Objective truth

[Hegemonicretribution]

What is it that you consider objective truth? I ask this because most members consider themselves materialists, but there are also a number of existentialists here. Of course created meaning could be compatible with Marxist ideas in a way, but not really with objective truth (at least in amny cases).

There are also those who support many of Kuhn's ideas, but Kuhn (whilst supporting science) does reduce our greatest tool to something that is true contextually, and not objectively.

Thoughts?

[Bannockburn]

Objective? It doesn't exist - there are no facts.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:18 PM
Objective? It doesn't exist - there are no facts.
To play devil's advocate; What then forms the basis for knowledge? Or is this merely unattainable? If we have no knowledge, what justification do we have for action? What basis do we have for placing trust in theories?

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:18 PM
Objective? It doesn't exist - there are no facts.
I agree with you. There is no piece of knowledge that hasn't been tainted by human perception of it, by merely perceiving and communicating it we are subjecting it to innumerable biases.

And we can justify action by what we think and feel is right. Trying to gleam some perfect formula for life is impossible. Trusting theories is well and good but I consider them merely an aid in formulating individual opinions on things.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:18 PM
Objective? It doesn't exist - there are no facts.
Then the Earth is not round then?

Truly subjectivism is one of the most idiotic philosophical positions around :rolleyes:

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by NoXion+Apr 26 2006, 08:39 PM--> (NoXion @ Apr 26 2006, 08:39 PM)
[email protected] 26 2006, 07:18 PM
Objective? It doesn't exist - there are no facts.
Then the Earth is not round then?

Truly subjectivism is one of the most idiotic philosophical positions around :rolleyes: [/b]
If a person believes the Earth to be flat, then it is to them. And since you believe it's round, it's round to you. I don't see why that's so hard to comprehend.

Besides that, how can it be possible for there to be a reality, if that reality can't be experienced? If nothing perceives the object, then how does the object exist? How could you yourself know it exists, or contend that you know anything outside of your own perception of things? You can't since you only have ever been such a way. And what if all of reality is merely a dream, being dreamed by the dreamer? It's impossible to prove that it isn't. The supposed resoluteness of logic has its own bias, and objective reality is easily questioned.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bannockburn:


It doesn't exist - there are no facts.

I presume you know that for a fact.

Hegemonic:


What then forms the basis for knowledge?

This is too broad a question (you should have learnt that from Wittgenstein!). Which forms of knowledge do you mean? We use the word in so many different ways.

Fist:


There is no piece of knowledge that hasn't been tainted by human perception of it

Presumably this too is 'tainted'; so we should pay no heed to it.


And we can justify action by what we think and feel is right.

I think you are confusing 'excuse', or perhaps even 'rationalise' (today we call it 'spin'), with 'justify'.

Noxion:


Truly subjectivism is one of the most idiotic philosophical positions around

Maybe so, but, as I am sure you agree, dialectics beats it hands down for stupidity everytime.

Hegemonic:


There are also those who support many of Kuhn's ideas, but Kuhn (whilst supporting science) does reduce our greatest tool to something that is true contextually, and not objectively.

I think the use of 'objective' is clouding the issues here.

Kuhn would certainly not have objected to the use of the word 'true'; his objection to 'objective' is I think based on the fact that it is a hopelessly confused term of art (when used metaphysically).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fist:

'how can it be possible for there to be a reality'

Well that question contains a least one ill-defined term: 'reality'.

As soon as you sucessfully say what it means, then you can try to deny things of it.

Er... but then, your defintion of 'reality' will evaporate too.

So, I reckon your position is incapabble of being expressed clearly -- well, not without you undermining anything and everything you want to truly tell us about it.

So, oddly enough, you can only defend your ideas by not doing so.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26 2006, 09:08 PM
Fist:

'how can it be possible for there to be a reality'

Well that question contains a least one ill-defined term: 'reality'.

As soon as you sucessfully say what it means, then you can try to deny things of it.

Er... but then, your defintion of 'reality' will evaporate too.

So, I reckon your position is incapabble of being expressed clearly -- well, not without you undermining anything and everything you want to truly tell us about it.

So, oddly enough, you can only defend your ideas by not doing so.
You failed to include the latter half of that quote, "if it can't be experienced". Reality is what is perceived. I can only tell you my subjective understanding of things, which may be completely right or completely wrong depending upon other's individual interpretation of this, if in fact they do exist which is unverifiable.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fist:


I can only tell you my subjective understanding of things

If it is 'subjective', then it cannot form part of a persuasive argument in this non-subjective arena; in fact it is of no more use here than if you had said I prefer Coke to Pepsi.


Reality is what is perceived

Really?

You percieved this how?

[If you did not, then it cannot be real; if you did, then which sense did you use?]

And, I think you have been reading too much Bishop Berkeley for your own good.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26 2006, 09:54 PM
Fist:


I can only tell you my subjective understanding of things

If it is 'subjective', then it cannot form part of a persuasive argument in this non-subjective arena; in fact it is of no more use here than if you had said I prefer Coke to Pepsi.


Reality is what is perceived

Really?

You percieved this how?

[If you did not, then it cannot be real; if you did, then which sense did you use?]
It's 'subjective' as all reality is. As humans all have their own understanding of things, and it's impossible to arrive at any definite, there's no such thing as a "non-subjective arena". At best a comparison of opinions, rather than any conventional detective work on existence.

Perceived what how? Reality itself? Reality is perceived by individual consciousness.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fist:


It's 'subjective' as all reality is.

That either means you have perceived 'all of reality', or 'god' has told you more than 'he' did the rest of us.

And is "It's 'subjective' as all reality is" subjective too?

If so we would be right to ignore what you say.

If not, we would be even more justified in ignoring what you say on the grounds that your theory implodes.


Reality is perceived by individual consciousness.

Really?

Says who?

And if what they say is subjective, why on earth do you listen to them?

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26 2006, 10:41 PM
Fist:


It's 'subjective' as all reality is.

That either means you have perceived 'all of reality', or 'god' has told you more than 'he' did the rest of us.

And is "It's 'subjective' as all reality is" subjective too?

If so we would be right to ignore what you say.

If not, we would be even more justified in ignoring what you say on the grounds that your theory implodes.


Reality is perceived by individual consciousness.

Really?

Says who?

And if what they say is subjective, why on earth do you listen to them?
I have perceived all of reality, if I haven't then it's not reality to me. Everything is subjective, your interpretation and my interpretation. We accept what we think to be true to be true. I think that everyone thinks something is true and so it is true for them, and that I think that makes it true for me. That you think that the universe is objective means it is objective for you. I doubt there's one single essence to the universe, one correct understanding of it.

And says who? I do, obviously as I just did. That I think it is the only reason I'd say it, I arrived at these opinions myself rather than reading someone elses interpretation.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26 2006, 09:03 PM
Hegemonic:


What then forms the basis for knowledge?

This is too broad a question (you should have learnt that from Wittgenstein!). Which forms of knowledge do you mean? We use the word in so many different ways.
even 'rationalise' (today we call it 'spin'), with 'justify'.
philosophical positions around


Hegemonic:

[/quote]
I sad I was playing devil's dvocate, I may not have done it well enough...

Which forms of knowledge? Well in this context I suppose I meant those that aer supposed to justify absolute positions.



There are also those who support many of Kuhn's ideas, but Kuhn (whilst supporting science) does reduce our greatest tool to something that is true contextually, and not objectively.

I think the use of 'objective' is clouding the issues here.

Kuhn would certainly not have objected to the use of the word 'true'; his objection to 'objective' is I think based on the fact that it is a hopelessly confused term of art (when used metaphysically).

If something is not objectively true, then how is it true? Unless you accept that truth is itself sunjective? Hence this thread. Kuhn objected (at least to my understanding) because he felt that "truth is theory laden" and therefore dependant on circumstance.

Again I may well be playing devil's advocate. I admit that my personal view may not be made apparant until the end of the thread, but nonetheless I think this is on of the most important philosophical threads to discuss.

[More Fire for the People]

The universe exists in various totalities of atomic facts. The existence of this integration of facts entails a logical form of integration. Science is doctrine of examing this logic, and thus scientific truth is 'objective truth'.

[tambourine_man]

yeah, there is no such thing as "objective reality."
"reality" is a wholly subjective experience, the ultimately infinite totality of the individual's perceptions and dispositions.

and that is the truth because i say so!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If a person believes the Earth to be flat, then it is to them. And since you believe it's round, it's round to you. I don't see why that's so hard to comprehend.

Except for the small matter that, in reality, the Earth is round (Or if you want to be pedantic, an oblate spheroid). It's been measured thousands of times by different people for different purposes, and they have all come up with the same answer, or near enough as to make no meaningful difference. One can go into orbit and see for themselves.

The Earth is round, and that is a fact.


Besides that, how can it be possible for there to be a reality, if that reality can't be experienced?

Nonsense. One experiences reality every waking hour, although this experience can be coloured somewhat by extreme fatigue and drugs.


If nothing perceives the object, then how does the object exist?

If it can't be percieved in any manner, neither by the senses or by instruments (Or by any consistent effect it has on things that can be percieved), then to all intents and purposes it does not exist.

Much like God, really.


How could you yourself know it exists, or contend that you know anything outside of your own perception of things?

Because my perception of many material objects is shared by lots of different people. Everyone agrees that water is wet, and so water is wet. Anything else is solipsism.


And what if all of reality is merely a dream, being dreamed by the dreamer? It's impossible to prove that it isn't.

Neither is it necessary. "Reality as a dream" is not a falsifiable concept and is thus invalid.


The supposed resoluteness of logic has its own bias, and objective reality is easily questioned.

Easily questioned and perceptions of it changed maybe, but never proven wrong. Water at 15 centigrade is always wet.

[LoneRed]

oh here we go on the dialectics, how droll

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 12:28 AM

If a person believes the Earth to be flat, then it is to them. And since you believe it's round, it's round to you. I don't see why that's so hard to comprehend.

Except for the small matter that, in reality, the Earth is round (Or if you want to be pedantic, an oblate spheroid). It's been measured thousands of times by different people for different purposes, and they have all come up with the same answer, or near enough as to make no meaningful difference. One can go into orbit and see for themselves.

The Earth is round, and that is a fact.


Besides that, how can it be possible for there to be a reality, if that reality can't be experienced?

Nonsense. One experiences reality every waking hour, although this experience can be coloured somewhat by extreme fatigue and drugs.


If nothing perceives the object, then how does the object exist?

If it can't be percieved in any manner, neither by the senses or by instruments (Or by any consistent effect it has on things that can be percieved), then to all intents and purposes it does not exist.

Much like God, really.


How could you yourself know it exists, or contend that you know anything outside of your own perception of things?

Because my perception of many material objects is shared by lots of different people. Everyone agrees that water is wet, and so water is wet. Anything else is solipsism.


And what if all of reality is merely a dream, being dreamed by the dreamer? It's impossible to prove that it isn't.

Neither is it necessary. "Reality as a dream" is not a falsifiable concept and is thus invalid.


The supposed resoluteness of logic has its own bias, and objective reality is easily questioned.

Easily questioned and perceptions of it changed maybe, but never proven wrong. Water at 15 centigrade is always wet.
In reality? Whose reality is it round in? Yours. If someone lived refused to believe that the Earth was round, to them simply the Earth would be flat. And in their mind, the determining factor in what they see and choose to believe, the Earth is flat. You can say the Earth is flat because I say so, look at this and this and this but that wouldn't change the other persons opinion and in their view of existence it'd be flat, which is why everyone experiences things subjectively. The only thing that makes it an "objective truth" is when enough people get together and have a consensus reality. Anyone who goes against this is naturally branded retarded. I remember a professor saying every proof that the Earth was round, was possible to counter (In a college, it didn't happen to me firsthand), and none of the students in the college could come up with an argument. The point is anyway that the individual defines what they see, choose to accept, and believe, and in doing so create their own version of reality.

You misunderstand me on the second point. I'm saying if reality can't be experienced then there is no reality. You're right that we experience it every waking hour, if we didn't experience it it wouldn't be real.

To the third point, we agree entirely. (Minus the fact that believing something exists
means there's a possibility it exists, whether true or not.)

And yes, anything else is solipsism. And solipsism is entirely impossible to disprove.
Easily questioned yes, and changing perception alters the existence itself on a personal basis, and all we can understand anything from is a personal basis.


Because something is unfalsifiable doesn't mean it's untrue. Reality is real. This statement is unfalsifiable, therefore it's invalid?

[redstar2000]

The problem with "pure subjectivism" is that it doesn't work...or, at best, works very poorly.

On the other hand, if you assume that your perceptions and the perceptions of those around you converge on "objective truth", then you can get a lot of useful things done!

If we are all "living in a dream", it is a surprisingly coherent one with an astonishing number of predictable regularities.

Most "undreamlike". :lol:

Reality behaves as if it were "objective"...thus I'm inclined to assume that it is objective.

Granted that "objective truth" is often subtle and sometimes counter-intuitive...the assumption gets stuff done.

The assumption that reality is "totally subjective" accomplishes nothing useful that I'm able to perceive.

And generates a torrent of casual nonsense in fancy dress. :o

Who needs that?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fist:


I have perceived all of reality, if I haven't then it's not reality to me.

Are you sure?

There might be parts of 'reality' that you have not perceived.


Everything is subjective, your interpretation and my interpretation.

Again, if this is an objective opinion, I should take note of it. But then, in that case, your theory nose dives (for there is at least one objective opinion), and I shouldn't pay any attention to it.

If it is subjective, I should ignore it, too.

Either way, I should ignore it.

But, you are very good at laying down the law:


We accept what we think to be true to be true.

Who is this 'we'?

Have you done a survey to check?

There might be some (like me) who do not do this. And since your opinion is subjective, but mine is objective, guess who wins?


That you think that the universe is objective means it is objective for you.

In other words, your opinion is subjerctive, so we can ignore it.


I doubt there's one single essence to the universe, one correct understanding of it.

Once more, this is mere opinion, which since it is backed up with an 'I think' at every turn, is subjective (on your theory), and hence not worth registering.

What is the point of telling us all this if anyone's view is OK, and if there might not be anyone out here to listen to you.


And says who? I do, obviously as I just did. That I think it is the only reason I'd say it, I arrived at these opinions myself rather than reading someone elses interpretation.

Really? Did you percieve this or think it?

If the latter, then it cannot be real for even you (on your own theory); if the former, which organ of perception did you use: eyes, ears, taste buds, skin....?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hegemonic:


If something is not objectively true, then how is it true?

Well, if we learnt anything from Wittgenstein it was not to ask questions like that.

Of course, W wasn't god and he might have been wrong.

But, unless you can say what 'objective' means here, your question is any empty one, since it contains at least one (as yet) meaningless term (i.e., 'objective').

Now, as soon as you try to say what 'objective' means, you have to use the word 'true' somewhere, so 'objectively true' then becomes 'Truly true'; but what does that mean over and above just banging the table?



Kuhn objected (at least to my understanding) because he felt that "truth is theory laden" and therefore dependant on circumstance.

Well, truth-dependent-on-circumstance is not what Kuhn is talking about; truth-dependent-on-circumstances is something like "Today is Thursday", or "I am hot", or "NN is to the left of MM", etc.

I am sure you did not mean that.

And Kuhn's 'theory-laden' idea does not undermine truth, nor even what some hold to be 'objective truth'; this is because the term 'objective truth' is itself 'theory-laden' (and, since it is metaphysical theory-laden, I would say it was 'nonsensical' for all that).

So, there is no question-begging way to accuse Kuhn of denying 'objective truth' (if ever we could say what that meant).

And forgive me for not noticing your Devil's Advocate pose....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lone:


oh here we go on the dialectics, how droll

But, I thought everything is interconnected; so what's the problem if I interconnect to the detriment of dialectics?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27 2006, 09:46 AM
Again, if this is an objective opinion, I should take note of it. But then, in that case, your theory nose dives (for there is at least one objective opinion), and I shouldn't pay any attention to it.

If it is subjective, I should ignore it, too.

Either way, I should ignore it.


This is the standard criticism used against denials of truth, but it misses the point, if someone is denying truth, it is not right to assess such a claim as if truth exists, to do so is to miss the point. If I deny god, I would not want my oppinion dismissed because it wasn't "godly" and therefore meant nothing...at the same time it would not be fair to claim that such a view only gains credence when it becomes "godly" i.e. self destructs.

The view you are propsing is (to borrow from Kuhn) "incomensurable."


But, unless you can say what 'objective' means here, your question is any empty one, since it contains at least one (as yet) meaningless term (i.e., 'objective').

By "objective" I mean not only true within a context, but true without the need for a context. I would claim that "all bachelors are unmarried" or "2+2=4" are true statements, because we create them to be true. Outside of tautologies is there any truth? Or is truth something that can only exist when it is engineered, such as in a tautology.

You are correct however that I did not mean "circumstance dependant" I should have said "depending on context."

REferrring back to the criticism you made towards F of S, it is interesting that you deny "objectivity" and yet invoke it to attack a position. "Objective" may be a bullshit term, you may well be right, but if it is then you are really attacking the notion of truth that most people hold, including materialists.

Redstar; you are probably right that this gets us nowhere, and may wish not to bother with such a debate (I feel this way about perceptual debates). However no-one is suggesting that they act without and precedent for their actions, or with no preference. This has proven to be effective, and I don't anyone would deny this. This still does not give a definite answer to this problem. This is purely philosophical, and so questioning whether "truth" or "objective truth" maes sense is a valid exercise, even if one does not see there being any such truth, it does not mean that all actions are equal, rather that we just make them without such a security blanket of certainty.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In reality? Whose reality is it round in? Yours.

I object to the assertion that I have my own personal "reality". I have my own personal perceptions of things, but there is also an objective reality outside my head that is confirmed by many different people with different perceptions (As well as scientific instruments with no mind of their own, which give consistent results) on non-prejudicial subjects such as the roundess of the earth and wetness of water.


If someone lived refused to believe that the Earth was round, to them simply the Earth would be flat. And in their mind, the determining factor in what they see and choose to believe, the Earth is flat.

But only in their mind. And reality demonstrates otherwise. If they travelled round the world in a straight line relative to Earth's gravity, they would not fall off - they would end up back where they started. Reality is something which, if you stop believing in it, does not go away.


You can say the Earth is flat because I say so, look at this and this and this but that wouldn't change the other persons opinion and in their view of existence it'd be flat, which is why everyone experiences things subjectively.

Then they would simply be wrong. The Earth is round. This can be confirmed with different measurements made by different people at different points of the earth at different times of the day. The earth beyond any reasonable doubt, is round.


The only thing that makes it an "objective truth" is when enough people get together and have a consensus reality.

Only true if reality confirms that consensus.


I remember a professor saying every proof that the Earth was round, was possible to counter (In a college, it didn't happen to me firsthand), and none of the students in the college could come up with an argument.

How strange that you do not list them.


The point is anyway that the individual defines what they see, choose to accept, and believe, and in doing so create their own version of reality.

No, they choose their perception of reality. Reality itself remains unchanged by the couple of pounds of soggy porridgy stuff we call our brain.


You misunderstand me on the second point. I'm saying if reality can't be experienced then there is no reality. You're right that we experience it every waking hour, if we didn't experience it it wouldn't be real.

Are you saying reality would not exist if we were not around to experience it? Such anthropocentric hubris!


To the third point, we agree entirely. (Minus the fact that believing something exists
means there's a possibility it exists, whether true or not.)


And yes, anything else is solipsism. And solipsism is entirely impossible to disprove.
Easily questioned yes, and changing perception alters the existence itself on a personal basis, and all we can understand anything from is a personal basis.

I don't know atoms or the surface of Betelgeuse on a personal basis.


Because something is unfalsifiable doesn't mean it's untrue. Reality is real. This statement is unfalsifiable, therefore it's invalid?

Invalid != Untrue. Attempting to prove reality is real is invalid because A) it's self-evident and B) one can come with endless rationalisations as to why one can't prove the reality of reality; mass hallucination, we're all running on the same simulation, we're all being dreamt in the mind of the same god, etc etc Ad Nauseum.

[Body Count]

Well, I'm simply no good in philosophy, but I do believe in objective truth.

If someone says the earth is flat, I simply believe that that person is wrong, and I am right.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27 2006, 09:46 AM
Fist:


I have perceived all of reality, if I haven't then it's not reality to me.

Are you sure?

There might be parts of 'reality' that you have not perceived.


Everything is subjective, your interpretation and my interpretation.

Again, if this is an objective opinion, I should take note of it. But then, in that case, your theory nose dives (for there is at least one objective opinion), and I shouldn't pay any attention to it.

If it is subjective, I should ignore it, too.

Either way, I should ignore it.

But, you are very good at laying down the law:


We accept what we think to be true to be true.

Who is this 'we'?

Have you done a survey to check?

There might be some (like me) who do not do this. And since your opinion is subjective, but mine is objective, guess who wins?


That you think that the universe is objective means it is objective for you.

In other words, your opinion is subjerctive, so we can ignore it.


I doubt there's one single essence to the universe, one correct understanding of it.

Once more, this is mere opinion, which since it is backed up with an 'I think' at every turn, is subjective (on your theory), and hence not worth registering.

What is the point of telling us all this if anyone's view is OK, and if there might not be anyone out here to listen to you.


And says who? I do, obviously as I just did. That I think it is the only reason I'd say it, I arrived at these opinions myself rather than reading someone elses interpretation.

Really? Did you percieve this or think it?

If the latter, then it cannot be real for even you (on your own theory); if the former, which organ of perception did you use: eyes, ears, taste buds, skin....?
If there are parts of 'reality' that I have not perceived, then they are not part of my reality. And I can only judge things from my own view of things.

And no, it's not an objective opinion. An objective opinion is an oxymoron. There's no such thing as an objective opinion, only personal views of things. If something is a subjective understanding, that's no reason to ignore it as it may effect your own subjective view of things, the mere fact that people regard things differently doesn't make others opinions worthless.

And who is this we? If a person thinks something is true... Then they think it's true. I don't think I need a survey to figure that one out. And I didn't know that you specifically do not accept what you think to be true to be, if you don't accept what you think is true to be true then perhaps I'm right. :P And no, your opinion isn't objective. You think it is sure, but it's only one interpretation of things admid countless others.

And no! Because people's opinions are subjective doesn't mean you should ignore them unless you're completely egotistical. There's a chance a way someone else thinks may influence the way a person themself thinks. Because the subjective person has opinions but realizes they are only one perception doesn't make them any less worthy then someone who's sure what they think is absolutely correct.

Again... The fact that I consider my point of view to be a point of view doesn't register it worthless. There's no logic to that thinking at all.

I doubt there is a point to it, I think you're wrong and you think you're right and that's life. I can try and persuade you to another view of things and it may work but it may not.

My own theory doesn't disregard the fact that I think things. It's essential to it. :blink:

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Body [email protected] 27 2006, 05:50 PM
Well, I'm simply no good in philosophy, but I do believe in objective truth.

If someone says the earth is flat, I simply believe that that person is wrong, and I am right.
These exercises are largely intellectual, and shouldn't majorly affect things such as crossing the road, or talk about the world. Whether or not the earth is round or flat makes little difference to most of us. It may be round when we are explaining problems, but when we walk on it, and stick to it it may be taken as flat.

Belief is all well and good, but merely hiding behind a right to an oppinion, or refusing to engage in the arguments against your position can be shown to be worse than these things. For you it might be a round earth that you "believe in" and accept the truth of, for others it is "god" or perhaps "racial superiority." A claim is only as good as the arguments supporting it.

Fistful of Steel: It appears you are coming close to idealism, or perhaps phenomenalism, I am not quite sure which one yet. Your view does leave the problem of continuation. If your reality only exists as you perceive it, what happens to something that you were perceiving, but then stop perceiving, does it cease to exist, or does it continue independant of your perception? If so then this independant continuation could be seen as objective reality, whilst your perception is merely private.

You may not be able to escape your own perception, but does this really mean that there only exists reality within it?

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 04:10 PM

In reality? Whose reality is it round in? Yours.

I object to the assertion that I have my own personal "reality". I have my own personal perceptions of things, but there is also an objective reality outside my head that is confirmed by many different people with different perceptions (As well as scientific instruments with no mind of their own, which give consistent results) on non-prejudicial subjects such as the roundess of the earth and wetness of water.


If someone lived refused to believe that the Earth was round, to them simply the Earth would be flat. And in their mind, the determining factor in what they see and choose to believe, the Earth is flat.

But only in their mind. And reality demonstrates otherwise. If they travelled round the world in a straight line relative to Earth's gravity, they would not fall off - they would end up back where they started. Reality is something which, if you stop believing in it, does not go away.


You can say the Earth is flat because I say so, look at this and this and this but that wouldn't change the other persons opinion and in their view of existence it'd be flat, which is why everyone experiences things subjectively.

Then they would simply be wrong. The Earth is round. This can be confirmed with different measurements made by different people at different points of the earth at different times of the day. The earth beyond any reasonable doubt, is round.


The only thing that makes it an "objective truth" is when enough people get together and have a consensus reality.

Only true if reality confirms that consensus.


I remember a professor saying every proof that the Earth was round, was possible to counter (In a college, it didn't happen to me firsthand), and none of the students in the college could come up with an argument.

How strange that you do not list them.


The point is anyway that the individual defines what they see, choose to accept, and believe, and in doing so create their own version of reality.

No, they choose their perception of reality. Reality itself remains unchanged by the couple of pounds of soggy porridgy stuff we call our brain.


You misunderstand me on the second point. I'm saying if reality can't be experienced then there is no reality. You're right that we experience it every waking hour, if we didn't experience it it wouldn't be real.

Are you saying reality would not exist if we were not around to experience it? Such anthropocentric hubris!


To the third point, we agree entirely. (Minus the fact that believing something exists
means there's a possibility it exists, whether true or not.)


And yes, anything else is solipsism. And solipsism is entirely impossible to disprove.
Easily questioned yes, and changing perception alters the existence itself on a personal basis, and all we can understand anything from is a personal basis.

I don't know atoms or the surface of Betelgeuse on a personal basis.


Because something is unfalsifiable doesn't mean it's untrue. Reality is real. This statement is unfalsifiable, therefore it's invalid?

Invalid != Untrue. Attempting to prove reality is real is invalid because A) it's self-evident and B) one can come with endless rationalisations as to why one can't prove the reality of reality; mass hallucination, we're all running on the same simulation, we're all being dreamt in the mind of the same god, etc etc Ad Nauseum.
You can object to the assertion but of course you're going to think you're right. I think most people think they're right when they think something. You have your own personal perception of things, that's completely right. Everyone has their own view of things. If someone lived their entire life isolated without seeing an ocea, they could feign disbelief at someone mentioning a great mass of water as the ocean. To the person who never saw an ocean, it may as well have not existed. You and I can say, surely oceans exist, and in our view they obviously do, but to the poor isolated fellow we may be insane. That objectivity itself has so many different definitions depending on the philosopher goes to show the paradoxal nature of it.

Yes, only in their mind. The individual can only judge things based on their own mind. Reality is something that can be easily sent away if you stop believing hard enough. Take a schizophrenic. They hallucinate and see things normal people would completely doubt, but in their own view of things the hallucinations are completely real to them. That they can see thing so differently even without stimuli means that the brain is the key factor in deciding what seems to happen in life. Without the brain to recognize anything what is there? And there's a brain per person.

There's no such thing as right or wrong, only opinions. The person who thinks the world is flat could confirm that to himself by virtue of the fact that everything looks flat to them. Your measurements could mean nothing to them, and if they choose to accept things or not then it's only through their belief that makes something real.

And no, true reality doesn't have to confirm anything. Perceptions shift with time and so to does the nature of reality.

Like I said, "it didn't happen to me first hand", the teacher I was listening to talked about how that happened.

They choose their perception of reality yes. They pick what they accept and believe and create their own version of things.

I'm saying if there was no one or nothing to experience anything, how could it be known that there was anything?

You don't know atoms or the surface of Betelgeuse on a personal basis? I don't mean being friendly with it as in personal, but rather that you personally are recognize them.

I realize invalid equals = untrue. It's not self-evident that reality is real for all the reasons you listed in B. If it's possible that they are around, then it's not possible to claim reality is real. You can't just claim reality is real because it is, you can't experimentally falsify that, and if you do then it proves that it isn't real.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 06:12 PM
Fistful of Steel: It appears you are coming close to idealism, or perhaps phenomenalism, I am not quite sure which one yet. Your view does leave the problem of continuation. If your reality only exists as you perceive it, what happens to something that you were perceiving, but then stop perceiving, does it cease to exist, or does it continue independant of your perception? If so then this independant continuation could be seen as objective reality, whilst your perception is merely private.

You may not be able to escape your own perception, but does this really mean that there only exists reality within it?
I think if you perceived something and it is no longer in your perception, then the only way to validate its existence is through memory (which in itself is highly unreliable in a lot of instances). If you experience something, but then you aren't, and you never remember that it happened, it never did happen. If an object is perceived it's open to interpretation, different interpretations can change the value of the object entirely.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Fistful of [email protected] 27 2006, 06:26 PM
I think if you perceived something and it is no longer in your perception, then the only way to validate its existence is through memory (which in itself is highly unreliable in a lot of instances).


What about when you perceive it again? Say for example you walk into a room, observe a table and then walk out. If you walk into a room again and the table is still there, does it make more sense to suggest that the table was in the room independant of your perception, or that it existed, then didn't then it did again?

Berkley's answer to this problem was invoking "god" so as to allow a permanent possibility of perception. Your view as it stands does seem a little weak; that is that it has many problems associated with it (more than other views) yet does not answer many of the problems that other views have.


If you experience something, but then you aren't, and you never remember that it happened, it never did happen.
I think I get the jist, but could you rephrase this before I answer please? It did seem a little garbled.


If an object is perceived it's open to interpretation, different interpretations can change the value of the object entirely.
Yes, but they can't change the object. Mr X may view a bible and see it as a mystical and sacred text, Mr Y may see the same bible as a tatty book. The same thing is viewed differently. The perception does not change that which the actual object is though, unless you are saying that through perception one actually alters the values/properties of an object?

If this is the case, then I suppose it is falsified by the fact it is observable that this doesn't happen. If I view a wand as magic, it doesn't become magic (despite all the willing I can come up with). It remains a stick, although my personal interpretation of it may differ.

Unless you follow your view through thoroughly, and say that the observation that could falsify or justify your view is subject to the same problem, in which case you are left in a solipsistic position. There are denials of objective truth that can still deliver you from this, and give you a basis for revolutionary thought, but yours (as I understand it) can't do this.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution+Apr 27 2006, 06:45 PM--> (Hegemonicretribution @ Apr 27 2006, 06:45 PM)
Fistful of [email protected] 27 2006, 06:26 PM
I think if you perceived something and it is no longer in your perception, then the only way to validate its existence is through memory (which in itself is highly unreliable in a lot of instances).


What about when you perceive it again? Say for example you walk into a room, observe a table and then walk out. If you walk into a room again and the table is still there, does it make more sense to suggest that the table was in the room independant of your perception, or that it existed, then didn't then it did again?

Berkley's answer to this problem was invoking "god" so as to allow a permanent possibility of perception. Your view as it stands does seem a little weak; that is that it has many problems associated with it (more than other views) yet does not answer many of the problems that other views have.


If you experience something, but then you aren't, and you never remember that it happened, it never did happen.
I think I get the jist, but could you rephrase this before I answer please? It did seem a little garbled.


If an object is perceived it's open to interpretation, different interpretations can change the value of the object entirely.
Yes, but they can't change the object. Mr X may view a bible and see it as a mystical and sacred text, Mr Y may see the same bible as a tatty book. The same thing is viewed differently. The perception does not change that which the actual object is though, unless you are saying that through perception one actually alters the values/properties of an object?

