Anselm argument and problem within

[Age]

To Age, Skepdick, and Flashdangerpants

It seems to me that Skepdick and I will not agree on the semantic of infinity.
It seems to me that I don't really have anything else to say to Age.

If you do not inform me of how you define the word 'semantic', then you will never become aware of if we are even agreeing upon the semantic of semantics, itself, (well as you want to put it).

So, if you do not begin by informing the forum here of how you even define that word "yourself", then there is, literally, nothing more to talk about here.

It seems to me that what I believe to be objective, Flashdangerpants believes to be not objective.

It seems to me that there is no benefit to be had in any further discussion.

Peace

Okay.

[meno_]

Tif you think there is no sense to carry this further, it’s possible you’re basing this on what this time is still not sensible to you, as that future time is now.

[Skepdick]

That's an aesthetic value judgement, not objective at all.

Somebody explain to this clown, in a language that he would understand that he is peddling a double standard.

All assertions/evaluations are value judgments. Given some collection of semantic values called "definitions" the semantic value judgment about the image below; the semantic evaluation (it has the word "value" in it!) thereof is "goat on a trunk".

If aesthetic value judgments are "not objective at all"; what makes semantic value judgments any different?

How many people need to assign the same semantic value to a phenomenon in order for an evaluation to become "objective"?

[Skepdick]

It seems to me that Skepdick and I will not agree on the semantic of infinity.

Good luck to you. My semantics coincide with the semantics of mathematicians, computer scientists and logicians.

My understanding coincides with the corpus of the formal sciences.

It is your misunderstanding that needs addressing.

[Philosopher19]

To Age, Skepdick, and Flashdangerpants

It seems to me that Skepdick and I will not agree on the semantic of infinity.
It seems to me that I don't really have anything else to say to Age.

If you do not inform me of how you define the word 'semantic', then you will never become aware of if we are even agreeing upon the semantic of semantics, itself, (well as you want to put it).

So, if you do not begin by informing the forum here of how you even define that word "yourself", then there is, literally, nothing more to talk about here.

It seems to me that what I believe to be objective, Flashdangerpants believes to be not objective.

It seems to me that there is no benefit to be had in any further discussion.

Peace

Okay.

I should correct myself. Originally I said "It seems to me that what I believe to be objective, Flashdangerpants believes to be not objective."

What I should have said was:

It seems to me that what I believe to be objective, Flashdangerpants is not focused on (or is focused on but falsely describing it as subjective as opposed to objective).

[Philosopher19]

Good luck to you

Thanks.

[Age]

To Age, Skepdick, and Flashdangerpants

It seems to me that Skepdick and I will not agree on the semantic of infinity.
It seems to me that I don't really have anything else to say to Age.

If you do not inform me of how you define the word 'semantic', then you will never become aware of if we are even agreeing upon the semantic of semantics, itself, (well as you want to put it).

So, if you do not begin by informing the forum here of how you even define that word "yourself", then there is, literally, nothing more to talk about here.

It seems to me that what I believe to be objective, Flashdangerpants believes to be not objective.

It seems to me that there is no benefit to be had in any further discussion.

Peace

Okay.

I should correct myself. Originally I said "It seems to me that what I believe to be objective, Flashdangerpants believes to be not objective."

What I should have said was:

It seems to me that what I believe to be objective, Flashdangerpants is not focused on (or is focused on but falsely describing it as subjective as opposed to objective).

I have no idea how this relates to what I said and pointed out here.

[Philosopher19]

I have no idea how this relates to what I said and pointed out here.

In your post I saw that what I had said earlier in relation to Flashdangerpants was inaccurate. So I corrected myself. I quoted you because A) I saw this in your post, and B) Some of the things you said drew my attention to this incorrectness.

I'm still not sure where you stand on the following:

Do you believe in objectivity or do you believe it's all subjective?
Do you believe it's objective that triangles are triangular or that 1 + 1 = 2?

[FlashDangerpants]

Again, the argument is numbered 1 to 4. If you really want a discussion on the argument, tell me which number(s) you see as not being necessarily true so that I can then try and show you why they are necessarily true, or (in the event that you turn out to be actually right and point out how one of them is not necessarily true) potentially side with you.

I gave you what you asked for. I saw your insipid first effort to dismiss it as some sort of communication breakdown and I decided I was perfectly happy to accept your request to leave it at that, because you aren't very talented, and I have little interest in the religion forum anyway. I can even tolerate your extremely stupid reforumulation of the insipd dismissal because you are just the 19th person to call themselves "philosopher" here and like all the others, you are not that at all.

But you can take my name out of your mouth now. Stick to conversation with Age, leave me out of it.

[Age]

I have no idea how this relates to what I said and pointed out here.

In your post I saw that what I had said earlier in relation to Flashdangerpants was inaccurate. So I corrected myself. I quoted you because A) I saw this in your post, and B) Some of the things you said drew my attention to this incorrectness.

I'm still not sure where you stand on the following:

Do you believe in objectivity or do you believe it's all subjective?
Do you believe it's objective that triangles are triangular or that 1 + 1 = 2?

What do you even mean by the words 'objective' and 'subjective', exactly?

Also I neither believe nor disbelieve any of these things here.

However, what is 'subjectively' true and what is 'objectively' true, to me, is extremely easy and simple to distinguish between, and which cannot be refuted, or in other words is 'objectively' True.

Also, I would hope you were still not sure when I 'stood' here, as I had never said absolutely anything regards that before.

Where do you 'stand'?

Do you believe in objectivity or do you believe it's all subjective?
Do you believe it's objective that triangles are triangular or that 1 + 1 = 2?

Either way what are basing your beliefs on, exactly? And, your beliefs 'objectively true', or 'subjectively true'? Or, if something else, then what, exactly?

[Skepdick]

I can even tolerate your extremely stupid reforumulation of the insipd dismissal because you are just the 19th person to call themselves "philosopher" here and like all the others, you are not that at all.

Finally! We have found him! The gnostic who knows the classification rule; the procedure; the necessary and sufficient conditions which distinguish the philosophers from the non-philosophers!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule

[Philosopher19]

I have no idea how this relates to what I said and pointed out here.

In your post I saw that what I had said earlier in relation to Flashdangerpants was inaccurate. So I corrected myself. I quoted you because A) I saw this in your post, and B) Some of the things you said drew my attention to this incorrectness.

I'm still not sure where you stand on the following:

Do you believe in objectivity or do you believe it's all subjective?
Do you believe it's objective that triangles are triangular or that 1 + 1 = 2?

What do you even mean by the words 'objective' and 'subjective', exactly?

Also I neither believe nor disbelieve any of these things here.

However, what is 'subjectively' true and what is 'objectively' true, to me, is extremely easy and simple to distinguish between, and which cannot be refuted, or in other words is 'objectively' True.

Also, I would hope you were still not sure when I 'stood' here, as I had never said absolutely anything regards that before.

Where do you 'stand'?

Do you believe in objectivity or do you believe it's all subjective?
Do you believe it's objective that triangles are triangular or that 1 + 1 = 2?

Either way what are basing your beliefs on, exactly? And, your beliefs 'objectively true', or 'subjectively true'? Or, if something else, then what, exactly?

My beliefs are based on Existence. I believe objective truths such as triangles are triangular or 1 + 1 = 2 are true because Existence is the way It is and we have awareness of this. My awareness distinguishes between objective truths and subjective truths (the former of which I have given examples of. If something is contradictory to deny, I see it as objectively true).

Perhaps my view on objectivity is better explained here:
http://godisallthatmatters.com/2020/08/ ... knowledge/

[Age]

In your post I saw that what I had said earlier in relation to Flashdangerpants was inaccurate. So I corrected myself. I quoted you because A) I saw this in your post, and B) Some of the things you said drew my attention to this incorrectness.

I'm still not sure where you stand on the following:

Do you believe in objectivity or do you believe it's all subjective?
Do you believe it's objective that triangles are triangular or that 1 + 1 = 2?

What do you even mean by the words 'objective' and 'subjective', exactly?

Also I neither believe nor disbelieve any of these things here.

However, what is 'subjectively' true and what is 'objectively' true, to me, is extremely easy and simple to distinguish between, and which cannot be refuted, or in other words is 'objectively' True.

Also, I would hope you were still not sure when I 'stood' here, as I had never said absolutely anything regards that before.

Where do you 'stand'?

Do you believe in objectivity or do you believe it's all subjective?
Do you believe it's objective that triangles are triangular or that 1 + 1 = 2?

Either way what are basing your beliefs on, exactly? And, your beliefs 'objectively true', or 'subjectively true'? Or, if something else, then what, exactly?

My beliefs are based on Existence.

Compared to what else, exactly?

I believe objective truths such as triangles are triangular or 1 + 1 = 2 are true because Existence is the way It is and we have awareness of this.

Okay, thanks for this. This here now explains far more.

My awareness distinguishes between objective truths and subjective truths (the former of which I have given examples of.

Do other people's awareness distinguish between objective truths and subjective truths?

Also, do you also believe subjective truths such as soccer is fun or vanilla ice cream is better are true, as well, because Existence is the way it is and we have awareness of this?

If something is contradictory to deny, I see it as objectively true).

It is contradictory to deny that to one soccer is fun or vanilla ice cream is better, so you must 'now' see them as objective truths, right, well if we follow 'your logic' here anyway, correct?

Perhaps my view on objectivity is better explained here:
http://godisallthatmatters.com/2020/08/ ... knowledge/

If you just provide your own definition of the 'objective' or 'objectivity' word here, then perhaps your own person view of 'objectivity' might be better explained here, as well.

[Philosopher19]

Do other people's awareness distinguish between objective truths and subjective truths?

Depends on what they have awareness of. But by my definition of the word "people", they do. My definition of the word people encompasses 'is sufficiently self-aware to distinguish between the objective and subjective' much like my definition of a perfect Euclid triangle encompasses the definition 'angles add up to 180 degrees'. If they have awareness of objective truths and subjective truths, they have awareness of the difference between the two truths. As for how much or how well or how precise they are focused on this awareness or not, that's a different matter.

Also, do you also believe subjective truths such as soccer is fun or vanilla ice cream is better are true, as well, because Existence is the way it is and we have awareness of this?

Regarding things like triangles are triangular, I would have said that is a clear case of 'Existence is the way It is'. Regarding something like x likes football while y loves tennis but hates football, I would have said there is an element of 'the subject is the way that it is' or perhaps 'the subject is the way that it is in relation to q in Existence' or even perhaps 'the subject is the way that it is in relation to Existence'. But having said all that, it is still the case that all subjects are members of Existence just as all triangles are members of Existence. Perhaps it should instead be said 'triangle are the way that they are because that is just the way that they are', and 'subject x is the way that he is because that is just the way that he is', and 'Existence is the way that It is because that is just the way that It is'. Or perhaps you could say: As for what makes x the way that it is, 'it's angles add up to 180 degrees' or in the case of a subject/person 'it did x at time t, it does x if y, it likes p instead of q, and it's name is w'.

It is contradictory to deny that to one soccer is fun or vanilla ice cream is better, so you must 'now' see them as objective truths, right, well if we follow 'your logic' here anyway, correct?

Yes. If it is truly the case that subject x likes y, then it is objectively true that subject x likes y. Liking y is subjective to x and all who like y. Triangles being triangular is not subjective to anyone. It is simply the case that triangles are triangular. As for who has awareness of this, you could say that is subjective to all who have awareness of this. But this does not not make triangles being triangular subjective (as in it is not a subject's awareness of this that makes this a truth. It is the way that Existence/Truth is that makes this a truth, just as it it is the way that Existence/Truth is that makes 'subject x likes y' a truth.

If you just provide your own definition of the 'objective' or 'objectivity' word here, then perhaps your own person view of 'objectivity' might be better explained here, as well.

Regarding my 'own person view', I wrote the post in the link provided. But perhaps this reply suffices in conveying my own person view of 'objectivity'.

[Age]

Do other people's awareness distinguish between objective truths and subjective truths?

Depends on what they have awareness of. But by my definition of the word "people", they do.

So, if there are two or more people with differing perspectives and views of what 'objective truths' are, and, what 'subjective truths' are, exactly, then which one of you people should I listen to and follow? Or, what is 'it', exactly, that I should base my decision on to listen to and follow?

