if there is truth, and you can achieve it by educating yourself, and reading educates you, why won't as a result most well read people end up agr...

if there is truth, and you can achieve it by educating yourself, and reading educates you, why won't as a result most well read people end up agreeing on conflicts? in fact it is not the case at all, you will find a lot of well read people who still end up on two opposing extremes on same question.

can we even make the argument that reading more and accumulating more information gets us closer to the truth? because that does not seem to be a common denominator. even among two well read persons who disagree on a binary issue, one of them is wrong. the presupposition that reading gets people closer to truth must be wrong.

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Reading is about vanity and social status. It signals that you have wealth and leisure, and might be somewhat intelligent.
    It also provides mental masturbation sextoys, as it were, so that autists can have fun playing around with ideas and concepts that, at the end of the day, are all false.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So now what?

      Whether reading educates humans or not, can't be found in such a scenario. The humans have an ego. Just because someone is educated, and/or trying to prove some truth, doesn't mean he can let go of his bias. His ego wants to live, and like any entity in a system, it will fight to the end to survive.

      Holy based

      https://i.imgur.com/Z4UPchz.jpg

      Intelligence, wisdom and impartiality, each sits independent of the other, and the acquisition of truth requires sufficient levels of all three.

      Based poem, bro

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'd trust a man who only read Plato and Aristotle over a man who had perfect knowledge of every philosopher who ever lived.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Me infinity.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on the topic. Both could be wrong and both may be right, especially for definitional arguments that do not necessarily possess a logically valid correct answer. Reading can aid in teaching you how to think but it cannot think for you, unless the topic is one which is directly answered by a book. The more sophisticated you become at this process the better you will be able to discern for yourself, it sounds like you are trying to argue yourself out of reading, and no one can necessarily argue you back to a point where you want to read. If you do not want to then do not do it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Depends on the topic
      you really think you can get out of this argument by denying the existence of topics that have binary outcomes?

      >it sounds like you are trying to argue yourself out of reading
      I am aware of the practical benefits of being well read. you can show off, and people will think you know something although you actually know nothing.

      I am just voicing my opinion of my skepticism towards the natural link people assume to exist between being well read and being positioned closer to truth.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What would I need to get out of? There are multiple threads a week on here about defining something like love. We can simply go to a dictionary for a definition except that definition may not be sufficient. You can reduce it to a purely chemical reaction and that may not be sufficient. Instead people talk about various other definitions that may have more meaning, there really isn't much left to it from a binary perspective, unless someone decides to accept another person's definition instead of whichever one that already had, but there may not even be much logical validity to the choice.

        There is nothing wrong with this, and I am not trying to imply there is anything wrong with this, but if you extrapolate the logic of what you are saying then you can either accept you know nothing as well and stop trying to profess to have truth or perhaps develop your physical form instead of reading if you prefer. You can continue to read and test your knowledge to develop as well. You can do both, you can do neither. You can take skepticism all the way to its logical extremity and stop trusting your own senses if you like. The point is, there is no 100% logic based argument to force you to read if you do not want to, perhaps maybe take some time to think about what you do want.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Whether reading educates humans or not, can't be found in such a scenario. The humans have an ego. Just because someone is educated, and/or trying to prove some truth, doesn't mean he can let go of his bias. His ego wants to live, and like any entity in a system, it will fight to the end to survive.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          so you're basically arguing that reading does educate and education does get you closer to truth but people disagree simply because of their ulterior motives?

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >if there is truth
    Since there is truth, you should try to answer your own question.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Intelligence, wisdom and impartiality, each sits independent of the other, and the acquisition of truth requires sufficient levels of all three.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There is no such thing as truth. It's another moronic metaphysical concept no different from the math gays chasing infinity. Nietzsche put it best when he described the dependency of 'truth' to power. Whoever is in power decides truth and there's nothing you can do about it. That's just the rule in societies.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The person that gets power has to act on truth, though.
      If they didn't, they would not be in power.
      So truth does exist, and Nietzsche was half-rigth.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They act on self interest which is ever changing, whatever you call that it isn't truth; which is something so unchanging as to be unattainable. They decide what is true, they don't act on it. Right now burden and his joo buddies have decided that women are equal to men and that Russia is wrong and Ukraine right. Are they acting on any truth you know or did they just create their own version contrary to the republicans?

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Philosophy, theology and politics aren’t like science. This is the entire point of your pic related’s Republic. The perfect state can not be achieved by the same means of finding what forms the perfect soul. While I dislike Platonism in general, that basic idea is very relevant.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You are relying on the Middle Ground fallacy. If one person believes A and another B, education will not usually yield a happy medium ground C. Instead they will become more sure of there view, regardless if that position is A or B. No one has access to the full truth, so some things just have to be assumed. Those assumptions are inherently subjective and are open to the whims of the individual asserting them.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You don't quite grasp how much reading is required to begin agreeing on fundamental ideas.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What are the basics?

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's almost like conflict can occur even when no one disagrees on the facts. I don't see why so many people these days have difficulty understanding this.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >accumulating more information

    That's the domain of Doxa, not Truth -- and still less Wisdom. There is no necessary relation of power of intellect and Actual Intelligence or Virtuous Character.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    People's core desires can be in direct conflict. There will be conflict no matter how articulated your reasoning is when the axioms you base them on are opposed. Educated people realize this, and prefer to keep it under wraps since deception becomes impossible if the axioms are revealed.

    There's simply many facts that if voiced are only against you.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *