Refute me babies!

[Immortal Wombat]

I think your logic is correct. Do I have this correct:
Take two objects. A big red ball, and a small green box. You are saying to a subjective observer, there are (at least) three differences because of our preconceptions of size colour and shape. If we place each object on a 3D set of axes labelled by those three criteria, they can be judged to be different on all three. Then you remove the axes, to judge on a 0-dimensional criteria, and find that both objects, (and indeed every possible object in that 3D space) are the same.

I think you are correct, however I feel that since there is always criteria for judgement, it is largely irrelevant to practical matters such as reality.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Typial BS relativism. Stop smoking so much dope.

When commies and capitalists all team up to tell Whaleboy he's wrong then you know he's lost touch with reality.

[Whoha]

Define what you mean by pacifism, liberty, relativism, and liberalism.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Whaleboy



From Revolutions . Words are representative of certain thoughts, concepts etc under them. In that case, the word "love" portrayed that connection, be the word amour, liebe, amor, ? or ??, the concept of love is still the same (and yes I know the problems of defining love, but thats not the point, its the only word I know in so many languages ). The words themselves are defined by others yes, but in a different context that is irrelevant and objective. The words themselves are irrelevant, the semantics, i.e., the meaning of height or love, is not.
.

First of all Im not certain of that - that the words that we translate one into other mean the same thing - but lets leave that out for now - if we all have the same meanings, then whats the problem? We have a definition for winning the boxing match, and for the height of the mountain, and so forth. Where is the pseudo-objecitivity? Seeing as there is no basis for disagreement? What you have done is posited an underlying "true" meaning not based on social reality - a platonic "ideal" IIUC - but then you have simply decided to toss out the ancients view of human nature and substitute your own. I suppose we could debate whether your view of human nature is better than Plato or Aristotle's (of course that would mean id actually have to go back and read the damned books ) but I dont see why you need your "logical" framwork to do that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Whaleboy




Indeed, but human nature is not entirely logical. This is a question of logic. In a wider context, this kind of relativism provides a logical structure within which human nature can flourish, indeed, more so than now because we tend to impede others with the excessive expression of our nature. I sound like Bentham!

Im not sure how we impede others by calling one mountain or another taller.

Example: i can measure a mountain from sea level, or I can measure it from it actual base - if the latter, Mauna loa becomes taller than Everest (I think - lets assume its so for the example) now which should I call "taller" = it depends on what purpose my statement serves. There is no "taller" in the absence of such a purpose. There is only the mountain - its there. Youre trying to apply logic to a purpose for which logic doesnt exist.

I think youre in deep need of Wittgenstein, as soon as possible. Or maybe Zen. Or both. Or as someone said, to get laid. All of which amount to the same thing, in some sense.

[lord of the mark]

1. Abstract discussions are fun, and reality bores me.


LOTM- have you considered playing a computer game? Or failing that, studying mathematics?


2.
The problem of existentialism is that it precludes human nature to such an extent, that even logic becomes so irrelevant that it and its presumed antithesis are regarded as subjectively equally valid (and with a value of zero too ). Needless to say, it is a useless concept in this context, though in that of idealism, it is most workable


I fail to see how your attempt at "logic" is useful. you havent told me how to judge the height of a mountain, or how to judge at a boxing match. As far as i can tell youre misusing those examples -which give ordinary people NO PROBLEMS in the real life that bores you, in order to come up with some grand scheme that you will apply to to ethics and politics - and will make no sense - if reality bores you, then please stay away from ethics and politics - they are very much the realms of real life.


Is that a nice refutation - sorry its not in the form of a syllogism, which is what i think you are (mistakenly) looking for.

[Whaleboy]

Go out and get laid. You'll feel better.

I know . Damn early night, I NEED SEX! sorry

You may need to explain further

Sure. Quite simply, assuming my logic to be correct, it means it is illogical to impose one subjective view upon another. This has obvious implications for war and peace, as well as libertarianism (sic the Mill Limit), and utilitarianism (the limit to Mill ). I say this because of critical theory. Each position is based upon numerous others, that we can take back in an infinite regress. Replacing that position (the peak to a hill), is like lopping off the natural peak of a hill and swapping it with another. It just won't look right!

