kveldulf wrote:

 IGtR= wrote:
response below

A new thread has been started so that we may stop clogging the AoS thread with this. But I feel this should be done on a forum so that others may become involved. In fact I would welcome other opinions, and any challenges, as I am sure kveldulf would.
Green is kveldulf, Red is my previous, and Orange is my current


" I am not denying that you can code words to represent them, but you cannot assign mathematical precision to words I never said everyone is always precise with their meaning, but I essentially have been saying that does not equally make it utterly subjective either
Then what level of objectivity exists? If you are accepting that it is at least in part subjective then surely you cannot believe in the objective universal meaning of language, and therefore the view that language is maths.

. 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 This is not proving anything other than stating you believe this to be true
You have not presented a philosophical argument for how mathematical precision can represent words and language. I could equally assert that maths can convey entirely the meaning of a painting. You have demonstrated how binary can be used to copy language, but not subsume its meaning.


. Computer science is irrelevant in the field of philosophy as it is a physical representation, not philosophical reasoning. philosophy is the pursuit of ultimate meaning/reality? - I think that's textbook. Anything complimenting this objective furthers philosophical thought
How does anything that compliments the pursuit of ultimate reality- not a textbook phrase FYI help us. I am typing this on a dell. That is the same level of relevance of information. Computer science is about representation not ideas and the example added nothing substantive to the debate.


Okay if you can’t get this one I don’t know how to explain it more simply. Fair has no standardized meaning First of all, 'Fair' is better probably best referenced as justice. Furthermore, to say that there is no standardized fair is a very ambiguous statement - and that's assuming you're being figurative. If you're not, then you run into the problem as to what exactly your referencing when it comes to justice, as not all perceptions of justice can be true.
Fair, justice, right, correct, whatever you want to call it is irrelevant, it’s subjective. There is no standardized fair. Not ambiguous. Demonstrated by thousands of variations throughout legal history in punishment and process, and by many revolutions for varying levels of rights. And if you read Kelsen you will find that many concurrent perceptions of justice can exist at the same time and neither one has to be correct. It is an assertion to say that not all perceptions of justice can be true. If truth exists, which it may not, you must first tell me what it is, and then demonstrate to me why there can only be one or a finite number in the field of justice. So your assertion is not only an assertion but it involves all your logical leaps of objectivity, and you defining what truth is.


. It can mean a variety of things to a variety of people in a variety of circumstances I agree people can have the view, but it doesn't make it true - since some peoples view counter each other. It would be like saying your view on meaning and mine are equal, when they are obviously not
What makes something true? You have not set this out, so before I can analyse this I need a definition. Our views could be equally right or equally wrong, your argument just happens to have several fundamental logical flaws so it appears less valid when compared to mine. But intrinsically there is no reason why they could both occupy the same level of reasoning. And why do you think they are obviously not equal?


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. this approach still applies objectivity to it

Explain this assertion?


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 Logically it isn't self contained when its responding to your assertions. The factual situations have been revolving around your logical fallacies. Really, you're the one who objected to my use of objectivity over something that I was pointing out to be a gross move toward its antithesis. If you don't agree with it, then you could have gone a different path of discussion, but you chose the path of essentially saying 'I can't legitimately say that objectively because there is no such thing as objectivity in the first place" [color=orange] That is a nice straw man there. Maybe I should use you as an example in my critical thinking class to show kids what the various weak argument tactics look like. Seriously. I am not saying that. I am saying.
If you want to play with the big boys and use clever philosophy words like objective you better understand you need an argument to back them up. You don’t so your use was misguided. The onus is on you to prove objectivity if you are to claim authority based upon it.

And your argument, in a self-contained fashion is not coherent. That is logic. And my attacks are mostly based on that.

[/color] .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. yes, I believe you call this a logical fallacy
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 You didn't really say anything with this other than assume and erroneously equivocate things in our arguments. I can also make accusations/examples too to cover things but I don't. You seem to do that a lot - by pointing out ad hominems and make statements that ignore the substance of what's being said. I guess you could call this an ad hominem too. It's not a very constructive practice either way, if your actually trying to be constructive yourself. Perhaps we could try to exercise a bit more social grace, eh?

.
I am saying as I can defeat my silly dog argument so I can defeat your objectivity argument. You have no response to this as the weakness is an assumption or logical leap that you cannot fix, or will not. I am not ignoring the substance, I am ignoring the emotive appeals you make.


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. Algebra is real. Mathematics is real. These are both in reality. They are both in reality, but they do not need to be in reality, and that is a key distinction. I say they need not be grounded in reality, not that they do not exist in reality. A distinct difference semantically and basic comprehension really. My dog argument is in reality, but it need not, it is a rhetorical tool that needs no existence of dogs or me.


.
I see what you did there and it was wrong. Please consider my logic above Logic. No.

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. anything solvable is still associated with assumption - aka faith. The reason being is that there are certain instances where even laws become curious to us (expansion theory for example). We may think we have things figured out, but we are not omniscient.
So your attack on me saying that maths only works to the extent we know is to affirm that argument by saying faith. That assumptions exist. Yes. That is largely my point to. Some people do think they have stuff figured out but you are correct in saying we are not omniscient. On this I agree.

With regards to the first paragraph. More ad hominems? Really? Oh well I guess everyone who doesn’t believe your viewpoint is emotional. I do have see this a lot when I tell someone their belief system is false. What I have sensed in your words is something very emotionally charged, as certain words used and assertions that make it frustrating; its as though the sound of your words carry more weight than the words said
.
So you sensed emotionally charged argument so I am emotional. That is not very compelling. You have asserted my belief system is false but I am not emotional about this fact. I believe you are wrong and I can demonstrate your own argument is fundamentally flawed as you present it. And that last bit sounds deliciously like you think my words might have a subjective worth greater than their appearance in isolation.

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 If you have, then how you arrived to your conclusions about its supposed contradictions I find, I guess, meaningless - without at least some way to convey your view.
[color=orange] There are clear logical contradictions. Your faith may help you to try to rationalise these but the Trinity is a presumed logical impossibility. And I guess you can find it meaningless but I would think if you are unaware that these are logical impossibilities and contradictions then I would state that your conception of logic is so deviant of the standard as to be meaningless.




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. [/color] You just called the Bible full of contradictions. That involves judgement somehow
No. I am a Christian and I believe that the Bible describes the story of Jesus Christ and the interactions of the Israelites with God, albeit in a non-literal sense. I think it is a wonderful book and full of Revelation from God but it is full of logical contradictions. I can merely deal with this.


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 I doubt you know all of the Christian thinkers of the world, so please stop with that level of pretense. I don't think that is adding anything here
[color=orange] Okay nobody who has been published or cited, or who anyone in the Oxford University Philosophy and Theology faculty talks about. I do not claim to, but this news would be pretty big if it occurred and it would probably be shared. I am not pretending to be omniscient. Only mildly informed.



. And your argument starts from a position of assuming God exists And yours start with the proposition he does not, right?
Nope. Assumption. And wrong again. God could exist in my model or could be absent. His existence has no bearing on my contention that you cannot prove objective morality so you must work with subjective until such time as you can prove or disprove objective morality.


. 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 No, I just put that in there because I thought it was an interesting observation not commonly said about the trinity - to give some credence from a different angle, granted, a little bit of a tangent. If you don't think so , ok.
I go to Church. It is said quite a lot. At least round here.

I understand these are sincere beliefs, but present them as such. Faith is an amazing force but it is not logic other than its logical recognition - which complicates things but yes, it is not the same thing - I agree
There is no logical recognition of faith. Only of argument

. To present it as such does it a disservice. You believe in the Trinity as you are a Christian, not because it works Actually, yes, I believe in the trinity because I think it answer matters of the Divine more coherently than anything I'm aware of Okay, but that is because you are a Christian. The two are irrevocably linked.
.


Again you are mistaking USUALLY for ALWAYS or NECESSARILY. Price has no connection to anything it is entirely arbitrary price indicates value, and value is again referenced ultimately from an origin. It may be incompressible to us in its entirety, but we can still recognize its degrees
Value is subjective. Its origin is our minds in that particular impulsive moment.

