The conservative philosophy

[Kuciwalker]

I don't know. It's just that you ALWAYS make that point in these debates

[Whaleboy]

Not in this one! I dispute your view, like I said I deal with conceptual conservatism, not familial, but thats irrelevant here.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Although judging whether it is, was, and will be completely unfeasable is somewhat difficult.

Very true. However in my lifetime, nations will not start acting in a way that is against their interests. Indeed, as long as we have democratic nations, they will act in their interests. Else the leaders get replaced with someone who will.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Nothing is ever impossible.

Yes it is. Surpassing the speed of light (I mean actually moving faster than it, rather than bending space so you don't have to). Also contraditions mean both together are impossible. Such as democratic nation acting against it's interests, as it sees them, for any prolonged length of time.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
If that is your definition of a bad philosophy, then fair enough. As you know, it is not mine, but the differences there are profound in our world views, I, as an idealist, already define my logic system.

I still think of it as simply your system, your opinions. I do not believe you have to power to say what is or is not logical.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
For me, yes. As opposed to yours?

No, since I don't make statements like "this philosophy doesn't stand up". A philosophy has nothing to stand up to. If I think it is misguided that is my belief, but that doesn't make it illogical, or non-existant, as you have so far claimed.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Enlighten me.

As you know, I think we are all subjective, and that their is no objective. However that does not mean I think all things are exactly equal. I think that would be too much of a conincidence, considering how many values there are. Personally I just by total happiness created/destroyed, as you know. However I don't agree they are all equal, just because their is no objective.

[Verres]

Nothing is ever impossible.

What about you admiting defeat? Seems pretty impossible to me

[Whaleboy]

Very true. However in my lifetime, nations will not start acting in a way that is against their interests. Indeed, as long as we have democratic nations, they will act in their interests. Else the leaders get replaced with someone who will.

The people can dig their own graves. I merely provide them with a ladder.

Yes it is. Surpassing the speed of light (I mean actually moving faster than it, rather than bending space so you don't have to).

Hawking would have words with you on that one. Tachyons!

I still think of it as simply your system, your opinions. I do not believe you have to power to say what is or is not logical.

Of course you're free to disagree as I merely state what is logical within my own system. It all comes down to "this is my opinion, that is yours". None is more valid, and as we have established, there is no known way to objectively validate or invalidate them. Hence we have a debate, a comparison of views, not a sport.

that doesn't make it illogical, or non-existant,

See above. Its all IMHO.

As you know, I think we are all subjective, and that their is no objective. However that does not mean I think all things are exactly equal. I think that would be too much of a conincidence, considering how many values there are. Personally I just by total happiness created/destroyed, as you know. However I don't agree they are all equal, just because their is no objective.

In order for things to be unequal, one needs an objective means of judging them, as there is no inherent "pekking order", one needs an independent system to turn differences into a rating. Thus we have pseudo-objectivity and judging by wildcards.

Its the old addage, there is no better or worse, only (laterally) different . That is precisely because there is no objective, and only contextual objectives by which to judge in that context.

[Whaleboy]

What about you admiting defeat? Seems pretty impossible to me

About our chess match...

[Immortal Wombat]

Thread Summary: elijah attempts to argue that conservatism doesn't exist, and in fact resorts to arguing that he doesn't like conservatism; everyone else points out that by it being substantial enough for him to dislike, he's proved it does exist.

[Verres]

[Whaleboy]

I believe it exists. I believe liberalism is more logically consistent. There I said it!

Your point has interesting and valid implications for the concept of god!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Hawking would have words with you on that one. Tachyons!

I was refering to you surpassing the speed of light.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Of course you're free to disagree as I merely state what is logical within my own system. It all comes down to "this is my opinion, that is yours". None is more valid, and as we have established, there is no known way to objectively validate or invalidate them.

Exactly. It is down to opinions, which is what I said. Which means you saying which is logical and which isn't wrong, since you cannot say which is or is not logical. That is why IO said it was your opinions, not logic.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
In order for things to be unequal, one needs an objective means of judging them, as there is no inherent "pekking order", one needs an independent system to turn differences into a rating. Thus we have pseudo-objectivity and judging by wildcards.

Its the old addage, there is no better or worse, only (laterally) different . That is precisely because there is no objective, and only contextual objectives by which to judge in that context.

That is what I disagree. Just because you have no objective does not mean that everything this equal. There is no objective best athlete in the world, since there are so many different discaplines, ways of measuring it, etc. that would all give different results. However that is not saying that all people are athletically equal.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I believe liberalism is more logically consistent.

And I believe that you cannot decide whether or not it is logically consistent or not. Whether something is, or is not, logically consistant is not an opinion, it is a fact. Something either is or isn't, as logic is a static concept.

[Whaleboy]

I was refering to you surpassing the speed of light.

You've clearly never urinated on an electric fense before.

Exactly. It is down to opinions, which is what I said. Which means you saying which is logical and which isn't wrong, since you cannot say which is or is not logical. That is why IO said it was your opinions, not logic.

My opinions are based on my logic. Your own logical disposition is different to mine, thus your logic and hence opinions are different.

That is what I disagree. Just because you have no objective does not mean that everything this equal. There is no objective best athlete in the world, since there are so many different discaplines, ways of measuring it, etc. that would all give different results. However that is not saying that all people are athletically equal.

In order to make that latter proposition, you need to establish an indpendent judge, aka, an objective. In the absense of any objective all is equally valid, which does not bely a contextual or pseudo objective. In that sense, we would say that athelete A is best for a given context, but theres very little you can do with that beyond the context. For anything to be unequal without an objective, requires an objective. Thus we have a dud (imho).

[Whaleboy]

And I believe that you cannot decide whether or not it is logically consistent or not. Whether something is, or is not, logically consistant is not an opinion, it is a fact. Something either is or isn't, as logic is a static concept.

That is obviously flawed with regards to qualitative disciplines, and indeed it can be shown to be dubious for the far easier quantified disciplines. We are dealing with a qualified discipline here.

EDIT: I recall you saying a long time ago that logic was a mental construct. I remember agreeing and saying that was an example of cognetive relativism!

[Kuciwalker]

My opinions are based on my logic. Your own logical disposition is different to mine, thus your logic and hence opinions are different.

Logic is objective. Their are only four axioms in logic: "P implies Q" & "P" implies "Q", "P implies Q" & "!Q" implies "!P", "P implies Q" & "Q implies R" implies "P implies R", and "P implies Q" implies "!Q implies !P" (all of this I learned in Geometry a few years ago when we did logic proofs ). Only premises differ.

[Whaleboy]

Is it just me with deja vous?

Define "implies".

Its quite easy to imagine a logic system that is fundamentally different. Nonetheless, even working on the premise that there is one objective logic system, its something that cannot be applied in an objective manner to words and qualified areas, such as a philosophy.