cynicist

I'm using the same definitions that you are in this case. So can you tell me where I am in error?

I already made my point twice so it would seem repetitive to do it again, but I'll give it one more shot. If reality is unknowable, and all we can do is make claims about how we perceive reality to be within our own minds, then there is no such thing as objective reality or truth since any claim we make would be about our subjective interpretation of reality and not the actual thing. You are talking about an objective standard (truth) which is defined as being in accordance with reality, and then saying it is derived from something subjective like perspective. This is contradictory and makes no sense.

I actually didn't criticize your 'POV' in any of my posts. Your post didn't make sense to me so I was seeking clarification, but now that I understand what you mean I feel comfortable stating that you are wrong.

How do you know the state of things as they actually exist?

Yeah I think I know what you are saying, maybe this will help. What we perceive through our senses is objective, but our interpretation of what we are perceiving is not and is subject to error. Like when we mistake a horizon for the earth being flat or a straw in a glass of water as being broken into two pieces. And you are right, we are talking about two separate things. (the assertion itself vs its content) That clears it up for me. What reality is there besides what we perceive?

Yeah I think I understand what is going on here. When I say objective claim I mean any claim about external reality. It sounds like you are mixing up objective with accurate. Someone can make a claim and, due to some cognitive bias, be incorrect about his assertion, but what makes the claim objective is the content it is describing, not its truth value. Certainty is the lack of doubt, which in the area of knowledge correlates to the truth. They mean the same thing. You can be certain and still incorrect. (although certainty does make correction more difficult) The tree example is tautological, because you are saying the same thing in a different way. The math example is different.

I want to submit a correction here by adding that objective claims are possible. (any claim asserting something to be true is an objective claim for example) An assertion is not automatically proven (not true or false) but if you say something like, "Human beings are capable of error" and this ends up being objectively true, then it would be contradictory to say that it was a subjective claim. In contrast, something like, "Vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream" cannot ever be objectively proven because the claim itself is subjective. (In fact if you say that objective claims are impossible to make, you are in effect saying that truth is impossible since truth is an objective claim about the relationship between your understanding of reality and reality itself) My mind always feels a bit warped during these conversations (especially when it comes to language being objective/subjective, ugh) so let me know if I'm in error here or if I misunderstood anything. This is actually a contradiction. How can something be absolutely true if we are unable to be 100% certain about it? I'm not being nit picky, I understand that absolute truth is rare and hard and that we are often wrong about what we think is true, but this is incorrect.

Amazing cover of The Suburbs by Arcade Fire. I like it even better than the original.

Accidents or ignorance are not deliberate. So no, they don't fit into my distinction. Absolutely.

The fact that the situation could not occur without your direct intervention is what makes it direct. Accidents, where you did not or could not know and subsequently act accordingly, are different. Are there storm clouds? Do you see streaks of lightning? Then that opens up the possibility of being electrocuted and makes the situation dangerous. Don't knowingly and willingly put your baby in dangerous situations when you have the choice not to do so. You are trying to make this complicated when it is not...

That's disappointing.

Christ that was painful to read. If you need to have it explained to you why placing a baby in the middle of a road is a direct and malicious act then you seriously need help. That's like saying if you put a baby in front of a pack of lions you are not responsible for the baby being eaten because the lions are the ones who did the mauling. The child would not have been in that dangerous situation without your DIRECT INTERVENTION. Brb, just having a brain aneurysm...

Wow, so apparently age and reputation gets you excused from prison. Oh no that's right, children aren't people...

It doesn't matter, relative to ownership. I own my body, I own my toothbrush, I own my actions. My body is not transferable so I cannot sell it, but that has no impact on my ownership of my body. My actions are intangible so I can't sell those either, but I own them just the same. The properties of these things matter when it comes to what I can physically do with them, but that is a separate issue from ownership. The ownership bit is derived from the same place, namely my body. Even my actions, which are intangible, are only possible through the exercise of my ownership of my body. You can almost look at it like a chain or web. If I claim to own the planet Mars we don't take that claim seriously, but if I were out there terraforming it then we would see the claim's validity. I don't see these categorical differences in ownership you are speaking of. There are differences in the attributes of property which change the way we interact with it, but fundamentally it all comes down to the same thing. (the body) So yes, ownership of actions is not the same as ownership of material objects, but only because of the differing properties of actions and material objects, it doesn't have anything to do with ownership in particular. Does that make sense?

Explore the events that led you to shut down emotionally and slowly reconnect with your inner world. If you'd prefer not to talk about your history here, I understand, but in that case I'd recommend a therapist or maybe calling into the show and speaking to Stefan himself. If you don't try to figure out the reasons for your behavior then you will be condemning yourself to isolation or whatever other terrible fate you think you deserve for no damn reason. If it's just a game, you don't care about anyone or about being a good person, and it gives you "emotional echoes" (I assume that means some kind of thrill) then what part of it is unhealthy? Why? You mean since it lets you avoid otherwise painful feelings?

Not while I am inhabiting it. Saying that a body is or can be privately owned by an individual is not the same as saying it can be owned by any individual. Ability to be sold. Yes, ownership of the body and actions are exempt from being sellable. So what? The body is just another material object that can be owned, even if it can't be sold or traded or owned by someone apart from the current inhabitant. (while the inhabitant is living) Or you are simply misinterpreting what he means.

Btw, this is what happens to companies that try to offer real protection to consumer e-mail.

From dictionary.reference.com: Proof/evidence are not subjective.

Yes, in that the body can be privately owned by an individual. He is not saying that the body is the same as a toothbrush in any other way besides that it can be privately owned. Just like the claim he makes when he says we own our actions and their effects. Ownership is specifically about having control/possession of something. You are deliberately adding other attributes to make your point. Just because a toothbrush is property and you can sell it doesn't mean that logically everything that is property must have that attribute. (That is just like saying that a sandwich is property and you can eat it to nourish yourself therefore all property is edible in order to sustain your life) You own them the same way that you own your actions.

I find it hard to believe that you are a psychopath. If you lack sympathy, then why would you be concerned about your impact on others? This isn't a criticism, but a good thing. You aren't the only one who has done regrettable things in the past. I've been manipulative myself. The important thing is that we can learn and improve. You are quick to say that your 'condition' is neurological, but what was your history like growing up? Many of the worst kinds of monsters (not that you are one by any means) have pretty awful histories, lending credence to the idea that they are not born, but shaped through their experiences. The fact that you are posting here tells me that your situation is not a foregone conclusion like you are claiming it to be.

The reason these self-evident things don't appear in logic is because they are empirical, so logic is not necessary to know that they are true. There is nothing self-evident about god. If there were, what would be the point of the bible or teaching others about him?

How do you know that anything is true? Use logic and evidence. Remember that your argument here is a double-edged sword. If what Stefan is saying IS true, then you are trying to remain in a corrupt, violent, and relativistic nightmare of a world due to your own fears and insecurities. Is that any more palatable? Just don't get stuck in the door frame I'd recommend watching Stefan's Introduction to Philosophy series. If you are worried that you can't trust yourself watching his videos then just explore any sources for critical thinking and empiricism in order to determine truth from falsehood and then apply those standards to the knowledge Stefan presents as well as what you see in the world around you. We were all as skeptical as you at one point, intelligent people tend to be that way.

That's funny. So you are saying categorically different where I was saying that different objects have different properties which results in differences in their ownership. The danger here is that we are talking about differences in type that result from the attributes of the property in question, not degree. (which is why your comment about attributes didn't make sense to me)