Are there universal human truths?

>human

Getting real spooky in here

How do you know that's true?

There is and it is reachable, but only through nirvana.

God is real

>theres no universal truth except the truth that theres no universal truth
Youre pretty dumb

Human beings, no matter their situation, will deviate towards contentment. When we are content, we look for possible problems due to inherent instinct for doing so. If there isn't a problem we wrack our brains to create one. Solving those problems either creates its own problem to solve, or a state of contentment in which a new problem is fabricated.

Happiness does indeed exist, but human beings will naturally accustom to whatever their happiness is, and become content. Human existence is a cycle of finding a problem, solving the problem, being happy, being content, and finding/fabricating a new problem to solve.

What makes a bunch of chemical processes + electricity human is not suffering, but being aware of that suffering, knowing that it exists, its source, how to stop suffering.
Everything suffers but if anything would suddenly become aware of it, it would become human there and then, with all the goods and bads of it.

>this is your brain on post modernism
JUST

>he thinks skepticism began with post-modernism

Hey pseud

what does that even mean?

Yes but even if someone is unloved throughout their whole life (which I disagree with on a spiritual level, God loves everyone), they still will have loves of their own. If you mean only romantic love, yes, this can be hard to find but love as a feeling of compassion and empathy and acceptance of things and people one enjoys is most surely a universal truth for any human.

b e a u t y
e
a
u
T
y

Not that user, but I hate these fucking excuses of an argument.

That user is not saying what he is saying is an universal truth, not even that it is simply true by any standards, he is just saying it. Maybe it isn't true, maybe that user knows it is not particularly a truthful thing, because he acknowledges that there are no absolute truths, nevertheless, it doesn't matter.

By his own argument, it's his reality tunnel. Feel free to disagree, he knows you are not obliged to take his word (again, by his own argument)

It's the same when people say "everything is relative" and idiots come by and say "ha! but then that too is relative!". Yes, that too is relative, what about it? Same with "everything is subjective". Yes, even that is subjective, so what?

The Universe would be one's own will made visible (as an object) through time and space.

I know of at least one.
>tfwnogf

I think acceptance of some amount of displeasure and pain to reach fulfillment is a universal human truth or quality. Otherwise there would be no reason for anyone to do anything but lie around touching themselves all day until they starved.

talk shit, get hit.

god is unsigned 32-bit integer, pleb.

>God loves everyone

he certainly had a hard-on for all those decent christian folk in Sumatra that he drowned in the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and Tsunami.

Uuuuum... Yes, exactly.

>ha! but then that too is relative!". Yes, that too is relative, what about it?
Its a fucking nonsensical paradox that its relative that things are relative because that implies theres relative objectivity but that makes no sense. You are a fucking buffoon if you cant understand why that doesnt work

There's universal human Might.

that's not skepticism lol

Did someone say Universal Truth?

Everyone dies.
And, although exaggerated slightly to sound better: Everybody lies.

G. House

>That user is not saying what he is saying is an universal truth, not even that it is simply true by any standards, he is just saying it. Maybe it isn't true, maybe that user knows it is not particularly a truthful thing, because he acknowledges that there are no absolute truths, nevertheless, it doesn't matter.
Every assertion/affirmative sentence remits to what it is, and is a judgement about reality.
Nigga said every human bean in the world has his own individual view of reality, which would be inherently subjetive, incommunicable and untransferable. There's an obvious contradiction on asserting that.

Sorry bub, but equality is the spook. Racial differences have been scientifically proven, and yet everyone in the west still worships the cathedral of equality

Evil for the greater good or so they say.

Nihilism.

Well, us inhabiting a particular reality tunnel is just your subjective opinion man.

>implying my reality tunnel isnt the exact same as yours on account of our basically identical genetic make-up

There are only historical truths.

Love in our sense was made up 300 years ago

>science is real
>races are real

>"A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is 'merely relative,' is asking you not to believe him. So don't." - Roger Scruton

Post-modernists/relativists/etc BTFO.

>implying science isnt real
Come on m8, now youre just being silly

No, it's not a paradox. It only seems like so to you because you think every sentence uttered implies an objectivity within itself.

If I say to you "that wall is green, but that's just my opinion", there is no reason for you to reply "then why say it is green, if it is only your opinion?".

The true paradox is not within what that guy said, but the paradox that you find within yourself when you meet with sentences like that. Apparently, first we are looking for what this ultimate truth is and we are open to hear others about it (this religion, that idea, this science, this attitude, and so on) and clash these views. But then someone says there is no such objective truth and instead of actually hearing it, we turn to our own quest once again. Then, surely there feels like a paradox("it can't be True that there is no Truth"), only insofar as we are still looking for it.

