Accepted truths

[penguinzrock]

Here is my argument, feel free to post your takes.

If the entire 100% group is in agreement on something, then that something is true.

Dae's argument is: if a ^ b ^ c, then a is true, b is true, and c is true.
Therefore a is ALWAYS true, b is ALWAYS true, and c is ALWAYS true.
Therefore if A thinks one thing, it is automatically correct, even if it is different than B and C.

The mistake in your logic is, if A thinks something different than B and C, it no longer falls under the a ^ b ^ c rule.

The conditions of an accepted truth are:

• All individuals are in agreement upon one thing, and their opinions do not change
• No other possibilities exist that can be argued for
• Exactly 100% of the individuals agree on the truth

If all of those conditions are met, then the thing agreed upon is accepted as true, since there is no possibility that it can be untrue.

For example, if Albert, Beth, and Carl all agree that black is white, and no one else exists except Albert, Beth, and Carl, then black is white in the scope of Albert, Beth, and Carl.
This doesn't mean Albert is correct about EVERYTHING, it just means he is correct in regards to black being white.
If Albert changes his mind and decides black is actually red, then Albert, Beth, and Carl are no longer in 100% agreement, and the conditions are not met for accepted truth.

There is evidence for this in the novel 1984 by George Orwell.

[PhoenixRider]

Weird topic, but there is little ground to debate upon.

[FailFTW]

If I said black was black then in the context of 1984 I would be disappeared, assimilated, then killed.

[Starlit Azure]

Elaborate on the 1984 part, I don't follow.

[turles]

2 + 2 = 5

duh.

[Starlit Azure]

2 + 2 = 5

duh.

So first grade.

[penguinzrock]

Elaborate on the 1984 part, I don't follow.

1984 depicted in a world in which the government regulated all your spoken ideas and thoughts.
If you were to think or say something different than what the government says, you were kidnapped and brainwashed into thinking what the government thought.
So, if everyone thought the same, then what they thought would be true, since there would be no one to say it was untrue.
Of course that would be heinous, but Orwell uses this to illustrate a point that the government should never have that much control over the country's ideas.
It's also based on the idea that something agreed upon by everyone is accepted to be true.

This is only applicable to things in agreement however.
Being right about one thing does not mean you are right about everything.

[Dae314]

Thanks for introducing my argument penguin. I'll clarify a few things b4 I clarify my argument. Since we are arguing right and wrong with no intermediaries, we can substitute booleans into it (at least for the first part). For my example I use a, b, and c. a, b, and c are boolean variables that are either true or false. ^ in this case is not the exponential operator, but logical conjunction (more commonly known as AND). for something AND something to be true, both somethings must also be true. so "the sky is blue AND I type on a computer" would be a true statement while "the sky is red AND I type on a computer" or "the sky is blue AND I type on a mouse" would be false.

now on to my argument:

Penguin's point about the group mentality is very closely tied to absolute right and wrong. If you believe in absolute, you do not believe penguin, if you believe in objectivity, you believe penguin. Penguin's base argument is that "If people think together collectively, as a group, they are right." That sounds a lot like AND doesn't it? Lets say a, b, and c are people and they are either right or wrong.

Penguin's argument can be modeled like this: a ^ b ^ c is true. This is a model for what the group thinks is true/right is right. A group is made up of individuals, a, b, and c represent individuals in the group. Now lets say penguin is right. a ^ b ^ c (a,b,c being people) determine if the group is true. That means that a, b, and c must all be true: true ^ true ^ true. If someone defects from the group, true ^ false ^ true, the group is no longer correct.

Here's the cool part, that false thing works for boolean values, but a, b, and c are people that are either true or false. In order for the entire group (a ^ b ^ c) to be true, a,b, and c must be true. In other words, a = true, b = true and c = true. It cannot be the case that a is only true if be is true and c is only true if a is true. Otherwise the group would not be in true agreement in the way humans think. You see, humans have free will, they are allowed to think what they want, therefore, a, b, and c must all think individually true to be true together.

But you can break that down, in order for a, b, and c to be true collectively, all three of them must be true individually. They cannot rely on each other for their truth. And because we're working with humans, they choose to be true as part of that group. But because individually each person must be true in what they have chosen, it follows then that each individual can be true in whatever they choose. Regardless of the group. You see the fact that the group collectively is correct implies that the individual is correct. And because we're working with human variables, each person's choice to be part of that group makes him or her right. Therefore what he or she chooses is right.

