User Tag List

First 456

Results 51 to 58 of 58

  1. #51
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Okay, so we don't have contention with these four points. Let me try to reword the 5th.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    1. There is an objective reality.
    2. The objective reality can only be observed through relative means (sensory experiences, human cognition, measurement, etc.) and therefore it can only be known relatively.
    3. Our relative understanding of the objective universe (science, philosophy, etc.) is based upon standardized relative measurements (time, length, mass, etc.) and is therefore limited to certain parameters we have defined.
    4. Therefore, there is also a relative reality based upon human perception of the objective reality.
    5. The objective reality only has relative meaning to us.

    6. Every individual experiences the relative reality differently.
    Does that work better? Because I want to make the following charges.

    1. Reason is only an objective means of interpreting relative reality.

    Since reason is limited to understandings and experiences based on perception, it cannot be utilized to understand objective reality.

    2. We cannot extrapolate absolute or universal truths from the objective reality.

    We can extrapolate absolute or universal truths in relative reality. However, those truths are limited to the parameters by which they were derived. It is only true under all the conditions by which they were defined.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  2. #52
    Senior Member Rohsiph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    lego
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Let's take a different tact here. Clearly we have a different conception of what meaningful means. So before we continue, would you please provide your definition. To me, meaningful means tangible and significant.
    This is actually an excellent idea

    as, it turns out, I disagree that meaningful must necessarily be tangible. Significant is an excellent word to use, though.

    This isn't offering a detailed account of my conception of what meaningful means, but I'm gonna cop out completely this time and leave it as it is for the moment. If you'd like, I could probably make an attempt sometime tomorrow night, but can't warrant the time and effort to do so at this moment.

    Your point about the divine is interesting. People can't percieve the divine with their senses so everyone tends to have a different conception of it in their minds. Somebody then writes a book which provides a tangible conception of the divine, and still people can have greatly varied cognitive perceptions of the divine. Therefore the perception of the divine is highly relative.
    Following this example, would you deny that I could theoretically provide a tangible conception of objective reality, while people could still have greatly varied cognitive perceptions of objective reality? I'd like to go along with you here, as I think there's a nice compromise we could reach here between our views.

    DeliriousDisposition:

    I think you continue giving an excellent account of a place inbetween the argument Kiddo and I have been at, showing important facets of both extremes we've been digging into.

    Then following Kiddo's most recent post:

    I can accept your reformulated argument. The major issue I had before was your insistence that objective reality (or "the objective," if we might consider an objective existence different from pure "reality") is meaningless. I'm still a bit disappointed that you appear to continue denying the possibility for us reaching insights from the objective in a way that would lead to the objective being largely meaningful, but I think you've found a nice way to solve the primary problem I had with your previous argument.

    I'm actually sympathetic to most of your argument as far as relativity of perceptions (among other internal faculties) is concerned, but can't give up my strong intuition that it's irresponsible to make an absolute claim about the objective being meaningless to us especially if you're going to accept the claim that much of what we perceive can most likely be traced back to the objective. I have a feeling that the actual meaningfulness that can truly be traced back to the objective (if we were to pursue this argument with greater ferocity) might amount only to trivial things, but trivial things are enough to discount absolutes.

    Interesting discussion. (Note: this isn't to say I'm abandoning the topic if there's more to say )

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    Zzzz
    Posts
    2,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rohsiph View Post
    DeliriousDisposition:

    I think you continue giving an excellent account of a place inbetween the argument Kiddo and I have been at, showing important facets of both extremes we've been digging into.
    Why stuck inbetween like limbo? I have no place of my own?! So I haven't yet brought greater insight?

    Seriously, though, I felt largely insignificant to what you both were saying lol So I'm glad I somewhat bridged "you both", at least, for you. Ha.

    Interesting discussion. (Note: this isn't to say I'm abandoning the topic if there's more to say )
    Now....if you'd both just listen to me and perpetuated my belief that we relatively perceive the objective reality around us and through our beliefs on what was/is perceived make it significant and valuable and meaningful or not, then we'd all be happy and sleep better at night

    Oh. And if we were pure consciousness w/o a body then we wouldn't perceive objective reality anymore only a relative one

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    Zzzz
    Posts
    2,629

    Default

    Absolutely irrelevant to the topic at hand is my wanting to know what anime that Avatar is from as I keep thinking it's Kira from GS/D with a hot flash-- (Edit: hot flash as I keep perceiving his cheeks as pink--no clue why lol)

    Carry on the discussion...

    *hides again*

  5. #55
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rohsiph View Post
    I'm actually sympathetic to most of your argument as far as relativity of perceptions (among other internal faculties) is concerned, but can't give up my strong intuition that it's irresponsible to make an absolute claim about the objective being meaningless to us especially if you're going to accept the claim that much of what we perceive can most likely be traced back to the objective. I have a feeling that the actual meaningfulness that can truly be traced back to the objective (if we were to pursue this argument with greater ferocity) might amount only to trivial things, but trivial things are enough to discount absolutes.

