The Axiom Of Identity *Challenged*

[Moyo]

Again please do not avoid;

How is the concept "that which is objective" related to "that which is objective "

Explain the relationship.

[Hobbes' Choice]

you beleive there is a reality outside of the mind that becomes known to the mind on discovery. i ask you what it meant before it was discovered since the action of discovery gives meaning. If it did mean something before it was discovered that means it was already known for it to have that meaning..if it didnt mean anything before discovery how would you reffer to it in this state since you can only reffer to meaningful things again otherwise what would you be reffering to.

I think your use of the word "discovery" in this context is more than a little confusing. Meanings are not discovered but constructed.

I think your objection accurately points to Moyo's internal conflict. On the one hand he seems uncomfortable with the objectivity of identity, as he should, and yet he is mired in that self same thing, and thinks everyone else is stuck with the same problem. His mistake to imagine that words are "discovered" rather than constructed indicates just that.

[Obvious Leo]

I think Moyo is trying to have his cake and eat it too because the human consciousness is the loneliest place in the entire universe. We might imagine that an inter-subjective agreement on the identity of an "object" represents some sort of transcendent "truth" but this notion is illusory. If anything our facility in the use of language to codify and homogenise our inter-subjective agreements does nothing more than reinforce this illusion because it remains an inescapable fact that all our observations of the external world are exclusively a construction of our own minds. Plato was full of shit because humans are pattern-makers and NOT pattern-discoverers, although I guess Plato can be forgiven for not having the benefit of modern cognitive neuroscience.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I think Moyo is trying to have his cake and eat it too because the human consciousness is the loneliest place in the entire universe. We might imagine that an inter-subjective agreement on the identity of an "object" represents some sort of transcendent "truth" but this notion is illusory. If anything our facility in the use of language to codify and homogenise our inter-subjective agreements does nothing more than reinforce this illusion because it remains an inescapable fact that all our observations of the external world are exclusively a construction of our own minds. Plato was full of shit because humans are pattern-makers and NOT pattern-discoverers, although I guess Plato can be forgiven for not having the benefit of modern cognitive neuroscience.

I could not agree more. However, I think many think such a position is tantamount to a severe Berkelean Idealism or solipsism. Moyo seems to be bouncing from this position to Platonic naïveté (T of Forms).

[Moyo]

Hobbes You keep avoiding

How is the concept "that which is objective" related to "that which is objective".

Explain the relationship.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes You keep avoiding

How is the concept "that which is objective" related to "that which is objective".

Explain the relationship.

Explain your fucking question!

The relationship is that they appear near each other on the page, but are otherwise the same collection of letters.

[Harbal]

Oh how I wish I were a proper philosopher instead of a mere writer of stupid remarks.

[Obvious Leo]

Oh how I wish I were a proper philosopher instead of a mere writer of stupid remarks.

The role of the court jester is to stop the king from getting too up himself, Harbal, which qualifies you as a legitimate philosopher. It's rather too easy to tangle ourselves up in words and thus miss seeing the wood for the trees but the problem with the identity of ANYTHING is breathtakingly simple. We can apply whatever label we choose to apply to a "thing" but this process of labelling doesn't provide the thing being labelled with any ontological status. When you see a pink elephant you can either revise your understanding of mammalian biology or stop hitting the piss so hard.

[Harbal]

The role of the court jester is to stop the king from getting too up himself, Harbal, which qualifies you as a legitimate philosopher. It's rather too easy to tangle ourselves up in words and thus miss seeing the wood for the trees but the problem with the identity of ANYTHING is breathtakingly simple. We can apply whatever label we choose to apply to a "thing" but this process of labelling doesn't provide the thing being labelled with any ontological status. When you see a pink elephant you can either revise your understanding of mammalian biology or stop hitting the piss so hard.

Leo, if you didn't live so far away from me I'd buy you a drink.

[Obvious Leo]

Leo, if you didn't live so far away from me I'd buy you a drink.

Since I'm an Australian you may rest assured that I would drink it and then buy you one in return, since this has always been a highly efficient way to transact philosophical business.

[Moyo]

Hobbes You keep avoiding

How is the concept "that which is objective" related to "that which is objective".

Explain the relationship.

Explain your fucking question!

The relationship is that they appear near each other on the page, but are otherwise the same collection of letters.

How is , in your own words..the map (the concept of objective reality) related to "the territory" (the actual objective reality).
If you say the map is "of the territory" , what is the relationship between "of the territory" (another concept) and "the territory".

You're a slow one aren't you?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes You keep avoiding

How is the concept "that which is objective" related to "that which is objective".

Explain the relationship.

Explain your fucking question!

The relationship is that they appear near each other on the page, but are otherwise the same collection of letters.

How is , in your own words..the map (the concept of objective reality) related to "the territory" (the actual objective reality).
If you say the map is "of the territory" , what is the relationship between "of the territory" (another concept) and "the territory".

You're a slow one aren't you?

No, actually I'm really bright and clever.
I'm smart enough to know you have problems expressing yourself.
These are not "my own words", they are your words, and whilst each might have meaning to me, together, in the order you have placed them is not conveying a coherent idea, or relationship.

Presumably you have your own answer in mind, and since I have answered your question two or three times already, maybe it would makes sense if you were to answer your question?

The answer might be "perception", or "perceptual". But since the concepts you are squeezing into phrases are NOT mine, and you have not explained what you mean by them, I don't see what sort of question you are asking.

[Moyo]

lol......coward!

[henry quirk]

As I said (twice) in another thread...

There's sumthin' outside of me, sumthin' independent of me, sumthin' that largely is observable in a similiar way by folks independent of one another. I call this 'sumthin' the world, which is comprised of a great many things, from the micro- to the macro-levels. In observing, we catalog, and name, and prioritize, and impart meaning to. But the existance of that sumthin', is apart from, predates, all conceptualizing.

[Hobbes' Choice]

lol......coward!

I've now answered your question four times.

Now it's your turn.
Who's the fucking coward?