This seems to be just an assertion. Particularly, it simply states that argumentation ethics is true. Hoppe started out with something that couldn’t really be interpretated as an assertion of AE, which is why I had to go through and find the equivocation:
More specifically, as long as there is argumentation, there is a mutual recognition of each other’s exclusive control over such resources.
I agree with Mises/Sanchez on morality, as far as I’ve seen.
Unlapped_Dog:
“What we point to in perception, ie, a sensory observation, is assumed to be different than the “objects of reality” which are the way they are even though you aren’t in England to attempt to verify it.”
You know, I think I agree with you. I never claimed our perception of the objects of reality is not tainted by our subjective consciousness. But surely the objects of reality still exist? We may not perceive them aright, but is their existence deniable? I think not.
So you fundamentally agree with me that there is an objective reality tainted by our subjective perception? What AJ denies is that there is an objective reality at all; he thinks perception creates the objects of perception: a circular argument.
This is a nice thing to incorporate into my definition, the fact that existing things can influence other existing things. I sort of neglected to mention that. New definition:
Exist (v.): belonging to the set of sensations that one deems to have practical importance for one’s future actions, and being able to influence other elements of that set.
AJ, do you really think perception creates the objects of perception? Do you deny that the objects of perception are there independently?
I don’t like your definition of ‘exist’.
It seems like it makes sense for me to say that there is a possible world in which a bolder exists, and a man who is not aware of it, and therefore does not deem it any importance gets flattened by it.
Does the second half of the sentance contradict the first? This dude doesnt deem it important, so it doesn’t exist? or are we just exposing that you have an agent relative definition of existance which is not what existance is about. existance makes a statement about the logical possibility of someone else encountering exactly that thing.
e.g. this horse exists in the world, if anyone were to go to this field at this time they would be in its presence
this unicorn that galivants in my imagination does not exist in the external world, if anyone were to go to any field at this time they would not be in its presence… its not in a real field…
If we want, we can probably place physics as a sub-branch of praxeology, the science of human action. I’ve suggested before that mathematics is a sub-branch of praxeology. Some may ask, “Well then, AJ, what isn’t a sub-branch of praxeology?” Perhaps every science is a sub-branch of praxeology. Observing, hypothesizing, theorizing, and concluding - these are all human actions aimed at improving one’s state of affairs (in particular, one’s state of understanding).
Of course the objection will be: All those things are human actions, but they involve physical objects. Well they don’t really, except by “physical objects” we mean our perceptions of physical objects.
Perhaps everything can be subsumed under praxeology. Perhaps that would make everything cleaner. I’ve only thought about this for 10 minutes so far, though.
I agree that the objects are there if “are there”=“exist” and we’re using my definition of exist.
I agree that the objects are there if “are there”=“exist” and we’re using my definition of exist.
If we’re using your definition of exist, then that means you are saying perception creates the objects of perception. As nirgraham demonstrated, that is false. The boulder exists independent of the man’s consciousness and ends up killing him. It is objectively there even though the man didn’t perceive it. That’s why your definition is wrong.
aside: it is amusing that even in imagination we can posit things that in the imagined world exist or do not exist.
For example, when an author imagines a narrative and has his imagined character himself imagine something that isnt there in that world, and other characters that exist in that imagend world really do chastise him for his foolishness etc.
Not if we’re using my definition of “exist,” in which case the word create (“to bring into existence”) takes on a different meaning. No, I don’t think that perceiving something makes it automatically useful as guidance for my actions - after all, I could just be daydreaming that an anvil is falling from overhead.
I don’t think you’ve really considered the implications of my definition on its own terms. I’m not saying you have to accept it, but in order to give my definition a test drive you’ll have to at least set aside your own definition for a moment.
“But surely the objects of reality still exist? We may not perceive them aright, but is their existence deniable? I think not.”
What about hallucinations? My buddy’s grandma talks to little elf people that she sees. Do the elf people exist outside of her imagination?
If you want to remain consistent throughout a dissertation then I think it is crucial to draw this distinction between what we imagine and what it is assumed to represent. Certainly, if I see the hat on the table then I think it’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that this physical object exists. But what about when we start dealing with things we can’t see, like warped spacetime, or black holes, or zero dimensional particles? Are we sure they exist? How could that be if we can’t even visualize these objects? If we can’t visualize them then how could we possibly formulate explanations with them or connect those explanations to the observed evidence?
“So you fundamentally agree with me that there is an objective reality tainted by our subjective perception?”
I don’t know how objective reality connects to subjective perception, or whether there is “truly” a difference, I assume that they are different for the purpose of formulating consistent and rational explanations. So yes I agree in that I assume there is a reality which is not my immediate experience. In the context of the physical sciences I represent it with shapes separated by space.
shape: that which occupies but does not blend with space
space: formlessness, shapelessness, emptiness, nothingness
These may appear circular, but these definitions are descriptions, ie, mere verbal pointers to something which we all have the ability to conceive of. There is even a blind painter who can engage in spatial reasoning and paint objects after having tactile contact with them. This ability seems to be common to humans in general.
Here is the def of existence for the physical sciences I think I’ve settled on then:
existence: that which is assumed to be represented by shape
represent: to be in the likeness of, but not identical to
This is getting amusing. You keep using your definition to “prove” my definition “wrong.” Let me change it to the first person for added clarity:
Exist (v.): belonging to the set of sensations that I deem to have practical importance for my future actions, and being able to influence other elements of that set.
Now of course you will see the boulder and say it exists (if using my definition), because it has practical importance for you (e.g., you might not want me to get killed). Now under my definition, I wouldn’t be able to say the boulder exists overhead unless I knew about it. What sense would it make for me to say “There is a boulder overhead” if I had not seen a boulder overhead? Now of course if you warn me about it, I will move.
You will say “It exists,” but it could be a figment of your imagination. The whole point is that until I deem a boulder to have potential practical importance for my actions (like, “I’d better get out of the way”), it makes no sense for me to say “It exists.”
This is simply a matter of keeping track of who judges what to be important.
You will say “It exists,” but it could be a figment of your imagination.
you can’t say that there is no fact about the existance of anything just because there is a possibility of someone erring in making such a judgement because in so doing you presuppose the possibility of error, i.e. that it might not really exist, well waht you mean error? how can he error in your definition where it belongs to a set of sensation that he deems to have pracitacl importance for his future actions and which he thinks would influence other elements of that set…your definition proves too muchas no-one could ever be wrong about the existance of anything
The real point is that although you cant be expected to ‘say’ that the suprise boulder that kills you existed, in the world in which the boulder killed you, it existed, and this is apart from what you ‘say’ about it. your sayings are irrelevant to existance because existance is not agent-relative, even though an agents awareness of what non-agent relative things there are out there IS agent-relative.
Not “it doesn’t exist,” just “he cannot coherently say it exists” (since he doesn’t deem it important, or at least potentially important, or at least able to influence other things in the set of things he considers important).
Yes, it is agent-relative because all experience is agent-relative, hence all communication is performed from an agent-relative position. That’s really what this discussion has been about. You think you could go ride the unicorn, but I don’t. Now sure it may be that one person has an ill-judged perception that they can ride a unicorn, and will be disappointed. We cannot “know absolutely-objectively-with-BBQ-sauce” that the boulder falling toward Joe is actually going to result in a loss of a good friend, but we can deem it so, and in so doing we accept it as guidance for our actions. Perhaps we will scramble to rescue him.
Definitions don’t prove anything, and there is no such thing as being right and wrong about existence. You can have useful beliefs about existence or un-useful beliefs (ones that end up netting you more pain and less pleasure). To be in “error” is to hold a less-than-useful belief.
“Certainly, if I see the hat on the table then I think it’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that this physical object exists.”
To correct my own statement…You assume that the hat exists and then use your assumptions to explain the observation, ie, light bounces off the hat and hits your retinas. I think it’s reasonable to conclude that this explanation accounts for the observation and reflects what is really happening.
You think you could go ride the unicorn, but I don’t
lol, no, the unicorn is there as a clear example of one that I don’t think I can really ride, since I put it in my imagination. putting it in the imagination and not in existance is saying that its not at all agent neutral but agent relative. in a way in which a particularly existing horse is not. a particular horse that exists has its existance in principle verifiable by all agents.
Now sure it may be that one person has an ill-judged perception that they can ride a unicorn, and will be disappointed
why would they be dissapointed unless there is an agent neutral fact that their agent relative understanding butts up against?
But why should your beliefs ever be unuseful? in common-sense-land beliefs are unuseful because they may not be in good alignement with the way things really are…
I think you have this backwards. It’s not that he is disappointed because he butts up against a “fact,” but that he will afterward call it a fact because his belief led to disappointment. In other words, we give the names “fact,” “exist,” or “real” to things that we decide have the capacity to affect our pain and pleasure, to disappoint or delight us.