Is this a griefer or just a plain idoit?

[fuzzypanda109]

Hello,

Earlier today was relaxing on the Davinci Gardens sim when a guy on a dragon kept shooting fire on me. I observed that he did not do this action to anyone else on the SIM.

IF we were to compare this to real world attacking anyone would be termed as a violent act, so why not on SL?

Maybe there should be the option to not only block someone's voice/text but also their actions?

Kindly look into this individual, I don't know if he will be dumb enough (or troll) again to try this on me using another avatar. I have had previous incident in the past being "caged".

I tried talking to him in messages, asking why he was doing this but he didn't respond.

The avatar's name is now edited due to violation of said terms.

 

I hope this is considered as a serious matter, sometimes what may be fun trolling by sick-minded persons are actually annoying to peaceful residents.

 

Thank you!

Edited September 19, 2017 by fuzzypanda109

[Nalates Urriah]

4 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

At the same time, however, I take Maddy's point that a dictionary is hardly the most reliable standard for us to measure against.  For one thing, most words -- certainly most complex philosophical words -- have several nuanced meanings, so it is important to specify which meaning we should be agreeing upon.  Second, any dictionary has an unavoidable cultural bias, since it arrives at consensus "meanings" by trying to reflect how words are used within a specific target population.  Hence, the reason why the many dictionaries in common use -- even here in the U.S, leaving the rest of the English-speaking world aside -- offer differing definitions of even the most common words.  Finally, languages evolve.  My go-to dictionary has long been the 1898 edition of the Century Dictionary, which offers exhaustive etymological analyses and has an amazingly large word list.  It is, however, outdated.  It speaks in the language of my great-grandparents, who had surprisingly different meanings for words like "gay" and "secretary" than we do now, and who also had different cultural understandings about words like "soul".

Therefore, while I share your discomfort with a relativistic use of the English language, I am not prepared to believe that we can settle disagreements about meaning by simply looking at "the dictionary".

I was not as clear as I could have been...

A dictionary is by no means any kind of standard for a decision, unless one is trying to sort out a contract or legal dispute in court. To debate to a conclusion, whether it is to agreement or a decision to disagree, the point of the dictionary is to clarify the meaning of what is being discussed, to provide a framework. 

When we are trying to tell someone what color to paint a room we use color chips. There is no better way to communicate our meaning of color. We can resort to precise color formulas, but a colorchip is easier and simple. With the chips we have a simple way to explain the meaning of 'this color'.

English is ambiguous. I can mean definition 2 and you inferred definition 1. We find a way to deal with it. If I was not aware of Def 1 because of how the word is used in my part of the country, I learn why we are mis-communicating.

The word NEXT gave me fits when I came to California from the midwest. In the midwest there is this exit and the next exit. In California this exit is the next exit. I missed so many turns... The definition of 'next' was not going to help me. While the definition had us generally on the same page, it was not clear on how people were using it. So, there is always some of confusion or at least the possibility. We have to go beyond a dictionary. 

[Madelaine McMasters]

58 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

While I don't address the point of relativistic thinking, I think Humpty's consideration of only self and not how he is being heard is key to the fallacies in his framing of the ideas. Conversation is about conveying clear ideas. If one does not consider how the listener perceives the statements, they can't communicate their ideas. Thus the need for dictionaries.

Agreed, within the limits of dictionaries.

I've not found the dictionary definitions of soul to be of much use when discussing the concept with someone else. I can eventually come to an understanding by using lots of other words in the dictionary, and therein lies their value.

The dictionary's inability to accurately describe the meaning of "soul" stems naturally from the tremendous variance in individual understandings of it. When I say I've no idea what I mean when I use the word "soul", I'm addressing my inability to know how the other is perceiving it.

I have less uncertainty over my use of the word "most" instead of "all", but I still allow for it to be perceived differently than I intended.

1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Websters lists eight definitions for soul at this time, most of which have a tenuous relationship to this discussion.

42 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

I find it odd you think all 8 definitions are only tenuously related to this discussion.

I'm teasing you here, but I think this is an example of how the dictionary ain't always sufficient. Rolig's mention of cultural bias in dictionaries, and the discovery that our brains wire differently depending on the constraints of the language we learn when young, are yet other reasons I don't trust my own thinking. I can just imagine the horror of walking around a foreign culture thinking I knew what I meant when I said things. It's bad enough when I do that in my own family.

[Pamela Galli]

My question is similar to the one re the existence and definition of the soul, but re truth. Does it exist and if so, what is it?

23 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

I agree. The concept of GOD is widely varied. As are many other words. Which is why the question, 'What do you mean by ____?' is often the first response a person needs to make. But, just because a person has a different idea about something is no reason to avoid conversation. Experiencing diversity of thought is how we learn. Which is way free speech is such a threat to ideologues and politicians.

I'm learning Madelaine prefers to avoid discussing her philosophical beliefs and instead relates her experiences. She doesn't play games with it and remains intellectually honest. There is no reason for her to choose do anything other than what she wants. No Alinsky maneuvers. Just a Hey, this is me.

I tend to be curious about what people believe and why. Thus the questions.

 

[Rolig Loon]

27 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

My question is similar to the one re the existence and definition of the soul, but re truth. Does it exist and if so, what is it?

Half a century back, a history professor shared a thought with me that I have always attributed to Will Durant but have never been able to find. Paraphrasing, it is "When you have heard more than one account of a traffic accident, you begin to doubt the truth of most histories." His point was not that truth doesn't exist, but that it is edited in each retelling and each hearing, so we should always be skeptical about what we accept.

[Pamela Galli]

39 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

Half a century back, a history professor shared a thought with me that I have always attributed to Will Durant but have never been able to find. Paraphrasing, it is "When you have heard more than one account of a traffic accident, you begin to doubt the truth of most histories." His point was not that truth doesn't exist, but that it is edited in each retelling and each hearing, so we should always be skeptical about what we accept.

Human memory being so malleable, it does not seem a reliable basis for defining truth. But what else can it be based on? 

I lean towards Keats' def: truth = beauty 

 

Edited September 23, 2017 by Pamela Galli

[Rolig Loon]

9 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

Human memory being so malleable, it does not seem a reliable basis for defining truth. But what else can it be based on?

We do the best we can to rely on primary sources, comparing as many accounts as we can. We learn to recognize our own biases and the biases that have filtered each of the accounts we hear, so that we can decide how much of it to accept.  And we take care to pass on what we know as the "truth" with as little of our own embellishment as we can. The lesson is not to disbelieve but to think critically and skeptically so that we have a feeling for the context of the "truth".

[cykarushb]

Of the few times ive had problems with griefing like excessive particle effects, full on raves showing up in social island, people pushing me around, etc. Its like, its so not a big deal at all. You just block em and they vanish, if being pushed is a big deal, sit down or something, showing a lack of interest, or no reaction will eventually lead them to get bored and bug off somewhere else to be annoying.

There are more important issues besides that some people set eachother on fire. Its a virtual avatar, it doesnt suffer any damage or anything, you were just briefly on fire. It happens, its a virtual world where anything can happen, so sometimes youre on fire. It doesnt mimic the real world.

And the same goes with text or speech harassment, just block em and move on.

The biggest thing that gets griefers or trolls or whatever to keep going, keep annoying people, keep spamming or lagging up a place is for them to gain attention from it. When people start arguments, when people say stop, when people do anything other than press the block button, it just gets worse. Report and ignore has been the basis of almost all Social games since social games were a concept.

[Nalates Urriah]

3 hours ago, Pamela Galli said:

My question is similar to the one re the existence and definition of the soul, but re truth. Does it exist and if so, what is it?

An interesting question in this age of relativism where people are tending to try to ignore reality.

Defining ‘truth’ pulls us into defining reality. One of the broader definitions I like is Merriam-Webster’s: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality. Digging deeper we have fact: 3. the quality of being actual, 4.a something that has actual existence, 4.b an actual occurrence, 5. a piece of information presented as having objective reality.

And reality: 1. the quality or state of being real, 2.a a real event, entity, or state of affairs, 2.b something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily.

I think this leaves us with the simple meaning for truth being a statement that fits reality.

