jpahmad

Don't get frustrated. Let's try only dealing with one thing at a time. Obviously it would be a lot easier if we were talking in person. Just put one point of dispute at a time and let me address that. Yes, you are correct. That's why I included "perceived understanding" in my theory. Wesley, don't skip over the fact that I said people "act" like they understand their pets, which is obviously not the same thing as really understanding them. I even put in in italics Also, going through logical processes, which includes defining almost everything, is extremely laborious and can be really frustrating. That doesn't mean that we should just drop it. It's important.

Empirically, I don't know anyone who acts like they don't understand their pets. I mean, we all actually project human traits onto our pets!

Saying you understand "X" pre-supposes that you think you understand "X" Saying "I understand 2+2=4" means that you think 2+2=4 "I think I understand my dog" effectively means the same thing as "I understand my dog."

Wesley, first of all, thank you for going through this with me. It helps tremendously and forces me to think of every angle. Secondly, the answer to your first question is yes. I can easily discard what you said next, because in my theory I included "perceived" understanding as well. For example, we don't understand our pets. Your right we can't, we have never experienced what it is like to be a frog, dog, whatever. But we think we understand them (perceived understanding), obviously to a degree enough to illicit the feelings of affection we're talking about. I'm exited about my theory, because it could explain a lot of things that Stefan's theory doesn't. If my theory is valid, then it encompasses all types of affection; love for family, friends, children, infants, and pets.

Mike, just because new information came out about Bieber's intoxication status doesn't negate that Stefan was inconsistent. Because at the time, as far as Stefan was concerned Bieber was under the influence while driving. I don't think it's that big of a deal really, but it certainly didn't answer JKPgamer's question. Am I wrong on this?

O.K, I'll do it myself. Love is a word that we use to describe the feeling generated by the human body when two sapient beings, at least one of them being human, have reached a very high level of understanding or perceived understanding. A torturer can not achieve a high level of understanding with me, you, Stefan, or anybody on this forum. A torturer has no empathy. We have empathy. They can't understand something that they don't experience. Their understanding of us, is equivalent to our understanding of a frog; not a very high level

can you help me re-word it?

Yes, let's exclude abstract concepts. Although I do love the fact that 2+2 reliably always equals 4

Wait, I assumed that you didn't love your parents. Is this correct?

O.k., I think I get what your saying. Let me re-phrase that for myself: Having empathy is good because you can relate to how someone is feeling, but it also has the effect of acting as a "alarm system" which tells you if someone is dysfunctional. Is this correct?

Hey xelent, could you re-phrase that, or give me an example. I don't quiet get what you're saying.

O.K., your're very smart, you noticed how I purposely skipped the harder ones Now I have to do some work here. Let's see, your parents. For my theory to hold, I would have to prove that on some level, you don't understand you're mother or father's behavior. Let's take one of them, you pick. Give me a brief synopis of the ethical situation involving this parent.

So, it is moral to try to win in a competition right? Because, having a competition pre-suposses that both parties are trying to win. Anything else would be deception right?

Nothing is a "must do" without being linked to the effect that you want. If you want to live, you must eat. If you want someone who is not speaking the language of reason to change their thinking, then you must not use reason to do it; it won't work. It never has worked, ever. I am suggesting that you would have success in the above task by using the language of emotion. This starts with empathy. It is only a "must do" if you want to have a positive influence on this unreasonable person.

Hmmm, if we sat down to play chess, and I decided to try to lose without telling you. And I did this every time, which made your chess playing experience lacking to say the least, would you consider my actions immoral? You would be being deceived.

You're right. If someone asked me if I understood Hitler, I would say "what do you mean." But, Wesley claims that he thinks he could understand why Hitler did what he did. So, maybe you should ask him. I know that I certainly couldn't make the claim that I understand Hitler though. I would love to be able to take your word for it on the above statement, but because this is philosophy, I'm going to have to ask you to define both terms.

That's true. But I think though, in issues of communication, someone has got to be the one to "go first." Someone has to be the first to empathize with the other right? Otherwise, you're just at a standstill.

Those are great ideas. It's amazing how many people don't do step one. No wait, I know why many people don't do step one. It's because they really are only interested in "winning" a debate, and not changing someone

Tyler Durden, why is the game of checkers of no consequence? If it was of no consequence, why would anyone play it in the first place?

So value comes first, and then preference. Like in your example of getting mugged. That makes sense. Although you did reverse the order in the previous paragraph when you stated "you would likely value winning higher than losing, because you prefer to win." So, according to UPB, some preferences are not subjective right? Some preferences are universal, which means they are objective right? Are you asking me? I follow that. So you're saying, logically, that winning can not be a universal preference.

Samuels, Is valuation the same as preference? Or are they two different things completely? If they are distinctly different, could you explain how?

Can one say that winning is objectively good, and then also assert that losing is objectively bad? Can these things both be objectively valid at the same time considering that one is at the expense of the other? I'm just trying to work through a train of thought and need some help

Do you really understand why Hitler did what he did? Do we really understand sociopaths? Understanding a person implies that we can relate to this person on some level. I certainly do not understand why someone get's pleasure as a sadist.

Are you talking about Lewandowsky's article. Or the article about Lewandowsky's article? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lewandowsky is basically claiming that: if you don't accept global warming then your likely to not accept the holocaust, the moon landing, and evolution. And even worse, you reject these theories and events for reasons that are not based on rational thinking. Is that what he says?

A theory that I have been playing with in my mind for the definition of love: Love is understanding at its highest level. Notice I am not including lust in the equation at all. This way, I have been able to explain love for a pet using the same criteria as I do explaining love for my child, or my friend, or my wife. If I could think of an example of someone who I understand completely, but who also invokes negative emotions in me (emotions that I would not associate with love) then I would completely change my theory. So far, no contrary example has occurred to me. Any help?