Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:... 1-2=1 is 100% valid. ...

?

I said; "1+1=2, 1-2=1 is 100% valid"

Have you a problem with that?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Have you a problem with that?

Only wondering what interpretation can give 1-2=1?

Arising_uk wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Have you a problem with that?

Only wondering what interpretation can give 1-2=1?

FUCK!
2-1=1
It's worse very never having noticed the error in the first place but repeating it with copy/paste is the crime of the century.
Shows how much a give a damn about maths.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Have you a problem with that?

Only wondering what interpretation can give 1-2=1?

FUCK!
2-1=1
It's worse very never having noticed the error in the first place but repeating it with copy/paste is the crime of the century.
Shows how much a give a damn about maths.

That's actually quite funny.

I find that Truth is given by plausibility not matter how complex.

The plausible can be demonstrated to be the better option until it may be overtaken by matters more plausible than the one before.

It makes sense to go by the plausible and it increases your "survival" as well. So we have the very effective pair for progress: sense/reason and plausibility!

Maybe...

Necromancer wrote:I find that Truth is given by plausibility not matter how complex.

The plausible can be demonstrated to be the better option until it may be overtaken by matters more plausible than the one before.

It makes sense to go by the plausible and it increases your "survival" as well. So we have the very effective pair for progress: sense/reason and plausibility!

Maybe...

Except that most "TRUTHS" as given us by others are mostly completely implausible, and more like aspirations.

if you live solely in your mind that closes out the heart and will that each of us possess. You cant lock yourself into purely objective cold reasoning. What is valid must include the world of the heart and will. We all have subjective reality and to be at the helm of your ship you must give your heart and will to a higher justice than us all and live not just solely in the mind but you have to be involved in your heart and will. So objective reality offers only mundane clarity. True Validity gives joy and peace and inspiration. Cold logic only gives us mundane reality. Yet reality is also the heart and will and the power to become who we are so that we are not just a brain in a vat. The mind is meant to enrich and enlighten the heart and will not sterilize it. The mind is meant to create life for all. Thats validity.

osgart wrote:if you live solely in your mind that closes out the heart and will that each of us possess. You cant lock yourself into purely objective cold reasoning. What is valid must include the world of the heart and will. We all have subjective reality and to be at the helm of your ship you must give your heart and will to a higher justice than us all and live not just solely in the mind but you have to be involved in your heart and will. So objective reality offers only mundane clarity. True Validity gives joy and peace and inspiration. Cold logic only gives us mundane reality. Yet reality is also the heart and will and the power to become who we are so that we are not just a brain in a vat. The mind is meant to enrich and enlighten the heart and will not sterilize it. The mind is meant to create life for all. Thats validity.

.

You cannot have any objective knowledge without the agreement of your peers.
Objectivity is all about agreement. The bringing together of subjective views to formulate and agreeable mean. Without others you are pure subjectivity.


It is not until you understand this that you see the bullshit of the objectivist manifesto.

Hobbes Choice wrote:
You cannot have any objective knowledge without the agreement of your peers
Objectivity is all about agreement. The bringing together of subjective views to
formulate and agreeable mean. Without others you are pure subjectivity

Absolutely. And this is why inter subjectivity is one of the principles of the scientific method. Without it one
would not have a frame of reference to test the validity of ones own observations. Inter subjectivity reduces
or eliminates this. With single person perspective this would be impossible

surreptitious57 wrote:

Hobbes Choice wrote:
You cannot have any objective knowledge without the agreement of your peers
Objectivity is all about agreement. The bringing together of subjective views to
formulate and agreeable mean. Without others you are pure subjectivity

Absolutely. And this is why inter subjectivity is one of the principles of the scientific method. Without it one
would not have a frame of reference to test the validity of ones own observations. Inter subjectivity reduces
or eliminates this. With single person perspective this would be impossible

I'm glad you agree.
This is how science works. However when it comes to the subject of morality and the assertion, worse the assumption that there is such a thing as 'objective morality' we are in to the realm of feelings, and culturally defined norms.
I could do with your help on the thread about "Objective Morality" as the difficulty seems to be that what is moral is not definably scientifically.

positive effect determines the validity of the reasoning. Yet you want to minimize negative effects. And there is much to rule out. Not all brilliance is brilliance, often its blindness instead.