RESPECTING OTHER PEOPLE'S VIEWS.

[Davyboi]

So, DickBoi, on a scale of England playing Iceland at football, to Napoleon's invasion of Russia, what level of failure should we ascribe to your respect thread? Given that even the author resorted almost instantly to vituparative abuse?

I'm not biting! Best go fishing somewhere else bud!

[FlashDangerpants]

That's not respectful.

[Nick_A]

Obviously there is little respect for the views of others outside of their group.

Simone Weil expains why it must be so. If there is no mutual respect for a higher reality, how can there be mutual respect for those arguing within the same reality for the sake of prestige?

The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.

Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.

This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also.

[Belinda]

Nick wrote:

Simone Weil expains why it must be so. If there is no mutual respect for a higher reality, how can there be mutual respect for those arguing within the same reality for the sake of prestige?

'A higher reality' may mean this or that. One 'higher reality' is that moral consensus by which a society remains a society of people living together in harmony.

Within democratic societies there are various belief systems. As we well know our present day democratic societies don't tolerate some belief systems for instance Mafia , or Daesh.

"Those arguing within the same reality" would presumably be free citizens of democracies in which cases "the same belief systems " are the laws of the land. Within democracies these laws of the land are arrived at by way of free and fair elections and the existence of several political parties.

[HexHammer]

This new topic I've created, is basically a way of me trying to let go of my anger! And giving a reference point for other people to send, igronant, narrow minded, self obsessed people too.. So these idiots can be reminded why they are here!

I must agree and disagree with you.
Respecting others view are only good for subjective matters, where there are no objectivity.

In objective matters it's another approach, if people say retarded shit, I'm not one that will accept it and will attempt to crush such views.

[TimeSeeker]

In objective matters it's another approach, if people say retarded shit, I'm not one that will accept it and will attempt to crush such views.

Where do you stand on the subjective matter of which matters are objective and which matters are subjective ?

[HexHammer]

In objective matters it's another approach, if people say retarded shit, I'm not one that will accept it and will attempt to crush such views.

Where do you stand on the subjective matter of which matters are objective and which matters are subjective ?

The same, if a subjective matter has objectiveness, then when failing at those few objective areas, then the outcome will be the same.

[Nick_A]

Nick wrote:

Simone Weil expains why it must be so. If there is no mutual respect for a higher reality, how can there be mutual respect for those arguing within the same reality for the sake of prestige?

'A higher reality' may mean this or that. One 'higher reality' is that moral consensus by which a society remains a society of people living together in harmony.

Within democratic societies there are various belief systems. As we well know our present day democratic societies don't tolerate some belief systems for instance Mafia , or Daesh.

"Those arguing within the same reality" would presumably be free citizens of democracies in which cases "the same belief systems " are the laws of the land. Within democracies these laws of the land are arrived at by way of free and fair elections and the existence of several political parties.

You are missing what is meant by higher reality. It isn't man made but what already exists. Imagine humanity as composed of unique fractions of a whole. All these fractions are in continual opposition. The fractions or humanity have largely forgotten and psychologically rejected the source the "whole" from which they devolved.

Simone is suggesting that until we recognize the whole or the source of fractions called humanity, there will laws be degrees of conflict and disrespect including wars. Without realizing the common essence of humanity and the source from which it devolved, nothing else is possible.

[Belinda]

Nick, I guessed that that was what you meant. But it's not what I meant.

[Nick_A]

Nick, I guessed that that was what you meant. But it's not what I meant.

I guess I misunderstood. As far as I know there are only two conceptions of reality: objective and subjective. I thought you were referring to subjective beliefs.

[surreptitious57]

Where do you stand on the subjective matter of which matters are objective and which matters are subjective ?

Objective is that which is true regardless of interpretation
Subjective is that which is true because of interpretation

How do you decide if something is objective or subjective ?

If something is objective it can only be through proof or falsification [ deduction ]
If something is subjective it can be through evidence [ induction ] or supposition or assumption [ abduction ]
Evidence is the stronger of the three but is included with them as it is less rigorous than proof or falsification

[TimeSeeker]

Objective is that which is true regardless of interpretation

Can you give me an example of such truth?

If something is objective it can only be through proof or falsification [ deduction ]
If something is subjective it can be through evidence [ induction ] or supposition or assumption [ abduction ]
Evidence is the stronger of the three but is included with them as it is less rigorous than proof or falsification

At some point you will bump into one of these problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_the_criterion

How have you solved them? They are recursive.

[surreptitious57]

Can you give me an example of such truth

One plus one is two is the simplest and most obvious one though there are infinitely many both known and unknown
For unknown that is all objective truth that has not been accessed by human minds because of particular limitations

[TimeSeeker]

One plus one is two is the simplest and most obvious one

That is an axiom. Why have you chosen the decimal system? Why not binary.
1+1 = 2
1+1 = 10

Also. What do yo mean by "one" or 1? Can you point me to "one" of anything?

[surreptitious57]

One plus one is two is the simplest and most obvious one

Why have you chosen the decimal system ? Why not binary ?

What do you mean by one or I ? Can you point me to one of anything ?

You have asked all this before [ remember ] and the answers are still the same

The decimal system is base ten but any system can be used including binary

Numbers are abstract signifers so do not exist as physical objects but they do however describe physical reality