My definition of the word people encompasses 'is sufficiently self-aware to distinguish between the objective and subjective' much like my definition of a perfect Euclid triangle encompasses the definition 'angles add up to 180 degrees'.

So, what you are essentially saying and meaning here is that I and others should listen to you and follow you because you "philosopher19" have the best and/or most accurate views and definitions here, right?

If they have awareness of objective truths and subjective truths, they have awareness of the difference between the two truths. As for how much or how well or how precise they are focused on this awareness or not, that's a different matter.

Do you have awareness of 'objective truths' and 'subjective truths'?

If yes, then you have awareness of the difference between the truths.

So, if yes to my clarifying question here posed and asked to you, then why do you not just express what those two truths are, exactly, while also expressing what the difference between the two is, exactly?

If you did, then you human beings could just stop squabbling and bickering over this very one issue here, which you have been for thousands and thousands of years hitherto when this is being written, correct?

For surely you are very focused and very well precisely focused on 'this awareness' and understanding of, and between, the two right?

Also, do you also believe subjective truths such as soccer is fun or vanilla ice cream is better are true, as well, because Existence is the way it is and we have awareness of this?

Regarding things like triangles are triangular, I would have said that is a clear case of 'Existence is the way It is'. Regarding something like x likes football while y loves tennis but hates football, I would have said there is an element of 'the subject is the way that it is' or perhaps 'the subject is the way that it is in relation to q in Existence' or even perhaps 'the subject is the way that it is in relation to Existence'. But having said all that, it is still the case that all subjects are members of Existence just as all triangles are members of Existence. Perhaps it should instead be said 'triangle are the way that they are because that is just the way that they are', and 'subject x is the way that he is because that is just the way that he is', and 'Existence is the way that It is because that is just the way that It is'.

Okay.

Or perhaps you could say: As for what makes x the way that it is, 'it's angles add up to 180 degrees' or in the case of a subject/person 'it did x at time t, it does x if y, it likes p instead of q, and it's name is w'.

Are you getting at any actual 'thing' here?

If yes, then what is 'that', exactly?

It is contradictory to deny that to one soccer is fun or vanilla ice cream is better, so you must 'now' see them as objective truths, right, well if we follow 'your logic' here anyway, correct?

Yes. If it is truly the case that subject x likes y, then it is objectively true that subject x likes y.

Okay. So, 'now', 'objective truths' can also be just what people, subjectively like, right?

If yes, then 'objective truths' are also just what is 'relative' to 'a person', or 'an observer', correct?

Liking y is subjective to x and all who like y. Triangles being triangular is not subjective to anyone. It is simply the case that triangles are triangular.

you seem to keep forgetting this only occurs if what is what you, subjectively and/or relatively, call 'a triangle' is called 'a triangle' to others. Otherwise, if not, then triangles necessarily being triangle is neither objective nor subjective to some people.

What these adult human beings, back when this was being written , continually seemed to forget, or had not yet come to realize and/nor understand is what actually makes, creates, or forms 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' themselves.

As for who has awareness of this, you could say that is subjective to all who have awareness of this.

Now 'this' I probably would most likely say.

But this does not not make triangles being triangular subjective (as in it is not a subject's awareness of this that makes this a truth.

What makes triangles, triangular may well not be a subjects 'awareness', itself, but rather a subject's views, or perspectives if one likes.

So, like absolutely absolutely every word, and definition, throughout all of human history, and throughout all of human future, it is 'an observer's' subject view what makes up and creates 'subjective truths'.

And, how, exactly, 'objective Truths' are made, created, and found is another just as extremely simple and easy way also, indeed.

It is the way that Existence/Truth is that makes this a truth, just as it it is the way that Existence/Truth is that makes 'subject x likes y' a truth.

If you just provide your own definition of the 'objective' or 'objectivity' word here, then perhaps your own person view of 'objectivity' might be better explained here, as well.

Regarding my 'own person view', I wrote the post in the link provided.

If you do not want to repeat your own personal view here, or do not want to provide a link here, then okay.

But perhaps this reply suffices in conveying my own person view of 'objectivity'.

This reply here of yours is just more or less repeating the exact same thing/s you have said previously about 'objectivity'.