|
On May 06 2010 11:09 Yurebis wrote:
if by objective you mean "existing as an object in reality"
then explain or demonstrate to me how can a subjective truth exist in reality
I don't know man, do you call tautologies objective truths too?
It's just a weird use of the word truth when there's no discernment
no, bad example, meh I'm confused. whatever.
ok, it is semantics. simply said, I don't believe your nor mine liking to chocolate to be an object in the real world and therefore, it can't be an objective truth
but you don't have that same definition of truth since you say all truths are objective, and I don't even know what objective means in yours.
I don't like word wars though so whatever.
I don't really understand why you are wondering about tautologies. I am me. It's obviously an objective truth.
And by objective truth I mean something like true universally. As in, it's truth value is not dependent on the subjects. (Except in the way that if I don't kick a football, then it is not true that I kicked a football.)
My definition of truth: "X" is true, if, and only if, X
|
On May 06 2010 16:34 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 05:25 Squeegy wrote:On May 06 2010 04:09 MiraMax wrote:On May 06 2010 02:02 Squeegy wrote:On May 05 2010 21:53 MiraMax wrote:On May 05 2010 21:32 Squeegy wrote:On May 05 2010 20:13 MiraMax wrote:On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote:
I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact. All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not. Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion. Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking. There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective. Well, there are a lot of philosphers who disagree with you. I think you are really just confusing "factual" with "objective". I will give you the standard philosophical example: If I have a hallucination and see a unicorn it is a fact that there is no unicorn, but it is also a fact that I see one. Both state of affairs are facts. One of the two facts is objective (or better the statement about the fact) and the other is not, unless we find I way to untie my view from my view (some philosophers think that this is not possible). It might sound confusing and irrelevant, but it is actually a meaningful concept. If you strip subjective and objective of their meanings and equivocate factual with objective would you then say that subjective is not factional? I disagree. Unless they're continentals. But their opinions are irrelevant. I think you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying. And no, I am not confusing 'factual' with objectivity. I am using 'factual' as a synonym for truth. So, what I am in fact saying is that all truths are objective. And that is of course yet another fact. I am not misunderstanding you, I hope at least. There are, in fact, "truths" or facts which are referred to as subjective in philosophy. Metaphysically subjective are those facts which only exist in minds, like my hallucinated unicorn. It is a fact that it was in my mind (or at least could be a fact), so it was really there, just not phsically. Its notion is contingent on my mind and my mind alone. This fact is also epistemically subjective so long as I cannot establish its truth value without using my mind. Epistemically subjective facts can become epistemically objective, if someone devises a method that somehow detects the notion of a unicorn in my brain reliably and independently of who uses this method. Subjective and objective in this sense are not mutually exclusive but rather on two different ends of the spectrum of perception. This is a common distinction in modern philosophy and I only know of few philosphers who critizise for instance Thomas Nagel's work and if they do than usually because they falsely think this would "beat" the scientific method. I would be really be interested to hear about philosophers who reject this notion completely and for what reasons. But you are. To disagree with what I am saying would be to disagree with the law of non-contradiction. Now I wonder how many philosophers would do that? As I said in my original post that you may be using words in a funny sense. Usually when people talk about subjective truth or fact they mean something like that X is true for me but not for you. And that is nonsense. If it is true for me, then it is also true for you. X cannot be both true and false. "Chocolate is good." Is it true that chocolate is good? No. That is subjective. It may be true that chocolate is good to you though. And that is of course an objective truth. I do not understand how subjective facts violate the law of non-contradiction. Could you explain that? I think that thoughts and states of mind are real, they are facts. I come to this conclusion by seeing the consequences of my thoughts. I can make a calculation in my head, get to a result and then apply this result in reality where everybody can see the consequences. I can even make mistakes in my calculation and when I see an ill effect in reality, I can reflect on it and correct it. Since I believe that something unreal cannot have an effect on something real,I conclude that my thoughts are real and factual and from what I got, you would agree there. In philosophy those facts which are contingent on a single mind are referred to as subjective. There is currently a big debate in contemporary philosophy about the consequences of some special aspects of this distinction. In the football example of Yurebis you say that the fact that somebody likes football is an objective truth. But how do you establish that? Which objective method do you use? As long as personal inquiry is all you have, there is, in my opinion, a meaningful distinction to be made. Likewise are experiences of situations so tied to the mind of the person that experiences it, that the experience itself is a subjective fact. It is a part of reality, but in a different way than the "state of affairs" that is experienced. It is true that subjective and objective are used slightly differently in everyday talk, but would you say that the differentiation is meaningless to you?
If it is true for me that chocolate tastes good to me, can it be false to you that chocolate tastes good to me?
|
On May 06 2010 20:59 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 16:34 MiraMax wrote:On May 06 2010 05:25 Squeegy wrote:On May 06 2010 04:09 MiraMax wrote:On May 06 2010 02:02 Squeegy wrote:On May 05 2010 21:53 MiraMax wrote:On May 05 2010 21:32 Squeegy wrote:On May 05 2010 20:13 MiraMax wrote:On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote:
I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact. All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not. Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion. Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking. There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective. Well, there are a lot of philosphers who disagree with you. I think you are really just confusing "factual" with "objective". I will give you the standard philosophical example: If I have a hallucination and see a unicorn it is a fact that there is no unicorn, but it is also a fact that I see one. Both state of affairs are facts. One of the two facts is objective (or better the statement about the fact) and the other is not, unless we find I way to untie my view from my view (some philosophers think that this is not possible). It might sound confusing and irrelevant, but it is actually a meaningful concept. If you strip subjective and objective of their meanings and equivocate factual with objective would you then say that subjective is not factional? I disagree. Unless they're continentals. But their opinions are irrelevant. I think you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying. And no, I am not confusing 'factual' with objectivity. I am using 'factual' as a synonym for truth. So, what I am in fact saying is that all truths are objective. And that is of course yet another fact. I am not misunderstanding you, I hope at least. There are, in fact, "truths" or facts which are referred to as subjective in philosophy. Metaphysically subjective are those facts which only exist in minds, like my hallucinated unicorn. It is a fact that it was in my mind (or at least could be a fact), so it was really there, just not phsically. Its notion is contingent on my mind and my mind alone. This fact is also epistemically subjective so long as I cannot establish its truth value without using my mind. Epistemically subjective facts can become epistemically objective, if someone devises a method that somehow detects the notion of a unicorn in my brain reliably and independently of who uses this method. Subjective and objective in this sense are not mutually exclusive but rather on two different ends of the spectrum of perception. This is a common distinction in modern philosophy and I only know of few philosphers who critizise for instance Thomas Nagel's work and if they do than usually because they falsely think this would "beat" the scientific method. I would be really be interested to hear about philosophers who reject this notion completely and for what reasons. But you are. To disagree with what I am saying would be to disagree with the law of non-contradiction. Now I wonder how many philosophers would do that? As I said in my original post that you may be using words in a funny sense. Usually when people talk about subjective truth or fact they mean something like that X is true for me but not for you. And that is nonsense. If it is true for me, then it is also true for you. X cannot be both true and false. "Chocolate is good." Is it true that chocolate is good? No. That is subjective. It may be true that chocolate is good to you though. And that is of course an objective truth. I do not understand how subjective facts violate the law of non-contradiction. Could you explain that? I think that thoughts and states of mind are real, they are facts. I come to this conclusion by seeing the consequences of my thoughts. I can make a calculation in my head, get to a result and then apply this result in reality where everybody can see the consequences. I can even make mistakes in my calculation and when I see an ill effect in reality, I can reflect on it and correct it. Since I believe that something unreal cannot have an effect on something real,I conclude that my thoughts are real and factual and from what I got, you would agree there. In philosophy those facts which are contingent on a single mind are referred to as subjective. There is currently a big debate in contemporary philosophy about the consequences of some special aspects of this distinction. In the football example of Yurebis you say that the fact that somebody likes football is an objective truth. But how do you establish that? Which objective method do you use? As long as personal inquiry is all you have, there is, in my opinion, a meaningful distinction to be made. Likewise are experiences of situations so tied to the mind of the person that experiences it, that the experience itself is a subjective fact. It is a part of reality, but in a different way than the "state of affairs" that is experienced. It is true that subjective and objective are used slightly differently in everyday talk, but would you say that the differentiation is meaningless to you? If it is true for me that chocolate tastes good to me, can it be false to you that chocolate tastes good to me?
It can't be!! And that is exactly the point I am trying to explain. In philosophy a subjective fact is not referring to a fact which is "only" true for you or me, but a fact whose ontological or epistemical property is contingent on a single mind!! That X is true if and only if X is the case, is a statement about factuality, not objectivity.
You can say you don't like this use of subjective/objective or that you want to use the words differently and that's all fine with me. It is however a fixed term in philosophy which describes an important distinction. I am just pointing out that there is a difference whether the truth value of a statement about a fact can be determined by "objective means" or not and that this difference is not absolute, but gradual. Some states of affairs can be objectivized. I think the questions of morality are among them.
|
Oh shit, someone pulled out the principle of non-contradiction.
Have you guys ever had the experience of running into someone who says that they are really good at starcraft...and then they explain to you how they love to build a fleet of 12 battle cruisers and then smash the enemy? That is what professional philosophers would think of this silly thread. That's my guess at least.
Anyhow, I've done a lot of work on the PNC. If you get your kicks via argument then you should study the PNC because it is a extremely strong argument.
See: Aristotle, Metaphysics IV
Lukasiewicz? Pssshhh. Oh, what, G Priest and his dialethiests? Baha! I don't fear dialethiests! That's because Priest and cohorts rely on a dialectical rule which presupposes the PNC -- they disallow arguments that beg the question.
Anyways, that's just my take. See professional philosophers?
Well, you can see M. Wedin (Wedin has offered pretty much the most in depth defense of PNC in recent years) if you have access to philosophy journals or, if you want a "light" version of what Wedin argues, you can read This.
|
On May 03 2010 22:58 Biochemist wrote:
but if someone has developed that personal relationship and seen their own life completely change as a result, no amount of logical argument is going to take that away.
Ignorance is bliss.
The fact that you can develop a personal relationship with something that doesn't exist and if it does is ultimately uncontactable is ludicrous.
I am sorry but it is.
Believe in a god if you want, looking at the universe I sometimes tend to think there might be some higher power that created the universe.. but I certainly don't know it's name, It's certainly not one of the gods as described in any of the religions on this planet and I certainly don't have a personal relationship with it LOL.
If people claimed to have a personal relationship with any non existent/non contactable creature outwith the realms of religion they would be sectioned and qaurantined. Hypocrisy of the highest order.
|
Out of my own curiority, can someone who does not believe in objective morality explain how they have managed to escape Nihilism? (If in your mind you have..)
|
On May 06 2010 21:46 XeliN wrote:
Out of my own curiority, can someone who does not believe in objective morality explain how they have managed to escape Nihilism? (If in your mind you have..)
Just think about why you believe in "objective size". And then try to reason why the same process which mankind has gone through to establish the concept of an "objective size" should not apply to morality.
If you say "Cube A is bigger than cube B in terms of its volume" and I say: "No, that's not the case.", how do you try to convince me? If I say: "Well, your definition of volume is flawed because not only do you need to take the third power of its side length, but you need to add its god given aura to your result to get the true size." How do you respond to me? Do you ask: "Well, how do I determine its aura?" I say: "You get the answer from your built-in sense of aura implanted in you by the creator. You just need to sincerely listen and let god into your heart." Do you try to prove me wrong? Maybe you can convince me, that your concept of volume has at least some merit, but how? Remember, I could be right about the "real" volume of things and you could be wrong! Or not?
|
On May 06 2010 11:09 Yurebis wrote:
if by objective you mean "existing as an object in reality"
then explain or demonstrate to me how can a subjective truth exist in reality
I don't know man, do you call tautologies objective truths too?