 

Stating, ‘there is a table in the kitchen.’ If there is, that is a true statement and thus truth. If not, then it is false and not a statement of truth. The complication starts to enter when one tries to decide if the one making the later ‘no table’ statement lied. That pulls in ethics and morality and what they knew or thought. But, even these are simple to decide if the definitions are held to.

 

So, the simple answer is, yes truth exists. As Mulder said, “The truth is out there.” Which in paraphrasing we can say, ‘Reality is out there.’ The problem is deciding what is truth and non-truth. But, these definitions provide a straightforward tool for deciding.

 

As we get beyond simple things like a table in the kitchen, what is real gets more complicated.

We see this as psychologists struggle to describe people’s perceptions of the world around them and what they are dealing with. We know that when people lose touch with what is real they have difficulty coping with life. Psychologists have to have a way to describe a problem to work at solving it and passing along solutions within the profession.

So, we get terms like ‘shared reality’ as one tries to be more precise. I tend toward the side of a single objective reality. There is a wall there and any attempt to walk through it will likely injure you. It does not matter if people ‘share’ that reality. No matter the belief or perception shared or not, walking into a brick wall has the same result.

[Nalates Urriah]

3 hours ago, Rolig Loon said:

Half a century back, a history professor shared a thought with me that I have always attributed to Will Durant but have never been able to find. Paraphrasing, it is "When you have heard more than one account of a traffic accident, you begin to doubt the truth of most histories." His point was not that truth doesn't exist, but that it is edited in each retelling and each hearing, so we should always be skeptical about what we accept.

There is often the belief that history is strongly colored by the victors writing the history books. Thus there is no way to get to the REAL facts. To some extent this is true. History is edited and rewritten over time. Often rewritten with an agenda or bias in mind. And skepticism is an invaluable skill. But, the truth can be found.

As time passes the agendas dye out and those with vested interest in a biased account pass and new people write more objective accounts of history using skills we have learned and a deeper understanding of human nature. Fortunately we have literally thousands of tons of manuscripts that date back 1,000+ years. We even have a good quantity of manuscripts that date back 2,000+ years. Using weight as a measure before then isn't fair as we go from paper to stone... But, we have some written records dating back 5,000 years.

There are the skills of Textual Analysis and Forensic Statement Analysis, to name a couple most people are not familiar with. With these and others we have the ability to sort out bias, agenda, ego, pride, lies, and BS.... and get to the actual truth. Our understanding of history will never be as detailed as we like or as complete as we wish. But, we do have historians that have a single minded goal to provide accurate information for scholars. Plus, the Internet has made it much easier to access original source documents.

While I may not read Greek, Hebrew, Assyrian, Aramaic, or other ancient languages I can use the translators dictionaries to get the varied definitions of a word that creates a question about what the original author meant. So, like the several definitions for Truth, reading them all gives a broader and deeper understanding of what is meant by the word and context often suggests which meaning is more likely. As does an understanding of the culture of the writer.

Being skeptical these days is a requirement for finding anything approaching the idea of what is true.

 

[Klytyna]

1 hour ago, Nalates Urriah said:

So, like the several definitions for Truth,

Ah... "Truth" with a Capital T...

There is only ONE valid definition of "Truth" when it's capitalised like that...

"A meaningless noise, fraudulently masquerading as a proper noun, with the intention of disregarding facts..."

The terms "true" and "false" are simple boolean values, harmless in themselves, even "truth" can have legitimate grammatical usage, but "Truth"...

Leave "Truth" to Priests, Philosophers, and other professional liars and pseudo-intellectual time-wasters...

"Truth" has no part in History.
 

[Madelaine McMasters]

6 hours ago, Rolig Loon said:

Half a century back, a history professor shared a thought with me that I have always attributed to Will Durant but have never been able to find. Paraphrasing, it is "When you have heard more than one account of a traffic accident, you begin to doubt the truth of most histories." His point was not that truth doesn't exist, but that it is edited in each retelling and each hearing, so we should always be skeptical about what we accept.

I've mentioned before that there's now experimental evidence that the brain has a "destructive read" memory and that I've experimented with it on a friend, who now recalls my lunch with her some years ago as if I'd actually been there. Every recollection must be rewritten, allowing it to be affected by current information. Lab animal experiments with memory blocking drugs have been able to stop this rewriting. My niece is a lawyer and FBI agent. I once asked her when she thought the judicial system would eliminate eye witness testimony. Her answer? "Not soon enough".

