Swastakowey wrote:

Everything is not a matter of opinion, thus some things are actually bad/suck. For example, if you play a miniature game that ignores the principle of its own definition - it goes off the reservation of being the idea of a miniature game. In the case of AoS, it has gone in that direction - being more deluded to its own sense of existence. Sure people can say its fun/great but in relation to what? A miniature game has a certain level of objective meaning that isn't purely tied to the notion of subjective thought (otherwise it would be a contradiction). WHAT DOES THIS MEAN??

People who want to play a miniature game do so not for any reason that sounds good to them, but for mutual understanding in an objective sense - they are playing an external game, not solely an internal/mental one. This implies a certain expectation of rules and the adherence to follow these rules before you become destructive to the reason why everyone is there in the first place. Naturally, playing a miniature game logically infers detail at different degrees, and to find a level of this that can meet brevity and complexity is the balance every miniature game ought to strive for. AoS abandoned this notion, and went toward the mantra of selling an innovation in essence, than selling a miniature game.

 kveldulf wrote:

 IGtR= wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Everything is not a matter of opinion, thus some things are actually bad/suck. For example, if you play a miniature game that ignores the principle of its own definition - it goes off the reservation of being the idea of a miniature game. In the case of AoS, it has gone in that direction - being more deluded to its own sense of existence. Sure people can say its fun/great but in relation to what? A miniature game has a certain level of objective meaning that isn't purely tied to the notion of subjective thought (otherwise it would be a contradiction). WHAT DOES THIS MEAN??

People who want to play a miniature game do so not for any reason that sounds good to them, but for mutual understanding in an objective sense - they are playing an external game, not solely an internal/mental one. This implies a certain expectation of rules and the adherence to follow these rules before you become destructive to the reason why everyone is there in the first place. Naturally, playing a miniature game logically infers detail at different degrees, and to find a level of this that can meet brevity and complexity is the balance every miniature game ought to strive for. AoS abandoned this notion, and went toward the mantra of selling an innovation in essence, than selling a miniature game.

I don't know if you know the meaning of objective meaning but this is not it. Nobody can agree about whether objective meaning exists but a basic example might be that 1+1=2.
A miniature game has no level of objective meaning. And a certain level of objective meaning is a meaningless statement. If I said miniature game to an alien or a remote tribe and then explained it and then showed them AoS then they'd probably say it was a miniature game. If you can provide me with an objective definition, sourced from outside of human experience, that exists separate to any degree of subjectivity and will always hold true in any given hypothetical situation, and everyone agrees on it, then you can talk about objectivity. After you have proven that objectivity exists. So you might want to rephrase this. Its the same thing as humour or morality, try talking about objectives in there with some people that know what they're talking about and they will tear you to pieces over evidential flaws, logical jumps etc.

And what do you mean by purely tied to subjective thought meaning a contradiction?

By this statement do you mean that there are subjective (ie cultural) values that wargamers associate with miniature games. Because our partners clearly don't have the same view of what we do as we do. There might be an expectation of rules etc. but that isn't objective and it is not unimaginable that a certain percentage of gamers do not expect rules to be present all of the time. Just as not all gamers now think that points are necessary.

I shall leave this here to demonstrate what I mean about there being no objectivity.

"Nobody can agree about whether objective meaning exists but a basic example might be that 1+1=2"

Just FYI, that is an objective statement Just look at what you're saying, and wait for it. It'll emerge.

"A miniature game has no level of objective meaning"

other than the meaning that it has no objective meaning?

Okay in the same sense that you can make a frankly pathetic argument for anything based on that but then your original premise is destroyed.

"a certain level of objective meaning is a meaningless statement"

And how much would that be? If you are attempting to quantify, there needs to be some sort of measurement.... oh wait

Certain level of objectivity is meaningless if you
a) Can't prove objectivity and so it is based upon a supposition
b) Are having an indeterminate "certain" level of objectivity
c) Are not attempting to quantify
d) Cannot really quantify objectivity. It either is or is not. They are mutually exclusive.

As an alternative I could suggest that you measure the prevalence of certain subjective beliefs and attempt to quantify them. For example you could not say that the Space Marine Tactical Box has a certain level of objective value for money but you could say that many, or a majority of people thought that it was. And then cite a source. So you could say that 80% or respondents thought that AoS was bad but introducing objectivity is just laughable really.


"If you can provide me with an objective definition, sourced from outside of human experience, that exists separate to any degree of subjectivity and will always hold true in any given hypothetical situation, and everyone agrees on it, then you can talk about objectivity"

And what's the purpose of this statement? are you attempting to negate meaning with meaning? That's a tough battle FYI. Meaning is a matter of reference in which the logical course of its ultimate origination is a matter of the Divine, Unmoved Mover, Prime Mover, God, The Lord (and yea, I believe & follow Jesus).

Okay. Just saying don't just wang around philosophical language with no ability to back it up, or seemingly no understanding of how to use it. And FYI I know it is a tough battle and that was my point. Some words are highly loaded and so need to be used with care. By saying objective you are claiming that your opinion is right all the time in any conceivable scenario. That is demonstrably wrong, unless you can pass my test. So that is why it is hard.

