Refute me babies!

[Whaleboy]

Ok, the basis for my philosophy, my world view, and all of its consequences for me (pacifism, liberty, relativism, liberalism), is based upon one position, that I want to put up for discussion here, and my argument for it.

If you can show me to be wrong, defeat my arguments, when my entire house of cards comes falling down. Its too good an opportunity for you conservatives to miss!!

That position upon which most of my others are based is as follows:

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

That is to say, suppose you have two positions, points of view, people, objects, ideas etc that are opposed to each other, without anything that would judge between them, using a pre-determined set of parameters (wildcards), then the two or more subjectives are necessarily equal.

In an example, say you have two mountains. They are both differerent, i.e., height, weight, composition, width, gradient etc. Mountain A is 10'000 feet and Mountain B is 8'000 feet. You are asked to determine which is the higher mountain. Of course, you say A, because you have a pre-determined notion of "height", its properties and a mental calculus for determining that height. Now imagine you dont know what height is, the outside world and your upbringing (or perhaps even genetics) had not the grace to tell you, and you haven't worked it out yourself. You cannot work out which is taller without that wildcard.

To use another example, two boxers in a ring, in the red and blue corners. They fight, and red knocks down blue with a mighty left hook. You are the referee. Who do you say has won? You say red of course, but only because you have a pre-determined notion of the rules, the idea that he who knocks the other to the floor wins (i'm not a fan of boxing, I'm only guessing that this is accurate). Now imagine that you, as the referee, have a different set of rules that say that the first to hit the mat is the winner. Whose hand do you raise now? Imagine that you have no notion of rules of this game. No matter what happens, you have no option but to say both are equally valid within that context, unless you bring, from outside, some means of judging and comparing.

Objective is defined as a position that is independent to the observer, in these cases, the ref, the guy comparing the mountains, are objective, but their wildcards make them side with one view or another, and henceforth use their logic to back up that view. This is how we have objective means of judging.

This also gives us something of a "house of cards" like structure, of subjectives and objectives, objectives being subjective in another context (so I use the term "pseudo-objective").

Its fairly obvious to see how this logic transfers to other fields, notably politics, but also ethical and moral philosophy, meta-ethics, metaphysics, epistemology.

Baptise me with fire babies! (but not before considering your own subjectivity).

EDIT: Will be back later

[Theben]

In the absence of anything to judge, there are no points to make.

[lord of the mark]

your example turns on the inability to define a word. But words are not defined either subjectively, nor by some Platonic standard of truth. They are determined by interactions BETWEEN human beings - IE socially - the society determines the definition, and we argue the specifics using that socially agreed definition. Whether that social definition will reflect some underlying universal, or is purely relative, is another question.

[Theben]

basically- even a newborn creates judgements based on interpretation of data.

[BustaMike]

To use another example, two boxers in a ring, in the red and blue corners. They fight, and red knocks down blue with a mighty left hook. You are the referee. Who do you say has won? You say red of course, but only because you have a pre-determined notion of the rules, the idea that he who knocks the other to the floor wins (i'm not a fan of boxing, I'm only guessing that this is accurate). Now imagine that you, as the referee, have a different set of rules that say that the first to hit the mat is the winner. Whose hand do you raise now? Imagine that you have no notion of rules of this game. No matter what happens, you have no option but to say both are equally valid within that context, unless you bring, from outside, some means of judging and comparing.

For this example to fit your point, there would be no ref, no crowd, no boxers, no anything that could create a judgment. Like Theben said, even a newborn creates judgements. So... in order to have the absence of anything that would judge, there cannot be anything to judge. It's a completely useless argument IMO. Serves no purpose.

[lord of the mark]

1. not all outside bases for judging are equal

A. The judge must judge according to such criteria that he could will that those criteria (or, more properly, the basis for choosing them) be used universally - the Kantian solution. An arbitrary basis will be self-contradictory.
B. Human nature only allows certain bases for choosing criteria, that also allow the judge a good life. An arbitrary basis will leave the judge tyrannical, and incomplete as a human being - the Platonic solution (IIRC)
C. Not all criteria are historically viable. Some will survive the test of history, while others will be destroyed by "the cunning of history" The Hegelian solution.

[Provost Harrison]

[Theben]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. not all outside bases for judging are equal

His quote doesn't allow for ANY bases to be used in judgement.

So the mountain is as equally valid as the boxer, in this instance.

[lord of the mark]

2.
forget these concepts - you - youre there - the judge - in the ring - fans are screaming - the fighters glare at each other, their managers are arguing with each other and with you - YOU must decide what the call should be, there, IN THAT PARTICULAR moment, faced with the situation of YOUR life, your interactions with the people in the ring and not in the ring - YOU must weigh all that and decide - abstract discussions of this are meaningless, they empty the reality of life.

The existentialist solution.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Theben


His quote doesn't allow for ANY bases to be used in judgement.

So the mountain is as equally valid as the boxer, in this instance.

Thats because when he reintroduces the external observer, he asserts that such observer judges based on his own interests, hence is "pseudo-obejective" I think this position( or something like it) was one of Plato's strawmen way back in "The Republic".

The response is that the outside observer cannot choose from all positions arbitrarily.


"Objective is defined as a position that is independent to the observer, in these cases, the ref, the guy comparing the mountains, are objective, but their wildcards make them side with one view or another, and henceforth use their logic to back up that view. This is how we have objective means of judging.

This also gives us something of a "house of cards" like structure, of subjectives and objectives, objectives being subjective in another context (so I use the term "pseudo-objective")."

[Whaleboy]

In the absence of anything to judge, there are no points to make.

A metaphor, of course the idea in reality that something can be totally independent is a fallacy, I am merely trying to use that to illustrate a logical construct.

But words are not defined either subjectively, nor by some Platonic standard of truth. They are determined by interactions BETWEEN human beings

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.

basically- even a newborn creates judgements based on interpretation of data.

And does so via judging by wildcard. I reiterate though, it was an image meant to demonstrate a logical construct, don't take it too literally!

For this example to fit your point, there would be no ref, no crowd, no boxers, no anything that could create a judgment. Like Theben said, even a newborn creates judgements. So... in order to have the absence of anything that would judge, there cannot be anything to judge. It's a completely useless argument IMO. Serves no purpose.

Not at all, its a question of context. I'm referring to red boxer, blue boxer, and ref. The more people you add, the context keeps changing, and in which case, the "house of cards" structure, albeit more complex than that simple fractal, still holds.

A. The judge must judge according to such criteria that he could will that those criteria (or, more properly, the basis for choosing them) be used universally - the Kantian solution.

Relied on qualitative logic that quite simply doesn't hold. That argument implies that it is wrong to steal, for example, in all and any context. You need to show that such absolutes exist in order to refute my argument, and Kant assumed it, did not show it... or rather, he showed it with qualitative logic but assumed the basis for that (i.e., 1+1=2, relies on certain rules, which though variances almost inconceivable to us, are not intrinsically unchangable).

Human nature only allows certain bases for choosing criteria, that also allow the judge a good life. An arbitrary basis will leave the judge tyrannical, and incomplete as a human being

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!

the Platonic solution (IIRC)

Sounds more like Aristotle to me, though I may be wrong. In the idealist sense, Plato would have concurred with me.

C. Not all criteria are historically viable. Some will survive the test of history, while others will be destroyed by "the cunning of history" The Hegelian solution.

But history has to judge that viability. Same situation applies.

So the mountain is as equally valid as the boxer, in this instance.

Correct

abstract discussions of this are meaningless, they empty the reality of life.

Abstract discussions are fun, and reality bores me. 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.

The response is that the outside observer cannot choose from all positions arbitrarily.

Hence he sides with one or the other. Remove the outside observer (akin to having him totally neutral). One cannot help but conclude that all is equally valid.

I think this position( or something like it) was one of Plato's strawmen way back in "The Republic".

Protagoros or Pyrro IIRC.

[Sprayber]

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

[Theben]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Abstract discussions are fun, and reality bores me... Remove the outside observer (akin to having him totally neutral). One cannot help but conclude that all is equally valid.

It seems you are looking for an objective discussion but

Ok, the basis for my philosophy, my world view, and all of its consequences for me (pacifism, liberty, relativism, liberalism), is based upon one position...

sic

Its fairly obvious to see how this logic transfers to other fields, notably politics, but also ethical and moral philosophy, meta-ethics, metaphysics, epistemology.

...you wish to interject it into your (subjective) world view.

You may need to explain further.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Go out and get laid. You'll feel better.

At 1st I was going to , but then I realized that this is an objective statement.

[chequita guevara]

Typial BS relativism. Stop smoking so much dope.