Butch Femme Planet  

Go Back   Butch Femme Planet > LIFE > Thinking Harder

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-18-2011, 10:25 AM   #61
dreadgeek
Power Femme

How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme
Preferred Pronoun?:
She
Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl
 
dreadgeek's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,848 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851
dreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputation
Member Photo Albums
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJo View Post

Right. I think the problematic part is that many of us who use this phrase use it in different ways.
Yes, precisely. I would feel better about the whole thing if people would designate or define what truths they are talking about when they speak of 'my truth'.

Cheers
Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community.

"People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett)
dreadgeek is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post:
Old 07-18-2011, 10:27 AM   #62
tapu
Senior Member

How Do You Identify?:
Understated butch.
Preferred Pronoun?:
I
Relationship Status:
Party of One
 

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,654
Thanks: 1,324
Thanked 3,112 Times in 1,103 Posts
Rep Power: 21474850
tapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Jupiter has 30 moons can't be "my truth" even if I fervently believe it. It's something I could be wrong about and I know it, and even if I don't it has a different essence than "my truth": The way Jo (and others) are explaining "my truth," the determiner of what is true is internal to the speaker. It's not an empirical fact; it has an external truth condition.

Or something like that.
__________________
Really? That's not funny to you?
tapu is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to tapu For This Useful Post:
Old 07-18-2011, 10:30 AM   #63
tapu
Senior Member

How Do You Identify?:
Understated butch.
Preferred Pronoun?:
I
Relationship Status:
Party of One
 

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,654
Thanks: 1,324
Thanked 3,112 Times in 1,103 Posts
Rep Power: 21474850
tapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJo View Post

Right. I think the problematic part is that many of us who use this phrase use it in different ways.
Yes, precisely. I would feel better about the whole thing if people would designate or define what truths they are talking about when they speak of 'my truth'.

Aj
------------------

Well, yes. But I see that as a side issue in the more formal discussion. I haven't seen anyone argue against the meaning captured by Jo's explication, from the beginning of the thread 'til now; only against the alternatives.
__________________
Really? That's not funny to you?
tapu is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to tapu For This Useful Post:
Old 07-18-2011, 10:32 AM   #64
Jett
Member

How Do You Identify?:
Hardcore bullheaded grown-ass Tomboy
Preferred Pronoun?:
She
Relationship Status:
she loves my shaggy hair
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The backroom of a night cafe plotting world domination
Posts: 1,028
Thanks: 2,054
Thanked 3,299 Times in 568 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852
Jett Has the BEST ReputationJett Has the BEST ReputationJett Has the BEST ReputationJett Has the BEST ReputationJett Has the BEST ReputationJett Has the BEST ReputationJett Has the BEST ReputationJett Has the BEST ReputationJett Has the BEST ReputationJett Has the BEST ReputationJett Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreadgeek View Post
No matter how many times I hear it explained, I can't get past the idea that 'true', when applied to a statement, is supposed to be a measure of veracity. If it is not then 'tell the truth' and 'tell a lie' become empty phrases.

Take, for example, the old idea of a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Imagine that child explaining that for her it is 'true' that she wasn't told she couldn't have cookies before dinner. Since she wasn't told that (because it was true for her) then that means she could have a cookie and because it is true for her there is no grounds for punishing her for taking a cookie when she wasn't supposed to. Now, of course, the child's mother has her own 'truth' that she did tell her child not to eat cookies before dinner but if we concede that the child has her own truth and the mother has her own truth and if we decide that there is no reason to prefer one truth over the other, then the mother has no grounds for disciplining her child. I think we would all agree that if, for example, the child was demonstrably at school and the cookie jar fell off the counter and broke, it would be unjust--even abusive--for the mother to punish her child for something the child demonstrably could not have done.

Yet, if we concede that the mother can have one 'truth' (one where the child broke the cookie jar even if she was nowhere near it) and the child can have another (where she didn't break the cookie jar because she was at school) now we have to concede that if the mother asserts that her 'truth' is that her daughter broke the cookie jar then she is justified in punishing the child.

If you would concede that the only circumstances where it would be unjust to punish the child is when the child did not do that for which she is going to be punished, then we have now broken the link between what the child does and what she is punished for. It does not matter if she *did* the thing what matters is if her mother has as her truth that she did the thing. Whether it *actually* happened becomes functionally irrelevant.

The problem I have with the 'this is my truth' idea is that it breaks the linkage between our actions and our behaviors. I woke up at 4:30 this morning to be at the office by 6:00. Not because I wanted to but because I believed--correctly--that I had to be there by 6:00 and that failure to do so would be a 'career limiting move'. In other words, I behaved in a manner appropriate to the circumstances I held to be true--that my boss expected me to be in at 6:00 to be at a meeting with members of our organization in England.

Now, it may be that the link between the beliefs that someone holds and their actions is under-determined but I don't believe it is so. This means that if someone believes--holds to be true--that homosexual couples should not be allowed to be legally married because this or that divine being hates the very idea of homosexuals existing much less marrying then that person's behavior will be *very* different than one who, for instance, does not believe that the sensibilities of divine beings has no legitimate place in determining laws in a secular legal system. Perhaps it is because I grew up in an America where non-trivial numbers of the majority saw the color of my skin and determined, based upon that information, that their 'truth' was that I was an intellectual and moral inferior and that they should behave appropriately that I distrust the 'this is my truth' construction. I do not think it is benign and, in fact, I think it can lead to quite malevolent outcomes.

I'm curious, is there anyone here who believes that if N-number of Republicans hold to be true that Barack Obama is a Marxist, Mau-Mau, Islamic fascist, socialist who was born in Kenya and hates America does that mean that, in fact, Mr. Obama is obliged to BE those things. If someone believes these things to be true and it turns out that he is none of those things, doesn't that mean that someone holds a 'false' belief? There are no sane worlds (sane here meaning not self-contradictory) where Mr. Obama was both born in Kenya and born in Hawaii. If it is 'true' that he was born in Kenya then he is not the legitimate President nor can he ever be the legitimate President since the Constitution is quite clear on the matter. If it is not true then one may not like him, his party or his policies but that does not mean he is illegitimate.

