The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Is Math Objective?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,993 times Debate No: 100328
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (105)
Votes (0)




My argument is that Math is objective. My opponent says it's not. But I like a discussion over a debate so I wish to get to the bottom of this through discussion. I reserve the right to change my mind when presented with new evidence based on reason and logic.


Providing my opponent grants me the same ability to change my mind, I accept. Are we continuing from where we left off in comment 95 on Kant or..? (answer/debate in the comments)...
Debate Round No. 1


No, I'm afraid not. You say math is subjective and I say it is not. Thus we must address the reason for our disagreement, Math exists outside of our consciousness in the physical objects that inhabit our world. There are multiple physical objects thus creating an inherent quantitative identification that can be assessed and acted upon such information. If you have a keyboard(which you have conceded exists and is an object) and a monitor(which by the same logic you should concede to exists and is an object) thus by the language that we have formulated to express our subjective thoughts in an objective manner (i.e. rationalization) we can conclude that those are indeed "2" objects. That is the basis of arithmetic (adding "two" different "one objects" together) which I have read by Muhammed in the source I have given states the Kant, "Apart from minor grounds on which Kant's philosophy may be criticized, there is one main objection which seems fatal to any attempt to deal with the problem of a priori knowledge by his method. The thing to be accounted for is our certainty that the facts must always conform to logic and arithmetic. To say that logic and arithmetic are contributed by us does not account for this. Our nature is as much a fact of the existing world as anything, and there can be no certainty that it will remain constant." (Source 1)

If you deny the factual nature of Math then how is your philosophy true that Math is subjective?

Now what you always do whenever I make any point is to create a vague description of disagreement that actually does not counter any of this logic. I am going to pick apart your response phrase for phrase pointing out how much your opinion is wrong. You are intentionally misrepresenting what Kant is actually saying to fit your subjective point of view. This is my attempt of an objective analysis. Ultimately, you are just saying that you "My consciousness (1) extends itself into the (2)", but you are not answering to how there is existence outside your own consciousness. As long as there is an object, there will be arithmetic. As long as there is arithmetic there will be math. The language we use to express our rationality has given identification to the quantitative representation of objects in "numbers". I do say that you exist, but the objects that you interact with are not an illusion but physical objects. An attribute of Mathematics is simply doing something with the quantitative amount of objects(keyboard, monitor, car, TV etc....). There is a complete order of Mathematics(including defining infinity).

Go ahead and act with vagueness and obsecurity. I will do my best to keep your philosophy down here on Earth.

Source 1:


As you've made clear in the comments, you want me to provide a rational system against mathematics being objective. So, because of the character limit, I will be disregarding everything you wrote in Argument 1 (even though you still misunderstand Kant and I disagree with many of your points profusely) and present this argument. I will be arguing against the objective external world using Locke and Berkeley. Then, I will be arguing against the objectivity of rationality. I will be following Kant up until the point that he says our consciousness is unified by a pure reason instead suggesting that maths is motivated by an impure and evolved reason. Here, I will also draw on Mill and the psychologism debates.

Maths: we will be centrally focusing on deductive maths (equations like 1+1=2) and not branches of it, such as statistics
Objective: uninterested and unconditioned understanding of something (as Kant defines)

P1) Mathematical knowledge (mk) is either objective or subjective
P2) Our 'objective' mk could only derive from ourselves and/or the external world
P3) We cannot derive 'objective' mk from the external world
P4) We cannot derive 'objective' mk from ourselves
C- (2,3,4) Mk cannot be objective
C2- Mk must be subjective

P1) Mathematical knowledge is either objective or subjective
If you can suggest any other types of knowledge, then I will take them into consideration. As it is, this premise seems so apodictic that I will not be expanding on it.

P2) Our 'objective' mk could only derive from ourselves and/or the external world
I extend the justification of my first premise. Of course, you could respond that we get our knowledge through a divine source. You can challenge me on this but I feel it is irrelevant to our debate given that neither of us have expressed this alternative in our previous discussions.

P3) We cannot derive 'objective' mk from the external world
Following Kant, all our knowledge of the world is conditioned and interested (subjective). We cannot percieve it aside through the self--a self which portrays it in a certain manner beyond its true form.

Using Locke, secondary qualities are dependent on us. They are subjective. Smells, colour, taste and other phenomenon rely on our senses to be perceived as we percieve them. There is nothing essentially 'red' about a tomato. It is our retinas (perceiving the effects of the normative conditions of the world like light waves and gases) that makes it red. Some species, like snakes, can see infrared colours that we do not. Their experience of the world depends on the faculties an animal possess.
Another example: A fire is hot insofar as it is hot to my skin. It's energy can be measured by scientific equipment, but it is only hot through me. The temperature 451 Fahrenheit isn't hot because an instrument tells us it is. The fire is only 'hot' when it makes us hot. A burning book cannot feel 'hot' without a feeler.

Using Berkeley's critique of Locke's primary qualities, even primary qualities of the external world deemed objective are perceived subjectively. Primary qualities include such things as extention, motion, mass... Firstly, we cannot help but seeing tomatoes as being red. It is just how we see it. Therefore, we cannot seperate its intrinsic qualities from its properties. Additionally, seeing the tomato depends on the subject. If the subject has always lived in a deep cavern underground, then they have never seen a tomato. Therefore, they would have no knowledge of it. If, when leaving the cavern, they look to see they are in a field of tomatoes, they gain knowledge of them being red, they gain it through themselves. We cannot imagine the tomato extended (spaitally) and not coloured. We could not imagine motion without its other secondary qualities. We could not imagine mass seperate to the tomato. To percieve the tomato, is to percieve secondary qualities... if you disagree, describe space to me without its qualities.

Therefore, neither primary or secondary qualities can be percived without a subjective perciever. And, the faculties of this perciever makes him/her percieve the object in a certain way. This way is not the truth of the object--it isn't objective. A tomato has no set colour; nothing has colour intrinsically. It is only by other qualities like light waves and our eyes do they gain colour. We see the entire world through subjective eyes. Of course we see objects--but we access them with subjective eyes. Therefore, we can never claim that we understand them in their pure objective form.

Mk cannot derive from the world. Seeing three objects and calling them 'three objects' depend entirely on the subject's judgements and faculties which provide these judgements. The three objects depend on my sight. If you put pressure on your eye, you see double: this doesn't mean that there are two objects in the world. And, we can judge this by our reason--not by our senses. If the subject were blind, he couldn't intuitively from the world say 'there are three objects'. If he had no senses, he couldn't say 'I sense three things'. His percieving these three things is entirely dependent on them and their rational judgements about the world. He looks at the objects and infers that there are three of them using his brain.

This deals with objectivity as a Humean 'matter-of-fact'. (actual)

P4) We cannot derive 'objective' mk from ourselves
Kant, argues that the idea of numbers comes from our pure reason--not the world. That, it arises from our innate faculties in what he calls, 'pluralities'.
For him, the categories are objective; they transcend the external world and subjectivity. They are an ideal within us and unify what we see into judged wholes. When I see three objects, it is the laws of my psyche which registers that, 'yeah, there are three objects'. Now where I differ from Kant is that he argues that these are 'objective' faculties. That they transcend each individual and are unconditioned and uninterested, making man more sacrosanct than every other animal on the earth who doesn't possess them. He believes it is what makes man valuable--their inner divinity.

For him, to do maths like 3+3=6, we would need to verify the consequent of this equation synthetically. We would need to have learnt what each symbol represents by our rational encounters with the external world. That my concept of three equates to the symbol '3' because internally I do not know this. Then to do the sum, '3+3=6' I would need to verify it as true using my reasoning. '6' as the product of 3+3 would need to be verified by our objective reasoning.

I reject Kant on the basis of this nebulous 'ideal' of pure reasoning. He doesn't describe where it comes from, how it exists; for him, it is simply the governing and infinite principle of our understanding that all humans possess.

Instead, utilising the work of W.S. Cooper, I think that mk logic can be reduced down to evolution. That, we developed maths naturally as psychological faculties and cannot break them. Instead of having access to an ideal measure for truth, mankind shares common laws of mathematics ingrained in their way of thinking and evolved within them billions of years ago. Deduction, Cooper says, makes for stable preferences and provides an advantage which is developed and carried on through natural selection. And, they make more stable preferences because they are how we (with interests in the world) expand and learn about it. It is how animals learn about the world. They use their evolved systems to engage with their surrondings. When we do maths, we interact with the world effectively. We see the world and turn it into an equation that can systematically applied for desired because it is how we have learnt to react with it.

These desires are motifs. Motifs situated in us because it is undeniable that we use maths and that we are subjects. We have interests in doing maths, we do it using the subjective faculties of our minds. We cannot perceive the world and see it as objective. We cannot use our mind objectively. It is just as I have evolved to react with the world. Man as a subject has no reference to objectivity. We will simply improve our faculties of maths as we evolve, as subjects yielding subjective results.

But what about non-useful maths? Can we do this without the conditions of our psyche nor interests as subjects? 3+3=6 verified by our evolved reasoning seems superfluous for our survival as animals. This type of maths is when we analytically engage with our psychological faculties to learn about it. It is inseperable from very human (subjective) and very natural incentives: curiosity, the will to meaning and exploring ourselves. John Stuart Mill in the psychologism debates names deductive logic the necessary principles of our psyche. How we have to think as humans. Maths is subjective because we do it in examing the self for interested reasons, our very animal desires. It is subjective because it is of our contingent faculties. It can never be 'objective' because it can never be attributed to a source which is beyond the psyche. It examines the subjective laws we collectively hold as a human species and how we react with the world. It doesn't refer to an absolute source of knowledge beyond ourselves. It is us reacting to the world.

This deals with objectivity as in a (non-subjective) philosophical ideal.

Sidex, tell me what premises you disagree with and why. (the ones in bold)

Also, I acknowledge I haven't cited the exact page and book of the philosopher's I am using... I am using them correctly, which any credible philosopher or youtube podcast will tell you. But even if you doubt their credibility, it does not detract from the reasoning presented. It is irrelevant.

If you didn't understand any of my points ask in the comments section. I had to condense them because I ran out of characters.
Debate Round No. 2


Objective -
1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
Contrasted with subjective
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1 Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.

Because you are under the assumption that you can rationalize a perspective with any argument you believe to be true, the way that you express your rationale through studies indicate that you have made an assumption that your philosophy, which is based on Kant, is objective(by the dictionary definition inferring to fact), what you are implying with your argument is that nothing can be objective because nothing can truly be definable.

>>>>>>Objective: uninterested and unconditioned understanding of something (as Kant defines)
Your definition of being objective cannot be true for logical reasons that I will explain. First I would postulate in rational logic that anything of how you personally interpret through a "subjective" not "objective" (I will prove through Math it's subjective nature) philosophy by Kant is subjective in nature in itself including the very definition of "objective" you have provided. (Proving your own irrationality is somewhat a challenge, but I feel like I got this :) .)

I will need to start by explaining our general accepted perception of dimensions. First, is the first dimension also commonly known as, the "point". Multiple points form together to create a "line". We can put labels or designation to each of these points, but in order for a path of logic to exist, the points must stay in relative perspective to one another. So Man in its infinite wisdom(pun intended) creates the designation of these points labeling them numbers. Each number is in sequential order to keep relative perspective to one another. Now, these "numbers" can infinitely go in the positive direction or the negative direction. Now we move onto the 2nd-dimension which is commonly known as a plane. A plane is an infinite amount of paralleled "lines" that is perfectly perpendicular to another set(very important to say "set") of infinite amount paralleled "lines". An example would be a square. The next dimension that we can perceive is the 3rd-dimension(literally the only dimension we can experience, which is exactly why there is so much inconsistency with the world today. We know Truth or wisdom by perceiving in 4 dimensions, but since we as humans only experience in the 3rd-dimension, we try to rationalize that what we see is the only truth(much like how you perceive your studies).) The 3rd-dimension is the object, but to understand it the best I will use a cube as an example. A cube is an infinite of paralleled "planes or more specifically 'squares'" perfectly perpendicular to another set of infinite paralleled "planes or squares". The 4th dimension is Time, or specifically how the object can change(Not important at all in this argument).

We(Man) have done a decent job defining infinity in mathematics. Many people, such as yourself, truly has a misconception of what "infinity" is. First, there are two types of infinity; countable and uncountable. Most people who don't know math that well only perceive "infinity" the uncountable way (including Kant by my personal examination of his work). Little does those people know (including you and Kant) is that "infinity" can only be perceived in the first dimension. The number line can go forever without a truly definable limit. However, when we start moving along the dimensions, infinity is actually contained with objects. For an example, create a "1" unit by "1" unit square on a graph. Now draw a line through the exact center of the square(honestly, it's still the same logic if you a just a smart*ss and draw it diagonally, but just draw it perpendicular to the sides of the square). Label a "0" to represent that line. Then create an infinite amount of paralleled lines starting from that "0" line also designating each line an arbitrarily small number(meaning the next line is .00000000--->1in one direction and the other direction would be -.00000000--->1). Then do the exact same thing perpendicular to those lines. Essentially you are always constricting infinity within -.5 and +.5 creating a known "limit" to infinity. This is how countable infinity works. You can apply this logic to integers as well, but it's better to label the sides of the square by "x" instead of "1".

Now we are approaching Kant's irrationality(along with your own.) Kant is defining an object, which exists in the third dimension as an inherent undefinable or infinite amount of something(known as phenomena). What you are saying is that the object you are designating with a word(for an example, you call a tree the word "tree") does not indicate any identifiable indication of what the object truly is(example; "the tree" is much bigger than the word "tree" we use to describe it.) This is wrong logic because like the square I used in my example, when you define objects in the third dimension you are actually inherently and logically putting a limit on that "infinite amount of something". This is how logic is supposed to work. You are in fact implying through your rationale or so-called "objective" philosophy that the very words you use to describe anything(even expressing the very truth you think you know) cannot be ever knowable. What you fail to understand is that the path of "rationale" will always lead to the question "Is anything knowable?". Your philosophy even negates how you perceive the studies that you have read in incorrect because nothing is knowable(the ultimate rationale of your philosophy.)

Now as long as you use the English language(or any language for that matter) to express your point, then you need understand that Mathematics is simply another language. You saying that Math is subjective is literally saying that the English language is subjective. That also implies that the dictionary is useless. Thus, NOTHING you say, no matter how many studies supports your philosophy(which honestly at this point I even hope that I have convinced you how subjective it actually is) will ever have any merit, especially since your philosophy contradicts the known accepted truth of "infinity" in Mathematics.

Ultimately, the reason for our disagreement is your "objective" philosophy. You have actually have said a very subjective definition of what "objective" means. It does only not support the definition from the dictionary, in addition to not supporting the very logic of how we define "infinity".

>>>>>They are subjective. Smells, colour, taste and other phenomenon rely on our senses to be perceived as we perceive them.

You are mistaking the difference between subjective language and objective language. This is also where our understanding differs. I agree with you about subjective language. When we say we smell something we are inherently inhaling a particular gas and registering it with our own brains, creating a subjective judgment of what we are experiencing. The fallacy with your logic is that you are not taking into fact that there is definable objective language. Now you are right about describing something hot is subjective, but saying that something is 451 (F) is actually objectifying the something to a specific temperature. Depending on your knowledge you can infer an accurate subjective perspective to determine that that something is hot. 451 (F) in my opinion is "hot" to anyone's touch. In addition, we are aware by the logic of science that light has different frequencies, the visible(what we can perceive with the naked eye) frequencies actually have words (colors) that represent each range of frequency. When we are seeing light in a specific frequency such as red, then we say it is red. Now how objects actually have color is the visible light not being absorbed by the object. The object is red because the frequency of the light is being "absorbed" by the object, but what we literally see is all the other frequencies that are not being absorbed by the object. We can still technically say by definition throughout the dictionary that "objectively" the object is red because of the visible light most people can see(yes there are colorblind people).


>>>>>>Now where I differ from Kant is that he argues that these are 'objective' faculties.
You are implying that nothing can be "objective". That is illogical in nature especially since you are trying to argue "objective" philosophy. It is Man that can only define what "objective" is. You yourself has defined what you believe what is "objective" even though it literally does not conform to any dictionary (probably the reason I gave). The reason why you are wrong about everything (any subjective view you have) is because your philosophy has failed to define objectivity. You are creating a subjective definition of objectivity and trying to create a path of improper rationale. I am arguing that Math is actually a language, much like the one we are speaking from, and is when properly defined(meaning there are right and wrong answers) can be and truly is objective.

Your philosophy is wrong, O' god of the Earth. I noticed you saying "chap" which indicated your British tone in our earlier debate. I also noticed you spell "color", "colour"(not arguing which spelling is correct, just observing and inducing) which can be attributed your British heritage as well. I thought I recognized your "philosophy".
>>>"He doesn't describe where it comes from, how it exists; for him, it is simply the governing and infinite principle of our understanding that all humans possess."
I can induce here that you believe in some kind of higher deity creating the universe because you don't know enough science to explain that question yourself. You are the greatest "fence sitter", but I am Making a Choice


First and foremost, may I remind my interlocutor not to use ad hominem and to suspend his hubris for the duration of our argument (most evident at the end of his argument where he for some reason capitalises 'I am Making a Choice', I can only assume because he is naming some distant friends of his).
Also, I would like note that perhaps me telling them in the comments that I was from the UK might have aided their great inference that I was English. Of course, however, this is just irrelevant conjecture. We'll move on...

On the formal and quite phatic things we cannot agree on:
The definition of objective:
Talking within philosophy, objectivity is a specialist term. I am referring to objectivity in the sense of an absolute realm of pure thought. Yet, knowing you will be unhappy with this, we can debate its popular usage. I would like to remind you that the meaning of language, words, change even if its syntax says the same. Most obviously the word 'gay' used to refer to the state of being 'happy'. With this in mind, I refer you to objectivity's 1855 definition: 'impersonal, unbiased', that whilst succeeds Kant by some 50 years, is closer to what the popular understanding of the word would have been then.
The dictionary is not absolute: subjects (humans) change it all the time. New words are created, the meaning of old words change. It is not an objective thing at all. There is a shared, collective meaning we all communicate by for sure. Yet, my concept of 'red' might refer to a different shade of 'red' to me than it does you. 'Red' is merely the generalisation we use to refer to it; I never truly embrace the generalisation. I use my shade of red.
Being unable to argue against the objective:
Your argument (a variant of the Absolute Paradox) here is that I cannot argue that absolutely true things don't exist, for this is in itself an assertion of truth. In response, I would reply with Quine's 'Plato's beard': that I can argue that X doesn't exist without admitting that it does exist in reality. Like Santa Claus, all I am doing is asserting that there is no grounding for the existence of the objective for humans in reality. It can exist as a subjective concept but not as something known objectively. Additionally, I am not arguing against there being no objective realities; I am arguing that objectivity is always subjectively received thereby making it non-objective. If you want to continue this strain of thought any further, can I ask you read the D Section of this first--
Regarding infinity:
You give far too much credit to maths over philosophy; the two are interwoven. From the Ancient Greek philosophers, like Pythagoras, to Leibniz to modern philosophers, like Russell, the two have gone hand in hand. The difference in your definitions of infinity seems to be twofold: (1) the first you refer to is absolute infinity (the inconceivable totality of all things) and (2) Being (the infinite unity of an object). We could again link this to Kantian 'noumena' and 'pure reason', but I fear you'd only make some vindictive remark about it. Again, I would appeal to your intuition and ask, do you perceive other Being in its total infinity? Or do you see it from a perspective--namely your perspective?

The maths you refer to, is purely conceptual. There is no exact 0.5 in the world; the world is of the most acute fractions. Everything may be purely itself (Being) by the Law of Indiscernibles yet nothing else is exactly equal to another (perhaps with maybe a few rare exceptions). You are referring to something humans devise psychologically. Is there a straight line in the world? Every straight line in the world has breadth and therefore is a rectangle by definition. Man only judges, looking at many straight things, that a straight line must exist. And, if you'd read my argument, you would know that I argue this truism an undeniable law of the human psyche (evolved to do maths) rather than a universal truism.

"Is anything knowable?", the question of scepticism. I'm not arguing that we know nothing, more than all we know is through our status as human subjects. Is this knowledge absolutely true? No, it is only probably true. When I learn a language, as a child, I embrace a changing, dynamic system of practical communication. I do not embrace objectivity. I argue that language is created, under the guise of Chomsky's Universal Grammar, from humans. From the subject. Then, in succeeding generations, the subject enters this nexus of language by reciprocity in childhood. It is acquired as the subject embraces a language made by subjects. And, they can change it. They could refer to something as something else. This could become it's popular meaning. Language refers to things from a human perspective shared amongst humans and is continually changing.

We are distancing ourselves too far from mathematics in pursuing language. I stronger point for you would have been that the concept-semantics (the meaning) of numbers never changes. Roman XI is still English 11. I agree. But, again, I assert that these meanings were evolved in man. The empiricist way to go would be to say that in seeing the world through his own perspective, man grouped singular objects (perceived subjectively) in his mind as '1'. I take the rationalist perspective, in that by thinking intuitively, by the laws of his psyche and our evolved faculties we apply our mind onto the world and react with it in a certain way to build our own incomplete understandings of it. I differ from Kant here for I don't think we intuitively have the notion of 'pluralities'; instead, I think we have the faculty of being able to discern 'pluralities' in the world from birth.

Just because a language transcends me (i.e. belong to the collective) does not mean that I embrace an objective language. I embrace it subjectively; I make my own lexicon, idiolect and so forth. It moulds around me as much as I mould around it. As for one 1+1=2, this has to be taught to man as a universal system. But, you cannot teach an object. You cannot make a wall understand language. It has to be taught through the subject. The subject can never see things as 'impersonal' because they are a person. In thinking of '3', I think of it in my mind with my unique internal orator with my unique associations and images of the number. Each number, for instance, has a certain significance beyond its so-called 'objective form' in the mind. I might associate '3' with Toblerones, with my house number, with the tripartite system of racial oppression in America according to certain historians... I associate '3' with things-I-perceive.

But perhaps, you believe that '3' is in fact singular--that it only has one true function. Okay, but we can never access this function without the others; there is an insuperable relationship between the concept of '3' and a Toblerone for me. '3' is a compilation of all 'threes' I have experienced. In 1984, there is that great scene where Winston is forced to believe that '4' fingers are in fact '5'. If you want to have a normative meaning, you must be sane and have access to the wider language used to people. There is no necessity to such meanings I have discussed.

On the topic of dystopias, Fahrenheit (451) is a system we have devised and access on a regular basis; we do so subjectively. It exists outside us and we can never exist outside us. The thermometer yields results I register with my mind, with its entire menagerie of associations and personal feelings.

I am natural being; I am a subject, not an object. I am not arguing an objective philosophy. Refer to where I have done this please. I'm arguing perspectivism, subjectivity... even your definition of the word 'objectivity' doesn't mean absolutely true. So, even if I was presenting an 'objective' argument, I could still do so without it being true. Every definition of 'objectivity' is subjective. I ask you to define objectivity without the use of your subjectivity, or the subjectivity that constitutes collective language. Man (as in mankind) makes meanings through themselves of their worlds and of themselves. You have just attacked me with this point, I would like you to respond with how you can conceive of something as 'objective'? (reminding you that normative definitions are indeed based on the collective approbation of subjects who make and evolve language).

No, no higher deity. I already said we evolve the meaning (do you even read my arguments? You write what I believe, quite frequently, when I explicitly have said I don't believe in them). I don't think 'induce' is the correct word choice there. Also, 'chap' is so extraneous to my colloquial way of speaking, I again would like you to cite where I said that. I don't really see the reason why you're trying to build up the stereotypes of my English heritage either. As the 'greatest "fence sitter"', however, I would like to say how I don't really see why you're not trying to build up the stereotypes of my English heritage either.

Can we keep this civil and formal, please? Over to you...
Debate Round No. 3


However, you are wrong to define in something that does not make rational sense. You are making the word "objective" meaning to something that conforms to YOUR philosophy. Your philosophy is wrong as it has not taken into account how we have evolved the definition of infinity in today's standards. Again because of your Kantian philosophy, you are simply trying to take your subjective opinion and apply a judgment that rationalizes it when MATH today has essentially debunked it. I am not only saying you are wrong because the dictionary doesn't conform to it, I am saying you are wrong because the logic of infinity and the dictionary does not conform to it.

>>>>>do you perceive other Being in its total infinity? Or do you see it from a perspective--namely your perspective?
Both, in a sort. :)

You haven't created any argument against infinity. Yes, there are two definitions to infinity, in which as I explained, uncountable infinity can really only exist in the first dimension, whilst countable infinity exists in the other dimensions. I don't know how to explain any more rationally to you, but considering that it completely undermines your whole philosophy, it does make sense for you to hide your inherent "lack of defense" behind your many subjective conclusions. When something truly undermines the philosophy of the individual that has built their whole logic and reason for Being onto it, one doesn't ever want to give up that power of "subjective righteousness".

>>>>>>There is no exact 0.5 in the world;
There is an exact .5 in the world. In math when we add exactly ".5" with ".8" then we get "1.3". That is exact, you just don't want to accept the objectivity that Math brings. You are trying to prove a subjective "objective" philosophy with no exact definition of objectivity. You have simply claimed a different definition through Kantian philosophy which is debunked because of the logic of infinity.

>>>>>>I do not embrace objectivity
So you claim to follow an "objective" philosophy, but you don't embrace objectivity. Just because you subjectively say that you are redefining the term through philosophy doesn't mean that term becomes true. Essentially, that's exactly like saying dragons are real because I can conceive them. Just because you can conceive your philosophy does not make it inherently true or objective for that matter.

>>>>>> I embrace it subjectively; I make my own lexicon, idiolect and so forth.
So are you implying that you can call "a tree" a "cow"? Embracing language subjectively is actually foolish because the point of language is, in fact, to communicate objectively and properly to express one's opinion(By the way, the most objective of all languages is Mathematics ;), that's why people call it the true universal language). Isn't language responsible objective debates? How are objective debates ever conducted without objective language?

My subjective definition of objectivity - using characters or words to describe everything in its exactness by applying the logic of mathematical limits to everything. Instead of a "tree" being much bigger than the word itself, I would precisely call a tree the word "tree" without it implying that is subjective to call a tree a "tree". This allows the very existence of facts which is needed to maintain the growth of a rational society. Identifying objects as simply as they can be possibly defined is indeed the most efficient way of cultivating language.

So you want to define the word "objective" in an outdated philosophical sense by saying it means "in relation to its object"? How is philosophy "objective" then by that definition? What is "subjective" philosophy then? Why is Kantian philosophy not "subjective" but instead "objective"? Why can't Kantian philosophy can't be subjective from your point of view?

If I say that I am objective and you are subjective, and you say that we are both subjective, wouldn't I be the logical winner because I am saying objectively that you are subjective in your philosophical view, much like you would say we both are subjective because of your philosophical views? If we say that being subjective is wrong, then I say that I am right being objective(from the logic of Math) and say that you are wrong for being subjective, wouldn't your logic say that we are both wrong because we are both subjective? You are denying the necessary identification of objects, thus refusing to accept any fact as true. That is irrational.

This is our earlier debate.

What you don't understand is that I recognized your "irrationality". I am trying to save Humanity and you are simply letting it die. You spread your irrationality like the plague and it is destroying this country. I know that you follow me and tell people lies about me. By the way, I don't give a f*ck about nationality, let alone yours. What you don't understand is that I picked up the word "Chap" in this debate and induced that you were of English heritage. I didn't remember you saying you were from the Uk, but because of the coincidences in your irrationality and nationality, I can easily induce that you are boozeandbabble. It wasn't a coincidence that you chose to debate me then. Our philosophies were intertwined throughout the history of Mankind, one man always saying that things are true by God and the other saying that things are true from Earth. And here we are again, as two millennials having contrasting philosophies that truly decides the fate of Mankind. Mine, based on pure logic and reason, and yours, based on an unknowable and undefinable perspective. Bring it on, O' god of the earth, I am the Son of Mary and I am Making a Choice to defy your very being. You still "ramble" on to no reason why you are right. You are my literal adversary because of your irrationality. You and I both know you're not going to change your philosophy anymore than I am going to change mine. But the big difference between our philosophies is that I have found an objective form of morality by saving humanity instead of letting it die. I also conform exactly to the objective nature of Mathematics. You are going to try to spread your poison unto the world because you will never be able to beat me ever. Even now your words are as hollow as the point you are trying to make.

Here's the thing, you are a narcissist that is very condescending with your "philosophical" understanding. I know I am condescending right now, but only because I vehemently believe that "irrationality" has been spread amongst the Indo-European culture that is resulting in so many unnecessary deaths. I am saying that's it's completely damaging the ability to unify this world into what it should be. We need to unify the Human species together, not just any one nation, race, sex, age, or even belief. Having a philosophy based on the objective nature of Mathematics is THE ONLY WAY to achieve that world peace. I will keep using my right to free speech to say anyone is wrong to not care or want peace in this world for Humanity.


I requested that you cease using ad hominem attacks, which you have rejected, showing a complete insolence for debate and quite frankly, a narrow single-mindedness.

In regards to you ad hominem...
It it is not MY philosophy, it is just 'philosophy', approbated by a large number of philosophers. I am not making up my own definitions of words: I am using their definition. If anything, my philosophy conforms to their philosophy and not vice-versa. I can only assume that you conflate something which 'does not make rational sense' with 'something that you do not understand'.

'MATH today has essentially debunked it'... you are assuming a singular and reductive account of mathematics, based on your access and investment in certain theories posited. There are multiple accounts and positions within every field, especially amongst those who deal with abstract concepts like infinity, therefore I insist that you demonstrate these proofs instead of just asserting them true. By demonstration, I don't mean give your conclusions, I mean justify and explain how you got to them.

'You spread your irrationality like the plague and it is destroying this country. I know that you follow me and tell people lies about me.'
Are you okay Sidex? Paranoia? Drugs?

I didn't use the word 'chap'. I am not 'boozeandbabble'; take my current name, based on Plato's/Socrates' mantra, why therefore would I have another account with a much cruder name? I only have one account on and this is it. I can't prove this (for obvious reasons) but that is the fact-of-the-matter. Your last two paragraphs are so idiotic and irrelevant that they don't dignify a response. Outside this topic of debate, I really don't care about your opinions. That maths is going to cause world-peace...sure. I respond to you only insofar as your are another human being with ideas even if I disagree with them and have logical and evidential reasons for doing so.

You missed my point entirely here. Looking at a mug, do you see the entire mug or do you see just one side of the mug? If you see only one side of the mug, you do not see it in its totality; you see the mug from a limited perspective. Having already perceived the other sides of it, from your brain you infer that the rest of the mug is there in your immediate encounter with it. On the other side, there might be a crack in it; yet if you had only ever seen the smooth side of it, you would assume the entire mug whole. Your perspective is subjective; in seeing the world, you don't see the infinity of objects, you see a very finite and very limited part of them.

Your second paragraph of infinity has no theoretic substance to it. It's just an attack on me. This doesn't show my argument as weak, only reasserts your past position showing your failure to engage in two-way debate. I rephrased your two definitions into philosophical terms: infinity of Being is countable whilst absolute infinity is not. My argument has been based on the fact that we don't have access to an uncountable infinity and that countable infinity requires a subject to count it.

There is no exact 0.5 in the world
Again, you have failed to differentiate in my writing the distinctions between internal and external semantics. My position was that in the world, formatively, there is no 0.5. It's always less well-rounded that this (for example, 0.5000000001). Yet, the mind groups all 0.5's together in a way that doesn't exist externally. It creates a generalised pattern in itself. Again your points here are basically just saying 'you're wrong' and have literally no theoretic of rational substance to them.

I do not embrace objectivity
I do not embrace an objective philosophy; I already answered this in the last round. To quote myself, 'I am not arguing an objective philosophy. Refer to where I have done this please. I'm arguing perspectivism, subjectivity...' Your reverberation of this point is just conducive to the fact that you aren't reading nor engaging with my arguments yet are nevertheless claiming them false.

I embrace it subjectively; I make my own lexicon, idiolect and so forth.
Well there's nothing stopping you Can a 'tree' a 'cow', but again this is not my point. My point is that society's construct their own evolutive language systems which they all share and which the subject accesses by their own perspective and uses differently. I am not denying the necessity of deductive reasoning; I'm arguing it accessed by subjects and made by subjects. The word 'tree' by common syntax and semantics is shared subjectivity (we all invest in a tree referring to a tree). Yet, simultaneously, my inner idea of a tree differs from your idea of a tree though they may hold many consistencies. I might imagine an oak while you a sycamore. The word evokes a different subjective response. This is just another variation of my 'red' example.

It's not an outdated philosophical definition of 'objective' if it still used today. Which it is... I only used the old German word to illustrate the common meaning 'objectivity' in Prussia in the 1800s (where Kant is from). You obviously haven't read what I've wrote again, Kant argues his theory is objective by access to an objective pure reason. I say that there is no access to an ideal of pure truth and that human truth is situated by their own changing and evolutive subjectivity (within a framework of common humanity).

There doesn't seem to be any mutual understanding between us whatsoever. I write things like we can identify and understand objects but we do so through the self making undeniable psychological laws by association. You argue that I'm condoning existential meaningless and a disconnection with the world.
If your next round is truly as bad as this one has been, I'm not wasting any more of my time writing responses to you.

Debate Round No. 4


>>>>>It it is not MY philosophy,
When I say "your" philosophy, I actually am defining it this regard "MY PHILOSOPHY conforms to their philosophy and not vice-versa". I was never implying that the philosophy was entirely yours, I was simply saying in a generic sense that it, is in fact, your philosophy(meaning from your perspective). This is why it's important to define words objectively.

I don't have to be completely objective in this debate(meaning I am simply expressing my subjective opinion), considering that I have already proved you and Kant wrong. You are simply still fixated that because you say that you conform to an "objective" philosophy, then you can redefine the word "objective" to fit your purpose. That is irrational. "Objective" has two specific meanings and you have tried to make it mean something else contradicting is inherent definition.

>>>>>>By demonstration, I don't mean give your conclusions, I mean justify and explain how you got to them.
Well I did explain pretty it thoroughly through the examples I gave, why don't you prove one of those things wrong first. In addition, why don't explain why Kant is correct, not his conclusions, but justify through logic what noumena really means? Fortunately for me, I know that you're going to try to express his philosophy with many words to try to establish vagueness upon it.

