I don't know. It's just that you ALWAYS make that point in these debates
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The conservative philosophy
Collapse
X
-
Not in this one! I dispute your view, like I said I deal with conceptual conservatism, not familial, but thats irrelevant here."I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
-
Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Although judging whether it is, was, and will be completely unfeasable is somewhat difficult.
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Nothing is ever impossible.
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.
Originally posted by Whaleboy
For me, yes. As opposed to yours?
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Enlighten me.Last edited by Drogue; November 1, 2003, 20:21.Smile
For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
But he would think of something
"Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - Kuciwalker
Comment
-
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.
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).
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.
that doesn't make it illogical, or non-existant,
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.
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."I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
-
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.Concrete, Abstract, or Squoingy?
"I don't believe in giving scripting languages because the only additional power they give users is the power to create bugs." - Mike Breitkreutz, Firaxis
Comment
-
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!"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
-
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Hawking would have words with you on that one. Tachyons!
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.
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.Smile
For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
But he would think of something
"Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - Kuciwalker
Comment
-
Originally posted by Whaleboy
I believe liberalism is more logically consistent.Smile
For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
But he would think of something
"Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - Kuciwalker
Comment
-
I was refering to you surpassing the speed of light.
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.
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."I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
-
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.
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!"I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
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."I work in IT so I'd be buggered without a computer" - Words of wisdom from Provost Harrison
"You can be wrong AND jewish" - Wiglaf :love:
Comment
Comment