 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:32
|
|
Ok, the basis for my philosophy, my world view, and all of its consequences for me (pacifism, liberty, relativism, liberalism), is based upon one position, that I want to put up for discussion here, and my argument for it.
If you can show me to be wrong, defeat my arguments, when my entire house of cards comes falling down. Its too good an opportunity for you conservatives to miss!! 
That position upon which most of my others are based is as follows:
"In the absense of anything that would judge, all subjectives are equally valid".
That is to say, suppose you have two positions, points of view, people, objects, ideas etc that are opposed to each other, without anything that would judge between them, using a pre-determined set of parameters (wildcards), then the two or more subjectives are necessarily equal.
In an example, say you have two mountains. They are both differerent, i.e., height, weight, composition, width, gradient etc. Mountain A is 10'000 feet and Mountain B is 8'000 feet. You are asked to determine which is the higher mountain. Of course, you say A, because you have a pre-determined notion of "height", its properties and a mental calculus for determining that height. Now imagine you dont know what height is, the outside world and your upbringing (or perhaps even genetics) had not the grace to tell you, and you haven't worked it out yourself. You cannot work out which is taller without that wildcard.
To use another example, two boxers in a ring, in the red and blue corners. They fight, and red knocks down blue with a mighty left hook. You are the referee. Who do you say has won? You say red of course, but only because you have a pre-determined notion of the rules, the idea that he who knocks the other to the floor wins (i'm not a fan of boxing, I'm only guessing that this is accurate). Now imagine that you, as the referee, have a different set of rules that say that the first to hit the mat is the winner. Whose hand do you raise now? Imagine that you have no notion of rules of this game. No matter what happens, you have no option but to say both are equally valid within that context, unless you bring, from outside, some means of judging and comparing.
Objective is defined as a position that is independent to the observer, in these cases, the ref, the guy comparing the mountains, are objective, but their wildcards make them side with one view or another, and henceforth use their logic to back up that view. This is how we have objective means of judging.
This also gives us something of a "house of cards" like structure, of subjectives and objectives, objectives being subjective in another context (so I use the term "pseudo-objective").
Its fairly obvious to see how this logic transfers to other fields, notably politics, but also ethical and moral philosophy, meta-ethics, metaphysics, epistemology.
Baptise me with fire babies! (but not before considering your own subjectivity).
EDIT: Will be back later
Last edited by Whaleboy on 10-12-2003 at 00:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BustaMike
|
 |
You think you're better than me? You've been handling my ass pennies!!!
Nov 1999
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
To use another example, two boxers in a ring, in the red and blue corners. They fight, and red knocks down blue with a mighty left hook. You are the referee. Who do you say has won? You say red of course, but only because you have a pre-determined notion of the rules, the idea that he who knocks the other to the floor wins (i'm not a fan of boxing, I'm only guessing that this is accurate). Now imagine that you, as the referee, have a different set of rules that say that the first to hit the mat is the winner. Whose hand do you raise now? Imagine that you have no notion of rules of this game. No matter what happens, you have no option but to say both are equally valid within that context, unless you bring, from outside, some means of judging and comparing. |
For this example to fit your point, there would be no ref, no crowd, no boxers, no anything that could create a judgment. Like Theben said, even a newborn creates judgements. So... in order to have the absence of anything that would judge, there cannot be anything to judge. It's a completely useless argument IMO. Serves no purpose.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theben
His quote doesn't allow for ANY bases to be used in judgement.
So the mountain is as equally valid as the boxer, in this instance. |
Thats because when he reintroduces the external observer, he asserts that such observer judges based on his own interests, hence is "pseudo-obejective" I think this position( or something like it) was one of Plato's strawmen way back in "The Republic".
The response is that the outside observer cannot choose from all positions arbitrarily.
"Objective is defined as a position that is independent to the observer, in these cases, the ref, the guy comparing the mountains, are objective, but their wildcards make them side with one view or another, and henceforth use their logic to back up that view. This is how we have objective means of judging.
