Refute me babies!

[Whaleboy]

Hmmm... The first post seemed to suggest that you were talking about reality, with applying it to politics. If that isn't the case, then yes, it is coherant.

It still has no point though

In this thread, we are dealing with a mere logical construct. It is my view that this logic can be applied in dribs and drabs to politics and ethics, whilst on my (idealist) front, it can be used to construct a coherent system (political, ethics, cognitive, epistemological), whilst that is still unimplementable in todays society, I care not!! Like I said, leave it to the pragmatists . See, you'll never be redundant Drogue!

No, simply taking IWs quote, and illuding it to the point that there is no use for this. You admitted this was about the metaphysical, and that you don't get bogged down with practical matters, such as application. Do you admit that it wouldn't work but then disagree that it is "irrelevant to practical matters such as reality."?

I admit that it is inapplicable and to some extent, useless, in today's society. I do not believe it is irrelevant, as it can be taken in small applications, as has been the case for centuries with the legal system, everyday concepts like pacifism, the debate, critical theory, and wars of nations and men.

I'm saying that the idea that without wildcards, all things are equal, has no use in reality because there are always wildcards. That was what the "completely irrelevant" was meant to highlight.

Understood. However, without wildcards means an utterly objective view (totally independent etc), which is not the case imo, or a context where the pseudo-objective has not decided to throw his weight and that of those riding on him behind a particular subjective. That means a courtroom, that means an international body settling debates, that means a judge or arbitrator on Cyclon, ACDG, or NS.

Why? If it has wildcards, and thus is subjective, why is it more valid? How can it's subjective be more valid than another one, usuing relativism?

It is contextual. Judge, defendant, plaintiff, first in the courtroom, then in the pub. Out of context, and within a context whose judge has not decided they are necessarily equally subjective as we have established.

But the UN isn't independant. It is made up of those nations, and thus is not removed from it. For something to be independant, it would have to have no wildcards with relation to that. And then which independant do you use, since many would have very different opinions still. You would need someone who it totally objective to be a non-subjective judge, and that doesn't exist.

A good point. One assumes the variant allegiances to cancel themselves out by each other to give a position of 0. Needless to say, in practice, that is not the case, but fixable imo.

without justification, then I think I'm quite entitled to point out that it may not be. I did not say it wasn't. I'm not trying to show it wasn't, thus I don't need to show it. However since you have not proved it, there is an element of doubt, and thus, it may, or may not be, as I stated.

Metaphysics in relation to reality? The notion of utility as one example? What is our reality but a shared metaphysic (views, human interaction), whose observations of nature is merely one victor in this universe, which is not watertight anyway due to Heisenberg and Feynmann. Nonetheless, I believe you mean metaphysics in the mind, and if your asking me what relevance that philosophical dialogues in our minds have to reality, then look around you. You are using a computer operating on a principle of quantum mech, once regarded as metaphysics, as was gravity. The chemicals in my pain-killers, once regarded as alchemy and we would recognise the medieval dialogues (given that knowledge then) as metaphysics. Need I go on?

But for someone not to be subjective, they need not to have any wildcards. Since everyone does, no-one is not subjective. Thus any imposition of a pseudo objective would be imposing a subjective, since they would have wildcards.

No, all is subjective, even a pseudo-objective, except in a given context. I don't know how I can make this any more obvious.

The stranger still has wildcards, thus is subjective. If the pseudo objective is a subjective on a different level, then looking at it from that level gives you three different subjectives. The fact that lower down one appears to be an objective, sicne they still have wildcards, they are still a subjective.

Since they are all equal, the PO can come from sideways . Essentially, we have a soup of equally valid subjective, from which we are extracting three croutons, and thrusting into a solution that will let two sink and one float according to the amount of soup absorbed, or some other criteria like that.

Yes, they do. They have wildcards. The judge could be trying to seem tough on drink driving, or something, in order to keep his job.

Tweaking his wildcards, predefined things (to the context of course) such as the legal system or whether he wants to crack down on something. No-one said that once the coin has been tossed it has equal chance of landing on either side, but you don't know that until he has tossed it. Until you toss the coin you dont know if a side is weighted. This is a simplistic analogy of course, because we can know wildcards before hand, but I'm merely illustrating a logical structure here.

He may be more learned, in that he has studied the law, and he may have fewer wildcards, but he still has wildcards. Moreover, as posted above, looking at it fromthe view of something completely objective, it would just see many subjectives, since they are all opinions. The judge's opinion is still that, an opinion. It is subjective. If you believe that all subjectives are equally valid, then it is equally valid. I don't. I think he is more valid because he has fewer wildcards, and because he is more knowledgable on the law. However his opinion is still subjective, since he is human.

Essentially then, we are arguing the same thing but you don't understand what I'm saying (illustrated by the number of times I've had to repeat myself in an effort to communicate what others have understood after one or two posts). His knowledge of the legal system, that wildcard, is only relevant to judging positions within that given context, outside, he is as valid as anyone else. And yes, it is still an opinion, I know that, you know that, but in the courtroom, his opinion is king.

Then why not debate the real world implications? You have said this is purely a metaphysical debate, and not to debate reality, but you post that in the first post, which is basd in reality, so you claim.

Because we would get bogged down in needless complexity when dealing with a logical concept. Deal with a logical concept with logic, not anecdote (which does not preclude analogy thank god!).

That doesn't stop either the point that it is useless in reality, or that when you talk in analogies, or about politics, that you talk in the real world, but the fact that it doesn't work in reality is not able to dispute it.

I paint a picture, I don't define it. You seem rather eager to show that it won't work in reality, but your logic is shaky to say the least, and based on misunderstandings of what I've said. Please re-read what I have written.

Dubious reasons? I agree with that too. You cannot distinguish between two things without knowing at least one discriminating criterion. That much is simply common sense.

Then the matter is closed.

However since there always is, else the two things would be the same, that sentance is "completely [and] utterly useless".

Because life is a matter of quick contexts and quick judgments. Nonetheless, we need logic and predispositions to make them.

When it comes to two opinions, if they are not exactly the same, there is a discriminating criteria, and hence you can distinguish between them.

As a judge, and you have described a nice little context there!

Then that would mean everyone has lost touch with reality.

And im not ready to give up on Kant.

I'll work on you

First it isn't people or points of view that are opposed here, but propositions.

AGATHONS BACK!!! arty:

And thankyou! I've spend a considerable amount of effort trying to show that. My fault for using metaphors people don't comprehend

If you say that a person has no understanding of the relation "higher than" then there is no argument, because in that case the person cannot even entertain the proposition "X is higher than Y" as a possible object of judgement

Then he might as well not be there.

A necessary requirement for disagreement is that both parties to the disagreement understand the constituent notions (in this case the relation "higher-than" of the proposition which is the object of disagreement. In the absence of that there is no dispute since they don't know what they are talking about.

Thus they are both equally valid.

Added to that is the problem that you are confusing two different things - truth and justification.

Belief is largely irrelevant here. Height in this case would be a justified true belief, but that is never necessarily true or constant.

But if you say that they mean different things by "higher than" then there just is no disagreement. For example if you mean by "higher than", what I mean by "bluer than" then we aren't disagreeing over the proposition "X is higher than Y" but are merely stating two different claims, which may be both true or false or one or the other may be true or false.

So it comes down to triangles and squares. But lets not get into semantics. My point there was that you require that wildcard of a notion of height to make that judgment.

I guess elijah (my G-d is Yah! - no wonder he changed his login)

I'm still lumbered with it as a surname . Am I correct in saying that translated literally, it means "rise to God"? If so, sweet!!

would deny that any sentient is creature can be impartial - existence implies subjectivity. He doesnt seem to be using an ideal observer definition of ethics.

Bang on.

[Sandman]

The two are pretty much interchangeable.

No they're not. Why is one obliged to consider subjective opinions equally logically valid? There's no reason to, because they are not related.

Precisely!

Eh? Why should anyone care for your brand of libertarianism then? It may be illogical to force one's view on others, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

[Whaleboy]

Sandman: I do not believe that right and wrong exist outside of context.

[Agathon]

AGATHONS BACK!!! arty:

In a limited capacity. I've got a lot of work to do and don't have much time for the net these days. I'm taking a day off today.

Anyway, it's good to see that you are still philosophizing. I may not agree with everything you say, but I admire your ambition.

And thankyou! I've spend a considerable amount of effort trying to show that. My fault for using metaphors people don't comprehend

Try to stick with propositions.

Then he might as well not be there.

Yes, but that doesn't refute my point.

Thus they are both equally valid.

I don't know if they are equally valid, unless you mean by that "equally meaningless". If neither person's utterance means anything then it seems to be that the notion of "truth" doesn't even apply to them, much less equally.

A proposition has to have a meaning before it can have a truth value. If an utterance is meaningless it doesn't make sense to say that it is either true or false, and it is no more reasonable to say that such a thing is true, valid, or equally true or equally valid, than it does to say that a microbe is true or false.

Belief is largely irrelevant here. Height in this case would be a justified true belief, but that is never necessarily true or constant.

I don't agree. The concept of "height" is a constituent of a proposition, not a proposition itself. If I am to have a justified true belief about anything I have to have a belief about it, and having a belief takes as its object a proposition that I understand. So if I don't understand the proposition I don't have a belief and that rules out having a justified true belief.

So it comes down to triangles and squares. But lets not get into semantics. My point there was that you require that wildcard of a notion of height to make that judgment.

But isn't a wildcard in this case just understanding what the term "height" means? And if two people have different "wildcards" that there is no disagreement?

And if that is the case, doesn't this mean that if I can really disagree with someone that it is also logically possible for me to determine who is right. If I don't understand what has to be the case in the world for the relation "higher than" to be true of something, doesn't this mean that I don't understand the term?

None of this has anything to do with subjectivity or conceptual relativism. In fact conceptual relativists can't really disagree with each other either, since the objects of their beliefs are untranslatable propositions.

I'm still lumbered with it as a surname . Am I correct in saying that translated literally, it means "rise to God"? If so, sweet!!

Why Whaleboy? Jonah?

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Peter Triggs
You only satisfy four out of the five Peano axioms: "0 is not a successor" is false. In fact, this is the standard example to show that this axiom is independent of the others.

Rats. Actually, you might know. Is there a known consistant mathematics where 1+1 != 2?

[Ramo]

You only satisfy four out of the five Peano axioms: "0 is not a successor" is false.

There's no reason why Peano arithmetic needs to be satisfied. It's true that integers would be far less interesting if we could only work with congruence classes of 0 and 1 under modular arithmatic, but it would be even more interesting if, say, integers didn't commute under addition (after we change around the definition of integers). That doesn't make one system any more or less valid than another.

Rats. Actually, you might know. Is there a known consistant mathematics where 1+1 != 2?

If you want to keep the current structure of math totally intact (with minimal changes), it's pretty easy. For instance, you could start calling the multiplicative identity under complex numbers "0" and the additive identity "1," and then in any given theorem switch around "0" and "1." Which would make 1 + 1 = 1. Or you could assign the properties of division to "+" and addition to "/" and then in any given theorem switch around "+" and "/." Which would also make 1 + 1 = 1.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
In this thread, we are dealing with a mere logical construct. It is my view that this logic can be applied in dribs and drabs to politics and ethics, whilst on my (idealist) front, it can be used to construct a coherent system (political, ethics, cognitive, epistemological), whilst that is still unimplementable in todays society, I care not!! Like I said, leave it to the pragmatists . See, you'll never be redundant Drogue!

That involevs you finding a pragmatist who want's to inact it The bits I agree with I don't think it can be applied, even in dribs and drabs. The bits that can be, what you come up with when you take it further into your political and idological system, is not something I agree with.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Metaphysics in relation to reality? The notion of utility as one example? What is our reality but a shared metaphysic (views, human interaction), whose observations of nature is merely one victor in this universe, which is not watertight anyway due to Heisenberg and Feynmann. Nonetheless, I believe you mean metaphysics in the mind, and if your asking me what relevance that philosophical dialogues in our minds have to reality, then look around you. You are using a computer operating on a principle of quantum mech, once regarded as metaphysics, as was gravity. The chemicals in my pain-killers, once regarded as alchemy and we would recognise the medieval dialogues (given that knowledge then) as metaphysics. Need I go on?

You have shown that alchemy and quantum mech has a use. So some things that used to be metaphysics are not applicable. Is any metaphysics now applicable? That is what you haven't shown, IMHO.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
No, all is subjective, even a pseudo-objective, except in a given context. I don't know how I can make this any more obvious.

