True for me

[Nearly Sane]

Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.

[Shaker]

Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.

You're quite right - in at least some cases it seems to be a way of claiming that a subjective opinion or preference is somehow more than that.

[Nearly Sane]

I am reminded of me old sainted grandma, in this case, who, if bested in any discussion, would declare 'aye, well ah'll always thinkit'

[Gordon]

Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.

You're quite right - in at least some cases it seems to be a way of claiming that a subjective opinion or preference is somehow more than that.

In addition the 'true for me' approach doesn't exist in isolation and is often, it seems to me, accompanied by other fallacies.

In the thread NS is talking about the 'true for them' resurrection claimants seem to be underpinned by large dollops of confirmation bias and special pleading (just for starters!)

[Nearly Sane]

Not sure that on the other thread, the perfectionists are taking the true for me line. I think they are balls to the wall, eye sockets flailing, increasingly saying true for everybody, though without justification.

The true for me stuff just arises from what is, on surface, a more reasonable approach but seems designed to subvert the actual idea of truth and colour an opinion on a slightly more pleasing shade of fact.

[Rhiannon]

Well, I have my true for me's - the sun is deity, the earth is deity, the universe is deity - they are a part of my reality, same as 'roses smell nice' and 'I like dogs and cats but not for the same reasons'. But I don't expect any of that to have meaning for others. Why on earth would it?

[Nearly Sane]

But then what is the point in smuggling in the concept of 'truth' to 'i think'?

[OH MY WORLD!]

Are you paying attention Horsethorn? Looking forward to your response to Nearly and our resident Marxist on what your "true for me" thingy means to you.

I believe that Horsethorn uses the "true for me" thingy to avoid that annoying "evidence" demand. A demand he loves to toss at Christians but is never able to provide regarding his god of the month. I don't have to provide evidence cause "it's true for me".

[Gordon]

Are you paying attention Horsethorn? Looking forward to your response to Nearly and our resident Marxist on what your "true for me" thingy means to you.

I believe that Horsethorn uses the "true for me" thingy to avoid that annoying "evidence" demand. A demand he loves to toss at Christians but is never able to provide regarding his god of the month. I don't have to provide evidence cause "it's true for me".

The difference of course is that Christians tend to say that Christianity is, in their opinion, true for everyone whereas as far as I know ht doesn't go beyond 'true for me' - and he doesn't seem to want to influence our kids at school or have special privileges (unlike some elements within Christianity).

[Hope]

Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.

Oddly enough, the only people I know on this forum who use the term 'true for them/you/me' are those who want to suggest that a given faith/fact does not have universal validity, and use the term to explain why that faith or fact isn't valid for them.

I've used this analogy before and accept that it isn't perfect, but goes a long way to being so.

Imagine: a friend of yours is trying to unlock his or her front door, and consistently fails because they are using the wrong key.  You come along, point out their error and help them recognise the correct key by some characteristic on it that all the other - similar - keys on their keyring don't have.  By your explanation above, that is only an example of 'true for me', and doesn't have universal validity for ebveryone.  In other words, you are eventually bound to find a key that does undo the lock (even if you don't have the 'proper' key with you). 

[Hope]

...(unlike some elements within Christianity).

Something that you could probably have said perfectly validly, with Muslim/Atheist/Hindu/Communist/Labour/Tory/SNP..., instead of 'Christianity', Gordon.  It is definitely not an idea that is exclusive to Christianity.

[Shaker]

Surely we're making this way more complicated than it need be.

Mainstream philosophy recognises an unbridgeable gap between fact and value (and that you can't derive the latter from the former, but that's another discussion for another day). Certain classes of things are what we call facts, objectively demonstrable within a given worldview, while others are subjective beliefs which we can't share with others. It's true for Tim if he hates football and loves pizza, but not for Tom if Tom loves football and hates pizza. That these preferences are held are facts, but the preferences themselves are just that.

[Shaker]

...(unlike some elements within Christianity).

Something that you could probably have said perfectly validly, with Muslim/Atheist/Hindu/Communist/Labour/Tory/SNP..., instead of 'Christianity', Gordon.  It is definitely not an idea that is exclusive to Christianity.

What special privileges do these groups seek?

[Hope]

...(unlike some elements within Christianity).

Something that you could probably have said perfectly validly, with Muslim/Atheist/Hindu/Communist/Labour/Tory/SNP..., instead of 'Christianity', Gordon.  It is definitely not an idea that is exclusive to Christianity.

