Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote:As I said (twice) in another thread...

There's sumthin' outside of me, sumthin' independent of me, sumthin' that largely is observable in a similiar way by folks independent of one another. I call this 'sumthin' the world, which is comprised of a great many things, from the micro- to the macro-levels. In observing, we catalog, and name, and prioritize, and impart meaning to. But the existance of that sumthin', is apart from, predates, all conceptualizing.

Are you answering this question?

How is the concept "that which is objective" related to "that which is objective "?

Hobbes' Choice wrote: No, actually I'm really bright and clever.

Me too, but nobody believes me, either.

Are you answering this question?

How is the concept "that which is objective" related to "that which is objective "?

Yeah, though, to be honest, I'm kinda befuzzled by that question.

The notion that we can't talk about what's real, that we can only talk about concepts makes no sense to me. Entirely possible all this high-falutin' feelossofee is above my pay-grade. Also possible some bodies are tryin' to count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

henry quirk wrote:Are you answering this question?

How is the concept "that which is objective" related to "that which is objective "?

Yeah, though, to be honest, I'm kinda befuzzled by that question.

The notion that we can't talk about what's real, that we can only talk about concepts makes no sense to me. Entirely possible all this high-falutin' feelossofee is above my pay-grade. Also possible some bodies are tryin' to count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

If that's the case then I suggest you leave it to those of us who understand this stuff.

Thing is: I don't think any of you 'do' understand this stuff, at least not any better than me, hence a thread with many pages that goes nowhere.

Philosopher Kings: pffftt!

henry quirk wrote:Thing is: I don't think any of you 'do' understand this stuff, at least not any better than me,

When you say we don't understand this stuff, do you mean the concept of the stuff or the stuff itself?

None of this "stuff" is particularly difficult to understand although there seem to be some attempting to make it so. The notion of identity can only be applied to an object which must first be defined. Since an object cannot define itself it can only be defined by the observer of it, which makes it entirely subjective. This is not rocket science so stop fucking around.

Obvious Leo wrote:This is not rocket science so stop fucking around.

Sorry, Leo. I was just trying to contribute.

"When you say we don't understand this stuff, do you mean the concept of the stuff or the stuff itself?"

HA!

henry quirk wrote:
HA!

Was that the beginning of a sneeze, henry, or do you have something to say?

henry quirk wrote:Are you answering this question?

How is the concept "that which is objective" related to "that which is objective "?

Yeah, though, to be honest, I'm kinda befuzzled by that question.

The notion that we can't talk about what's real, that we can only talk about concepts makes no sense to me. Entirely possible all this high-falutin' feelossofee is above my pay-grade. Also possible some bodies are tryin' to count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

If only Moyo understood his own problem - but then if he did, he'd probably not even have to ask the question (whatever it means), because I think to answer is basically the same as understanding the problem, and this is why you and I don't know what the fuck he is worried about, because you take for granted the answer he's failed to understand.

Harbal,

I laughed cuz you made a funny.

Keep doin' that...not enough of that in this place.

#

Hobbes,

Can not agree with you more.

PS. Moyo I think you will find your answer here.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hume- ... man-nature

Section V

Harbal,

I laughed cuz you made a funny.

Keep doin' that...not enough of that in this place.

#

Hobbes,

Can not agree with you more.

Harbal wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:This is not rocket science so stop fucking around.

Sorry, Leo. I was just trying to contribute.

You did contribute, Harbal, and my contribution is in support of yours because you're always urging people to keep it simple. Some people just like to make themselves look clever by making an easy question look hard but the distinction between subjective and objective reality is truly one of the simplest propositions in all of applied metaphysics. We don't observe an objectively real world at all, in any way, shape or form. The best we can do is construct a cognitive map of it from the information we receive and then see whether our map makes any sense or not. If it makes no sense then we've fucked something up. QED.