If you ask "where is the apple?" and I say "there are no apples, just this orange", would you say "that's impossible, an orange is not an apple" and resume looking for the apple. The problem here is that the question "where is the apple" implies there is an apple(even though there might not be). In the same sense, by seeking this ultimate truth, you imply there is one.

>Every assertion[...]is a judgement about reality.
It might be an assertion about reality, but what reality? That user is not addressing an objective reality, but a subjective one (not because he chose one over the other, but because he believes the former is actually a misinterpretation of the later). We must not take this difference for granted.

>own individual view of reality, which would be inherently subjetive, incommunicable and untransferable
There is no connection between having individual views of reality and not be able to communicate it. That is a very strange view of communication, because, afterall, if there were no difference between two views, there would be nothing to communicate. Besides, whether it is untransferable or not is a different matter. We can definitely talk to each other, but we must not assume we understand each other. We may know very well what we are saying, but we can't know what the other hears.

I turn to that example again: "that wall is green, but that's just my opinion". There is nothing contraditory about saying that. It may seem that "that wall is green" would be an objective claim which wouldn't fit along with opinion. But look how much easier it is to accept if I turn the sentence around: "in my opinion, that wall is green". In other words, that wall is green only insofar as it appears to be within the scope of my opinion (outside of it, nothing is claimed).

It is the same with that user and the other previous examples. The "ground zero" here is not the objective reality that is then described as a subjective one. It is a subjective reality to which some ascribe an objectivity, an objectivity that one can claim to be false.

Why can't the writer write about relative truths and why can't the reader be reading relative truths?

Relative truths doesn't mean there aren't truths, just that they are relative.

Grab her right by the relativism

Dominance Hierarchies
Dreaming
Need for socializing especially at a young age

A relative truth is a logical contradiction.
Either it is true or it is relative (e.g. an opinion, a preference).

Rationalization hamster: the post

Come on try again:
>It is true that everything we know is relative
Either your statement is relative and thus self-defeating.
Or you have some objective way to claim knowledge, which contradicts your claim.

There is no way out of logical contradiction. Unless you're willing to cuck yourself on post-modernism.

This
I don't think this is exactly true.
Everyone experiences love in someway or another.
Whether it's a mother's love, admiration from someone, or love from a partner.

And why can't you write preferences and opinions, and read preferences and opinions? Why would anyone "not believe" those? In a world of relative truths (or preferences and opinions), how could one even lie?

It is a logical contradiction only if you think "truth" is an object in itself and not a quality of the relationship that you have with what you perceive. That is, something is true when I perceive it as true. To oppose truth with relativity also gives a bad name to opinions themselves, as if there was some things that we claim which come from an (assumed) objective reality and some things which were "mere opinions" that would come from nowhere. Opinions come from how we perceive reality, so they are always true to the one who holds them. The two things are merged (better say, they were never separate). This is what realitive truths are about.

The crucial point is here:
>Either your statement is relative and thus self-defeating.

I think that statement is relative. I just don't think that is self-defeating at all. Try to explain to me why that is self-defeating.

My claim is that this "defeat" occurs when you try to "win" by expressing an objective universal truth. Which is not necessary what is going on when such statements are made. You can't lose in a game you are not playing.

I think therefore I am.

What is a "human truth"?

>implying two different sensory systems can possibly perceive the same reality tunnel

Existentialists GTFO.

When you go to sleep or at noon, are you the same? When you are old or when you are young, if you are drugged or not, if your pressure is in this or that range, if you are in a bad mood or not, if you just got kicked out of your house or just got a job, aren't you different all the time? You don't even have the same reality tunnel as you had 5 min ago.

Oh dear. This is what happens when emo kids indulge in philosophy. Because their lives are defined by self-pity, they think everybody else's must be too.

>Pain is an undeniable reality
False. The power to accept or deny is yours.

>you accept that it is real
Now you're getting it, though you just contradicted yourself.

>That's real enough to be considered a universal human truth
What the fuck kind of cognitive somersault is this? Because you're in pain, everybody is?

>that pain exists and life is suffering.
Pure projection, and the very essence of subjectivity.

Perception is not a valid methodology for truth. Only replication (which englobes objective perception) is.

Again, if you're logically inclined, you should start with the the three laws of logic and then see that "relative truths" violates them.

>There is no way out of logical contradiction.
Correct. Because logic is a model, and all models are imperfect. Every logical system ultimately disappears up it's own arse. e.g. the old "This statement is false" assertion.

>Unless you're willing to cuck yourself
You just went full relativist.

By the way, if you've been keeping an example of universal truth up your sleeve all this time, we're all just dying to hear it.

