4

# 'I think it's good'

kennethamy

1
Wed 11 Aug, 2010 03:01 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
Interpretation, yes. But where does the idea of certainty come from?
? ..what?

I asked where you found certainty or uncertainty in the question? What has the question to do with certainty or uncertainty? Suppose I said that I interpreted it as asking whether fried eggs were nicer than boiled eggs. Would that be all right too?
A robot or an unintelligent person't can't add something relevant to an equation, I added something I saw relevant to the equation.

But what was relevant about it? Thinking it was relevant did not make it relevant. If I happen to think that whether Copenhagen is the capital of Denmark is relevant to whether water is part hydrogen and part oxygen, that does not make it relevant to whether water is part hydrogen and part oxygen, does it?
0 Replies

dpmartin

1
Sun 15 Aug, 2010 06:43 am
@The Pentacle Queen,
I believe the problem with your question is, thinking does not verify that anything is good, or otherwise. Hence not valid.
kennethamy

1
Sun 15 Aug, 2010 08:11 am
@dpmartin,
dpmartin wrote:

I believe the problem with your question is, thinking does not verify that anything is good, or otherwise. Hence not valid.

In general, it never follows from the premise that A believes that p is true, that p is true.
dpmartin

1
Mon 16 Aug, 2010 06:42 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

dpmartin wrote:

I believe the problem with your question is, thinking does not verify that anything is good, or otherwise. Hence not valid.

In general, it never follows from the premise that A believes that p is true, that p is true.

kennethamy

My first reaction is to state that “A” does not change whether “p” is true or not. But you are correct, it would be wiser to state “p”, and let it be.

A habit from spending apparently to much time with those who hold themselves sacred, rather then the Truth, or the Truth of the matter.
kennethamy

1
Tue 17 Aug, 2010 09:34 am
@dpmartin,
dpmartin wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

dpmartin wrote:

I believe the problem with your question is, thinking does not verify that anything is good, or otherwise. Hence not valid.

In general, it never follows from the premise that A believes that p is true, that p is true.

kennethamy

My first reaction is to state that “A” does not change whether “p” is true or not. But you are correct, it would be wiser to state “p”, and let it be.

A habit from spending apparently to much time with those who hold themselves sacred, rather then the Truth, or the Truth of the matter.

What would A changing have to do with it? It is simply true that nothing is true just because someone happens to believe it is true. Why would anyone think differently?
dpmartin

1
Wed 18 Aug, 2010 05:45 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy

Correct:
Therefore why bring it up that there is a problem with “A” included with “p” in the first place? When you agree that:

kennethamy wrote:

What would A changing have to do with it? It is simply true that nothing is true just because someone happens to believe it is true. Why would anyone think differently?

Believing something is true does not make it any more true, or not true, then thinking some thing is good verifies that it is good or not good.

And since this is true then what is true and what is good?

Thinking verifies that one can know, and that one can rest on or in the knowledge thereof.

A child that learns the name of the color green comes to know by trusting in the knowledge of another that green is green, though yes after some desire to know more the child begins to understand that green is a combination of yellow and blue and the variances thereof. But when the child first learns that it is understood that the color green is agreed to be called green the child might verify it’s new found, or received knowledge by constantly pointing out and declaring green to those that are with the child that what the child sees is green. But what is recognized as green is green in the same source of light.

Hence in the same what its recognized as right and wrong, or correct and incorrect, is in the same source of light.

kennethamy

1
Wed 18 Aug, 2010 06:12 am
@dpmartin,
dpmartin wrote:

kennethamy

And since this is true then what is true and what is good?

What have those questions to do with the issue of whether if follows that a statement is true because someone thinks it is, and whether something is good because someone thinks it is? The answer is, nothing at all.
dpmartin

1
Thu 19 Aug, 2010 08:11 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy

But what you have just stated, is in accordance to what you believe or think is true, (in the context of thinking and believing does not make true), therefore in the same context it is not necessarily true either, is it?
0 Replies

emilybaker

1
Thu 26 Aug, 2010 06:04 am
Maybe have a look at Steve Fuller talking about his views on the concept of 'good'. Really interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzZb5fSb8qw
0 Replies

### Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz