|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:27 pm
|
|
|
|
Hard Subjective Moralists:
The problem with the position that "Reality is subjective, thus if I believe it, it's true" is that it starts by making an objective statement.
Hence, if reality really is subjective, it's defined by an objective position (the absolute statement that all is subjective), which creates a paradox. On the other hand, if it's subjective for you, but I hold it to be objective, then it's objective.
That's the conflict from the affirmative position. In the negative, we see the statement that "There is no objective reality", in which case we just pointed out a statement about the objective nature reality, that it doesn't exist- thus it does. wink
Soft Subjective Moralists:
If the assertion is that what is true for one isn't true for another, you've defined a statement that for it to have any meaning, has to be true for everyone, even if it isn't true for them (if they believe in objective reality), thus, you have defined something that disproves itself.
Nihilism: The idea that we can't actually know anything for sure is self defeating because we cannot know that Nihilism is valid for sure.
Cute- no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:34 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:12 pm
|
|
|
|
Gho the Girl I think that what people believe has meaning for them. Which is fine, but that doesn't make it true.
Quote: I think in order for us to function or understand and tolerate others, we need to be self-opposing entities. I believe certain things, things which should be true for all, but in order to function, and not be a hypocrite, I need to allow these other viewpoints to exist. I agree up to a point. I don't need to tolerate others on principle. I have discretion for a reason.
Quote: Further, I don't want to simply toss out all of my opinions, as I think they're the right ones.
You can think they're right- but if you think they're right in spite of being demonstratively wrong, that's a whole different kettle of fish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:18 pm
|
|
|
|
TeaDidikai Gho the Girl I think that what people believe has meaning for them. Which is fine, but that doesn't make it true. Of course. Quote: Quote: I think in order for us to function or understand and tolerate others, we need to be self-opposing entities. I believe certain things, things which should be true for all, but in order to function, and not be a hypocrite, I need to allow these other viewpoints to exist. I agree up to a point. I don't need to tolerate others on principle. I have discretion for a reason. Yes, I agree vehemently, I just didn't mention it as I took it for granted that it would be understood that exceptions exist to most any rule or assertion.Quote: Quote: Further, I don't want to simply toss out all of my opinions, as I think they're the right ones. You can think they're right- but if you think they're right in spite of being demonstratively wrong, that's a whole different kettle of fish. It is, but what I was trying to say was I shouldn't discard them before having them be demonstrated as wrong, or if I haven't yet established that there is even a conflict of ideologies, which is related to my own issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:27 pm
|
|
|
|
Gho the Girl TeaDidikai Gho the Girl I think that what people believe has meaning for them. Which is fine, but that doesn't make it true. Of course. Quote: Quote: I think in order for us to function or understand and tolerate others, we need to be self-opposing entities. I believe certain things, things which should be true for all, but in order to function, and not be a hypocrite, I need to allow these other viewpoints to exist. I agree up to a point. I don't need to tolerate others on principle. I have discretion for a reason. Yes, I agree vehemently, I just didn't mention it as I took it for granted that it would be understood that exceptions exist to most any rule or assertion. Quote: Quote: Further, I don't want to simply toss out all of my opinions, as I think they're the right ones. You can think they're right- but if you think they're right in spite of being demonstratively wrong, that's a whole different kettle of fish. It is, but what I was trying to say was I shouldn't discard them before having them be demonstrated as wrong, or if I haven't yet established that there is even a conflict of ideologies, which is related to my own issue.
Very fair.
The concept of Subjective Reality and Objective Reality are mutually exclusive. One can ascribe value in a "personal" sense, but that's still a personal and objective thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:35 pm
|
|
|
|
TeaDidikai Gho the Girl TeaDidikai Gho the Girl I think that what people believe has meaning for them. Which is fine, but that doesn't make it true. Of course. Quote: Quote: I think in order for us to function or understand and tolerate others, we need to be self-opposing entities. I believe certain things, things which should be true for all, but in order to function, and not be a hypocrite, I need to allow these other viewpoints to exist. I agree up to a point. I don't need to tolerate others on principle. I have discretion for a reason. Yes, I agree vehemently, I just didn't mention it as I took it for granted that it would be understood that exceptions exist to most any rule or assertion. Quote: Quote: Further, I don't want to simply toss out all of my opinions, as I think they're the right ones. You can think they're right- but if you think they're right in spite of being demonstratively wrong, that's a whole different kettle of fish. It is, but what I was trying to say was I shouldn't discard them before having them be demonstrated as wrong, or if I haven't yet established that there is even a conflict of ideologies, which is related to my own issue. Very fair. The concept of Subjective Reality and Objective Reality are mutually exclusive. One can ascribe value in a "personal" sense, but that's still a personal and objective thing. Value is objective?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:41 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:42 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:46 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:49 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:08 am
|
|
|
|
Cyrus the Elder *cough* *is doing undergrad in Econ* ninja Well, my point is, things only have the value we assign to them because we assign it to them. As one of my tutors would have said "If tomorrow everyone started trading in chickens instead of money, would your $10 still truly hold the same worth?" Yep. Because there is a difference between value and worth when speaking from a psychological perspective.
Quote: I guess I'm looking at things from the supplier side more than the consumer side, but in the end, the demand curve for a product is still fairly subjective (except in certain cases) and therefore what it is valued at is dependent on subjective value assigned to an item by the consumer. I'm suggesting that the demand curve varies, but it isn't so much subjective as much as it's contextual- and that context is objective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:53 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:15 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|