Edited September 24, 2017 by Madelaine McMasters

[Madelaine McMasters]

5 hours ago, Pamela Galli said:

Human memory being so malleable, it does not seem a reliable basis for defining truth. But what else can it be based on? 

I lean towards Keats' def: truth = beauty 

Many scientists and mathematicians think along Keats' lines, Pamela. The Euler identity is considered by some as the most beautiful equation in all of mathematics. It relates addition(subtraction), multiplication(division), natural logarithms, pi and imaginary numbers in the simplest way possible.

And mathematical simplicity is thought to be beautiful or elegant as it reveals the underlying truth. So, there's your truth = beauty.

The apparent mess of lifeforms on Earth becomes more beautiful (to me, at least) with each passing evolutionary linkage we discover,  showing just how frugal nature is with her ideas. If it works in one place and time, she'll try it again in another. We just have to dig deep to find out what she's doing to make all this complexity from such simple ideas. I think each of us has experienced the joy of an "ah-ha" moment when we break through the seemingly impenetrable surface of something and witness the sheer simplicity within. You may be doing that with Blender ;-).

I think this appreciation for simplicity is at the root of superstitions as well. It's so very nice to have simple explanations for things, even if they're wrong. And this points out the problem of appreciating simplicity without challenging it.

Now the question is, where does this esthetic come from?

Edited September 24, 2017 by Madelaine McMasters

[Rolig Loon]

49 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Now the question is, where does this esthetic come from?

You are touching on the metaphysical problem of Universals debated since the time of Plato and Aristotle.  The big question has always been whether properties of entities in the real world exist independent of the entities themselves.  So, for example, does "beauty" exist as an a property independent of things that we say have "beauty"?  Put another way, is it possible for an object to be inherently "beautiful" or is beauty simply a mental construct that we apply to an object?  So, is "truth" an inherent condition of the universe, such that the Euler equation is "true", or is truth only in our minds as we examine the equation? ( You might also recognize the familiar question "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" Again, the debate is whether "sound" is a property of things falling in forests or a property that we create in our minds and apply to falling things, or that exists independent of us or falling things.....)

I remember encountering the problem of Universals for the first time in our required Junior year course in philosophy, many years ago, and being total confused by it.  As I recall, we had a very loud discussion in the class.  Maybe 25 years later, I got into the same discussion with a good friend who was the chair of the Philosophy department -- also without reaching a satisfying answer but at least understanding why it has intrigued philosophers for over two millennia. 

Edited September 24, 2017 by Rolig Loon

[Madelaine McMasters]

16 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

You are touching on the metaphysical problem of Universals debated since the time of Plato and Aristotle.  The big question has always been whether properties of entities in the real world exist independent of the entities themselves.  So, for example, does "beauty" exist as an a property independent of things that we say have "beauty"?  Put another way, is it possible for an object to be inherently "beautiful" or is beauty simply a mental construct that we apply to an object?  So, is "truth" an inherent condition of the universe, such that the Euler equation is "true", or is truth only in our minds as we examine the equation? 

I remember encountering the problem of Universals for the first time in our required Junior year course in philosophy, many years ago, and being total confused by it.  As I recall, we had a very loud discussion in the class.  Maybe 25 years later, I got into the same discussion with a good friend who was the chair of the Philosophy department -- also without reaching a satisfying answer but at least understanding why it has intrigued philosophers for over two millennia. 

I'm with Feynman on this. That line of reasoning can just run you in circles. While the philosophers are wondering if the root beer float exists absent their perception of it, I'll eliminate their perception of it by drinking it.

;-).

[Rolig Loon]

2 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I'm with Feynman on this.

And Aristotle.  And me, except when I think too hard about it.

[Nalates Urriah]

19 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Ah... "Truth" with a Capital T...

There is only ONE valid definition of "Truth" when it's capitalised like that...

"A meaningless noise, fraudulently masquerading as a proper noun, with the intention of disregarding facts..."

