And just how do you think I retreated (“preatty [sic] quick” or not)? I haven’t retreated in the slightest.
Don’t worry, I plan on responding to the rest of your post soon enough.
Meh, don’t bother.
I recommend that the “viewer at home” make up his own mind.
Now then, there may be no point to things objectively speaking, but that in no way means we can’t impute points (which are necessarily subjective) to things. I consider it fallacious in the extreme to believe otherwise.
To be honest, I assumed that you would know what I meant. And I think you did know, so your attempt to “turn the tables around on me” is entirely moot.
Providing examples with no explanation behind them as to how they support your point (which includes how they connect together) is vague IMHO. In other words, I consider it bad form to expect your opponent to connect the dots, especially when the dots appear miles apart to him, and especially when he asks for more clarification/explanation.
Too late.
A bit of a derail but since it was mentioned in the OP, why is DC making one of their superhero characters gay “bad news”?
Obviously gay people are un-American.
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
Now then, there may be no point to things objectively speaking, but that in no way means we can’t impute points (which are necessarily subjective) to things. I consider it fallacious in the extreme to believe otherwise.
[/quote]
Me too. How else would we be able to pick out clothes in the morning?
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
I consider it bad form to expect your opponent to connect the dots, especially when the dots appear miles apart to him, and especially when he asks for more clarification/explanation.
[/quote]
Well, sorry you feel that way, but I always find I’m able to integrate and understand better when I “figure out” stuff. Spoon-feeding is too easy.
It sounded to me like you were saying that, since there’s no point to things objectively speaking, we therefore can’t impute points to them subjectively speaking. Is that what you were saying or not?
I consider this to be a complete cop-out.
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
It sounded to me like you were saying that, since there’s no point to things objectively speaking, we therefore can’t impute points to them subjectively speaking. Is that what you were saying or not?
[/quote]
The punctuation in this quote is really messing with me.
We determine value all of the time. As many here are fond of pointing out, that value is subjective. I don’t know of any external, objective metrics for determining some sort of “standard of value” against which the correctness of our individual, subjective valuations can be measured.
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
I consider this to be a complete cop-out.
[/quote]
OK, so? It’s true. Why do you think I employ Socratic questioning?
So you weren’t arguing that, since value doesn’t exist objectively (i.e. outside of the mind), it can’t exist subjectively (i.e. inside of the mind)?
If that’s what you want to call it. I’m not at all sure that it actually is Socratic questioning.
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
So you weren’t arguing that, since value doesn’t exist objectively (i.e. outside of the mind), it can’t exist subjectively (i.e. inside of the mind)?
[/quote]
No. We make subjective valuations all of the time.
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
I’m not at all sure that it actually is Socratic questioning.
[/quote]
“Socratic questioning is disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we don’t know, to follow out logical implications of thought, or to control the discussion. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is that Socratic questioning is systematic, disciplined, and deep, and usually focuses on fundamental concepts, principles, theories, issues, or problems.”
- Wikipedia
That’s what I’m trying to do, anyways. I’ll let the public decide how well I’m executing.
Then you’d agree that the term “subjective valuations” is a pleonasm?
Right, as I said, I’m not sure that what you’re doing actually is Socratic questioning. In other words, as a member of the public, I’ve decided so far that you aren’t executing very well. But that’s just me.
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
Then you’d agree that the term “subjective valuations” is a pleonasm?
[/quote]
Mmm, not really. Subjective experience is much more broad than just ranking (valuing).
If all valuations are subjective, then modifying “valuations” with “subjective” is redundant.
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
If all valuations are subjective, then modifying “valuations” with “subjective” is redundant.
[/quote]
You are dumb. Is saying,
“The number seven.”
Redundant?
In at least some contexts, I’d say it is. My point is that, if you agree that all valuations are subjective by definition, then there’s no need to specify those valuations which are subjective - because, by definition, they all are.
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
In at least some contexts, I’d say it is. My point is that, if you agree that all valuations are subjective by definition, then there’s no need to specify those valuations which are subjective - because, by definition, they all are.
[/quote]
To some. Although there are many who consider value to be an objective measure of worth external to the individual. Utilitarians, Kantians, Christians, NAP folks, Hoppe-bots, etc.
It may be fine and good if two subjectivists are talking, but I feel it necessary to include when dealing with people who’s stance is unknown.
Yes, and I say they’re all wrong. Not just using different definitions, but factually incorrect. There can be no objective measure of worth, for worth requires an imputing mind. (That last part may in fact be redundant.)
I understand your point, but I see no reason to humor them in their delusions - at least not when it comes to this.
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
Yes, and I say they’re all wrong. Not just using different definitions, but factually incorrect. There can be no objective measure of worth, for worth requires an imputing mind. (That last part may in fact be redundant.)
[/quote]
LOL, well if you want to be the one giving me logic lessons, I sure hope you are aware of the irony in this statement!
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
I understand your point, but I see no reason to humor them in their delusions - at least not when it comes to this.
[/quote]
LOL, fair enough! Hey presto, we agree on something!