too predict the future you would need to enter all the data about the current state of the universe, and have a computer performant enough to process all of this). About quantum mechanic which you could argue disprove my logic, I believe we might haven't fully grasped is logic/predictable nature yet. So I believe conscious beings are predictable, free will is illusory, our brain obeys the laws of physic, but we haven't figured out how to solve the puzzle yet, so we do not hold the objective truth about human nature/human behaviors.

I can't agree fully. There are physical laws behind everything but that doesn't mean there is no room for randomness. I have free will, other way I would be a cuck now.

 

[Dude420]

I can't agree fully. There are physical laws behind everything but that doesn't mean there is no room for randomness. I have free will, other way I would be a cuck now.

Your brain doesn't obey the laws of physic? What gives you free will, quantum mechanics? There is no supportive evidence the quantum mechanic leads to free will, quantum mechanics is present everywhere. And randomness is the opposite of free will when you don't want to decide you resort to randomness, such as flipping a coin.

 

[Abomination]

Yes, all of what you said made sense to me, I can see your logic. But my personal view is that life is deterministic and one day we will find the unified equation that could explain the universe in his entirety (but too predict the future you would need to enter all the data about the current state of the universe, and have a computer performant enough to process all of this). About quantum mechanic which you could argue disprove my logic, I believe we might haven't fully grasped is logic/predictable nature yet. So I believe conscious beings are predictable, free will is illusory, our brain obeys the laws of physic, but we haven't figured out how to solve the puzzle yet, so we do not hold the objective truth about human nature/human behaviors.

Your statement about quantum mechanics is provably incorrect. You are saying that there is a hidden variable theory that underlies quantum mechanics which would make the result of what appears to be wavefunction collapse predictable, which was proven to be incorrect (Bell's Theorem).

Furthermore, absolute truth does exist. This can be proven by first principles; if absolute truth does not exist, them the statement "absolute truth does not exist" is absolutely true. This is a contradiction.

 

[Ryo_Hazuki]

In a literal sense, objective truth exists regardless of how many people believe it, even if nobody believes it. Things don't just start existing when humans discover them. There are tons of things that exist (thus being a part of objective reality, and thus truth) that humans have not discovered. I suppose this is like the age old philosophical question of "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

But in a pragmatic sense, you're right. Most people believe everything that feminists and SJWs say. They control the information and successfully censor those who oppose them. Their ideological opponents are silenced and relegated to increasingly obscure parts of the internet.

So while objective reality isn't a democracy...in a pragmatic sense all that matters is popular opinion and the agenda of those in power. When you are in a death camp for wrongthink...it won't matter if you were right or wrong.

 

[deepthroat]

Your brain doesn't obey the laws of physic? What gives you free will, quantum mechanics? There is no supportive evidence the quantum mechanic leads to free will, quantum mechanics is present everywhere. And randomness is the opposite of free will when you don't want to decide you resort to randomness, such as flipping a coin.

Decision making. That's interesting I can't (objectively) crack this down. I said everything obeys the laws of physics. When we try to decide, there are various processes both consciouss when you try to recall associations and unconsciouss, that facilitate many adjacent processes. It is our consciousness that ultimately acts upon that. I think you do it freely, your brain won't cheat on you by giving you some predetermined cue.

 

[jerrycan dan]

I am a virgin, try disproving that buddy

 

[Dude420]

Your statement about quantum mechanics is provably incorrect. You are saying that there is a hidden variable theory that underlies quantum mechanics which would make the result of what appears to be wavefunction collapse predictable, which was proven to be incorrect (Bell's Theorem).

I am not sure but so-called proof has been disproved in the past. I believe that God doesn't play dice with the universe as Einstein stated. We don't even know what the smallest particle is yet, we still have a lot to discover, it is too soon to give definitive answers about things that appear unpredictable to us.

Decision making. That's interesting I can't (objectively) crack this down. I said everything obeys the laws of physics. When we try to decide, there are various processes both consciouss when you try to recall associations and unconsciouss, that facilitate many adjacent processes. It is our consciousness that ultimately acts upon that. I think you do it freely, your brain won't cheat on you by giving you some predetermined cue.

Read on neuroscience, consciousness is an illusory process created by your unconscious. Your unconscious made his mind about what you are going to do before you are consciously aware of it.

 

[Abomination]

I am not sure but so-called proof has been disproved in the past. I believe the God's doesn't play dice with the universe as Einstein stated. We don't even know what the smallest particle is yet, we still have a lot to discover, it is too soon to give definitive answers about things that appear unpredictable to us.

Read on neuroscience, consciousness is an illusory process created by your unconscious. You unconscious made his mind about what you are going to do before you are consciously aware of it.

Bell's Theorem is a mathematical proof of the fact that local hidden variable theories are inconsistent with the predictions of quantum mechanics, by a factor of 3/2. Quantum indeterminacy is a fact of our universe; quantum mechanics must be approximately true as a limiting case of whatever the grand unified theory is, and therefore the grand unified theory must be consistent with quantum indeterminacy.

 

[deepthroat]

Read on neuroscience, consciousness is an illusory process created by your unconscious. Your unconscious made his mind about what you are going to do before you are consciously aware of it.

That's what I was saying but I'm taking that note about predetermined cue back. You are actually given those cues whether you want or not, but you make the final decision, so I believe that consciousness is free will. Sometimes when distracted, or thinking about something else, you can catch yourself doing something irrational automatically. That's out of free will because u didn't pay attention and consciously decide. I think I'm getting to the point. We are both capable of executing free will and acting unconsciously.

 

[Deleted member 265]

thread too high iq for me

 

[Anger]

I believe objective truth exist, but it was buried a while ago by our own personal views of truth which created human history itself. The ones in power had twisted the definition of objetcive truth in order to mantain the status quo.

 

[Dude420]

That's what I was saying but I'm taking that note about predetermined cue back. You are actually given those cues whether you want or not, but you make the final decision, so I believe that consciousness is free will. Sometimes when distracted, or thinking about something else, you can catch yourself doing something irrational automatically. That's out of free will because u didn't pay attention and consciously decide.

No, even if you change your mind, neuroscience can show you changed your mind unconsciously before the apparent conscious decision. Anyway, you didn't program your brain, a brain which behaves in evolutionary adaptive ways. The underlying mental processes from which your consciousness emerges operates under laws which you didn't decide and can't change.

 

[Fontaine]

When you are in a death camp for wrongthink...it won't matter if you were right or wrong.

Precisely. And if the truth can kill you, isn't it better to believe in a lie? Natural selection and objective truth are often in conflict, meaning that humans probably all have a bad grasp on objective truth.

 

[Deleted member 14577]

In a literal sense, objective truth exists regardless of how many people believe it, even if nobody believes it.

This. My problem with the objective truth is that the human conscious mind is inherently abstract while reality is exclusively absolute. Our perception of reality is limited by our senses and ideas, we find middle ground between the ideas of reality we have and what our senses percieve. So can we really percieve objectivity with minds only capable of subjective thought?

 

[Angus13]

truth is based off of reality, reality is objective, but individual truths can fall into 2 categories, objective truths and subjective truths. However there is little to no point in discussing subjective truths unless you are talking with someone else who is also subject to that truth.