Eastern philosophy says the self is an illusion

Doc Dutch said:
^^^
Typical Perry can never admit error or even meet halfway. He has to be 100% correct 100% of the time. IOW, he's obsessive about being seen as the smartest person in the room.

Where's the link to your definition, Perry?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I explicitly noted that Cypress' use of "universal" is acceptable when applied to any given single set.

I just prefer to discuss universal truths in terms that are broader than just humans.
 
Cypress said:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and it has been translated into over 500 languages. The UDHR is widely recognized as having inspired, and paved the way for, the adoption of more than seventy human rights treaties, applied today on a permanent basis at global and regional levels (all containing references to it in their preambles).

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Click to expand...

No matter how many examples of a limited use of "universal" you use it doesn't make universal necessarily always that limited.

Ie: UNIVERSAL IS NOT SOLELY LIMITED TO HUMANS. It just isn't.

It can be applied to human endeavors, but I have already explained to you a COUPLE TIMES why that is overlimiting.

You really don't handle thinking outside of whatever you were told do you?
 
Cypress said:
Already addressed multiple times.
Click to expand...

So you think anytime anyone uses the phrase "universal" they are ONLY talking about humans?

You will be surprised that the people who put together the Oxford English Dictionary (which still remains the PREMIER and primary dictionary of the English language) which is MUCH MORE EXPANSIVE.

Go ahead and read it here:

https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=universal

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/universal_adj?tab=factsheet#16686559
 
UNIVERSAL is nothing but a set designation. It can be applied to sets that are within larger sets but it can also apply to the larger set.

Honestly this should not even be a topic of discussion.

Cypress: You are using the term "universal" exclusively to human endeavors ("universal suffrage", etc.) but it can (and does) expand out to the entire universe per se.

It is used in both versions in philosophy. A universal negative is NOT limited solely to humans, but rather, Universally. Yes philosophy DOES use the term relating to the set of HUMANS but not always and not exclusively.

But to the larger point: You may wish to discuss these "universal truths" like "filial piety" all the livelong day and make them EXCLUSIVE to humans and scratch your head as to WHY they are a "universal value"...OR you can take a broader, more "universal view" and expand your set out to all living creatures on the planet and see that despite the FACT that we share a common biology not all these things which you consider "universal truths" are anything even remotely "universal".

You may as well be wondering at the existence of the US Patent Law. It's wholly made up by humans for humans and only applies to humans. But it isn't some "universal" truth by any stretch of the imagination. Similarly to so much of what you call "Normative Knowledge". It's just human stuff made up by humans for the benefit of humans and no one else. Ie Non-Universal.
 
IlaceWords said:
Not at all. I explicitly noted that Cypress' use of "universal" is acceptable when applied to any given single set.

I just prefer to discuss universal truths in terms that are broader than just humans.
Click to expand...
You're free to make up your own words, Perry. In fact, I expect it from you.

What you can't do is dictate to others the definitions of words.
 
IlaceWords said:
No matter how many examples of a limited use of "universal" you use it doesn't make universal necessarily always that limited.

Ie: UNIVERSAL IS NOT SOLELY LIMITED TO HUMANS. It just isn't.

It can be applied to human endeavors, but I have already explained to you a COUPLE TIMES why that is overlimiting.

You really don't handle thinking outside of whatever you were told do you?
Click to expand...

You should contact Webster's, Oxford, Cambridge, and Collin's dictionaries and harangue them that their definitions of universal are wrong.
 
IlaceWords said:
So you think anytime anyone uses the phrase "universal" they are ONLY talking about humans?
Click to expand...
Nope, I never said that. You need to stop imagining and hallucinating about what write.

Cypress said:
SI units for speed of light (c), universal gravitational constant (G), mass of electron (Me), Planck's constant (h):

c = 299,792,458
G = 6.673 x 10 (exponent minus 11)
Me = 9.10938188 x 10 (exponent minus 31)
h = 6.62607004 x 10 (exponent minus 34)
Click to expand...
 
IlaceWords said:
Then why do you refuse to engage with my point and continue to keep making it about a definition which is limited?
Click to expand...

So it's just to painful for you to confess you were wrong and that I have a record of correctly using the word universal in both it's contexts, something that applies to everyone, or everywhere
 
Cypress said:
So it's just to painful for you to confess you were wrong and that I have a record of correctly using the word universal in both it's contexts, something that applies to everyone, or everywhere
Click to expand...

And everything everywhere is another definition (supported by dictionaries).

I get it. Honest, I know you will not read this part but I'll say it again: you are using it fine but I am also using it correctly as well. You have chosen a smaller set within a larger set and I have simple selected the larger set to show the limitations.

The reason I select a larger SET (which contains your set) is that I believe it shows how non-universal these "truths" are that you are seeking to understand. There's nothing special about "filial piety", we made it up. And we gain an advantage from it that other life doesn't. Hence it isn't anything "universal". It is just a "human thing" and because it is just a "human thing" it is quite easy to understand why it exists: it provides us a survival advantage as a social animal. Nothing more deep than that.
 
Doc Dutch said:
No, Perry, but a person in your condition is very unlikely to ever see the truth. You can't even agree with the dictionary definitions. You are obsessively compelled to make up your own definitions.
Click to expand...

I have so far demonstrated that I am NOT making it up. You just don't like the English language in full.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top