"Conservatives only use hate & fear while Liberals use logic & reason."

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not trying to make a point! I'm trying to get people to give up on this thread.

You see, I have a strange form of OCD that makes me check up on any thread I've posted in, which means that I'm forced to actually read this j/k

However, I do think that this argument is getting nowhere and deserves to be put to sleep. Everyone is running around in circles.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We only do it to annoy you

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But the main point stands... idealism CAN become reality. It may require the 'work of a realist', but it can enter into force in the real world. In fact most of our governmental structures are the products of applications of idealist ideas.

Are they still ideals when they have been realised? Or does it then stop being an ideal, something to strive for, since it exists, and it becoems a reality. I don't know, but anyways, it's its semantics, since they are the same thing, whether it is called an ideal or a reality (or both) at that point.

[Whaleboy]

a relativist can still be relativist while wanting to impose his not-more-worthy-than-any-other moral system on other people

No. One does not want to impose, one wants to convert or leave be.

idealism CAN become reality

Please read above posts.

The rub is that I don't believe it is. I think they are very similar conceptual entities. They are basically two sides of the same coin

No. Flour and bread are two completely different things.

Which would be ok if consistency always equalled correctness

There is no correctness . For all intents and purposes I'm afraid that ours is philosophically correct (in terms of established flowery philosophy), and conceptually consistent. QED

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Drogue
Sorry though, just surprised to see Maniac here

Well I actually read Off Topic quite a lot. I just don't post here much. And when I do, I have the tendency of never posting in that thread again. So you have to be a real attentive observer to see a trace of my maniacal presense.

[Whaleboy]

I wouldn't go that far. Us using the same terminology would be a break from the norm

The concepts behind our communication of it is the same. Dammit you both know me too well for that not to be the case!

[Kuciwalker]

Ok, I'll get into this.

elijah, there IS objective truth - for example, one plus one equals two. There is NO internally consistent mathematical system in which this is not true. There are untrue truths - those that are internally inconsistent.

Most religions I know of are internally inconsistent. Thus, they are untrue.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
For all intents and purposes I'm afraid that ours is philosophically correct (in terms of established flowery philosophy), and conceptually consistent. QED

We are all high and mighty today aren't we

Originally posted by elijah
The concepts behind our communication of it is the same. Dammit you both know me too well for that not to be the case!

We know them, it's whether we agree or not that is a point

[Whaleboy]

However, I do think that this argument is getting nowhere and deserves to be put to sleep. Everyone is running around in circles

But its so much more fun! Admittedly, it was rather flattering having a thread devoted just to me!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by skywalker
Ok, I'll get into this.

elijah, there IS objective truth - for example, one plus one equals two. There is NO internally consistent mathematical system in which this is not true. There are untrue truths - those that are internally inconsistent.

Most religions I know of are internally inconsistent. Thus, they are untrue.

I'm looking forward to this. Since I am unconvinced either way, I can see if I'm convinced either way

[Whaleboy]

elijah, there IS objective truth - for example, one plus one equals two. There is NO internally consistent mathematical system in which this is not true. There are untrue truths - those that are internally inconsistent.

For this universe. Its quite easy to conceive of a system where that is not true. Even on the level of cognetive relativism, it is not an ultimate truth.

Most religions I know of are internally inconsistent. Thus, they are untrue

Try telling that to those that believe in them.

We are all high and mighty today aren't we

Just today?

We know them, it's whether we agree or not that is a point

Oh I know you do! Read what you've been writing too! Idealism is something completely differerent to what Imran is proposing. Replace "idealism" with "non pragmatism" and "progressivism" and then you're getting there.

[Ben Kenobi]

there are certain things you cant act upon, in order to maintain liberty

elijah:

Again, why should liberty be valued over a tolitarian control? You have no right to tell me what I can or cannot do! That would be forcing your morality on me.

Suppose I valued efficiency over liberty, like the Borg. What need would I have for personal freedoms?

Most religions I know of are internally inconsistent. Thus, they are untrue.

Skywalker:

A prudent post prefers to pacify your allies rather than aggravating them further.

[Whaleboy]

1 + 1 = 1

a = 1
b = 1

a = b
a^2 = b^2
a^2 - b^2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0
(a+b) = 0
1 + 1 = 0
2 = 0
1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1

Now who can tell me the flaw in that!!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by elijah
For this universe. Its quite easy to conceive of a system where that is not true. Even on the level of cognetive relativism, it is not an ultimate truth.

Mathematics is independent of this universe. The concept "one" being "added" to "one" will always result in "two". To prove me wrong, you'd have to create a COMPLETELY internally consistent mathematical system in which this is not true.

Try telling that to those that believe in them.

What's your point? That they're irrational?

If something is internally inconsistent, it must be untrue, because it CANNOT be true. Its truth would invalidate itself.

EDIT: stupid cross-post

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by elijah
1 + 1 = 1

a = 1
b = 1

a = b
a^2 = b^2
a^2 - b^2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0
(a+b) = 0
1 + 1 = 0
2 = 0
1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1

Now who can tell me the flaw in that!!

1 = 0

That is the inconsistency.