The terms "true" and "false" are simple boolean values, harmless in themselves, even "truth" can have legitimate grammatical usage, but "Truth"...

Leave "Truth" to Priests, Philosophers, and other professional liars and pseudo-intellectual time-wasters...

"Truth" has no part in History.
 

This is where people seem to get confused... manipulated, and played. 

There is opinion that capitalization changes the meaning. But, I find no reputable grammatic text that says that. We do know that context and what a writer is trying to imply can often be expressed better by breaking the rules of grammar... or not. Breaking the rules certainly gives propagandists wiggle room and the ability to confuse issues. WikiQuote well illustrates the point as they point to those arguing there is no absolute or objective truth/Truth. If one holds to the straightforward simple definition provided earlier, truth or Truth and be easily decided.

Propagandists need to spin the meaning of words to confuse issues and simulate having a valid point. People try to win debates by spinning the meaning of what their debate opponent supposedly meant or what a word/concept means by changing the definitions of words. It is a basic Alinsky tactic (Rules for Radicals p59 Kindle). Alinsky tells people to consider that 'everything' is relative so, use whatever definition you want to make up.

One has to decide if they think such a tactic is intellectually honest. I don't.

The quote (?), "Truth" has no part in History. is one I cannot find. None of the search engines find it.

Using simple dictionary definitions it is easy to disprove the statement. History is a record of things that happened. Truth is a property of a statement about real events or facts. So, if a historical account is not true, it isn't history. It is a story.

One could complete the statement, which is why I searched for the source. Truth has no part in history as history is meant to be the whole truth. And I can make other varitions. But, the statement as you made it is prima facie false.

As ambiguous as English is, it should be obvious the idea of any word having a single meaning is false.

Being skeptical one considers whether they are arguing a point, with substance, or opinion based on personal preference. The latter being a pointless argument.

 

 

[Nalates Urriah]

17 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Wow, I don't think anyone has ever used "intellectual" and "honest" when speaking of me. You're probably wrong.

No Alinsky method for me. Organization is not my strength and communities wear me out.

As for my philosophical beliefs, I suppose they're pretty simple. I don't make up my mind until I see the evidence... okay, not even then.

 

Wrong? I could be. Unfortunately and often embarrassingly, it wouldn't be the first time. It may be your facade is working better than either of us suspected.

[Pamela Galli]

22 hours ago, Rolig Loon said:

So, for example, does "beauty" exist as an a property independent of things that we say have "beauty"?  Put another way, is it possible for an object to be inherently "beautiful" or is beauty simply a mental construct that we apply to an object?  So, is "truth" an inherent condition of the universe, such that the Euler equation is "true", or is truth only in our minds as we examine the equation?

That is the question.  I am a bit surprised that apparently some believe there is discoverable objective truth, as opposed to some platonic ideal  that may exist in some sense but cannot be known, at least directly, by human senses. Many well-known studies have proven that human perception and memory are unreliable, to put it mildly.  I suppose a claim could be made that truth is simply a matter of consensus, but I don't think  that is a very good definition. 

 

[Rolig Loon]

2 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

 I am a bit surprised that apparently some believe there is discoverable objective truth, as opposed to some platonic ideal  that may exist in some sense but cannot be known, at least directly, by human senses.

That's a separate, very good question.  Aside from whether truth is a universal or whether it exists only in relation to specific objects and events, your question about whether truth can ever be discovered is another tough one. 

 

[Klytyna]

10 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

The quote (?), "Truth" has no part in History. is one I cannot find. None of the search engines find it.

Using simple dictionary definitions it is easy to disprove the statement. History is a record of things that happened. Truth is a property of a statement about real events or facts. So, if a historical account is not true, it isn't history. It is a story.

One could complete the statement, which is why I searched for the source. Truth has no part in history as history is meant to be the whole truth. And I can make other varitions. But, the statement as you made it is prima facie false.

Ahhhhh! I see where you have gone wrong... It's a common mistake, but there's hope, you do at least see part of the problem.

The problem is we use languages that were designed for telling each other where the game herds were, or warning of attacking hostiles, and then we try to discuss quasi meaningless abstracts in these languages. Things get... Ambiguous.

First off, the reason your search engines cannot find that quote is simple, it's NOT a quote, it's what we refer to in English as an "original statement". Many people with backgrounds in Liberal Arts Academia have problems with such statements.

If it wasn't written long  ago, by a dead guy in another country, in a book that's been abbreviated to a few A4 pages of selected quotes in a Study Guide, then it's not important enough to consider. Right?

You claim that 'Truth' is a 'property statement', and THIS is your single biggest mistake. 'true' & 'false' are property statements, simple testable boolean values, 'Truth' is an ABSTRACT, due to the ambiguity of language, it is easy to confuse 'true' and 'Truth' but they are NOT the same thing.

The very FACT (there's that boolean properties thing again) that there ARE so many different 'dictionary definitions' of Truth should have been a clear warning that 'Truth' has almost nothing to do with 'true'.

The Art of the Historian, is taking a 'story' and determining if it contains enough points that are 'true' (boolean properties again) to be re-labeled as 'History'

Herodotus knew this, in his works, he includes a 'story' which he clearly states he did not believe, about a voyage of exploration undertaken for an Egyptian King.

For the sake of completeness, Herodotus included a small and seemingly innocuous detail, that made no sense whatsoever to him, but which tells US, that the story does in fact contain enough 'true' elements to be considered 'history' and not just a 'story'.

The captain of the ship, who's account of his journey is the 'story' said that "the sun was on the wrong side of the ship" while they were sailing east, which tells us he sailed south of the Equator, and was sailing, south of the Equator, along the coast of what is now, South Africa. Such a simple little thing, a seemingly trivial detail in an 'unbelievable tale', that, with the fact that the voyagers left Egypt via the Red Sea, and returned via the Nile Delta, points to it's veracity as an account of the first circumnavigation of the African Continent.

If you are looking for 'Truth' however, rather than 'true' facts, may I suggest you take a course in Philosophy, or Theology, where you will find as many versions of the 'Truth' as there are philosophers and priests, and also find that NONE of these 'Truths' meet the criteria needed to be assigned the boolean property statement 'true'.
 

[Callum Meriman]

4 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Such a simple little thing, a seemingly trivial detail in an 'unbelievable tale', that, with the fact that the voyagers left Egypt via the Red Sea, and returned via the Nile Delta, points to it's veracity as an account of the first circumnavigation of the African Continent.
 

Interesting theory  It could well be they did get below the equator especially if they stuck to coastal waters and had good weather. But I not sure they could round the Cape safely. That needs a level of boat technology they didn't have. (with what records we have, of course)

[Nalates Urriah]

8 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Ahhhhh! I see where you have gone wrong... It's a common mistake, but there's hope, you do at least see part of the problem.

The problem is ...
 

…we use languages that were designed for telling each other where the game herds were, or warning of attacking hostiles, …

This is your reason for thinking languages are ambiguous? Why do you think that?

Are you thinking we are still speaking primitive languages? That we haven’t improved the accuracy of our languages? Are you proposing humans are incapable of accurately stating any idea?

…  the reason your search engines cannot find that quote is simple, it's NOT a quote… Whether a quote or an original statement, I’ve already shown it is false statement.

You claim that 'Truth' is a 'property statement'… No, I quoted a definition which is the agreed-on definition from popular usage of the word. You misstate what I said, an Alinsky tactic. Is English your first language?

 'Truth' is an ABSTRACT, due to the ambiguity of language … I already addressed this point in an earlier post. Truth has a simple definition with no ambiguity. You need to reread the prior posts. The word Truth is a noun and has a singular meaning. Similar to the noun ‘bear’. But, we apply that noun to many things which are not ‘bears’. Example: a ‘bear of a man’, which does not change the definition of the noun bear.

… it is easy to confuse 'true' and 'Truth' but they are NOT the same thing… You are right, one is an adjective and one is a noun. But, there is no confusion in the meaning of either the adjective or the noun. You seem to confuse the meaning of these words based on how people ‘apply’ them to THINGS/SUBJECTS they are describing.