It's just a weird use of the word truth when there's no discernment
no, bad example, meh I'm confused. whatever.
ok, it is semantics. simply said, I don't believe your nor mine liking to chocolate to be an object in the real world and therefore, it can't be an objective truth
but you don't have that same definition of truth since you say all truths are objective, and I don't even know what objective means in yours.
I don't like word wars though so whatever.
If you can pin-point the neurons inside your brain that trigger and are related in everyway to your association to chocolate, would you then say it is objective? I don't particularly spend a lot of time trying to distinguish where the line is drawn for what i would call subjective objectivity. We are naught but slaves to our chemicals and the brutal reflections of light and other stimuli.
and as for Xelin: I don't think there is anything inherintly bad about nihilism, It's a perfectly legit line of thought in my book and doesn't really need to be "escaped"
However for me, Nihilism is somewhat like Atheist. I still feel like i'm making assumptions that aren't totally justified. Which ironically is a large reason a lot of people become atheists or nihilists.
With Atheism the assumption I don't like is that there is -not- a god, which is not something I could know, Hence the solution would be agnosticism.
With Nihilism the assumption is that there is No meaning or value in the universe. This I think is a bit too much. The solution for me, is, Absurdism. Which states that there may or may not be meaning or value in the universe. A lot of people don't like this because it seems like fence sitting to them. It's all about how are you programmed, for a lot of brains they would rather have conviction and be wrong than to lack conviction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism
|
I'm missing how that is a response to how I posted, had to read it a few times but you are pointing out the fact that just because something cannot be dissproved doesn't make it a valid position to hold?
I wasn't asking that in anycase, but mayb I have misinterpreted your post and I will go back to studying it ^^
Edit @MirMax's post
|
Duh, XeliN.
Did you not know that you already believed in objective size! And that "mankind" has already gone through a "process" to "establish that concept" that can easily be applied to questions of right and wrong? All you do is multiply the height of the ethical dilemma by the width of its ecological ramifications by the length of the lengths to which you have to go to give a shit about it.
Ta-da! Objective morality in units-cubed!
|
On May 06 2010 21:15 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 20:59 Squeegy wrote:On May 06 2010 16:34 MiraMax wrote:On May 06 2010 05:25 Squeegy wrote:On May 06 2010 04:09 MiraMax wrote:On May 06 2010 02:02 Squeegy wrote:On May 05 2010 21:53 MiraMax wrote:On May 05 2010 21:32 Squeegy wrote:On May 05 2010 20:13 MiraMax wrote:On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote:
I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact. All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not. Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion. Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking. There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective. Well, there are a lot of philosphers who disagree with you. I think you are really just confusing "factual" with "objective". I will give you the standard philosophical example: If I have a hallucination and see a unicorn it is a fact that there is no unicorn, but it is also a fact that I see one. Both state of affairs are facts. One of the two facts is objective (or better the statement about the fact) and the other is not, unless we find I way to untie my view from my view (some philosophers think that this is not possible). It might sound confusing and irrelevant, but it is actually a meaningful concept. If you strip subjective and objective of their meanings and equivocate factual with objective would you then say that subjective is not factional? I disagree. Unless they're continentals. But their opinions are irrelevant. I think you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying. And no, I am not confusing 'factual' with objectivity. I am using 'factual' as a synonym for truth. So, what I am in fact saying is that all truths are objective. And that is of course yet another fact. I am not misunderstanding you, I hope at least. There are, in fact, "truths" or facts which are referred to as subjective in philosophy. Metaphysically subjective are those facts which only exist in minds, like my hallucinated unicorn. It is a fact that it was in my mind (or at least could be a fact), so it was really there, just not phsically. Its notion is contingent on my mind and my mind alone. This fact is also epistemically subjective so long as I cannot establish its truth value without using my mind. Epistemically subjective facts can become epistemically objective, if someone devises a method that somehow detects the notion of a unicorn in my brain reliably and independently of who uses this method. Subjective and objective in this sense are not mutually exclusive but rather on two different ends of the spectrum of perception. This is