Typial BS relativism. Stop smoking so much dope.

But it feels nice!!!

I think your logic is correct. Do I have this correct:
Take two objects. A big red ball, and a small green box. You are saying to a subjective observer, there are (at least) three differences because of our preconceptions of size colour and shape. If we place each object on a 3D set of axes labelled by those three criteria, they can be judged to be different on all three. Then you remove the axes, to judge on a 0-dimensional criteria, and find that both objects, (and indeed every possible object in that 3D space) are the same.

That is correct

I think you are correct, however I feel that since there is always criteria for judgement, it is largely irrelevant to practical matters such as reality.

Not necessarily. Consider a war between two nations, who would impose each others view on one another. An objective (like the UN ideally at least ), can be used to arbitrate. Also consider a court. We have objective judges, who use wildcards to determine who is guilty and who is innocent, but as they walk into the court, this situation remains. Consider the analogy I used of the boxer. All is equally valid until judged within a certain context by a pseudo-objective with wildcards. Outside of that context, equal validity remains.

When commies and capitalists all team up to tell Whaleboy he's wrong then you know he's lost touch with reality.

Or that he's dealing with a matter that's essentially irrelevant to "commies and capitalists". Begone!!

? or ??

Dammit it didn't do Japanese or Korean

if we all have the same meanings, then whats the problem?

People speak different languages, but you're right, that is irrelevant. I was answering a point someone made earlier about semantics. It is that pre-determined notion (the same meaning of many words), that provides the "wildcard".

We have a definition for winning the boxing match, and for the height of the mountain, and so forth. Where is the pseudo-objecitivity?

The pseudo objective is the man carrying the definitions. An independent position with "wildcards", enabling him to judge.

Seeing as there is no basis for disagreement?

Active opposition does not preclude difference. I was using the mountains as a basis for comparison because it is comparison that is in question here.

but then you have simply decided to toss out the ancients view of human nature and substitute your own. I suppose we could debate whether your view of human nature is

I dont see how that's relevant. This isn't a question of human nature. Its a simple matter of logic. While there are problems of application, that is irrelevant to the key questions here.

but I dont see why you need your "logical" framwork to do that.

You don't. It only prevents you from forcing your opinion on another. In the libertarian sense, it provides the biggest canvas for you to paint on. You make your own view and air it like a good little subjective . We all do the same.

Im not sure how we impede others by calling one mountain or another taller.

I don't know where you inferred that from.

Example: i can measure a mountain from sea level, or I can measure it from it actual base - if the latter, Mauna loa becomes taller than Everest (I think - lets assume its so for the example) now which should I call "taller" = it depends on what purpose my statement serves. There is no "taller" in the absence of such a purpose. There is only the mountain - its there. Youre trying to apply logic to a purpose for which logic doesnt exist.

You're completely correct, except your last sentence, which requires explanation.

I think youre in deep need of Wittgenstein, as soon as possible. Or maybe Zen. Or both. Or as someone said, to get laid. All of which amount to the same thing, in some sense.

Ummm, a different view does not imply a lack of homosexuality or spiritual enlightenment. I have both in abundance! . I happen to also be studying Wittgenstein . You're point?

have you considered playing a computer game? Or failing that, studying mathematics?

Or writing a book? Way ahead of you!

I fail to see how your attempt at "logic" is useful. you havent told me how to judge the height of a mountain, or how to judge at a boxing match.

How to judge the height of a mountain 101
Look at mountain A. Look at mountain B. Look at Whaleboy's Height Judging Kit. In it, you shall see a wildcard that you must implant into your brain that will tell you how to determine height. Don't worry, the rest of mankind have used it without problems for hundreds of millenia, but its not NECESSARILY the only one. Now look at the mountains.

How to judge the winner of a boxing match 101
Look at the boxers. One is on the floor, after being soc'd by the other. Consult Whaleboy's Rules of Boxing handbook. On page 32, you will find a diagram, and a lump of text saying that that "he who knocks the other to the floor who does not rise within a count of ten, is the winner". You count to ten. The dude standing over the bleeding corpse of his rival is thus the winner. Now buy a new rulebook .

As far as i can tell youre misusing those examples -which give ordinary people NO PROBLEMS in the real life that bores you

It would seem that I'm not misuing them. Its not meant for "ordinary people" in "real life", this is a problem whose solution is the basis for others.

in order to come up with some grand scheme that you will apply to to ethics and politics - and will make no sense - if reality bores you, then please stay away from ethics and politics - they are very much the realms of real life.

. My joke earlier wasn't the whole truth. I am interested in "real life", but I am also interested in finding a coherent philosophy, like utilitarianism was, for dealing with it. It just so happens that certain metaphysical logic is applicable, as much of it is, to this phenomenological reality.

Is that a nice refutation - sorry its not in the form of a syllogism, which is what i think you are (mistakenly) looking for.

It's not the refutation I was looking for. I believe I have countered it

[Immortal Wombat]

Not necessarily. Consider a war between two nations, who would impose each others view on one another. An objective (like the UN ideally at least ), can be used to arbitrate. Also consider a court. We have objective judges, who use wildcards to determine who is guilty and who is innocent, but as they walk into the court, this situation remains. Consider the analogy I used of the boxer. All is equally valid until judged within a certain context by a pseudo-objective with wildcards. Outside of that context, equal validity remains.

A context of equal validity is one in which there is no judgement. As soon as you assign a criterium upon which to judge, all objectivity is lost. Thus your logic, though consistent, is utterly meaningless in reality.

[Sandman]

"In the absense of anything that would judge, all subjectives are equally valid".

The situation you suggest of some tabula rasa drone does not lend itself to the conclusion, since the drone has no concept of subjectivity, validity or equality. If it did, it would be able to judge things based upon these concepts.

[Whaleboy]

A context of equal validity is one in which there is no judgement. As soon as you assign a criterium upon which to judge, all objectivity is lost. Thus your logic, though consistent, is utterly meaningless in reality.

Not at all. The UN would judge objectively for itself, and anyone going along with the UN would be satisfied with that judgement. Here, its essentially a question of justice vs vigilantism/unilateralism. Once that context is resolved, the pseudo-objective might become an alien in orbit, but for that particular context of warring nations, pseudo-objectivity has provided a solution. Please note that this is how we judge things in everyday life, and generally, if you have a theory of mind, you have the ability to try to "emulate" objectivity (independence) etc.

All objectivity is lost when you assign a criterium, but not for the position who has been assigned that wildcard. It is that position that must judge for itself, like a roll of the dice as it were, with one side weighted. Assuming there is no god, there is no ultimate objective that holds true and independent throughout.

[Whaleboy]

The situation you suggest of some tabula rasa drone does not lend itself to the conclusion, since the drone has no concept of subjectivity, validity or equality. If it did, it would be able to judge things based upon these concepts.

True, because it is not an ultimate objective, but consider its position. I am merely using such illustration to make it easier to perceive the logical structure and positions I am using here.

EDIT: Am going to bed now, will return tomorrow!

[Ben Kenobi]

"In the absense of anything that would judge, all subjectives are equally valid".

This says nothing, Whaleboy. Of course all subjectives are by definition equally morally valid. Now, if you mean all moral judgements are equally subjective in the absence of an impartial judge, then I think you are making a statement with some meaning.

However, is there an absence of an impartial Judge who is not limited by the same subjectivity that binds each one of us? Unless you can prove this, one ought not to be so confident in this presupposition.

Now, why should anyone be a liberal and a pacifist? Would it not be equally right, and more consistent to argue for might makes right, in that you can do whatever you feel like it so long as you have the muscle to back it up?

Finally, why should consistency be a virtue, if all moral statements are equally valid?

[Immortal Wombat]

So what is the philosophical point you are trying to make?

[Ben Kenobi]

I am interested in "real life", but I am also interested in finding a coherent philosophy,

You aren't a relativist, and should listen to folks like LoTM if this is truly the case. You should spend more time with Kant until you can see the problems since I believe you would find a deontological philosophical system more palatable than the various flavours of Utilitarianism.

Or you could discard your first presupposition about God and avoid all of this hassle as a Theist.

[GePap]

Total subjectivity is impossible, given that we do exist in a physical world with physical, chemical and biological pre-conditions that put limits on subjectivity. You can say up is down all you want but you can take no action based on the belief of up is down without meeting failure.