…  there ARE so many different 'dictionary definitions' of Truth … No, not dictionary definitions. All of those nearly identical in meaning. You are gain conflating/confusing the definition of truth with its usage. Wiki and philosophical comments on Truth that vary are based on differences in what the word is being used to describe. They are giving the subject of the discussion a description or the attribute of being true by applying the noun. The variations are a conflating of what a ‘Truth’ is defined as verses what people apply the label to. Example: to say creation is Truth and say Darwin’s evolution is the Truth does not affect or vary the definition of the word Truth. One or the other or both statements are false. They can’t both be true. So, only one is the truth. People apply the word to both and then debate merits of the concepts and supporting facts. But, none of that changes the definition of the word.

The person using TRUTH (adding emphasis) for Darwin’s evolution applies the same meaning for the word ‘truth’ to their point as one that applies the word to creation, or whatever else.

In philosophy, the challenge is to accurately convey meaning of one’s statements, so complex subjects can be discussed with mutual understanding. While many have opinions about that, there is no philosophical reasoning supporting having debates where all words have definitions based solely on each speaker's personal preference.

[Klytyna]

8 hours ago, Callum Meriman said:

Interesting theory  It could well be they did get below the equator especially if they stuck to coastal waters and had good weather. But I not sure they could round the Cape safely. That needs a level of boat technology they didn't have. (with what records we have, of course)

We're talking circa 600 bce, and the voyage being carried out by Phoenician Captain's and crews in Phoenician ships. 

And sailing clockwise around the continent is easier than sailing anti clockwise, assuming you stop at certain times of year to plant crops and harvest them (mentioned in the account of the voyage that lasted best part of 3 years) then when you are sailing the tradewinds and currents are in your favour.

Also, sticking to coastal waters was what EVERYONE did at that time, no compass remember?

As for ship building technology of the first millennium bce, in the Med... You might want to check up on that, and finds of wrecked ships from that era, rather than 'records'. Note the use of the word SHIP not BOAT here.

 

[Klytyna]

4 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

This is your reason for thinking languages are ambiguous? Why do you think that?

Back when you and the other member of your tribe were inventing language, you pointed at a tree and said "tree", they said "urkle" you shouted "tree" and hit them with a club, they said "ouch... tree".

Un-Ambiguous... those parts of languages where you can point at a thing, or draw a picture of it, or hand it to somebody, tend to be fairly clear.

Take the shift in early writing systems from pictograms to Ideograms, to phonograms, to an alphabetic system.

Circle with a dot in = Sun, pictogram, then you get clever and start trying for abstracts, so the sun-picture gets used for 'sun', and for 'daytime', then for 'days', and then 'time', and so on.

Ambiguity is pretty much automatic when dealing with abstract concepts, since defining the word requires an explanation using other words, which themselves may be ambiguous.

4 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Whether a quote or an original statement, I’ve already shown it is false statement.

No, you haven't. You CLAIMED that you COULD, using 'dictionary definitions' but failed to actually do so.

Checking  just ONE dictionary, produced 9 sub meanings grouped into 3 categories...

On 24 September 2017 at 10:18 PM, Nalates Urriah said:

As ambiguous as English is, it should be obvious the idea of any word having a single meaning is false

From one of your earlier posts... Even you seem to agree that english words often have multiple meanings, but apparently you failed to notice that "Truth" is one of them.

4 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Truth has a simple definition with no ambiguity. You need to reread the prior posts. The word Truth is a noun and has a singular meaning.

The dictionaries you talked about say... NO.

And while we are on the subject of 'nouns' lets check back to one of your earlier posts again...

On 24 September 2017 at 10:18 PM, Nalates Urriah said:

There is opinion that capitalization changes the meaning. But, I find no reputable grammatic text that says that.

Might I suggest you stop waffling in American about "Truth" and check some FACTS about English grammar, specifically the ones relating to the difference between 'common nouns' and 'proper nouns', the latter are ALWAYS capitalised, and have different meanings, usually singular, for example "an acropolis", is a fortified part of many ancient greek towns and cities, but in current usage "The Acropolis" is specifically the one in Athens.

4 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Is English your first language?

Yes, but you speak American, and failed at finding the right turning off the Freeway when you moved to California... *cough*

4 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

You are gain conflating/confusing the definition of truth with its usage. Wiki and philosophical comments on Truth that vary are based on differences in what the word is being used to describe.

