PDA

View Full Version : Contradiction's Quest



Moody
Tuesday, December 30th, 2003, 06:16 PM
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
I am large, I contain multitudes.
[Whitman, 'Song of Myself'.]

The path up and down is one and the same. [Heraclitus, B60]

1
Hail! Our Philosophy demands that we aspire to the kind of awesome magnificance of history's Great and Noble Aryan thinkers.
Their Superhumanity is as a vast ocean, carrying all kinds of contradictions within it; on this surging River of Becoming we stamp out Thorshammer of Being.

2
Lo!
Our 'critics' call our Philosophy of Power, Domination, Blood/Soil and Leadership 'contadictory' (?!?) ... as this were a slight!
Because of their narrow, reductionist materialism, - 'contradiction' isn't 'allowed'!
Ha!
We ROAR with Homeric laughter at these timid, logic-chopping ones!

3
Sieg!
OUR Philosophical heritage is straightforward enough; it has the noble aristocrat Herclitus as its Founder, while Nietzsche is our 'modern'.
Both these men were bitter enemies of those who seek to impose sterile 'laws of logic' on thinking itself, such Aristotle's prissy 'law of non-contradiction';
"Law of non-contradiction: in classical logic, the principle that contradictaries cannot be true together and cannot be false together.
In modern logic, the principle that no statement of the form (p and not-p) can be true".
[Dictionary of Philosophy, Penguin]

Pah!
Aristotle, the first formulator of this 'law' naturally took Heraclitus to be his opposite.

4
Thurisaz!
Heraclitus's most famous utterance bucks the paltry laws of Aristotelian logic;
"We step and do not step into the same rivers, we are and we are not". [Heraclitus, B49a]


This is our kind of Philosophy - Timeless, Terse, and Lapidary; etched on the Megaliths of Etermity ... And how we Love Eternity!

And listen to Heraclitus as he evokes the sUperhuman: "Immortals are mortals, mortals immortals: living their death, dying their life". [Heraclitus, B62]

Yes, we are Aryan men of a million contradictions - men of Strength per se by that very token! We are gods among men, a Caste ready to Rule the Sterile Slaves of Logic. Bend Thy knee!

Moody
Wednesday, December 31st, 2003, 07:44 PM
This spirit of Contradiction seen in the Noble Hellene Heraclitus is also found in the Germanic mind.
We see that Boehme [1575-1624] said that all things are both Yes and No.
And Novalis, who did much to revive Boehme's work wrote;

"It is perhaps the highest task of the higher logic to annihilate the law of contradiction".

We met this 'law' of Aristotle's in my first post in this thread - we annihilate such life-denying dogmas as this pretended forbidding of contradiction!

"Kant held that in reasoning about the world as a whole we inevitably fall into contradictions or 'antinomies'".
[Dictionary of Philosophy]

Modern philosophy has already begun to hack away at the taboo of contradiction;

"Hegel argued that such contradictions are far more widespead and significant than Kant believed. Any finite thought or conception, taken in isolation, involves a contradiction ...
Thinking ... has an impulse to overcome the contradiction. It often attempts to do so, initially, by resorting to an infinite regress ..."
[ib.,]

So, for Hegel;

"Finite things, like finite thoughts, involve Contradictions.
Just as finite thoughts have an impulse to overcome Contradiction, and thus move on to other thoughts, so finite things have such an impulse that leads them to move and change".
[ib.,]


It was this recognition of the Necessity of Contradiction that led, of course, to Hegel's famous dialectic;
Everything contains its own Contradiction, its thesis and antithesis.
In an attempt to over-come this Contradiction a synthesis of thesis and antithesis is created; a third way emerges.

"For Hegel, thought proceeds by successively revealing and overcoming contradictions ..."
[ib.,]

Quantum theory will later support this will-to-contradiction.


Thus another thing, a third-thing, is always created which itself will immediately produce its own Contradiction and so on, and the Cycle will continue!

Contradiction is the Spur of our Dynamic Philosophy of Flux, which flows from the stream of Heraclitus over the course of millennia and then flourishes in Germany as described, and leads onto Nietzschean Philosophy and Quantum Theory.

Be not afraid of contradiction!

Jack
Thursday, January 1st, 2004, 11:29 AM
A = A, A does not equal non-A is a bastardisation of Aristotle's law of non contradiction.

"It is impossible for the same thing at the same time to belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect."

First, man's intelligence (i.e. analytical capacity) varies from individual to individual - the smarter individual will see more detail to A than one intellectually retarded - the retard will see a 'different' A. Second, the quality of man's senses also vary (e.g. someone partially deaf will hear song A differently than a man with perfect hearing (representative realism). Third, man quite often chooses to ignore/distort information that does not conform with his own objectives. Fourth, to take the A=A proposition in the most refined sense, A=A so long as time is frozen in which case A changes to post-A. The identity known as 'A' remains itself but no longer corresponds with physical reality - the concept and the real are two different but closely related things.

Moody
Thursday, January 1st, 2004, 08:14 PM
"A = A, A does not equal non-A is a bastardisation of Aristotle's law of non contradiction.

Moody; Than why did you write in the very first post of your thread entitled 'Rationalism to Nihilism to Faith' [the thread meant to announce your 'new dawn'!] that;
"The Law of Non-Contradiction [A is A; A is not non-A]" ?
(8th 'paragraph' down)
As you well know, this is the accepted logical form of the Law [better - (p and not-p) ], and that Aristotle was, of course, the pioneer of Logic.
(p and not-p) is a way of writing the law concisely, rather than the hopelessly turgid and confused paragraph that you provide in the post to which this is a reply, which I won't bother to quote back in full.

Are you now back-peddling from your previously simplistic position that the law of non-contradiction must always be true?

Your previously dogmatic stance has EASILY been DESTROYED.

Already you begin to crumble.

I am here, - like Heraclitus, Hegel, Nietzsche and Heisenberg before me, - to teach you all the Way of Contradiction - heed me my brethren!

Jack
Friday, January 2nd, 2004, 02:58 AM
Jack "A = A, A does not equal non-A is a bastardisation of Aristotle's law of non contradiction.

Moody; Than why did you write in the very first post of your thread entitled 'Rationalism to Nihilism to Faith' [the thread meant to announce your 'new dawn'!] that;
"The Law of Non-Contradiction [A is A; A is not non-A]" ?
(8th 'paragraph' down)

That's a much simplified version of the paragraph of Aristotle which I've quoted.


As you well know, this is the accepted logical form of the Law [better - (p and not-p) ], and that Aristotle was, of course, the pioneer of Logic.
(p and not-p) is a way of writing the law concisely, rather than the hopelessly turgid and confused paragraph that you provide in the post to which this is a reply, which I won't bother to quote back in full.

To reject the Law of Non-Contradiction is to believe that there are no particular characteristics which can be used to distinguish one object from another, to believe the world is a haze.


Are you now back-peddling from your previously simplistic position that the law of non-contradiction must always be true?

No.


Your previously dogmatic stance has EASILY been DESTROYED.

How? I see a handful of quotes, no reasoning or proof.


Already you begin to crumble.

The world does not exist in your head Moody. I have not begun to crumble.


I am here, - like Heraclitus, Hegel, Nietzsche and Heisenberg before me, - to teach you all the Way of Contradiction - heed me my brethren!

Ha. Show us this 'way', and show us how it can be upheld.

Moody
Friday, January 2nd, 2004, 06:25 PM
"To reject the Law of Non-Contradiction is to believe that there are no particular characteristics which can be used to distinguish one object from another, to believe the world is a haze".

Moody; Not so; the Law is a logical dogma that does not accord with experience. It is just a way of limiting discourse to make things simpler.

Your constant repetition of the fear of a "haze" just refers to your own short-comings.
The fact that you view the world in such a static and limited sense allows you to believe that there are 'no contradictions'.

Those of a broader mind and experience know that life IS contradiction.
As I have demonstrated there is a whole tradition of philosophising which goes back at least to Heraclitus which actually rejects the Law of non-Contradiction.
Not only that, but modern post-Quantum scientific thought actually supports this rejection of the Law.

Read the work of Heraclitus and look at the dialectic of Hegel [ I have given some essentials in my first two posts] first.

You all need to do this to prepare for the development of my Way of Contradiction; you might also turn to the whole culture of Romanticism and Neoromanticism to acquire an understanding of this out-look in general terms.

Only by rejecting the taboo against Contradiction can greatness and superhumanity be accomplished.
As Nietzsche said in his Zarathustra, one must have "chaos in one to give birth to a dancing star".

I am that Dancing Star.

Jack
Saturday, January 3rd, 2004, 05:39 AM
Jack; "To reject the Law of Non-Contradiction is to believe that there are no particular characteristics which can be used to distinguish one object from another, to believe the world is a haze".

Moody; Not so; the Law is a logical dogma that does not accord with experience.

Yes it does.


It is just a way of limiting discourse to make things simpler.

The world is understandable.


Your constant repetition of the fear of a "haze" just refers to your own short-comings.

I do not 'fear' haze, but I know that A is A.


The fact that you view the world in such a static and limited sense allows you to believe that there are 'no contradictions'.

'Static'? Where did I say the world was static?


Those of a broader mind and experience know that life IS contradiction.

Then one begins to wonder why you object to another's posts when he contradicts himself...


As I have demonstrated there is a whole tradition of philosophising which goes back at least to Heraclitus which actually rejects the Law of non-Contradiction.
Not only that, but modern post-Quantum scientific thought actually supports this rejection of the Law.

'Post Quantum' now? The rules of Quantum Physics are still being worked out and no, the Law has not been refuted, whatever you wish to believe, and it will not be.


Read the work of Heraclitus and look at the dialectic of Hegel [ I have given some essentials in my first two posts] first.

Very rough essentials I might add. I've read the collected wisdom of Heraclites (I have a copy on the shelf behind me) and I've read about Hegel's dialectic outside of this forum (if you'd read my post on idealism you'd know that - http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=33330)


You all need to do this to prepare for the development of my Way of Contradiction; you might also turn to the whole culture of Romanticism and Neoromanticism to acquire an understanding of this out-look in general terms.

Go ahead, show your Way of Contradiction.


Only by rejecting the taboo against Contradiction can greatness and superhumanity be accomplished.

Here I disagree but I encourage you to explain how.


As Nietzsche said in his Zarathustra, one must have "chaos in one to give birth to a dancing star".

I am that Dancing Star.

Arrogance is considered the mark of a failed man according to Aryan ethics.

Moody
Saturday, January 3rd, 2004, 05:15 PM
A=A is the last refuge of the truly trivial.

The trivial ones who cannot countenance contradiction, and have no sense of humour [which is born of life's contradiction].
Most of all, they are without that great mark of higher culture, Irony.

Our philosophy, stretching as it does from Heraclitus to Nietzsche is rich in irony - 'we are large, we contain multitiudes'.
Thus Spake the Dancing Star.

Only in us is Progress made - we are the inventors of the Wheel, after all.

Let us lok at Quantum.

Our outlook is very much a 'third possibility'. The naural triads of Aryan culture - three castes, three states of being, becoming and passing-away. Why, even a 'tribe' means literally a 'third'.

The third thing always goes beyond the dualistic A or non-A of classical logic.
Indeed, this classical logic actually states that 'tertium non datur' [i.e., 'there is no third thing'].

According to this dogma, two alternatives exhaust what is possible (!)

Not so;

"In quantum theory we have to admit that there are other possibilities which are in a strange way mixtures of the two former possibilities".
[W. Heisenberg, 'Physics and Philosophy', 1958]

Quantum Theory [QT] reasserts our ancient Aryan Triad.

The great Werner Heisenberg [1901-1976] put forward his Uncertainty Principle in 1927. He was director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Physics in Berlin from 1941 on, and after WWII he organised the Max Planck Institute in Berlin.

"It is especially one fundamental principle of classical logic which seems to require modification. In classical logic it is assumed that, if a statement has any meaning at all, either the statement or the negation of the statement must be correct.
Of 'here is a table' or 'here is not a table', either the first or the second statement must be correct.
'Tertium non datur', a third possibility does not exist ....
In QT this law 'tertium non datur' is to be modified ..."
[ib.,]

Here Heisenberg attacks the so-called ban on contradiction in classical logic.

"One may distinguish various levels of language.
One level refers to objects - for instance, to the atoms or the electrons.
A second level refers to statements about objects.
A third level refers to statements about statements about objects etc.,
It would then be possible to have different logical patterns at the different levels ...
Classical logic may be in a similar manner 'a priori' [i.e., 'from what is earlier'] to Quantum logic, as classical physics is to QT..."

To deny these possibilities is to live in the intellectual Stone Age.
As the renowned modern cosmologist says;

"Most Quantum Cosmologists ... accept the full range of Quantum alternatives as actually existing realities. That is, one would, for example, assert an existence of two Universes ..."
[Paul Davies, Intro to Heisenberg]

Clearly this is an Aryan way [think of the twin sun theory of the ancient Aryans], and doesn't stop there, even going on to;

"Postulating an infinity of co-existing parallel worlds, or realities ..."
[ib.,]

This is a feature of all Aryan thought - it is polythesistic, not monotheist; it is multi-dimensional not one-dimensional. Whether we look at our mythology, our philosophy, our art or our science, we see that the Aryan way is the Way of Contradiction.

Jack
Sunday, January 4th, 2004, 09:14 AM
Answer the question. How can a stone be a stone and not be a stone at the same time in the same respect.

Moody
Monday, January 5th, 2004, 05:50 PM
Nietzsche cooly eviscerates Aristotle's hated 'law' of non-contradiction [LONC], which states that something, 'A', cannot both be 'A' and 'non-A' at the same time!

Nietzsche gets straight to the nub when he says that this 'law' is due to the limitations of its adherents;

"This [LONC] is a subjective empirical law, not the expression of any 'necessity', but only of an inability.
If according to Aristotle, the LONC is the most certain of all principles, if it is the ultimate and most basic, upon which every demonstrative proof rests, if the principle of every axiom lies in it; then one should consider all the more rigorously what PRESUPPOSITIONS already lie at the bottom of it...
In short, the question remains open: are the axioms of logic adequate to reality or are they a means and measure for us to CREATE reality, the concept 'reality', for ourselves? - To affirm the former one would, as already said, have to have a previous knowledge of being - which is certainly not the case.
The proposition [LONC] therefore contains no CRITERION OF TRUTH, but an IMPERATIVE concerning that which SHOULD count as true."
[Nietzsche, WTP 516]

Ha!
This 'law' tries to make its limited observation, its 'is', into an 'ought', even though these same logicians consider this to be another 'sin'!
Oh how they ... contradict themselves.

As usual, we see that their logic is based on the fallacy that there are identical things and static one-dimensional states of being in the world.

"Supposing there were no self-identical 'A', such as is supposed by every proposition of logic (and of mathematics), and the 'A' were already mere appearance, then logic would have a merely apparent world as its condition.
In fact, we believe in this proposition under the influence of ceaseless experience which seems continually to confirm it.
The 'thing' - that is the real substratum of 'A'; OUR BELIEF IN THINGS is the precondition of our belief in logic".
[IB.,]

Here, Nietzsche prefigures Quantum Theory: compare Nietzsche with the following;

"How, asks Heisenberg, can we speak about atoms and the like if their existence is so shadowy?"
[Paul Davies]

Nietzsche was arguing that of atoms long before this [see also his references to Boscovich in Beyond Good and Evil, 1886];

"The A of logic is, like the atom, a reconstruction of the thing - If we do not grasp this, but make of logic a criterion of true being, we are on the way to positing as realities all those hypostases: substance, attribute, object, subject, action etc., ( note 'to hypostastise is to regard or treat something that is not a 'thing' or an object as if it were one'); that is, to conceiving a metaphysical world, that is, a 'real world' - THIS, HOWEVER, IS THE APPARENT WORLD ONCE MORE -"
[Nietzsche, ib.,]