And FYI meaning is not a matter of reference that has automatic recourse to God, any God, let alone the Christian God, whom may or may not be the Prime Mover depending entirely upon a subjective belief. There are many alternatives to this so don't present that contention as a fact.

"There might be an expectation of rules etc. but that isn't objective and it is not unimaginable that a certain percentage of gamers do not expect rules to be present all of the time. Just as not all gamers now think that points are necessary."

Every game has rules. Points are not really gone I presume, just converted and made more abstract - which I reckon is more confusing in some ways to play a fair game

Not every game has rules. That is an objective statement that you cannot prove. All games are games maybe, but all games have rules you're never going to prove to anybody. It is conceivable that some games do not have rules and entirely possible that there are games in existence with no rules. Followed by another presumption followed by your definition of fair which again is entirely subjective and has no impact on the rest of the community.

I imagine from your relativistic POV you have me plotted/figured somehow? Please just really think about the truth of what I've said.

There was no truth in what you said. Unless you believe that truth is a relativist social construct like I do. Ah lol the irony! As you have previously referenced a Christian viewpoint, the only truth that you can sincerely believe in must come from God himself and be lectio devina. Unless you have an inconsistent definition of objective with regards to truth?

And a nice attack on my "relativist POV". I was actually attempting to introduce some linguistic precision into the debate and perhaps demonstrate to you that your suppositions were false. I do not suppose to have you figured, I am merely responding to a demonstrably flawed argument. The connection that has to your person is of no interest to me.

 kveldulf wrote:

 IGtR= wrote:
see below

You Said:
Certain level of objectivity is meaningless if you
a) Can't prove objectivity and so it is based upon a supposition
b) Are having an indeterminate "certain" level of objectivity
c) Are not attempting to quantify
d) Cannot really quantify objectivity. It either is or is not. They are mutually exclusive.

So you are telling me that you must first use objectivity to then disprove it? You do see the problem with this?

No. Comprehension is important here. I am saying IF you want to use the term objectivity you must prove it, and that this is unlikely as I can disprove it. Using my a-d criteria. As you cannot satisfy these criteria don't use the word objective. And you have entirely, spectacularly failed to do so, and so my point stands.

You Said:
As an alternative I could suggest that you measure the prevalence of certain subjective beliefs and attempt to quantify them. For example you could not say that the Space Marine Tactical Box has a certain level of objective value for money but you could say that many, or a majority of people thought that it was. And then cite a source. So you could say that 80% or respondents thought that AoS was bad but introducing objectivity is just laughable really.


Subjective beliefs, please tell me as to what they are subject to? You are grouping them all, and using an absolute statement. If you were going to ask me to prove objective meaning you would first need to be consistent with your line of questioning and not ask me to prove objective meaning. You see how your position is not saying anything logically?

Can you really not see this?? They are subject to a personal value of price. And a personal value of space marines. Two entirely relative values. Someone who hates wargaming may not pay £5 for them and a diehard fanboi might pay £40. Entirely subjective. If you don't understand this then I don't think we can continue to debate this as it is a fairly fundamental principle in the debate. You cannot genuinely contend that there is any element of objectivity in either the value of money or the monetary value of goods among any given population. My position is entirely grounded in logic.

You Said:
Okay. Just saying don't just wang around philosophical language with no ability to back it up, or seemingly no understanding of how to use it. And FYI I know it is a tough battle and that was my point. Some words are highly loaded and so need to be used with care. By saying objective you are claiming that your opinion is right all the time in any conceivable scenario. That is demonstrably wrong, unless you can pass my test. So that is why it is hard.

I said it was a tough battle because it violates the law of non-contradiction - look that one up. It may shed some light.

It doesn't and you are wrong about the principle. You might want to read up on these topics before you try and cite them as evidence.
That two propositions that are contradictory cannot both be objectively true is obvious logic. "A is B" "A cannot be B" fail the test. But my argument does not. Either objective morality exists and you can demonstrate it, or it does not. If objective morality, then can begin to use the word. If appropriate then you could use in that given context.

OR logically

If x is real then x can be used.
If x exists then x may be used in situation y where appropriate.

You cannot prove the existence of x and so the rest of your argument is meaningless. The logic of my attack is flawless. The supposition of your argument is large and the logical leaps are huge. Your argument currently functions like this

x is real coz
x can be used in situation y because AoS stupid.

You haven't proven x and the use of x even if we assume it is real doesn't seem appropriate in situation y. This is just logic

My argument is such
x cannot be demonstrated to be real
as x may/ may not be real we cannot use x. x therefore may be appropriate in some circumstances, subject to its proof
additionally x is not an appropriate term to describe situation y.



You Said:
And FYI meaning is not a matter of reference that has automatic recourse to God, any God, let alone the Christian God, whom may or may not be the Prime Mover depending entirely upon a subjective belief. There are many alternatives to this so don't present that contention as a fact.[/b]

Oh, and how did you arrive to this conclusion? Are you saying that you are a god? A moral law giver is not something there can be multiples of - the idea of justice would collapse.

It is entirely conceivable that there is a full pantheon of legislative Gods who delegate or collaborate on moral lawmaking. This is a logical possibility and so you cannot make the claim you make above. And I never said I was a God. And yes the idea of justice may collapse in a conceptual fashion, but that is Jurisprudence and it is generally held that the assumption of objective morality is a necessary fiction for law to operate. The above argument is very flawed and is entirely based upon your own worldview and has no grounding in philosophy or logic.


You Said:
Not every game has rules. That is an objective statement that you cannot prove. All games are games maybe, but all games have rules you're never going to prove to anybody. It is conceivable that some games do not have rules and entirely possible that there are games in existence with no rules. Followed by another presumption followed by your definition of fair which again is entirely subjective and has no impact on the rest of the community.

Words mean something. If you don't like that then invent a language where words/constructs have no meaning, then talk to me - that might be tough to do.

Words do mean something this is true, but the meaning is entirely subjective. Fair is a meaningless word. Like fun. Or tasty. Try saying that we all have the same view of them and you will appear a fool.

You Said:
There was no [i]truth in what you said. Unless you believe that truth is a relativist social construct like I do. Ah lol the irony! As you have previously referenced a Christian viewpoint, the only truth that you can sincerely believe in must come from God himself and be lectio devina. Unless you have an inconsistent definition of objective with regards to truth?

And a nice attack on my "relativist POV". I was actually attempting to introduce some linguistic precision into the debate and perhaps demonstrate to you that your suppositions were false. I do not suppose to have you figured, I am merely responding to a demonstrably flawed argument. The connection that has to your person is of no interest to me. [/i]

I know you were trying to assert what you think are brilliant ideas, but I don't think you're being consistent with your own words. You've essentially affirmed nothing to me other than there is no meaning that exists outside of what we make of it - and that very statement contradicts; it confirms then denies itself. 1-1=0 so what are you trying to say?

I am not asserting, I am dismantling your assertions with logic, that is something entirely different, namely arguing. I am being entirely consistent and my argument is that meaning exists subject to our own relative world view and that "meaning" is not shared. You find that distasteful I know but you have thus far failed to argue against it. The statement does not contradict. You can say 1+1+0 but I will not accept that as I can demonstrate it is false every time I perform the sum. Indeed mathematics is one of the few areas that I believe objectivity could exist, but this would have to be very tentative as who is to know what exists out there in a large universe (maybe multiverse). My statement does not confirm and then deny itself, and could you demonstrate that with logic please rather than an assertion? And the mild ad hominem attacks "what you think are brilliant ideas" also prove my point to a degree.

There is nothing objective.
Somebody disagrees with me.
I am supported.
Unless you can demonstrate that objectivity exists my argument stands.

Cheers

Ig

 kveldulf wrote:

 IGtR= wrote:
Response below

You Said:
No. Comprehension is important here. I am saying IF you want to use the term objectivity you must prove it, and that this is unlikely as I can disprove it. Using my a-d criteria. As you cannot satisfy these criteria don't use the word objective. And you have entirely, spectacularly failed to do so, and so my point stands.

Your criteria does nothing to satisfy your point, other than you've created a table of ideas to disprove the use of objectivity absolutely but at the same time prove absolutely that you used the idea of objectivity for its existence. If you think I need to prove objectivity, you first need to provide the evidence as to why I cant use it in the first place. If you got a problem with definitions meaning something, then take it up with a dictionary company. Words are mathematical in essence, and I don't think you're going to convince them that 1=0. Here look at this:

I have not created a table of ideas I have created a cogent list of counter arguments. There is a difference. I am not trying to prove absolutely I am merely demonstrating that your argument is invalid. I am not denying that there may be another argument out there that actually works but yours does not work and that is my point. Absolutes do not come into it. And calling it a table of ideas is mislabelling my criticisms. They are not ideas they are logic.

Secondly I have no problem with definitions, I just would like people to understand the limitations of them. Words are not maths and that is a laughable statement. Anyone who has ever studied any literature will tell you the nuance and SUBJECTIVITY of language. Everyone who has tried to say that words are maths failed. Even the great Wittgenstein and he was a frakking genius so I doubt you have an argument that can back this up, and anthropologists following in the footsteps of Noam Chompsky have demonstrated that language is generally non-transferable to all cultures and languages. If you are interested you can read about many indigenous isolated populations with differing understandings of colour, an expression of directions using compass bearings rather than left or right, and even the incorrect statement that inuit have hundreds of names for snow demonstrates that languages are inherently different. Look at the indirect pronouns that the inuit have and try to find an english equivalent. You can't. Because langauge is not maths.