You have made that obvious. However I am disputing that. I don't think, even in that context, they are objective. It is a still a person's opinion, and thus is subjective. Even in that context, they are subjective. It's why you have 3 judges in a boxing match, because if you have one, it is just one subjective view of who won (when it coems to points). With 3, it is more likely to match what most people see as a accurate representation of who won, however they are still 3 subjectives, albeit learned ones. If the judges in a boxing match were objective, ie. they had no wildcards, how could they disagree? Since they disagree, they must not be the same, and thus they must have a discerning characteristic (as given above, a discerning characteristic is a wildcard), and thus they must have wildcards, and thus they must be subjective.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Essentially then, we are arguing the same thing but you don't understand what I'm saying (illustrated by the number of times I've had to repeat myself in an effort to communicate what others have understood after one or two posts).

I find that insulting. I have understood what you've said, but I disagree with it. I'm trying to explain why the judge is not a pseudo objective, because he has wildcards.

What is your definition of a pseudo-objective? Someone who has no wildcards in that context (as opposed to someone with none at all, who is completely objective)? However even in that context, they have wildcards. Everyone has wildcards. Therefore they are just as subjective as anyone else. I have understood what you said, I just disagree with it.

We are not arguing the same thing. I believe that all opinions are not equally valid. I believe all opinions are subjective, but that some are more valid than others. I believe a judge has a more valid opinion on law than a mechanic. His opinion on a legal issue is just as subjective, but it is worth more, because he knows more what he is talking about.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
And yes, it is still an opinion, I know that, you know that, but in the courtroom, his opinion is king.

Yes, because his opinion is more valid.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I paint a picture, I don't define it. You seem rather eager to show that it won't work in reality, but your logic is shaky to say the least, and based on misunderstandings of what I've said. Please re-read what I have written.

I've read it. I disagree with it. Get over it. the amount of times you say that, it seems as if you believe you understand what others say, when you disagree, but anyone who disagrees with you has misunderstood you Where is my logic shaky? When almost everyone in this thread has said that it is useless in reality, yet you seem to think my logic is shaky in believing it a refute?

Originally posted by Whaleboy

When it comes to two opinions, if they are not exactly the same, there is a discriminating criteria, and hence you can distinguish between them.

As a judge, and you have described a nice little context there!

Thus whether or not they are equally valid when viewed without wildcards, without discriminating criteria, is irrelevant.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Agathon
Why Whaleboy? Jonah?

After insulting someone, she nicknamed him whaleboy as a derogatory term, however he liked it

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Drogue

After insulting someone, she nicknamed him whaleboy as a derogatory term, however he liked it

[Ben Kenobi]

Or that he is colourblind

Flourescent purple? No.

Sorry, but I thought of that before I made my example.

[Ben Kenobi]

Whaleboy:

No, should = influence, in otherwords I'll ask them or propose a certain action.

When you say one ought to do something, you are imposing a moral value on them.

There is really no cause to make a distinction between influence and imposition.

"I made the wrong decision for a given context".

Whoa...

You said you could never make a wrong decision, just that it was the wrong 'context'. The decision in itself can never be wrong.

A correct belief for me? No. For others? Yes.

So then you would not restrain me from eating a Jew, if I wanted to?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
youre looking at things in the static - at given moments im time thousands of different moral codes have existed - as the cultural anthropologists and their ethnographic studies have shown us - its not at all clear that all those codes are equally viable subject to the stresses of history - I think a case can be made that as history advances the number of viable moral codes narrows considerably. Hegelian solution.

I don;t think "the stresses of history" exist. if there are less codes today is simply becuase there is less diversity today..some political and eocnomic forces have proven more effcient and effective than others..not in any way a result of a moral code but of amoral decisions_ just the very fact that the number of independent political u8nits has gone drastically down shows why less codes would survive, as the new centralizing political units would seek conformity for the polis and crush other codes. This is not a judgement off the intrinsict worth as a moral code, but of the ability of the group that held it to compete in the physical world, something determined by amoral factors.

And you are judging only by survival - which is not the only criteria for human fulfillment - it is at least possible that there is some non-arbitrary basis by which the impact of different moral codes on human beings could be judge, pace Nietsche - the classical solution.

And im not ready to give up on Kant.

And what could this non-arbitrary solution be? That sound to me like Utalitarianism..judge by happiness.

[Ben Kenobi]

Welcome back Agathon.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If someone told you all trees were really flourescent purple, would you believe him? Why not?

No. How does that apply?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Welcome back Agathon.

Thanks Ben. It's nice to see you still around. I must say that Alec Guinness looks pretty spiffy in that hat.

You must be pumped at the prospect of the new Canadian Conservative Party.

Here's hoping they don't mess up. The Liberals need to have some credible opposition.