a common distinction in modern philosophy and I only know of few philosphers who critizise for instance Thomas Nagel's work and if they do than usually because they falsely think this would "beat" the scientific method. I would be really be interested to hear about philosophers who reject this notion completely and for what reasons. But you are. To disagree with what I am saying would be to disagree with the law of non-contradiction. Now I wonder how many philosophers would do that? As I said in my original post that you may be using words in a funny sense. Usually when people talk about subjective truth or fact they mean something like that X is true for me but not for you. And that is nonsense. If it is true for me, then it is also true for you. X cannot be both true and false. "Chocolate is good." Is it true that chocolate is good? No. That is subjective. It may be true that chocolate is good to you though. And that is of course an objective truth. I do not understand how subjective facts violate the law of non-contradiction. Could you explain that? I think that thoughts and states of mind are real, they are facts. I come to this conclusion by seeing the consequences of my thoughts. I can make a calculation in my head, get to a result and then apply this result in reality where everybody can see the consequences. I can even make mistakes in my calculation and when I see an ill effect in reality, I can reflect on it and correct it. Since I believe that something unreal cannot have an effect on something real,I conclude that my thoughts are real and factual and from what I got, you would agree there. In philosophy those facts which are contingent on a single mind are referred to as subjective. There is currently a big debate in contemporary philosophy about the consequences of some special aspects of this distinction. In the football example of Yurebis you say that the fact that somebody likes football is an objective truth. But how do you establish that? Which objective method do you use? As long as personal inquiry is all you have, there is, in my opinion, a meaningful distinction to be made. Likewise are experiences of situations so tied to the mind of the person that experiences it, that the experience itself is a subjective fact. It is a part of reality, but in a different way than the "state of affairs" that is experienced. It is true that subjective and objective are used slightly differently in everyday talk, but would you say that the differentiation is meaningless to you? If it is true for me that chocolate tastes good to me, can it be false to you that chocolate tastes good to me? It can't be!! And that is exactly the point I am trying to explain. In philosophy a subjective fact is not referring to a fact which is "only" true for you or me, but a fact whose ontological or epistemical property is contingent on a single mind!! That X is true if and only if X is the case, is a statement about factuality, not objectivity. You can say you don't like this use of subjective/objective or that you want to use the words differently and that's all fine with me. It is however a fixed term in philosophy which describes an important distinction. I am just pointing out that there is a difference whether the truth value of a statement about a fact can be determined by "objective means" or not and that this difference is not absolute, but gradual. Some states of affairs can be objectivized. I think the questions of morality are among them.
But I already explained in what sense I (and I'm sure Tinman) talk about subjective facts and that there are indeed subjective facts when used in certain sense.
|
Motiva if you do not consider Nihilism problematic then thats a fine response, I am more looking for someone who does not believe in objective morality - or at least accepts it as a possibility, but a remote one for which so far there is little reason to believe - and yet considers Nihilism to not be the logical conclusion.
|
On May 06 2010 22:04 tinman wrote:
Duh, XeliN.
Did you not know that you already believed in objective size! And that "mankind" has already gone through a "process" to "establish that concept" that can easily be applied to questions of right and wrong? All you do is multiply the height of the ethical dilemma by the width of its ecological ramifications by the length of the lengths to which you have to go to give a shit about it.
Ta-da! Objective morality in units-cubed!
Of course, I forgot. Size is and always was intrinsically objective and not just a concept we designed which merely points to something in reality that demonstrably exists. It would be not possible to define size any other way and it could not just be laden with any meta-physical baggage, just because size is size. Morality instead is something completely different which is intrinsically neither objective nor subjective, but of course also just is what it is.Thanks for enlightening me.
|
On May 06 2010 22:11 XeliN wrote:
Motiva if you do not consider Nihilism problematic then thats a fine response, I am more looking for someone who does not believe in objective morality - or at least accepts it as a possibility, but a remote one for which so far there is little reason to believe - and yet considers Nihilism to not be the logical conclusion.