Yeah, before you waffle about what Wiki says or means with regard to Truth, try reading it...

It lists a number of "substantive theories" with regard to the definition of "Truth", most of them are, frankly, Ivory Tower Pseudo Intellectual Gibberish, but... That's Philosophers for you...

Particularly amusing is the "Consensus Theory" of Truth,  as fine an example of Academic Bs as you will ever find...

"Consensus theory holds that truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group. Such a group might include all human beings, or a subset thereof consisting of more than one person."

But if you want genuine Weapons Grade Academic BS... Try Pierce's "Pragmatic Theory' of Truth...

"Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief, which concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the confession of its inaccuracy and one-sidedness, and this confession is an essential ingredient of truth."

/me visibly shudders and fumigates the thread with a spray can of "philosopher-be-gone'...

5 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

In philosophy, the challenge is to accurately convey meaning of one’s statements, so complex subjects can be discussed with mutual understanding. While many have opinions about that, there is no philosophical reasoning supporting having debates where all words have definitions based solely on each speaker's personal preference.

You should tell the other Philosophers that, so they can all stop inventing pseudo intellectual BS that disagrees with the Bs from ALL the other Philosophers.

Alternatively, find something useful to do instead of philosophy.
 

[Nalates Urriah]

4 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Alternatively, find something useful to do instead of philosophy.

Back when you and the other member of your tribe were inventing language… That is opinion and speculation. You have no proof.

The oldest languages we have any evidence of are well past the stage of point-at-something and name it. Sumerian being the oldest and a logographic representation system as opposed to a phonetic representation. Modern day Chinese is also a logographic language. They seem to have no problem writing complex thoughts and abstract physics concepts. So, the Sumerians probably had no problem representing complex philosophy. As best I can tell there is no proof languages of 3,000 BCE were primitive, just different. Anything older is speculation and opinion.

Debating opinion is a pointless debate.

No, you haven't. You CLAIMED that you COULD, No. You are misrepresenting what wrote. I presented the argument showing history is about truth. Reread the post.

Even you seem to agree that english words often have multiple meanings… I do. I even acknowledged true and truth have degrees of meaning. But, the degrees are like flavors of vanilla. It is all the same basic flavor/definition. Any one definition from any of the sets of definitions from any dictionary provided, when given to someone would allow that person to have a reasonable idea of what someone means when using either word.

Not all words are that way. But, these two words certainly are.

The point I made with the words true and truth, the subject here, is that that there is a singular nature in the definitions consistent through all the variations. Not the varied definitions you espouse is the case.  

You have yet to rebut that point I’ve made repeatedly. You seem oblivious to the fact your examples are more representative of adjectival nouns than varied definitions in use.  

The dictionaries you talked about say... NO. You’ll need to show me which one disagrees about the definition of Truth.

I am aware of how proper nouns are used and that capitalization is said to convert the word to a proper noun especially with the word Truth. But, you can’t show where that changes the definition of the word. Yes, people apply it to various objects to name them. Those objects, ideas, etc. have varied relationships to truth even when named Truth. But, I repeat myself…

Yes, but you speak American, and failed at finding the right turning off the Freeway when you moved to California.. Yes. I did. Do you think that defeats the point I’ve been making?

The word 'next' has a dictionary meaning. That people in my area of the Midwest took it one way and that the people of California took another meaning didn’t change the published definition or the worlds concept of ‘next’. My point is using standard definitions works and there is a singular standard definition for true, truth, and the proper noun Truth.

Particularly amusing is the "Consensus Theory" of Truth… Here you once again ignore or miss the point I have been making. What you call the philosophical gibberish is talking about the varied subjects people have named Truth. None are debating the meaning/definition of truth or Truth. They are literally working to rationalize what is factual and true to determine if the name Truth can be honestly applied. Show me  one that isn’t…

Alternatively, find something useful to do instead of philosophy. I suspect you are unaware that on a somewhat tangible level philosophy lead directly to science and the scientific method. The logic coming from and developed in philosophy is the same logic used in math and science.

Ethics and morals are derivatives of philosophy.

Law is the enshrined result of philosophy.

Perhaps if you understood it philosophy better you could present a better argument for your viewpoint...