I believe you. But there's no way for me to know that you're really thinking. Hence it's not a universal truth.

>mfw no insult intended

>Try to explain to me why that is self-defeating.
If everything we know is relative, you can't then say that you are correct because being correct assume a standard of truth.
In short there is a contradiction between the form and the content. The content says "everything is relative", the form says "I have an objective standard for truth".
If everything is relative, you can't know anything. Which is a further contradiction because you know at least one thing that "everything is relative".

Another way to look at that:
Is it fair that you are trying to show that I'm wrong?
If I can be wrong, there is necessarily such a thing as being right.
Then you say you are not playing the game of truth.

Look if you can't see these paradox, it's fine but you really look like someone who don't understand basic logic.

Have you tried not breathing for an hour (or a year)? Can anyone do it?

I know it is a stupid question but that is in a good way in my opinion to trigger pain or suffering.
How then would you argue that pain is a subjective reality?

>Perception is not a valid methodology for truth.
Then there's no way for humans to verify truth. Which is a pity, because it's only humans who have a concept of truth.

>Again, if you're logically inclined, you should start with the the three laws of logic and then see that "relative truths" violates them.
So Aristotelian logic is violated. So what? All systems of logic are violable.

And yet there are people who get off on sexual asphyxia. For them it isn't pain, but pleasure.

It's all about how you judge the sensory signals. I'm not denying that the vast majority of people find suffocation unpleasant, and with good reason, but ultimately it's a choice they make for themselves.

Death is the only thing that people can be relied upon to do so.

Oh dear.

Read me again
>Perception is not a valid methodology for truth.
>Only replication (which englobes objective perception) is.
It's called the scientific method. You cannot verify truth if it is only perceived but not replicated.

>So Aristotelian logic is violated.
Yes, that's the issue. It's the most basic methodology for distinguishing truth from falsehood. You can go against it but you need to make a case for it.
Also being violable does not mean that you end up being right.
If you say that gravity doesn't exist and you jump off a cliff, you can't expect not to die.
Being optional doesn't mean that a framework is not objective

As far as I understand sexual asphyxia is finding the sweet spot between restriction and panic.
They do experience both, they just find pleasure in finding the correct subjective ratio between forceful restriction and pain. Just like I do when I try to stay under the water to swim.

I really don't see how sexual asphyxia is an argument against my position. Care to elaborate further?

who benefited from their deaths?

sweet creeping jesus fuck, do we need a /philosophy/ forum so we can get all these etiolated cocksuckers out of Veeky Forums and into containment.

What about a quarantine for people like you? Hiding a thread is not that hard.

yes
read Junger

Lemme guess, you would rather have a "tfw no Veeky Forums gf" thread?

If I'm being dense, then feel free to expound. I only took one course on metatheory of logic, and that was 20 years ago. Anyhow ...

>It's called the scientific method.
Where results depends ultimately on the perceptions of scientists.

>You can go against it but you need to make a case for it.
No you don't. A single counter-example is sufficient to disprove a logical assertion. I'm guessing you're not a mathematician.

>Also being violable does not mean that you end up being right.
Nobody said that (whatever you mean by "right" ...)

>If you say that gravity doesn't exist and you jump off a cliff, you can't expect not to die.
And I definitely didn't say that!

>Being optional doesn't mean that a framework is not objective
We're talking about objective truth, not objectivity per se. That objective framework may well contain "truths," but they're not necessarily verifiable in other (equally objective) frameworks. And in the end, all such frameworks depend on axioms which, not being proven, need not be accepted as true.

>deviate towards
I don't quite understand this word choice. This is probably because you don't know what the word deviate means.

In a nutshell, I'm saying sensory signals aren't interpreted the same way by everybody. In fact, the same sensation might be interpreted different ways by the same person, depending on circumstances. Therefore they can't give rise to an objective truth.

I'm not denying that any sane person would find suffocation uncomfortable. But unless you can definitely say everybody will, it's not a universal truth. Quibbling perhaps, but that's inevitable in philosophical arguments.

Hell, there are even people who think death might be pleasurable: that the body is flooded with endorphins, and life ends with a mind-blowing DMT trip. I hope it's true, but I can't know it for sure ...

>Where results depends ultimately on the perceptions of scientists.
Let's take colors. Let's assume everyone see colors differently. The scientific method argues that colors is wavelength which is an objective and replicable measure. It does not depends on the perception but on the replication of that perception.

>A single counter-example
We agree there. That's what I call by making a case: it's either providing evidence to the contrary or making an argument on why the theory is not valid.