This also gives us something of a "house of cards" like structure, of subjectives and objectives, objectives being subjective in another context (so I use the term "pseudo-objective")."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
In the absence of anything to judge, there are no points to make.
|
A metaphor, of course the idea in reality that something can be totally independent is a fallacy, I am merely trying to use that to illustrate a logical construct.
quote:
But words are not defined either subjectively, nor by some Platonic standard of truth. They are determined by interactions BETWEEN human beings
|
From Revolutions  . Words are representative of certain thoughts, concepts etc under them. In that case, the word "love" portrayed that connection, be the word amour, liebe, amor, ? or ??, the concept of love is still the same (and yes I know the problems of defining love, but thats not the point, its the only word I know in so many languages ). The words themselves are defined by others yes, but in a different context that is irrelevant and objective. The words themselves are irrelevant, the semantics, i.e., the meaning of height or love, is not.
quote:
basically- even a newborn creates judgements based on interpretation of data.
|
And does so via judging by wildcard. I reiterate though, it was an image meant to demonstrate a logical construct, don't take it too literally!
quote:
For this example to fit your point, there would be no ref, no crowd, no boxers, no anything that could create a judgment. Like Theben said, even a newborn creates judgements. So... in order to have the absence of anything that would judge, there cannot be anything to judge. It's a completely useless argument IMO. Serves no purpose.
|
Not at all, its a question of context. I'm referring to red boxer, blue boxer, and ref. The more people you add, the context keeps changing, and in which case, the "house of cards" structure, albeit more complex than that simple fractal, still holds.
quote:
A. The judge must judge according to such criteria that he could will that those criteria (or, more properly, the basis for choosing them) be used universally - the Kantian solution.
|
Relied on qualitative logic that quite simply doesn't hold. That argument implies that it is wrong to steal, for example, in all and any context. You need to show that such absolutes exist in order to refute my argument, and Kant assumed it, did not show it... or rather, he showed it with qualitative logic but assumed the basis for that (i.e., 1+1=2, relies on certain rules, which though variances almost inconceivable to us, are not intrinsically unchangable).
quote:
Human nature only allows certain bases for choosing criteria, that also allow the judge a good life. An arbitrary basis will leave the judge tyrannical, and incomplete as a human being
|
Indeed, but human nature is not entirely logical. This is a question of logic. In a wider context, this kind of relativism provides a logical structure within which human nature can flourish, indeed, more so than now because we tend to impede others with the excessive expression of our nature. I sound like Bentham!   
quote:
the Platonic solution (IIRC)
|
Sounds more like Aristotle to me, though I may be wrong. In the idealist sense, Plato would have concurred with me.
quote:
C. Not all criteria are historically viable. Some will survive the test of history, while others will be destroyed by "the cunning of history" The Hegelian solution.
|
But history has to judge that viability. Same situation applies.
quote:
So the mountain is as equally valid as the boxer, in this instance.
|
Correct 
quote:
abstract discussions of this are meaningless, they empty the reality of life.
|
Abstract discussions are fun, and reality bores me. The problem of existentialism is that it precludes human nature to such an extent, that even logic becomes so irrelevant that it and its presumed antithesis are regarded as subjectively equally valid (and with a value of zero too ). Needless to say, it is a useless concept in this context, though in that of idealism, it is most workable.
quote:
The response is that the outside observer cannot choose from all positions arbitrarily.
|
Hence he sides with one or the other. Remove the outside observer (akin to having him totally neutral). One cannot help but conclude that all is equally valid.
quote:
I think this position( or something like it) was one of Plato's strawmen way back in "The Republic".
|
Protagoros or Pyrro IIRC.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Theben
|
 |
Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Abstract discussions are fun, and reality bores me... Remove the outside observer (akin to having him totally neutral). One cannot help but conclude that all is equally valid. |
It seems you are looking for an objective discussion but
quote:
Ok, the basis for my philosophy, my world view, and all of its consequences for me (pacifism, liberty, relativism, liberalism), is based upon one position...
sic
Its fairly obvious to see how this logic transfers to other fields, notably politics, but also ethical and moral philosophy, meta-ethics, metaphysics, epistemology. |
...you wish to interject it into your (subjective) world view.
You may need to explain further.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
From Revolutions . Words are representative of certain thoughts, concepts etc under them. In that case, the word "love" portrayed that connection, be the word amour, liebe, amor, ? or ??, the concept of love is still the same (and yes I know the problems of defining love, but thats not the point, its the only word I know in so many languages ). The words themselves are defined by others yes, but in a different context that is irrelevant and objective. The words themselves are irrelevant, the semantics, i.e., the meaning of height or love, is not.