. 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 this will go back to God/ No God argument & the school of grammar + logic proving you otherwise . 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. Actually, I think the mind of God has determined every value, of everything thing, everywhere, all the time, in all detail, and all possibilities of it.....

Well that is lovely but it is not an argument, it is a belief. And I think that argument will be viewed as laughable by many although it does present me with a fun image. And sorry what do you mean by the school of grammar +logic?

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. You are not using coherence correctly if you are referring to your own statements there. An incoherent answer is a play on words - you can't do it with it remaining an answer. Does that make sense? No I was referring to your statement that because I used the term shared ground objectivity had to exist.


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 I don't know why your bothering reiterating comments like this - it should stand for itself without saying things like that - just saying
Because at this point I am struggling to understand how you could miss all the points I have raised so I am being as explicit as I can.


. Thus my logic works and your does not Again, this does nothing other than flex prowess
Or boil it down to a simple conclusion you can read and think about.
. We do not need to share anything as understanding your “argument” means understanding that it is flawed. You can disagree with me, but you cannot prove me wrong or yourself right Well, you might be right; Im not going to prove anything with that sort of attitude from you. I do know that there is a righteous Judge you'll answer to. Though, If you believe in Jesus - who is that Judge- your shame/guilt will be irrelevant to Him.
Well I was not looking for a sermon I was looking for a rebuttal. But I guess your turning to focus on my potential future in hellfire was answer enough that you have no more rational argument left.

I too believe in a righteous judge. I just do not claim to be able to know what his objective morality is and so I believe I should do the best I can following the best example of what I think He means through the Bible. You are just arrogant enough to think you know what He means. And I think that shame and guilt are relevant to Jesus as part of the Trinity, but that is another fascinating debate.


Communities can invent formulations of logic I fundamentally disagree So the Greeks had Boolean? And the Neanderthals had classical Greek logic, and the Egyptians had Descartesian logic? Wow I must have my history of philosophy terribly confused.


, 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. Please tell me; please show me my error then
Sigh. I have. Please re-read as I am each time you respond.

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

Because nature operates under a set of observable laws in action that we can deduce and reason.
[color=orange] As far as we know. And nature might follow from logic. Or not at all. The difference between correlation and causation is important, and the causal schain is not yet established for these two.

Again nice childish ad hominem but generally I would prefer to debate with adults who challenge me on philosophical terms I just really don't thinkers that have advocate some very dark things in human history - I apologize for my brash, hostile response And I might not like Americans for example, but I keep it civil because that is mature and this is a debate not a schoolyard. And you might want to read more history as most of the subjectivists never advocated very dark things in human history. People may have been mistaken about others’ motives, or ascribed things to them retrospectively but they themselves did not advocate them.



. Nietzsche’s personal life is irrelevant This is true , in the same way yours and mine are . And the advocacy of atheism is unconnected to this debate Actually, I bet it isn't, unless you are saying that you're not an atheist? I am not an atheist. Making it about religion causes assumptions and complicates everything hugely.

. In fact the sceptic can choose to hold whatever personal beliefs they choose, they must merely not their irrationality. And being perpetually skeptic I could argue is insane You have already demonstrated you can’t argue. Assert probably. And I could equally argue that holding objectivity to be true is insane, and I would probably be more successful based upon comparisons with actual mental illnesses.


Then you have more ad hominem and a rather childish view of socialism I personally hate the idea of might makes right /shrug
Fine. That is not socialism so crack on with that hatred. Maybe read up on socialism too then.
. 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 because you say so? I knew you wouldn’t read them but I hoped oh how I hoped.
And it doesn’t give it credibility as it is a load of assertions, ad hominem attacks and then random language.



. 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 I believe satanisms only commandment is 'Do what that wilt': Here's a quick google reference:
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" is the Satanic philosophy derived by the founder of modern Satanism Aleister Crowley. In fact, it is the law stated in the Satanic Bible."


it may be the mantra of Satanism (in a particular form BTW) but it is also shared by many other things. If you are seriously contending that atheism is equal to Satanism you are in for a hard battle.

