[deleted]

Thank You

What if I'm lonely and don't have anybody?

I love this comment!

Human perception is the limiting factor for defining truth.

No reason we can't explore the 'yet-to-be-known', assume it's identity, or make explorations on that assumption.

In the end, the discussion about truth will still be limited by the parties having the discussion, and what they agree upon as 'reality' or 'truth'.

Tat tvam asi

What do you mean "other people"?

My thoughts are that we should be shifting political power into smaller groups. So, currently in the USA, there is significant power concentrated at the federal level. But, why should health care administration, for example, happen at the federal level rather than the state level? Human health concerns are really quite local (pandemics being an exception). Why not administer most health delivery/payment purely at the state level? The USA would get more diversity and innovation that way. We should really reconsider allowing concentration of so many decisions in the hands of so few people.

Counter point- we benefit from efficiency of scale. But man, when things go wrong at scale, they really go wrong!

This relates a lot to thoughts I have about grief. Most people "read" others and have an idea of how to react - you can use the F-word with this guy, better not with this woman; as we know people better, some become close friends, but almost everyone we deal with, before long we have a "version" of us that's just for them. With some people, this version becomes very "rich", with shared memories and an intuitive, 2nd-nature way of interacting. I don't think these are necessarily "false" version of us, it's how we connect with others and form deeper bonds.

When we lose someone to death or even through events that de-attach us (like a romantic breakup), we lose the version of ourselves that was the version they interacted with. I feel that we don't acknowledge this loss - it's bad enough to realize someone we love is gone from our lives, but also a part of our selves no longer has a place, and lives only in our memories.

But I ain't got no college, I could be off here!

That’s why you know them.

Exactly.

The people we love change us. When they leave, they don't really leave as the live within us through the actions and quirks that we pick up from them.

I think it's a beautiful thing and something to be embraced. I hope everything goes well for you.

I'm sending hugs your way!

It’s kind of unavoidable with the current population. We just have to find institutions that more closely approximate our inherited dispositions while conscientiously engaging in self-creation to match our new environment. I say “just” because it’s conceptually a straightforward problem, the actual implementation is huge lift.

Someone who I can say I loved unconditionally passed away. Lately I feel them in my every expression. Maybe it’s my subconscious mind doing it intentionally but it does bring me some sort of comfort.

Lol

I would say "setting out with the intent to create a hypothesis and test it (in some way) to determine the truth".

Prior arguments and experience. Like people have done for all history.

You have restated that it is a paradox without explaining the contradiction. Uniqueness is a comparative measure, of course it can't be established without comparison.

Perhaps its either OR. Perhaps neither. Perhaps unknown. Just because you only offer two choices, doesnt mean we have to choose either of them.

This is the way

Check of Theory: Those who care not what others think about them would value that input less.

Instead of fixating about how others perceive one, focus instead on what one does that affects others... & the perception should handle itself.

Isn't this kinda painfully obvious to anyone who ever visited a village?

And that is really the best way of seeing it.

We're like canvasses and the people in our lives come in and paint on us, make us who we are.

Some people paint over each other and others are obscured under this paint. But they stay there, under all the layers, making us who we are, even if it's under the surface.

Others are the primary colors, such as family and other loved ones.

One is all and all is one?

[deleted]

After re-reading this, I get it. Thanks. :)

>The truth-statement that all truths can be empirically verified is itself empirically unverifiable.

To be fair, if this is stipulated as a definition rather than a truth-claim, then this issue disappears. This was the problem with the "yeah but can verificationism be verified?" objection to Ayer and the positivists: it only works if verificationism is taken as a proposition rather than a definition or criterion of meaning (which is precisely how it was posited, at least by Ayer).

But ironically enough, I think verificationism and this claim about truth fail empirically; it is a demonstrable matter of empirical fact concerning human linguistic practice that we use language to do things other than assert empirical truths, and there are truths and types of knowledge that are meaningful but cannot be empirically verified (truths about the self obtained via introspection, for instance, all truths that are generalizations, poetic/literary truth, etc).

Exactly - What if the scale of our organizations is the root of the problem with modern humanity? The smaller the scale, the smaller the problems.