>>>>>>Looking at a mug, do you see the entire mug or do you see just one side of the mug? If you see only one side of the mug, you do not see it in its totality; you see the mug from a limited perspective. Having already perceived the other sides of it, from your brain you infer that the rest of the mug is there in your immediate encounter with it. On the other side, there might be a crack in it; yet if you had only ever seen the smooth side of it, you would assume the entire mug whole. Your perspective is subjective; in seeing the world, you don't see the infinity of objects, you see a very finite and very limited part of them.

Yes, but I can infer that the whole object is there. I see a mug, I call it a mug. I can move to a different perspective to see the whole mug into its definable entirety. I can also assume that it is completely whole until I observe otherwise. Just because you say that it is undefinable to what you cannot see does not mean that it is undefinable to what you can see. Logic(much like how Math works) can infer that it whole until you observe it from a different angle or perspective. :)

>>>>>>Your second paragraph of infinity has no theoretic substance to it. It's just an attack on me. This doesn't show my argument as weak, only reasserts your past position showing your failure to engage in two-way debate. I rephrased your two definitions into philosophical terms: infinity of Being is countable whilst absolute infinity is not. My argument has been based on the fact that we don't have access to an uncountable infinity and that countable infinity requires a subject to count it.

What you don't understand is that this is accepted Mathematics. It is already rationally been accepted that Kant's philosophy does not take into account of logic and arithmetic(just because you say that disregarded my first argument doesn't mean that it's actually disregarded). Simply because you say that, "there is no access uncountable infinity and a countable infinity requires a subject to count it," does not mean it's a fact. We "access" uncountable infinity through the number line. And yes, it requires a human's consciousness to conceive both kinds of infinity. What you fail to realize is that I am calling that objective by the definition of objectivity in the dictionary. You don't want to address Kant's philosophy(I assume that your saving for the last argument so I can't prove it's irrationality, but I'll just write in the comments why it's wrong.)

It doesn't matter how you define objectivity. What matters is the actual definition of objectivity. You aren't wanting to address how your logic is wrong, which is definitely your ego. I know I am not wrong because my philosophy is about defining the entire universe, not obscuring it through "unknowable" philosophy. Part of that "defining" is the actual definition of objectivity.

>>>>> formatively, there is no 0.5. It's always less well-rounded that this (for example, 0.5000000001)

No, you are wrong, ".5" is exactly ".5". "0.5000000001" is exactly "0.5000000001". "0.5000000001" is not "0.5". This is the advantage of speaking literally and defining the known universe.

>>>>>I do not embrace an objective philosophy; I already answered this in the last round. To quote myself, 'I am not arguing an objective philosophy. Refer to where I have done this please. I'm arguing perspectivism, subjectivity...' Your reverberation of this point is just conducive to the fact that you aren't reading nor engaging with my arguments yet are nevertheless claiming them false.

You are arguing a subjective philosophy and trying to establish it being "objective" with no definition of "objective". You have stated a subjective definition of "objective" by referring it to as a philosophical definition(that I say does not make sense) not an actual definition of what "objective" truly means. I know how much I want it, but there is a reason which I have established why your "definition" is not in the dictionary. You are saying that you have an "objective" philosophy without actually proving an objective definition of "objective". Go ahead and use your many many words to create a vague description of how I am wrong.

>>>>>Kant argues his theory is objective by access to an objective pure reason
Does not imply that 1. Kant is right and 2. You have defined "objective". The dictionary and even the fact that you are deluded enough to think that Math is subjective proves you wrong. You don't understand, THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES UPON YOU. Meaning that YOU have to explain why I am wrong with any theory I stated in these arguments. You are going to use many irrelevant words try to prove me wrong, but by your logic, you admitted yourself that you are subjective. You cannot prove something objectively wrong without being first objective.

An objective view of this debate:

Both opponents were condescending and rude to each other. Mathematics is, in fact, objective. Con has not proved that Math is subjective. Con cannot prove Math is subjective with a subjective philosophy. Con has not proved his philosophy is objective. Con has not given an objective definition to the word "objective". The voter cannot objectively vote for Con. Vote for Pro :).

I wonder if anyone's going to vote.


'Objectivity has various meanings...' and perhaps our definitions, Sidex, just do not coincide.

I have been arguing pure objectivity as a state of thought inaccessible to the minds of men. Instead, I proposed an evolved and developed common measure of humanity where we understand mathematics by the laws of our psyche which we cannot transgress against. I also argued that we understand the world through the filters of societal systems (like language) which have been developed and given to us by a society constituted of perspectives. Systems which will always apply their individual perspectives on to understand.

I have reread your argument on countable infinity; it doesn't prove it correct. Your assertions are based on countable infinity and the fact that conceptually there are an ineffable amount of numbers between 0-1. The same can be said about any object is the world (i.e. Being) which can always be divided into smaller and smaller molecules. What we do not have here is an intelligible idea of what the tiniest numbers, the tiniest particles, are. If we do not know its parts, how can we know the '1'. Claiming to know the '1' when you don't know what that '1' is, is like saying you know what the Sun is because it is bright. If you do not know what the Sun consists of, it is indeed still bright. But, you don't know what the Sun is; in fact, all you know is your experience of the Sun. This is a subjective experience, one you make of an object you cannot know in its true and entire form. Noumena means just this: I cannot see the world as it really and truly is, only as I can see and examine it.

The Mug
Thank you for conceding to my point, even if you did not realise it. You can move to a different perspective to see the entire mug and you can assume its unity. Yet, you do this by memory. You use the past to anticipate what you are seeing the present by combining all your past perspectives into what your idea of the shape is. The psychological law within you (developed by your past subjective perspectives and experiences) precedes this immediate second of you observing this mug. If you didn't have this ability to remember and think about the world in a certain way, then you couldn't know it. Yet, you can only know it by your subjective experiences of it. Hence, you do not see an object but rather your subjective viewpoint of that object.

Kant and the Uncountable
His philosophy does taken into account logic and arithmetic, I'm afraid (read his works if you ever get the chance; you might find them interesting). I for one, won't exacerbate you with further philosophy; you don't want me to.

But if I cannot persuade you of any point, can I at least introduce you to the idea that maths is a mental function rather than universal law. By this I don't mean that maths is deniable, but that it is true because our mind cannot think it false--either from Kantian pure reason or what I feel is much more likely, given that all humanity rises from natural causes, an evolved reason. We cannot think of 1/23 as 0.0435 as false because our minds will not allow us to do so. We do not get this sum from the world; nowhere do we observe 1/23 and suddenly come to the conclusion of 0.0435; the latter comes from our mental reasoning. We see imperfect fragments and not tidy fractions and decimals.
If it is in our mind, it is suspect to our subjectivity and perspective. I unavoidably associate things with numbers. I have biases invested in them. Numbers are of the laws of my psyche (evolved) and therefore are canted by comprehension of them as a natural being. I can never objectify my thoughts or ideas. My concepts, for sure, are not objects. They don't stand idle like mugs on a table but are part of the nexus which is my conscious and subconscious subjectivity. To argue that a still, unpersonal object enters the personal mind is ludicrous. Unless, of course, it is a physical object.

The entire point of my argument was to reduce 'unknowable philosophy' down to natural and discoverable psychology. Laws of the human psyche which I cannot transgress. We've already argued the definitions of words fluid and ever-changing. But, to be fair, I have been arguing against your definition of the word only using my philosophy background...

1(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
‘historians try to be objective and impartial’
1.1 Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
‘a matter of objective fact’

The first definition refers to objects of the mind; I have argued always predicated on subjectivity--meaning that they are dependent and influenced by the corpus of human thought systems and experiences. Can I separate the notion of '3' from my subjective brain making it truly an object in my mind? Or, rather does this '3' just constitute of many different experiences and associations I have of the '3' which my brain is apt and designed to comprehend (by evolution).

The second definition was precisely my point that we can never look upon the world and understand the object without our subjective perspective. I've already spoke about this thoroughly enough.

Formatively, there is no 0.5
By formatively, I meant in the world. When an orange is cut in half, it is never makes two halves of 0.5. It makes very slightly uneven sections. Yet, the mind, judging the oranges seems halves. It assumes that they are 0.5 each by estimating it; this heuristic function is what our psychological laws (our subjectivity) applies to the world. It takes it in all its divisions and round up and down.
We may conceive of decimals in conceptual mathematics, but earlier I argued this was mankind exploring the laws of its psyche and how it sees the world; not because 0.5 really formatively exists in the world. Yes, we are 'defining the known universe'. But is this definition objective? No, it is distorted by our subjectivity.

Objective Philosophy
I'm still not. It is entirely my own perspective; this doesn't mean that it isn't likely and imperfectly true. What I am defining is not truth as in absolute truth (perfect) but truth insofar as the human mind finds it undeniable (imperfect). Can you see the distinction? I am arguing that my philosophy is undeniable because how the subjective human mind is compromised in each individual member of our species. Because we as a race cannot conceive otherwise. This isn't objective in the sense of the term you are using here (perfectly true) but rather undeniable to the subject. It is true for humans, but not necessarily everything in all existence. To say that an alien would conceive of maths as we do is to anthropomorphise them--to project the undeniability of our mind onto others.

Yet, because I think that maths is evolved, it is conceivable that other species interact with the world in such a way that using our normative ideas on it are advantageous to them and so they adopt and develop them. It is an effective tool to how we use the world--but it originates with the faculties of the mind for modern man. Not from the world.

I wasn't arguing Kant right, I was telling you his position so I could break from it. Another ad hominem attack? You were doing so well... you beg the question here. You claim me verbose using phatic language...okay, probably. Yet, all the words are valid and are relevant even if you don't find them easy to read.
You can prove something subjectively right without objectivity by exploring the non-objective psychological complexes that makes certain conclusions undeniable. I have explained this, and the proof is in common-sense. Where else does mathematics come from if not the brain?

In conclusion, whilst I admit to frequent sarcasm, I would like to note that my opponent takes the award for explicit rudeness. All of which you can enjoy above. Pro argues the same argument four times in a row, to which I explain and further clarify myself four times. I doubt we've actually resolved anything and...

I doubt anyone else is crazy enough to read all this.
Debate Round No. 5
105 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 10 months ago
Are you claiming yourself the Messiah?
I used that example precisely because it was Kant's. But yes, we would first have to learn the meanings of the words after before we could rationally draw logical equivalences between them. And, more often than not, the meanings of words can differ relative to the time and place they are used in.

I'm not too sure that he would think experiences with the noumena, seeing three objects, as a priori (this seems self-contradictory). He mainly uses the synthetic a priori for intuitive moral maxims like 'it is wrong to lie', which our sagacious pure reason can somehow verify as true--using the Categorical Imperative for verification.

Don't forget the first greatest book: the etymological dictionary... And yes, I will start praying to maths regularly with my knees on a chalk board and eyes set towards the Holy Calculator.
Posted by Sidex 10 months ago
>>>>> 'all bachelors are unmarried men' are analytic because the necessary meaning of 'unmarried men' is predicated on the word 'bachelor'.

Wouldn't the word "bachelor" be a form of synthetic a posteriori by having to understand the meaning of the word "bachelor" in addition to synthetically knowing the word "unmarried"? In order to know what those words literally are, wouldn't you have to have seen those words, or at least hear them, literally the very first time in order to properly define them both? Wouldn't literally seeing or hearing those words the very first time exactly relate to how we are able to sense anything that exists?

An example of true a priori analytics: I have ordered three coffees. Without using the word "three", can you tell me exactly how many coffees I have ordered? This is, in fact, the true logic of a priori. There are certain words or characters that cannot act upon itself without having it relation to another. Those words, and especially in this particular argument, numbers are precisely representing that an object of the sentence exists.

These questions and the fact that you have already conceded that existence is true will take of this egotistical escapade that we have journeyed on.

You may know more philosophy, but that does not mean that I don't have a plethora of wisdom. I'm going to be leaving for a while because, let's face it, you and the rest of the most victorious people of this site do not want to accept who I am. You guys are, in relative perspective, the Teachers of the Law(leaders that only believe what they know is fact; ex. MagicAintReal) and the Pharisees(leaders that make their beliefs into fact; ex. TheUnexaminedLife) way back then in the time of Jesus. I have decided to heed your advice and read the second greatest book to known to mankind; the dictionary. :) Praise be to Logic and Reason, may it exist forever and ever. Do what FollowerofChrist1955 says, he is the most righteous person on this site.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 10 months ago
To clarify, 'Multiple people exist, we are many.'
This as a proposition is analytic. Multiple and many are logically equivalent. As are other people and we. We can analyze these words to discover that they mean the same thing.

However, to know that 'multiple people exist' we would need to rely on synthetic a posteriori reasoning (from looking out into the world beyond logic gaining information about it). Hence, it relies on the a posteriori to be a proposition in the first place. Kant's a priori reasoning comes from checking whether our reasoning is a posteriori (corrupt) or connected to the a priori categories of pure reason (objectively true) requiring verification. All I did was remove this idea that our human reasoning is in any way 'pure'.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 10 months ago
Right... well. I'm afraid to inform to you that the propositions you presented like "It is raining or it is not raining" are a posteriori statements--meaning they derive from experience. Hence, not in line with Kant's synthetic a priori. They require their validation by reaching out to the world from beyond the self. But, I've been arguing that for comprehension of the external world, our inner evolved human faculties and experientially developed psychological laws need to be able to discern and understand it. That, even in the sciences, our perception of the world depends on our a priori processing, the limited perspective we have as human beings. (relativism and in a sense, subjectivism)

What the logical positivists do is employ a method called conceptual analysis where they try to define ideas by analytic a priori reasoning. They ask, 'what is a cat?' and then try to think of what is essential to that cat making it uniquely 'cat'. For instance, is having a tail part of the definition of 'cat'. No, a cat is still a cat without a tail--namely a Manx cat.