Also atheism does not have to mean do what you want. You can still live by a moral code it just has to come from somewhere other than a religious text.


And subjectivism is actually one of the biggest justifications this is an oxymoron INSERT ASSERTION. How?
for ethical liberalism and not interloping on other peoples freedom
Really? So making things subjective will cement the protection of liberty? I hope perfect beings are operating as your governmental agents - oh wait, you don't believe in those, right?
Liberty can be protected without the need for objective morality. If it is enshrined in law that no man can condemn another and mete out justice then we have seriously strong non-interventionist principles as the foundation of our government. No need for perfect beings here. Ah hyperbole! The last tool of a dying rebuttal.


. 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 again, yes people are imperfect; they are inherently flawed . 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 If you're talking about government, your right, because it won't sit there like that, it'll hop onto someones agenda for them to spin it like that - Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Theocracy - really any government is capable of it . So firstly you accept that nobody has killed based on my argument so your emotional plea has failed on point of fact. Secondly put your tinfoil hat on. And I think you are confused that people were initially subjectivists arguing against objectivist fundamentalists such as yourself and then became murdering despots of tyrannical ideological regimes that had little in common with their first set of beliefs. I do not believe this was the case but if you think it was again you have no evidence so it is merely a conspiracy theory.




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.


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 That sounds like it would lead to mere materialism. That asserts everything is in a box, and that's it. The problem with this is that there is no way to validate this 'truth' since it requires faith - which is not really in the box. No its saying all we NEED is in the box. Why not use what is in the box rather than adding needless complication in an argument that cannot be justified coherently or proven as fact. But it just sounds like that because again you have not read him.


. I also refer you to the Hart v Devlin debate, it’s a great introduction to this. I might check it out later I would thoroughly recommend it as an introduction. Somewhat overstudied but a great introduction to law and morality. Then read concept of law by Hart, it’s a classic.


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. Yep, I believe that restitution should work in the most basic, fundamental way so that society can remain as consistent as possible because justice is consistent: if you steal - you pay it back with interest (due to time lost from the owner), if you murder someone, then your own life is taken. The principle is 'tooth and claw' or 'inviting the law' (more a new testament concept). It's the basis to secure life liberty property happiness - the role of government. S
And I think that is barbaric and unnecessary. And ISIS would think you were a total pussy. Which goes to demonstrate how subjective our concepts of justice are.



We can generally subjectively justify law in terms of protections of self interest This will foster 'might makes right', or another way to put it, create categories of people with varying levels of rights - whether Machiavellian ideologues or overtly tyrannical demagogues Not necessarily. We all have an interest in being alive. Same standard as universal objective right to life just different justification. Remember its everybody’s collective self-interests as an aggregate



. 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 I don't agree with them. I further don't even agree with things like building codes.... I think liability is the main theme I advocate - if something happens that causes damage, or you violate some manner of contract (redundant) - you then are subject to the court. So you would have a legal system of approximately pre Henry VIII England? Wow I was going to call your ideal society medieval above but this is something else. But parking fines you are liable for trespass and building codes are about contracts, extended I grant you, but the same basic principle.

? Or countless other areas of law. Positive law is pretty convoluted from how it sounds What do you mean by positive law?

They serve peoples self interests not a wider morality. You should consider reading 18th century colonial views about that Why? And what as well I would be delighted to hear more.




Or are you claiming that all laws have some element of intrinsic morality Sorta, I believe laws are found not made. Laws of motion for example would be different in a way. Like a legit proper full natural lawyer. Who found the law of intellectual property? Or of the international conventions of nuclear armaments?? Or were they created by humans?


It is not disgusting, it is wrong I was being figurative but the connotation is still the same with 'wrong' Okay it is logically incorrect. Your argument does not function.

. See misunderstanding of language. And you cannot say that a word is an abuse of the word if it is commonly used as such Then the definition should change or the person clarify, or update my own language - if the dialect was that off. . Unless you are denying the evolution of language Nope . It is undeniable that the English language today is different to that of William Shakespeare, so which one is right for you I prefer the 1827 Websters as I think the definitions are more clear. If I have a difference in meaning with someone that's using a dictionary, as long as its a similar dialect, then reason can engage, and we can average/rule out discrepancies via other words to clarify. The essence of what is being said is the goal, not the literal substance. ? 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. I believe those are called idioms, and language is generally not composed of them; they're an exceptional thing within language Well as I have demonstrated with fair, a mathematical conception of that is impossible as we must base it around an ethical framework which nobody can agree on so fair can mean all things to all men. And as for your comment about essence that means you are happy for vague language in your precision mathematical model. Yes? And why do we all have to use dictionaries?
.


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. I'm not an expert in philosophy, but I don't see the error you're somewhat pointing out. I do apologize for patronizing though.
Again. Nothing I have said is subject to this rule. Re-read the rule and re-read my argument. The law has no place in my counter arguments.
.


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. You need to clarify this, as there are too many negatives for me to understand what you're saying. I will state though, that every little detail in language involves some manner of math, logic, geometry; from the literal to the figurative. Drawing mental images in ones head and the describing it, or calculating something and then writing/saying it, is a process that I see shows that verbal, and written ability from human beings (neuro synapses patterns for example) are prime scientific examples. I won't digress in sentence structure or meaning again - as I think that might be beating a dead horse... or something like that not every little detail involves some manner of maths, that is an assertion that you believe. Not everyone draws mental images and describes it. Monkeys basing at typewriters would create language eventually with none of the process you have described. What about colours and the perception of them. Many languages have differing approaches to them and Goethe’s theory of colour is an interesting thought experiment to take on. How do I know what I believe is red is actually red, and not what everyone else labels as yellow?
.

I am saying drawing on something that cannot be proved to try and support something that you have not demonstrated logically I've stated I don't know how many rhetorical questions, as well as statements, to indicate/illustrate that your mere sentence structures contradict, and in kind the figurative allusions they were trying to draw.? What? This sentence is meaningless? Please rephrase.



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 I can invent something completely outrageous, but that doesn't make it true Exactly. God has not saved your argument. It was bad. Now it is complicated and bad.

. And Russel’s teapot. Now I am winning as I have more authorities. See the flaw now? I can invoke xyz authorities on my side.... Do you see the flaw now? Doesn't really add credence does it? No it doesn’t. I was being sarcastic. Adding more unprovable logically problematic entities will not solve your argument, they will just fuel the fires of my counter arguments based on your many logical leaps.



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
So let me get this straight, you want me to first quantify the divine law giver, then refer to Him in an argument to say, 'prove' that He is not there???
Then on top of that, you're demanding me to provide proof when all you've told me is that there is no such thing as objective truth.... the burden of proof is on you, which you have not satisfied at all other than try to proclaim your it is so 'because'

Your insistence that language has objective meaning baffles me when I view it in conjunction with such woeful comprehension.

I want you to prove God exists IF you are going to use Him as a crutch for your argument.
So prove God.
THEN you can use him as a crutch for your argument. But your argument still needs to be coherent and EVEN WITH GOD it does not make sense. Is this clearer?

I have never said there is no such thing as objective truth, I have merely said you have failed to even come close to arguing successfully for it and nobody has so we should work of subjective morality until we can resolve the debate. And not chuck around terms such as objective.

PS I am the respondent asking you to justify your position which you never did in the first place. So I needn’t do as much to justify my own argument as I have done. I need only demand you reason yours successfully.



. One woud be a major achievement, both is likely impossible in a lifetime. Oh? and how likely is that? In how much time are we talking about and what is it relative to? You and me? or just you? You know since nobody is omniscient, and God is inherently unknowable as He is a transcendent being I would guess that potentially all humans could devote their entire minds to this for eternity and it never be solved. Hypothetically.




I do not claim absolute knowledge, only you contend that you are the expert, able to do what no philosopher has ever done. any yet every good/consistent philosopher alludes to absolute knowledge Citation absolutely needed. That is a huge assertion. Where does Nietzsche or example?

.



Cheers

Ig

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This colour formatting is rather difficult to read for people who like me have colour vision defects.

Would it be possible to lay out the whole argument in a more conventional format?