Does something make no sense because we don't agree, or do we not agree because it makes no sense.
Firstly, I posted this discussion already but it was removed for some reason. I'm not sure if that's an attempt of censorship or not.
I don't appreciate philophical enquiries being banned without due explanation. If we cannot have freedom of speech on this forum then where? Are we really allowed to think freely if we cannot posit all questions? I don't believe this was a harmful or hateful question to ask. It certainly wasn't my intention. I'm just curious to discuss ideas with contributors.
Now having said that I repost it in persistence of one's freedom of thought.
If two people of certain awareness (personal premises) regarding a topic, disagree on it, one saying x because its what they observe, and one saying y because its what they observe, who then do we believe?
Which ought we deem as true? Or is the whole Truth outside of argument, exterior to contradiction/paradox?
For example if one says the chicken came first and the other says the egg came first, in an given instance, who do we say is correct, or perhaps a third person can point to a larger truth beyond the individual personal truths - for example that our current definition of "chicken" and "egg" were not always the case. And that in actual fact the concept of an egg and chicken have evolved over time, through change making the argument moot, and thus the paradox fallible to a better explanation.
Every Chicken was different to the chicken before it, slightly more evolved, and thus likewise every one of their eggs in turn holds different genetic information to make a chicken.
In this case the actual Truth of the paradox is a spectrum of change over vast periods of time - Dissolving the discrete finite paradox as it is in reference to the present moment.
If someone wants to ban my line of thinking again, would you at the very least extend the courtesy of explaining why? Administrators?!
I don't appreciate philophical enquiries being banned without due explanation. If we cannot have freedom of speech on this forum then where? Are we really allowed to think freely if we cannot posit all questions? I don't believe this was a harmful or hateful question to ask. It certainly wasn't my intention. I'm just curious to discuss ideas with contributors.
Now having said that I repost it in persistence of one's freedom of thought.
If two people of certain awareness (personal premises) regarding a topic, disagree on it, one saying x because its what they observe, and one saying y because its what they observe, who then do we believe?
Which ought we deem as true? Or is the whole Truth outside of argument, exterior to contradiction/paradox?
For example if one says the chicken came first and the other says the egg came first, in an given instance, who do we say is correct, or perhaps a third person can point to a larger truth beyond the individual personal truths - for example that our current definition of "chicken" and "egg" were not always the case. And that in actual fact the concept of an egg and chicken have evolved over time, through change making the argument moot, and thus the paradox fallible to a better explanation.
Every Chicken was different to the chicken before it, slightly more evolved, and thus likewise every one of their eggs in turn holds different genetic information to make a chicken.
In this case the actual Truth of the paradox is a spectrum of change over vast periods of time - Dissolving the discrete finite paradox as it is in reference to the present moment.
If someone wants to ban my line of thinking again, would you at the very least extend the courtesy of explaining why? Administrators?!
Comments (6)
Why indeed was it removed?
Before this is removed, I just like to comment:
Quoting Benj96
Yes, basically when we have a new way of looking at issues (or questions/problems), that is the easiest way for us to change the premises. It doesn't have to mean that the earlier thinking was wrong, it just that we didn't think about the issue from the new perspective.
Me neither ssu. :( the rationale behind it is beyond me.
Quoting ssu
Exactly! They are correct within their confined/discrete context, of which their are larger ones that encompass them and deliver us a better description of the interrelationships between contradictions and truths. In essence, the process of learning.
I'm definitely in agreement with/following your logic here.
Ah okay thanks Universeness for your insights :)
I'll pm a moderator and ask where it went.
I think the real problem arrives when there obviously should be the same premises, like in natural sciences. Some chemical reaction (etc.) happens or it doesn't, and it's not a matter of either point of view or that the topic is different. Even if you have different schools in sciences, they are still talking about the same objective reality. It's not a subjective matter like what food tastes good or what art is beautiful. Hence it cannot be that I have my chemistry and physics and you have yours: we don't live in alternative realities.