If this is the case, then I suppose it is falsified by the fact it is observable that this doesn't happen. If I view a wand as magic, it doesn't become magic (despite all the willing I can come up with). It remains a stick, although my personal interpretation of it may differ.

Unless you follow your view through thoroughly, and say that the observation that could falsify or justify your view is subject to the same problem, in which case you are left in a solipsistic position. There are denials of objective truth that can still deliver you from this, and give you a basis for revolutionary thought, but yours (as I understand it) can't do this. [/b]
The table may have existed, however I can't know this. I can only know what is exactly possible to myself. If I didn't perceive it's being at the moment, then for me at that moment it did not exactly "exist" for me personally. The only way I'd be able to know if it did was through memory of it, and I may have been wrong, or through experiencing it at the moment.

What I meant by that sentence was if you don't remember something happening to you at all, if it falls out of your perception, it may as well never have happened in the first place.

It doesn't change that the book is a book, but to Mr. X it may be the most important thing in the world, capable of delivering him to salvation etc. etc. He infers on it properties that Mr. Y wouldn't at all. A holy and sacred text as opposed to a raggedy book are two very different things, even if they seemingly originate from the same object, which leads to my view that the interpretation of something changes its value.

I justify my revolutionary thought as a desperate attempt to try and give meaning to an otherwise meaningless existence.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I understand your position, I just don't see the resaons for holding it. I admit that I wouldn't know about the table unless I was perceiving it, but I would see assuming its existance whilst it isn't being perceived as more plausible than assuming its non-existance, unless you claim it can both exist and not exist at the same time. (Schroedinger's cat ;))

Of course, if you really want to get in the spirit of things you can just admit that you don't know, technically, but you have good reason to believe it still exists. In the same way you have good reason to believe you are awake, and are not hallucinating at any given moment, although cannot be beyond doubt.

If we moderate "truth" and "knowledge" so that we mean simply that something is our best justified belief then this makes more sense. However this is changing what is implied by the words, and perhaps such absolute terms are irrellevant as either non-existant, or unattainable?

Does the table have an existance outside of your personal perception, even if you can't know this?

Memory and past are different issues. The past doesn't technically "exist" in the same way as the present does, in fact it refers to that which existed but no longer does.

Do you recognise your created meaning as subjective and meaningless in the broader sense?

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 08:02 PM
I understand your position, I just don't see the resaons for holding it. I admit that I wouldn't know about the table unless I was perceiving it, but I would see assuming its existance whilst it isn't being perceived as more plausible than assuming its non-existance, unless you claim it can both exist and not exist at the same time. (Schroedinger's cat ;))

Of course, if you really want to get in the spirit of things you can just admit that you don't know, technically, but you have good reason to believe it still exists. In the same way you have good reason to believe you are awake, and are not hallucinating at any given moment, although cannot be beyond doubt.

If we moderate "truth" and "knowledge" so that we mean simply that something is our best justified belief then this makes more sense. However this is changing what is implied by the words, and perhaps such absolute terms are irrellevant as either non-existant, or unattainable?

Does the table have an existance outside of your personal perception, even if you can't know this?

Memory and past are different issues. The past doesn't technically "exist" in the same way as the present does, in fact it refers to that which existed but no longer does.

Do you recognise your created meaning as subjective and meaningless in the broader sense?
I don't try and purposefully say "Oh, it probaby doesn't exist, everything is just dead when I'm not around to perceive it" but rather that my perception of an object gives that object context to exist under. I don't claim that it both exists and doesn't exist without someone to perceive it, but rather that only through being able to be perceived does it exist.

And I don't have any reason to believe it still exists other than that it'll be there when I get back, other than that it usually is there when I get back. This doesn't necessarily mean that thing in question always has to be "around" it's only really "around" when it's perceivable.

I really do think that truth and knowledge are our personally best justified beliefs.

The table may as well not have an object outside of perception, after all it's just an object. If every sentient mind and possible sentient mind, it wouldn't mean that there'd just be an empty world left, it'd mean that no brains would be left to perceive anything and then that it's impossible to know whether anything is existing or not.

And I agree with you that the past doesn't technically "exist" in any real sense at all. I don't believe memory and past are any different however, the past is only what we remember since it's impossible to experience right now.

I recognize that my attempt to give my life meaning is very subjective, and I think that even then I'm only illogically convincing myself, as far as I can logically go nihilism is the right position to take but that's a story for another day.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fist:

"If there are parts of 'reality' that I have not perceived, then they are not part of my reality. And I can only judge things from my own view of things."

But, earlier you said that:


Reality is what is perceived.

But, now you talk about parts of reality. Sounds like you are trying to tell us a few truths (and, shock, horror: objective truths) about reality, that it has parts for example.

So, you are an objectivist, then?

Oops, more objective truth:


An objective opinion is an oxymoron.

You should have said, I think:

'An objective opinion is in my subjective view an oxymoron.'

But, to establish your subjective view, you had to tell us an objective truth.

Tut, tut....

And there is more:


There's no such thing as an objective opinion, only personal views of things.

But, this looks pretty assertoric to me; if it were true, why bother telling us? You might as well have said:

"There's no such thing as my objective opinion, only my personal views of things."

Now, that might be true of you (for example if you were recklessly careless about what you believed), but no, you try to inform us about everyone else's views, which, admittedly, you certainly cannot have percieved -- so you cannot know what they are (i.e., if your theory were true -- oops, there's that word again...).

"If something is a subjective understanding, that's no reason to ignore it as it may effect your own subjective view of things..."

But if so, it would not have such an effect because of a perception.

Unless you know a few objective facts about perception you would like to share with us to support your subjective view of them.....?

Er, what does this mean?


And I didn't know that you specifically do not accept what you think to be true to be, if you don't accept what you think is true to be true then perhaps I'm right.

Even so, what does it mean for you to be right?

How could you tell the difference between thinking something is so (such as that you were a billionaire) and actually being a billionaire?

On your theory, the two would seem to be the same.

So, how do you tell the difference between any true and false beliefs you might have -- or do you never make mistakes (since you can always think your way into making them really non-mistakes)?


And no, your opinion isn't objective.

But how can you know this?

Of course, the answer is you cannot know this for real, since you have not 'perceived' me.

Unless, that is, you are now abandoning that 'theory' that reality is what you perceive.


There's no logic to that thinking at all.

Again, you mean:

'I (who think I am) Fist... think that there's what I think is no logic to what I think is that thinking at all, but I think I cannot prove it to what I think is anyone else since I think there is no such thing as what I think is objective truth.'

That is the mess your non-thinking theory descends into.

Do you think different, or do you merely think you think different (and could you tell these apart)?

Now, when I said we should ignore the superficial things you say (no offence, but parading what you think is so in challenge to what is so is superficial), I of course meant that we should do so only in so far as you were trying to tell us something true, trying to upgrade our own knowledge, not that we should do so out of impoliteness.

Now that it is apparent that nothing you say is objectively true, you lose any possibility of proving anything you say; and in that sense we can still go on ignoring you.


I think you're wrong and you think you're right and that's life

Again what you mean is:

'I think you're wrong and I think you think you're right and I think that's life.'

But, it might not be life, and I might not think this, and neither might you.

Prove me wrong.

Oh you can't since all you have to do is think I am wrong.

In which case, we can ignore you.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I think perhaps it is merely what either of us implied by "existance" that varried earlier. I still think it makes sense to talk about that which has existed, or that which exists (and we aren't currently perceiving), but I also see that you see perception as an integral part of what it is before you consider something as "existsing."

The fact that you make your words work in this way does mean that our positions will differ, and are irreconcilable with each other, but that doesn't particuarly matter. When it comes down to it, this is really only an intellectual position, and only has effect insofar as it can affect your other arguments as a whole. It is for this reason that I allow for existance independant to perception.

I can use the "tree falling in the woods" question to illustrate partially why I don't see your position as favourable personally. The tree will not make a sound, because this is dependant on perception, however it will still fulfill the conditions necessary for sound to be perceived should an ear appear to perceive it. Perceptions are dependant on an organism, and the components necessary for perception. However that which causes the perception carry on regardless. So it makes little sense to talk of the sound that the tree makes, but the disturbance in reality it makes to allow for such an occurance will not depend upon being perceived.

I guess your answer would be more along the lines of "how do we know whether r not the tree actually fell, and if it 'fell' and is not currently falling then such an occurance didn't happen in current reality, and is therefore not of relevance." A great position for pub talks I suppose :P :D

Even if you take "knowledge" as our best justified beliefs then there is a better justified belief that these things exist independant to perception, than there is that the things do not exist. Therefore do you not "know" this?

If you don't because there is no basis for this either, then you are pretty much a solipsist, you call yourself a nihilist..either way..actually that is for another day ;) Again, these are intellectual games, and unless you base your life on these rather than your perception, experience, and outside influences then it is of little consequence.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27 2006, 10:06 PM
Fist:

"If there are parts of 'reality' that I have not perceived, then they are not part of my reality. And I can only judge things from my own view of things."

But, earlier you said that:


Reality is what is perceived.

But, now you talk about parts of reality. Sounds like you are trying to tell us a few truths (and, shock, horror: objective truths) about reality, that it has parts for example.

So, you are an objectivist, then?

Oops, more objective truth:


An objective opinion is an oxymoron.

You should have said, I think:

'An objective opinion is in my subjective view an oxymoron.'

But, to establish your subjective view, you had to tell us an objective truth.

Tut, tut....

And there is more:


There's no such thing as an objective opinion, only personal views of things.

But, this looks pretty assertoric to me; if it were true, why bother telling us? You might as well have said:

"There's no such thing as my objective opinion, only my personal views of things."

Now, that might be true of you (for example if you were recklessly careless about what you believed), but no, you try to inform us about everyone else's views, which, admittedly, you certainly cannot have percieved -- so you cannot know what they are (i.e., if your theory were true -- oops, there's that word again...).

"If something is a subjective understanding, that's no reason to ignore it as it may effect your own subjective view of things..."

But if so, it would not have such an effect because of a perception.

Unless you know a few objective facts about perception you would like to share with us to support your subjective view of them.....?

Er, what does this mean?


And I didn't know that you specifically do not accept what you think to be true to be, if you don't accept what you think is true to be true then perhaps I'm right.

Even so, what does it mean for you to be right?

How could you tell the difference between thinking something is so (such as that you were a billionaire) and actually being a billionaire?

On your theory, the two would seem to be the same.

So, how do you tell the difference between any true and false beliefs you might have -- or do you never make mistakes (since you can always think your way into making them really non-mistakes)?


And no, your opinion isn't objective.

But how can you know this?

Of course, the answer is you cannot know this for real, since you have not 'perceived' me.

Unless, that is, you are now abandoning that 'theory' that reality is what you perceive.


There's no logic to that thinking at all.

Again, you mean:

'I (who think I am) Fist... think that there's what I think is no logic to what I think is that thinking at all, but I think I cannot prove it to what I think is anyone else since I think there is no such thing as what I think is objective truth.'

That is the mess your non-thinking theory descends into.

Do you think different, or do you merely think you think different (and could you tell these apart)?

Now, when I said we should ignore the superficial things you say (no offence, but parading what you think is so in challenge to what is so is superficial), I of course meant that we should do so only in so far as you were trying to tell us something true, trying to upgrade our own knowledge, not that we should do so out of impoliteness.

Now that it is apparent that nothing you say is objectively true, you lose any possibility of proving anything you say; and in that sense we can still go on ignoring you.


I think you're wrong and you think you're right and that's life

Again what you mean is:

'I think you're wrong and I think you think you're right and I think that's life.'

But, it might not be life, and I might not think this, and neither might you.

Prove me wrong.

Oh you can't since all you have to do is think I am wrong.

In which case, we can ignore you.
I'm not saying that there's anything that isn't subjective, no. I realize that what other people perceive may be different than what I perceive, and what constitutes their reality is different from what constitutes my reality. I don't feel the need to operate on the base of adding "in my subjective view" or "in my opinion" to every thing I say, as I figure people will realize it's just what I think and that I'm not claiming to be know the truth, or that it's even possible for me to know any truth. When I say "the sky is blue", I mean I see the sky as blue. I don't mean the sky is definitively blue, as I realize people can be colour blind and the sky may not be blue for them.

If that were true, why bother telling you? Because people seem intent on thinking there's some set essence to life, rather than the subjective experience defining it. Everyone has their own personal view of things, not just me. I've not tried informing you about everyone elses views, I've never claimed to know everyone elses views. At best I'm asserting that everyone else have views. It doesn't matter that I don't know what everyone elses views are, I don't claim to. Oops, there's that word again? I believe in a truth as in a personal truth, not an objective truth.

Just because people have perceptions doesn't mean that their perception can't be altered. And know I don't know any objective facts to support this, as there are no objective facts, only my own opinion.

For me to be right? What's right is only what I accept at the moment. Nothing else. How can I tell the difference between any true and false beliefs I might have? I think about them... ? Any "mistake" is only viewing one opinion previously held as erroneous.

I can't know if what I say is correct, it's my subjective understanding of the situation that prompts me to tell you your opinion is not objective. I don't understand what you mean by that I've "perceived" you, as you exist within my mind in some way otherwise I would not be having this discussion.

I consider myself to be myself, yes. "think that there's what I think is no logic to what I think is that thinking at all" is completely incomprehensible. "but I think I cannot prove it to what I think is anyone else since I think there is no such think is objective truth" is also completely incomprehensible. And don't try and pawn that off on to me, I seem to have been completely coherent in what I've been writing whether it is right or wrong. And yes, nothing I say is objectively true. Nothing is objectively true. There's no way to "prove" anything, I tell you what I think and provide you with my justification for that. That I consider what I say to be a matter of opinion doesn't render my argument meaningless, every argument is based on opinions.

And yes, what I personally mean is "I think you're wrong and I think you think you're right and I think that's life." However adding "I think" or "this is my opinion" or "in my view" to every sentence is redundant. I think that I can say something and people will realize I believe it personally, rather than I'm touting it as the one and only truth.

Again: The only proof anyone can offer is how they look at things, the things they've decided upon for themself, and their own relation to things to argue. I can do that just fine and still realize I'm speaking from a subjective standpoint. That doesn't mean you necessarily have to ignore me, by mere virtue of the fact that I have opinions and realize I have opinions.

[kurt]

I believe in a truth as in a personal truth, not an objective truth.
There's no such thing as a "personal truth". Truth is mind-indepedent; it does not matter whether your or I know it, or can even observe it.


Just because people have perceptions doesn't mean that their perception can't be altered. And know I don't know any objective facts to support this, as there are no objective facts, only my own opinion.
The problem you're having is you are mistakening our lack of knowledge on certain subjects to be a sort of "defence" for your subjectivist views. There is a massive difference between simply being ignorant of objective fact and there being a total lack of objective fact!

If there are no objective facts, then how exactly is it that you can even live? If there were no objective facts, I could hold the opinion that we did not need oxygen in order to live, and it would be just as "true" as your silly opinion that oxygen promotes human life! Try holding that opinion(or your breath) and see what happens when your mere opinion has no basis in objective reality.




For me to be right? What's right is only what I accept at the moment. Nothing else. How can I tell the difference between any true and false beliefs I might have? I think about them... ?
No, what you believe at the moment can be wrong, and seems to be so in this case. "Truth" conforms to objective fact, and is mind-independent. Having your "opinions" doesn't save you burning alive if you were to jump into a fire.

The way we tell truth from falsity is by doing tests against objective reality. If our "opinions" don't match up with material reality, we realize we were wrong. Once again, ignorance of fact does not negate the fact that there are facts.



I can't know if what I say is correct, it's my subjective understanding of the situation that prompts me to tell you your opinion is not objective. I don't understand what you mean by that I've "perceived" you, as you exist within my mind in some way otherwise I would not be having this discussion.
In a sense, you are correct. There is no such thing as "objective opinion", it's an oxymoron! However, some opinions are better than others due to their closer correspondence with objective fact. All opinions are not equal.