I understand that 'that is my truth' is supposed to be a way of promoting dialog and tolerance but it fails to do the former and actually gives aid and comfort to bigotry since, for instance, a bigot can assert that it is her 'truth' that I am her mental and moral inferior and the *only* counter I have left to me is that my 'truth' is that I'm not--but no one should expect me to accede to statements about my own inferiority so there's no way for someone on the sidelines to adjudicate that. Meaning that outside of a 'well, my truth is that I don't like racism' is the *best* stance you can make. Again, if my being black is held by someone to be prima facie evidence on my mental and moral inferiority it is *entirely* appropriate, given the 'this is my truth', construction for them to act in the most racist manner since they are not being 'racist' by their own lights but acting in accordance with what they held to be true. To promote, pass or enforce laws or social norms that make that kind of behavior out of bounds is to violate the bigot's truth for no *good* reason.

Is that really the world people want because that is the world that elevating an opinion--even an incorrect one--to the level of 'truth' ineluctably creates.

Cheers
Aj
Right I think someone saying something is "my truth" most certainly doesn't absolve them from error in that "truth" or error in the usage of the phrase.

But... I feel like "it's my truth" is meant to be used in a personal context rather than factual statement about, say for example, whether something's red or if it's blue... because the truth of what color something is, is clear and not really subject to personal choice or perspective . I feel like using the term that way is stretching it beyond what I understand it's (the phrase) essence to be.

So I really think it is more meant to be about and used in reference to things that are subject to ones perspective rather than things that have no room for personal opinion and are just plain facts. When I think of it, if I were to use it... and I have it would be in a context of my feelings about how I as a human perceive more abstract ideas and or internalize them and sort to arrive at "my truth". Less than concrete things, perhaps feelings of gender, labels etc. Like if someone were to put forth that Metropolis is a butch because I XYZ and ABC ... it doesn't matter, because how I feel about what I am is still MY truth, and correct for me.

It IS true for me... but may not be for others... we have different truths. I don't think the statement is meant to be used to say something is THEE universal truth, but a more abstract personal truth to or about oneself. I think if used to dispute indisputable facts about the outside world the phrase is just being used incorrectly in the first place.
__________________
..........
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer. ~Albert Camus
Jett is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Jett For This Useful Post:
Old 07-18-2011, 10:52 AM   #65
dreadgeek
Power Femme

How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme
Preferred Pronoun?:
She
Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl
 
dreadgeek's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,848 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851
dreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputation
Member Photo Albums
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metropolis View Post
Right I think someone saying something is "my truth" most certainly doesn't absolve them from error in that "truth" or error in the usage of the phrase.

But... I feel like "it's my truth" is meant to be used in a personal context rather than factual statement about, say for example, whether something's red or if it's blue... because the truth of what color something is, is clear and not really subject to personal choice or perspective . I feel like using the term that way is stretching it beyond what I understand it's (the phrase) essence to be.

So I really think it is more meant to be about and used in reference to things that are subject to ones perspective rather than things that have no room for personal opinion and are just plain facts. When I think of it, if I were to use it... and I have it would be in a context of my feelings about how I as a human perceive more abstract ideas and or internalize them and sort to arrive at "my truth". Less than concrete things, perhaps feelings of gender, labels etc. Like if someone were to put forth that Metropolis is a butch because I XYZ and ABC ... it doesn't matter, because how I feel about what I am is still MY truth, and correct for me.

It IS true for me... but may not be for others... we have different truths. I don't think the statement is meant to be used to say something is THEE universal truth, but a more abstract personal truth to or about oneself. I think if used to dispute indisputable facts about the outside world the phrase is just being used incorrectly in the first place.
I have read the phrase (or one of its synonyms) used here in the problematic context (not wanting to reopen old wounds I will not go into specific details about the incidents I have in mind) which is what sparks my interest in the matter. If you are talking about your own interior landscape then 'this my truth' is almost entirely unproblematic. If that is what is at issue, then my question changes from what 'this is my truth' buys us to why anyone would take the statement "my truth is that tequila is yummy" as being at all problematic.

Cheers
Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community.

"People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett)
dreadgeek is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post:
Old 07-18-2011, 03:38 PM   #66
AtLast
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Woman
Preferred Pronoun?:
HER - SHE
Relationship Status:
Relating
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: CA & AZ I'm a Snowbird
Posts: 5,408
Thanks: 11,826
Thanked 10,829 Times in 3,199 Posts
Rep Power: 21474856
AtLast Has the BEST ReputationAtLast Has the BEST ReputationAtLast Has the BEST ReputationAtLast Has the BEST ReputationAtLast Has the BEST ReputationAtLast Has the BEST ReputationAtLast Has the BEST ReputationAtLast Has the BEST ReputationAtLast Has the BEST ReputationAtLast Has the BEST ReputationAtLast Has the BEST Reputation
Member Photo Albums
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tapu View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJo View Post

Right. I think the problematic part is that many of us who use this phrase use it in different ways.
Yes, precisely. I would feel better about the whole thing if people would designate or define what truths they are talking about when they speak of 'my truth'.

Aj
------------------

Well, yes. But I see that as a side issue in the more formal discussion. I haven't seen anyone argue against the meaning captured by Jo's explication, from the beginning of the thread 'til now; only against the alternatives.
For me, a problem arises if I sense that using this phrase means they are not willing to take a look at what is "true" for other people- or that we all see the world through filters/lenses that speak to our life experience.

This entire discussion has led me to the realization that when the word "true" or "truth" enters into things, we may be digging in our heels about something. Of course I have and do this sometimes. Yet, just considering what others are bringing to the discussion does make me more mindful of using these terms or the phrase.

I admit that I am just not at my best communication mode when I begin to feel stubborn. This usually means I am not listening to someone else.
AtLast is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AtLast For This Useful Post:
Old 07-20-2011, 08:59 AM   #67
dreadgeek
Power Femme

How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme
Preferred Pronoun?:
She
Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl
 
dreadgeek's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,848 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851
dreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputation
Member Photo Albums
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtLastHome View Post
For me, a problem arises if I sense that using this phrase means they are not willing to take a look at what is "true" for other people- or that we all see the world through filters/lenses that speak to our life experience.

This entire discussion has led me to the realization that when the word "true" or "truth" enters into things, we may be digging in our heels about something. Of course I have and do this sometimes. Yet, just considering what others are bringing to the discussion does make me more mindful of using these terms or the phrase.

I admit that I am just not at my best communication mode when I begin to feel stubborn. This usually means I am not listening to someone else.
See, I think that the problem with using this construction of things being 'true' for people is that we aren't being clear about the subject matter domain. I think that, for instance, there can be multiple truths (within reason) about what makes a successful relationship. Even here I would have to draw a line. If a neighbor tells me that it is 'true for them' that beating their spouse makes their relationship healthier I'm not going to 'respect' that 'truth' and avoid calling the cops. If one is talking about your own interior landscape then sure, we all have our own truths but this observation still--even after a couple of days of sitting on it like a hen--strikes me as trivial to the point of banality and if that is what we are talking about I'm *still* confused why anyone would find that at all controversial.

My concern is not when people are talking about their own interior landscape but when they are talking about the world we all share. That is the more interesting (read problematic) use of the phrase.

Part of my problem in understanding what we are talking about, at this juncture, is that my use of the word 'true' is perhaps more constrained. For me, something is 'true' if the statement accurately describes the world in such a way the world is obliged to actually conform to that description. A couple of examples will, I hope, suffice.

1) Earth rotates on its axis every 24.25 hours and is tilted at 23 degrees relative to the plane of orbit.

2) Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States. George W Bush was the 43rd President of the United States. William Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States.

3) Ordinary (light) water is dihydrogen monoxide, meaning that it has two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom.

4) Hydrogen has one electron and one proton.

5) All life on Earth is descended from a common ancestor and has diverged in the last 4 billion years by a process of mutation and natural selection.

You get the idea. My concern is not when people make comments about their interior landscape but when they argue that they get to have their own 'truth' relative to any of the class of ideas above. If we're *only* talking about interior landscapes then I return to my question of Monday--what about saying "my truth is..." interests people? If we're talking about the larger, more generic question of epistemology then I have to ask if the idea of each of us having our own 'truths' can even hold itself up under its own weight. It seems to me to be demonstrably false even by its own lights.

I say that because, for instance, if we each have our own truths and we need to treat those truths as valid then *my* own truth is that we *don't* have our own truths.

Cheers
Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community.

"People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett)
dreadgeek is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post:
Old 07-20-2011, 09:28 AM   #68
tapu
Senior Member

How Do You Identify?:
Understated butch.
Preferred Pronoun?:
I
Relationship Status:
Party of One
 

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,654
Thanks: 1,324
Thanked 3,112 Times in 1,103 Posts
Rep Power: 21474850
tapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputationtapu Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Philosophical arguments so often wend their way down to a paradox.
__________________
Really? That's not funny to you?
tapu is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tapu For This Useful Post:
Old 07-20-2011, 04:35 PM   #69
Corkey
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Human
Preferred Pronoun?:
He
Relationship Status:
Very Married
 
Corkey's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Where I want to be
Posts: 8,155
Thanks: 47,491
Thanked 29,299 Times in 6,640 Posts
Rep Power: 21474859
Corkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST Reputation
Default

I think with sciences not being taught in schools we are going to experience more of this. I'm even more concerned with the kids being home schooled.
My internal truths are different from everyone else's, however the earth is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the earth and we did not just appear in this form 6,000 years ago. Science is not a god, but it can reveal many truths that mankind needs to see and hear. I think mans ego get in the way of real scientific truth.
__________________
"Many proposals have been made to us to adopt your laws, your religion, your manners and your customs. We would be better pleased with beholding the good effects of these doctrines in your own practices, than with hearing you talk about them".
~Old Tassel, Chief of the Tsalagi (Cherokee)
Corkey is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Corkey For This Useful Post:
Old 07-20-2011, 05:59 PM   #70
Corkey
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Human
Preferred Pronoun?:
He
Relationship Status:
Very Married
 
Corkey's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Where I want to be
Posts: 8,155
Thanks: 47,491
Thanked 29,299 Times in 6,640 Posts
Rep Power: 21474859
Corkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST ReputationCorkey Has the BEST Reputation
Default

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/m...190516989.html

This is precisely what I mean by mans ego.
__________________
"Many proposals have been made to us to adopt your laws, your religion, your manners and your customs. We would be better pleased with beholding the good effects of these doctrines in your own practices, than with hearing you talk about them".
~Old Tassel, Chief of the Tsalagi (Cherokee)
Corkey is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Corkey For This Useful Post:
Old 07-21-2011, 09:58 AM   #71
dreadgeek
Power Femme

How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme
Preferred Pronoun?:
She
Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl
 
dreadgeek's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,848 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851
dreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputation
Member Photo Albums
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corkey View Post
I think with sciences not being taught in schools we are going to experience more of this. I'm even more concerned with the kids being home schooled.
My internal truths are different from everyone else's, however the earth is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the earth and we did not just appear in this form 6,000 years ago. Science is not a god, but it can reveal many truths that mankind needs to see and hear. I think mans ego get in the way of real scientific truth.
Your next to last sentence really illustrates what I try to communicate about science, its power and its beauty. I think science gives us a ground for what I call the least common point of agreement. By that, I mean that despite whatever differences we bring to the table we can all agree that, for instance, Earth has one moon and that gravity holds the two bodies together. We can agree that the very same force that holds the Earth-Moon system together causes that system to orbit the Sun. We can agree that the very same force that causes all of that orbiting round gravitational centers of mass holds you to the chair you're sitting in and reading these words. It doesn't matter that you are Native American and I am Black, the same force effects us both. It doesn't matter if I am conservative or you are liberal or vice versa, Newtonian physics effects us the same way.

While these might seem really trivial they are not as trivial as might be revealed on first glance. The reason why is that the same general methods of thought that allow us to understand why the Earth-Moon system works allows us to *also* realize that you and I are members of the same species. Regardless of how easily we fall into the mental habits of xenophobia, racism--just a special case of xenophobia--will find no quarter in biology. Even if it did, we can reason our way past whatever haven it might offer--however, again, biology offers no harbor for racist ideas.

In our modern society we focus on the differences yet, despite those places we differ, we live in the same physical world, we are subject to the same physical forces. Climate change will not effect just people in Europe while leaving people in South America unscathed. Starvation kills people in China just as easily as it does people in Somalia.

This is not to say that science can give us a moral system per se. I think the life sciences (and here I'll include psychology as it moves more toward grounding its hypothesis in the biology of the brain) can point us toward a common human nature which can provide us with guideposts for what kinds of societies we *can* build and how easy or difficult it will be to create those societies.

Cheers
Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community.

"People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett)
dreadgeek is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post:
Old 07-21-2011, 10:37 AM   #72
Glenn
Senior Member

How Do You Identify?:
Northwest Wind and Lake Michigan
Preferred Pronoun?:
Paesano
Relationship Status:
Solo
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore
Posts: 1,546
Thanks: 3,597
Thanked 3,731 Times in 1,096 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852
Glenn Has the BEST ReputationGlenn Has the BEST ReputationGlenn Has the BEST ReputationGlenn Has the BEST ReputationGlenn Has the BEST ReputationGlenn Has the BEST ReputationGlenn Has the BEST ReputationGlenn Has the BEST ReputationGlenn Has the BEST ReputationGlenn Has the BEST ReputationGlenn Has the BEST Reputation
Default

This is not to say that science can give us a moral system per se. I think the life sciences (and here I'll include psychology as it moves more toward grounding its hypothesis in the biology of the brain) can point us toward a common human nature which can provide us with guideposts for what kinds of societies we *can* build and how easy or difficult it will be to create those societies,

Cheers
Aj[/QUOTE]

Here is where the scientific human ego begins to worry me by utilizing the laws and truth of this "Force" in our brain to control us and societies, not knowing for certain the source of this Force,or the further damage for good or evil that can be created by duplicating it in a laboratory. Can Neuro or Behavior Science possibly know with flawless precision the deeper moral and spiritual truths of human evolution that took thousands and thousands of years to spiritually and morally evolve simply by knowing what buttons to push in the brain for the common good of us all?
Glenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2011, 11:28 AM   #73
dreadgeek
Power Femme

How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme
Preferred Pronoun?:
She
Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl
 
dreadgeek's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,848 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851
dreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputation
Member Photo Albums
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorninthesofa View Post
This is not to say that science can give us a moral system per se. I think the life sciences (and here I'll include psychology as it moves more toward grounding its hypothesis in the biology of the brain) can point us toward a common human nature which can provide us with guideposts for what kinds of societies we *can* build and how easy or difficult it will be to create those societies,

Cheers
Aj
Here is where the scientific human ego begins to worry me by utilizing the laws and truth of this "Force" in our brain to control us and societies, not knowing for certain the source of this Force,or the further damage for good or evil that can be created by duplicating it in a laboratory. Can Neuro or Behavior Science possibly know with flawless precision the deeper moral and spiritual truths of human evolution that took thousands and thousands of years to spiritually and morally evolve simply by knowing what buttons to push in the brain for the common good of us all?[/QUOTE]

What 'force' are you talking about? You don't define what force you mean. What *I* am talking about isn't manipulating a 'force' in our brains, it is rather, working on some commonalities of human psychology. I'm not talking about moral or spiritual 'truths' (whatever that might mean. I am talking about certain features of the human brain.

For example, it is a fairly safe bet that if you had a choice in the matter you would very strongly prefer that you not be enslaved and treated as property. If this holds true for me (and it does) and it holds true for you (and it almost certainly does) we can then infer that chattel slavery is a morally indefensible way of organizing an economy. Not because of some mysterious 'force' but because human beings appear to prefer self-determination, self-ownership and not being treated as mere ends to some means defined by someone else. The *principles* that I am talking about have nothing to do with a 'force'. Rather, it has to do with the idea of hypothesis formation, observation or experiment, and then articulation of a theory which is subject to further refinement and falsification.

Take, as another example, rape. All women appear to resist rape strenuously. We should, in fact, expect precisely this kind of behavior because women have a vested interest in bodily integrity and in choosing the time, place, manner of their sexual activity as well as with whom that activity will occur. We should then be *very* suspicious of any claims, made by anyone, that marital rape isn't rape or that women 'enjoy it after a while' or any of the other completely unsupportable things that have been said about rape over the years.

Taking one last example, in the middle part of the last century several collectivist schemes became all the intellectual vogue. In various places, peoples tried to create societies where, for instance, people did not raise their own children but rather they were raised in creches or people lived in very utilitarian buildings, or ate in communal dining halls. Every single one of them were spectacular failures. Again, a political theory grounded in human nature, might have spared us these needless social experiments. Parents will prefer their own children over the children of strangers--we should expect that. People want privacy and they want to choose the company with whom they break bread. Again, we should expect this given human psychology. This isn't about creating utopias. In fact, my argument is that human nature should warn us, in loud tones and garishly colorful flags, that we are in the presence of dangerous ideas whenever someone comes up with a scheme to create the 'perfect' society.

Again, NONE of this requires a 'force' in our brains. If you can find me a society where parents do *not* prefer their children over those of their neighbors, if you can find me a society where people do *not* expect some level of bodily autonomy, where people do *not* mind being treated as mere ends to a means for the benefit of someone else, I'm happy to listen. However, even then I think that the outlier would only serve to throw sharper light on the fact that it IS an outlier. I will also tell you that any society where one or more of those social structures is enforced will be a profoundly less free society.

When I was talking about gravity I was not saying that there is some force, like gravity, that can be manipulated. Rather, I was stating that in the same way that a systematic asking of questions lead us to realize that the same force that causes apples to fall, for us to stay in chairs, and for the Earth-Moon system to orbit the Sun a similar process can lead us, not to a utopia, but can warn us away from schemes that will not work with human psychology, given how it operates. If nothing else, it will tell us what kind of effort it will take to achieve some end we might find desirable. Getting people to, for instance, eat sweets, have sex, or leave their worldly accumulations to their children is easy, pretty much just this side of effortless. Getting people to, for instance, eschew pleasure today for payoff tomorrow, or leave their worldly goods to some random stranger or to refrain from sex is quite a bit harder. Not impossible, mind you, but quite a bit more difficult and may have to be enforced by restricting certain degrees of freedom.

I am not sure what force you are talking about and I'm not sure what you think behavioral science or neuroscience can or will do as far pushing buttons but it is not what I'm talking about.

cheers
Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community.

"People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett)
dreadgeek is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post:
Old 07-21-2011, 01:35 PM   #74
imperfect_cupcake
Senior Member

How Do You Identify?:
feminine dolly dyke
Preferred Pronoun?:
Your Grace
Relationship Status:
I put my own care first
 
imperfect_cupcake's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: In a gauze of mystery
Posts: 1,776
Thanks: 2,426
Thanked 9,727 Times in 1,613 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852
imperfect_cupcake Has the BEST Reputationimperfect_cupcake Has the BEST Reputationimperfect_cupcake Has the BEST Reputationimperfect_cupcake Has the BEST Reputationimperfect_cupcake Has the BEST Reputationimperfect_cupcake Has the BEST Reputationimperfect_cupcake Has the BEST Reputationimperfect_cupcake Has the BEST Reputationimperfect_cupcake Has the BEST Reputationimperfect_cupcake Has the BEST Reputationimperfect_cupcake Has the BEST Reputation
Default

I just got into an argument with someone because they used it. They were mixing together a)things that were true about their personality and b) assumptions they were making about something they hadn't experienced but I had. Ending it all with "this is my truth"

I tried to call attention to the assumptions that were wrong, not their personality traits, by repeating my experience and asking why are they were calling their assumptions about an experience they've never had, a truth?

they got upset that I was questioning their personality. Which I wasn't. I was trying hard to call attention to the error they were making in thinking what something would be like. sort of like "I don't like strawberry's because they appear to taste read, I'm sure they taste red and I don't like red. that's my truth."
"actually when I tasted strawberrys they weren't red tasting at all. in fact they tasted purple, I know many people say they taste purple. I'm confused why you are telling me it's a truth that strawberries taste red when you've not tasted one?"
"why are you telling me to taste a strawberry??! I don't like red, I don't need red and that's that."
"but I'm not telling you to taste a strawberry... *loses will*"



I think it can get very confusing to use it.
imperfect_cupcake is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to imperfect_cupcake For This Useful Post:
Old 07-21-2011, 02:08 PM   #75
Licious
Member

How Do You Identify?:
femme
Preferred Pronoun?:
she, her
Relationship Status:
single
 
Licious's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: California
Posts: 686
Thanks: 3,502
Thanked 1,974 Times in 546 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851
Licious Has the BEST ReputationLicious Has the BEST ReputationLicious Has the BEST ReputationLicious Has the BEST ReputationLicious Has the BEST ReputationLicious Has the BEST ReputationLicious Has the BEST ReputationLicious Has the BEST ReputationLicious Has the BEST ReputationLicious Has the BEST ReputationLicious Has the BEST Reputation
Default

This is a fun thread, on one of my favorite current topics (okay several of my favorite subjects are embodied in this thread, to be accurate)

In a society where I want to see change and affect change, discussions of logic, people's individual belief systems, what kind of verbage produces results counter-productive to individual civil rights - are of great interest to me.

I realize this is not contributing to the topic at hand, rather, I am here to cheer you all on as I read and reflect.

If I have something intelligent to add, I will chime in as the thread progresses.

Thanks everyone!


Licious is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Licious For This Useful Post:
Old 07-26-2011, 09:46 AM   #76
dreadgeek
Power Femme

How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme
Preferred Pronoun?:
She
Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl
 
dreadgeek's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,848 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851
dreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputation
Member Photo Albums
Default An apropos article at the NYT

Normally I don't quote articles or op-ed pieces in their totality, but in this case I thought it might be useful to put forth this entire piece in yesterday's



Relativism about morality has come to play an increasingly important role in contemporary culture. To many thoughtful people, and especially to those who are unwilling to derive their morality from a religion, it appears unavoidable. Where would absolute facts about right and wrong come from, they reason, if there is no supreme being to decree them? We should reject moral absolutes, even as we keep our moral convictions, allowing that there can be right and wrong relative to this or that moral code, but no right and wrong per se. (See, for example, Stanley Fish’s 2001 op-ed, “Condemnation Without Absolutes.”)[1]

Is it plausible to respond to the rejection of absolute moral facts with a relativistic view of morality? Why should our response not be a more extreme, nihilistic one, according to which we stop using normative terms like “right” and “wrong” altogether, be it in their absolutist or relativist guises?

Relativism is not always a coherent way of responding to the rejection of a certain class of facts. When we decided that there were no such things as witches, we didn’t become relativists about witches. Rather, we just gave up witch talk altogether, except by way of characterizing the attitudes of people (such as those in Salem) who mistakenly believed that the world contained witches, or by way of characterizing what it is that children find it fun to pretend to be on Halloween. We became what we may call “eliminativists” about witches.

On the other hand, when Einstein taught us, in his Special Theory of Relativity, that there was no such thing as the absolute simultaneity of two events, the recommended outcome was that we become relativists about simultaneity, allowing that there is such a thing as “simultaneity relative to a (spatio-temporal) frame of reference,” but not simultaneity as such.

What’s the difference between the witch case and the simultaneity case? Why did the latter rejection lead to relativism, but the former to eliminativism?

In the simultaneity case, Einstein showed that while the world does not contain simultaneity as such, it does contain its relativistic cousin — simultaneity relative to a frame of reference — a property that plays something like the same sort of role as classical simultaneity did in our theory of the world.

By contrast, in the witch case, once we give up on witches, there is no relativistic cousin that plays anything like the role that witches were supposed to play. The property, that two events may have, of “being simultaneous relative to frame of reference F” is recognizably a kind of simultaneity. But the property of “being a witch according to a belief system T” is not a kind of witch, but a kind of content (the content of belief system T): it’s a way of characterizing what belief system T says, not a way of characterizing the world.

Now, the question is whether the moral case is more like that of simultaneity or more like that of witches? When we reject absolute moral facts is moral relativism the correct outcome or is it moral eliminativism (nihilism)?

The answer, as we have seen, depends on whether there are relativistic cousins of “right” and “wrong” that can play something like the same role that absolute “right” and “wrong” play.

It is hard to see what those could be.

What’s essential to “right” and “wrong” is that they are normative terms, terms that are used to say how things ought to be, in contrast with how things actually are. But what relativistic cousin of “right” and “wrong” could play anything like such a normative role?

Most moral relativists say that moral right and wrong are to be relativized to a community’s “moral code.” According to some such codes, eating beef is permissible; according to others, it is an abomination and must never be allowed. The relativist proposal is that we must never talk simply about what’s right or wrong, but only about what’s “right or wrong relative to a particular moral code.”

The trouble is that while “Eating beef is wrong” is clearly a normative statement, “Eating beef is wrong relative to the moral code of the Hindus” is just a descriptive remark that carries no normative import whatsoever. It’s just a way of characterizing what is claimed by a particular moral code, that of the Hindus. We can see this from the fact that anyone, regardless of their views about eating beef, can agree that eating beef is wrong relative to the moral code of the Hindus.

So, it looks as though the moral case is more like the witch case than the simultaneity case: there are no relativistic cousins of “right” and “wrong.” Denial of moral absolutism leads not to relativism, but to nihilism.[2]

There is no half-way house called “moral relativism,” in which we continue to use normative vocabulary with the stipulation that it is to be understood as relativized to particular moral codes. If there are no absolute facts about morality, “right” and “wrong” would have to join “witch” in the dustbin of failed concepts.

The argument is significant because it shows that we should not rush to give up on absolute moral facts, mysterious as they can sometimes seem, for the world might seem even more mysterious without any normative vocabulary whatsoever.

One might be suspicious of my argument against moral relativism. Aren’t we familiar with some normative domains — such as that of etiquette — about which we are all relativists? Surely, no one in their right minds would think that there is some absolute fact of the matter about whether we ought to slurp our noodles while eating.

If we are dining at Buckingham Palace, we ought not to slurp, since our hosts would consider it offensive, and we ought not, other things being equal, offend our hosts. On the other hand, if we are dining in Xian, China, we ought to slurp, since in Xian slurping is considered to be a sign that we are enjoying our meal, and our hosts would consider it offensive if we didn’t slurp, and we ought not, other things being equal, offend our hosts.

But if relativism is coherent in the case of etiquette why couldn’t we claim that morality is relative in the same way?

The reason is that our relativism about etiquette does not actually dispense with all absolute moral facts. Rather, we are relativists about etiquette in the sense that, with respect to a restricted range of issues (such as table manners and greetings), we take the correct absolute norm to be “we ought not, other things being equal, offend our hosts.”

This norm is absolute and applies to everyone and at all times. Its relativistic flavor comes from the fact that, with respect to that limited range of behaviors (table manners and greetings, but not, say, the abuse of children for fun), it advocates varying one’s behavior with local convention.

In other words, the relativism of etiquette depends on the existence of absolute moral norms. Since etiquette does not dispense with absolute moral facts, one cannot hope to use it as a model for moral relativism.

Suppose we take this point on board, though, and admit that there have to be some absolute moral facts. Why couldn’t they all be like the facts involved in etiquette? Why couldn’t they all say that, with respect to any morally relevant question, what we ought to do depends on what the local conventions are?

The trouble with this approach is that once we have admitted that there are some absolute moral facts, it is hard to see why we shouldn’t think that there are many — as many as common sense and ordinary reasoning appear to warrant. Having given up on the purity of a thoroughgoing anti-absolutism, we would now be in the business of trying to figure out what absolute moral facts there are. To do that, we would need to employ our usual mix of argument, intuition and experience. And what argument, intuition and experience tell us is that whether we should slurp our noodles depends on what the local conventions are, but whether we should abuse children for fun does not.

A would-be relativist about morality needs to decide whether his view grants the existence of some absolute moral facts, or whether it is to be a pure relativism, free of any commitment to absolutes. The latter position, I have argued, is mere nihilism; whereas the former leads us straight out of relativism and back into the quest for the moral absolutes.

None of this is to deny that there are hard cases, where it is not easy to see what the correct answer to a moral question is. It is merely to emphasize that there appears to be no good alternative to thinking that, when we are in a muddle about what the answer to a hard moral question is, we are in a muddle about what the absolutely correct answer is.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...pagewanted=all

Cheers
Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community.

"People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett)
dreadgeek is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post:
Old 07-26-2011, 09:51 AM   #77
dreadgeek
Power Femme

How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme
Preferred Pronoun?:
She
Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl
 
dreadgeek's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,848 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851
dreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputationdreadgeek Has the BEST Reputation
Member Photo Albums
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tapu View Post
Philosophical arguments so often wend their way down to a paradox.
"It is always a good idea to ask how some very general view about truth, knowledge, or meaning applies to itself; and few things could be more damaging to a view than to discover that it is false by its own lights. (Paul Boghossian)

The type of relativism that concerns me (which may not be the type of relativism being discussed here although I'm not sure that it isn't) falls apart under its own weight which is what I was hinting at with my statement that if we all have our own 'truths' then my 'truth' is that we don't have our own truths.

Cheers
Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community.

"People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett)
dreadgeek is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post:
Old 10-09-2011, 03:02 PM   #78
Gemme
Practically Lives Here

How Do You Identify?:
Queer Stone Femme Girl of the Unicorn Variety
Preferred Pronoun?:
She, as in 'She's a GEM'
 
Gemme's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The roads are narrow here
Posts: 36,583
Thanks: 182,144
Thanked 108,784 Times in 25,656 Posts
Rep Power: 21474887
Gemme Has the BEST ReputationGemme Has the BEST ReputationGemme Has the BEST ReputationGemme Has the BEST ReputationGemme Has the BEST ReputationGemme Has the BEST ReputationGemme Has the BEST ReputationGemme Has the BEST ReputationGemme Has the BEST ReputationGemme Has the BEST ReputationGemme Has the BEST Reputation
Default

I was listening to one of my current favorite songs and this thread came to mind.



"Cuz I'm living my truth without your lies"



Quote:
Originally Posted by dreadgeek View Post
But what if someone's truth is that their thoughts don't lead to hurtful actions or if they do the person's hurt are not inside the circle of moral concern. Then what? Since there is no reason to *prefer* non-hurtful actions as a touchstone if someone holds a truth that leads to harm, all we have is 'I don't like that so please don't". That seems a flimsy basis upon which to build any idea of justice. What we *can't* do is argue that the person holding the truth that leads to malevolent action is wrong because it's their 'truth', so it *can't* be wrong. It can't be wrong even by our own lights since your truth may be that racial discrimination is wrong and my truth may be that racial discrimination is wrong and Ebon's truth may be that racial discrimination is wrong but *of course* we would say that. We all have a vested interest in it being wrong. But since we have conceded that if you believe something is true then it IS true--for any reasonable definition--then all someone has to get around the codicil that it can't lead to harm is for that person to say "racism doesn't hurt people, of course those on the receiving end will *say* that it hurts them but what else would you expect 'those people' to say?" Now, they've stated that their 'truth' is that racism doesn't hurt people. If you insist that it does then they can even concede that it might but that the targets of racism are beyond the circle of reasonable moral concern and the same way you wouldn't, say, crash an airplane with 300 people on board in order to save the life of an ant, one should not force society to roll into the circle of moral concern people who are clearly beyond that circle--it is their truth after all and there is no reason that anyone can give as to why *your* truth is preferable to *their* truth.

Cheers
Aj
This is interesting. You took me saying that I wished more people were about letting people do their own thing, as long as it didn't hurt anyone....it's been a long time but I do believe I had those who perpetuate against homosexuals and our community in mind when I said that....and somehow turned it into me saying something about a system of justice? I'm sorry. I am just not following.

Of course anyone can say that something is their truth. A pedophile might say that their truth is that children like to be touched by them. Would I believe that? As a survivor, I would say absolutely not. But I will not take their right away to say it. I may argue it with them but I won't say that they can't say it because I don't agree with it.

To me, if that line of thinking is truly what they believe, then I believe...in this particular instance...that they are more dangerous than other pedophiles who believe that their victims do not like their touch.

But, I can't say that that isn't truth. They may, indeed, believe that. For them, that is a reality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tapu View Post
So "my truth" means, more or less, "my experience"? I think your explanation of the meaning is excellent, Jo. Now, since there has to be a way to express that otherwise, I'm trying to think what it is so we can arrive at the beginnings of a definition.
Yes. Also, my "truth" may be exchanged with "perspective". Basically, this says to me that this is how I, or you, or anyone else sees things or a particular situation....whatever the discussion is about at that moment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreadgeek View Post
That use of 'my truth' is, more or less, unproblematic since it really does not effect the world the rest of us live in. If that were the *only* way that people use that phrase, I wouldn't be concerned (and probably wouldn't be involved in this conversation). My concern is that people don't draw a distinction (presumably because they do not see one) between the following kinds of statements:

1) If there is not some kind of intellectual meeting-of-the-minds I am not going to be happy in a relationship.

2) If we allow marriages between two men or two women, we will have to allow marriages between father and daughter or a 50 year old man and an 10 year old girl etc.

The problem isn't statements of type-1, the problem is statements of type-2. I think we should not evaluate the 'my truth' idea on the basis of type-1 statements but on the basis of type-2 statements.

Cheers
Aj
I honestly don't know how to respond to this. People are going to think what they are going to think, regardless if they preface that thought with 'this is what I think' or 'this is my truth' or whatever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJo View Post
Right....I could say "in my experience" or "in my case" and those would both work. I use those as well. I think I tend to use "my truth" when it's a stronger, more fundamental, more visceral usage.

So......in my case I prefer my coffee black. My experience is that "surprises" generally don't turn out well for me, so I prefer to know what's coming next. But my truth is that I must have a passionate connection with my partner.

It's a good, better, best kind of usage....if that makes sense...

Right. I think the problematic part is that many of us who use this phrase use it in different ways.
Yes, exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreadgeek View Post
Yes, precisely. I would feel better about the whole thing if people would designate or define what truths they are talking about when they speak of 'my truth'.

Cheers
Aj


Their own truths.

It could be anything from how they see a political situation to whether their son was really out or if the umpire made a poor call.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tapu View Post
Jupiter has 30 moons can't be "my truth" even if I fervently believe it. It's something I could be wrong about and I know it, and even if I don't it has a different essence than "my truth": The way Jo (and others) are explaining "my truth," the determiner of what is true is internal to the speaker. It's not an empirical fact; it has an external truth condition.

Or something like that.
Yes. It's completely internal and may or may not match what others see externally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreadgeek View Post
I have read the phrase (or one of its synonyms) used here in the problematic context (not wanting to reopen old wounds I will not go into specific details about the incidents I have in mind) which is what sparks my interest in the matter. If you are talking about your own interior landscape then 'this my truth' is almost entirely unproblematic. If that is what is at issue, then my question changes from what 'this is my truth' buys us to why anyone would take the statement "my truth is that tequila is yummy" as being at all problematic.

Cheers
Aj
For myself, using your specific example, I wouldn't. I find no issue with someone thinking that tequila is yummy. It's my truth that it isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreadgeek View Post
See, I think that the problem with using this construction of things being 'true' for people is that we aren't being clear about the subject matter domain. I think that, for instance, there can be multiple truths (within reason) about what makes a successful relationship. Even here I would have to draw a line. If a neighbor tells me that it is 'true for them' that beating their spouse makes their relationship healthier I'm not going to 'respect' that 'truth' and avoid calling the cops. If one is talking about your own interior landscape then sure, we all have our own truths but this observation still--even after a couple of days of sitting on it like a hen--strikes me as trivial to the point of banality and if that is what we are talking about I'm *still* confused why anyone would find that at all controversial.

My concern is not when people are talking about their own interior landscape but when they are talking about the world we all share. That is the more interesting (read problematic) use of the phrase.

Part of my problem in understanding what we are talking about, at this juncture, is that my use of the word 'true' is perhaps more constrained. For me, something is 'true' if the statement accurately describes the world in such a way the world is obliged to actually conform to that description. A couple of examples will, I hope, suffice.

1) Earth rotates on its axis every 24.25 hours and is tilted at 23 degrees relative to the plane of orbit.

2) Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States. George W Bush was the 43rd President of the United States. William Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States.

3) Ordinary (light) water is dihydrogen monoxide, meaning that it has two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom.

4) Hydrogen has one electron and one proton.

5) All life on Earth is descended from a common ancestor and has diverged in the last 4 billion years by a process of mutation and natural selection.

You get the idea. My concern is not when people make comments about their interior landscape but when they argue that they get to have their own 'truth' relative to any of the class of ideas above. If we're *only* talking about interior landscapes then I return to my question of Monday--what about saying "my truth is..." interests people? If we're talking about the larger, more generic question of epistemology then I have to ask if the idea of each of us having our own 'truths' can even hold itself up under its own weight. It seems to me to be demonstrably false even by its own lights.

I say that because, for instance, if we each have our own truths and we need to treat those truths as valid then *my* own truth is that we *don't* have our own truths.

Cheers
Aj
I do see that it's the word 'truth' itself that is the hang up.

I think that we all have a need, at some point or another, to express ourselves and our opinions to others. Using 'my truth' just emphasizes that that particular opinion is how we know things to be and maybe we use it because it's close to the vest for us. I know that I tend to use it when talking about things that are more on the personal and/or intimate side of things.

I would not say 'this is my truth' when talking about donuts. Not seriously, anyway. I would probably use it when discussing my childhood or a cause that I find worthy.

It's one thing to wonder why people say the things that they do, but it's another altogether to ruminate on the validity of that person's choice of using that particular word or phrase. That's where I get squinchy....when someone casts judgement upon me for saying something as simple as 'this is my truth' just because it doesn't sit well with 'them'.

And so, I'm back where I began with this months ago.

*shrug*
__________________


I'm misunderestimated.
Gemme is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Gemme For This Useful Post:
Old 10-10-2011, 08:15 AM   #79
Cin
Senior Member

How Do You Identify?:
Butch
Preferred Pronoun?:
she
Relationship Status:
Truly Madly Deeply
 
2 Highscores

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: In My Head
Posts: 2,805
Thanks: 6,326
Thanked 10,623 Times in 2,488 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851
Cin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST ReputationCin Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gemme View Post

People are going to think what they are going to think, regardless if they preface that thought with 'this is what I think' or 'this is my truth' or whatever.
Yes, this makes sense to me.

I can really only understand clearly my use of the words “my truth.” I don’t know how other people use it. I am almost positive that if I were to use the phrase “It’s my truth” I would be clutching my pearls. Metaphorically speaking, of course, since I don’t actually have any pearls. But I do tend to use words, especially in writing about something that I feel passionately toward, for dramatic or emotional effect. However, I don’t believe it is a favorite word combo for me. I’m sure it isn’t something I would ever say without thinking. My use of it would be purposeful. And it would be about MY personal truth.

If I were to use the phrase ‘my truth’ it would be to explain who I am and how I move through the world. For example I’m a butch, a woman, a feminist, I’m left leaning, I’m monogamous, I try to always take responsibility for my actions and on an internal level I believe in fearlessly and openly examining the motivations behind my actions so that at the very least I can remain honest with myself and at best I can change direction if I find my motives suspect. This is a part of my truth. That is, if I were interested in defining it as a truth of any kind.

The problem would be if I were to attach some moral relevance to my truth or develop a hierarchy of behavior with my truths positioned firmly at the top. If I am unable to distinguish my truth from THE ONE truth for all right thinking people then I believe it is very problematic. However, if this is my process, if I tend to confuse "MY truth" with "THE truth", I doubt semantics is the problem, nor would changing the phraseology have any effect on the actual issue. Because the problem isn’t my language selection it is how I actually think. And whether I call it "my truth" or "my one eyed, one horned flying purple people eater" the results of this type of thought process will be the same.

Another problem with “my truth” is it legitimizes the possibility that there is more than one. So people feel comfortable using “it’s my truth” as a way of not accepting a universal truth. But again the usage of the phrase is not the problem. The idiosyncratic ideology is.

Whether I believe the phrase “my truth” will attract as users people who cannot tell a personal truth from a universal moral mandate or as an excuse to ignore reality is irrelevant in my opinion. Because really if they don’t say it’s my truth, they will say it’s just my opinion or it’s my beliefs or whatever. I suppose the operative word is MY and how it is really standing in for THE ONE.

I certainly can’t control if and when and to what end people use words. And apparently, as with many words in language, there are ways in which the meaning of my truth is not concrete or universal. Still though for me more problematic is that there are things that people view as truths that have nothing in common with the definition of truth as I understand it. And if someone is thumping their chest or shaking their fist while going on about their truth then I can be pretty sure they won’t be changing their mind any time soon.

I think a better use of my time might be how do I break down or break apart the bundle of core beliefs that allow a person to believe that something is any kind of truth when there are volumes of evidence that proves otherwise. Or beliefs that are central to a person’s make up that cause them to decide moral rightness for others. For example they believe in monogamy so then monogamy is the only right and true course for everyone.

I remember clearly when I first realized that being unarguably right won’t stop others from arguing with you and all the evidence in the world won’t convince them of the truth. The reality is sometimes simply pointing out evidence to support your belief will be futile regardless of what is true. I can’t tell you who I was with or what the argument was about, although I do remember it was a central relationship. What I remember most is the feeling I had when it finally dawned on me that it doesn’t matter one whit that I am positive I’m right, that I have a plethora of proof to back me up, and that I am able to articulate my position perfectly. It doesn’t matter that there is no logical way anyone would not be swayed by the evidence. I was truly gobsmacked. I felt a sense of regret and defeat as I tried to imagine how anyone can ever understand anything in a world where the truth could not only be subjective but could actually be a lie. But I also felt something click into place in my brain. This was an important piece of information that I had been missing for years. Imagine my surprise. No matter how right I think I am or even how right I actually am and no matter how easily I believe I can prove the truth with my facts, if the other person has an attachment to the lie, whether consciously or unconsciously, whether it is part of a core belief or an emotional investment, the other person can and often will completely disregard my compelling argument as so much bullshit. Bullshit that they feel I insist on spraying all over their feelings.

That was my first experience with the realization that truth for many is not actually a reality or fact based thing, it is more a subjective, feeling type experience that isn’t locked into what is concrete but more about what they wish it to be. And they have no qualms about calling that truth. I don’t know what anyone can do to change that. I’m aware there are techniques for changing people’s minds. I know there’s ways purported to break through core beliefs. I know that often creating dissonance will result in a person reevaluating their ideas and this could make it possible for them to change what they believe. In my experience though the more attached someone is to their belief the more likely presenting conclusive and undeniable evidence and proof to the contrary will only succeed in polarizing their beliefs and make it very difficult for them to hear you. Trying to create dissonance so a person will rethink a core belief can be unrewarding, fruitless and in some cases even hazardous to your health. Yet it is necessary to try I think. Challenging lies and misrepresentations of reality are a part of "my truth".
__________________
The reason facts don’t change most people’s opinions is because most people don’t use facts to form their opinions. They use their opinions to form their “facts.”
Neil Strauss
Cin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cin For This Useful Post:
Old 10-10-2011, 09:43 AM   #80
macele
Member

How Do You Identify?:
a bold-assed maximus
Preferred Pronoun?:
she
 

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: mississippi
Posts: 1,066
Thanks: 3,178
Thanked 3,239 Times in 849 Posts
Rep Power: 21474849
macele Has the BEST Reputationmacele Has the BEST Reputationmacele Has the BEST Reputationmacele Has the BEST Reputationmacele Has the BEST Reputationmacele Has the BEST Reputationmacele Has the BEST Reputationmacele Has the BEST Reputationmacele Has the BEST Reputationmacele Has the BEST Reputationmacele Has the BEST Reputation
Default

i've never used this phrase. very interesting.

i take it as meaning, it only pertains to them. "my truth" is not or doesn't have to be universal truth to them.

"this is my truth", ... telling it like it is.

"this is my truth", ... this is my reality.

"this is my truth", ... to thine own self be true.

i'd rather use the phrase, "the fact is, the truth matters." but that's a whole nother box of shoes.
macele is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to macele For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:39 AM.


ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018