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

I knew something was wrong, just couldn't get my finger on it.

Well well.

I've had an interesting day. I could have left a knife on the table and sat around for it to plunge into my back, thats how I feel right now. I don't take philisophy too seriously it's good for the sayings and that but it's pointless. It's full of people who think they know it all if you enter a discussion with one it never ends! Everything you try and say is never right. I'm done with this rubbish, it really is a load of nonsence. We are people at the end of the day, we have lives to live a touch of philosophy is good for us all but for people of bang on about it all day are icolating themselfs. Sad really.

Well it's been good while it lasted. I do appreciate the help that has been given to me and I thank those who have helped.

I would give it another 24 hours and my account will be gone forever.

Happy discussion. But I have a life to live and I aint got no time to argue about it.

The average hammer is more useful for pounding in nails than the average banana (or even the unaverage banana). And a watch that keeps time is more useful than a watch that doesn't keep time. What is subjective about either statement? They are just obviously (objectively) true. (Can you imagine any banana being useful for pounding nails? What is the point of arguing just for the sake of argument, and disputing what you know to be true just for the sake of disputation)?

kennethamy wrote:

The average hammer is more useful for pounding in nails than the average banana (or even the unaverage banana). And a watch that keeps time is more useful than a watch that doesn't keep time. What is subjective about either statement? They are just obviously (objectively) true. (Can you imagine any banana being useful for pounding nails? What is the point of arguing just for the sake of argument, and disputing what you know to be true just for the sake of disputation)?

Its subjective because it depends of several factors such as who and what is the user. If the user is afraid of hammers he may find the banana more useful. A rifle is usually more useful for hunting than a bow, but that may not be the case if you are an experienced archer whom never saw a rifle before.

But the fact that circumstances may alter things does not make the statement subjective.

kennethamy wrote:

But the fact that circumstances may alter things does not make the statement subjective.

It does. A statement is subjective unless it is universally true. For "hammers are better than bananas for hitting nails into wood" to be objective the answer to that question would need to be "yes" for ever hammer, ever banana, ever nail, ever wood, ever user, and possibly many other evers, in all possible combinations.

kennethamy wrote:

But the fact that circumstances may alter things does not make the statement subjective.

It does. A statement is subjective unless it is universally true. For "hammers are better than bananas for hitting nails into wood" to be objective the answer to that question would need to be "yes" for ever hammer, ever banana, ever nail, ever wood, ever user, and possibly many other evers, in all possible combinations.

manored wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

But the fact that circumstances may alter things does not make the statement subjective.

It does. A statement is subjective unless it is universally true. For "hammers are better than bananas for hitting nails into wood" to be objective the answer to that question would need to be "yes" for ever hammer, ever banana, ever nail, ever wood, ever user, and possibly many other evers, in all possible combinations.

I don't know exactly what universally truth means. But it is certainly true that if you want to bang in nails, hammers more useful than are bananas. The fact that someone might be scared of hammers and not use one to bang in a nail has nothing to do with that statement. It is also true that if I had no hands hammers would not be useful for me since I cannot handle one. Would that mean that hammers are not useful tools? If I cannot interpret an EKG, would that mean that EKG instruments are not useful for discovering a the heart health of people? ? If someone does not want to be a physician, does that mean that going to medical school is not useful for those who want to be physicians. You think that for it to be objectively true that medical school is useful for those who want to be physicians that it has to be true that medical school is useful for every one, even for someone who wants to be a plumber? Wherever did you get that idea, and more to the point, however did you get the idea that it was true?

kennethamy wrote:

manored wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

If the banana is frozen, and the target is a finger nail, one banana is the equal of any hammer...

That may be true, for all I know, but then, of course, the banana in question is not frozen, and the target is not a finger nail. So what you say is irrelevant. What is objectively true is the statement that ordinary hammers are more useful for banging in ordinary nails than are ordinary bananas. Obviously, if you change what is said to be objectively true, then what is said to be objectively true may not be so. So what? What you say depends (in part) on what is meant by the words you use, so if you change the meaning you won't be saying the same thing. and what you now say may not be true. But that has nothing to do with what you previously said. If I state that Paris is the capital of France, you may say, "not if you are talking about Paris, Texas". And I would reply, "that's true, so what?".

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

manored wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

If the banana is frozen, and the target is a finger nail, one banana is the equal of any hammer...

That may be true, for all I know, but then, of course, the banana in question is not frozen, and the target is not a finger nail. So what you say is irrelevant. What is objectively true is the statement that ordinary hammers are more useful for banging in ordinary nails than are ordinary bananas. Obviously, if you change what is said to be objectively true, then what is said to be objectively true may not be so. So what? What you say depends (in part) on what is meant by the words you use, so if you change the meaning you won't be saying the same thing. and what you now say may not be true. But that has nothing to do with what you previously said. If I state that Paris is the capital of France, you may say, "not if you are talking about Paris, Texas". And I would reply, "that's true, so what?".

It is not your recognition of the objects involved by of their forms which is not true objectively, but your judgement of them, hammers being useful, and nails being ordinary is subjective as are all such judgements... Speaking as one who has worked on occasion: nails are driven, or hammered, and nails are never ordinary... I have not bought one ordinary nail in my life, and if you understand that Captain Bly became the tyrant of all time because he punished men for stealing nails (which no wooden ship could dare be without) that they then traded for sex- to girls without nails or iron of any sort, and that colonial America burned down its old houses to build new because the nails in them were more valueable than the rest of the house put together, then you can never look at nails the same... I have friend who lost an eye to a miss hit nail... One of the sparks you often see fly from such a badly hit nail buried itself in his eye, and that was that... He will never look at such common nails the same way again....What we take for granted represents a long and arduous history of development.

kennethamy wrote:

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

manored wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

If the banana is frozen, and the target is a finger nail, one banana is the equal of any hammer...

That may be true, for all I know, but then, of course, the banana in question is not frozen, and the target is not a finger nail. So what you say is irrelevant. What is objectively true is the statement that ordinary hammers are more useful for banging in ordinary nails than are ordinary bananas. Obviously, if you change what is said to be objectively true, then what is said to be objectively true may not be so. So what? What you say depends (in part) on what is meant by the words you use, so if you change the meaning you won't be saying the same thing. and what you now say may not be true. But that has nothing to do with what you previously said. If I state that Paris is the capital of France, you may say, "not if you are talking about Paris, Texas". And I would reply, "that's true, so what?".

It is not your recognition of the objects involved by of their forms which is not true objectively, but your judgement of them, hammers being useful, and nails being ordinary is subjective as are all such judgements... Speaking as one who has worked on occasion: nails are driven, or hammered, and nails are never ordinary... I have not bought one ordinary nail in my life, and if you understand that Captain Bly became the tyrant of all time because he punished men for stealing nails (which no wooden ship could dare be without) that they then traded for sex- to girls without nails or iron of any sort, and that colonial America burned down its old houses to build new because the nails in them were more valueable than the rest of the house put together, then you can never look at nails the same... I have friend who lost an eye to a miss hit nail... One of the sparks you often see fly from such a badly hit nail buried itself in his eye, and that was that... He will never look at such common nails the same way again....What we take for granted represents a long and arduous history of development.

but your judgement of them, hammers being useful, and nails being ordinary is subjective as are all such judgements.

Yes. That is what you claim, but you seem to be wrong. And your claiming to be right is no reason to think you are. Is the statement, a spoon is more useful than a knife to eat a cup of broth also "subjective"? To say that a statement is subjective means only that if someone thinks it is true, then it is true. But that is obviously false. As the case I just gave proves. Anyone who thinks that a knife is more useful than a spoon for eating broth is simply wrong (or, of course, he does not know what the term "useful" means).

What is objectively true is the statement that ordinary hammers are more useful for banging in ordinary nails than are ordinary bananas.

kennethamy wrote:

What is objectively true is the statement that ordinary hammers are more useful for banging in ordinary nails than are ordinary bananas.

The thing is, you are assuming several things here, hence why it cannot be objectively true. You are assuming that the judge is a human capable of wielding the hammer and with a healthy mind. You are assuming the banana is not frozen. You are assuming it is a normal nail. You are assuming the gravitational and atmospheric conditions are normal, and on it goes.

Off course, with an analogy as overpowering as hammer versus banana, its hard to see that, because its hard to imagine a situation where the banana would be preferred. But with a not-so-overpowering analogy, such as the rifle versus bow for hunting, or cars versus planes for travelling, it becomes clear.

