Total Posts:101|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Something to ponder....

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 8:37:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is spelling the word "Paris" in the English Language with a "g" objectively incorrect, or simply subjectively incorrect?

If it is objectively incorrect, then this means that humans can collectively create objective rules. If this is the case, then why not the rules of morality is well?

If it is simply subjectively incorrect, then wouldn't one have to resort to saying things like "ifhfhudufhd is not really incoherent when dealing with the English Language" ?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 8:46:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem with your argument is the false dichotomy between subjective and objective. The gray area under which language is described is intersubjectivity. We collectively contribute to subjective rules, which by nature cannot be changed by any individual, but by society as a whole. They are neither subjective nor objective.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 9:13:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 8:46:27 AM, 000ike wrote:
The problem with your argument is the false dichotomy between subjective and objective. The gray area under which language is described is intersubjectivity. We collectively contribute to subjective rules, which by nature cannot be changed by any individual, but by society as a whole. They are neither subjective nor objective.

I bolded where I think you made a contradiction. Regardless, I believe it's possible that I may have presented a false dichotomy, but I'm not sure you've established this.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:39:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 9:13:11 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/28/2012 8:46:27 AM, 000ike wrote:
The problem with your argument is the false dichotomy between subjective and objective. The gray area under which language is described is intersubjectivity. We collectively contribute to subjective rules, which by nature cannot be changed by any individual, but by society as a whole. They are neither subjective nor objective.

I bolded where I think you made a contradiction. Regardless, I believe it's possible that I may have presented a false dichotomy, but I'm not sure you've established this.

When I said that language is not subjective, I was referring to the individual version of subjectivity. When I said that language was collectively subjective, I was referring to intersubjectivity. All you had to do was put the words in context to see this. It's not a contradiction.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:50:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 8:37:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Is spelling the word "Paris" in the English Language with a "g" objectively incorrect, or simply subjectively incorrect?

If it is objectively incorrect, then this means that humans can collectively create objective rules. If this is the case, then why not the rules of morality is well?

If it is simply subjectively incorrect, then wouldn't one have to resort to saying things like "ifhfhudufhd is not really incoherent when dealing with the English Language" ?

This is an interesting argument. I think this becomes an issue for many because of the common metaphysical preconceptions of morality. Language is used for its communicative abilities and this is hardly disputed. By virtue of the fact that it is communicative, language takes on the character of epistemic objectivity. The pragmatics of morality are much more obscure. In the case of language, communication serves as a practical reason to maintain an epistemically objective character while morality often doesn't have such clear cut reasons for which to establish an epistemically objective system by which we should abide.
mark.marrocco
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:50:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 8:37:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Is spelling the word "Paris" in the English Language with a "g" objectively incorrect, or simply subjectively incorrect?

If it is objectively incorrect, then this means that humans can collectively create objective rules. If this is the case, then why not the rules of morality is well?

If it is simply subjectively incorrect, then wouldn't one have to resort to saying things like "ifhfhudufhd is not really incoherent when dealing with the English Language" ?

I think it's important to note here that, whether we think they're subjective or objective, we have created all of the rules we follow, including those of morality.

There are a few exceptions, of course, like incontrovertible laws of science, but all of the codes of social convention have been created by us.
"Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence."
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 12:56:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 8:37:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Is spelling the word "Paris" in the English Language with a "g" objectively incorrect, or simply subjectively incorrect?

If it is objectively incorrect, then this means that humans can collectively create objective rules. If this is the case, then why not the rules of morality is well?

If it is simply subjectively incorrect, then wouldn't one have to resort to saying things like "ifhfhudufhd is not really incoherent when dealing with the English Language" ?

It's neither objectively nor subjectively incorrect. It's relatively incorrect.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 2:09:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 8:37:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Is spelling the word "Paris" in the English Language with a "g" objectively incorrect, or simply subjectively incorrect?

Neither. It's like asking whether defining "God" as "this cup on my desk" is incorrect--the question is wrong because it presupposes that there is such a thing as a "true" or "proper" definition, and that venturing outside that realm is some kind of awful sin. Really, redefining (or re-spelling) words is only problematic if other people don't understand you. Since the whole point of language as such is communicability, then the only important thing is to define your terms when you use them.

If it is objectively incorrect, then this means that humans can collectively create objective rules. If this is the case, then why not the rules of morality is well?

Well, since it isn't the case...

If it is simply subjectively incorrect, then wouldn't one have to resort to saying things like "ifhfhudufhd is not really incoherent when dealing with the English Language" ?

That depends. What is the meaning of "ifhfhuhufhd"? If you don't define it, it's not "incorrect"--it's just meaningless.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 3:06:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 12:56:37 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/28/2012 8:37:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Is spelling the word "Paris" in the English Language with a "g" objectively incorrect, or simply subjectively incorrect?

If it is objectively incorrect, then this means that humans can collectively create objective rules. If this is the case, then why not the rules of morality is well?

If it is simply subjectively incorrect, then wouldn't one have to resort to saying things like "ifhfhudufhd is not really incoherent when dealing with the English Language" ?

It's neither objectively nor subjectively incorrect. It's relatively incorrect.

This.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 4:39:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 8:37:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Is spelling the word "Paris" in the English Language with a "g" objectively incorrect, or simply subjectively incorrect?

If it is objectively incorrect, then this means that humans can collectively create objective rules. If this is the case, then why not the rules of morality is well?

If it is simply subjectively incorrect, then wouldn't one have to resort to saying things like "ifhfhudufhd is not really incoherent when dealing with the English Language" ?

The term "objective" doesn't seem to be particularly helpful since it has vague metaphysical connotations that can be interpreted in any number of ways ("Is this the truth? Yes. Is this the objective truth? I don't know.")

Paris is not spelled with a g in the english language - if we're going to talk about truth I think that's a decent place to start. Language has rules that are created by us and these rules are what we have to grasp on to in discussions of truth.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 4:47:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 8:37:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Is spelling the word "Paris" in the English Language with a "g" objectively incorrect, or simply subjectively incorrect?

If it is objectively incorrect, then this means that humans can collectively create objective rules. If this is the case, then why not the rules of morality is well?

If it is simply subjectively incorrect, then wouldn't one have to resort to saying things like "ifhfhudufhd is not really incoherent when dealing with the English Language" ?

it is objectively incorrect only within those rules. So then to say that it is objectively incorrect is not accurate. Since the rule system is subjective. For example, English itself is not objectively correct, it is only one of many different languages.

The comparison would be that something could be objectively moral or immoral WITHIN a subjective moral code, but the moral code itself is not objective.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 9:40:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 3:06:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/29/2012 12:56:37 PM, phantom wrote:
At 7/28/2012 8:37:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Is spelling the word "Paris" in the English Language with a "g" objectively incorrect, or simply subjectively incorrect?

If it is objectively incorrect, then this means that humans can collectively create objective rules. If this is the case, then why not the rules of morality is well?

If it is simply subjectively incorrect, then wouldn't one have to resort to saying things like "ifhfhudufhd is not really incoherent when dealing with the English Language" ?

It's neither objectively nor subjectively incorrect. It's relatively incorrect.

This.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 9:59:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 8:37:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Is spelling the word "Paris" in the English Language with a "g" objectively incorrect, or simply subjectively incorrect?

If it is objectively incorrect, then this means that humans can collectively create objective rules. If this is the case, then why not the rules of morality is well?

If it is simply subjectively incorrect, then wouldn't one have to resort to saying things like "ifhfhudufhd is not really incoherent when dealing with the English Language" ?

Why, if it isn't my argument again.

Nice to see that it's finally catching on.

