Wedding.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I'd say it's rather stupid to believe in objective value assessments a la good/bad, better/worse, etc.

There clearly are no objective values of that type in the world (and not just in the realm of aesthetics, but in any realm).

Doc just explained it to you. A philosophy degree doesn't bestow common sense or intelligence. Quite the opposite, I've found.

How would you support that some skills are objectively better than other skills and not just skills that one prefers?

I just told you doc explained it. I'm not getting into any pointless non-arguments with so-called 'relativists'. I've already said I can't stand them.

[Terrapin Station]

I just told you doc explained it.

All that he said was "It's a matter of skill and ability, and some have more skill and ability than others."

That suggests quantifying "skill and ability" (and suggests that they're two different things for some reason). Ignoring problems with both sides of that, let's say that we can quantify "skill and ability."

What makes more skill and ability objectively better than less skill and ability? He's not explaining that, is he?

The point being that any objective difference we can name does not have putative objective value assessment properties attached. The value assessments arise with how people FEEL about those objective facts.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I just told you doc explained it.

All that he said was "It's a matter of skill and ability, and some have more skill and ability than others."

That suggests quantifying "skill and ability" (and suggests that they're two different things for some reason). Ignoring problems with both sides of that, let's say that we can quantify "skill and ability."

What makes more skill and ability objectively better than less skill and ability? He's not explaining that, is he?

The point being that any objective difference we can name does not have putative objectively value assessment properties attached. The value assessments arise with how people FEEL about those objective facts.

Get stuffed. You are an idiot.

[Terrapin Station]

I just told you doc explained it.

All that he said was "It's a matter of skill and ability, and some have more skill and ability than others."

That suggests quantifying "skill and ability" (and suggests that they're two different things for some reason). Ignoring problems with both sides of that, let's say that we can quantify "skill and ability."

What makes more skill and ability objectively better than less skill and ability? He's not explaining that, is he?

The point being that any objective difference we can name does not have putative objectively value assessment properties attached. The value assessments arise with how people FEEL about those objective facts.

Get stuffed. You are an idiot.

I wouldn't say that you're very interested in doing philosophy. That unfortunately seems to be the case with a majority of the regulars on this board.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

All that he said was "It's a matter of skill and ability, and some have more skill and ability than others."

That suggests quantifying "skill and ability" (and suggests that they're two different things for some reason). Ignoring problems with both sides of that, let's say that we can quantify "skill and ability."

What makes more skill and ability objectively better than less skill and ability? He's not explaining that, is he?

The point being that any objective difference we can name does not have putative objectively value assessment properties attached. The value assessments arise with how people FEEL about those objective facts.

Get stuffed. You are an idiot.

I wouldn't say that you're very interested in doing philosophy. That unfortunately seems to be the case with a majority of the regulars on this board.

What is 'doing philosophy'?
Oh, and that would be 'relative'. I could say the same about you and be equally right (or wrong). You shouldn't really be expressing opinions at all.

[Terrapin Station]

What is 'doing philosophy'?

Yeah, good thing to not have figured out yet after having spent four years on this board.

Oh, and that would be 'relative'.

Whether you're interested? Yeah, sure it would be. It's relative to whether you feel interested or not, whether you bother doing philosophy or avoiding it, etc. Glad you're catching on.

I could say the same about you and be equally right (or wrong). You shouldn't really be expressing opinions at all.

Again, where did you get the idea from that relativism has some implication for not having opinions? You didn't bother to address that.

[thedoc]

I'd say it's rather stupid to believe in objective value assessments a la good/bad, better/worse, etc.

There clearly are no objective values of that type in the world (and not just in the realm of aesthetics, but in any realm).

Doc just explained it to you. A philosophy degree doesn't bestow common sense or intelligence. Quite the opposite, I've found.

How would you support that some skills are objectively better than other skills and not just skills that one prefers? People objectively have different abilities. What, objectively, makes one ability better than another?

Do you understand that you just contradicted yourself? People have different abilities, and some are better than others. Some have objectively better skill and ability than others. Subjectivity only applies whether I like it or not, objectively one person can be better at an activity than another. You could not have been a professional musician and not discovered that. But perhaps if you have only associated with professionals, you may have only encountered musicians who are proficient at what they do. I'm not a professional musician and I have found many who are much better than I am.

[thedoc]

All that he said was "It's a matter of skill and ability, and some have more skill and ability than others."

That suggests quantifying "skill and ability" (and suggests that they're two different things for some reason). Ignoring problems with both sides of that, let's say that we can quantify "skill and ability."

What makes more skill and ability objectively better than less skill and ability? He's not explaining that, is he?

The point being that any objective difference we can name does not have putative objective value assessment properties attached. The value assessments arise with how people FEEL about those objective facts.

"Objective Value" is a contradiction in terms. How people feel, and the value they place on anything is subjective. More skill and ability is objectively better than less skill and ability, if you refuse to understand or accept that, then I can't help you.

[thedoc]

What is 'doing philosophy'?

Doing philosophy is supposed to be thinking, debating, and considering another's views. When one picks an opinion and refuses to consider another's ideas, that person has stopped thinking, and is just parroting one particular idea.

Too many people on forums will just latch onto an idea that appeals to them, and not consider anything else

[thedoc]

That is the problem with most people, they are put off by the attitude of superiority that some serious classical music fans have. It doesn't matter why people first go to hear Liberaci or Clayderman, if they come away wanting to hear more and better renditions of the pieces they heard. When I was in college I went to a concert of Madrigal music, when I was coming out One of my professors said, "I didn't know you like Baroque Music?", and I answered that "I didn't know either, till tonight."

That's funny coming from you.

Why do you find this funny?

Did you miss this?

[Terrapin Station]

Do you understand that you just contradicted yourself?

A contradiction obtains when one states both that P and that not-P. What was P in the case where you're claiming I contradicted myself?

[thedoc]

Do you understand that you just contradicted yourself?

A contradiction obtains when one states both that P and that not-P. What was P in the case where you're claiming I contradicted myself?

First you state that "There clearly are no objective values of that type in the world" and then you state that "People objectively have different abilities" Elsewhere you have equated Values and ability, values are subjective, skills and abilities are objective. You ask for support, implying that it's all a matter of preference, "How would you support that some skills are objectively better than other skills and not just skills that one prefers?"

FYI, this is not a formal logical debate, just a conversation, deal with it.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What is 'doing philosophy'?

Yeah, good thing to not have figured out yet after having spent four years on this board.

Oh, and that would be 'relative'.

The question was rhetorical. I've found that 'arguments' with supposed 'relativists' get nowhere fast, and I have better things to do with my time. You can't say anything without 'relativists' turning it into an argument. In fact, they have been the bane of school teachers since the 1970s. You can carry on believing that every viewpoint is equally valid, no matter how whacko, uneducated and shallow it is, if you want to, but just don't expect me to argue about it.

[Terrapin Station]

First you state that "There clearly are no objective values of that type in the world" and then you state that "People objectively have different abilities" Elsewhere you have equated Values and ability

That would be the only way that it would amount to being contradictory. Okay, so where did I equate values and abilities? Give me the quote.

FYI, this is not a formal logical debate, just a conversation, deal with it.

Contradictions are formal logical issues. Contradictions only obtain with occurrences of P & ~P. Otherwise, it's not a contradiction.

[Terrapin Station]

You can carry on believing that every viewpoint is equally valid

Not something I'd say, a fortiori because I only use "valid" in the formal logical sense. It would probably be better to actually ask me what my views are rather than just assuming that I fit some stereotype/template you have in mind.