The Law of non-contradiction is one of the basic laws in classical logic. It states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context. For example, the chair in my living room, right now, cannot be made of wood and not made of wood at the same time. In the law of non-contradiction, where we have a set of statements about a subject, we cannot have any of the statements in that set negate the truth of any other statement in that same set. For example, we have a set of two statements about Judas. 1) Judas hanged himself. 2) Judas fell down, and his bowels spilled out. Neither statement about Judas contradicts the other. That is, neither statement makes the other impossible because neither excludes the possibility of the other. The statements can be harmonized by stating: Judas hanged himself, and then his body fell down; and his bowels spilled out.
https://carm.org/dictionary-law-of-non-contradiction

It is a principle of logic, not of reality. So for maths this works (most of the time) and for logic this works. If x is y then y is always x. But that cannot exist outside of this sphere. In your own Christian tradition there are a vast number of contradictions that you must hold to be true if you are in any way sincere but are logical impossibilities, eg the existence of the Trinity and God's indivisibility as an omnipotent being. A more contemporary, and less controversial subject would be quantum mechanics. In the same way morality can be two things at once to two different people, and neither one be wrong. For a legalistic analysis I would recommend the latter work of Kelsen as he simply demonstrates that two conflicting laws can both exist and be equally valid.


You Said:
Can you really not see this?? They are subject to a personal value of price. And a personal value of space marines. Two entirely relative values. Someone who hates wargaming may not pay £5 for them and a diehard fanboi might pay £40. Entirely subjective. If you don't understand this then I don't think we can continue to debate this as it is a fairly fundamental principle in the debate. You cannot genuinely contend that there is any element of objectivity in either the value of money or the monetary value of goods among any given population. My position is entirely grounded in logic.

I agree, value in this context is relative among people, but it is still relative to something, not arbitrarily given value independently.

Value is the classic arbitrarily given value. Beyond personal consideration of the parties selling there is no external action necessary. And what would price be relative for example? I am curious as to your reasoning.


You Said:
It doesn't and you are wrong about the principle. You might want to read up on these topics before you try and cite them as evidence.
That two propositions that are contradictory cannot both be objectively true is obvious logic. "A is B" "A cannot be B" fail the test. But my argument does not. Either objective morality exists and you can demonstrate it, or it does not. If objective morality, then can begin to use the word. If appropriate then you could use in that given context.

OR logically

If x is real then x can be used.
If x exists then x may be used in situation y where appropriate.

You cannot prove the existence of x and so the rest of your argument is meaningless. The logic of my attack is flawless. The supposition of your argument is large and the logical leaps are huge. Your argument currently functions like this

x is real coz
x can be used in situation y because AoS stupid.

You haven't proven x and the use of x even if we assume it is real doesn't seem appropriate in situation y. This is just logic

My argument is such
x cannot be demonstrated to be real
as x may/ may not be real we cannot use x. x therefore may be appropriate in some circumstances, subject to its proof
additionally x is not an appropriate term to describe situation y.



You sound like you are trying to use a rulebook to convince me your logic, not logic, is correct. If, you believe there is no such thing as an objective way of thinking, then why are you referencing your logic as correct for both you and I? That's again, contradicting your OWN view and ignoring the fact that there are laws in logic, that are axiomatic; being objective when referenced to prove a point. Again please, please think about what I am saying. It sounds like you are trying to win, rather than think; I mean please look at your own words: "The logic of my attack is flawless". I don't know how I can put my response in words to describe my feelings about that statement.

I am demonstrating an element of shared ground that we subjectively hold. Your argument can be analysed by me as I understand it. That is not to give it any objective value and it is facile to suggest so. My logic is flawless in its analysis of your so called argument. I am following it and expressing it in another format in an attempt to show you its flaws. That it has failed to do so is a shame but do not attack me for expressing it in another way. I am not trying to win I am winning. Your failure to respond adequately to any of my counters thus far leads me to believe I am winning. I am using a generally accepted format to try and demonstrate the differences between our arguments; mine follows a logical flow of reasoning whilst yours is based on assertions and the incorrect application of terms.



You Said:
It is entirely conceivable that there is a full pantheon of legislative Gods who delegate or collaborate on moral lawmaking. This is a logical possibility and so you cannot make the claim you make above. And I never said I was a God. And yes the idea of justice may collapse in a conceptual fashion, but that is Jurisprudence and it is generally held that the assumption of objective morality is a necessary fiction for law to operate. The above argument is very flawed and is entirely based upon your own worldview and has no grounding in philosophy or logic.

I don't even know where to start with your statements other than. Your statement "it is generally held that the assumption of objective morality is a necessary fiction for law to operate" is yet again, a tangent stemmed from the ideology that there is no morality. Never mind the amazing minds that understood nature and natures God (natural law), you are holding a generality from a group of what, PhDs in socialist Europe somewhere - is that any surprise? The 20th century brought that way of thinking to its logical course - that death is the main hero of any society, and we should embrace it. That happened to be perhaps the most bloodiest time in human history. So, aside from the empirical perspective, please just consider that law may might be a matter of finding self evident truth than inventing it arbitrarily.

Furthermore, the reason for pursuing any meaning in anything, first comes from a world view..... and though philosophy/logic can compliment/affirm a view, it can also indicate that the evidence is counter to it.

My statement is not a tangent, it is the logical conclusion of the debate on morality, one of the most important debates in Jurisprudence, and a matter of extreme importance. Hart said that if solved the issue would be the most powerful conclusion we would find. o not really a tangent.