Objective Morality? I don't really even believe in Objectivity. I do not believe a Human being experiencing life has the ability to be objective. By Obective Morality what exactly do you mean? Absolute Morality?
In my previous post. I thought this was what you meant, and I said that Nihilism isn't the issue because for me it makes unreasonable assumptions. Essentially, If you believe Nihilism you have no reason to live, and there is no reason to anything, as such, why not just commit suicide? The inevitable reason to not commit suicide would have to be some internal selfish reasoning or value and hence you don't actually believe in Nihilism for one. Not exactly my point, but this line of reasoning is found in Absurdism. Thus for me, while not believing in Objective Morality what-so-ever. Nihilism is not the logical conculsion because of the reasons stated in my previous post. Instead, Absurdism has been the logical conclusion for me. (If it must be called a "conclusion")
If i'm still misunderstanding, My apoligies....
|
no mira my man you're arguing in the wrong direction.
all of our thoughts about size just amount to strategies of description. i got no clue where you get the idea that our attempts to describe something quote unquote objectivizes it. nor do i have any clue what that could possibly mean.
size is just a word, dude. it doesn't "demonstrably exist."
(unless of course we're talking about my dick which is objectively tremendous).
|
On May 06 2010 22:31 tinman wrote:
no mira my man you're arguing in the wrong direction.
all of our thoughts about size just amount to strategies of description. i got no clue where you get the idea that our attempts to describe something quote unquote objectivizes it. nor do i have any clue what that could possibly mean.
size is just a word, dude. it doesn't "demonstrably exist."
(unless of course we're talking about my dick which is objectively tremendous).
Maybe you should stop watching your dick for a moment and just read my post again. I exactly said that size is "just" a concept (yes, concepts are also words) and only what it "POINTS TO" exists in reality.
I don't get why you don't get where "i got this from", but maybe if you would just read any contemporary book about epistemology or ontology by any philosopher or consult an encyclopedy of philosophy (for instance here) or just use your brain to think when and why you call something objective, you would probably understand. That is, if your brain can keep up at least a bit with the size of your dick of course. Cheers!
|
wait what?... that's your coup-de-grace moment? that size is of course just a word, but that what it refers to "exists in reality."
no. sorry homeslice, but size doesn't really exist at all, in any sense. and the word does not truly refer to anything. it's an easy mistake to make, admittedly, assigning to words this magical property of pointing. so i don't really count that one as a strike against your vast powers of philosophicalization.
|
On May 06 2010 22:57 tinman wrote:
wait what?... that's your coup-de-grace moment? that size is of course just a word, but that what it refers to "exists in reality."
no. sorry homeslice, but size doesn't really exist at all, in any sense. and the word does not truly refer to anything. it's an easy mistake to make, admittedly, assigning to words this magical property of pointing. so i don't really count that one as a strike against your vast powers of philosophicalization.
My coup-de-grace is actually my assertion that your dick is very small, based on the observation that people who brag about their dick size usually have something to hide. I could be wrong though (that critical thinking thing, you know). If you think words don't exist, then fine! Exactly how are you using them then to write? Have fun riddling with this and take care.
Edit: And yes, I just pwned you. I just wanted to clarify that for you.
|
mira, friend, it's not that words don't exist (well i mean they do not exist in the sense that it would be very silly to reify the word "word" but that's a discussion for a different thread). it's that, as a very wise man said two posts ago, words "do not truly refer to anything." it's that all language is ad hoc. and i do have a lot of fun riddling with this as it turns out. it's like what linguists do. which i admit is far less glamorous than participating in the blatantly magical thinking of most philosophers.
|
don't worry homeskillet. it's not unusual for people to get crabby when they suddenly realize that language is nothing more or less than an elaborate series of grunts and gestures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