And so,

"In short, logic does not doubt its ability to assert something about the true-in-itself [namely, that it CANNOT have opposite attributes]".
[ib.,]

Nietzsche is at his destructive best here;

"Here reigns the coarse sensualistic prejudice that sensations teach us truths about things - that I cannot say at the same time of one and the same thing that it is hard and that it is soft. [The instructive proof 'I cannot have two opposite sensations at the same time' - quite coarse and false]".
[ib.,]

Coarse is right - go kick that stone!

"The conceptual ban on contradiction proceeds from the belief that we are ABLE to form concepts, that the concept not only designates the essence of a thing but COMPREHENDS it - In fact, logic [like geometry and arithmetic] applies only to fictitious entities that we have created.
Logic is the attempt to comprehend the actual world by means of a scheme of being posited by oursleves; more correctly, to make it formulatable and calculable for us -".
[ib.,]

Moody
Thursday, January 15th, 2004, 07:26 PM
As this thread has dried-up somewhat, I just want to add some footnotes from my 'Dictionary of Philosophy' [Mautner] to add some weight to the thread's position;

The first is on something called 'dialethic'.
This is from the Greek word 'aletheia', meaning 'truth', while the prefix 'dia-' means 'through';

"DIALETHISM: The view that contradictions may be true".

"DIALETHIC LOGIC: Systems of formal logic whcih allow for the some contradiction being true, or which allow for some propositions to be both true and false.
Such systems may or may not contain the law of non-contradiction".

This relates to 'paraconsistence' [- the prefix 'para-' means 'beyond' in this case];

"PARACONSISTENT LOGIC: ... provides the basis for theories that are inconsistent but non-trivial; that is, a contradiction may, in a paraconsistent system, be derivable from a set of statements without the set being trivial in the sense that any statement is derivable ..."

As I introduced Quantum theory in my argument, I should mention that this too has its own logic;

"QUANTUM LOGIC; A logical system that differs from the ordinary or 'classical logic' ..."

We have learnt from this thread what that difference is!

Jack
Saturday, January 17th, 2004, 04:01 AM
Interesting. Dialethism/dialethic logic reminds me of Hegelianism, though I've only found two instances where Hegelian logic 'works' (even so, the law of non-contradiction holds). I still follow the law of non-contradiction :)

Moody
Sunday, January 18th, 2004, 04:19 PM
"I still follow the law of non-contradiction".

Moody; 'Following' is not enough in philosophy; you must be able to muster some reasons/arguments/ideas etc.,.
Just repeating 'I follow the law of non-contradiction' endlessly doesn't actually get you anywhere.
As I have shown, you have contradicted yourself more than anyone else on this forum!
I accept that you could be more than one person posting under one name(s) - that would at least explain some things here.
Anyway, you continually fall into contradiction when attempting to make arguments which go beyond stubborn statements [see the thread called "Philosophy of 'the Human?'"].
This philosophy which embraces contradiction as a fact of life stretches, as I have said, from the Presocratics to Nietzsche and beyond into quantum theory. In the field of logic we have, as I indicate, such things as dialethics and paraconsistency.

Jack
Sunday, January 18th, 2004, 11:07 PM
Jack; "I still follow the law of non-contradiction".

Moody; 'Following' is not enough in philosophy; you must be able to muster some reasons/arguments/ideas etc.,.

It's self evident.


Just repeating 'I follow the law of non-contradiction' endlessly doesn't actually get you anywhere.

Neither will brandishing quotes from Quantum Physics textbooks without showing how the law of non-contradiction is violated.


As I have shown, you have contradicted yourself more than anyone else on this forum!

Have I?


I accept that you could be more than one person posting under one name(s) - that would at least explain some things here.

And that would explain everything, and the law of non-contradiction would hold. There are other possible explanations.


Anyway, you continually fall into contradiction when attempting to make arguments which go beyond stubborn statements [see the thread called "Philosophy of 'the Human?'"].

I have not contradicted myself in that thread.


This philosophy which embraces contradiction as a fact of life stretches, as I have said, from the Presocratics to Nietzsche and beyond into quantum theory. In the field of logic we have, as I indicate, such things as dialethics and paraconsistency.

Go ahead and outline the rules and laws of these logic. I might even be using them without knowing it.

Moody
Monday, January 19th, 2004, 05:42 PM
"show how the law of non-contradiction is violated in [Quantum Theory]".

Moody; "Bohr's 'principle of complementarity' recognises the essential ambiguity inherent in quantum systems, that the same system can display apparently contradictory properties.
An electron can behave as a wave and as a particle, for example".
[Davies ib.,]
The point is that non-contradiction only works at the coarse [as Nietzsche said] and trivial level;
"Two sorts of truth: trivialities, where opposites are obviously absurd, and profound truths, recognised by the fact that the opposite is also a profound truth". [Bohr]

To hold Objectivism AND Relativism at the same time, as you do, is deeply Contradictory.

Jack
Tuesday, January 20th, 2004, 04:04 AM
To hold Objectivism AND Relativism at the same time, as you do, is deeply Contradictory.

Why is that so?

Moody
Tuesday, January 20th, 2004, 07:18 PM
Why are Objectivism and Relativism at odds with one another?
Surely, knowledge of what these doctrines entail will answer that question easily enough!

I just clicked on the Ayn Rand 'Objectivist Centre', and what do I find?
The following is almost a random quote from that source;

"Objectivism stands against all forms of metaphysical Relativism".

There you have it.

Of course, I expect you to now give perverse definitions of Objectivism and Relativism to somehow marry the two!

To avoid that, let us go to the horse's mouth, and see what Rand says of Objectivism in a nutshell;

"Basic doctrine of Objectivism:
1) Reality as an objective absolute - facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2) Reason is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3) Man - every man - is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others ...
4) The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism ..."
[Rand 1962]

As point 4) makes clear, this Objectivism is really more of an ideology than a philosophy, so that 1) - 3) are really a means to further the ends of 4).
The statements are all far too dogmatic to be accorded the title philosophy and to stand in the same company as the great Greek and German philosophers who are often mentioned here.
Point 1) is really the basic statement of Objectivism, and is an obvious denial of a Relativist stance and therefore completely incompatible with Relativism.
Point 2) is stupidly one-dimensional, and 3) caricatures Kant.

Anyway, by any measure, Objectivism and Relativism can be adhered to by one person at one and the same time, only in a great celebration of self-contradiction.

Jack
Wednesday, January 21st, 2004, 01:47 AM
Ok, I'll explain.

I am a value-relativist, which means I am objective nihilist (nothing is of absolute importance at all), and a personal perspectivist. All 'value' (i.e. importance placed on something) is subjective. My standards of value are grounded in my own instincts, funneled by my own mind into concepts - I have no objections to this. My mind is pragmatic - what works, what doesn't, in any given situation. This coincides fine with Objectivism so far. I do believe the objective world exists, and I do believe the law of non-contradiction is true. I can hold relativism and objectivism at the same time because Objectivist ethics - points 3 and 4 of your outline of Objectivism - is based on consequentialism (if I initiate force against someone else, apply the rule, and they can do it to me), which is all well and good, but I'm not an essentialist.

Moody
Saturday, January 31st, 2004, 05:21 PM
"I am a value-relativist, which means I am objective nihilist (nothing is of absolute importance at all), and a personal perspectivist".

Moody; Contradiction - you imply that your 'personal perspective' is of absolute importance to you [you also call yourself an Egoist elsewhere].


"All 'value' (i.e. importance placed on something) is subjective. My standards of value are grounded in my own instincts, funneled by my own mind into concepts".

Yes, this is Egoism; you give yourself [as 'subject'], paramount and unique importance.


"My mind is pragmatic - what works, what doesn't, in any given situation".

You place 'what works' for you and you only as an absolute value - you have described a subjectivism, not an objectivism.


