What is truth ?

"Turds" show-up in everydayness. A "turd" is what you choose to play with instead of 'Be'-ing your authentic self. Conscience is the call to be your authentic self. The call comes from you, 'Be'-ing-there (Dasein) to you, 'Be'-ing-there to remind you to be your authentic self.You don't create “turds”, your 'throwness' is to pick up 'turds'. 'Turds' come from the 'world' you live alongside of and are what you 'pick up' to distract you from 'Be'-ing your authentic 'self'. Your moods let you know that you are playing patty-cake with a turd.The question of 'Be'-ing is always your question, there is no Heidegger, Sartre, or anybody else out there. "Turds" and "moods" are telling you that yes, indeed, you are leaving your living up to the “they” and the “world”.

What you have written here is a simple "chain of words". Two factual statements which produce absolutely no assurance that you know anything about what you're talking about. They leave me with a great big So? . . . and?

Is this the result you wanted to produce? If so, why? "I really don't understand" means that the words you strung together produced no understanding of what result you are attempting to produce. Are you intent on producing a result or are you just responding to continue the dialog?

The only thing I can gather out of what you've written is a dash of metaphysical voodoo and that you're asking me if you have the right answer.

Am I the right person you should be asking?

I bet you do find that interesting, seeing as how you have a tendency to latch on to the most irrelevant of observations and misunderstand them.

You're a heckler, I'm your troll...

You actually gave me the result I wanted to 'produce', I love the way you 'challenge' what I say.

Actually they are out there, insofar as I am intending them. Now as to whether or not Heidegger, Sartre, or others exists is entirely a different story; however, I am conscious of them, and as such, can intend them emptily or not. So I find it silly to think that there is nobody else out there. Phenomenologically they are 'here'.

And turning now to moods, there is nothing wrong with moods; it is simply how I find my self in the world at a given moment. Moreover, these moods may not come from the They; perhaps it could be from Others which I readily recognize, or perhaps it could be a mood which I disclose to myself (anxiety). It is strange, then, that you think moods stem from the They, when in fact it could stem from me taking up the question of Being itself.

Let's try this from a different angle. When I said that there was no Heidegger, Sartre, or anybody else out there, I mistakenly assumed that you would realize that I was talking about you being the conversation you are having. It doesn't matter whether you gather your data or inspiration from Heidegger, Sartre, Kant, Aquinas, or Socrates, what matters is that you are always the conversation you are choosing to have regarding that data or inspiration.That's exactly what I said. It IS how you find your 'self in the world at a given moment.I didn't say anything about "moods stemming from the they, I said:I also said;An example of a "turd' would be your response to my post. You came to the conclusion that I said 'moods" come from the "they" and now you and I are discussing your conclusion instead of you getting what I said.

So, 1) you read what I wrote, 2) you came to a conclusion about what I wrote, 3) you posted your explanation of your conclusion, 4) you and I are playing patty-cake with that "turd".

What I said was;I just noticed that I was wrong when I said "You don't create "turds". You do create "turds". The "turds" you create are conclusions you come to and explain/defend.
I also said;Now let's tie this all together with a pretty bow, if we can. When you get your data or inspiration from Heidegger, Sartre, Kant, Aquinas, or Socrates there are a couple of things that can happen:

1) you come to a conclusion based upon your interpretation of what they wrote:
Your interpretation comes from your definitions of the words used in what they wrote and those definitions come from the world (dictionary, learned language, discussions, what teachers have taught you, etc.) A conclusion becomes a 'territory' to defend and is the end of thinking.

2) you come to a conclusion based upon their interpretation of what they wrote:
The philosophers we look up to are no different than you and I. They come to conclusions and “defend/mark their territory” in publications that you and I read. Because we have endowed them with “authority”, we read them as if what they are saying is the “gospel” truth.

When it comes to the reading of these philosophers we basically have only 2 choices: 1) we can assume that they know what they're talking about and mimic their conclusions over and over again, or, 2) we can dig deep into the conclusions they've come to and uncover what they didn't uncover.

Ultimately, the “final authority” in your life is you, thinking. If you choose to take what the 'authorities' have to say at face value, I say your life is a “crap shoot” and that you may be picking up 'turds' that you are basing all of your conversation/thinking on and that you will never know who you are. BTW – those conclusions you come to is where you will spend the rest of your life unless you dig deeper.

Not knowing who you are “throws” you into a mood. That mood 'colors' the conclusions you come to which effects all future conclusions.

The only way out of all of this is to think for your 'self'. Thinking for your 'self' is the uncovering of who you are by deconstructing the conclusions and misconceptions you live alongside of. When you get to the truth of your deconstruction who you are will 'show up' in place of the labyrinth of conclusions and misconceptions.

This is what it means to live an authentic life, because now you, (not the world and the 'they'), are the author of your life.

But you knew all of this already. Otherwise you wouldn't have created the 'turd' (distraction) we've been playing patty-cake with.

Testosterone enhancement..........lol

WTF???

I dunno that's what it says as one of the topics above........

Now I get it. Thanks.

Yeah I'm a funny guy, huh?

If I owned a horse I would name it "Nonsequitariot" after you.

Would this horse be ready-to-hand?

Truthfully, I don't believe in Truth. I believe in propositions about theoretical relationships between formal conditions, but as for Truth, I prefer the term Reality.

Its so damn funny reading these posts on truth not existing where people always refer to what they think to be the case instead...definitly the world as gone mad....

Maybe it's because you think of "true" as something more than a quality of information...

any quality must "report to truth"...that´s what you don´t get...

What does that even mean? "Report to truth"... So now truth is some agency which everything has to check in with and either get approved or discarded? Hardly...
Can you perhaps go into a bit more detail about your idea so that we may debate the finer points of this..... whatyoucallit?

My indulged metaphor simply meant that you cannot report as you did the presence of any quality without it being true, unless of course you invent one and even so it is true that you are fabricating something right there, so how can you avoid truth ?...its "beingness" to be reported depends on it being true in the first place be it in your own self (again an imaginary reality with a true state of affairs in your mind ) or in the outside world as "external" whatever that means... so either you drop any report to an X or Y quality or anything else for the purpose and fall into silence or you admit there´s a reality and a state of affairs...whether you think or not you can know it is an entirely different and secondary matter...even knowing or not knowing something, must be either true or false...

If I had to guess it in a quick hunch and place my bet to save my head I would stand for the idea that Wittgenstein missed it by a long shot in believing language is of any importance for this matter...I advise you to review your libertarian beliefs twice before shouting so much certainty on uncertainty...

Well, actually I don't think that there is no truth. Some things are true, meaning that what we say relates to reality. What I dispute is absolute truth expressed in any way. But I do persist in my claim that "truth" is a quality of information, not directly relating to any "state of affairs", but only indirectly via what we say about it.