Absolute Truth Contradiction (?)

[Willy Phallicus]

7 hours ago, Ricard_Perez said:

The important part for you to see is that enlightenment isn’t about gaining abilities, it’s about seeing through the one who was trying to gain something in the first place.

Yeah but after you do that you find out nothing is impossible you kinda want to go out and do the impossible.

I suppose some would say that's falling back into ego or whatever but I don't think that necessarily has to be the case.

[Leo Gura]

@theleelajoker Watch your attitude. It makes you impossible to teach.

[Ziran]

5 hours ago, zurew said:

No, thats fair that you interpreted in a different way.

The reason why I pushed back is because its different from the liar paradox in that you cant derive a contradiction from the claim , but when it comes to the liar's paradox - you can derive a contradiction.

And if you take contradictions to be unintelligible ( in the sense that they cant be true), then you wont have the same issue in this specific case, because there isn't any trivial contradiciton that can be derived from that statement.

"This statement is a lie" defeats itself because true communication requires fidelity.

"Nobody knows what they're talking about" defeats itself because a true assertion requires knowledge.   If nobody knows what they're talking about, then no one can make any assertions about anybody.  

[Leo Gura]

Awakened people know what they are talking about. At least relative to Awakening. Of course they can be wrong on other matters.

Edited 6 hours ago by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

Claiming or thinking oneself to be awakened is different from being awakened, or having had awakenings. I suspect lots of people do the former.

I'd agree with the assumption that, in this context, virtually no one knows what they're talking about, certainly not at a deep level. 

It's very easy to conflate some sort of experience with awakening. (Hello).

[Natasha Tori Maru]

47 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Claiming or thinking oneself to be awakened is different from being awakened, or having had awakenings. I suspect lots of people do the former.

I'd agree with the assumption that, in this context, virtually no one knows what they're talking about, certainly not at a deep level. 

It's very easy to conflate some sort of experience with awakening. (Hello).

This is your belief system 

[UnbornTao]

Just now, Natasha Tori Maru said:

This is your belief system 

Right. Or pay closer attention. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, UnbornTao said:

Right. Or pay closer attention. 

Reverse uno!

[UnbornTao]

7 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Reverse uno!

What fantasy of yours didn't like being challenged by what I said?

Again, if one actually pays close attention, it becomes clear that the game in spirituality is pretension - social or otherwise. But I don't want to keep wasting time, so sure, it's my belief system.

Edited 48 minutes ago by UnbornTao

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, UnbornTao said:

What fantasy did you not like being challenged by what I said? 

Again, when one pays attention, it's clear that the game in spirituality is pretension, social or otherwise. But I don't want to keep wasting time, so sure, it's my belief system. 

I think you assume I didn't like something or felt challenged - I merely thought of inverting the statement on its head! 

Fantastic defence mechanisms 

[UnbornTao]

1 minute ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I think you assume I didn't like something or felt challenged - I merely thought of inverting the statement on its head! 

Fantastic defence mechanisms 

Godspeed.

[zurew]

5 hours ago, Ziran said:

"Nobody knows what they're talking about" defeats itself because a true assertion requires knowledge.   If nobody knows what they're talking about, then no one can make any assertions about anybody. 

I already adressed this earlier, but I will lay the reasoning down again why what you said there is not true:

 

You can utter statements without knowing whether the given uttered proposition is true or not and without being justified. You can accidentally utter true statements without knowing that the statement is true. And the other issue with that kind of move is that no one needs to utter the statement in the firstplace. You can just take the propositon and check whether you can derive a contradiction from it (if taken to be true) and you can't.

What you do there is you dont just take the proposition as it is, you add extra things to it that isn't at all entailed by the statement. You add that someone needs to say the sentence and that the person needs to know what they are talking about in order for the sentence to be true.

But none of that is true. The proposition can be true independent from the fact whether someone say it  or not . The truth-maker (what makes it true or false) for that proposition isn't the person saying it or not, the truth-maker is checking whether there is someone who knows what he/she is talking about or not  and if there is at least one person, then the proposition is false and if there isn't then it is true. 

But, even if what you said was true, you wouldnt derive a contradiction (you wouldnt show that the proposition is true and false at the same time) you would just render the proposition false at best. You would just establish that a person uttered a false statement.

 

In the liar's paradox case, the same couldn't be said. There you dont just render the proposition false, there you can show that the statement is true and false at the same time.