For those that hinged on "objectivity and subjectivity," as though that really had anything to do with his argument:

ob·jec·tive   /əbˈdʒɛktɪv/ Show Spelled[uhb-jek-tiv] Show IPA
noun
1. something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.
2. Grammar .
a. Also called objective case. (in English and some other languages) a case specialized for the use of a form as the object of a transitive verb or of a preposition, as him in The boy hit him, or me in He comes to me with his troubles.
b. a word in that case.
3. Also called object glass, object lens, objective lens. Optics . (in a telescope, microscope, camera, or other optical system) the lens or combination of lenses that first receives the rays from the object and forms the image in the focal plane of the eyepiece, as in a microscope, or on a plate or screen, as in a camera.
Relevant Questions
What Is An Object?What Is Objectivity?What Are Objectives?What Is Objectives?adjective
4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

^^^ He used it precisely correctly and his conclusions follow.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 10:01:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
So, to bring it all together, the OP was not a false dichotomy, and it isn't relatively incorrect, as there is no English interpretation of the word "Paris" with a "g" in it. It is objectively incorrect, as there is only one way to spell Paris, so if your intention is to spell Paris, then you must do so while omitting any "g's."

Indeed, indeed. ^_^
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 10:04:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 4:47:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/28/2012 8:37:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Is spelling the word "Paris" in the English Language with a "g" objectively incorrect, or simply subjectively incorrect?

If it is objectively incorrect, then this means that humans can collectively create objective rules. If this is the case, then why not the rules of morality is well?

If it is simply subjectively incorrect, then wouldn't one have to resort to saying things like "ifhfhudufhd is not really incoherent when dealing with the English Language" ?

it is objectively incorrect only within those rules. So then to say that it is objectively incorrect is not accurate. Since the rule system is subjective. For example, English itself is not objectively correct, it is only one of many different languages.

The comparison would be that something could be objectively moral or immoral WITHIN a subjective moral code, but the moral code itself is not objective.

No.

If your intention is to speak English, or to be understood by those who speak English exclusively, then it is objectively incorrect to spell Paris in any way other than how it appears in the dictionary.

It would also be objectively incorrect to spell Paris "Parijs" if no one that you're writing to speaks Dutch.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 10:31:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 9:59:52 AM, Ren wrote:

Language is a cultural abstraction invented by humans,... the existence of which SOLELY hinges on our collective perception of its significance. ...and thus CANNOT be objective. That's not even a logical option. All one needs to address this whole argument is define the term "INTERSUBJECTIVITY", and the thread is over. This whole argument was designed around a false dichotomy. It's nothing to ponder.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 10:44:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 10:31:37 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/31/2012 9:59:52 AM, Ren wrote:

Language is a cultural abstraction invented by humans,... the existence of which SOLELY hinges on our collective perception of its significance. ...and thus CANNOT be objective. That's not even a logical option. All one needs to address this whole argument is define the term "INTERSUBJECTIVITY", and the thread is over. This whole argument was designed around a false dichotomy. It's nothing to ponder.

You are literally attributing your own definiton of the word "objective" to make the concusion false... that, sir, is fallacious.

Perception is a general abstraction manifested by humans... the confirmation of which exists solely on our consensus for validity ...thus making your interpretation of objectivity a means to disregard every source of knowledge, including the sciences, which hinge on perception.

Language is a framework through which we communicate. That communcation requires generally accepted rules, lest that communication will be impossible. Therefore, there exists a given objectivity within communication that renders communication existent.

Inasmuch as you cannot jump two spaces in one direction and another space in another direction during a single move with a Rook, one cannot spell "Paris" in any other way than P-A-R-I-S in English, objectively speaking.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 10:54:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 10:44:42 AM, Ren wrote:
At 7/31/2012 10:31:37 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/31/2012 9:59:52 AM, Ren wrote:

Language is a cultural abstraction invented by humans,... the existence of which SOLELY hinges on our collective perception of its significance. ...and thus CANNOT be objective. That's not even a logical option. All one needs to address this whole argument is define the term "INTERSUBJECTIVITY", and the thread is over. This whole argument was designed around a false dichotomy. It's nothing to ponder.

You are literally attributing your own definiton of the word "objective" to make the concusion false... that, sir, is fallacious.

Perception is a general abstraction manifested by humans... the confirmation of which exists solely on our consensus for validity ...thus making your interpretation of objectivity a means to disregard every source of knowledge, including the sciences, which hinge on perception.