Nothing is objectively true. There's no way to "prove" anything, I tell you what I think and provide you with my justification for that.
Yes, many things are objectively true. Just because we are not aware of every single objective truth does not mean that there are none. Some things we are more certain of than others, but this does not make truth "subjective".


That I consider what I say to be a matter of opinion doesn't render my argument meaningless, every argument is based on opinions.
Yes, every argument is put forth on the basis of opinion, but better arguments, the ones we deem to be "true"(to a probabilty) are the ones that are observed to more closely reflect objective reality.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution+Apr 27 2006, 04:00 PM--> (Hegemonicretribution @ Apr 27 2006, 04:00 PM)
Rosa [email protected] 27 2006, 09:46 AM
Again, if this is an objective opinion, I should take note of it. But then, in that case, your theory nose dives (for there is at least one objective opinion), and I shouldn't pay any attention to it.

If it is subjective, I should ignore it, too.

Either way, I should ignore it.


This is the standard criticism used against denials of truth, but it misses the point, if someone is denying truth, it is not right to assess such a claim as if truth exists, to do so is to miss the point. If I deny god, I would not want my oppinion dismissed because it wasn't "godly" and therefore meant nothing...at the same time it would not be fair to claim that such a view only gains credence when it becomes "godly" i.e. self destructs.

The view you are propsing is (to borrow from Kuhn) "incomensurable." [/b]
Rosa I thought I would pose this again...

Kurt; what you are saying would be more important if such a view was central to how someone actually lived their life. The fact that we are alive and discussing this means that it is nearly certain that this position is merely intellectual, and is not a deciding factor in our lives over and above experience (both personal and public) and observation. All that is being claimed is that these are best justified beliefs and not knowledge, this is still enough to prevent someone from stopping breathing or jumping into the fire.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fist it seems to me you are getting more confused by the hour:

If I think there is an 'objective reality', and you do not, why bother telling me, since, according to you whatever I think is 'right' for me, is right?


Because people seem intent on thinking there's some set essence to life, rather than the subjective experience defining it.

But, if so, then according to you I must be right if I assent to this doctrine (that there is a set 'essence to life'), which means that your attempt to persuade otherwise is misguided -- even on your own view. Once again you hold that whatever I think is right, is right, so for me there is such an 'essence' (if I think there is), and so there is such a thing for me, and even you agree that I am right to think it. So why try to change my mind if you also think I am right to think this?

You would only do so if you genuinely did not think it was right for me to think this.

So do you?

If you do, you contradict yourself.

You claim also that there is no right or wrong, but then you tell us that whatever you think is right, is right.

So there is a right after all.

Or if there is no right or wrong, then whatever you think does not matter, since you would then be thinking of nothing at all.

And, what are you professing to deny? What do you mean by 'objective reality' so that we all know what you are ruling out?

I reckon you cannot say, which means your denial is empty.

Prove me wrong.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hegemonic: sorry I missed this; I should have paid more attention:


This is the standard criticism used against denials of truth, but it misses the point, if someone is denying truth, it is not right to assess such a claim as if truth exists, to do so is to miss the point. If I deny god, I would not want my oppinion dismissed because it wasn't "godly" and therefore meant nothing...at the same time it would not be fair to claim that such a view only gains credence when it becomes "godly" i.e. self destructs.

Well, if you look carefully, you will note that I do not use the offending word 'truth':


Again, if this is an objective opinion, I should take note of it. But then, in that case, your theory nose dives (for there is at least one objective opinion), and I shouldn't pay any attention to it.

If it is subjective, I should ignore it, too.

Either way, I should ignore it.

I still think this dilemma works (for anyone who thinks they know what the word 'objective' means -- and I doubt anyone does).

However, as far as the 'standard objection' you refer to is concerned, I did not use it, since, if anyone were to reject the existence of god (your example, if I understood it) that would not affect their capacity to use language, but if anyone were to reject our use of the word 'true' there is not much you could do for that person, apart from recommend treatment.

This is because, in order to comprehend a correct definition of 'true' you would already have to comprehend the word 'true'; but if you could not do that, it would not be possible to help you.

I did not use the standard objection since no communication would be possible if someone rejected our use of 'true'.

Indeed, that is what is happening with Fist; he is attempting to revise the use of this word (and others) to conform to his own idiosyncratic and inconsistent 'theory'; as such all his words are beginning to fall apart.

Communication with him is getting more difficult, since not only is there little basis for agreement, even disagreement is becoming impossible to express.

It is as if he were speaking in pidgin-English.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 04:39 AM

I believe in a truth as in a personal truth, not an objective truth.
There's no such thing as a "personal truth". Truth is mind-indepedent; it does not matter whether your or I know it, or can even observe it.


Just because people have perceptions doesn't mean that their perception can't be altered. And know I don't know any objective facts to support this, as there are no objective facts, only my own opinion.
The problem you're having is you are mistakening our lack of knowledge on certain subjects to be a sort of "defence" for your subjectivist views. There is a massive difference between simply being ignorant of objective fact and there being a total lack of objective fact!

If there are no objective facts, then how exactly is it that you can even live? If there were no objective facts, I could hold the opinion that we did not need oxygen in order to live, and it would be just as "true" as your silly opinion that oxygen promotes human life! Try holding that opinion(or your breath) and see what happens when your mere opinion has no basis in objective reality.




For me to be right? What's right is only what I accept at the moment. Nothing else. How can I tell the difference between any true and false beliefs I might have? I think about them... ?No, what you believe at the moment can be wrong, and seems to be so in this case. "Truth" conforms to objective fact, and is mind-independent. Having your "opinions" doesn't save you burning alive if you were to jump into a fire.

The way we tell truth from falsity is by doing tests against objective reality. If our "opinions" don't match up with material reality, we realize we were wrong. Once again, ignorance of fact does not negate the fact that there are facts.



I can't know if what I say is correct, it's my subjective understanding of the situation that prompts me to tell you your opinion is not objective. I don't understand what you mean by that I've "perceived" you, as you exist within my mind in some way otherwise I would not be having this discussion.
In a sense, you are correct. There is no such thing as "objective opinion", it's an oxymoron! However, some opinions are better than others due to their closer correspondence with objective fact. All opinions are not equal.


Nothing is objectively true. There's no way to "prove" anything, I tell you what I think and provide you with my justification for that.
Yes, many things are objectively true. Just because we are not aware of every single objective truth does not mean that there are none. Some things we are more certain of than others, but this does not make truth "subjective".


That I consider what I say to be a matter of opinion doesn't render my argument meaningless, every argument is based on opinions.
Yes, every argument is put forth on the basis of opinion, but better arguments, the ones we deem to be "true"(to a probabilty) are the ones that are observed to more closely reflect objective reality.
Again, there's only personal truth. At best we have seemingly objective facts and statistics and that if by their very natue comprehended by a human mind the human mind stamps its own imprint on deciding upon what the reality of that truth really is.

I'm not saying anything about too much or too little knowledge of any particular subject, what a person knows is what a person knows. If to me I completely do not know an object fact, then to me it doesn't exist. And I can only view things from my own perspective.

How is it you can even live? Lock yourself inside a room without any oxygen that's air-tight and see what happens, as I'm guessing you've never gone without oxygen for an extended period of time before. If you've never tried it yourself, you can't be sure if it's "true" other than by seeing results.

What you believe at the moment is only wrong to someone else. What you believe at the moment is always going to be right to yourself, or you wouldn't believe it.

All opinions are equal in that everyone thinks what they think is correct, or they wouldn't think it. Like "beauty is the eye of the beholder", you could formulate some complex test to measure beauty and say anyone whose views don't conform to the test are wrong, but they'd still be entitled to their opinion or view of things, and think they themselves are right.

What is truth then? Truth isn't necessarily "what appears correct in relation with reality", that's only one of many philosophical views on truth (more subjectivity even when it comes to the nature of truth). And even if what appears correct in relation with reality, who's to say there's only one reality? That's hardly provable at all.

Again, what's true? There's a difference between how you and understand truth, that's the very essence of the subjective nature of things.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28 2006, 09:39 AM
Fist it seems to me you are getting more confused by the hour:

If I think there is an 'objective reality', and you do not, why bother telling me, since, according to you whatever I think is 'right' for me, is right?


Because people seem intent on thinking there's some set essence to life, rather than the subjective experience defining it.

But, if so, then according to you I must be right if I assent to this doctrine (that there is a set 'essence to life'), which means that your attempt to persuade otherwise is misguided -- even on your own view. Once again you hold that whatever I think is right, is right, so for me there is such an 'essence' (if I think there is), and so there is such a thing for me, and even you agree that I am right to think it. So why try to change my mind if you also think I am right to think this?

You would only do so if you genuinely did not think it was right for me to think this.

So do you?

If you do, you contradict yourself.

You claim also that there is no right or wrong, but then you tell us that whatever you think is right, is right.

So there is a right after all.

Or if there is no right or wrong, then whatever you think does not matter, since you would then be thinking of nothing at all.

And, what are you professing to deny? What do you mean by 'objective reality' so that we all know what you are ruling out?

I reckon you cannot say, which means your denial is empty.

Prove me wrong.
You think there is an objective reality, I do not. I would try and tell you what I think is right. You're completely entitled to how you look at things, that I differ doesn't make you "wrong" as you're very right to yourself, "wrong" only enters into the picture when someone presents a conflicting view and I would try and persuade you to what my view of "right" is.

I would think personally you were right if you assented to this doctrine, but you're just as right as I am as there's no set interpetation to anything. I think you're right to think what you want, I don't think you're right in thinking that particularly thing so I try and argue with you, because naturally I feel pleasure in knowing that what I think is right, and find an affirmation if others hold the same view, this still doesn't make what I think necessarily right or worth thinking any more than what you do.

Obviously I do not think you're genuinely right to think that, I think you're right to think what you want but I don't think that what you're thinking is right. The difference is subtle but it's the difference between I think you're right in thinking that because there is no one universally true view, as opposed to I think that thought is correct. I've not contradicted myself as far as I can see.

There is no universal right or wrong, the only right and wrong is what an individual considers to be correct, and what an individual considers to be false.

By denying "objective reality" I'm denying that things have one set substance or meaning, that the substance or meaning of something is what makes it what it is and varies from person to person. I'm saying that "reality" is what you make of it.

[kurt]

Originally posted by Fistful of [email protected] 28 2006, 09:31 AM





Again, there's only personal truth. At best we have seemingly objective facts and statistics and that if by their very natue comprehended by a human mind the human mind stamps its own imprint on deciding upon what the reality of that truth really is.
Keep asserting all you like, but it won't make your useless word play any more "true".

Furthermore, as far as human knowledge is concerned, we do not have knowledge of what is objectively true, but that does not mean it does not exist. All we have is confirmed regularities, which we accept as true until an observation seems to disprove that fact which we once thought to be true. But again, this does not make truth subjective in any way. All it demonstrates is that our observational skills for uncovering objective truth are inadequate.


I'm not saying anything about too much or too little knowledge of any particular subject, what a person knows is what a person knows.

Once again, truth is mind-indepedent, your wordplay won't change that. Furthermore, what a person "knows"(thinks) does not make them actually know things. People have knowledge based on their observation of the objective world around them, and this knowledge can be either wrong or right, depending on the accuracy of observational tools used.


If to me I completely do not know an object fact, then to me it doesn't exist. And I can only view things from my own perspective.
Don't be so egotistical. Your ignorance on many matters does not mean there are no objective truths, it just means that you're ignorant!


How is it you can even live? Lock yourself inside a room without any oxygen that's air-tight and see what happens, as I'm guessing you've never gone without oxygen for an extended period of time before. If you've never tried it yourself, you can't be sure if it's "true" other than by seeing results.
Can't you see how absurd this proposition is? You're denying second-hand knowledge, in all forms by making this ridiculous claim. How is it you do anything at all?

I can speak with 100% confidence that if you suffocate yourself, you will die. Can you say with 100% confidence that you won't? If you are consistant, you'll be able to try my little experiment, and live. After all, truth is only in your mind, right?


All opinions are equal in that everyone thinks what they think is correct, or they wouldn't think it. Like "beauty is the eye of the beholder", you could formulate some complex test to measure beauty and say anyone whose views don't conform to the test are wrong, but they'd still be entitled to their opinion or view of things, and think they themselves are right.

There are objective truths, and there are subjective opinions. If we were to setup objectively measurable criteria for beauty, then beauty would become objective. If we were to do so, and someone were to call someone or something beautiful who did not match the criteria for beauty, then yes, they would be wrong in the strict sense of the word.

However, this isn't to say a person cannot find someone who was not beautiful to be attractive, as attraction is indeed a subjective opinion.


What is truth then? Truth isn't necessarily "what appears correct in relation with reality", that's only one of many philosophical views on truth (more subjectivity even when it comes to the nature of truth). And even if what appears correct in relation with reality, who's to say there's only one reality? That's hardly provable at all.

I didn't say that "what appears correct in relation with reality" was true in the strictest sense of the word. What we "know" is only what appears to be correct, based on our observations. Truth is mind-independent, we need not know it for it there.

Furthermore, it would not matter if there were more than one reality, because all of us only occupy one reality, and there are objective truths to the reality in which we live.



Again, what's true? There's a difference between how you and understand truth, that's the very essence of the subjective nature of things.
Yes, there can be differences on how people interpret truth. However, there are incorrect interpretations, and there are correct ones. If you deny this, then I truely wonder how you get anything achieved at all, since you don't seem to take a liking to second-hand knowledge.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by kurt+Apr 28 2006, 09:03 PM--> (kurt @ Apr 28 2006, 09:03 PM)
Fistful of [email protected] 28 2006, 09:31 AM





Again, there's only personal truth. At best we have seemingly objective facts and statistics and that if by their very natue comprehended by a human mind the human mind stamps its own imprint on deciding upon what the reality of that truth really is.
Keep asserting all you like, but it won't make your useless word play any more "true".

Furthermore, as far as human knowledge is concerned, we do not have knowledge of what is objectively true, but that does not mean it does not exist. All we have is confirmed regularities, which we accept as true until an observation seems to disprove that fact which we once thought to be true. But again, this does not make truth subjective in any way. All it demonstrates is that our observational skills for uncovering objective truth are inadequate.


I'm not saying anything about too much or too little knowledge of any particular subject, what a person knows is what a person knows.

Once again, truth is mind-indepedent, your wordplay won't change that. Furthermore, what a person "knows"(thinks) does not make them actually know things. People have knowledge based on their observation of the objective world around them, and this knowledge can be either wrong or right, depending on the accuracy of observational tools used.


If to me I completely do not know an object fact, then to me it doesn't exist. And I can only view things from my own perspective.
Don't be so egotistical. Your ignorance on many matters does not mean there are no objective truths, it just means that you're ignorant!


How is it you can even live? Lock yourself inside a room without any oxygen that's air-tight and see what happens, as I'm guessing you've never gone without oxygen for an extended period of time before. If you've never tried it yourself, you can't be sure if it's "true" other than by seeing results.
Can't you see how absurd this proposition is? You're denying second-hand knowledge, in all forms by making this ridiculous claim. How is it you do anything at all?

I can speak with 100% confidence that if you suffocate yourself, you will die. Can you say with 100% confidence that you won't? If you are consistant, you'll be able to try my little experiment, and live. After all, truth is only in your mind, right?


All opinions are equal in that everyone thinks what they think is correct, or they wouldn't think it. Like "beauty is the eye of the beholder", you could formulate some complex test to measure beauty and say anyone whose views don't conform to the test are wrong, but they'd still be entitled to their opinion or view of things, and think they themselves are right.

There are objective truths, and there are subjective opinions. If we were to setup objectively measurable criteria for beauty, then beauty would become objective. If we were to do so, and someone were to call someone or something beautiful who did not match the criteria for beauty, then yes, they would be wrong in the strict sense of the word.

However, this isn't to say a person cannot find someone who was not beautiful to be attractive, as attraction is indeed a subjective opinion.


What is truth then? Truth isn't necessarily "what appears correct in relation with reality", that's only one of many philosophical views on truth (more subjectivity even when it comes to the nature of truth). And even if what appears correct in relation with reality, who's to say there's only one reality? That's hardly provable at all.

I didn't say that "what appears correct in relation with reality" was true in the strictest sense of the word. What we "know" is only what appears to be correct, based on our observations. Truth is mind-independent, we need not know it for it there.

Furthermore, it would not matter if there were more than one reality, because all of us only occupy one reality, and there are objective truths to the reality in which we live.



Again, what's true? There's a difference between how you and understand truth, that's the very essence of the subjective nature of things.
Yes, there can be differences on how people interpret truth. However, there are incorrect interpretations, and there are correct ones. If you deny this, then I truely wonder how you get anything achieved at all, since you don't seem to take a liking to second-hand knowledge. [/b]
Yes, you're right. We do not have knowledge that is objectively true, and all we have is confirmed regularities. If we as humans can't have objective knowledge like you just stated, how can you know that it doesn't mean objective knowledge doesn't exist? At best according to what you just said it's only an opinion of a human.

I realize that what a person knows (thinks) does not make them actually know things. You and I are not humans, we can't actually know anything. Naturally people have knowledge based on what they observe.

And how can there be any objective truths? You just said twice that humans can't know anything, only think on it. If we can't know anything, how can you know there are objective truths? According to your own logic it's only what you think, and so it's only a possibility to me.

A minute ago you were basing this on observation, now it's second hand information. And obviously I'm not going to try your little experiment, as I know (think) personally that lack of oxygen leads to death. If I didn't think lack of oxygen led to death, I'd be more than willing to try, you see?

They'd be "wrong" in the strictest sense if someone set up a way to measure beauty? That denies that humans see things individually and puts blind faith in systems to interpret the "truth" for us, which is pointless. And of course a person can see something as beautiful and it's there subjective opinion, what isn't after all.

Yes, what we "know" is based upon what we observe, but not only open what we observe but how we interpret that and what meaning it signifies to us. You still haven't given me an adequate definition of what "truth" is, other than stating what what a human knows personally based on observation and truth is independant of the mind.

There are incorrect intereptations and correct interpretations of what is true? The only thing you would consider right is what would agree with your interpretation, what's incorrect or "wrong" would be disagreeing with your position on it. Even if you do believe in objectivity, how do we objectively say what is true? And like Hegemonic has been saying this is all an intellectual debate, it's not especially about how day to day life is lived. Redundant sort of, but mental calisthenics are always good.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fist:


You think there is an objective reality, I do not.

I did not say that I did, but if I did believe in it, according to you I would be right to do so.

So, why object?


I would try and tell you what I think is right.

But you also said there was no such thing as 'right', so how can you think something is right if there is not such thing for you to think?


I would try and persuade you to what my view of "right" is.

Why do that if you think that whatever I think is right, is right?

You would only do this if you thought that what I thought was not right; if so, not even you would believe your own theory (since that theory says that whatever I think is right is right).

And how could you persuade me if all you could tell me is that I am right to think whatever I think is right is right?


I would think personally you were right if you assented to this doctrine, but you're just as right as I am as there's no set interpetation to anything.

As I said, you are getting more confused by the hour.

But, if there is no set interpretation to anything, why do you accept your own interpretation of 'truth' (etc) as set at what you say it is set at?

If you hold that when you believe something it is correct, but also that no interpretation is set, then you should now change your previously set view that whatever you say is correct is correct to something different, like only half of what you say is correct is correct, and then alter that, and that....

If you do not do this, then at least one interpretation is set, namely your present interpretation of this 'theory' of yours.

But now you are beginning to see the light:


Obviously I do not think you're genuinely right to think that,

For someone who thinks there is no right, what on earth is 'genuinely right' doing here?

What does 'genuinely right' mean, if whatever anyone says is right is right? The word 'genuine' does no work n your theory. It is an empty word, if everything I beleive is right is genuinely right if I say it is genuinely right.

And, for all you know, everyone else might think 'genuinely right' means 'Fist is objectively wrong'; but then you would have to say they were right to think this, because that is what your 'theory' says: if everyone thinks Fist is wrong, they are right to think it.

Given your theory, you cannot tell wrong from right, or from genuinely right, for whatever you say is right for you, and the same applies to everyone else.


I've not contradicted myself as far as I can see.

Well, I think so, so I must be right.

And you must agree that I am right to think I am right (given your theory).

So, you must think it right to say you did contradict yourself.

So you would now yourself think that it is right to say you had contradicted yourself.

So, if what you say is right, then you would now be right to thingk you had contradicted yourself,

So, it would be right for you that you had contradicted yourself (because you just thought it).

So even you would have to agree that you had cointradicted yourself.

You see why I say you are tail-spinning into confusion and self-contradiction.

Anyway, self-contradiction should not worry you; all you need do is think it is right to contradict yourself, and that contradictions are all correct, and you would be safe in your self-certifying world.

So, why did you try to deny it?

Well, the fact that you did can only mean that even you do not think it right to think anything you think is right.


By denying "objective reality" I'm denying that things have one set substance or meaning, that the substance or meaning of something is what makes it what it is and varies from person to person. I'm saying that "reality" is what you make of it.

But why bother saying this if the opposite is also true, if you, in your god-like state, just have to declare something right, and it is right?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fist now:


Yes, you're right.

Fist earlier:


There's no such thing as right

As I say, self-contradictory and increasingly confused.

Give up while you are still sane....

[Hegemonicretribution]

Rosa: I guess I do agree with you, that is why I claimed that the views were "incomensurable" with each other. Fist may be using a term ina different way to that which it is used in common language, but as many of the words in English are vague and make little sense I don't see this as an exceptional problem.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hegemonic:

Well, he is certainly using it inconsistently; one minute saying one thing, the next another, but then drawing inferences from the ordinary meaning of words as if nothing had changed.

But, if you believe that nothing is true except what you think is true, then inferences become pointless, and ultimately incompatible with your doctrine.

Pointless, because it matters not what the inference indicates, you can always renege on it, if you feel like it.

Incompatible because an inference is not under your control; the logic of language imposes a conclusion on you, and what is true is no longer what you think is true, but what the inference tells you is true.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28 2006, 10:02 PM
Fist now:


Yes, you're right.

Fist earlier:


There's no such thing as right

As I say, self-contradictory and increasingly confused.

Give up while you are still sane....
As I've said numerous times in this thread the only thing that's right or wrong is what a person considers to be right or wrong. The same paragraph that I said "There's no such thing as right or wrong, only opinions" I happened to say "You can object to the assertion but of course you're going to think you're right. I think most people think they're right when they think something." I'd think it's pretty clear I mean there's no right or wrong as in the definitive truth that's "right" for everyone, rather than what an individual thinks as right. When I'm denying there's anything right or wrong, I'm denying a universal application of things in that what may be right for one person may be wrong for another. That you're trying to make that into a contradiction isn't a very worthy argument.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28 2006, 09:56 PM
Fist:


You think there is an objective reality, I do not.

I did not say that I did, but if I did believe in it, according to you I would be right to do so.

So, why object?


I would try and tell you what I think is right.

But you also said there was no such thing as 'right', so how can you think something is right if there is not such thing for you to think?


I would try and persuade you to what my view of "right" is.

Why do that if you think that whatever I think is right, is right?

You would only do this if you thought that what I thought was not right; if so, not even you would believe your own theory (since that theory says that whatever I think is right is right).

And how could you persuade me if all you could tell me is that I am right to think whatever I think is right is right?


I would think personally you were right if you assented to this doctrine, but you're just as right as I am as there's no set interpetation to anything.

As I said, you are getting more confused by the hour.

But, if there is no set interpretation to anything, why do you accept your own interpretation of 'truth' (etc) as set at what you say it is set at?

If you hold that when you believe something it is correct, but also that no interpretation is set, then you should now change your previously set view that whatever you say is correct is correct to something different, like only half of what you say is correct is correct, and then alter that, and that....

If you do not do this, then at least one interpretation is set, namely your present interpretation of this 'theory' of yours.

But now you are beginning to see the light:


Obviously I do not think you're genuinely right to think that,

For someone who thinks there is no right, what on earth is 'genuinely right' doing here?

What does 'genuinely right' mean, if whatever anyone says is right is right? The word 'genuine' does no work n your theory. It is an empty word, if everything I beleive is right is genuinely right if I say it is genuinely right.

And, for all you know, everyone else might think 'genuinely right' means 'Fist is objectively wrong'; but then you would have to say they were right to think this, because that is what your 'theory' says: if everyone thinks Fist is wrong, they are right to think it.

Given your theory, you cannot tell wrong from right, or from genuinely right, for whatever you say is right for you, and the same applies to everyone else.


I've not contradicted myself as far as I can see.

Well, I think so, so I must be right.

And you must agree that I am right to think I am right (given your theory).

So, you must think it right to say you did contradict yourself.

So you would now yourself think that it is right to say you had contradicted yourself.

So, if what you say is right, then you would now be right to thingk you had contradicted yourself,

So, it would be right for you that you had contradicted yourself (because you just thought it).

So even you would have to agree that you had cointradicted yourself.

You see why I say you are tail-spinning into confusion and self-contradiction.

Anyway, self-contradiction should not worry you; all you need do is think it is right to contradict yourself, and that contradictions are all correct, and you would be safe in your self-certifying world.

So, why did you try to deny it?

Well, the fact that you did can only mean that even you do not think it right to think anything you think is right.


By denying "objective reality" I'm denying that things have one set substance or meaning, that the substance or meaning of something is what makes it what it is and varies from person to person. I'm saying that "reality" is what you make of it.

But why bother saying this if the opposite is also true, if you, in your god-like state, just have to declare something right, and it is right?
Why object? Because I think you're wrong. If I think one thing I'd be far more comfortable if other people thought the same way I did, while I still recognize that people are completely free to think what they want.

As I've already explained I only believe there's right and wrong on a personal basis, which is different for everyone. By saying that there's no right I mean there's no definitive or universal right, only opinions on it.

I don't think whatever think you think is right. I think you're right in thinking what you want, I don't think that particular thought is right according to me. Again you seem to be saying if I agree that you can think what you want, then I must agree with whatever you think, which isn't true at all. Whatever you think is right isn't right to me, it's only always right to you as I've said.

I'm pretty well unconfused, the only thing that's getting confused is your fractured understanding of my sentences and your trying to critique it by picking small things out of context to make it seem like a fallacious argument.

I accept what I my own interpretation of 'truth' as set as what I say it is set at because I think and feel that's right.

Because of this I should change my previous view that whatever I say is correct is correct to something different, like only half of what I say is correct is correct, and then alter that, and that? That sentence makes no sense whatsoever to me.

As I've said I think there's only right and wrong so far as an individual thinks what they think is right is right and what they think is wrong is wrong. The word "genuine" works fine in my theory, as one of the definitions of genuine is "honestly felt or experienced" and a person can honestly feel that something is right under my theory.

If everyone thought that I was wrong, they'd surely have the right to think this and in their own mind they would think they were right. I would personally think they were wrong. Very simple.

Given my theory, right and wrong is subjected to opinion. Which it obviously is. That I think what I think is right is right, and that what other people think they think is right is right, doesn't mean I cannot tell right from wrong. It means what I think is right is right to me.

You think so yes, so you're right in your own personal view of things. And I do think you're right to think you're right as everyone thinks they are right. This does not mean I agree with what you think. Which is a nice misconception but fundamentally not a part of my theory whether you would like to think so or not. Your logic that I contradicted myself is based on the understanding that I think your thoughts are always right which is not true at all. I think you're right to think what you want, and I think what you think is right is right to you yourself. This does not mean I think what you think is right is right. This would deny the subjectivity of it. And again you see why I say you're really misunderstanding what I'm saying to try and make it seem like I'm confused and contradicting myself. I try and deny it because I think I'm right, as everything I've said I still agree with and fits into my logic and what I consider to be correct.

And no obviously I don't consider myself to be God-like, or what I declare to be right to be objectively right, as there is no objective right. I consider what I think is right to be right. If I did not think what I thought was right was right, I wouldn't think it was right, obviously. That you misunderstand this is hard to comprehend.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

More confusion:


Because I think you're wrong.

But you also said there was not such thing as right and wrong, so how can you think it? But you have an 'answer':


As I've said numerous times in this thread the only thing that's right or wrong is what a person considers to be right or wrong.

But, once again, you also said there was not such thing as right and wrong, so yet again: how can you think it?

Answer: you do think there is such a thing (as right and wrong) that goes beyond mere thinking they are so; hence, you try to correct others. You would not do that if there were no such thing as right and wrong that went beyond merely thinking they were so.

In other words, you are deeply confused.


If I think one thing I'd be far more comfortable if other people thought the same way I did,

But for someone to think the same way you did, it would have to be objectively true that they thought the same way you did (otherwise you would only merely think they thought the same way, which even you now see is not the same thing at all, or you would not have made this point: you would have said 'the same way I think I think', or 'I think the same way I think I think').

So once again, more confusion.


By saying that there's no right I mean there's no definitive or universal right, only opinions on it.

Is this right or wrong? Is it universally right there is no universal right? (You seem to think so, so once more you contradict yourself.)

Or is it only that you think it is?

If the former, then your 'theory' nosedives yet again.

If the latter, then there is no difference except you think there is, and so there is no point telling us (for your subjective views cannot affect ours, no more it seems than ours can or have affected yours).

And even more confusion; compare this:


I don't think whatever think you think is right.

with this:


You think so yes, so you're right in your own personal view of things.

and:


As I've already explained I only believe there's right and wrong on a personal basis,

and:


As I've said I think there's only right and wrong so far as an individual thinks what they think is right is right and what they think is wrong is wrong.

which means you do think it right for me to think that whatever I think is right (on a personal basis) is right, after all.

So why deny it?.

Hence, my earlier derivation of a contradiction in your thought was correct after all.

Or, alternatively, if I think it is a contradiction, it is; and you think it right on a 'personal basis' that I so think.

So, on that basis, you agree it is right for me to think it, and that therefore it is right for me to assert it; which I now do.

Hence, on your theory it is right for me to assert that you contradict yourself.

So, you cannot now argue against what you think it right for me to assert.

So you cannot consistently deny that what I say is correct.

If not, you accept it is right what I say.

So you do agree after all that you do contradict yorself.

Once again, your own theory destroys itself.

And not only do I think this, you do too.


I'm pretty well unconfused, the only thing that's getting confused is your fractured understanding of my sentences and your trying to critique it by picking small things out of context to make it seem like a fallacious argument.

Translated this merely means that your theory does not stand up to the close scrutiny I am giving it, and that you have not thought it through (which is odd for someone who thinks that whatever he thinks is so, is so).


That you misunderstand this is hard to comprehend.

It isn't hard to understand when you contradict yourself in practically every sentence you think you typed.

And, according to you, I am right to think this.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29 2006, 05:23 PM
More confusion:


Because I think you're wrong.

But you also said there was not such thing as right and wrong, so how can you think it? But you have an 'answer':


As I've said numerous times in this thread the only thing that's right or wrong is what a person considers to be right or wrong.

But, once again, you also said there was not such thing as right and wrong, so yet again: how can you think it?

Answer: you do think there is such a thing (as right and wrong) that goes beyond mere thinking they are so; hence, you try to correct others. You would not do that if there were no such thing as right and wrong that went beyond merely thinking they were so.

In other words, you are deeply confused.


If I think one thing I'd be far more comfortable if other people thought the same way I did,

But for someone to think the same way you did, it would have to be objectively true that they thought the same way you did (otherwise you would only merely think they thought the same way, which even you now see is not the same thing at all, or you would not have made this point: you would have said 'the same way I think I think', or 'I think the same way I think I think').

So once again, more confusion.


By saying that there's no right I mean there's no definitive or universal right, only opinions on it.

Is this right or wrong? Is it universally right there is no universal right? (You seem to think so, so once more you contradict yourself.)

Or is it only that you think it is?

If the former, then your 'theory' nosedives yet again.

If the latter, then there is no difference except you think there is, and so there is no point telling us (for your subjective views cannot affect ours, no more it seems than ours can or have affected yours).

And even more confusion; compare this:


I don't think whatever think you think is right.

with this:


You think so yes, so you're right in your own personal view of things.

and:


As I've already explained I only believe there's right and wrong on a personal basis,

and:


As I've said I think there's only right and wrong so far as an individual thinks what they think is right is right and what they think is wrong is wrong.

which means you do think it right for me to think that whatever I think is right (on a personal basis) is right, after all.

So why deny it?.

Hence, my earlier derivation of a contradiction in your thought was correct after all.

Or, alternatively, if I think it is a contradiction, it is; and you think it right on a 'personal basis' that I so think.

So, on that basis, you agree it is right for me to think it, and that therefore it is right for me to assert it; which I now do.

Hence, on your theory it is right for me to assert that you contradict yourself.

So, you cannot now argue against what you think it right for me to assert.

So you cannot consistently deny that what I say is correct.

If not, you accept it is right what I say.

So you do agree after all that you do contradict yorself.

Once again, your own theory destroys itself.

And not only do I think this, you do too.


I'm pretty well unconfused, the only thing that's getting confused is your fractured understanding of my sentences and your trying to critique it by picking small things out of context to make it seem like a fallacious argument.

Translated this merely means that your theory does not stand up to the close scrutiny I am giving it, and that you have not thought it through (which is odd for someone who thinks that whatever he thinks is so, is so).


That you misunderstand this is hard to comprehend.

It isn't hard to understand when you contradict yourself in practically every sentence you think you typed.

And, according to you, I am right to think this.
Did you read what I wrote at all? "As I've already explained I only believe there's right and wrong on a personal basis, which is different for everyone. By saying that there's no right I mean there's no definitive or universal right, only opinions on it." And ""You can object to the assertion but of course you're going to think you're right. I think most people think they're right when they think something." In the same paragraph I said there's no such thing as right or wrong as some people think of right and wrong. When I said "there's no such thing as right or wrong" I meant on a universal, there's only one right or wrong and it applies to everyone right or wrong and that does not exist. That you took it that way doesn't make me contradictory, it means you thought something else of what I said. "And again you see why I say you're really misunderstanding what I'm saying to try and make it seem like I'm confused and contradicting myself." Funny how I can now argue by merely repeating things I've already said that you've ignored.

And yes, there's no way to objectively know what someone else is thinking, whether you believe in objectivity or not. If I say "felt far more comfortable if another person thought the way I did" of course I mean I think they thought the way I did, that goes without saying. (Goes without saying unless someone is trying to pick apart individual sentences...)

And no, I do not think that it's universally right that there is no wrong or right. I believe very strongly that there isn't and would try and persuade people to agree with me since their agreeance is a confirmation of my own beliefs in a sense, but my view on things is only one view and I recognize this. And yes, for the fifteenth fucking time my subjective view can affect yours, yours can affect mine. As I've already said you've seemed to have missed people can help persuade people to think differently. I know that everyone is entitled to think what they want but I think people want to be right, and if others agree then it in their own eyes they are seemingly comforted by this knowledge (at the very least I would be).

And what's so hard to understand? You think you're right. I think I'm right. I think what I think is right is right. You think what you think is right is right. Yes, I think what you think is right on a personal basis. On a personal basis means it affects one particular person, it's private. That person being you. Therefore your derivation that I contradicted myself because you thought so is incorrect. Going by what I'm saying you think you're correct, and you think you're right, and in your personal view of things you think it's right to think that. You'll throw "but whatever I think is right" at me again, but I only said whatever you think is right is right on a personal basis, it's only right to you, and by saying this I'm not agreeing with everything you say.

I've thought my theory through pretty well, and so far it's holding up. You're still trying to struggle through with a misunderstanding of it, lumping off parts of what's said and trying to devolve it all by your misconceptions which can easily be refuted as I have.

According to me, in your personal view of things you think you're right to think that. And in my personal view of things, I think you're wrong.

The basis of your argument now falls thus: I said there is no right or wrong, and before and after saying that talked about right or wrong.
Answer to that: I meant right or wrong on a universal, objective, definite level. I believe that each person has their own view of right and wrong.
Argument 2: Everything you say is correct because I said you're right to think whatever you want.
Answer to that: I believe you have the right to think whatever you want. I believe you will think yourself correct. I believe that what you think is right, you think is right. None of that means that I agree with every thought in your head, I believe you have the right to think it, I don't believe that the thought itself is right.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fist, increasingly confused:


Did you read what I wrote at all?

It doesn't matter if I did, does it -- because according to you, whatever I think, it is right for me to think it? So I can make stuff up, and I have your permission to do so.

So, why are you getting upset if I follow your advice?

But, yes I did read what you randomly typed (no offense, but it's the only way I can account for the circles you keep going around in), and a lot more carefully than you read what I posted, it seems.

More confusion:


As I've already explained I only believe there's right and wrong on a personal basis, which is different for everyone.

But you also said the following:


Yes, you're right.

and:


There's no such thing as right

So, no wonder you have retreated into believig everything you say is right is right; with that level of confusion to boast about, I think I'd do the same.

Nice move. You are safe now from your own mistakes.


In the same paragraph I said there's no such thing as right or wrong as some people think of right and wrong.

But how can you know what people think about right and wrong, if you know only your own thoughts?

On your 'theory' you cannot tell fact from fancy.

And this looks like a pretty universal truth you also said does not exist:

I
meant on a universal, there's only one right or wrong and it applies to everyone right or wrong and that does not exist.

[Emphasis added, I think....]

What on earth is that 'everyone' doing here? Pretty universal that, one.

[Objectivism rears its ugly head even in your head.]

Tut, tut. You will get kicked out of the Confused Solipsist Society for that, even if you think you won't.

But, have you 'percieved' everyone (all 6 billion?? -- if not, they cannot exist for you; so how can you legislate for these non-existent ones?).

And why are you allowed to make universal claims relating to the inability of everyone making universal claims?

It seems you do not read your own posts too carefully, especially the ones that tell us there are no such universal truths anbout 'everyone'.

Or perhaps, you only think you do, and that is good enough for you, apparently.

That would explain why you keep contradicting yourself; it seems you do not care what you write, since you can always say you thought you said this, or that, and that would be enough for you for it to be right.

Except, there is no 'right', according to you (or do I just think this is your view; no problem, I am right to think it given your 'theory').


Funny how I can now argue by merely repeating things I've already said that you've ignored.

But, I did not ignore them if I merely thought that I did not ignore them, according to you. And this can be the case independently of whether I read them or not. This is because you have given me a blank cheque to think what I like, and you also think I am right to think it.

So, why are you complaining if I am playing by your rules?

Perhaps even you can see how crazy they are?


And yes, there's no way to objectively know what someone else is thinking,

So how do you know that what they think is true, is true for them (which according to you it must be), if you do not know what they are thinking, but merely think you do?


And no, I do not think that it's universally right that there is no wrong or right.

But your own words suggest you do (quoted above -- please do not check since that would show that even you rely on objective data (and not on subjective make-believe), and we don't want you tripping yourself up too often all, do we?).

But, you can objectively check this universal claim:


As I've already explained I only believe there's right and wrong on a personal basis, which is different for everyone.

[Emphasis added.]

There's that univeral word again: 'everyone'.

As a result of your tailspin into confusion and self-contradiction, I think (and I am right to do so, according to you) that you should either:

1) Read what you post more carefully (and check objectivlkey (oops) that what you say is consistent; or

2) Check the dictionary (oops, more objectivity) to see if you understand any of the words you carelessly churn out.

Er, you cannot do that since the dictionary only tells you what the authors think words mean, not what they do mean or even what anyone else thinks they mean.

You are screwed then. You can't even help yourself.

And no one else can help you; you are a lost soul.

And, according to you, I am right to say this.

[Fistful of Steel]

Note: I just editted out eleven long and largely useless paragraphs I had written to get to this point.

The main point of what I'm saying can be boiled down to: I think everyone has their own view of everything.

Try and contend that they don't? Your method of arguing, even judging by other threads in the philosophy section amounts to: I will (consciously or not) misinterpret this sentence to make it seemingly contradict this other sentence thereby refuting the whole argument. Now, taking that aside disprove the main point of what I'm saying without reference to anything else I've said other than the main point.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fist, at last; short and sweet confusion:


Note: I just editted out eleven long and largely useless paragraphs I had written to get to this point.

1) How could you tell they were useless? They looked the same as the rest of the stuff you have been posting (I read them before you edited them).

2) All you have to do is think they are OK, and, according to you, they are. So why pick on your own unique brand of confusion? Bumble away my fine friend; who can challenge you in your own private heaven?

And here is yet another universal truth (from he who swears there are none):


I think everyone has their own view of everything.

So you are allowed universal truths, but no one else; is that it?


Your method of arguing, even judging by other threads in the philosophy section amounts to: I will (consciously or not) misinterpret this sentence to make it seemingly contradict this other sentence thereby refuting the whole argument.

1) But, why complain? If I think this is OK, and you tell me I am right to think this, and it is right to think what is right, then you would be right to agree with me.

2) What you do not like is the close attention I give to your words, and I hold you to account over what you say. You are obviously not used to it. Well, it's all I dish out.

So, if you do not like it, I should worry.

This method is very useful in exposing the rubbish that has passed for 'Philosophy' over the last 2500 years.

Since you can only spin your whacky ideas by the sloppy use of language, you should correct that not complain when I point it out.

You have been rumbled; get used to it.


Now, taking that aside disprove the main point of what I'm saying without reference to anything else I've said other than the main point.

Well that alone disproves your 'main point' (if ever we could get you to tell us plainly what that was without self-contradiction and prevarication on your part): if you want proof, then truth is not something you can decide just for yourself, but something decided for you by an objective demonstration.

Can I thank you once again for torpedoing your own already sinking 'theory'.

And good riddance to it.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 02:38 PM
Fist, at last; short and sweet confusion:


Note: I just editted out eleven long and largely useless paragraphs I had written to get to this point.

1) How could you tell they were useless? They looked the same as the rest of the stuff you have been posting (I read them before you edited them).

2) All you have to do is think they are OK, and, according to you, they are. So why pick on your own unique brand of confusion? Bumble away my fine friend; who can challenge you in your own private heaven?

And here is yet another universal truth (from he who swears there are none):


I think everyone has their own view of everything.

So you are allowed universal truths, but no one else; is that it?


Your method of arguing, even judging by other threads in the philosophy section amounts to: I will (consciously or not) misinterpret this sentence to make it seemingly contradict this other sentence thereby refuting the whole argument.

1) But, why complain? If I think this is OK, and you tell me I am right to think this, and it is right to think what is right, then you would be right to agree with me.

2) What you do not like is the close attention I give to your words, and I hold you to account over what you say. You are obviously not used to it. Well, it's all I dish out.

So, if you do not like it, I should worry.

This method is very useful in exposing the rubbish that has passed for 'Philosophy' over the last 2500 years.

Since you can only spin your whacky ideas by the sloppy use of language, you should correct that not complain when I point it out.

You have been rumbled; get used to it.


Now, taking that aside disprove the main point of what I'm saying without reference to anything else I've said other than the main point.

Well that alone disproves your 'main point' (if ever we could get you to tell us plainly what that was without self-contradiction and prevarication on your part): if you want proof, then truth is not something you can decide just for yourself, but something decided for you by an objective demonstration.

Can I thank you once again for torpedoing your own already sinking 'theory'.

And good riddance to it.
They were the same. I think they were useless because with that much written you'd just try and find more contradictions in them as that's what you seemed to have been doing beforehand. They were OK as far as logical arguments go, however with you (in my view of course) seemingly misconceiving everything it would just lead to more and more written.

How is "I think that everyone has their own view of everything" a universal truth? The first two words in it are I think. Which denies that it's a universal truth. If I said purely everyone has their own view of everything and tried to present it as a fact rather than my opinion, then yes I would be trying to present a universal truth, instead I'm presenting my opinion on how things may be possibly be, which represents only one facet in the diamond of life. Even if what I say is a contradiction, this does not disprove the argument at hand, rather paints my personage as contradictory.

1)Just because I think what you're right to think what you want, and everyone thinks they themself are right, this doesn't mean I agree with that particular thought. I've clearly illustrated time and time again that I think what you think is right to you yourself, and that you have the right to think it, not that I agree with that thought. That you continually present otherwise means you're either purposefully ignoring my clarification to help your own argument, or you just can't comprehend it.
2)The close attention you pay to my words? You largely ignore entire chunks of what I've wrote, isolate certain sentences, and try and present them as contradictory to the main idea.

I've been rumbled? Oh ho ho. I'm shaking.

If I want proof, it's not something I can just decide for myself? Proof of what? And what does that have to do with addressing the original point (which you've still failed to prove is wrong without making reference to anything else I've said as you brought up my views on objectivity which are nowhere to be found in the main point, and which is still refutable).

Go ahead again, try and disprove my main point that "I think everyone has their own view of everything", without reference to anything else I've said. (As doing so merely tries to make me seem contradictory, rather than addressing the point at hand.)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fist:


They were the same.

Do you mean objectively the same, or 'same becuase I, Fist, say so'?

If the former, we have yet more contradiction; if the latter then you could declare, quite consistently, that a cabbage is a king; who could argue with you?

So, I suggest you declare yourself either a cabbage or a king (I know which one I'd go for).


I think they were useless because with that much written you'd just try and find more contradictions in them

Again, if I think there are contradictions in what you say, then according to you I am right to think it, and also according to you it is right to think what is right, so you should agree with me that it is right to say you contradict yourself.

Your rules comrade, not mine....

And now yet more proof that you have a tenuous grasp of English:


How is "I think that everyone has their own view of everything" a universal truth?

Check out what the words 'everyone' and 'everything' mean (oh, you can't, you can only check what dictionary writers think they mean); but if you can find your way round that self-imposed hurdle, I think you will see that these words are pretty universal.

And since at least I think this, and according to you, whatever I think is right, is right, and it is right to think what is right, then, once again, you should agree with me that they are universals (we call them 'universal quantifiers' in logic -- the study of which I suggest you take up as a matter of some urgency).

But, enlighten us: what words do the infidel, benighted objectivists use to express universal truths, so that we know what to avoid, oh great one?

If they cannot use 'everything' and 'everyone', what is there left, oh prophet of confusion?

Perhaps this is the answer (but it too it looks pretty universal)?


If I said purely everyone has their own view of everything and tried to present it as a fact rather than my opinion, then yes I would be trying to present a universal truth,

So this is a universal fact about yourself, something that always applies to you?

If so, thank you once again for shooting yourself in the foot.

If not, then, if it is not a universal truth about you, you must break it from time to time, and thus utter universal facts about everyone and everything.

So, you are an objectivist on your day off, are you?

Either way, more contradiction.

And so, Fist now descends even deeper into the vale of obfuscation:


Just because I think what you're right to think what you want, and everyone thinks they themself are right, this doesn't mean I agree with that particular thought.

But, if I think that you, Fist, should always agree with me on everything, and I am right to think it, and it is right to think what is right, then you would be right to agree with me that you should always agree with me.

So do it.

I think I can live with that, so you should be able to do so too (by the above reasoning).


you're either purposefully ignoring my clarification to help your own argument, or you just can't comprehend it.

But, according to you, I can think what I like, and I am right to do so.

Hence, I think I did read everything carefully, so I did.

So, once again, why are you complaining?

And what is there to comprehend? You could post: 'Bu Bu Bu' and I could claim to comprehend it. How could you show otherwise?

In fact, please post 'Bu Bu Bu' from now on; I think your case will be all the stronger for it.

And if I think this I must be right to think this, and you must be right to agree with me (the reasoning behind that claim is given above -- but, please do not check it for, as I said earlier, that would brand you a nasty objectivist).


You largely ignore entire chunks of what I've wrote, isolate certain sentences, and try and present them as contradictory to the main idea.

Oh dear, you do not like the subjectivist treatment when it as applied to your own subjectivist ideas, do you?

Tough.

So, once again, if I think I have attended (carefully) to everything you have posted, then according to you I must have done this (despite objective evidence to the contrary (which seems to suggest I did not do this) that you now appeal to most inconsistently), and I am right to think I did, and you would be wrong to question me....

Unless, you want to abandon your 'theory' to make another objective claim that I ignored much of what you posted.

The objective choice is yours.


Oh ho ho. I'm shaking.

Is that objectively shaking, or only in your own head? [Why do I suspect the latter?]


If I want proof, it's not something I can just decide for myself? Proof of what? And what does that have to do with addressing the original point (which you've still failed to prove is wrong without making reference to anything else I've said as you brought up my views on objectivity which are nowhere to be found in the main point, and which is still refutable).

Well do you want proof or not?

You seem just as confused on this issue as on anything else.

And what original point?

I am rather reluctant to check what that was, since that would brand me a nasty objectivist who sought out objective evidence to prove a point, and I won't do that because it might upset your subjectivist stomach even more.

So, be a darling and check it for me: What was the original point?

As a minor deity, you should be able to find a way of avoiding the objectivist method a mere mortal would have to use to answer that prayer.


Go ahead again, try and disprove my main point that "I think everyone has their own view of everything", without reference to anything else I've said. (As doing so merely tries to make me seem contradictory, rather than addressing the point at hand.)

Oops more universal truths.

Tut tut.

You are obviously not a deity, as I earlier supposed.

I have lost all faith in you.

But, what sort of proof will satisfy you?

Ah, I have it: I think Fist is wrong.

Impressive proof, eh? Straight out of the Fisty rule book: if I think it, it is so.

Am I right to think this? If so, you have your proof.

If not, then your theory is disproved, for here we would have at least one idea of mine that I thought was right which turns out (objectively) not to be right (contrary to your declaration that whatever I think is so, is so).

Either way, your theory takes another body blow.

I think.

[Macchendra]

"The Objective Truth" is yet another point of view that has become polarized by the conception that there is merely the one viewpoint and an opposing viewpoint into which all other viewpoints are lumped.

Polarization is the principle of American democracy.
Both the Democrats and Republicans know "the objective truth".


Peace!
David Bright Morning

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 04:03 PM
Fist:


They were the same.

Do you mean objectively the same, or 'same becuase I, Fist, say so'?

If the former, we have yet more contradiction; if the latter then you could declare, quite consistently, that a cabbage is a king; who could argue with you?

So, I suggest you declare yourself either a cabbage or a king (I know which one I'd go for).


I think they were useless because with that much written you'd just try and find more contradictions in them

Again, if I think there are contradictions in what you say, then according to you I am right to think it, and also according to you it is right to think what is right, so you should agree with me that it is right to say you contradict yourself.

Your rules comrade, not mine....

And now yet more proof that you have a tenuous grasp of English:


How is "I think that everyone has their own view of everything" a universal truth?

Check out what the words 'everyone' and 'everything' mean (oh, you can't, you can only check what dictionary writers think they mean); but if you can find your way round that self-imposed hurdle, I think you will see that these words are pretty universal.

And since at least I think this, and according to you, whatever I think is right, is right, and it is right to think what is right, then, once again, you should agree with me that they are universals (we call them 'universal quantifiers' in logic -- the study of which I suggest you take up as a matter of some urgency).

But, enlighten us: what words do the infidel, benighted objectivists use to express universal truths, so that we know what to avoid, oh great one?

If they cannot use 'everything' and 'everyone', what is there left, oh prophet of confusion?

Perhaps this is the answer (but it too it looks pretty universal)?


If I said purely everyone has their own view of everything and tried to present it as a fact rather than my opinion, then yes I would be trying to present a universal truth,

So this is a universal fact about yourself, something that always applies to you?

If so, thank you once again for shooting yourself in the foot.

If not, then, if it is not a universal truth about you, you must break it from time to time, and thus utter universal facts about everyone and everything.

So, you are an objectivist on your day off, are you?

Either way, more contradiction.

And so, Fist now descends even deeper into the vale of obfuscation:


Just because I think what you're right to think what you want, and everyone thinks they themself are right, this doesn't mean I agree with that particular thought.

But, if I think that you, Fist, should always agree with me on everything, and I am right to think it, and it is right to think what is right, then you would be right to agree with me that you should always agree with me.

So do it.

I think I can live with that, so you should be able to do so too (by the above reasoning).


you're either purposefully ignoring my clarification to help your own argument, or you just can't comprehend it.

But, according to you, I can think what I like, and I am right to do so.

Hence, I think I did read everything carefully, so I did.

So, once again, why are you complaining?

And what is there to comprehend? You could post: 'Bu Bu Bu' and I could claim to comprehend it. How could you show otherwise?

In fact, please post 'Bu Bu Bu' from now on; I think your case will be all the stronger for it.

And if I think this I must be right to think this, and you must be right to agree with me (the reasoning behind that claim is given above -- but, please do not check it for, as I said earlier, that would brand you a nasty objectivist).


You largely ignore entire chunks of what I've wrote, isolate certain sentences, and try and present them as contradictory to the main idea.

Oh dear, you do not like the subjectivist treatment when it as applied to your own subjectivist ideas, do you?

Tough.

So, once again, if I think I have attended (carefully) to everything you have posted, then according to you I must have done this (despite objective evidence to the contrary (which seems to suggest I did not do this) that you now appeal to most inconsistently), and I am right to think I did, and you would be wrong to question me....

Unless, you want to abandon your 'theory' to make another objective claim that I ignored much of what you posted.

The objective choice is yours.


Oh ho ho. I'm shaking.

Is that objectively shaking, or only in your own head? [Why do I suspect the latter?]


If I want proof, it's not something I can just decide for myself? Proof of what? And what does that have to do with addressing the original point (which you've still failed to prove is wrong without making reference to anything else I've said as you brought up my views on objectivity which are nowhere to be found in the main point, and which is still refutable).

Well do you want proof or not?

You seem just as confused on this issue as on anything else.

And what original point?

I am rather reluctant to check what that was, since that would brand me a nasty objectivist who sought out objective evidence to prove a point, and I won't do that because it might upset your subjectivist stomach even more.

So, be a darling and check it for me: What was the original point?

As a minor deity, you should be able to find a way of avoiding the objectivist method a mere mortal would have to use to answer that prayer.


Go ahead again, try and disprove my main point that "I think everyone has their own view of everything", without reference to anything else I've said. (As doing so merely tries to make me seem contradictory, rather than addressing the point at hand.)

Oops more universal truths.

Tut tut.

You are obviously not a deity, as I earlier supposed.

I have lost all faith in you.

But, what sort of proof will satisfy you?

Ah, I have it: I think Fist is wrong.

Impressive proof, eh? Straight out of the Fisty rule book: if I think it, it is so.

Am I right to think this? If so, you have your proof.

If not, then your theory is disproved, for here we would have at least one idea of mine that I thought was right which turns out (objectively) not to be right (contrary to your declaration that whatever I think is so, is so).

Either way, your theory takes another body blow.

I think.
I just got rid of another bunch of paragraphs because you failed to grasp the point. (I'll reiterate "Just because I think what you're right to think what you want, and everyone thinks they themself are right, this doesn't mean I agree with that particular thought. I've clearly illustrated time and time again that I think what you think is right to you yourself, and that you have the right to think it, not that I agree with that thought. That you continually present otherwise means you're either purposefully ignoring my clarification to help your own argument, or you just can't comprehend it.")

Again: Disprove "I think that everyone has their own view of everything" without making reference to what I said as that merely contradicts me rather than convinces me the point is false. You made reference to my past views on objectivity or even if it's universal or not as that's trying to contradict me. Keeping in mind that that you think it's wrong doesn't persuade me to believe you, as I've already said that what you think is right to you, that doesn't mean I agree with every thought in your head. Go ahead.

[RebelDog]

I am surprised that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle has not been quoted in this debate. We as humans can search for what is 'reality' and science can use increasing technological tools to aid us. But if Heisenberg is 'correct' then we can never know what 'utter reality' is and in fact it doesn't exist.

[Fistful of Steel]

That Heisenberg sounds like a smart fellow. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fist:


I just got rid of another bunch of paragraphs because you failed to grasp the point.

According to you, if I think I have grasped the point, then I have.

So, once more, why are you complaining if that is a consequence of your theory.

Or don't you believe your own ideas?

I do. I am a convert.


I'll reiterate "Just because I think what you're right to think what you want, and everyone thinks they themself are right, this doesn't mean I agree with that particular thought.

And coming right back at ya:

If I think I am right to think you think I am right, then according to you, I am right to think so.

So, I do think you think I am right; so you do think I am right.

Thanks.

Well, it seems you do not even understand the implications of your 'theory':


That you continually present otherwise means you're either purposefully ignoring my clarification to help your own argument, or you just can't comprehend it.

If I think I comprehend it, I do, according to you.

Either accept that consequence, or abandon your loopy theory. [For my own part, I think your theory is brilliant; it lets me prove that whatever I think, you think too.]

Or at least think you have abandoned it, which is the same thing.

Anyway, since I do think you have, according to you, that means you have.

What I do not understand is that, if I think you have abandoned your theory, and thus you have, why do you keep defending it?

Your theory implies you have abandoned your theory (if I think you have); if so, what is there to defend?

And, as if to prove I am right, Fist produces yet another universal statement:


Disprove "I think that everyone has their own view of everything" without making reference to what I said as that merely contradicts me rather than convinces me the point is false. You made reference to my past views on objectivity or even if it's universal or not as that's trying to contradict me.

You should be ashamed of yourself using such forbidden words, like 'every**e' and 'evry**ing'; I can't bring myself to type them....

And once more, I think I have disproved this, so, according to you, I have.

I thought we had established that a few posts ago -- oops, so we did, because I just thought it.

And I also think that you have agreed with me that I have disproved it, so, according to you, I have, and you do.

And once more: it's your 'theory' mate; stop moaning.


Keeping in mind that that you think it's wrong doesn't persuade me to believe you, as I've already said that what you think is right to you, that doesn't mean I agree with every thought in your head.

Every sounds pretty universal to me.

But let that pass.

But, if I think that every thought in my head is one with which you agree, then, according to your theory, it is right for me to think it, and if it is right to think what it is right to think, then you must think it right that I so think, that is, that it is right to think you agree with every thought in my head, and if you think it right to think it, it is right to think it.

So, to just annoy you, I do now so think, that means you also so think.

So, you do agree with me.

QED

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 09:18 PM
Fist:


I just got rid of another bunch of paragraphs because you failed to grasp the point.

According to you, if I think I have grasped the point, then I have.

So, once more, why are you complaining if that is a consequence of your theory.

Or don't you believe your own ideas?

I do. I am a convert.


I'll reiterate "Just because I think what you're right to think what you want, and everyone thinks they themself are right, this doesn't mean I agree with that particular thought.

And coming right back at ya:

If I think I am right to think you think I am right, then according to you, I am right to think so.

So, I do think you think I am right; so you do think I am right.

Thanks.

Well, it seems you do not even understand the implications of your 'theory':


That you continually present otherwise means you're either purposefully ignoring my clarification to help your own argument, or you just can't comprehend it.

If I think I comprehend it, I do, according to you.

Either accept that consequence, or abandon your loopy theory. [For my own part, I think your theory is brilliant; it lets me prove that whatever I think, you think too.]

Or at least think you have abandoned it, which is the same thing.

Anyway, since I do think you have, according to you, that means you have.

What I do not understand is that, if I think you have abandoned your theory, and thus you have, why do you keep defending it?

Your theory implies you have abandoned your theory (if I think you have); if so, what is there to defend?

And, as if to prove I am right, Fist produces yet another universal statement:


Disprove "I think that everyone has their own view of everything" without making reference to what I said as that merely contradicts me rather than convinces me the point is false. You made reference to my past views on objectivity or even if it's universal or not as that's trying to contradict me.

You should be ashamed of yourself using such forbidden words, like 'every**e' and 'evry**ing'; I can't bring myself to type them....

And once more, I think I have disproved this, so, according to you, I have.

I thought we had established that a few posts ago -- oops, so we did, because I just thought it.

And I also think that you have agreed with me that I have disproved it, so, according to you, I have, and you do.

And once more: it's your 'theory' mate; stop moaning.


Keeping in mind that that you think it's wrong doesn't persuade me to believe you, as I've already said that what you think is right to you, that doesn't mean I agree with every thought in your head.

Every sounds pretty universal to me.

But let that pass.

But, if I think that every thought in my head is one with which you agree, then, according to your theory, it is right for me to think it, and if it is right to think what it is right to think, then you must think it right that I so think, that is, that it is right to think you agree with every thought in my head, and if you think it right to think it, it is right to think it.

So, to just annoy you, I do now so think, that means you also so think.

So, you do agree with me.

QED
If you think you have grasped the point, then you have grasped the point to you yourself. It's possible for me to not think you are right, only that you yourself think you are right.

You have every right to think what you want yes, this again doesn't necessarily mean I agree with it. That thought is right to you yourself, however it is not right to me, as that thought is only one individual subjective opinion.

Again, my theory does not mean whatever you think is right I think too. I've explained to you perhaps 15 times that I agree you have the right to think what you want, and that you think you yourself are right. This again does not mean I agree with you, as you are only right to you yourself, and I may have a different view than yours, which I do.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dissenter (some dissenter -- you'd dissent from Heisenberg if your name was accurate):


But if Heisenberg is 'correct' then we can never know what 'utter reality' is and in fact it doesn't exist.

Well, if we can't know what it is, what exactly was he denying?

As soon as he tells us, he knows what it is, so he knows it, and so it wasn't all that uncertain.

And if he does not know what it is that he is denying, then his denial is empty.

Either way, I would ignore Heisenberg's Buddhist ideas if I were you. He sounds as confused as Fist.

Next shallow point please....

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 09:18 PM

Disprove "I think that everyone has their own view of everything" without making reference to what I said as that merely contradicts me rather than convinces me the point is false. You made reference to my past views on objectivity or even if it's universal or not as that's trying to contradict me.

You should be ashamed of yourself using such forbidden words, like 'every**e' and 'evry**ing'; I can't bring myself to type them....

And once more, I think I have disproved this, so, according to you, I have.

I thought we had established that a few posts ago -- oops, so we did, because I just thought it.

And I also think that you have agreed with me that I have disproved it, so, according to you, I have, and you do.

And once more: it's your 'theory' mate; stop moaning.


Keeping in mind that that you think it's wrong doesn't persuade me to believe you, as I've already said that what you think is right to you, that doesn't mean I agree with every thought in your head.

Every sounds pretty universal to me.

But let that pass.

But, if I think that every thought in my head is one with which you agree, then, according to your theory, it is right for me to think it, and if it is right to think what it is right to think, then you must think it right that I so think, that is, that it is right to think you agree with every thought in my head, and if you think it right to think it, it is right to think it.

So, to just annoy you, I do now so think, that means you also so think.

So, you do agree with me.

QED
No, sorry. Making reference to "everyone" and "everything" being forbidden references my things I've said in the past, again rather than actual addressing the issue.

And according to me, you have not disproved this because I think you have not. I do not think every thought you think is correct, as I've said too many times to mention. My theory states that you're right to think what you want, and you yourself view this is right. This does not mean I agree with it. That I'm moaning about it is because in every paragraph you think you're right (which obviously you do and you're right to think) but I think differently (which I have every right to think) so I try and persuade you to see differently by moaning about it.

Again! Every thought in your head I do not agree with. Just because I think you have the right to think whatever you want, and what you think is right to you yourself, does not mean I agree with.

I think you can either understand that I do not agree with every thought in your head because I think so, or I'll stop arguing with you and think I have won the argument.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 09:24 PM
Dissenter (some dissenter -- you'd dissent from Heisenberg if your name was accurate):


But if Heisenberg is 'correct' then we can never know what 'utter reality' is and in fact it doesn't exist.

Well, if we can't know what it is, what exactly was he denying?

As soon as he tells us, he knows what it is, so he knows it, and so it wasn't all that uncertain.

And if he does not know what it is that he is denying, then his denial is empty.

Either way, I would ignore Heisenberg's Buddhist ideas if I were you. He sounds as confused as Fist.

Next shallow point please....
In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (sometimes also the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle - a name given it by Niels Bohr) states that one cannot assign values (with full precision) to certain pairs of observable variables of a single elementary particle at the same time even with infinitely precise instruments. These variable pairs include the position and momentum. The principle furthermore precisely quantifies the imprecision by providing a lower bound (greater than zero) for the product of the standard deviations of the measurements. The uncertainty principle is one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics and was discovered by Werner Heisenberg in 1927

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fist:


If you think you have grasped the point, then you have grasped the point to you yourself.

But I think I have grasped it for you too; so according to you, I have, and I am right to think I have; so I have grasped the point for both of us.

And, the point I grasped was that you agreed with me.

So you still agree with me.

If so, why are you in denial?

Yet again: it's your theory.


It's possible for me to not think you are right, only that you yourself think you are right.

But, I think you do not do that, so you don't.


You have every right to think what you want yes, this again doesn't necessarily mean I agree with it.

But I think you 100% agree with me, so you do.


Again, my theory does not mean whatever you think is right I think too.

But I think it does, so it does; I also think you concur with my interpretation of your 'theory', so you do.

More objectivity:


I've explained to you perhaps 15 times

[Are you sure it wasn't 16? You'd better check -- objectively....]

No need to, though; I thought I got the point right at the start, so I did.

And, annoyingly, you agreed with me that I ghad, at the start -- or at least I think you did, so you did.

[Infuriating stuff this subjectivism, isn't it? You clearly do not like it thrown back at you. Now, if you were an objectivist, that would shut me up....]


This again does not mean I agree with you, as you are only right to you yourself, and I may have a different view than yours, which I do.

But, I think you do, so you do.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fist (a new convert to objective Physics, with its universal laws, like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle):


In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (sometimes also the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle - a name given it by Niels Bohr) states that one cannot assign values (with full precision) to certain pairs of observable variables of a single elementary particle at the same time even with infinitely precise instruments. These variable pairs include the position and momentum.

I am well aware of this 'principle' (which according to you, Heisenberg could not have known to be true, since there are no such truths); I was merely responding to Dissenter's garbled metaphysical version of it.


The principle furthermore precisely quantifies the imprecision by providing a lower bound (greater than zero) for the product of the standard deviations of the measurements. The uncertainty principle is one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics and was discovered by Werner Heisenberg in 1927

So you think, but I think it was dreamt up by George W Bush last night, and your 'theory' says I am right to think it, and that you agree with me, if I think you agree with me; which I do.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 09:36 PM
Fist:


If you think you have grasped the point, then you have grasped the point to you yourself.

But I think I have grasped it for you too; so according to you, I have, and I am right to think I have; so I have grasped the point for both of us.

And, the point I grasped was that you agreed with me.

So you still agree with me.

If so, why are you in denial?

Yet again: it's your theory.


It's possible for me to not think you are right, only that you yourself think you are right.

But, I think you do not do that, so you don't.


You have every right to think what you want yes, this again doesn't necessarily mean I agree with it.

But I think you 100% agree with me, so you do.


Again, my theory does not mean whatever you think is right I think too.

But I think it does, so it does; I also think you concur with my interpretation of your 'theory', so you do.

More objectivity:


I've explained to you perhaps 15 times

[Are you sure it wasn't 16? You'd better check -- objectively....]

No need to, though; I thought I got the point right at the start, so I did.

And, annoyingly, you agreed with me that I ghad, at the start -- or at least I think you did, so you did.

[Infuriating stuff this subjectivism, isn't it? You clearly do not like it thrown back at you. Now, if you were an objectivist, that would shut me up....]


This again does not mean I agree with you, as you are only right to you yourself, and I may have a different view than yours, which I do.

But, I think you do, so you do.
According to me, I don't agree with every thought in your head. You can think that applies to both of us and that's great for you, but I think differently.

Therefore I still don't agree with you.

Again, I do not agree with every thought you think. You're going on the basis that somewhere I said I agree with every thought you think, which I don't.

And no, again, just because you think so doesn't mean I agree with you. You may think we're in 100% but I do not think so. If you've sufficiently convinced yourself that I'm agreeing with you, bravo. I however, do not think so.

And no that wasn't objectivity at all, I pulled a random number out of my head because I thought i'd explained it a lot.


Nowhere have I said I agree with every thought you think. You're going off on your own bullshit theory that I agree with every thought you think, which is in no part of my own theory. Thus you're only disproving your own understanding of my theory.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 09:42 PM
Fist (a new convert to objective Physics, with its universal laws, like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle):


In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (sometimes also the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle - a name given it by Niels Bohr) states that one cannot assign values (with full precision) to certain pairs of observable variables of a single elementary particle at the same time even with infinitely precise instruments. These variable pairs include the position and momentum.

I am well aware of this 'principle' (which according to you, Heisenberg could not have known to be true, since there are no such truths); I was merely responding to Dissenter's garbled metaphysical version of it.


The principle furthermore precisely quantifies the imprecision by providing a lower bound (greater than zero) for the product of the standard deviations of the measurements. The uncertainty principle is one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics and was discovered by Werner Heisenberg in 1927

So you think, but I think it was dreamt up by George W Bush last night, and your 'theory' says I am right to think it, and that you agree with me, if I think you agree with me; which I do.
I'm glad you think George Dubbya thought it up. I however do not agree with every thought in your head. I think you have the right to think whatever you want, and what you think is right in your own head. I do not agree with what you think however, nor anywhere have I stated I agree with everything think.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 09:24 PM
Dissenter (some dissenter -- you'd dissent from Heisenberg if your name was accurate):


But if Heisenberg is 'correct' then we can never know what 'utter reality' is and in fact it doesn't exist.

Well, if we can't know what it is, what exactly was he denying?

As soon as he tells us, he knows what it is, so he knows it, and so it wasn't all that uncertain.

And if he does not know what it is that he is denying, then his denial is empty.

Either way, I would ignore Heisenberg's Buddhist ideas if I were you. He sounds as confused as Fist.

Next shallow point please....
You seem to be obsessed with my username. I am refering to capitalism when I say I'm a dissenter. How can one possibly dissent to everything. The rejection of the uncertainty principle is fine, but please tell me how we will ever know the position and velocity of a photon simultaneously. There appears to be natural boundries in the quest to define what is reality, boundries that simply cannot be crossed. There is no objective reality other than the one that states there isn't any. Heisenberg knew the reality of uncertainty, but he knew thats all he could know at any point in time. Maybe I am wrong, or worse stupid, but thats how I see it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fist:


No, sorry. Making reference to "everyone" and "everything" being forbidden references my things I've said in the past, again rather than actual addressing the issue.

I think you are joking here, so you are; hence you don't mean this, since I also think you agree with me; so you do.

More universal truths:


According to me, I don't agree with every thought in your head.

[Emphasis added by Julius Caesar, I think....]

But also according to you, I am right if I think you agree with me; so, I do so think, so I am right to think it, and you are right to agree with me, so I think.


Therefore I still don't agree with you.

Italics or not, I think you do, so according to you, I am right to so think, and you are right to agree with me, which I also think, so you do.

We can do this all day long, or even longer; your loopy theory gives me a licence to think whatever I like about you, and it commits you to thinking I am right to think whatever I think about you is so, and it is so, and that, because it is right to think what it is right to think, you are right to agree with me, which I also think.

Deny it a million times, and I'll keep throwing these crazy subjectivist ideas (of yours) right back at you.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 09:54 PM
Fist:


No, sorry. Making reference to "everyone" and "everything" being forbidden references my things I've said in the past, again rather than actual addressing the issue.

I think you are joking here, so you are; hence you don't mean this, since I also think you agree with me; so you do.

More universal truths:


According to me, I don't agree with every thought in your head.

[Emphasis added by Julius Caesar, I think....]

But also according to you, I am right if I think you agree with me; so, I do so think, so I am right to think it, and you are right to agree with me, so I think.


Therefore I still don't agree with you.

Italics or not, I think you do, so according to you, I am right to so think, and you are right to agree with me, which I also think, so you do.

We can do this all day long, or even longer; your loopy theory gives me a licence to think whatever I like about you, and it commits you to thinking I am right to think whatever I think about you is so, and it is so, and that, because it is right to think what it is right to think, you are right to agree with me, which I also think.

Deny it a million times, and I'll keep throwing these crazy subjectivist ideas (of yours) right back at you.
As I've already explained I don't agree with every thought you think. I agree you have the right to think it but that doesn't mean I too think it.

How is that a universal truth if it goes "according to me"? If it's "according to me" it can't be a universal truth, just one perspective on the issue.

According to me I don't agree with every thought you think, so no I don't agree with you.

This idea you picked up that I completely agree with every thought you have is not subjectivist, it's just stupid, and nowhere have I said I agree with every thought in your head.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Non-dissenter:


You seem to be obsessed with my username

I mention it twice in two months; that is obsession?

No wonder your metaphysical ideas are all over the place.

And, if you check the record, Heisenberg adopted this view for political reasons, connected with the relativism around in Capitalist Weimar Germany at the time. It smacks of Idealism.

So, I'd expect a non-dissenter like you not to dissent, and you didn't.


but please tell me how we will ever know the position and velocity of a photon simultaneously.

When Physicists change their minds again (as they do every generation or so), and decide these can be ascertained simultaneously.

As a genuine dissenter myself, I dissent.

You should try it some time....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fist:


As I've already explained I don't agree with every thought you think. I agree you have the right to think it but that doesn't mean I too think it.

But I think you do, and according to your theory, I am right to think it, so you do agee with me.

As I said, we can play this get-nowhere-fast-with-Fist subjective game for weeks if you like.


How is that a universal truth if it goes "according to me"?

Well 'according to me' it is, so according to you, it is too, because I just thought you thought this. So you do think it is.

So stop using these infidel words; it's most upsetting....

Annoying eh?


According to me I don't agree with every thought you think, so no I don't agree with you.

Ah, but I have a get-out-of-Fist's-jail-free card, which says quite clearly that whatever I think is so is so; so I think you do agree with me, so, if it is right for me to think it, and it is right for you to think what it is right to think, you think it too.

So, you do agree with me.

Your 'theory'....

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 10:09 PM
Fist:


As I've already explained I don't agree with every thought you think. I agree you have the right to think it but that doesn't mean I too think it.

But I think you do, and according to your theory, I am right to think it, so you do agee with me.

As I said, we can play this get-nowhere-fast-with-Fist subjective game for weeks if you like.


How is that a universal truth if it goes "according to me"?

Well 'according to me' it is, so according to you, it is too, because I just thought you thought this. So you do think it is.

So stop using these infidel words; it's most upsetting....

Annoying eh?


According to me I don't agree with every thought you think, so no I don't agree with you.

Ah, but I have a get-out-of-Fist's-jail-free card, which says quite clearly that whatever I think is so is so; so I think you do agree with me, so, if it is right for me to think it, and it is right for you to think what it is right to think, you think it too.

So, you do agree with me.

Your 'theory'....
We can sure play this game over and over again, unless you realize that I haven't said anywhere everything thought you think I think is right.

Again, I don't think every thought you think is correct.

Again, I don't think every thought you think is correct.

Whatever you think is so, is so to you yourself. Not to me. If you think it's right, then you think it's right. I do not think it's right. Nowhere have I said I agree with everything you think. Your entire argument seems to rest on that I do agree with everything you think (despite my never having said so), which is impossible because if I did I wouldn't be arguing.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fist:


We can sure play this game over and over again, unless you realize that I haven't said anywhere everything I think you think is right.

But I think you did, so you did, according to your theory.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 10:17 PM
Fist:


We can sure play this game over and over again, unless you realize that I haven't said anywhere everything I think you think is right.

But I think you did, so you did, according to your theory.
You see, I never stated anywhere in my theory that you're always right. Therefore you're going by your own retarded theory, which is just an argument ad nauseam and has no logical grounding nor is it an accurate representation of my thought.

[Hegemonicretribution]

This is starting to get ridiculous now. Fist of Steel could not claim that you are always right, because there is no right in that sense of the word according to hi,.

All that is being stated is that you hold your own personal truth, you can try and focus this onto others, but it essentially remains personal. So even if you were right (to yourself) to think that Fist of Steel thinks you are right, this does not change what Fist himself thinks, and does not alter his own truth.

You are contradicting Fist's view by invoking the objective, something which he denies. It is easy to misrepresent such a view, and make it self-destruct in front of those that don't fully get it. Such a view makes no grandiose truth claims, rather it denies them, and it doesn't matter whether or not this claim itself is true, because this isn't claimed in a general sense....

Fist of Steel is this along the lines of your thought?

Personally I object to this view on other grounds, but that is neither here nor there. If no further discussion is possible here then this is becoming spam and I will close this thread. Unfortunately you seem to be going no where.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hegemonic, as you have probably guessed, I am just pushing Fist's 'theory' to its logical conclusion to show that his subjectivism implies that if I think he agrees with me (on anything I care to think he does) he does, and that, according to him, if what I think is the case, is the case, which it is if i merely think it, then, he must agree with me.

I suspect he cannot see this because his rationality seems to have atrophied, owing to acute subjectivitis.

You can close this thread, if you want, since I have from Fist a licence to wind him up with my constant refrain -- taking his subjectivism far more seriously that he seems capable of doing (I think he is a subjectivist wimp, so he is, according to his theory); watch and groan:

Fist:


You see, I never stated anywhere in my theory that you're always right.

But, according to you, whatever I think is right is right, so I think you said that everything I though is right is right; so it is.

It's no use wimping out, mate. It's your theory.

Moreover, since you are committed to thinking only what is right is right, then, you too must agree with me that I am right to think you did say that everything I think is right is right, and you are right to agree with me, so you did and you do.

Or at least I think so -- which according to you is the same thing.

Over to you Hegemonic.

Put the good people here out of their misery....

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 1 2006, 02:19 PM
Hegemonic, as you have probably guessed, I am just pushing Fist's 'theory' to its logical conclusion to show that his subjectivism implies that if I think he agrees with me (on anything I care to think he does) he does, and that, according to him, if what I think is the case, is the case, which it is if i merely think it, then, he must agree with me.

I suspect he cannot see this because his rationality seems to have atrophied, owing to acute subjectivitis.

You can close this thread, if you want, since I have from Fist a licence to wind him up with my constant refrain -- taking his subjectivism far more seriously that he seems capable of doing (I think he is a subjectivist wimp, so he is, according to his theory); watch and groan:

Fist:


You see, I never stated anywhere in my theory that you're always right.

But, according to you, whatever I think is right is right, so I think you said that everything I though is right is right; so it is.

It's no use wimping out, mate. It's your theory.

Moreover, since you are committed to thinking only what is right is right, then, you too must agree with me that I am right to think you did say that everything I think is right is right, and you are right to agree with me, so you did and you do.

Or at least I think so -- which according to you is the same thing.

Over to you Hegemonic.

Put the good people here out of their misery....
You have the right to think it, but that does not mean I agree with you. So every instance you say something it may be completely right to you but not to me so I'll feel need the correct it based upon my own subjective understanding of things. Whatever you think is right is only right to you. If you honestly believe I'm in agreeance with you then you wouldn't be arguing with me since you'd think I agree with you.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I think that you have both had your say, and sometimes a lengthy say at that many times, but nothing new has really been added for some pages....Although my want to hit my head against a wall has increased slightly :D

Thread closed!