For the last point, I don't know what you are trying to argue. A framework does not contain perfect knowledge, it only proposes a way to differentiate claims between true and false - according to that framework.
If something is found true, you then can use other frameworks to triangulate what is true and what isn't. You can then have a transdiscplinary approach.

>subjectivity: the post

Let's say I am colorblind. Does red do not exist?
I think you are making the case that red does not exist because one person see red differently.
I would then argue that red is a given wavelength and does objectively exist whether perceived by everyone or not.

Same with pain, pain can be measured objectively (let's take skin conductivity). Whether it is experienced as such is not an argument against the existence of the phenomenon, but its perception. And we all know that human perception is not perfect, that's why we need objective way to measure, quantify or experience something.

Oh, I'm glad you chose this example:-

>The scientific method argues that colors is wavelength which is an objective and replicable measure
Whoah, you mean light is a wave? Because I say it's composed of discrete particles (which, I believe, is a replicable measure ...)

But assuming for a moment that light has a wavelength ... I assert that there is no way to determine it, except to an arbitrary degree. What's more, any two instruments used to measure wavelength will produce conflicting results (to say nothing of any human error that might creep in.) Are you really sure this measurement is as replicable as you say it is?

>Does red do not exist?
What if I said no? As you're aware, "red" is merely a perception, not a reality.

>I would then argue that red is a given wavelength and does objectively exist
For you, this is what red is. For others, not so much. And that "given wavelength" is purely notional. Try detecting light at any "given wavelength" and you'll never find it; at best, you'll detect minute variations thereof.

As for pain, it definitely can't be measured objectively, if only because sensory systems are by nature subjective. And even then, it depends on the subject interpreting sensation as "pain."

Well that's true in the sense that there are what we call uncertainty, which is a limit of technological and practical engineering, not a theoretical one. So yeah it is replicable plus/minus uncertainty.

I think you want to argue that imperfect knowledge is not perfect truth, which I do understand from a pragmatic standpoint. But that's only because of incomplete knowledge and imperfect technology.

>"red" is merely a perception, not a reality.
No, you are incorrect a light with a frequency of 780 nanometers (red) is measurable even without human. Same for ultrared or infraviolet.

Try putting your eye against an invisible laser and then argue that "the damage caused do not exist because I did not perceive it".

You are confusing two things: the phenomenon itself and its perception.
We have three cases: a phenomenon can exist without being perceived, a perception can take place without being real, and a phenomenon can be both perceived and be real.

> Pain cannot be measured objectively
While there is uncertainty, I would like to suggest to you to look into skin conductivity. That's what is used in stud to quantify different physiological reactions.

Wonderful reductio ad absurdum of po-mo bullshit, chap.

I think you might have fully realised the narcissistic-individualism of right-libertarianism.

>pomo is right-libertarianism
What? Pomo is left leaning if not outright communistic.

Of course

Pomo is an acquiescence to neoliberalism.

It fails to critically engage with anything -- pomo refuted the likes of Adorno and Horkheimer.

You can't so willfully evade the axioms of language. Language is a structure used to approximate truth. It either does or does not

>Because logic is a model, and all models are imperfect
Holy shit language trap language trap weooo weoooo

>No, you are incorrect a light with a frequency of 780 nanometers (red) is measurable even without human
I thought we were talking about redness? Because light of 780 nm is not necessarily red. Some people might see it as colourless, or even green.

(Incidentally, you notion of a photon 780nm long is just that - a notion. Just try catching one of those in real life. This is the problem with scientists: they work with models, not reality. They confuse the map with the territory. No wonder they find new models so difficult to grasp ... see Einstein's reaction to the Copenhagen Interpretation.)

>Try putting your eye against an invisible laser and then argue that "the damage caused do not exist because I did not perceive it".
If it's all the same ... no thanks.

You appear to be arguing that there is an objective reality. Maybe there is, but there's no way it can be known objectively. Two people will always see it differently, and therefore there can be no universal truths about it.

I smell the pungent outrage of Abrahamic religion. Murcan much?

Dunno why you're so afraid of a reductio ad absurdum - it's where all modes of logic ultimately end up.

This statement is false.

If we look at the group of universal human truths and say "this group is empty". That is not a universal human truth, rather it is on another layer of abstraction, it is a truth about universal human truths.

Say we look at many different groups 1-9999 (Each group would be things true in a different human experience). Now lets make group A of things true in all of them. This group can be empty with no contradiction because the information that group A is empty is meta information ABOUT group A, it doesn't belong IN it. Instead it belongs in group B, things true about group A. Putting the information that A is empty in group A makes as little sense as putting it in groups 1-9999.

Of course.

> universal human truths
Women are cunt

Anxiety and Ideology. *sniff*

DNA, Cells, At least part of a brain, ect.