Never mind the "amazing minds" what they understood is fine but they could not prove it. And you cannot either. So please stop trying to argue this. Your central supposition is no more justified than when you first asserted that objectivity could be applied to a wargame.

Then nice ad hominem. Those socialist PhD students were actually some of the most gifted minds that we may have seen in philosophy, and not just in the modern era. Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and all the boys in the band dared to challenge the lazy hegemony of the natural lawyers and force people to justify their beliefs. As this debate hasn’t been resolved over here your precious natural lawyers clearly haven’t done a great job of defeating the criticisms of objective morality. And Oxford, one of the centres of such thinking is a world renowned university of which I am proud to study at. To dismiss thinking that has come out of it is not only childish but akin to intellectual self-harm. Your lack of awareness of the importance of these counter argument does nothing to diminish them.

Then nice Godwin. Sorry but you don’t think that the elitism and justification for colonialism and imperialism that came from a natural law tradition was just as bad? Hmmmm. Good argument. This Godwin attack was not at all based in Empiricism and if you could establish any Empirical data I would suggest that more blood has been shed in the name of your God or any other than in the name of true cultural relativism and subjectivism.

Who is to say that there is any self- evident truth in law?
Why do we need self-evident truth in law? It should be enough for people to realise that law serves the subjective good of humanity, or that we should assume these values if we require such universal maxims. In addition I don’t believe that people follow the law because of terrible arguments made by natural law supporters who claim the existence of objectivity it generally tends to be because of social and economic pressures.

And can you please explain what you mean by this?
“Furthermore, the reason for pursuing any meaning in anything, first comes from a world view..... and though philosophy/logic can compliment/affirm a view, it can also indicate that the evidence is counter to it.”
.


You Said:
Words do mean something this is true, but the meaning is entirely subjective. Fair is a meaningless word. Like fun. Or tasty. Try saying that we all have the same view of them and you will appear a fool.

"but the meaning is entirely subjective"
hm.....
"but the meaning is entirely subjective"
hmmmmmmm....
"but the meaning is entirely subjective"
..................................................................

Please, please re read your words a few times. And really really think about it. You said they are entirely subjective. 'Entirely' is a word invoking an absolute thing. Then you're saying its subjective.... I mean, which is it?? You're saying its subjective, but yet your saying that absolutely...... you see the problem there right??????????? If it dawns on you, please take the same principle and apply it to the realm of meaning - surely then you'll see the bigger picture?

I am not evoking an absolute, perhaps it would be better to say “This has no basis in objectivity.” And you can use the word absolutely without referring to objectivity. Absolutely means entirely. I am entirely me. That is not to say that I will always be and always have been, and that me is an objective concept. You see the difference. This orange is absolutely disgusting has no objective meaning. The orange is not comprised of pure disgusting, and not all oranges are purely disgusting. See the subjectivity of language at work here? Or just your mistake.

And WTF is the “realm of meaning” and the “bigger picture”. Generally it is not great argument practice to wait for something to dawn on the opposition so I ask you to set out your claim please.
.



You Said:
I am not asserting, I am dismantling your assertions with logic, that is something entirely different, namely arguing. I am being entirely consistent and my argument is that meaning exists subject to our own relative world view and that "meaning" is not shared. You find that distasteful I know but you have thus far failed to argue against it. The statement does not contradict. You can say 1+1+0 but I will not accept that as I can demonstrate it is false every time I perform the sum. Indeed mathematics is one of the few areas that I believe objectivity could exist, but this would have to be very tentative as who is to know what exists out there in a large universe (maybe multiverse). My statement does not confirm and then deny itself, and could you demonstrate that with logic please rather than an assertion? And the mild ad hominem attacks "what you think are brilliant ideas" also prove my point to a degree.

You are not using logic, you're violating a law of logic. You can proclaim that you are being consistent, but that means little when your words show the opposite - you're not adding any credence by saying this, other than puffing your chest?

Language, of any form, is mathematical - inherently. Each word, syllable is some manner of logical meaning...... the compilation of various words - paragraphs, sentences - are complex mathematical values. But they also delineate two qualities indisputable, immutable: that there is substance, and that there is essence in things. You can never ever 'know' these two absolutely, but that does not mean you can not know of them.

Faith is an example of essence. Its a variable any scientist has to admit. The scientific method is actually based on skeptical approach - faith. However, being perpetually skeptical actually falls in on the observer if that's all he does; it's critical to maintain balance when it comes to they 'why' you are observing and the 'what'. I digress though.





and about your end:

[color=orange]You Said:
There is nothing objective except for that reason for stating that, and that sentence, and the words, and the letters, and the pixels, and the fingers typing it, and the ......
How do you know I am typing it? Or that I exist? Heard of Descartes? Your perception of objectivity is wrong I’m afraid.

Somebody disagrees with me.
I am supported.
Unless you can demonstrate that objectivity exists my argument stands.

Cheers

Ig

 kveldulf wrote:

 IGtR= wrote:
Response below

You said:
I have not created a table of ideas I have created a cogent list of counter arguments. There is a difference. I am not trying to prove absolutely I am merely demonstrating that your argument is invalid. I am not denying that there may be another argument out there that actually works but yours does not work and that is my point.
color]

Whatever. You created a cogent list of counter arguments. So.... if you want to call it that, instead of criteria, okay, but I think you're being pedantic & redundant.
"Words are not maths and that is a laughable statement"
Nevermind computer science has shown that language can be harnessed with 'maths' (binary) and that the watson system from IBM has shown that averaging symbols of letters, words is possible with 'maths'.

[color=red]" I am not denying that you can code words to represent them, but you cannot assign mathematical precision to words. There is a huge distinction between the two. Maths can describe the shapes of words and represent them on a screen in binary but it is like a child copying words that they don’t understand by merely tracing the shapes. Computer science is irrelevant in the field of philosophy as it is a physical representation, not philosophical reasoning. "



" Anyone who has ever studied any literature will tell you the nuance and SUBJECTIVITY of language"

Deconstructing meaning happens. How does this prove that language is absolutely subjective?

Okay if you can’t get this one I don’t know how to explain it more simply. Fair has no standardised meaning. It can mean a variety of things to a variety of people in a variety of circumstances. Thus your arbitrary use of it means nothing.

I am not seeking to prove absolutely that language is subjective I am merely demonstrating that a practical understanding of the functioning of language shows us that there are numerous situations where we cannot ascribe any objectivity to the phrase. A classic example is the word fair.





You said:
It is a principle of logic, not of reality. So for maths this works (most of the time) and for logic this works. If x is y then y is always x. But that cannot exist outside of this sphere. In your own Christian tradition there are a vast number of contradictions that you must hold to be true if you are in any way sincere but are logical impossibilities, eg the existence of the Trinity and God's indivisibility as an omnipotent being. A more contemporary, and less controversial subject would be quantum mechanics. In the same way morality can be two things at once to two different people, and neither one be wrong. For a legalistic analysis I would recommend the latter work of Kelsen as he simply demonstrates that two conflicting laws can both exist and be equally valid.

"It is a principle of logic, not of reality"

You do know they go hand in hand? Please try to describe reality for me without logic? Or another way of saying it: please give me an incoherent answer since that's what's your needing to provide. You see what I did there?

Logic is abstract thinking. Reality necessarily involves empirical observation. I am attacking your argument here based solely on its self-contained rationality without reference to any specific factual situations. This is the difference between challenging a theory of particle physics based upon mathematical mistake as opposed to your own experiments. They do not necessarily go hand in hand.

All dogs have mouths. I have a mouth. I am a dog.
The argument does not need to be defeated by me having to prove I am not a dog with genetic testing, photographs, witnesses etc.
I can merely demonstrate that the argument is flawed. Using logic.

Algebra is logic, maths is logic-based. These two need not be grounded in reality. My example expressing your argument in terms of x is not grounded in reality.

I see what you did there and it was wrong.




So for maths this works (most of the time)"

How much is that?

So far as we know and so far as we rely on central assumptions to create the numbers that we use. Ask a mathematician to prove that 1 is equal to -1, or get into the field of i or j numbers, or get into a deep discussion with theoretical mathematicians about zero. Maths works lots of the time but there are conceivable scenarios where there are unsolvable logical problems.


"In your own Christian tradition there are a vast number of contradictions that you must hold to be true if you are in any way sincere but are logical impossibilities, eg the existence of the Trinity and God's indivisibility as an omnipotent being."

Every time someone tries to label something in Christianity a contradiction, I've had the experience that it really isn't a contradiction come to find out, but rather sourced from a matter that's an ulterior motive - perpetually skeptic / emotional. Sometimes its as bad as the example of a person picking up a book, reading a few lines randomly in it, gloss over the ending and drawing a conclusion about what that book is about. Its really sad. Now then, as far as tradition goes in Christianity, there are some who put this above the essence of what the Bible is actually saying - which is very dangerous grounds. So please don't judge a religion by its abuse - rather the substance from its source (just a tangent bit of advice there). Regarding the Trinity - I understand that there are some who have a hard time digesting the concept - even muslims do it. I'm referencing them because its essentially the same problem the skeptic have - the arian heresy will most likely get surfaced too, and this is what I have to say to them:

Jesus Christ affirmed His place with words and deeds, as both God and Man, for the sake of a few logical requirements for a divine being - that He must be sovereign, and that if there are rational beings in His creation, He must logically relate with them - otherwise they are not rational (which would be a paradox). No one can ever know something absolutely, but they can know of it. Jesus Christ is the interface (Son) as to which we may relate with the unknowable aspect of God (the Father). The concept of the trinity is a multi leveled concept, that caters not just to the intellectual - and that's pretty amazing.

With regards to the first paragraph. More ad hominems? Really? Oh well I guess everyone who doesn’t believe your viewpoint is emotional. In fact the only appeals to emotion have been from you. Sorry. And I have not glossed over the Bible, I have read it critically.

I do not judge a religion by its abuse but your slander of some major philosophers required me to demonstrate that Christianity has been just as bad.

Then assumption assumption assumption from you. I know these are your beliefs but you cannot logically solve the contradiction of the Trinity. No Christian thinker has satisfactorily demonstrated it. And your argument starts from a position of assuming God exists. Indeed this “argument” is so flawed as to be useless and I will not evaluate.

As for it not just creating to the intellectual, that is fine. But it does not make the argument work. I understand these are sincere beliefs, but present them as such. Faith is an amazing force but it is not logic. To present it as such does it a disservice. You believe in the Trinity as you are a Christian, not because it works.
.


Value is the classic arbitrarily given value. Beyond personal consideration of the parties selling there is no external action necessary. And what would price be relative for example? I am curious as to your reasoning.


Price is relative to the cause and effects occurring - at every level. One values something due to a series of circumstances, though, we can recognize this, quantify it somewhat, we cannot absolutely know its entirety other than the incomprehensible nature of it. This does not mean it precludes us from assessing value in whatever way (it couldn't), rather, we use what is most valuable in context of a truth statement - which comes from a world view.

Again you are mistaking USUALLY for ALWAYS or NECESSARILY. Price has no connection to anything it is entirely arbitrary. And that last sentence is meaningless language that you think sounds clever. You can assess value but only empirically and subjectively. There is no objective basis for value. Do you honestly believe that out there somewhere an omnipotent being is determining the objective value of a box of space marines? No. so price is subjective.



You said:
"I am demonstrating an element of shared ground that we subjectively hold" /color]

If everything is subjective, then we are not standing on shared ground

[color=red] Or we are because factually that is our experience. It is subject to change but subjectively, we share enough in commonality to declare that we are sharing something. There is no coherence in that statement.



"My logic is flawless in its analysis of your so called argument".

With using your logic I could say, what's logical for you isn't logical for me. You see the problem there right?

About being 'generally accepted' - You can say you have a generally accepted format, and that means nothing - a community doesn't invent what logic looks like - they recognize it; that it being consistent with nature (self evident truth). I have resorted to classical logic to show you, in a few ways, how you cannot reason away objectivity - at multiple levels.

Logic= your argument as a rational construct.
Your argument does not make sense in relation to itself. I have demonstrated this. My analysis does not suffer from such faults. Thus my logic works and your does not. We do not need to share anything as understanding you “argument” means understanding that it is flawed. You can disagree with me, but you cannot prove me wrong or yourself right.

Communities can invent formulations of logic, and can understand them in context. You have not resorted to classical logic. You have tried to use some terms that you do not understand and you have failed to demonstrate anything save the failure of your own argument.

And can you tell me why logic has to follow from nature?



You said:
My statement is not a tangent, it is the logical conclusion of the debate on morality, one of the most important debates in Jurisprudence, and a matter of extreme importance…..
.

Yes, those socialist minds were so amazing, they led fantastic lives, to better humanity Nietzsche went insane (though I guess sanity and insanity look the same to you?) but lets throw their personal lives aside. What did Nietzsche advocate, allude to most - atheism? Dude, that world view is based on being skeptical of everything which becomes problematic when the truth is, no one can ever know absolutely (faith), let alone that sort of skeptic cannot legitimize why he should be skeptical in the first place - just FYI. The essence of these 'socialist' thinkers, at their core, is to make themselves god (in the figurative sense to them) and become their own savior (mitigate shame/guilt) to get away with anything. Sanctity with this mindset is lost, because its subjective thus, 'do what thou wilt' (the mantra of satanism) is the way. Hmmmmm.... that's some ugly stuff there. I'll tell you this sobering thing, as sometimes words only convey so much: if you think you have the right to murder one of my children (or whom I understand to be innocent), then you'll have a bigger problem than just ideas in kind - with the force I will bear down on you (war). Your views interlope onto peoples liberty (self evident view) that don't be surprised when you practice it, that you will essentially be inviting bodily harm (strife) to yourself.

Regarding imperialism etc. Sure, I don't think people are perfect. So what? I think people are inherently evil, so its no surprise that they can say one thing and do another. The founding fathers of the United states understood this and separated powers as much as they thought appropriate - which was a fantastic idea in contrast to centralized power - unlike what socialism would have us jump on.

Again nice childish ad hominem but generally I would prefer to debate with adults who challenge me on philosophical terms. Nietzsche’s personal life is irrelevant, in the same way yours and mine are. And the advocacy of atheism is unconnected to this debate. In fact the sceptic can choose to hold whatever personal beliefs they choose, they must merely not their irrationality.

Then you have more ad hominem and a rather childish view of socialism. But hey they were European socialists! I don’t suppose you actually bothered to read my other examples of Hart, Reuter, Wittgenstein, they weren’t socialists FYI. And then your Sunday school perception of atheism is wrong and clouding it with quasi-religious language doesn’t give it any credibility. And atheism is the mantra of Satanism!

“because its subjective thus, 'do what thou wilt' (the mantra of satanism) is the way”
Or not. Do what thou will is hedonism. Not Satanism. Satanism is the worship of satan. Which has nothing to do with seeking pleasure or doing what you want.

And subjectivism is actually one of the biggest justifications for ethical liberalism and not interloping on other peoples freedom. I think you are misguided and I am telling you this but it does not follow that I will interfere with you. This rant is highly illogical and has no place here.

And your justification of imperialism is flawed. My argument is that imperialism was done in the name of objective moral realism by many people. Nobody has, as far as I am aware ever killed someone in the name of there being no ethical reality and all opposing views being equally legitimate.

And when was this debate about centralised power? There are numerous criticisms of your precious founding fathers but this is not the place. You still haven’t salvaged your terrible argument.







"Why do we need self-evident truth in law? It should be enough for people to realize that law serves the subjective good of humanity"

So, you are going to tell someone else that your idea of subjective good is better than theirs? What happens when they don't accept it? You're going to use bullets? Is that good? Is good subjective? What if that's really bad? Your platform in essence states this: What may be true for you is not true for me, so no one is more right than the other - so why, how can you even articulate that sentence with your view and it remain consistent?

You don’t have to dictate to other people based upon a concept of good. I refer to Raz’s coordination thesis, that many laws exist to coordinate behaviour rather that to moralise about it. I also refer you to the Hart v Devlin debate, it’s a great introduction to this.

And if people don’t accept it, here in England we send people to prison rather than kill them, but your ideal society might be different I grant.

We can generally subjectively justify law in terms of protections of self interest. That is inherently subjective but most people like laws so nobody kills them or steals their stuff. Subjectively that is good for most people (barring those who might be better off in anarchy due to being cunning, strong, resource rich etc) and involves no morality. Where is the moral value in parking fines? Or countless other areas of law. They serve peoples self interests not a wider morality. Or are you claiming that all laws have some element of intrinsic morality?
.


You said:
I am not evoking an absolute, perhaps it would be better to say “This has no basis in objectivity.” …….
And WTF is the “realm of meaning” and the “bigger picture”. Generally it is not great argument practice to wait for something to dawn on the opposition so I ask you to set out your claim please.
.

“This has no basis in objectivity.” So you're essentially saying "Meaning has no basis in objectivity"? Uh methinks you are being too figurative with the word 'meaning', or you need to come to terms with reality.

"This orange is absolutely disgusting has no objective meaning."

That's usually more an abuse of the word - a inferred meaning - in common language. Some things though, are absolutely disgusting - in context of one's world view. For example, anything I say that's 'proving objectivity is true', is really 'absolutely disgusting' to you. The underlying reason for that language being 'disgusting' directs back to the quality of it being the antithesis of your own worldview. If you thought my statement was the opposite of disgusting, like fantastic, you're either lying or you've changed your mind.

It is not disgusting, it is wrong. See misunderstanding of language. And you cannot say that a word is an abuse of the word if it is commonly used as such. Unless you are denying the evolution of language. It is undeniable that the English language today is different to that of William Shakespeare, so which one is right for you? Is cool a temperature of an expression that something is nice?
Does nice mean perfect as it originally did, or just quite good? This is what the subjectivity of language is.
.


"And WTF is the “realm of meaning” and the “bigger picture”.
The bigger picture is realizing most of your truth statements are based upon a lie.

I am using logic. And which law am I violating? As you have not demonstrated this at all so far this is merely an assertion.
Please demonstrate to me my inconsistencies in my points. Also that last sentence is not a question. But that is by the by.
.

OKAY please google or reference 'Law of non-contradiction'.

Here's a few other links for you to digest on:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/lawofcon.htm

a good video excerpt from Ravi Zacharias:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4e_AOqlllc

Thankyou for patronising me, you incorrectly cited that law so you might want to go back and read a bit more on this subject before you get too embarrassed.

Nothing I have said is subject to this rule.
.


"Language is not mathematical and for you to repeatedly use this I would have to ask you to cite a philosophical source.

Do you want one, two, three, four, five different examples of how language is mathematical? Read between the lines in my question.

I want examples beyond the verbal expression of maths. Because that is easy and a six year old could do that. You cannot demonstrate that any language that does not exist in mathematics can be mathematically expressed.
.


"And this tangent about faith is both irrelevant and wrong. I do not see why you included it. And does not appear to make grammatical sense. Could you please explain?"

Please provide me an answer as to how faith (&/or world view) does not relate in the context of value, objectivity, using logic, philosophy? Are you saying that you know these quantities entirely? I don't think you do. You're really going to assert or allude to some idea that you're omniscient? That would require faith on my part to believe you.


I am saying drawing on something that cannot be proved to try and support something that you have not demonstrated logically is not only an appeal to authority that shows you believe your argument to be weak but does not help your case. I cite the flying spaghetti monster to support my side. And Russel’s teapot. Now I am winning as I have more authorities. See the flaw now?

If you cannot prove objectivity without recourse to God, then you need to not only prove the validity of objectivity, but also prove the existence of God. One woud be a major achievement, both is likely impossible in a lifetime.

I do not claim absolute knowledge, only you contend that you are the expert, able to do what no philosopher has ever done.
.

Cheers

Ig