. |
First of all Im not certain of that - that the words that we translate one into other mean the same thing - but lets leave that out for now - if we all have the same meanings, then whats the problem? We have a definition for winning the boxing match, and for the height of the mountain, and so forth. Where is the pseudo-objecitivity? Seeing as there is no basis for disagreement? What you have done is posited an underlying "true" meaning not based on social reality - a platonic "ideal" IIUC - but then you have simply decided to toss out the ancients view of human nature and substitute your own. I suppose we could debate whether your view of human nature is better than Plato or Aristotle's (of course that would mean id actually have to go back and read the damned books ) but I dont see why you need your "logical" framwork to do that.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:32
|
|
1. Abstract discussions are fun, and reality bores me.
LOTM- have you considered playing a computer game? Or failing that, studying mathematics?
2.
The problem of existentialism is that it precludes human nature to such an extent, that even logic becomes so irrelevant that it and its presumed antithesis are regarded as subjectively equally valid (and with a value of zero too ). Needless to say, it is a useless concept in this context, though in that of idealism, it is most workable
I fail to see how your attempt at "logic" is useful. you havent told me how to judge the height of a mountain, or how to judge at a boxing match. As far as i can tell youre misusing those examples -which give ordinary people NO PROBLEMS in the real life that bores you, in order to come up with some grand scheme that you will apply to to ethics and politics - and will make no sense - if reality bores you, then please stay away from ethics and politics - they are very much the realms of real life.
Is that a nice refutation - sorry its not in the form of a syllogism, which is what i think you are (mistakenly) looking for.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Go out and get laid. You'll feel better.
|
I know  . Damn early night, I NEED SEX! sorry
quote:
You may need to explain further
|
Sure. Quite simply, assuming my logic to be correct, it means it is illogical to impose one subjective view upon another. This has obvious implications for war and peace, as well as libertarianism (sic the Mill Limit), and utilitarianism (the limit to Mill ). I say this because of critical theory. Each position is based upon numerous others, that we can take back in an infinite regress. Replacing that position (the peak to a hill), is like lopping off the natural peak of a hill and swapping it with another. It just won't look right!
quote:
Typial BS relativism. Stop smoking so much dope.
|
But it feels nice!!!  
quote:
I think your logic is correct. Do I have this correct:
Take two objects. A big red ball, and a small green box. You are saying to a subjective observer, there are (at least) three differences because of our preconceptions of size colour and shape. If we place each object on a 3D set of axes labelled by those three criteria, they can be judged to be different on all three. Then you remove the axes, to judge on a 0-dimensional criteria, and find that both objects, (and indeed every possible object in that 3D space) are the same.
|
That is correct
quote:
I think you are correct, however I feel that since there is always criteria for judgement, it is largely irrelevant to practical matters such as reality.
|
Not necessarily. Consider a war between two nations, who would impose each others view on one another. An objective (like the UN ideally at least  ), can be used to arbitrate. Also consider a court. We have objective judges, who use wildcards to determine who is guilty and who is innocent, but as they walk into the court, this situation remains. Consider the analogy I used of the boxer. All is equally valid until judged within a certain context by a pseudo-objective with wildcards. Outside of that context, equal validity remains.
quote:
When commies and capitalists all team up to tell Whaleboy he's wrong then you know he's lost touch with reality.
|
Or that he's dealing with a matter that's essentially irrelevant to "commies and capitalists". Begone!!
Dammit it didn't do Japanese or Korean
quote:
if we all have the same meanings, then whats the problem?
|
People speak different languages, but you're right, that is irrelevant. I was answering a point someone made earlier about semantics. It is that pre-determined notion (the same meaning of many words), that provides the "wildcard".
quote:
We have a definition for winning the boxing match, and for the height of the mountain, and so forth. Where is the pseudo-objecitivity?
|
The pseudo objective is the man carrying the definitions. An independent position with "wildcards", enabling him to judge.
quote:
Seeing as there is no basis for disagreement?
|
Active opposition does not preclude difference. I was using the mountains as a basis for comparison because it is comparison that is in question here.
quote:
but then you have simply decided to toss out the ancients view of human nature and substitute your own. I suppose we could debate whether your view of human nature is
|
 I dont see how that's relevant. This isn't a question of human nature. Its a simple matter of logic. While there are problems of application, that is irrelevant to the key questions here.
quote:
but I dont see why you need your "logical" framwork to do that.
|
You don't. It only prevents you from forcing your opinion on another. In the libertarian sense, it provides the biggest canvas for you to paint on. You make your own view and air it like a good little subjective . We all do the same.
quote:
Im not sure how we impede others by calling one mountain or another taller.
|
I don't know where you inferred that from.
quote:
Example: i can measure a mountain from sea level, or I can measure it from it actual base - if the latter, Mauna loa becomes taller than Everest (I think - lets assume its so for the example) now which should I call "taller" = it depends on what purpose my statement serves. There is no "taller" in the absence of such a purpose. There is only the mountain - its there. Youre trying to apply logic to a purpose for which logic doesnt exist.
|
You're completely correct, except your last sentence, which requires explanation.
quote:
I think youre in deep need of Wittgenstein, as soon as possible. Or maybe Zen. Or both. Or as someone said, to get laid. All of which amount to the same thing, in some sense.
|
Ummm, a different view does not imply a lack of homosexuality or spiritual enlightenment. I have both in abundance! . I happen to also be studying Wittgenstein  . You're point?
quote:
have you considered playing a computer game? Or failing that, studying mathematics?
|
Or writing a book? Way ahead of you!
quote:
I fail to see how your attempt at "logic" is useful. you havent told me how to judge the height of a mountain, or how to judge at a boxing match.
|
How to judge the height of a mountain 101
Look at mountain A. Look at mountain B. Look at Whaleboy's Height Judging Kit. In it, you shall see a wildcard that you must implant into your brain that will tell you how to determine height. Don't worry, the rest of mankind have used it without problems for hundreds of millenia, but its not NECESSARILY the only one. Now look at the mountains.
How to judge the winner of a boxing match 101
Look at the boxers. One is on the floor, after being soc'd by the other. Consult Whaleboy's Rules of Boxing handbook. On page 32, you will find a diagram, and a lump of text saying that that "he who knocks the other to the floor who does not rise within a count of ten, is the winner". You count to ten. The dude standing over the bleeding corpse of his rival is thus the winner. Now buy a new rulebook .
quote:
As far as i can tell youre misusing those examples -which give ordinary people NO PROBLEMS in the real life that bores you
|
It would seem that I'm not misuing them. Its not meant for "ordinary people" in "real life", this is a problem whose solution is the basis for others.
quote:
in order to come up with some grand scheme that you will apply to to ethics and politics - and will make no sense - if reality bores you, then please stay away from ethics and politics - they are very much the realms of real life.
|
. My joke earlier wasn't the whole truth. I am interested in "real life", but I am also interested in finding a coherent philosophy, like utilitarianism was, for dealing with it. It just so happens that certain metaphysical logic is applicable, as much of it is, to this phenomenological reality.
quote:
Is that a nice refutation - sorry its not in the form of a syllogism, which is what i think you are (mistakenly) looking for.
|
It's not the refutation I was looking for. I believe I have countered it
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
A context of equal validity is one in which there is no judgement. As soon as you assign a criterium upon which to judge, all objectivity is lost. Thus your logic, though consistent, is utterly meaningless in reality.
|
Not at all. The UN would judge objectively for itself, and anyone going along with the UN would be satisfied with that judgement. Here, its essentially a question of justice vs vigilantism/unilateralism. Once that context is resolved, the pseudo-objective might become an alien in orbit, but for that particular context of warring nations, pseudo-objectivity has provided a solution. Please note that this is how we judge things in everyday life, and generally, if you have a theory of mind, you have the ability to try to "emulate" objectivity (independence) etc.
All objectivity is lost when you assign a criterium, but not for the position who has been assigned that wildcard. It is that position that must judge for itself, like a roll of the dice as it were, with one side weighted. Assuming there is no god, there is no ultimate objective that holds true and independent throughout.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
"In the absense of anything that would judge, all subjectives are equally valid".
|
This says nothing, Whaleboy. Of course all subjectives are by definition equally morally valid. Now, if you mean all moral judgements are equally subjective in the absence of an impartial judge, then I think you are making a statement with some meaning.
However, is there an absence of an impartial Judge who is not limited by the same subjectivity that binds each one of us? Unless you can prove this, one ought not to be so confident in this presupposition.
Now, why should anyone be a liberal and a pacifist? Would it not be equally right, and more consistent to argue for might makes right, in that you can do whatever you feel like it so long as you have the muscle to back it up?
Finally, why should consistency be a virtue, if all moral statements are equally valid?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-12-2003 00:16
|