Language is a framework through which we communicate. That communcation requires generally accepted rules, lest that communication will be impossible. Therefore, there exists a given objectivity within communication that renders communication existent.

Inasmuch as you cannot jump two spaces in one direction and another space in another direction during a single move with a Rook, one cannot spell "Paris" in any other way than P-A-R-I-S in English, objectively speaking.

Objective: existing independently of mind: existing independently of the individual mind or perception. EXAMPLE: 1+1 =2 even if all of humanity wanted it to be 3. (http://www.bing.com...)

Subjective: existing by perception: existing only in the mind and not independently of it EXAMPLE: I think blue is a calming color. (http://www.bing.com...)

Intersubjective: Studies of dialogue and dialogism have revealed how language is deeply intersubjective. When we speak, we always address our interlocutors, taking their perspective, and orienting to what we think they think (or more usually don't think).[8] Within this tradition of research it has been argued that the structure of individual signs or symbols, the basis of language, are intersubjective[9] and that the psychological process of self-reflection entails intersubjectivity.[10] Recent research on mirror neurons provides evidence for the deeply intersubjective basis of human psychology,[11] and arguably much of the literature on empathy and theory of mind relate directly to intersubjectivity. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 11:03:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 10:54:41 AM, 000ike wrote:

Objective: existing independently of mind: existing independently of the individual mind or perception. EXAMPLE: 1+1 =2 even if all of humanity wanted it to be 3.

Way to cherry-pick.

The actual definition is:

free of bias: free of any bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings
2. based on facts: based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions
3. medicine observable: describes disease symptoms that can be observed by somebody other than the person who is ill
4. philosophy existing independently of mind: existing independently of the individual mind or perception

Why is the bolded important? Because otherwise, it would include everything we know about the physical world. Your example was a priori knowledge. The definition as you're applying it excludes a posteriori knowledge entirely. That means that although 1 + 1 always equals 2, there's no way you can verify whether there's two of anything in all the Universe, because determining quantity requires perception.

(http://www.bing.com...)

Subjective: existing by perception: existing only in the mind and not independently of it EXAMPLE: I think blue is a calming color. (http://www.bing.com...)

Yeah, see, language actually exist -- not only in the mind, but independent of the individual mind. This is confirmed by the fact that no one knows every language, and not everyone can communicate using language at all.

Intersubjective: Studies of dialogue and dialogism have revealed how language is deeply intersubjective. When we speak, we always address our interlocutors, taking their perspective, and orienting to what we think they think (or more usually don't think).[8] Within this tradition of research it has been argued that the structure of individual signs or symbols, the basis of language, are intersubjective[9] and that the psychological process of self-reflection entails intersubjectivity.[10] Recent research on mirror neurons provides evidence for the deeply intersubjective basis of human psychology,[11] and arguably much of the literature on empathy and theory of mind relate directly to intersubjectivity. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Lol.

So, in other words, every scientific text you've ever read was "intersubjective" and thus, invalid?

Let me ask you something. Did you figure everything you know out yourself through experimentation? You've never read anything in your life?

Here's a better question: doesn't your conclusions make your conclusions invalid? You're communicating them using language.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 11:15:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 11:03:05 AM, Ren wrote:
At 7/31/2012 10:54:41 AM, 000ike wrote:

Objective: existing independently of mind: existing independently of the individual mind or perception. EXAMPLE: 1+1 =2 even if all of humanity wanted it to be 3.

Way to cherry-pick.

The actual definition is:

free of bias: free of any bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings
2. based on facts: based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions
3. medicine observable: describes disease symptoms that can be observed by somebody other than the person who is ill
4. philosophy existing independently of mind: existing independently of the individual mind or perception

Why is the bolded important? Because otherwise, it would include everything we know about the physical world. Your example was a priori knowledge. The definition as you're applying it excludes a posteriori knowledge entirely. That means that although 1 + 1 always equals 2, there's no way you can verify whether there's two of anything in all the Universe, because determining quantity requires perception

(http://www.bing.com...)