Kant argues propositions like 'all bachelors are unmarried men' are analytic because the necessary meaning of 'unmarried men' is predicated on the word 'bachelor'. However, when we come to 7+5=12, the '12' extends from the antecedent '7+5' and hence requires synthetic verification. 7 and 5 are not predicated upon the 12. We need to verify through our faculties of reason whereas we know that all 'unmarried men' are 'bachelors' from their intuitive meaning.

Instead of my great condensing hubris, have you considered that perhaps I just know more about philosophy than you and am trying to explain it?
Posted by Sidex 10 months ago
Seriously, Kant's logic doesn't take into account of language. Math is a language. I can't believe it took me this long to find that, but to be honest, I suppose that it was good practice. Thanks for being irrational :). Kant's philosophy is ridiculously out of date and so are you. LOL. I'm only mocking you so bad because of your bad conduct. You really didn't argue crap, not citing any of Kant's philosophy until the very end. I knew the whole time(I didn't know exactly that much) you were holding back, that's why I was condescending. If you would have been upfront instead of a coward about the whole thing, I might not have been so mean. But the way you debated with such arrogance is truly disgraceful. I saw you evade my questions during our discussion whenever I made a good point. You really are just a bag full of crap, expressing your PROVEN false opinion as fact. Wow, I can't believe you, man. You know I find MagicAintReal pretty arrogant too, but I think that there is something about English philosophers that really "wins" at being the most arrogant in the world. I will admit I probably did put rash judgment on you being boozeandbabble, but what you don't understand is that I was seriously picking up a common similarity with English arrogance(he said "chap" in the comments section). You guys just always think that your beliefs and opinions are facts, so you hide behind your sources of knowledge with condescending and pointless rhetoric. This is exactly why I am ridiculing you.
Posted by Sidex 10 months ago
Logical positivist definitions
Thus the logical positivists drew a new distinction, and, inheriting the terms from Kant, named it the "analytic/synthetic distinction".[5] They provided many different definitions, such as the following:

analytic proposition: a proposition whose truth depends solely on the meaning of its terms
analytic proposition: a proposition that is true (or false) by definition
analytic proposition: a proposition that is made true (or false) solely by the conventions of language
(While the logical positivists believed that the only necessarily true propositions were analytic, they did not define "analytic proposition" as "necessarily true proposition" or "proposition that is true in all possible worlds.")

Synthetic propositions were then defined as:

synthetic proposition: a proposition that is not analytic
These definitions applied to all propositions, regardless of whether they were of subject"predicate form. Thus, under these definitions, the proposition "It is raining or it is not raining" was classified as analytic, while for Kant it was analytic by virtue of its logical form. And the proposition "7 + 5 = 12" was classified as analytic, while under Kant's definitions it was synthetic.

ROFL XD! Dude I was right all along with the whole language point. You've been holding out on me.
Logical Positivists have already proved Kant wrong. LOL oh geeze, you really are certifiable. LOL
Posted by Sidex 10 months ago
Here's the reason why Kant's philosophy is out of date. First, I do want to say that he wasn't actually irrational, per se, but the core of his philosophy is based upon having the object "unknowable". The reality of today is that we have literally accepted Thales correct about the atom. Each object, including you, is made up of atoms. There is, in fact, a finite amount of atoms in each object, thus confirming Thales speculation. Kant was motivated to prove Newton wrong in physics as well. He was right, as well as you, about the inherent subjectiveness of Man. However, he was living in that specific Time period where there was not as many provable facts as there are today. Our provable facts did support Newton more in his theories. I use the word "provable", even though very redundant, because the atom is, in fact, provable. Just because you believe that the object is still unknowable doesn't mean that's a fact. I changed my mind about writing an objective perception, but you still are wrong to follow such a belief as it clearly negates the very essence of reason and logic. You still are not taking into account that Math is a language,

An object exists, there is at least one object.
Another object exists, there is at least two objects.
Another object exists, there is at least three objects.
Multiple objects exist, there is an indefinite amount of objects.
An indefinite amount of objects is a definite particular number.

I exist, I am at least one.
You exist, we are at least two.
Multiple people exist, we are many.
Many is a particular number.

I'm relatively sure this is a priori analytics. This is also analytical math, not synthetic. This does not require perspective(a sense) to be true.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 10 months ago
Knowing is predicated on existence and existence is always subjective. You can abstract yourself but you can't objectify yourself. I need no further logic.

0.5 and 3 alike are judged by the mind. One orange is never the same as another orange. Therefore, they cannot equal each other. But, because they look similar I attribute a unity to it.

I'll skim read it but our debate is over and I don't appreciate you stretching your abuse any further being thoroughly incorrigible in your viewpoint.
Posted by Sidex 10 months ago
Wow, dude you really are certifiable. OK, what I'm going to do is create a post(s) completely objectifying this debate. It's going to take me some time, but because of how irrational you truly are, in addition to how you tried to trap me putting your logic at the end of the debate instead of getting us on the same level of the same definitions, I am going to completely ridicule you(Much like a "provocateur", I still call them trolls). You have no idea how many assumptions and false conclusions you have constructed from your beliefs. I say beliefs because what you actually call your "objective philosophy" is, in fact, a belief. I will illustrate how you claiming facts on the basis of that belief is foolish. It's probably going to be multiple posts, (only 8000 characters per post, so disappointing.) But I'm going to do in Word, so it might be easier to send the link from a PDF format. By the way, when you have multiple objects, say 6 objects, and you take 1/2 of them away, that's actually saying that you take exactly 3 objects away. You keep trying to express Math in analogies like "when you cut an orange in half", but 1. That does not represent the entirety of arithmetic, 2. You are absolutely correct that it logistically impossible to cut an orange perfectly in half which does indicate that there is a need for rounding numbers, such as irrational numbers, which bring us to 3. Not all numbers are irrational and are, in fact, exact. But I will explain all of this in my objective view of our debate, so just wait a little bit. ;)
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 10 months ago
1/23 even when expressed as 0.04347826086 is a rounded number. 1/2 as 0.5 is a conceptual process because we find no perfect halves in the world. The same for 0.32 etc.
I apologise if I misunderstood your infinity argument but you did write that countable infinity is in the number line which is equally applicable to 0-1 where all numbers can be expressed in decimal form.

'Irrational numbers'..? Thanks, next time I do maths, I'll stand up and declare: 'no! I refuse to use that number! It's irrational!'
I took Kant's internalisation of logic and applied it to a different source of reason. Kant talks about pure reason and mathematical numbers, and their synthetic conclusions. He wasn't talking about irrational numbers; that was my argument. You still clearly do not understand Kant and claim that I don't to deflect your own idiocy. Read/watch/discover him for yourself... then you would be able to discern 'his arguments' from 'my arguments' that break from his tradition (as I've said, what feels like now, 100 times)
No votes have been placed for this debate.