cynicist
-
Posts
917 -
Joined
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by cynicist
-
-
You're going to a conclusion about me being wrong without an actual argument here.
I already made my point twice so it would seem repetitive to do it again, but I'll give it one more shot.
There's no such thing as a claim about reality itself, since reality is unknowable
Point one: I think objective claims are made about the projection of reality. Point two: I think objectivity of a claim is defined by its universal truth value - if we don't know that a claim is universally valid i.e. true, then we can't say it's objective.
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.
Therefore I think you can go about universality only from the bottom up, work your way to create a system that is demonstrably true from everyone's perspective.
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 think this one would go nicely printed across a picture of the pipe-smoking non-argument dog ilk.
-
So I already answered that in a post you quoted just prior to my last post. We can only know things as they are projected. Knowing reality as it is is unintelligible since knowledge is an interpretation of it to begin with. This is why I don't agree that objective claims are claims about external reality. Please read the whole post before criticizing my POV, I vented most of it in the post I just quoted a bit above.
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.
-
"Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined", granted this is a definition from Wikipedia but that's what I thought what you meant by "external reality". Everything we perceive by that definition is not "reality". Sorry if I misunderstood you.
How do you know the state of things as they actually exist?
-
I agree that I am, to some degree, confusing objectivity with accuracy. What I also think is happening is that you are focusing on whether or not an assertion deals with objective existence or subjective experience (as its content), in which case, yes, I concur that an assertion can be about either or some combination of the two. But what I'm focusing on is the assertion, itself. And what I'm saying is that because an assertion is a verbal expression of a person's interpretation of existence, it is necessarily subjective in nature (although the content may still be about objective reality). Does this make any sense? And does it even matter? I actually find myself becoming more confused the more I think about it... and that tells me that perhaps I'm missing an important piece of the puzzle.
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.
Nobody can make a claim about the outside-of-perception reality because every claim is a product of an interpretation/projection of that external reality by its roots. In that sense every claim is subjective because there's no such a thing as a claim about the external reality. Therefore I think you can go about universality only from the bottom up, work your way to create a system that is demonstrably true from everyone's perspective.
What reality is there besides what we perceive?
-
To say that an objective claim is possible for a human being to make is to say that it is possible to make a claim that is not affected by the way a person experiences things in his own mind, which I believe is a contradiction. If what I'm saying does not makes sense to you then it probably means we are working with different definitions of the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity (which is really what I think is going on here).
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.
I see no contradiction in a person saying something that is absolutely true (insofar as it accurately represents existence) and at the same time being less than 100% certain that what he is saying is, in fact, the absolute truth. What does it even mean to be 100% certain about something? Does it mean that you officially close your mind to any further refinement of that thing that you claim to know?
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)
But is 1 + 1 = 2 just a tautology? Is it like me defining a forest as 10 trees and then saying that, according to my definition, a forest is 10 trees. This is a true statement. And I'm 100% certain of it. But who cares?
The tree example is tautological, because you are saying the same thing in a different way. The math example is different.
-
My answer to that is "No, I am not making an objective claim. I am making a subjective claim (the only thing that is, by definition, possible for me to make). But that does not mean my claim is false. It just means that it is subject to the possibility of error... which is why we need logic and empiricism to evaluate the claim."
The point of debating is NOT to distinguish between objective and subjective arguments (that part is really easy... every argument is subjective), but rather it is to distinguish between more accurate and less accurate arguments in terms of how well they conform to empirical reality or absolute truth. None of this denies the reality of existence or of absolute truth, it is just a recognition that we can never be 100% certain about anything that we claim even though we may be 100% accurate.
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.
None of this denies the reality of existence or of absolute truth, it is just a recognition that we can never be 100% certain about anything that we claim even though we may be 100% accurate.
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.
-
please explain specifically why accidents and ignorance are different, because currently they fit perfectly within your aforementioned distinction (bolded), and thus qualify as "direct".
Accidents or ignorance are not deliberate. So no, they don't fit into my distinction.
are you saying that if a parent places their child on the ground when it's stormy and the child gets struck by lightening, the parent can then be held morally responsible?
Absolutely.
-
AustinJames failed to specify how the mauling is to be defined as an indirect or direct effect of the action of placing the baby.
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.
is the parent still responsible for the effects of their direct action? if not, why, what distinguishes this example from your lion example, specifically?
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...
-
Why does whether its a material object matter? You claim that you own your actions and the effects of your actions which are intangible, if they are all the same category then being a material object is irrelevant
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?
-
Does anyone see a better solution?
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.
I've come to the conclusion that there is no point in it. I think I might be depressed, but I'm sure it's for the best. I know right from wrong, I just don't care. Regarding what I'm talking about--everything. I see relationships as one might see a chessboard.
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?
I think I might be depressed, but I'm sure it's for the best.
Why? You mean since it lets you avoid otherwise painful feelings?
-
So can I own your body?
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.
What attributes was I adding?
Ability to be sold.
Edibility is irrelevant but its axiomatic that you can't sell something you don't own. Selling can't exist without ownership, and ownership that exists without selling is categorically different to ownership with selling.
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)
If Stefan's argument is a refutation of the Anarcho-Communist position it requiresthat their be no difference between a woman's body and a factory if you say there is a difference then any Anarcho-Communist can use the same differences to rebut Stefan's argument. I'm also arguing that if Stefan is correct with his argument that the consequences are undesirable. So the argument is either a moral failure or an argumental failure.
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:
Self-evident - containing its own evidence or proof without need of further demonstration
Proof/evidence are not subjective.
-
-
In the argument Stefan conflates the production of material goods with the production of babies, he does this by claiming that the body is another thing made of matter that is owned in the same way as any other matter.
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.
So he must actually mean that the body and any other matter fall into the same category of ownership. Since they are the same category of property anything that applies to one entity in the category applies to all entities.
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)
Well we seems to have cleared that up. So do you think that anything made of matter is of a similar enough type to be placed in the same category with respect to property. Is your body enough like your toothbrush that it can be said you own them in exactly the same way?
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.
-
One could say these axioms are "evident", but "evident" is not a term used in logic; these propositions are accepted to be true. That is the important part. That is why we call them "axioms".
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?
-
Libertarianism is based on philosophy and rational thinking, but how can I be sure if this is the right path to follow? What if this is the wrong path and I spend my entire life trying to catch a ghost. In a way it seems like while Stefan is inviting us in with open arms he is simultaneously closing the gate behind us to make it harder to leave. I am trying to stay between the gate and the rest of the world but it is squeezing tighter all the time. Stefan says that the world I left behind is the prison and the door he is opening for me is the way to freedom. But how can I be sure that the prison is not the place he is offering me?
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?
To me it is the trademark of a wise man to check what is behind every door before deciding which one to choose. If one of the doors tries to close itself behind me while I peak inside, I immediately slam my foot in between to stop it. If I get trapped in the room and there is no way out I will never be able to return. I can't be sure what's on the other side of the door, but if I make the wrong choice I can never go back. So like I said, I will slam my foot in between the door and peak inside. No matter how prominent it looks from outside, I will never go permanently inside until I have seen everything.
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 exactly how its obvious! If all ownership is categorically the same, which is the opposite of what I'm arguing, then why wouldn't you be able to sell you actions. Again it seems obvious to me that ownership of actions is categorically different from ownership of your body which is again categorically different to ownership of other things.
Perhaps I am failing to make clear the meaning of "categorically different" Lets take the example of two humans one is twenty years old with normal brain function and the other is twenty weeks old with normal brain function. While they are both human they are categorically different in terms of moral agency. Now take two other people one it a twenty year old with normal brain function and the other is Steven Hawking, while Steven Hawking is physically nearly as helpless as a baby he ,obviously, has moral agency that no one sane would attribute to the baby. Just like Humans can belong to different categories WRT moral agency property or ownership can be categorically different At least three of which have been introduced "Things" which you can sell, Your body which you can't sell along with other peoples bodies which you can't buy, and your actions which aren't actually tangible.
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)
Good vs. Evil
in Philosophy
Posted
I'm using the same definitions that you are in this case. So can you tell me where I am in error?