What special privileges do these groups seek?

OK, Nepal is finally due to have a new Constitution signed on Sunday.  Currently, there is no freedom of religion clause within it (though there are many people - Hindus included - pushing for one to be included).  The politicians want to return Nepal to being a Hindu state, just without a monarch.  Comparable laws apply in Muslim countries, communist countries, etc.  Before you say "but we're talking about the 'UK', or 'the West'" where is this limitation referred to in this thread.  We are tlking globally, as well as individually: we are NOT talking nationally or even culturally.

[Shaker]

Well, I was - I don't live in Nepal.

[Hope]

Well, I was - I don't live in Nepal.

I appreciate that, but we all live in what is an increasingly global village where different people's attitudes and opinions impinge of everyone else.

[Gordon]

...(unlike some elements within Christianity).

Something that you could probably have said perfectly validly, with Muslim/Atheist/Hindu/Communist/Labour/Tory/SNP..., instead of 'Christianity', Gordon.  It is definitely not an idea that is exclusive to Christianity.

Quite simple - it was the Christians who were looking to gain access to my kids when they were at school, whereas the SNP or the Hindus never did, and there are a bunch of CofE clerics sitting in the HoL simply because they are CofE clerics.

So, within the context of my experience there are some Christians (though not all) who seem to work on the basis that since they've caught something nasty they'd really like it if the rest of us caught it too: they seem unable to keep it to themselves!

[Shaker]

Well, I was - I don't live in Nepal.

I appreciate that, but we all live in what is an increasingly global village where different people's attitudes and opinions impinge of everyone else.

So what special privileges are the SNP seeking in Nepal then?

[Hope]

So what special privileges are the SNP seeking in Nepal then?

Good to see that you have missed the point of both my posts #11 & 14.  Not that I would expect much else from you.

[Shaker]

If you wanted a discussion about the constitution of Nepal, Nepali religious freedom and its relevance to people who live in Yeovil or Nuneaton I really think you should have said

[OH MY WORLD!]

Gordon,
Like i said, Horse uses that line to avoid providing evidence when asked. Makes no difference who you think a truth is for. If you won't provide evidence for something you believe is true then don't demand it from others.
True, Horsethorn may not be able to stand on the street and share his paganism with others but he is just one. Every time I've been to Hawaii those pagan hare krishnas are in the airport trying to get money from people and on the main strip at night in Waikiki, trying to hook converts and collect money of course.

[Hope]

If you wanted a discussion about the constitution of Nepal, Nepali religious freedom and its relevance to people who live in Yeovil or Nuneaton I really think you should have said

The reason that the Nepalese constitution is relevant to people in Yeovil or Nuneaton is that globally, certain groups want to 'gain access to' (as Gordon put it in a previous post) other members of a society.  When I was at school, it was drug runners, paedophiles, atheists, the occasional homosexual staff member and Anglicans.  OK, perhaps I had a rather different educational background to some here - but since the offenders hadn't changed a great deal by the time I became a teacher, I doubt it.

This is not something exclusive to Christians, nor is it something exclusive to the UK - which seems to be what you want to make it out to be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.

You're quite right - in at least some cases it seems to be a way of claiming that a subjective opinion or preference is somehow more than that.

Doesn't it just mean it's true for them and reflects a desire not to be doctrinaire about there own point of view. Something you and I are not into.

[Nearly Sane]

Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.

You're quite right - in at least some cases it seems to be a way of claiming that a subjective opinion or preference is somehow more than that.

Doesn't it just mean it's true for them and reflects a desire not to be doctrinaire about there own point of view. Something you and I are not into.

In which case why not just say 'I think'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Triggered by the discussion on another thread about 'generally accepted facts', I am struggling with the idea of what people really mean when they say something is 'true for them'. If it means, as I suspect that it feels correct to them, does that give it any more respectability than liking marmite is true for me. It seems like an attempt to give credibility to an idea in some way more than 'i think' but I don't see that it does.

You're quite right - in at least some cases it seems to be a way of claiming that a subjective opinion or preference is somehow more than that.

Doesn't it just mean it's true for them and reflects a desire not to be doctrinaire about there own point of view. Something you and I are not into.

In which case why not just say 'I think'?

Yes I can see that might appeal for a sub ''truth'' existence where nothing as exciting as a truth normally pops up.