3 ms·

I agree that the leap of faith is the most common way people choose to live. But you seem to be describing it from a perspective of somebody who’s never asked t

I agree that the leap of faith is the most common way people choose to live. But you seem to be describing it from a perspective of somebody who’s never asked themselves the question, or who gave up trying to answer it. To properly arrive at the leap of faith, you need to first accept that there are no universal truths. Then you can choose some axioms to base meaning on, and build outwards from there. I don’t believe that this approach is truly that orthodox, even if it may arrive at a similar destination to not asking the question to begin with. There is no universal truth anywhere in life. Even empiricism is based on our subjective experiences, and rationalism is also flawed in exactly the same way. Life itself doesn’t offer any bedrock of truth, but that doesn’t mean truth doesn’t exist. You can take the leap of faith and create your own truth in life.

magicalbeans 8y ago
There are no universal truths? Math is quite universal. For all intents and purposes empiristic measurements have margin of error small enough to be more than just a subjective experience. In fact you are experiencing a universal truth right now through a small and a distorted glass. Saying that there's no universal truth anywhere is just full on defeatist poo-poo.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  It’s not defeatist at all. Empiricism derives truth from sensory experiences, which are by definition subjective. Rationalism derives truth from logic, and all statements in logic are constrained from discovering universal truth by the munchausen trilemma. I think what you’re talking about would be better described as a personal truth, which _is_ a leap of faith.
  - magicalbeans 8y ago
    Calling sensory experiences subjective subtly implies that they carry zero bits of useful information and that everything is up to interpretation. That is profoundly defeatist. Whereas I maintain that there is a universal truth, and that individual sensory experiences are mere samples. The more samples from as many sensory devices and vantage points the closer your approximation to the universal truth it is.
    - magicalbeans 8y ago
      Given a person A and person B, while both have a very small subset of the 'univeral truth' one of them is closer to it than the other approximation. And better yet the combined sample sets are likely to be even closer.

magicalbeans 8y ago

There are no universal truths? Math is quite universal. For all intents and purposes empiristic measurements have margin of error small enough to be more than just a subjective experience. In fact you are experiencing a universal truth right now through a small and a distorted glass. Saying that there's no universal truth anywhere is just full on defeatist poo-poo.

AmericanChopper 8y ago
It’s not defeatist at all. Empiricism derives truth from sensory experiences, which are by definition subjective. Rationalism derives truth from logic, and all statements in logic are constrained from discovering universal truth by the munchausen trilemma. I think what you’re talking about would be better described as a personal truth, which _is_ a leap of faith.
- magicalbeans 8y ago
  Calling sensory experiences subjective subtly implies that they carry zero bits of useful information and that everything is up to interpretation. That is profoundly defeatist. Whereas I maintain that there is a universal truth, and that individual sensory experiences are mere samples. The more samples from as many sensory devices and vantage points the closer your approximation to the universal truth it is.
  - magicalbeans 8y ago
    Given a person A and person B, while both have a very small subset of the 'univeral truth' one of them is closer to it than the other approximation. And better yet the combined sample sets are likely to be even closer.