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

kennethamy wrote:

We are not talking of imagined spoons, but of spoons. Normal spoons are simply average, run of the mill, spoons. They are not special or defective spoons. They are not rusty or bent. A normal spoon is simply a spoon, and to call it "normal" is to deny that it is in anyway not a standard spoon. "Normal" is not a property of anything. To say of an X that it is a normal X is just to deny that it is, in any way, special or defective.

We arent looking at a specific spoons, pointing at it and saying: "This is the spoon we are talking about". We are just talking about normal spoons, what means that in our minds we form the mental image of a normal spoon.

A spoon that is special to me may not be special to you. Normality is relative.

manored wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

We are not talking of imagined spoons, but of spoons. Normal spoons are simply average, run of the mill, spoons. They are not special or defective spoons. They are not rusty or bent. A normal spoon is simply a spoon, and to call it "normal" is to deny that it is in anyway not a standard spoon. "Normal" is not a property of anything. To say of an X that it is a normal X is just to deny that it is, in any way, special or defective.

We arent looking at a specific spoons, pointing at it and saying: "This is the spoon we are talking about". We are just talking about normal spoons, what means that in our minds we form the mental image of a normal spoon.

A spoon that is special to me may not be special to you. Normality is relative.

Would you know what I meant if I asked you to bring a me a spoon suitable for cutting a roast?

kennethamy wrote:

manored wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

We are not talking of imagined spoons, but of spoons. Normal spoons are simply average, run of the mill, spoons. They are not special or defective spoons. They are not rusty or bent. A normal spoon is simply a spoon, and to call it "normal" is to deny that it is in anyway not a standard spoon. "Normal" is not a property of anything. To say of an X that it is a normal X is just to deny that it is, in any way, special or defective.

We arent looking at a specific spoons, pointing at it and saying: "This is the spoon we are talking about". We are just talking about normal spoons, what means that in our minds we form the mental image of a normal spoon.

A spoon that is special to me may not be special to you. Normality is relative.

Would you know what I meant if I asked you to bring a me a spoon suitable for cutting a roast?

Would you know what I meant if I asked for a roast capable of being cut with a spoon... I'll supply the bread and wine, and you can bring your fool's cap and bells...

You really have no idea what kennethamy would mean if he said something akin to, "Bring me a normal spoon!"? Would you bring him an intricate two-headed spoon shaped like a dinosaur if he asked you this? If normality is so relative, why do you know you would bring him a normal spoon? Though the image that we conjure of a normal spoons isn't identical, I am more than sure it is very close in design.

Would you know what I meant if I asked you to bring a me a spoon suitable for cutting a roast?

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

manored wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

We are not talking of imagined spoons, but of spoons. Normal spoons are simply average, run of the mill, spoons. They are not special or defective spoons. They are not rusty or bent. A normal spoon is simply a spoon, and to call it "normal" is to deny that it is in anyway not a standard spoon. "Normal" is not a property of anything. To say of an X that it is a normal X is just to deny that it is, in any way, special or defective.

We arent looking at a specific spoons, pointing at it and saying: "This is the spoon we are talking about". We are just talking about normal spoons, what means that in our minds we form the mental image of a normal spoon.

A spoon that is special to me may not be special to you. Normality is relative.

Would you know what I meant if I asked you to bring a me a spoon suitable for cutting a roast?

Would you know what I meant if I asked for a roast capable of being cut with a spoon... I'll supply the bread and wine, and you can bring your fool's cap and bells...

I would indeed know what you meant by that. I would simply tell you that there is no such roast. But there are roasts capable of being cut with a knife (a sharp knife). What (if anything) is your point?

Kenny just is not conscious of all the subjective judgements common to speach... There are normal spoons, perhaps, but only abnormal philosophers.

Indeed it is very close in design, but that is not true for all people. Given an infinite number of persons in an infinite number of situations, you would certainly find among then one who though that a normal spoon was two-headed and dinosaur shaped. Even if the probabilities are infinitesimal, its still not impossible for there to be someone whose concept of a normal spoon is different enough to make it usefull at carving a roast, or useless at eating soup.

Take the example of the bow versus rifle for hunting. Its entirely dependent of the user's skill with each, but we know most people would find the rifle more useful. Rifle versus bow and knife versus spoon are the same kind of problem, with only the probabilities changed.

Off course. You would, most likely, be asking for a spoon that performed well then used as a roast-cutting tool. Whenever such a spoon was avaible on the market, existed, or would need to be fabricated, is another story.

What if the spoon has really sharp edges

What if the spoon has really sharp edges

GoshisDead wrote:

What if the spoon has really sharp edges

A.) Then it wouldn't be normal spoon, since normal spoons have smooth edges to allow people to eat food with them. Imagine someone giving you a spoon with sharp edges to eat a bowl of soup with.

B.) A knife would still be better for cutting roastings, since the curvature of the spoon would make it almost useless for cutting large pieces of meat into thin, straight pieces/filets.

No matter how you cut it, the knife and spoon have different functions, and we use them to assist in different tasks.

None of this is something I made up. It is straight out of Aristotle's Ethics.

kennethamy wrote:

None of this is something I made up. It is straight out of Aristotle's Ethics.

And none of that is something anyone should have to make up, for most of it is common sense. It's only these relativists that try to convolute the matter.

Zetherin wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

None of this is something I made up. It is straight out of Aristotle's Ethics.

And none of that is something anyone should have to make up, for most of it is common sense. It's only these relativists that try to convolute the matter.

But it is organized commonsense, and someone has to do the organizing. I don't think the claim they make is relativism so much as it is subjectivism. They think that it is up to the individual whether a spoon is useful or not, so that if the individual thinks it is useful it is, and if not, then not. But, as we now see, that is not true, since spoons are tools that perform a function, and whether they perform that function or not is an objective, not subjective matter. Which is to say, it is not up to any particular individual whether a particular spoon is performing the function of a spoon or not, Nor is it up to any particular individual whether the spoon performs that function well, and so is "good at being a spoon". Nor is it up to any particular individual whether the spoon has the qualities required of a spoon to be good at being a spoon, and therefore, being a good spoon.

kennethamy wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

None of this is something I made up. It is straight out of Aristotle's Ethics.

And none of that is something anyone should have to make up, for most of it is common sense. It's only these relativists that try to convolute the matter.

But it is organized commonsense, and someone has to do the organizing. I don't think the claim they make is relativism so much as it is subjectivism. They think that it is up to the individual whether a spoon is useful or not, so that if the individual thinks it is useful it is, and if not, then not. But, as we now see, that is not true, since spoons are tools that perform a function, and whether they perform that function or not is an objective, not subjective matter. Which is to say, it is not up to any particular individual whether a particular spoon is performing the function of a spoon or not, Nor is it up to any particular individual whether the spoon performs that function well, and so is "good at being a spoon". Nor is it up to any particular individual whether the spoon has the qualities required of a spoon to be good at being a spoon, and therefore, being a good spoon.

Both relatavistic and subjective... Subjective and objective are not absolutes, but are like North and South, opposites in one sense, but directions in others... Human judgements are always going to be somewhat objective even when mostly subjective, and never sbsolute, but relatively more or less than the other...

Zetherin wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

None of this is something I made up. It is straight out of Aristotle's Ethics.

And none of that is something anyone should have to make up, for most of it is common sense. It's only these relativists that try to convolute the matter.

But it is organized commonsense, and someone has to do the organizing. I don't think the claim they make is relativism so much as it is subjectivism. They think that it is up to the individual whether a spoon is useful or not, so that if the individual thinks it is useful it is, and if not, then not. But, as we now see, that is not true, since spoons are tools that perform a function, and whether they perform that function or not is an objective, not subjective matter. Which is to say, it is not up to any particular individual whether a particular spoon is performing the function of a spoon or not, Nor is it up to any particular individual whether the spoon performs that function well, and so is "good at being a spoon". Nor is it up to any particular individual whether the spoon has the qualities required of a spoon to be good at being a spoon, and therefore, being a good spoon.

Fido wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

None of this is something I made up. It is straight out of Aristotle's Ethics.

And none of that is something anyone should have to make up, for most of it is common sense. It's only these relativists that try to convolute the matter.

But it is organized commonsense, and someone has to do the organizing. I don't think the claim they make is relativism so much as it is subjectivism. They think that it is up to the individual whether a spoon is useful or not, so that if the individual thinks it is useful it is, and if not, then not. But, as we now see, that is not true, since spoons are tools that perform a function, and whether they perform that function or not is an objective, not subjective matter. Which is to say, it is not up to any particular individual whether a particular spoon is performing the function of a spoon or not, Nor is it up to any particular individual whether the spoon performs that function well, and so is "good at being a spoon". Nor is it up to any particular individual whether the spoon has the qualities required of a spoon to be good at being a spoon, and therefore, being a good spoon.

Both relatavistic and subjective... Subjective and objective are not absolutes, but are like North and South, opposites in one sense, but directions in others... Human judgements are always going to be somewhat objective even when mostly subjective, and never sbsolute, but relatively more or less than the other...

Suppose I am next to a table, and I say, "the table is to my left". Then I face the other way and say, "the table is to my right". What I said was in no way subjective. Whether the table is to my right or to my left is entirely objective. But whether the table is to my right or to my left is clearly relative, relative to the direction I am facing. Now. I have no idea what you mean by saying that subjective and relative are not "absolute". But one thing is certainly clear. That is whether the table is to my left, or to my right.

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...

Chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla is a subjective judgment. But knives are more useful than spoons to cut meat (or indeed anything) is an objective judgment. It can be objectively tested. Have a group of people cut a roast with knives, and another with spoons. Which do you think will do a better job?

You're aware that people can be wrong, right? If someone thought that a normal spoon was a spoon shaped like a two-headed dinosaur, they would be wrong. What a normal spoon is, and what a normal spoon are used for, are not subjective or relative things. We can't just go around redefining things to suit our liking.

It's not about user's skill. What in the hell are you talking about? A sharp knife is much more capable of cutting through a roast than a spoon, no matter how talented someone is with a spoon. Why do you think lumberjacks use axes instead of butterknives to cut down trees? Could it be because axes are designed such that they are more capable for hacking into wood?

If someone asked for a spoon to cut a roast, you would know that they did not know much about cutlery, and then, given your manners, you would offer them a ******* knife. That's because you know that the knife is more capable of cutting.

You would cut yourself. A knife is useful partly just because it has a handle that is not sharp.

And none of that is something anyone should have to make up, for most of it is common sense. It's only these relativists that try to convolute the matter.

But it is organized commonsense, and someone has to do the organizing. I don't think the claim they make is relativism so much as it is subjectivism. They think that it is up to the individual whether a spoon is useful or not, so that if the individual thinks it is useful it is, and if not, then not. But, as we now see, that is not true, since spoons are tools that perform a function, and whether they perform that function or not is an objective, not subjective matter. Which is to say, it is not up to any particular individual whether a particular spoon is performing the function of a spoon or not, Nor is it up to any particular individual whether the spoon performs that function well, and so is "good at being a spoon". Nor is it up to any particular individual whether the spoon has the qualities required of a spoon to be good at being a spoon, and therefore, being a good spoon.