    Interesting discussion. (Note: this isn't to say I'm abandoning the topic if there's more to say )
    Well the essence of my argument is that we don't know exactly what is from the objective reality and what isn't. I made this case as a rational argument against Randism. So far, it seems very effective. My intuition is very adverse to that "rational" philosophy. I think that hag should have been hung for developing a religion that has corrupted countless intelligent people.

    Quote Originally Posted by DeliriousDisposition View Post
    Why stuck inbetween like limbo? I have no place of my own?! So I haven't yet brought greater insight?

    Seriously, though, I felt largely insignificant to what you both were saying lol So I'm glad I somewhat bridged "you both", at least, for you. Ha.



    Now....if you'd both just listen to me and perpetuated my belief that we relatively perceive the objective reality around us and through our beliefs on what was/is perceived make it significant and valuable and meaningful or not, then we'd all be happy and sleep better at night

    Oh. And if we were pure consciousness w/o a body then we wouldn't perceive objective reality anymore only a relative one
    Don't sell yourself short. You play your part. If I didn't have a particular goal in mind then I would be far more open to tangents as far as my model is concerned. However, I am listening and taking stock of what you say. And as Roh said, you have bridged the gap between us a lot throughout the thread, providing great insight.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  6. #56
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeliriousDisposition View Post
    Absolutely irrelevant to the topic at hand is my wanting to know what anime that Avatar is from as I keep thinking it's Kira from GS/D with a hot flash-- (Edit: hot flash as I keep perceiving his cheeks as pink--no clue why lol)

    Carry on the discussion...

    *hides again*
    I honestly have no idea. I only picked him because he has brown hair and brown eyes like me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    Zzzz
    Posts
    2,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo
    Well the essence of my argument is that we don't know exactly what is from the objective reality and what isn't. I made this case as a rational argument against Randism. So far, it seems very effective. My intuition is very adverse to that "rational" philosophy. I think that hag should have been hung for developing a religion that has corrupted countless intelligent people.
    I'd never heard of Rand lol but knew of objectivism. That's rather rude, calling her a hag, what did she ever do to you?!

    Rand's Objectivism uses the term in a new way: it treats knowledge and values as neither subjective, nor intrinsic in existence (the traditional meaning of "objective") but rather as the factual identification, by Man's mind, of what exists.
    That seems somewhat contrary, doesn't it? Not subjective but "factual identification" based on Man's mind of what exists? Wouldn't that indicate it being subjective to the "individual's perception of mind"?

    Yo...reading a bit about her she seems VERY CONTRARY. She advocated the political freedom and equality for homosexuals even though she disliked it even so much as to call the gay rights movement "hideous" and homosexuality itself was too repuslive/loathsome/immoral to put into words. And that she wouldn't like to see in print her thoughts about it as it's too base a language. etc etc etc she's dead so no more etc. But why grant them 'equality' when they'd flaunt their immoral and disgusting ways in her face? :yim_rolling_on_the_

    Methinks someone a masochist closet lesbian! Methinks it's okay to rescind you from calling her a hag! It is not strong enough, though, you weakling. I shall come up with a stronger word suitable for her disposition and character. Just remind me if I forget to tell you. Shit happens--It happens.

    Don't sell yourself short. You play your part. If I didn't have a particular goal in mind then I would be far more open to tangents as far as my model is concerned. However, I am listening and taking stock of what you say. And as Roh said, you have bridged the gap between us a lot throughout the thread, providing great insight.
    I play a part! ( Thanks ) I feel like the kid stuck between arguing parents, though lol

    And! It's not as fun as when others argue and I don't get to be attacked! Then again, it's probably masochistic of me to want that. OMGosh I've become so used to people fighting me viciously w/o rational opinions on topics it's what thrills me now!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    I honestly have no idea. I only picked him because he has brown hair and brown eyes like me.
    Damnit! I wanna know! It's just as aelan's Avatar, they both capture my attention all the time! Yours though...seems innocently sinister...as though you are somehow foreshadowing others with your true nature...as if to say "You feel for it, fools!!" when your true nature rears itself to the public!

    INFJs = Conspiracist

    Now let us await Rohsiph to contribute as I will undoubtedly offer no new insights unless I see you both go another round. Hmmmmmm

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    938

    Default

    Relative is better. Objective just considers established facts while relative considers everything.

Similar Threads

  1. Elfboy's theory on the Light Worker, the Dark Worker and Objectivism
    By Elfboy in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: 03-28-2013, 02:29 PM
  2. altruism vs objectivism and type
    By INTP in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-25-2012, 02:46 AM
  3. [NT] Theory vs application, overcoming analysis paralysis?
    By ObliviousExistence in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-29-2010, 03:31 PM
  4. Hyperfocus and the hunter vs. farmer theory.
    By ajblaise in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-27-2009, 11:06 AM
  5. Type Theory vs. Temperament Theory
    By proteanmix in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-19-2007, 10:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO