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

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.

manored wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

You guys miss the point.. Chess is not about chess

Obviously. But luckily, we have you to set us right. Nothing is ever about what is is about, but it is always about something it has nothing to do with.

Fido wrote:

manored wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

You guys miss the point.. Chess is not about chess

Obviously. But luckily, we have you to set us right. Nothing is ever about what is is about, but it is always about something it has nothing to do with.

Sorry; but the metaphore is sort of obvious... It does not matter what the game is, if you think it is only a game you have missed the point, and I would show you the door, but you would as likely miss that as well... Have you ever read Being and Time, by Heidegger??? Because I haven't so I can hardly recommend it, and yet, it really seems that he and I are offering slight variations of the same theme... All those forms, whether games or politics or religion are about the relationship, which is always in the moment, without sense of past or future, and that people are conscious only of one or the other, the form or the relationship... How can I tell you that your embrace of subjectivity as though it is objective is dimwitted and adlebrained without giving you cause for resentment... Perhaps If I say: In my opinion you are an individual educated to a point without consciousness or insight of merit, then it would not feed resentment, or cause your complaint to the authorities... I am not saying it is the truth, but is certainly my subjective take on the truth...

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

manored wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

. I am not saying it is the truth, but is certainly my subjective take on the truth...

And why would you think anyone would like to know that?

You guys miss the point.. Chess is not about chess, but is about life with the analogy of a chess game... Some people suck at chess who are good at life... Some generals do not play chess though it can be an analogy of a battle on a battlefield... The fact that it fails as an analogy means its use to us is limited, but it still works as an intelligence test between like minded individuals... What does it tell us of an objective nature since the test is so subjective in quality... It tells only about the game, and the players, and takes little into account... That is; a lot of factors goes into making "good " chess players, and conditions can change to make even the best players suck on any given day...

I don't know what this has to do with experiments. But it is certainly true that any empirical statement might be wrong. But then, again, it might be right too. You are confusing two issues: 1.certainty and 2.knowledge. What you are pointing out is that we cannot be absolutely certain, beyond the possibility of doubt, that Fisher was better than some beginner. And that is true. But how does that show that it isn't true, and we know it is true, that Fisher was better than some beginner? Answer, it doesn't. Just because a statement might be false, that is no reason to think it is false; and just because we cannot be absolutely certain that a statement is true is no reason to think that we do not know it is true. Just remember, "might be wrong" is no reason for "is wrong", and is no reason for "it is not known that it is true".

You are talking about objective reality, and there is no such thing but what we agree is objective reality, so while a physical thing might seem firm enough on the surface, our acceptance of objective reality requires agreement, and agreement requires a relationship so the moral form, morality as a form, stands behind our acceptance of objective fact...That is why democracy inevitably enters conversation about objective reality; because it is what people agree it to be...Even death as an objective reality depends upon the perspective... Is it the end or only a new beginning??? It is what people agree it is...

Fido wrote:

You are talking about objective reality, and there is no such thing but what we agree is objective reality, so while a physical thing might seem firm enough on the surface, our acceptance of objective reality requires agreement, and agreement requires a relationship so the moral form, morality as a form, stands behind our acceptance of objective fact...That is why democracy inevitably enters conversation about objective reality; because it is what people agree it to be...Even death as an objective reality depends upon the perspective... Is it the end or only a new beginning??? It is what people agree it is...

I dont understand what you mean.

You might have to revisit some of my old post...I have a screwed up computer, so I am typing on my old dinosaur in the man cave. I am trying to get some iron up at the house as a first step to an addition I would like blacked in before novermber, so I do not have a lot of time... I think the proper name for a moral form would be an emphatic form as opposed to a physical one.... I hate to say it, but I do not have a lot of time to go into a lot of detail.

Fido wrote:

You might have to revisit some of my old post...I have a screwed up computer, so I am typing on my old dinosaur in the man cave. I am trying to get some iron up at the house as a first step to an addition I would like blacked in before novermber, so I do not have a lot of time... I think the proper name for a moral form would be an emphatic form as opposed to a physical one.... I hate to say it, but I do not have a lot of time to go into a lot of detail.

I generally dont understand your older posts either, I find your style of writing kinda... difficult to understand =)

Is this a simple case of someone having their preconceived or ill conceived notions proven wrong buy a simple logical argument? And then getting upset at the arrogance of the one showing them their fallacy?

Many people have unsubstantiated beliefs or opinions that cannot be supported by basic facts.

And no, this is not the same as having the freedom of your own beliefs.

As someone said:

You are entitled to you own opinion, but not your own facts.

What do people do with their moral forms, and why do they think they exist at all, and exist to the point that people often lay down their lives for simple ideas when life is all they know of meaning of any sort???

To expand on your thought, I'd also like to include the issue of why with all the religion practiced in this world, we are no better than any animal walking this planet?

Does religion really teach us morals? If it does, it failed miserably. Look at all the cultures with religion. Have they shown moral superiority? If so, when and how?

To expand on your thought, I'd also like to include the issue of why with all the religion practiced in this world, we are no better than any animal walking this planet?

Does religion really teach us morals? If it does, it failed miserably. Look at all the cultures with religion. Have they shown moral superiority? If so, when and how?

and no religion would make much headway if it supported immorality.

I never expect humans to be "altruistic saints," but how has it really helped humans?