Subjective: existing by perception: existing only in the mind and not independently of it EXAMPLE: I think blue is a calming color. (http://www.bing.com...)

Yeah, see, language actually exist -- not only in the mind, but independent of the individual mind. This is confirmed by the fact that no one knows every language, and not everyone can communicate using language at all.

Intersubjective: Studies of dialogue and dialogism have revealed how language is deeply intersubjective. When we speak, we always address our interlocutors, taking their perspective, and orienting to what we think they think (or more usually don't think).[8] Within this tradition of research it has been argued that the structure of individual signs or symbols, the basis of language, are intersubjective[9] and that the psychological process of self-reflection entails intersubjectivity.[10] Recent research on mirror neurons provides evidence for the deeply intersubjective basis of human psychology,[11] and arguably much of the literature on empathy and theory of mind relate directly to intersubjectivity. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Lol.

So, in other words, every scientific text you've ever read was "intersubjective" and thus, invalid?

Let me ask you something. Did you figure everything you know out yourself through experimentation? You've never read anything in your life?

Here's a better question: doesn't your conclusions make your conclusions invalid? You're communicating them using language.

lol, a priori? No such thing. I can see the roots from which your argument is derived, and it's obvious we're arguing from polar mentalities. One is not born knowing 1+1=2. That was discovered empirically and given verbal description....thenceforth passed down through teaching. You were TAUGHT that 1+1=2. That said, I think this back-and-forth is hopeless. I'll leave you to your beliefs.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 12:32:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 11:15:06 AM, 000ike wrote:

lol, a priori? No such thing.

Whaaaaaat????

I can see the roots from which your argument is derived, and it's obvious we're arguing from polar mentalities. One is not born knowing 1+1=2. That was discovered empirically and given verbal description....

Can you please share with us the experimentation that concluded there is an existant "1 + 1 = 2"?

Because, that, sir, is an abstract means to give numerical values to things that exist. It, in and of itself, does not exist separate of the mind. All mathematics is a priori.

thenceforth passed down through teaching. You were TAUGHT that 1+1=2.

Lmfao, by what, aliens? Numbers were contrived by philosophers, bro.

That said, I think this back-and-forth is hopeless. I'll leave you to your beliefs.

Well, whatever, but if you're really open to learning rather than assuming you know and understand everything, I invite you to explore the concept more thoroughly rather than relying on an imprecise glance over Wikipedia: http://plato.stanford.edu...

Enjoy the a priori edification.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 2:34:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 12:32:12 PM, Ren wrote:
At 7/31/2012 11:15:06 AM, 000ike wrote:

lol, a priori? No such thing.

Whaaaaaat????

I can see the roots from which your argument is derived, and it's obvious we're arguing from polar mentalities. One is not born knowing 1+1=2. That was discovered empirically and given verbal description....

Can you please share with us the experimentation that concluded there is an existant "1 + 1 = 2"?

Because, that, sir, is an abstract means to give numerical values to things that exist. It, in and of itself, does not exist separate of the mind. All mathematics is a priori.

thenceforth passed down through teaching. You were TAUGHT that 1+1=2.

Lmfao, by what, aliens? Numbers were contrived by philosophers, bro.

That said, I think this back-and-forth is hopeless. I'll leave you to your beliefs.

Well, whatever, but if you're really open to learning rather than assuming you know and understand everything, I invite you to explore the concept more thoroughly rather than relying on an imprecise glance over Wikipedia: http://plato.stanford.edu...

Enjoy the a priori edification.

You're incredibly annoying. Do you actually pay attention to the mocking, obnoxious tone with which you speak to people? A little "lol" here and there,..."educate myself"? ..and then the best part is after all of that, It's me that pretends to know everything. And it's me that needs to learn.

I'm not offended,... just pointing something out that I'm not sure you realize.

Anyway, language is intersubjective. I've brought up definitions for you. I've even quoted a source EXPLICITLY calling language intersubjective. Ask anyone else on this site, that isn't rational_thinker. If you choose to believe otherwise, I don't really care, that's your problem.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 2:44:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 12:32:12 PM, Ren wrote:
At 7/31/2012 11:15:06 AM, 000ike wrote:

lol, a priori? No such thing.

