Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote:Sans subjects' interaction.

Try to make a Big Boy without the required elements that define a Big Boy and you get a big fizzle, but if you succeed the product is universally and independently recognized by functioning in accordance with the inherent principles that define the Big Boy's existence.

Same goes for Art, or anything.

Big Boy? You mean the hamburger place? You're saying that if you "try to make a Big Boy (hamburger?) without the required elements that define a Big Boy, you'll get a big fizzle"? In other words, as long as someone makes a hamburger, with the intention in their mind that "I'm making a Big Boy," but they don't have the "required elements that define a Big Boy," then no one will like the hamburger they make? Is that seriously what you're saying?

"Intersubjectivity" doesn't amount to anything more than the fact that people can agree with each other, by the way.

For example, Hobbes' Choice says, "I like Van Gogh."

I say, "Hey! I like Van Gogh, too!"

We now have "intersubjectivity." That's all there is to that, really.

You can't literally share subjective states or anything like that. You can only agree on expressions correlated to subjective states.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Walker wrote:Sans subjects' interaction.

Try to make a Big Boy without the required elements that define a Big Boy and you get a big fizzle, but if you succeed the product is universally and independently recognized by functioning in accordance with the inherent principles that define the Big Boy's existence.

Same goes for Art, or anything.

Big Boy? You mean the hamburger place? You're saying that if you "try to make a Big Boy (hamburger?) without the required elements that define a Big Boy, you'll get a big fizzle"? In other words, as long as someone makes a hamburger, with the intention in their mind that "I'm making a Big Boy," but they don't have the "required elements that define a Big Boy," then no one will like the hamburger they make? Is that seriously what you're saying?

I'm talkin 'bout little boy and fat man. (google)

Walker wrote:I'm talkin 'bout little boy and fat man. (google)

Probably better to say that then.

Anyway, so yeah, not just anything will make a bomb. What does that have to do with aesthetic judgments being objective versus subjective?

Terrapin Station wrote:

Walker wrote:I'm talkin 'bout little boy and fat man. (google)

Probably better to say that then.

Anyway, so yeah, not just anything will make a bomb. What does that have to do with aesthetic judgments being objective versus subjective?

It's common knowledge and easily deduced from the context in which it was used. This is how the truth is ever-existent. It is self-protected even though accessible to attention and intent. This is why uranium is inherently of more value than helium, which man with his curious mind has discovered.

I see you are of the “feed me” school of dialogue. I am not.

Walker to Terrapin Station wrote:It's common knowledge and easily deduced from the context in which it was used. /...I see you are of the “feed me” school of dialogue. I am not.

Not really. You're not talking cleverly over people's heads... rather, most of what you say sounds like a self-absorbed product of your brain that is attempting through its garbled nature to sound too clever to understand, when actually its just your own garbled mess. Honestly, Walker... it's as if you make very little attempt to be understood or to connect, and then you arrogantly act as if that's a show of intelligence and other people are stupid (or beneath you) for not understanding.

Lacewing wrote:

Walker to Terrapin Station wrote:It's common knowledge and easily deduced from the context in which it was used. /...I see you are of the “feed me” school of dialogue. I am not.

Not really. You're not talking cleverly over people's heads... rather, most of what you say sounds like a self-absorbed product of your brain that is attempting through its garbled nature to sound too clever to understand, when actually its just your own garbled mess. Honestly, Walker... it's as if you make very little attempt to be understood or to connect, and then you arrogantly act as if that's a show of intelligence and other people are stupid (or beneath you) for not understanding.

Aww. It's not about me.

That is not at all on the radar of intent. All I say makes perfect sense. I just leave out the boring stuff. Custodian of truth, which I know sounds arrogant to you, which is in part the purpose to innocuously and harmlessly feed your aversions until you witness their arbitrary nature. Though I say this only in hindsight. Savvy?

Walker wrote:All I say makes perfect sense.

To you.

Walker wrote:I just leave out the boring stuff.

To you.

Walker wrote:Custodian of truth

Only to yourself.

Walker wrote:Aww. It's not about me.

Yes, clearly, it's about you.

Walker wrote:in part the purpose to innocuously and harmlessly feed your aversions until you witness their arbitrary nature.

No, you're not providing a clever service. I already know their arbitrary nature. We're beyond that -- well, maybe you're not, and maybe that's why you're so intoxicated with yourself.

Walker wrote:It's common knowledge and easily deduced from the context in which it was used.

What a bomb has to do with aesthetic value being objective versus subjective is "common knowledge" and "easily deduced from the context in which it was used"? That's false. So you need to say what they have to do with each other.

This is how the truth is ever-existent.

Again, this is false. Truth isn't "ever-existent."

It is self-protected

false.

even though accessible to attention and intent.

Are you implying that truth is perceivable by "accessible to intention"? That's false if so.

This is why uranium is inherently of more value than helium,

That's false, and everything you said before it is false. Also, "This is why . . . " doesn't at all follow from anything you said before it, even if one were to think everything you said before it were true.

which man with his curious mind has discovered.

false again. You should partner up with Dontaskme.

I see you are of the “feed me” school of dialogue.

I have no idea what that refers to in Walker-speak, so I don't know.

Why, I do think you're Relativists. Along with Duh.

Walker wrote:Why, I do think you're Relativists. Along with Duh.

Hey... custodian of truth... Clean up on aisle 6!

Your arrogance and cowardliness is splattered all over the floor again.

Lacewing wrote:

Walker wrote:Why, I do think you're Relativists. Along with Duh.

Hey... custodian of truth... Clean up on aisle 6!

Your arrogance and cowardliness is splattered all over the floor again.

You might have to call a doc because he tripped on that stuff hitting his head.

Lacewing wrote:

Walker wrote:Why, I do think you're Relativists. Along with Duh.

Hey... custodian of truth... Clean up on aisle 6!

Your arrogance and cowardliness is splattered all over the floor again.

Naw, one of your pesky brats have again vomited up whatever roots you are force-feeding it. See those chunks in the vomit? You can bet your twinkees that's parsnip root.

Janitors don't make the vomit, as you well know. They clean it up. Often this is done selflessly and silently while the prolonged slumber causes the vomit and the bullshit to be mopped.

By now you are aware of the default response to Dalekism. Consider yourself defaulted.

Walker wrote:Why, I do think you're Relativists. Along with Duh.

It took you that long to realize that I'm a relativist?

Walker wrote:Naw, one of your pesky brats have again vomited up

I don't have any.

Walker wrote:You can bet your twinkees

Don't talk about my twinkees.

Walker wrote:Janitors don't make the vomit, as you well know.

Janitors don't vomit? Don't try to blame your slimy mess on anyone else. It's yours that you fail to clean up. So you suck as a janitor too.

Walker wrote:By now you are aware of the default response to Dalekism.

No, because I normally step over and avoid your mess. Just felt like pointing it out to you today.

Walker wrote:Consider yourself defaulted.

If that means you're going to ignore me... HOORAH!!! Absolutely nothing lost whatsoever!