Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Synthesis
Posts: 189
Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post by Synthesis » September 15th, 2017, 11:46 am

LuckyR wrote:
Synthesis wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

You mis-understand. What he was saying was perfectly acceptable according current thinking, but not actually true.
Most folks who declare that something is not true, do so because a different thing (than the original) is in fact true. However, reading between the lines I am starting to get the feeling that your opinion is that nothing is true. Is this correct?
Yes, all things knowable are constantly changing, making them impossible to [really] understand.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 2724
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post by LuckyR » September 17th, 2017, 5:05 am

Synthesis wrote:
LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Most folks who declare that something is not true, do so because a different thing (than the original) is in fact true. However, reading between the lines I am starting to get the feeling that your opinion is that nothing is true. Is this correct?
Yes, all things knowable are constantly changing, making them impossible to [really] understand.
You are correct from a practical perspective, that is complex systems have too many variables to all be accounted for with current technology. However if you view current understanding from a historical perspective, we have made very impressive progress towards complete understanding (which will never happen in complex systems). This represents practical understanding (yet not complete understanding).
"As usual... it depends."

Synthesis
Posts: 189
Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post by Synthesis » September 18th, 2017, 6:14 pm

LuckyR wrote:
Synthesis wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Yes, all things knowable are constantly changing, making them impossible to [really] understand.
You are correct from a practical perspective, that is complex systems have too many variables to all be accounted for with current technology. However if you view current understanding from a historical perspective, we have made very impressive progress towards complete understanding (which will never happen in complex systems). This represents practical understanding (yet not complete understanding).
Practical understanding. Interesting concept. The difficulty lies in the notion that we are so far from the truth of the matter [there are an infinite number of variables], that how close can one really come?

In the end, people must give up and simply accept things as they are, no interpretation necessary.

Alias
Posts: 2178
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post by Alias » September 19th, 2017, 11:27 am

IOW blue-green algae got it right the first time.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 2724
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post by LuckyR » September 20th, 2017, 1:36 am

Synthesis wrote:
LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


You are correct from a practical perspective, that is complex systems have too many variables to all be accounted for with current technology. However if you view current understanding from a historical perspective, we have made very impressive progress towards complete understanding (which will never happen in complex systems). This represents practical understanding (yet not complete understanding).
Practical understanding. Interesting concept. The difficulty lies in the notion that we are so far from the truth of the matter [there are an infinite number of variables], that how close can one really come?

In the end, people must give up and simply accept things as they are, no interpretation necessary.
Well, yes and no. True human understanding of complex systems as we agree can never reach 100%. OTOH, for some areas like calculating (predicting) satellite orbits, we are likely somewhere greater than 99.999% of the way, other areas like the immune system are probably only 80% of the way.

Regardless, only 50 years ago, a blink of humanity's presence on the planet, both were very much lower. I'm OK with that.
"As usual... it depends."

Synthesis
Posts: 189
Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post by Synthesis » September 20th, 2017, 2:46 pm

LuckyR wrote:
Synthesis wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Practical understanding. Interesting concept. The difficulty lies in the notion that we are so far from the truth of the matter [there are an infinite number of variables], that how close can one really come?

In the end, people must give up and simply accept things as they are, no interpretation necessary.
Well, yes and no. True human understanding of complex systems as we agree can never reach 100%. OTOH, for some areas like calculating (predicting) satellite orbits, we are likely somewhere greater than 99.999% of the way, other areas like the immune system are probably only 80% of the way.

Regardless, only 50 years ago, a blink of humanity's presence on the planet, both were very much lower. I'm OK with that.
I understand where you are coming from [on a technical level], but in terms actual functionality, we have [and have ALWAYS had] everything we need. This is what most people miss. We only need to accept things as they are each and every moment. Otherwise, people become stuck in the endless hell of believing that things are never good enough.

Supine
Posts: 1013
Joined: November 27th, 2012, 2:11 am

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post by Supine » September 23rd, 2017, 4:26 pm

Synthesis wrote: It is attachment that causes all suffering. That's the difficulty.
Synthesis, is this coming from a Buddhist perspective?

I think you might be able to reasonably argue that the Doctor's statements on known factors of beauty may be found incorrect (not true)--some of them--in the future. But I also think that if x things are acknowledged and generally accepted as true today that a Doctor can lay out an argument or points in which the conclusion can be deemed true (or false).

In that sense... maybe an attachment to health rather than looking anorexic can significantly reduce suffer for a young woman that wants to look attractive to men. That is to say if it is generally accepted today from studies done that the vast majority of men are not sexually attracted to anorexic women. Now, maybe in year 3017 most men will be sexually attracted to anorexic men but as of now that does not seem to be the case. Likewise, most (not all) men might find certain symmetrical features on a face more attractive.

Synthesis
Posts: 189
Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

Re: Is it only lipstick on a pig?

Post by Synthesis » September 24th, 2017, 12:30 pm

Supine wrote:
Synthesis wrote: It is attachment that causes all suffering. That's the difficulty.
Synthesis, is this coming from a Buddhist perspective?

I think you might be able to reasonably argue that the Doctor's statements on known factors of beauty may be found incorrect (not true)--some of them--in the future. But I also think that if x things are acknowledged and generally accepted as true today that a Doctor can lay out an argument or points in which the conclusion can be deemed true (or false).

In that sense... maybe an attachment to health rather than looking anorexic can significantly reduce suffer for a young woman that wants to look attractive to men. That is to say if it is generally accepted today from studies done that the vast majority of men are not sexually attracted to anorexic women. Now, maybe in year 3017 most men will be sexually attracted to anorexic men but as of now that does not seem to be the case. Likewise, most (not all) men might find certain symmetrical features on a face more attractive.
You could say this a Buddhist [but not really :].

You can take the doctor's comments any way you wish, but I am coming from the perspective that all things knowable are far from the truth [because human beings can not access reality in any significant way]. Relatively speaking, I am sure he knew what he was talking about, but only in the way that any so-called "expert" can pontificate currently accepted doctrine with great skill.

Post Reply