Whaaaaaat????

I can see the roots from which your argument is derived, and it's obvious we're arguing from polar mentalities. One is not born knowing 1+1=2. That was discovered empirically and given verbal description....

Can you please share with us the experimentation that concluded there is an existant "1 + 1 = 2"?

Because, that, sir, is an abstract means to give numerical values to things that exist. It, in and of itself, does not exist separate of the mind. All mathematics is a priori.

No it isn't. 1 is an expression of singularity. The concept of singularity was observed and called "ONE". When another singularity is considered, it is called "TWO". There is no way, however, to understand what "ONE" means, having never been first acquainted with the concept's existence in reality. That is why children are TAUGHT math....not encouraged to search for it in their psyche. Math is empirically proven and empirically learned.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 2:45:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 2:44:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/31/2012 12:32:12 PM, Ren wrote:
At 7/31/2012 11:15:06 AM, 000ike wrote:

lol, a priori? No such thing.

Whaaaaaat????

I can see the roots from which your argument is derived, and it's obvious we're arguing from polar mentalities. One is not born knowing 1+1=2. That was discovered empirically and given verbal description....

Can you please share with us the experimentation that concluded there is an existant "1 + 1 = 2"?

Because, that, sir, is an abstract means to give numerical values to things that exist. It, in and of itself, does not exist separate of the mind. All mathematics is a priori.

No it isn't. 1 is an expression of singularity. The concept of singularity was observed and called "ONE". When another singularity is considered, it is called "TWO". There is no way, however, to understand what "ONE" means, having never been first acquainted with the concept's existence in reality. That is why children are TAUGHT math....not encouraged to search for it in their psyche. Math is empirically proven and empirically learned.

This is a good point.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 2:46:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 2:34:11 PM, 000ike wrote:

You're incredibly annoying. Do you actually pay attention to the mocking, obnoxious tone with which you speak to people? A little "lol" here and there,..."educate myself"? ..and then the best part is after all of that, It's me that pretends to know everything. And it's me that needs to learn.

I'm not offended,... just pointing something out that I'm not sure you realize.

Anyway, language is intersubjective. I've brought up definitions for you. I've even quoted a source EXPLICITLY calling language intersubjective. Ask anyone else on this site, that isn't rational_thinker. If you choose to believe otherwise, I don't really care, that's your problem.

Lmfao, of course I realize how derisive I am. xD

I used to just called people morons, but I realized that there is a much more tactful way to go about things.

Here's the thing, Ike. You're rather forceful with your ignorance, quoting Wikipedia as though it's the word of God, but worse, misinterpreting those quotes.

I could have just been a major douchebag and picked apart every bit of your posts... such as pointing out that your source defines intersubjectivity as:

"Intersubjectivity is a key term used in philosophy, psychology, sociology, and anthropology to conceptualize the psychological relation between people. It is usually used in contrast to solipsistic individual experience, emphasizing our inherently social being."

In other words, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with philosophy or logic. Lol. But, not only is it irrelevant, it's also self-defeating under your interpretation. In other words, that excerpt that you misleadingly pasted would, itself, be intersubjective, and thus, carry no weight in its own right.

In any case, you literally just said, "there's no such thing as a priori knowedge," which is something just about every contemporary philosopher and logician would disagree with. However, it's not even necessary to prove that, because I provided you with a reference from, hello, Stanford University. Not, lol, Wikipedia. xD

A priori knowledge is the complement of a posteriori knowledge. One requires the other, at all times. Without one, there is no other. This is because, without a priori knowledge, there is no way to interpret what we perceive, and without a posteriori knowledge, there's nothing to interpret.

You're a bright kid, Ike. But, you're arrogant, and it shows. We're not playing Chess. We're debating. And, it's clear you're not playing in home court. ;)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 2:49:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 2:46:52 PM, Ren wrote:

Sigh.

Philosophy in terms of logic.