Now here's the part where absolute and objectivity comes in. Remember that penguin's argument relies completely on objectivity. If a person is right only when they choose to be right with the group, that is absolute right. If a person is then wrong when they are not part of the group then that is absolute wrong. We are now talking about a group of objective beliefs becoming a unit of absolute right/wrong. Because everything is objective, the group is made up of objective parts, therefore it cannot be an absolute whole. Therefore, to say that a person, and then the group is wrong when one person defects is to say that absolute right and wrong exists. If absolute right and wrong exist, the group's choice to believe in something does not make it right.

If you try to avoid this conflict, you end up with a completely objective world. Where anything anyone thinks is right because it's objective. I think your car should be mine and it is because it is right. You can't be persecuted for what you think because what you think is always right. If that were the way the universe operated, government and order wouldn't exist. Who wants someone telling you what is right and wrong (laws) when you can determine that just fine yourself?

Following the argument of group mentality determining truth to the end gives you these options: absolute right and wrong exist, contradicting your conclusion about objectivity. Or everything is objective and whatever you think is right is right.

[Starlit Azure]

1984 depicted in a world in which the government regulated all your spoken ideas and thoughts.
If you were to think or say something different than what the government says, you were kidnapped and brainwashed into thinking what the government thought.
So, if everyone thought the same, then what they thought would be true, since there would be no one to say it was untrue.
Of course that would be heinous, but Orwell uses this to illustrate a point that the government should never have that much control over the country's ideas.
It's also based on the idea that something agreed upon by everyone is accepted to be true.

This is only applicable to things in agreement however.
Being right about one thing does not mean you are right about everything.

Isn't that just doublethink?

Not everybody thought the same, they acted the same but not thought. Take Winston for an example.Also, people like O'Brien and those in the upper class clearly knew the truth. And when O'Brien lied to Winston he lied and told the truth at the same time. Doublethink again.

[penguinzrock]

Here's the cool part, that false thing works for boolean values, but a, b, and c are people that are either true or false. In order for the entire group (a ^ b ^ c) to be true, a,b, and c must be true. In other words, a = true, b = true and c = true. It cannot be the case that a is only true if be is true and c is only true if a is true. Otherwise the group would not be in true agreement in the way humans think. You see, humans have free will, they are allowed to think what they want, therefore, a, b, and c must all think individually true to be true together.

But you can break that down, in order for a, b, and c to be true collectively, all three of them must be true individually. They cannot rely on each other for their truth. And because we're working with humans, they choose to be true as part of that group. But because individually each person must be true in what they have chosen, it follows then that each individual can be true in whatever they choose. Regardless of the group. You see the fact that the group collectively is correct implies that the individual is correct. And because we're working with human variables, each person's choice to be part of that group makes him or her right. Therefore what he or she chooses is right.

The individual cannot be correct in itself. What makes the individual correct is that they are part of the group, which is correct. The group decides what is true, and not the individual. The individual is only correct because they are part of the group that is correct. If they are not part of the group, they are not correct, and if they are not correct, they are not group of the group. Individual ideas MUST all be the same, and therefore are all interdependent to be true.

Now here's the part where absolute and objectivity comes in. Remember that penguin's argument relies completely on objectivity. If a person is right only when they choose to be right with the group, that is absolute right. If a person is then wrong when they are not part of the group then that is absolute wrong. We are now talking about a group of objective beliefs becoming a unit of absolute right/wrong. Because everything is objective, the group is made up of objective parts, therefore it cannot be an absolute whole. Therefore, to say that a person, and then the group is wrong when one person defects is to say that absolute right and wrong exists. If absolute right and wrong exist, the group's choice to believe in something does not make it right.

A person does not choose to be in a group. If they think the same as everyone else, then they are automatically part of that group. In order for a truth to be accepted, there must be only 1 group that is in agreement about that one truth. Disagreement does not constitute absolute right or wrong. Disagreement means there are at least two different arguments for a single point, and therefore it is impossible to tell which side is correct (in the case of objectivity).

If you try to avoid this conflict, you end up with a completely objective world. Where anything anyone thinks is right because it's objective. I think your car should be mine and it is because it is right. You can't be persecuted for what you think because what you think is always right. If that were the way the universe operated, government and order wouldn't exist. Who wants someone telling you what is right and wrong (laws) when you can determine that just fine yourself?

Like I said, just because you are correct about one thing in regards to the group does not mean you are correct about everything.