Your transformation from Left-wing hack to staunch Trump supporter is so well-documented at this point that there's no need to even respond to this kind of BS.
Some people see BS wherever they look. They don't believe in honesty or that it actually exists. Sasha's story has been focused, consistent and obviously heart-felt from the beginning. I consider those as posative indications.
For the first time, obviously, please go read and grok Article IV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution. Then carefully read & grok the 13 Amendment.....The man is NOT the office....
Okay I'll read what you say if your read a real historical scholars' work Dr. Michael Heiser's "The Unseen Realm"...I'm reading this work for the 4th time and its based on real historical events and facts, not the fiction of Robert Heinleins world view. I've read Heinleins works in my younger years.
Then you aren't about scholarship, you are about bullyship! Share my view you seem to say. You don't want a discussion...you just want to demagoue others to you view...Leftwing it seems!
Emotionally immature people, AKA people without SELF-control (free will), consider all beliefs truths to them when they originate from people they have trusted.
Your views, if they differ from theirs, are lies by default.
They do not recognize or acknowledge the difference between subjective and objective truth. This is why/how they cannot reason. As a result, they cannot make arguments. Instead, they search for reinforcement.
Semantics, yes indeed. "There's no such thing as "objective truth", and even if there was, you could only ever experience it subjectively".... I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you....
Sure, there is. Moreover, there is also absolute (the Creator's) truth.
Without absolute truth, a truth only the Creator can claim (as you suggest above), objective truth disappears into subjective truth. Yet, you have put objective truth and absolute truth together. Still, for our capacity to reason and realize free will, they are separate. Here's why:
Truth is found when a hypothesis, subject to the requirements of the scientific method (falsification, arising in reality, etc.), meets both the necessary and sufficient conditions. The necessary condition is met when the hypothesis explains the observed. This is subjective truth. When the hypothesis is the sole surviving hypothesis of all KNOWN hypotheses, the objective truth is established. The absolute truth (sufficient condition met) is established when all known and UNKNOWN hypotheses have been disproved but one.
Objective truth is real; it is just not absolute truth (as you suggest).
Finally, the indeterminate form of absolute truth creates free will. The Creator's truth creates free will, i.e., does not suppress it as many imagine.
So-called "absolute truth", "objective truth", and "subjective truth", and even "God's TRUTH", are ALL EXACTLY the SAME. You can only ever experience or know them, subjectively, Brian.... Which is also exactly what I said in the first place. Reality is in fact far simpler than you IMAGINE, Brian....
"IMAGINATION" = "eye-magic nation". You see MAGIC in your mind's eye....
The Creator's creation is in turn a creator of creations.
Real or imagined, objective, or subjective. Or absolute.
Objective truth exists. If a person can only approach it asymptotically by continuing to search for relevant facts and indications, then some people will be closer to the truth than others who abandon the search entirely.
So long as other views meet the necessary condition, they are equal subjective truths. The necessary condition is met when the hypothesis explains the observed. Objective truth is achieved when all but one known hypothesis has been disproved.
More evidence does not make something more true.
Once the necessary condition is met, the process of disproof, testing, and falsification—the scientific method —begins.
Nothing in science is proved to the last decimal. Science predicts to a certain level of probability. And good science will estimate and tell you what the probable error is. Then there is the uncertainty principle where all the descriptors of a physical event concerning the smallest measurable things can not be known simultaneously. The process of making a measurement changes what existed before. When it comes to nature or human reactions, science has not yet discovered all the processes that affect the precise outcome. We are lucky to notice the most impactful in a given situation. As I said, objective truth can only be approached asymptoticlly. But that is no reason not to try to discover it.
Yes, "objective truth", and "subjective truth", and "God's truth", and "absolute truth", ALL EXIST. And they are all the SAME, except conceptually & conversationally.
Thank-you, Lizzie, for "asymptotically". Just learned a new word! I'm still seeking truth. Asymptotically, I guess!
Online discussions would be so much better if people refrained from ad hominem fallacies. If people want to disagree, fine, make an argument. Just don’t stoop to baseless charges that someone is being paid.
I agree in principle but, in reality, some people are in fact being paid by an interested group or individual to post & usually we don’t know it. That’s the problem.
“______-deranged” population these days, all of whom appear to be active online. Ya got your Epstein-deranged, and your genocide-in-Gaza-deranged, and your Communism-deranged, which all make Trump-deranged seem old school by comparison. You are the best.
One day you're a liberal moderate. Then some of your fellow liberals say something you find strange or objectionable and you do a little research, listen to someone right-of-center with an open mind.
Your transformation from Left-wing hack to staunch Trump supporter is so well-documented at this point that there's no need to even respond to this kind of BS.
Some people see BS wherever they look. They don't believe in honesty or that it actually exists. Sasha's story has been focused, consistent and obviously heart-felt from the beginning. I consider those as posative indications.
Never a left-wing hack. Sasha has always tried to write truth. And modified the message when new information entered the equation. I appreciate that.
The fact that she accepted the new information proves that she isn't a "hack".... unlike some of my relatives... I kid because I care.
For the first time, obviously, please go read and grok Article IV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution. Then carefully read & grok the 13 Amendment.....The man is NOT the office....
ok... not sure what these parts of the Constitution have anything to do with whether Sasha is getting paid...
Let's all be sure to not make any sudden movements around this guy.
😄😄😄😄👍
Until you actually READ Article IV, Section 4, and the 13th Amendment, you remain uneducated & ignorant, Ashley....
"Grok" AI is called that as a reference to Robert Heinleins sci-fi classic "Stranger in a Strange Land"....
Okay I'll read what you say if your read a real historical scholars' work Dr. Michael Heiser's "The Unseen Realm"...I'm reading this work for the 4th time and its based on real historical events and facts, not the fiction of Robert Heinleins world view. I've read Heinleins works in my younger years.
I have read both just now, These are both about servitude, like slavery. Please show what you are seeing that I am not and relate it directly to
Sasha’s post.
No.
Then you aren't about scholarship, you are about bullyship! Share my view you seem to say. You don't want a discussion...you just want to demagoue others to you view...Leftwing it seems!
You go Sasha!
Keep it up! We are 100% behind you.
Second this!
Third!
I love the closing "Thank you for your attention to this matter." Classic!!
Again, they accuse you of what so many of them do.
Boy, last I checked you don't get paid for the truth you get cancelled.
Thanks, Sasha, for always being a beacon of sanity!
Emotionally immature people, AKA people without SELF-control (free will), consider all beliefs truths to them when they originate from people they have trusted.
Your views, if they differ from theirs, are lies by default.
They do not recognize or acknowledge the difference between subjective and objective truth. This is why/how they cannot reason. As a result, they cannot make arguments. Instead, they search for reinforcement.
Entitlement creates these weak and Marxist minds.
Well said!
Semantics, yes indeed. "There's no such thing as "objective truth", and even if there was, you could only ever experience it subjectively".... I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you....
Sure, there is. Moreover, there is also absolute (the Creator's) truth.
Without absolute truth, a truth only the Creator can claim (as you suggest above), objective truth disappears into subjective truth. Yet, you have put objective truth and absolute truth together. Still, for our capacity to reason and realize free will, they are separate. Here's why:
Truth is found when a hypothesis, subject to the requirements of the scientific method (falsification, arising in reality, etc.), meets both the necessary and sufficient conditions. The necessary condition is met when the hypothesis explains the observed. This is subjective truth. When the hypothesis is the sole surviving hypothesis of all KNOWN hypotheses, the objective truth is established. The absolute truth (sufficient condition met) is established when all known and UNKNOWN hypotheses have been disproved but one.
Objective truth is real; it is just not absolute truth (as you suggest).
Finally, the indeterminate form of absolute truth creates free will. The Creator's truth creates free will, i.e., does not suppress it as many imagine.
So-called "absolute truth", "objective truth", and "subjective truth", and even "God's TRUTH", are ALL EXACTLY the SAME. You can only ever experience or know them, subjectively, Brian.... Which is also exactly what I said in the first place. Reality is in fact far simpler than you IMAGINE, Brian....
"IMAGINATION" = "eye-magic nation". You see MAGIC in your mind's eye....
The Creator's creation is in turn a creator of creations.
Real or imagined, objective, or subjective. Or absolute.
Prove me wrong? You can't, Brian....
YOU - "So-called "absolute truth", "objective truth", and "subjective truth", and even "God's TRUTH", are ALL EXACTLY the SAME."
I did. You lack free will, so you cannot see it. Sorry. It is a cognitive blind spot. You could make no responsive argument. That's my evidence.
YOU "Prove me wrong? You can't, Brian...." (your absolute truth???)
Sorry, without a responsive argument, you demonstrate dysrationality.
Objective truth exists. If a person can only approach it asymptotically by continuing to search for relevant facts and indications, then some people will be closer to the truth than others who abandon the search entirely.
So long as other views meet the necessary condition, they are equal subjective truths. The necessary condition is met when the hypothesis explains the observed. Objective truth is achieved when all but one known hypothesis has been disproved.
More evidence does not make something more true.
Once the necessary condition is met, the process of disproof, testing, and falsification—the scientific method —begins.
Nothing in science is proved to the last decimal. Science predicts to a certain level of probability. And good science will estimate and tell you what the probable error is. Then there is the uncertainty principle where all the descriptors of a physical event concerning the smallest measurable things can not be known simultaneously. The process of making a measurement changes what existed before. When it comes to nature or human reactions, science has not yet discovered all the processes that affect the precise outcome. We are lucky to notice the most impactful in a given situation. As I said, objective truth can only be approached asymptoticlly. But that is no reason not to try to discover it.
Yes, "objective truth", and "subjective truth", and "God's truth", and "absolute truth", ALL EXIST. And they are all the SAME, except conceptually & conversationally.
Thank-you, Lizzie, for "asymptotically". Just learned a new word! I'm still seeking truth. Asymptotically, I guess!
Online discussions would be so much better if people refrained from ad hominem fallacies. If people want to disagree, fine, make an argument. Just don’t stoop to baseless charges that someone is being paid.
I agree in principle but, in reality, some people are in fact being paid by an interested group or individual to post & usually we don’t know it. That’s the problem.
No problem that I can see, why let that stuff bother you? Everyone who's greedy & likes to play the system is free to do so.
Sadly, we've passed peak stupid in this world. Keep doing what you do and ignore the idiots.
Sasha, that is but a sliver of the whole
“______-deranged” population these days, all of whom appear to be active online. Ya got your Epstein-deranged, and your genocide-in-Gaza-deranged, and your Communism-deranged, which all make Trump-deranged seem old school by comparison. You are the best.
There is a new category which I don’t understand…. Groypers. Following a deranged person called Nick Fuentes. I have no clue
Someone is living rent free in your head, Tom?
Who?
Nick Fuentes
Keep writing Sasha. You have my support. I may not always agree but I won't send crazy comments. Keep working I enjoy seeing your "truths,".
Love the ending tagline!
Brilliant.
You are not hard right, you are a left leaning moderate who has chosen to investigate truth. Thank you for your efforts and attention.
Well that's the progression of things.
One day you're a liberal moderate. Then some of your fellow liberals say something you find strange or objectionable and you do a little research, listen to someone right-of-center with an open mind.
Next thing you know, you're on the far right.
Sasha, you are the reason I’m a Substack customer. Never let them take you down. You have more support than you know!
I have been following your work for some time and saw no reason to believe that your opinions were for sale. Your honesty is appreciated!
Ignore the trolls.