In terms of logic. Not or. I'm pretty sure that term is used in dialectic philosophy as well... it's something Magritte was very interested in.

Lol. Not that it really has anything to do with the point of my statements, but I'm sure you'd blow a mistake like that out of proportion to strengthen your groundless assertions.
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 2:52:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A priori knowledge is the complement of a posteriori knowledge. One requires the other, at all times. Without one, there is no other. This is because, without a priori knowledge, there is no way to interpret what we perceive, and without a posteriori knowledge, there's nothing to interpret.

You're a bright kid, Ike. But, you're arrogant, and it shows. We're not playing Chess. We're debating. And, it's clear you're not playing in home court. ;)

A posteriori knowledge is a prerequisite to a priori knowledge.

Example 1 of a priori knowledge: Someone who is a bachelor is not married.

Example 2: If something is green, it is not red.

In order to make those statements, I have to know what all the concepts are. I have to know what "green" is and what "red" is. I have to understand what color is. I have to have a language that was taught to me so that I can describe it. I have to know what weddings are, what humans are, etc.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 2:55:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 2:52:59 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
A priori knowledge is the complement of a posteriori knowledge. One requires the other, at all times. Without one, there is no other. This is because, without a priori knowledge, there is no way to interpret what we perceive, and without a posteriori knowledge, there's nothing to interpret.

You're a bright kid, Ike. But, you're arrogant, and it shows. We're not playing Chess. We're debating. And, it's clear you're not playing in home court. ;)

A posteriori knowledge is a prerequisite to a priori knowledge.

Example 1 of a priori knowledge: Someone who is a bachelor is not married.

Example 2: If something is green, it is not red.

In order to make those statements, I have to know what all the concepts are. I have to know what "green" is and what "red" is. I have to understand what color is. I have to have a language that was taught to me so that I can describe it. I have to know what weddings are, what humans are, etc.

^^^ Well, there's Stanford University and a DDO user for you, Ike.

Perhaps you may be a little inspired to learn a bit more about these concepts before you go attacking people personally for disagreeing with you. ;)
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 2:57:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 2:44:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/31/2012 12:32:12 PM, Ren wrote:
At 7/31/2012 11:15:06 AM, 000ike wrote:

lol, a priori? No such thing.

Whaaaaaat????

I can see the roots from which your argument is derived, and it's obvious we're arguing from polar mentalities. One is not born knowing 1+1=2. That was discovered empirically and given verbal description....

Can you please share with us the experimentation that concluded there is an existant "1 + 1 = 2"?

Because, that, sir, is an abstract means to give numerical values to things that exist. It, in and of itself, does not exist separate of the mind. All mathematics is a priori.

No it isn't. 1 is an expression of singularity. The concept of singularity was observed and called "ONE". When another singularity is considered, it is called "TWO". There is no way, however, to understand what "ONE" means, having never been first acquainted with the concept's existence in reality. That is why children are TAUGHT math....not encouraged to search for it in their psyche. Math is empirically proven and empirically learned.

OK, now observe the square root of minus one, please.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 2:59:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 2:57:56 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/31/2012 2:44:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/31/2012 12:32:12 PM, Ren wrote:
At 7/31/2012 11:15:06 AM, 000ike wrote:

lol, a priori? No such thing.

Whaaaaaat????

I can see the roots from which your argument is derived, and it's obvious we're arguing from polar mentalities. One is not born knowing 1+1=2. That was discovered empirically and given verbal description....

Can you please share with us the experimentation that concluded there is an existant "1 + 1 = 2"?

Because, that, sir, is an abstract means to give numerical values to things that exist. It, in and of itself, does not exist separate of the mind. All mathematics is a priori.

No it isn't. 1 is an expression of singularity. The concept of singularity was observed and called "ONE". When another singularity is considered, it is called "TWO". There is no way, however, to understand what "ONE" means, having never been first acquainted with the concept's existence in reality. That is why children are TAUGHT math....not encouraged to search for it in their psyche. Math is empirically proven and empirically learned.

OK, now observe the square root of minus one, please.

The Fool: <(8J)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL