|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 3:02 pm
 |
|
|
 |
Galad Damodred Priestley Galad Damodred Priestley Galad Damodred Math is objective. It's the purest field of study in the universe. And all things ultimately link back to it, now that I think on it... Fine, Galad Damodred but that doesn't mean that faith isn't blinding. I was just trying to present mathematics as an example of objectivity. rolleyes
Right, and I'm arguing that mathematics not existing in reality means it cannot be used as an example of objectivity in reality. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:36 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 7:50 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 8:34 pm
|
|
|
|
Priestley zz1000zz Priestley zz1000zz Priestley Mathematics is method used by us to observe, measure and understand the universe around us. The universe is not made up of numbers; numbers are applied to the universe. You are discussing something different than Galad Damodred brought up. He said math, but you only discussed the application of math. They are two totally different things. How can you agree mathematics is objective in terms of logic, then say it is subjective because of its applications, all the while saying you are not conflating the two? Mathematics is largely the same as logic. It can be used subjectively by applying it to non-objective things, but that does not make it subjective.
First:
Priestly Because it is first subjectively abstracted from reality
Is not true. Second:
Priestly They do not exist in reality so to use it as an example of objectiveness in reality isn't correct.
Is a strawman, as "in reality" was not a constraint for the discussion. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:55 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:00 pm
|
|
|
|
zz1000zz Priestley zz1000zz Priestley zz1000zz You are discussing something different than Galad Damodred brought up. He said math, but you only discussed the application of math. They are two totally different things. How can you agree mathematics is objective in terms of logic, then say it is subjective because of its applications, all the while saying you are not conflating the two? Mathematics is largely the same as logic. It can be used subjectively by applying it to non-objective things, but that does not make it subjective. First: Priestley Because it is first subjectively abstracted from reality Is not true.
Okay, so it's objective because I suppose it's tested to be true and is never conditional on circumstances or person viewing it?
zz1000zz Second: Priestley They do not exist in reality so to use it as an example of objectiveness in reality isn't correct. Is a strawman, as "in reality" was not a constraint for the discussion.
Right, I may have been synonymising the words 'objective', 'true' and 'real' and confusing them in my understanding. Unfortunately, one of my learning mechanisms for language is linking my definitions of one word with is synonyms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 12:52 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:18 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 6:53 am
|
|
|
|
Galad Damodred Priestley Galad Damodred Oh, never mind. It's not important any more. I don't even remember what we were talking about.
I understand the concept of blind faith and I assume this is to what you were referring. However, I have an issue with your assumption that faith is blinding in every case.
That's all. Don't feel badgered or anything, I'm just new to arguing my points and looking to exercise my skills.My old debating instructor would just looooove you. rofl
Why? sweatdrop |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 7:05 am
|
|
|
|
zz1000zz Priestley Okay, so it's objective because I suppose it's tested to be true and is never conditional on circumstances or person viewing it? No, it is objective because each condition and assumption which may be dependent upon the viewer is qualified and presented up front. If one disapproves of them, he or she can use a different set.
I'm not familiar with the terminology so I'm having trouble understanding what you mean. You might have to school me. sweatdrop
Priestley Right, I may have been synonymising the words 'objective', 'true' and 'real' and confusing them in my understanding. Unfortunately, one of my learning mechanisms for language is linking my definitions of one word with is synonyms.
zz1000zz Aside from in a strict, practical viewpoint, there is practically no way in which "real" and "objective" even approach being the same thing.
A quick search for 'objective' in Wikipedia points me to objectivity in philosophy and helps me identify what I was thinking as being aligned mostly with philosophical realism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:33 pm
|
|
|
|
Priestley Galad Damodred Priestley Galad Damodred Oh, never mind. It's not important any more. I don't even remember what we were talking about.
I understand the concept of blind faith and I assume this is to what you were referring. However, I have an issue with your assumption that faith is blinding in every case.
That's all. Don't feel badgered or anything, I'm just new to arguing my points and looking to exercise my skills.My old debating instructor would just looooove you. rofl
Priestley I'm just new to arguing my points and looking to exercise my skills.
She'd love to get her claws into you. Shape you into a weapon that would bring her debating team glory and renown. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:32 am
|
|
|
|
Galad Damodred Priestley Galad Damodred Priestley Galad Damodred Oh, never mind. It's not important any more. I don't even remember what we were talking about.
I understand the concept of blind faith and I assume this is to what you were referring. However, I have an issue with your assumption that faith is blinding in every case.
That's all. Don't feel badgered or anything, I'm just new to arguing my points and looking to exercise my skills.My old debating instructor would just looooove you. rofl Priestley I'm just new to arguing my points and looking to exercise my skills. She'd love to get her claws into you. Shape you into a weapon that would bring her debating team glory and renown.
That's great. Do you think she would would agree to my accepting her tutelage and then politely refusing to debate for her? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 8:54 am
|
|
|
|
Priestley DustNymph So, you're having trouble believing in Christianity. Why not try something else? Have you ever considered a form of polytheism? Whether hard polytheist or soft polytheist, 10 out of 10 Hellenic(Greek) Recons agree it's a great way to go! Or perhaps you like your gods a little less tangible and imminent. There's always various forms of deism! Now, personally, I prefer some nice, nature-based transcendentalism, but that's just me. What my advice boils down to is this: poke around a little, do some research, and find out what clicks with you. Maybe after trying out a few other things, it'll hit you that Christianity was where you wanted to be all along. Or maybe not. Maybe you'll never be one-hundred-percent sure what you believe, but at least you'll be more knowledgeable, right?
Seriously, though, make sure to test everything that you read and learn for truthfulness. It is all too easy to lie to oneself and then believe that lie.
They're on to me! ninja
Being a non-Christian, I have a rather different view of how to deal with this kind of situation. My view of religion is that you search for that which feels most true and go with that. Of course, there are little caveats and exceptions (religions that sanction various forms of murder, rape, etc. are a big no-no in my book). The fact is that religion isn't anything that we can be objective about. A Christian and a Hindu may hold their convictions with equal strength and certainty in their correctness, and who can judge which is right? Maybe they're both way off.
I once had a teacher who was finishing up his degree in neurotheology, the study of how religion ties into brain function. He said that from what he'd studied most people were hard-wired to believe in some kind of religion. Now, whether this should be taken as evidence for or against God, I won't get into. But what I take from this is that if it's possible for people to be "wired" to believe in religion, why shouldn't different people be wired different ways? And if it's impossible to know objectively and certainly what the truth of the matter is, why shouldn't people go with the belief system that is most spiritually fulfilling for them?
That's how I tend to view the matter, at least. It's probably a lot trickier from your point of view with the whole salvation mythos you have to work with. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:04 pm
|
|
|
|
Priestley zz1000zz Priestley Okay, so it's objective because I suppose it's tested to be true and is never conditional on circumstances or person viewing it? No, it is objective because each condition and assumption which may be dependent upon the viewer is qualified and presented up front. If one disapproves of them, he or she can use a different set. Priestley Right, I may have been synonymising the words 'objective', 'true' and 'real' and confusing them in my understanding. Unfortunately, one of my learning mechanisms for language is linking my definitions of one word with is synonyms. zz1000zz Aside from in a strict, practical viewpoint, there is practically no way in which "real" and "objective" even approach being the same thing.
The first thing to do is make sure you are not looking at Objectivism, a philosophy commonly known as philosophical realism.
Objective can be thought of simply as, not dependent upon anyone's perception (usually referred to as 'mind-independent'). Contrary to this is subjective, which is dependent upon perception or mindset. To say of a woman, "She is beautiful" is to make a subjective remark. The woman is beautiful only to some. An objective statement would be to say of the woman, "She has internal organs" as nobody would disagree.*
Ultimately, the main difference simply comes in assumptions. Subjective statements assume things as true. Saying the woman was beautiful assumes one's own standards of beauty have relevance outside one's own mind. In mathematics, these assumptions do not exist. This is not to say assumptions do not exist in mathematics, as axioms and/or postulates are inherent to math. Instead, it is because these assumptions are intrinsic to each mathematical statement that math is objective. For example, the statement one plus one equals two is subjective. In base two, "2" does not exist, so this statement is invalid. However, the statement in base ten, two plus two equals four is not subjective. One cannot disagree with the objective statement, though one can choose to use a different system (changing the qualifiers), producing different, but equally valid, results.
*All necessary caveats to solipsistic viewpoints apply. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:53 pm
|
|
|
|
Priestley Galad Damodred Priestley Galad Damodred Priestley We were originally talking about what you said regarding faith blinding someone to events.
I understand the concept of blind faith and I assume this is to what you were referring. However, I have an issue with your assumption that faith is blinding in every case.
That's all. Don't feel badgered or anything, I'm just new to arguing my points and looking to exercise my skills. My old debating instructor would just looooove you. rofl Priestley I'm just new to arguing my points and looking to exercise my skills. She'd love to get her claws into you. Shape you into a weapon that would bring her debating team glory and renown.
I don't know, no one's been able to refuse her yet. She can gentle people into doing anything, and then bully them into being good at it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