Isnt whenever a car or a plane is better for travelling dependant on where you are going and from where? And isnt a rifle versus bow dependant of your skill with then? Similarly, hammer versus banana is dependent on several things, such as how frozen the banana is, the material the hammer was made with, etc.

wayne wrote:

I knew something was wrong, just couldn't get my finger on it.

And now you know? If you do, can you say just what it is in a more comprehensible way, but also, if you have any mercy, more briefly? Can you start by saying why you don't think that if you think (as most people do) that the purpose of a watch is to tell you the accurate time when you look st it, that a watch that does that is not more useful than one that does not? Of course, you might not think the purpose of a watch is to do tell you what time it is. Maybe you want to use it as a handy doorstop. But that, of course is something else. That doesn't mean that a useful watch is not one that keeps time. It means that a watch you want to use as a doorstop is not useful if it just keeps time, but does not work well as a doorstop. But that is not subjective either. It is objectively true that if you want a watch for a doorstop, and not to keep accurate time, then a watch that keeps accurate time, but makes a lousy door stop is not useful. What is subjective about that?

kennethamy wrote:

wayne wrote:

I knew something was wrong, just couldn't get my finger on it.

And now you know? If you do, can you say just what it is in a more comprehensible way, but also, if you have any mercy, more briefly? Can you start by saying why you don't think that if you think (as most people do) that the purpose of a watch is to tell you the accurate time when you look st it, that a watch that does that is not more useful than one that does not? Of course, you might not think the purpose of a watch is to do tell you what time it is. Maybe you want to use it as a handy doorstop. But that, of course is something else. That doesn't mean that a useful watch is not one that keeps time. It means that a watch you want to use as a doorstop is not useful if it just keeps time, but does not work well as a doorstop. But that is not subjective either. It is objectively true that if you want a watch for a doorstop, and not to keep accurate time, then a watch that keeps accurate time, but makes a lousy door stop is not useful. What is subjective about that?

What nails? All i have is this hammer and a banana, subject to my feeling of hunger which object is more useful now?

So it cannot be objectively true that London is the capital of Great Britain, because I am assuming that there are capital and countries and cities, and goodness knows what? If a statement cannot be objectively true because there are assumptions then no statement at all can be objectively true. Is that what you are saying.

Of course whether a car or plane is dependent on where you are going. But the statement that you cannot go to Europe from the United States by car so, by default some other way of getting there is better than by car is objectively true. Of course, I am not making the vague statement that traveling by car is better than traveling by plane (etc.). I am making the specific statement that traveling by plane to Europe is better than traveling by car to Europe from the United States. Isn't that objectively true since you cannot travel by car from the United States to Europe?

What you call "subjective" is merely vague. And that has nothing to do with subjectivity or objectivity. It has to do with what it is you are saying.

To go back to my other example, what objection have you to the statement that spoons are more useful than knives for eating soup (but knives are more useful than spoons for carving a roast. You think that is "subjective" too? Have you ever tries using a spoon to carve a roast?

kennethamy wrote:

Maybe its a tiny spoon and a curved knife. Maybe its a rusty knife and a sharp edged spoon.

wayne wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

wayne wrote:

I knew something was wrong, just couldn't get my finger on it.

And now you know? If you do, can you say just what it is in a more comprehensible way, but also, if you have any mercy, more briefly? Can you start by saying why you don't think that if you think (as most people do) that the purpose of a watch is to tell you the accurate time when you look st it, that a watch that does that is not more useful than one that does not? Of course, you might not think the purpose of a watch is to do tell you what time it is. Maybe you want to use it as a handy doorstop. But that, of course is something else. That doesn't mean that a useful watch is not one that keeps time. It means that a watch you want to use as a doorstop is not useful if it just keeps time, but does not work well as a doorstop. But that is not subjective either. It is objectively true that if you want a watch for a doorstop, and not to keep accurate time, then a watch that keeps accurate time, but makes a lousy door stop is not useful. What is subjective about that?

What nails? All i have is this hammer and a banana, subject to my feeling of hunger which object is more useful now?

Are you really asking whether if I am hungry would I be better off eating a banana than a hammer and nails. The answer is, yes. Next question.