Once our notation has been explicated, it is immaterial whether someone "knows and accepts" it; once it has been provided, it is undeniable that "2+2=4". Indeed, this is a necessary truth. Another example of a necessary truth might be, "~(p&~p)".
Exactly, it's a
necessary truth. It's a matter of scope. For mathematics to work axioms must exist. Something must be assumed.
I think you may have misunderstand what I was communicating. I was responding to, "...and a human construct made to fit our perception of things", which suggested that mathematics is predicated on empirical observation; my reply was essentially that "2+2=4" is true irrespective of "observation".
Yes, the same way murder is considered evil by most.
Unfortunately, I find this is also too nebulous to respond to.
I'll admit my knowledge of math history is next to zero, but I think before imaginary numbers, math had no rules dealing with the square roots of negative numbers.
As above. Though I would have to ask whether it is "objectively" true that "it" is arbitrary, that there are concepts we "force...into the world" and whether "it's like any other dichotomy."
That's the whole point of what I'm trying to say : not really.
I am attempting to demonstrate the failure of your "alethic" relativism. If the idea of "objective" truth is a nonsense, and one claims that "all truths are subjective" ( as the postmodernists have it), then the claim "all truths are subjective" must also be subjective. It is a position that clearly undermines itself.
Yes, it is. It's a sort of paradoxical loop. But let me just clarify something here - I'm merely playing devil's advocate. Like I mentioned earlier, it's all a matter of scope.
This has evolved somewhat, but my initial point was that just as good/evil moral codes have their dogmas so does logic have its axioms.
I do believe what is concrete and what is subjective ...is all a matter of scope. Kinda like Newton's laws VS Einsteins VS quantum physics.
simulatedworld said:
Sometimes, when something is so outrageously illogical, it crosses the line right over into stupid. Like say, monotheistic conceptions of God as a conscious and self-aware entity, for instance.
Why illogical. If you tell that "what is written in the Bible is all true" is outrageously illogical I might agree. But monotheistic, conscious, self-aware entity...I'm open to such a possibility. I don't
believe in it, but I can't say it's impossible. Maybe that's because I'm like 90% Perceiving, I dunno. I don't like set-in-stone. Not when scope of the issue is so broad.
Speaking of "stupid"...
I could be wrong, but it sounds like you're about two inches from falling over into "brain in a vat" territory. You know, that silly idea that since we know nothing with absolute certainty, all ideas must be equally valid?
No, I don't support such an idea.
I've said this before, but: All things are uncertain but that doesn't make them equally probable. We can still use reasoning and direct experience to separate certain ideas as less plausible ("The President is really a Martian") than others ("The Earth is round"), even if we don't technically have absolute certainty about any of them.
Agreed. I was merely contesting the idea that trueness/falseness is completely objective.
Kangirl : Yes, just like murder is evil.
Evan said:
I've met tons of NTs that are incredibly irrational. The thing about NTs is that they're good at changing scope just perfectly so that they're never wrong (of course, they have to lie to themselves about their motives, but they never notice that part...)
lol, this is kinda ironic considering my discussion with Helios and Simulated , but I will say that it's a clear example of Ne "rationale". I know what I meant with my initial remark, but in order to make other people understand it better I need to distill it by engaging in discussion. The scope of my initial remark still stands, though. It's all-encompassing.
EDIT:
Toonia : Sorry, forgot to reply to your post. I mostly agree with you. The only thing I'm getting at is that objective and objective makes for overall objectiveness, but objective and subjective still makes for a subjective whole. It all depends on whether you zoom in or out, but when making "zoom out" claims...I don't like to write stuff in stone. Any human-defined concept and train of thought is subjective, even this one
Now, that doesn't mean I can't lead a normal life or anything or that I can't commit to anything but my initial point was merely that this whole "F is bias" argument should be taken with a grain of salt. Just so it isn't taken to extremes...which is something often done.
+
