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

Zetherin wrote:

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.

Wayne is right... Maybe you have never given it any serious thought; but truth is itself an infinite.. Knowledge is limited, and ignorance is infinite...

You believe the sharp blade that is part of my knife is mind-dependent? That is, its existence depends on my mind? If no minds were around to perceive the blade on my knife, it would not exist?

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.

Its existance would be irrelevant, but there is no reason to say it would not exist. It merely wouldnt matter either way.

manored wrote:

Its existance would be irrelevant, but there is no reason to say it would not exist. It merely wouldnt matter either way.

Whether it would matter or not is the irrelevant part. That it would exist if no minds existed is what makes it objective, and I think we have good reason to believe that the existence of my knife is not dependent on any mind.

And if you acknowledge the knife and its properties are objective, then you will see what I mean when I say that its being better at a certain task can most certainly be objective.

This rampant subjectivism has turned into an epidemic of philosophic proportions.

If a person, for example, believes that he is Henry the Fourth of France, there is not much to philosophize about

kennethamy wrote:

If a person, for example, believes that he is Henry the Fourth of France, there is not much to philosophize about

I suppose a subjectivist would say that if a person believes they are Henry the Fourth of France, then it is true that they are Henry the Fourth of France. Since the subjectivist believes what is true is determined by what one believes. I think Ayn Rand is the one that popularized subjectivism.

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.

Fido wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

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.

Wayne is right... Maybe you have never given it any serious thought; but truth is itself an infinite.. Knowledge is limited, and ignorance is infinite...

And what has that to do with whether philosophers (all? some?) think they are infallible?

The original context of the statement sounded like someone who, for whatever reason, found the need for critique to be beyond their capacity.
Therefore, sour grapes, it's obviously your fault.

manored wrote:

Its existance would be irrelevant, but there is no reason to say it would not exist. It merely wouldnt matter either way.

Whether it would matter or not is the irrelevant part. That it would exist if no minds existed is what makes it objective, and I think we have good reason to believe that the existence of my knife is not dependent on any mind.

Just as a good chess player is better at playing chess than a bad chess player. And this is quite objective since we can confirm it by looking at their wins and loses. Of course, unless there had been minds there would have been no chess, and so no good or bad players. But so what? Given that there is the game of chess, some players are objectively better than others.

Zetherin wrote:

manored wrote:

Its existance would be irrelevant, but there is no reason to say it would not exist. It merely wouldnt matter either way.

Whether it would matter or not is the irrelevant part. That it would exist if no minds existed is what makes it objective, and I think we have good reason to believe that the existence of my knife is not dependent on any mind.

Hum, I see I commited a mistake in my last post. When we think about it, and object whose existance is irrelevant is the same as an object that does not exist. I dont think there is a reason to believe the existance of a knife is dependant on any mind, nor to think otherwise. the "existance of minds" is not a variable we can experiment with, consequently, its not a variable.

kennethamy wrote:

Just as a good chess player is better at playing chess than a bad chess player. And this is quite objective since we can confirm it by looking at their wins and loses. Of course, unless there had been minds there would have been no chess, and so no good or bad players. But so what? Given that there is the game of chess, some players are objectively better than others.

Its not the same kind of statement we have discussed so far, its like saying:

"A knife that is a good tool for cutting is better at cutting than a spoon that is a bad tool for cutting." Which is indeed objective.

While what we have discussed so far was a statement like:

"A knife is better at cutting than a spoon." Which is subjective.

That, in the chess example, would be like:

"Player A plays chess better than player B." Which is also subjective.

I suppose we could say "Knives are better at cutting than spoons" is objective if we include "tool good for cutting" on the definition of knife and "tool bad for cutting" on the definition of spoon.

Hum, it feels like this whole discussion is caused by different interpretations of language and/or variations in the conventions used. Hate then this happens =)

Fido wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

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.

Wayne is right... Maybe you have never given it any serious thought; but truth is itself an infinite.. Knowledge is limited, and ignorance is infinite...

And what has that to do with whether philosophers (all? some?) think they are infallible?

manored wrote:

Its existance would be irrelevant, but there is no reason to say it would not exist. It merely wouldnt matter either way.

Whether it would matter or not is the irrelevant part. That it would exist if no minds existed is what makes it objective, and I think we have good reason to believe that the existence of my knife is not dependent on any mind.

And if you acknowledge the knife and its properties are objective, then you will see what I mean when I say that its being better at a certain task can most certainly be objective.

Zetherin wrote:

manored wrote:

Its existance would be irrelevant, but there is no reason to say it would not exist. It merely wouldnt matter either way.

Whether it would matter or not is the irrelevant part. That it would exist if no minds existed is what makes it objective, and I think we have good reason to believe that the existence of my knife is not dependent on any mind.

And if you acknowledge the knife and its properties are objective, then you will see what I mean when I say that its being better at a certain task can most certainly be objective.

Just as a good chess player is better at playing chess than a bad chess player. And this is quite objective since we can confirm it by looking at their wins and loses. Of course, unless there had been minds there would have been no chess, and so no good or bad players. But so what? Given that there is the game of chess, some players are objectively better than others.

If we let two players play a 20 game chess match, and A wins by 20-0 that seems a fairly objective test of who is the better player. There is no problem about language that I can see. That X is a better player than Y is a clear proposition, and it is testable by matching them against each other. The same thing can be done with knife and spoon. We let A and B cut a roast A using a knife, and B a spoon. We then observe which cuts the roast faster and more neatly. Any bets?

kennethamy wrote:

If we let two players play a 20 game chess match, and A wins by 20-0 that seems a fairly objective test of who is the better player. There is no problem about language that I can see. That X is a better player than Y is a clear proposition, and it is testable by matching them against each other. The same thing can be done with knife and spoon. We let A and B cut a roast A using a knife, and B a spoon. We then observe which cuts the roast faster and more neatly. Any bets?

That result can arise from a specific interaction between A and B, lets say, A's playstyle happens to be ideal against B's playstyle. There is also the possibility of that something is affecting B's ability to play negatively, or something is affecting A's ability to play positively. Off course, the more games we make with the same result, the smaller the chances of that the variable that is causing A to win is a variable other than skill, but we can never reach 100% of certainty. That is because all experiments are influenced by infinite variables, even if only a few have a significant impact by themselves.

It is hard to tell from what you write, but are you actually suggesting that whether (say) Bobby Fisher (the world champion) was a better chess player than you or I is not an objective question? Or, to change the example, whether the New York Yankees are not a better baseball team than some farm team, or some high-school team? If that is what your theory suggests (never mind implies) I strongly suggest that you revise your theory.

kennethamy wrote:

It is hard to tell from what you write, but are you actually suggesting that whether (say) Bobby Fisher (the world champion) was a better chess player than you or I is not an objective question? Or, to change the example, whether the New York Yankees are not a better baseball team than some farm team, or some high-school team? If that is what your theory suggests (never mind implies) I strongly suggest that you revise your theory.

It isnt a teory, it is one of the fundamental aspects of the scientific method: That any experiment, no matter how well executed, has chances of being wrong, and consequently the conclusions that are based upon it also have.