That just proved the statement false

by Anonymous 11 years ago

How is that? IF we ARE what we think, and we think we are right, the the logical conclusion is - we are right if we think we are. Where is the falsehood?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well we all //do// think we're right, but it's common knowledge that we aren't always right. This can be proved when opinions conflict- there's no way both can be right- yet both think they are, and it's therefore not always true.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But your first comment said it was a false statement. And many people THINK they are right even when shown or proven to be wrong. My post does not say we ARE always right - it says if you THINK you are you always are.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think you're wrong, and by your logic just because I think so I am right. However, you think you are right, and by your logic, because you think it it is also right. However, we cannot both be right, so there is a clear flaw in your system of reasoning.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Really? In matters like these, why does there have to be only one right answer? Are you telling me there is only one right approach to what color a house should be, which brand car to drive, or what is the best restaurant? We can think we are right AND be right about many things. Neither of us is wrong - we ARE both right - and that is the beauty of the post.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

There are matters in which it is subjective, and there is no universal right answer, and in those everybody can be right in picking the best choice for them. They claim a certain thing to be best, and they are right that it is what makes them happiest, but that's not a universal opinion. In things that are, such as a measurement, in math, or in color, or judging things by which there is a more concrete reasoning for deduction, an opinion can be wrong- so your post is right about matters with a certain degree of subjectivity- but there is a line past which even the subjective can be wrong. Someone can say they think Hitler was nice because he loved animals, while letting that completely overshadow all else, and by your logic they're right- but under a unified standard of judgment for something subjective, there is a universal answer. Your post is only true for subjective matters without a universal standard of judgment, and unanimous criteria.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

OK, I will take that in to consideration. Even Hitler thought he was right and that God was on his side! Many agreed with Hitler, but as you have pointed out, not in a universal sense. If you read some of Hitler's quotes, you would think you were listening to our current president. I just recently looked up a bunch of things Hitler said, and I was amazed at how close they could have passed for what we are seeing right now in this country.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

His evil was not the only thing that defined him. We like to define everybody by what their most prominent quality is to us. Every runner is just another runner to us, every waiter is just a waiter to us (maybe working through college), and so on. But there are hundreds of different things that define every person to other people, and the only one really getting the whole picture is themselves or maybe a really close friend. But we think of strangers as just a solid color. We know them by as little as possible, to make it simple.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I have no problem with that statement. I personally have reflected and written in my own thought book that we never really ever fully or truly KNOW anyone or everything about any topic. We see and have life thrown at us in snapshots - bits and pieces. Many times we never see what led up to an event, action, spoken word by/from another - and yet we form judgments, conclusions, and opinions purely from those segmented parts. And when it comes to people, we are all a work in progress. What you know about or see of me today may greatly differ in a week, month, or year. People can not be defined by a one time action or word coming from their mouth. They must be taken in context from beginning to end. Since none of us knows the beginning of most people, and we don't have the ability to see the end - we really just know snippets and parcels about anyone.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I mean, we can sometimes form what seems to be the closest thing to the whole picture. In any case, people can make differing judgments from the same information, and if they both have the same standard of judgment (meaning, they both have the same criteria on what they're judging for), then one of them has to be wrong, don't they?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

In the light of what you just said, I don't see how. If we both witnessed an accident or a murder, and gave our information to the police, your version and mine would be comparable and different at the same time. Does that mean one of us was wrong? Of course not. Perspective played a huge role as well as how we interpreted or processed what we saw. Neither of us saw or heard everything - but our combined stories give a fuller picture. Even that, however, is not the complete or whole story.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well, I think that they are wrong, just because the truth does exist- If they say with utter certainty that a person was dark-skinned, and they were completely white, than their observation was wrong. They aren't wrong in saying that they thought the person was dark skinned, because it's true that they thought that. But subjectivity exists to an extent. It is not boundless. There is an actual occurrence that transpired, and there's an exact way it happened. Those recalling the scene saw what they saw, and they saw the truth, but they have misinterpreted or incorrectly perceived the truth. The statement: "I think this happened" will always be true, but the statement: "This happened" isn't necessarily true.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And in this comment you imply that there is TRUTH, but in your own statement, it really can not be attained - at lease not from a human standpoint.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

True, but that doesn't mean that we can go in the opposite direction from it and still call it truth. I just don't see how somebody perceiving something the wrong way can be considered correct in their account of it if it's not what happened. That's the very definition of incorrect, right? When what they say is not the truth? We never get the whole truth, but the parts of it we hear are still true, which differs a correct recollection from a flawed one.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Aren't people going in the "opposite direction" each and every day on all sorts of issues - and each claiming they are right or possess the "truth?" This country is currently split almost an even 50/50 on any major topic of debate - gun control, abortion, border control, illegal immigration, gay marriage, death penalty - probably the bigger ones. I realize the percentage points will go a few percent either way, but for the sake of argument, there is a pretty even division. I think there is something about we Americans that makes us think there is ONLY one right way to view something, and if it isn't done that way, then it is wrong. We have heard the phrase "two sides to every argument" when I believe there are actually many more. It requires creativity and thinking in terms other than "black" or "white" (not referring to skin color here). There needs to be more of a focus on problem solving, NOT just seeing who can be right over the next person. In my opinion SOLUTIONS and ACTION are in great need today. Just hashing issues over and over is not getting us anywhere.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think that, between every possible plan on each issue in the world, there is a plan that will make the greatest amount of people happy. While nobody can go deep enough to understand exactly why, those who use incorrect reasoning to defend their beliefs- which often comes down to just instinct and gut feeling- can be considered wrong, but not looked down upon for it. They've not done anything wrong, but they still are. But let's relate this post so a simpler example of when it can be wrong- Imagine I get a math problem wrong- a very complex one- and I refuse to believe it. I see no way for my logic to have been wrong, but it's different from what's on the answer key. Either I or the person who wrote the answer key must be wrong, right? But both of us think we're right. Where is the gap in my logic?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I would challenge your first comment and pretty much agree with your final comment. I don't think we can make the claim that there is any "incorrect" reasoning when it comes to a person's beliefs. Beliefs are subjective and not measurable. The youngest of children to the mentally handicapped to the most learned individuals, hold beliefs - and there is no way to say they can be considered wrong. The earliest of any civilization that we know about, held to some sort of belief system or code. The Osirians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Mayans, Pygmy, Aztecs, Greeks, Romans - to name a few all believed many things. Were they all incorrect in their reasoning? This is an argument I have had with myself about "bad decisions" or "poor choices." If at age 20, I made the best most informed decision or choice that I could possibly have made at the time (even after reading and asking questions to my parents or friends), and yet it yielded a poor or unfortunate result, does that mean or is that proof that I made a wrong choice? I say no. It was the most right and most correct that I saw at that given time, and that is the best I could have done. Now, looking back, I can see where I could have maybe done differently, but that was NOT an option available at that time. And on your second statement, there are times when answer keys are wrong. I have found mistakes in them myself on more than one occasion. That is why I believe we should question and challenge all authority and superiors. Also, a young child does not possess the developed abstract capabilities that an adult does. This is why we teach is small stepping stones or blocks and have grade levels. A Kindergarten child is not ready to take on Calculus or advanced Biology (there may be a rare example of a prodigy, but not the norm). So overall, yes, I agree with the logic of your final statement.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So it depends on how subjective it is

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think, by logic, if you deny the antecedent even if the consequent is also false the proposition is deemed true. The truth table associated with the material conditional if p then q (symbolized as p → q) and the logical implication p implies q (symbolized as p ⇒ q) is as follows: Logical Implication p q p → q T T T T F F F T T F F T

by Anonymous 11 years ago

So, in other words, your point is???

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I disagree that "we are what we think" BUT - IF we are what we think THEN what you say is logically true.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I can live with that.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think its more like T, F, Sometimes T sometimes F (but no direct correlation between p and q

by Anonymous 11 years ago

In this case I find p false, and therefore q is irrelevant, and the post .: is true.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Wait, you actually think that "we are what we think"? How can always that be true? If I think I am blue, and you think otherwise, can I really be considered right simply by the reasoning that I am what I think I am?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Just the opposite P is false, I do not believe we are what we think. I suspect we are //never// what we think.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Oh, well I guess it depends on how specific we are in our notions of ourselves. If somebody never really thinks about themselves past 'I'm a teacher" or "I'm a human", then they aren't necessarily wrong. It's when you get to very specific things that we can't be exact, and not everybody even goes that far in forming opinions about themselves.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I can agree with that hugely. Many people seem to be content not thinking much or very little. My brain has always been inquisitive about most things. I don't have to force or make it happen - it just does all the time. Where the questions come from amaze me sometimes. But I have learned to accept them - even when there is no right or wrong concerning them. I believe somehow that I am developing in to a more rounded person with a broader and fuller understanding of my world. Thank you for sharing with me and throwing a little understanding in my direction.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Thank you for doing the same to me. I wonder where such things come from; some people pursue truth and others have no problem believing lies that make them happy. Some do nothing but think, but others are content with keeping thought to a bare minimum. I wonder where differences like that come from. I wonder if there are any environmental factors that can make people more like one or the other.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If childhood experts are correct, much of it has to do with what happened while we were in utero and the first 3 years of our lives. Connections and pathways are being formed in the brain that will serve a person for life. And I am sure DNA, genetics, and chromosomes factor in to the whole thing as well. A "crack baby" will not likely have the brainwave activity of a child born to 2 intellects.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Hmm, interesting. We could really work to bring out the best in people if we knew more.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Which by your logic makes me right and you wrong.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If you wish to think so, that is perfectly fine by me. I have no problem with allowing others and myself being right at the same time.

by Anonymous 11 years ago