Philosophers think they know it all - they are never wrong.

kennethamy wrote:

. But if I had a friend who prefered to cut roasts with spoons rather than knives, I wouldnt give him a knife to cut a roast.

If I had a friend who suddenly declared that he preferred to use a rather than a knife to cut a roast, I would first think he was joking, and it it appeared he was not joking, I would think he might have had a stroke which caused him to forget the names of things, and it that hypothesis was wrong, I would then not know what to think. But one thing I would not do is to play so cruel a prank on a friend as to give him a spoon with which to cut a roast. Why would I do that? To ridicule him as he vainly tried to cut a roast with a spoon?

Chances are the first, but its not impossible for all the people from group A to be bad cutters, while all the people from group B are experienced cutters of roasts with spoons.

manored wrote:

Chances are the first, but its not impossible for all the people from group A to be bad cutters, while all the people from group B are experienced cutters of roasts with spoons.

Knives are better for cutting than spoons. End of discussion. Why you persist debating this, I have no clue. You can go try it out for yourself, or go look it up if you don't know what a knife or spoon are.

Zetherin wrote:

manored wrote:

Chances are the first, but its not impossible for all the people from group A to be bad cutters, while all the people from group B are experienced cutters of roasts with spoons.

Knives are better for cutting than spoons. End of discussion. Why you persist debating this, I have no clue. You can go try it out for yourself, or go look it up if you don't know what a knife or spoon are.

It is called argument for the sake of argument, and also because he is in the grip of the theory of subjectivism. What the fact that some people may be bad cutters with a knife has to do with whether a knife is good for cutting I have no idea. That is like arguing that since some people cannot tell time, clocks are useless. Just silliness.

Fido wrote:

Nothing could be more subjective, dear friend... With a couple of prepositions you have not told where you are or the table is... In other words, you have not offered coordinates which Einstein might say, are bound to be wrong, but have only suggest that you move and the table does not...

Now, let me get this straight. If I ask someone to get the apple to my right and not to my left, I am saying something subjective? Well if that is true, then how does it happen if the person fetches the apple to my left then he fetched the wrong apple? Even Einstein would have said so; or are you suggesting that Einstein did not know his left from his right?

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

Nothing could be more subjective, dear friend...

but if you were in an immediate situation with some one and you say something in regard to a physical object upon which you both agree, then nothing could be more objective

Make up your mind.

If I had a friend who suddenly declared that he preferred to use a rather than a knife to cut a roast, I would first think he was joking, and it it appeared he was not joking, I would think he might have had a stroke which caused him to forget the names of things, and it that hypothesis was wrong, I would then not know what to think. But one thing I would not do is to play so cruel a prank on a friend as to give him a spoon with which to cut a roast. Why would I do that? To ridicule him as he vainly tried to cut a roast with a spoon?

manored wrote:

Chances are the first, but its not impossible for all the people from group A to be bad cutters, while all the people from group B are experienced cutters of roasts with spoons.

Knives are better for cutting than spoons. End of discussion. Why you persist debating this, I have no clue. You can go try it out for yourself, or go look it up if you don't know what a knife or spoon are.

It is called argument for the sake of argument, and also because he is in the grip of the theory of subjectivism. What the fact that some people may be bad cutters with a knife has to do with whether a knife is good for cutting I have no idea. That is like arguing that since some people cannot tell time, clocks are useless. Just silliness.

kennethamy wrote:

If I had a friend who suddenly declared that he preferred to use a rather than a knife to cut a roast, I would first think he was joking, and it it appeared he was not joking, I would think he might have had a stroke which caused him to forget the names of things, and it that hypothesis was wrong, I would then not know what to think. But one thing I would not do is to play so cruel a prank on a friend as to give him a spoon with which to cut a roast. Why would I do that? To ridicule him as he vainly tried to cut a roast with a spoon?

Ignoring what a person asked and giving then something else is disrespectful, in my book. Its basically imposing our own view of the world on then, pretty much saying "I know better than you".

Zetherin wrote:

manored wrote:

Chances are the first, but its not impossible for all the people from group A to be bad cutters, while all the people from group B are experienced cutters of roasts with spoons.

Knives are better for cutting than spoons. End of discussion. Why you persist debating this, I have no clue. You can go try it out for yourself, or go look it up if you don't know what a knife or spoon are.

Because you seem unable to see why the affirmation"Knives are better for cutting than spoons" is not objective.

kennethamy wrote:

It is called argument for the sake of argument, and also because he is in the grip of the theory of subjectivism. What the fact that some people may be bad cutters with a knife has to do with whether a knife is good for cutting I have no idea. That is like arguing that since some people cannot tell time, clocks are useless. Just silliness.

What it has to do? It changes the result of the experiment. If you make an experiment to avaliate the usefullness of clocks, and out of randow chance get only subjects that cannot tell time, you will conclude that clocks are useless.

And albeit the chances are infinitesimal, absurd, ridiculous, to the point we cant even begin to imagine how it would be, the same could apply to our knowledge of knives and spoons.

That is why I said the extremist examples made it troublesome. Once its outside the boundary of our imagination it gets a lot harder to see.

Because you seem unable to see why the affirmation"Knives are better for cutting than spoons" is not objective.

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

Nothing could be more subjective, dear friend...

but if you were in an immediate situation with some one and you say something in regard to a physical object upon which you both agree, then nothing could be more objective

Make up your mind.

I don't have a mind, except as a moral form; but my brain works, and says that what people agree is objectively true, is as objectively true as it gets... But consider the problem...If I am facing you and holding an apple, and you say: put the apple to the right of me, do you think the apple will be on your right or left??? Your right is your right, but to the right of you from another's perspective is to your left... Only when people are oriented in the same direction does ones right become the same as anothers... Fortunately, conversations are a process of communication, and if the apple does not end where you want it to, you can say: my other right side

Your right is your right, but to the right of you from another's perspective is to your left... Only when people are oriented in the same direction does ones right become the same as anothers.

Perhaps we had better go back to the original discussion point about philosophers thinking "they know it all, and are never wrong". Has anyone tried to substantiate this accusation in any way? I don't know of any philosopher who thinks himself infallible. In fact, Socrates famously said that he knew nothing except that he knew nothing. Now, I happen to think that Socrates was being way too modest, but clearly he was one philosopher who did not believe he was infallible.

kennethamy wrote:

Perhaps we had better go back to the original discussion point about philosophers thinking "they know it all, and are never wrong". Has anyone tried to substantiate this accusation in any way? I don't know of any philosopher who thinks himself infallible. In fact, Socrates famously said that he knew nothing except that he knew nothing. Now, I happen to think that Socrates was being way too modest, but clearly he was one philosopher who did not believe he was infallible.

I think this accusation is made out of ignorance. I've had people tell me I think too much too, as if thats a sin.
Anyone who has done any philosophizing knows, sooner or later, any subject one explores hits the wall of relative infinity. That's all there is to know about that, so philosophers do probably know it all, and I can't see what's wrong about that.
Critical thinking requires a great deal of effort, the average person just wants you to believe what they say is right, especially when they're wrong.

Perhaps we had better go back to the original discussion point about philosophers thinking "they know it all, and are never wrong". Has anyone tried to substantiate this accusation in any way? I don't know of any philosopher who thinks himself infallible. In fact, Socrates famously said that he knew nothing except that he knew nothing. Now, I happen to think that Socrates was being way too modest, but clearly he was one philosopher who did not believe he was infallible.

kennethamy wrote:

Perhaps we had better go back to the original discussion point about philosophers thinking "they know it all, and are never wrong". Has anyone tried to substantiate this accusation in any way? I don't know of any philosopher who thinks himself infallible. In fact, Socrates famously said that he knew nothing except that he knew nothing. Now, I happen to think that Socrates was being way too modest, but clearly he was one philosopher who did not believe he was infallible.

If it is true of philosophers, it is true of all people... Look at people with blind spots caused by brain injuries. Those people look around and do not see their blind spot because the brain remembers what is there, and knits blind spot and sight together in a seamless whole, just as we do when we turn our heads left and right. We all know what lies beyond out peripheral vision, and what is behind us, though we are blind to it... In fact, we know what we know, and if something should change behind us as for the blind person, then that- the brain does not know....

In the course of life people build up a certain perspective on life, out of all they think true and are led to believe is true... No one has time or place in their thoughts for false notions, and no one considers themselves wrong in their thoughts and knowledge...It is obvious that many people are operating on insufficient information, but they know what their society says they should know and so long as that knowledge serves their purpose they will not normally accept a challenge to it... It is unhappiness and failure that causes people to examine their lives and thoughts, and leaves them open to new ideas... It is the failure of old social forms that leads to mass unhappiness and dissatisfaction, and that all preceeds revolution...

No one desires the sort of misery essential to mass change, and no one sane would sow that wind without a concern for consequences... So we must accept that people think they know it all so long as the knowledge they have seems enough, and they will think they are never wrong so long as misery does not sneak into their lives through all of their blind spots.... We only have to make certain we are not the blind attempting to lead the blind...Because history shows that all social changes had their philosophy...

If a terrorist asked you for an Uzi to go into some place to murder a lot of people, and if you ignored his request, that would be disrespectful. What should you do? Respect his wishes and get him the Uzi?

Anyway I don't see what this has to do with respect. It is simply false that spoons are useful instruments for cutting and that has nothing to do with whether you someone who asks for a spoon to cut his meat or not. The respectful business is just red herring

If a tool has only an infinitesimal chance of cutting meat then isn't it obvious that it is useless for cutting meat, and certainly less useful for cutting meat than a tool designed to cut meat? Does that really have to be explained to you?

A child might think that a telephone was useful for mixing a milkshake, or prefer a telephone to a mixer for that purpose. What has that to do with whether the child is right? Nothing whatsoever.

But the design is objective. The handle, bolster, edge and tip are objective parts of a kitchen knife. If you're a subjectivist that believes nothing is objective, please just tell me now and spare me.

Perhaps we had better go back to the original discussion point about philosophers thinking "they know it all, and are never wrong". Has anyone tried to substantiate this accusation in any way? I don't know of any philosopher who thinks himself infallible. In fact, Socrates famously said that he knew nothing except that he knew nothing. Now, I happen to think that Socrates was being way too modest, but clearly he was one philosopher who did not believe he was infallible.

I think this accusation is made out of ignorance. I've had people tell me I think too much too, as if thats a sin.
Anyone who has done any philosophizing knows, sooner or later, any subject one explores hits the wall of relative infinity. That's all there is to know about that, so philosophers do probably know it all, and I can't see what's wrong about that.
Critical thinking requires a great deal of effort, the average person just wants you to believe what they say is right, especially when they're wrong.

Math is objective, logic is objective. Everything else is subjective, but usually we accept several conventions in order to live in society.

Anyone who has done any philosophizing knows, sooner or later, any subject one explores hits the wall of relative infinit

wayne wrote:

Anyone who has done any philosophizing knows, sooner or later, any subject one explores hits the wall of relative infinit

That is not true at all. The great majority of philosophers acknowledge that certain things are true, while other things are false. Only those who don't know what they're talking about think that everyone that philosophizes hits a "wall of relative infinity". I hope you do not take offense to this, as if you're new to philosophy it is an easy mistake to make.