"I do believe the objective world exists, and I do believe the law of non-contradiction is true".

This contradicts your earlier contention that all is subjective, and only the subjective has value.
Now you are giving value to the objective - which is it?
Only Subject = value or Only Objective = value?

Jack
Sunday, February 1st, 2004, 07:04 AM
Moody; Contradiction - you imply that your 'personal perspective' is of absolute importance to you [you also call yourself an Egoist elsewhere].

It cannot be otherwise. My values are dependent on me as the evaluator, but those things that I value exist independently of me. Anything which I view as important I recognise that, independent of my own standards, it's worthless, because all standards are subjectively held.


Moody; Yes, this is Egoism; you give yourself [as 'subject'], paramount and unique importance.

Yes, I give myself unique importance.


Moody; You place 'what works' for you and you only as an absolute value - you have described a subjectivism, not an objectivism.

What is it that you define as objectivism?


Moody; This contradicts your earlier contention that all is subjective, and only the subjective has value.

Where did I say reality is subjective, or subscribe to solipsism?

Ok, I'll put it simply: If I close my eyes, the world is still there, whether I can see it or not, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


Now you are giving value to the objective - which is it?

Both, no contradiction. The world exists and it is what I have to work with, I have my own motivations and that is why I work with it.


Only Subject = value or Only Objective = value?

The subject gives the object importance, the object exists regardless of whether the subject percieves it or not.

Moody
Sunday, February 1st, 2004, 04:51 PM
"All standards are subjectively held".

Moody; This suggests [in the use of the word 'all'] that there are no OBJECTIVE standards.


"Where did I say reality is subjective, or subscribe to solipsism?"

You stated that ALL VALUES/ STANDARDS are subjective.


"The subject gives the object importance, the object exists regardless of whether the subject percieves it or not".

You are now stating that the Object is a standard and has value [it exists independently/ self-sufficiently as a thing in itself], thereby contradicting your earlier statement that ALL standards and values are subjective.

Jack
Monday, February 2nd, 2004, 07:13 AM
Jack; "All standards are subjectively held".

Moody; This suggests [in the use of the word 'all'] that there are no OBJECTIVE standards.

Perhaps I'm using the wrong language. All standards are held by agents, meaning human beings. Seperate from the consciousness of human beings, evaluations do not exist.


Jack; "Where did I say reality is subjective, or subscribe to solipsism?"

Moody; You stated that ALL VALUES/ STANDARDS are subjective.

So where exactly am I messing up?


Jack; "The subject gives the object importance, the object exists regardless of whether the subject percieves it or not".

Moody; You are now stating that the Object is a standard and has value [it exists independently/ self-sufficiently as a thing in itself], thereby contradicting your earlier statement that ALL standards and values are subjective.

Ok. Example: I do not care about your mother, you do. She is not, in herself, worth anything, you have a sentimental evaluation of her, gives her importance in your eyes. She only matters to those who view her as important in one way or another. Does that make sense?

Moody
Monday, February 2nd, 2004, 07:52 PM
I would suggest that you are positing the Object as a Necessity.

Therefore the Object has a profound and absolute Value, [i.e., its Necessity].

This Object is the prime Standard and fundamental Value of your approach.

Therefore, you cannot contend at the same time that ALL Value and Standards are subjective.

In comparison to the transient and relativist subjectism you adhere to, the Object's Necessity is far more powerful and fundamental - it DECIMATES your subjectivism.

Jack
Tuesday, February 3rd, 2004, 07:22 AM
How so, and where did that argument come from?

Moody
Tuesday, February 3rd, 2004, 06:38 PM
We could go further and use the law of non-contradiction [LNC].

If an object [O] only derives its value [V] from a transient subject [S], then it breaks the law of non-contradiction.

So, O=Good according to S,
But O=Bad according to S.

This contravenes the LNC.

Likewise, it seems that for Ss to posit Vs, then Os MUST exist.

Therefore S and V are totally DEPENDENT on O.

O is therefore the absolute standard.

O is also the absolute V, and all Vs must reside in O [unless we break the LNC].