Commitment to Truth and Character

[Akita Suggagaki]

My point is that perfect does not exist. And the over concern oneself with perfection is self sabotaging.

And frustrating. In the medical field we often do nit know what the outcome will be with ant intervention. How many of us are “Do not resuscitate ”? My choice would depend on the probability of return to normal life.

Or war with Iran. I don’t think the results so far were expected. There are always unintended consequences. But we cannot let that paralyze us. That is why good moral character is so important and openness to informed discernment. Mistakes will still be made but I’ll take a Jimmy Carter over a Donald Trump any time.

 

[Neogaia777]

But we cannot know what is 100% good. To strive for the unobtainable is folly.

It's the bullseye to aim for, but also with our knowing that we're not going to hit it dead center every single time, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't still aim for it though, or fire our arrows in that direction though, etc. But also with our knowing we're not going to be 100% accurate 100% of the time. Practice, or in this case experience, is going to make you better/more discerning over time, etc.

 

[Neogaia777]

My point is that perfect does not exist. And the over concern oneself with perfection is self sabotaging.

I agree that we shouldn't obsess too much with doing it 100% right, 100% of the time.

See my other post to you just now.

The main goal is to get/gain more experience, and get or become better at it (by aiming for the target) over time. But with our knowing that 100% perfection, can probably never be achieved, etc.

 

[Neogaia777]

@Larniavc

I'm also reminded of this clip from one of my favorite Star Trek TNG episodes.

Take Care.

 

[partinobodycular]

We have to respect and seek the truth

Riiight!!! Let's test that, shall we. Truth No.1, nothing can be known to exist outside of your own mind.

So, how's that respect for the truth doing so far?

 

[Ophiolite]

Riiight!!! Let's test that, shall we. Truth No.1, nothing can be known to exist outside of your own mind.

So, how's that respect for the truth doing so far?

Can you demonstrate that is a Truth? What I think of as my own mind may be merely a figment of your imagination. Also, how are you defining your own mind? Your conscious awareness? That and your subconscious, which you are - by definition - largely unaware of, yet seems to control many of your actions? I think you are sitting at the end of a hypothetical branch, in a strong gale.

 

[partinobodycular]

Can you demonstrate that is a Truth?

Precisely... what can I demonstrate to be true, and what can't I? All that you have to do is to answer that question, and voila, you've got your first truth.

Therein lies the respect for the truth, it accepts its own limitations. It cannot know, what it cannot know.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Riiight!!! Let's test that, shall we. Truth No.1, nothing can be known to exist outside of your own mind.

So, how's that respect for the truth doing so far?

Earth to PB........................ You just contradicted yourself on multiple levels and don't seem to be cognizant of that fact.

I'm all for pity parties where pity parties are needed, but this too much. Give up the 'bubble think.'

 

[Ophiolite]

Precisely... what can I demonstrate to be true, and what can't I? All that you have to do is to answer that question, and voila, you've got your first truth.

Therein lies the respect for the truth, it accepts its own limitations. It cannot know, what it cannot know.

I think you are confident you have given an incisive and informative comment. I suggest you are mistaken . . . . . . or, have failed to recognise the necessity of defining your terms. Either way, it's not up to your usual standards - and that's true.

 

[partinobodycular]

I think you are confident you have given an incisive and informative comment. I suggest you are mistaken . . . . . . or, have failed to recognise the necessity of defining your terms.

I'm perfectly willing to let you define the terms as you see fit. After all, I've asked you to ask yourself a question...'what can I know to be true'. It would be disingenuous of me to then define the terms by which you get to ask that question.

Obviously we could get into a deep philosophical discussion about what it means to know something, but you're a bright guy, you can figure out what's possible to know, and what isn't.

So, is it possible to know if anything exists outside of your own mind?

 

[partinobodycular]

Earth to PB........................ You just contradicted yourself on multiple levels and don't seem to be cognizant of that fact.

Quite probably so... dang this egocentric predicament... cognitive dissonance inevitable.

 

[Ophiolite]

So, is it possible to know if anything exists outside of your own mind?

But there you go again, beginning with a flawed premise. You have not addressed what your mind is; you have ignored the multiplicity of views on what mind is; you have disregarded the question, when you are unconscious and not dreaming, where is your mind.

Or, more concisely, you have failed to define mind and consequently your question is meaningless.

 

[partinobodycular]

Or, more concisely, you have failed to define mind and consequently your question is meaningless.

As if I'm uniquely qualified to define the term. Thus I leave it to each individual to define the term as they see fit. That's the only way that the question has any relevance. Define it however you see fit to.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Quite probably so... dang this egocentric predicament... cognitive dissonance inevitable.

I said nothing about you being egocentric. In fact, I have no idea "why" you often express yourself the way you do other than to reach a few loose conclusions from things you've said in the past.

I realize you've had a few bowls full of personal disadvantage, and in that, you have my empathy.

 

[partinobodycular]

Either way, it's not up to your usual standards - and that's true.

I have nothing but respect for your philosophical chops, but the problem as I see it, is that people fashion the truth to fit their own personal biases. That's not a flaw, so much as it is a necessity. Truths aren't always self-evident or clear. They're mashups of a lot of 'kinda, maybe' truths born out of experiences. My truths are probably not going to be the same as your truths, and we shouldn't expect them to be.

I'll do me... you do you.

Somehow it seems that respect for the truth should also include respect for other people's versions of the truth, no matter how absolutely absurd they are... yeah, I know, that's a tough one. But people aren't meant to be perfect, so why should I judge them too harshly when they're not?

 

[partinobodycular]

I said nothing about you being egocentric.

Trust me, I didn't take it that way.

In fact, I have no idea "why" you often express yourself the way you do other than to reach a few loose conclusions from things you've said in the past.

Sometimes I'm not even sure why I say things the way that I do. They can look pretty stupid in hindsight.

I realize you've had a few bowls full of personal disadvantage, and in that, you have my empathy.

Empathy not needed. I am content, and have been for a very long time. Here's wishing you the same.

 

[Ophiolite]

As if I'm uniquely qualified to define the term. Thus I leave it to each individual to define the term as they see fit. That's the only way that the question has any relevance. Define it however you see fit to.

You are uniquely qualified to define the term as you understand it, which is necessary if your readers are to understand what you mean. If you are not concerned we know about what you mean, why are you posting?

I should probably have said at the outset that I consider truth too nebulous a concept to pay much heed to. In part this seems to be because too many - making use of the freedom you think the individual should have in its definition - abuse that freedom by denying it to others. Nevertheless I was interested in your definition of it, hence my persistence in trying to extract it from you.