No, but it would make sense to state that it is universally true that observers view events differently. — curiousnewbie

Couldn't we say that P is universally true, where truth is subjective?

When I say universal, I am referring to that which is — curiousnewbie

So x is like F from reference point y, and like G from reference point z.

Does it make sense to call "x is like F" "universal"?

Okay, if nothing is nonphysical...then any gods that exist are nonphysical also. But, like ideas, you cannot put a tie on 'em. — Frank Apisa

I'm assuming you meant "Then any gods that exist are physical."

That's fine. As I said above: "[If we're talking about something that only has physical aspects, then] I don't know what we'd be talking about. [This] alternative would need to be specified better before I'd bother with it." The first thing I'd want specified is where whatever we're talking about is supposed to be located.

In my view nothing is objectively true. "Objective truth" is a category error.

I was simply asking why you were conflating universality with objectivity. The subjective/objective distinction doesn't conventionally have anything to do with whether something is universal.

Is that objectively true? — curiousnewbie

You said, "For something to be objectively true."

It's logically possible for there to be objectively true things but for them to not be universally true.

The objective/subjective distinction doesn't have anything to do with universality.

Well for something to be objectively true it would have to be true for universally, wouldn't it? — curiousnewbie

No, not at all. Aren't you familiar with the general/special relativity, for example?

Are you saying that ideas do not exist? — Frank Apisa

They're not nonphysical. Nothing is.

YOU are not the determinant of what can or cannot exist. — Frank Apisa

The world is. I'm not going to pretend that I can't observe it.

Students need to practice coming up with objections/counterarguments. That needs to occur on a spectrum from easy to not-so-easy, as we progress from 101-level courses to graduate-level courses.

And you are saying that it IS impossible or incoherent for gods to exist? — Frank Apisa

If we're talking about something that has at least some nonphysical aspects, yes. And if we're not, I don't know what we'd be talking about. The alternative would need to be specified better before I'd bother with it.

It is as "plausible" that gods exist as it is that no gods exist. — Frank Apisa

No, it isn't. A fortiori because the concept of nonphysical existents is incoherent. But there are a number of other absurd aspects to it, too.

I do not follow that thought. — Frank Apisa

In other words, in the case of a god, all the evidence we have so far shows no god to exist.

I don't have to make that decision, and have no recommendation to make. I am criticising his writing. I wouldn't recommend him as a moderator, if that tells you anything. — unenlightened

I'm strongly against him--or anyone else--being sacked for anything they've expressed (at least insofar as it's not a contractual issue--non-disclosure clauses someone might have signed, etc.)

I think it's a good thing for philosophy professors to be provocative.

Re being a moderator, I don't want anyone to be a moderator if they're going to do much. ;-)

My answers:

* Realist (alternatives seem ignorant and often quite childish to me)

* QM interp - other (I basically interpret it instrumentally, from what is very similar to a logical positivist perspective; I'm an antirealist on mathematics in general).

* Presentism (alternatives are incoherent in my view)

* Start of time - unsure (I think both answers are possible, I don't think there's really any way to know the answer)

* Infinity - a concept, and standardly, the concept is not a number (re my "concept" answer remember that I'm an antirealist on mathematics, mathematical objects, abstract objects in general). I do think it's possible that there could be an "actual infinity"--things that are endless, but obviously we can't really intuitively grasp that in the same way that we can grasp something like "1,000 truckloads of x"

* Something from nothing - I think it's possible

* I'm an atheist who thinks that religious beliefs and the idea of god in general are absurd/comically stupid (though I'm fine letting people have beliefs that I think are stupid, as long as they're not trying to control what I can choose to do where that's motivated by the beliefs in question).

is it worth considering that we’ve now entered an age where entertainment has lost its vitality? — I like sushi

I think that entertainment is better than ever, so I'd say no.

No. What I am complaining about is that he is down-playing (as in completely ignoring) it, while up-playing the atrocities of Muslim extremists, in a way that gives comfort to rightwing extremists. And his talk of George Soros having an Empire is similarly loose and inflammatory. — unenlightened

Thus he shouldn't have a job teaching philosophy?

I am making a statement about the absurdity of supposing the default position on an issue where there is no evidence of being...is that what is being considered DOES NOT EXIST.

The default should be, I DO NOT KNOW IF IT EXISTS. — Frank Apisa

That's only warranted if:

(a) It's not impossible or incoherent that the thing in question might exist,
(b) It's plausible that the thing in question might exist, and
(c) There's no evidence that the thing in question doesn't exist.

The notion of gods has problems with (a), (b) and (c). Some other things that we have no evidence for don't have any of (a), (b) or (c) against them. For those things, it's reasonable to answer that you don't know.

How do we objectively map the meaning of words? — Harry Hindu

We don't.

Meanings are different than definitions. Definitions are sound or text strings or pointings to things. The sounds, text strings, pointings, etc. don't literally contain meaning. Individuals assign meanings to them. We communicate via more than one person assigning meanings to the same observables like sound and text strings in a manner that makes sense, that's coherent and consistent, etc. in the opinion of the individuals involved.

Meaning isn't objective.

Objectivist: So when you say "I don't believe in objective truth", you really mean to say "I believe that I don't believe in objective truth".

Relativist: Right. — PossibleAaran

The relativist saying "right" at that point would be very confused given what comes before that. They should say, "No. Remember that I just explained the the 'ordinary notion' of 'truth' is that it refers to what one believes, and that I'm taking 'objective truth' to be asserting something different than that, something independent of beliefs. What I'm saying in other words is simply 'I don't believe that truth is something independent of beliefs.'"

"There-is-no-objective-truth" is self-inconsistent if understood to be a universal proposition. — sime

Wouldn't that only be the case if you're trying to assert some connection between objectivity and universality?

I do kind of like his formulation of truths as being the beliefs that the community of inquirers will come to hold at the very end of inquiry, but I think he also held that absolute or objective truth is unknowable. I said "kind of like" because that formulation seems to be more idealistic than realistic; as if we could ever know that the end of inquiry had been reached, or as if the very last beliefs that humanity held in common the 'moment' before their extinction could count as final truths in anything more than a temporal sense. — Janus

Why do you think that you're so attracted to going with the crowd? That's a disposition I run into frequently--it seems to be the whole nut of getting on board with both objectivism and "intersubjectivism" on anything--a disposition to consider something right because it's common, but I don't really understand what the attraction is. I'm always instead reminded of the "if everyone were jumping off of a bridge" thing.

Could treating obesity, and other habitual diseases such as smoking/ alcoholism, as mental illness be effective? — Jonmel

I'm not sure what difference it would make to classify it as a mental illness. How would that practically result in dealing with it differently than we already do?

our globe in a near mayhem – especially when it comes to geopolitics; as nationalism thrives, nations are growing apart, while the very poor drift even further down. — lucafrei

Just curious what an example would be of a historical era where you'd say that the above wasn't the case.

I have also defined "truth" as the degree of accuracy between some state of affairs and some claim. — Harry Hindu

And what would be objective about that? How do we objectively map a relation between a claim and a state of affairs?

How does the second half of the full quotation justify the first half regarding a "Soros Empire", and "Jewish intelligentsia networks", which are in and of themselves, antiSemitic remarks? — Maw

What the heck would "antisemitic" refer to if either of those are sufficient to be antisemitic? (Not that he even used the phrase "Jewish intelligentsia networks," but we can pretend that he did.)

Alright, so who was arguing with me re people wanting to control speech, wanting to control others' lives in reaction to speech?

Well, if they're just spying something they feel, if that's all they're referring to, then it's easy to believe that people are feeling however they are.

It might be more difficult to relate to it for someone who doesn't obviously feel an analogous way. But of course it's not easy to convey a feeling to someone else who might not have the same feelings.

The question is what anyone is "spying" that they're calling "spirit"?

If you argue that spirit does NOT exist in any form, please give your definition of it anyway for the sake of clarity and understanding. — 0 thru 9

The only way I'd say it exists would be if someone offered some clear definition, where I thought that what the definition picked out exists.

In lieu of that, I'll pass.

Are you saying that this property isnt the same for everyone. — Harry Hindu

Correct.

If I commit a logical fallacy as part of some claim that I make, how is that property not the same for everyone? — Harry Hindu

Aren't we no longer talking about truth there? In other words, it seems like you're suddenly changing the topic to "Is there anything that's the same for everyone?"

Which states of affairs are you talking about - the apple, or your perception of the apple? The apple is some state of affairs at any moment independent of any observer. An observer can have a different perspective because of their different location in space-time and different sensory organs, but the fact that there is something there for any observer to respond to must mean something. — Harry Hindu

This, too. Is the topic changing to "must x mean something?" Let's keep focus and talk about one thing at a time.

When one uses the term, "truth" they mean the way things are, or some state-of-affairs, for everyone. — Harry Hindu

I didn't notice that claim until now, but I have no idea why he'd think the above. I certainly don't agree with it.

First, when I use the term "truth," I'm referring to a property of propositions, and that's a standard thing to refer to in analytic philosophy. My analysis of it (which isn't standard) is that the property in question is the result of an individual judgment.

Aside from that, though, sticking strictly to states of affairs, I'm a relativist (or more precisely a perspectivalist for this issue), and I wouldn't say that states of affairs are the same for every reference point.

The real "error" is why you'd think that “the father of Charles II was executed” would amount to anything like “It is not always false of x that x begat Charles II and that x was executed and that ‘if y begat Charles II, y is identical with x’ is always true of y” for anyone except for perhaps some lone extremely OCDish weirdo.

You think, with a handful of exceptions, that this board is full of people with reading and learning deficiencies? — DingoJones

:wink:

Legal defamation of business competitors or political rivals would be rather anarchistic, on the other hand, and lead to instability. — praxis

We should strive for a culture where people don't believe things, especially proportional to the practical impact they would have, just because they hear/read them.

Weaknesses: None noted.

That's the opinion of those reviewing the standardized intelligence testing that I've personal 'taken'... — creativesoul

As if you've displayed nothing here. :confused:

In general, by the way, I don't like that people are so lawsuit/press-charges/prosecute-others-for-every-little-thing happy. I think we ridiculously overreact in that regard. I think that we impose ridiculous sentences on people. And I think that the prison system, and the criminal justice system in general, should be completely retooled. I'm definitely in favor of separating out people who commit significant violent offenses, for example, especially if there's any reason to believe that they'd commit further offenses, but I think that sentences/penalties tend to be ridiculous overall.

I think you could safely remove ‘liberal’ from the sentence. I doubt it’s typical for a libertarian to be so absolutist. — praxis

Well, as a libertarian socialist my views certainly aren't typical libertarian views, either. But yeah they're not even typical of other folks who have called themselves libertarian socialists. Nevertheless, they don't more or less just amount to liberalism.

I wonder, would you also not pursue a legal case if someone intentionally damaged your property? — praxis

It would depend on the situation. What was damaged/how badly, who damaged it, why/what was the scenario, etc. In some situations I would, in some I wouldn't. Same would go for personal injury and breach of contract.

For business ventures, reputation or branding can be much more valuable than property. — praxis

Speech doesn't force anyone to believe what was said. I care about causality.

I don't frame anything simply on "harm." This is a good example why.

Morality is codified rules — creativesoul

I asked you a couple times just what codification you're talking about, but you've yet to answer.

Right, so I'd have to figure out why you're incapable of understanding that I was answering, "What is the nature of morality," even though I keep making this explicit to you. But diagnosing why you can't read, comprehend and learn something so simple is too much of a task for me to bother with given the resources at hand (where all I have to work with is posts you choose to make), especially without more motivation for it (because I don't really care enough to try to figure out just what the problem is; I mostly just find it amusing that you present yourself as you do despite such fundamental and obvious reading and learning deficiencies . . . although it's kind of sad that it's symptomatic of the board overall, with maybe a handful of exceptions).

So you or others might consider R intelligent where

(1) S says, "I'm an F-ist,"
(2) R associates the belief that e with F-ism (because it's a common enough association),
(3) R asks S about their belief that e, or comments about their belief that e,
(4) S says, "Oh, I don't believe that e,"
(5) R keeps talking about S's belief that e
?

If you might consider R intelligent in that situation it would explain a lot.

saying you are an F-st if you don't accept all its tenets — Janus

If the tenets are pretty explicitly set out without variation, sure. Usually they're not.

So you wouldn’t pursue a legal case for ideological reasons, no matter how bad the damages? — praxis

Correct.

I'm not at all claiming to represent anyone else. I was just telling you that my views don't at all equate to typical liberal views.

Here's what I was complaining about:

"Meanwhile, you might not agree with e, but now the other person has made the assumption that you believe that e, and it can be almost impossible to get them to think otherwise."