If you didn't want to discuss obedience in all of its forms then you should have thus stipulated. I am not conflating all the contexts for obedience, I am doing the opposite actually.

What you're talking about has nothing to do with my point at all, to say I am conflating things is absurd. I was not even discussing people making "demands of you". I was talking about people willingly acting in compliance with a competent individual's recommendations unquestioningly.

Obedience in so far as it is that you obey out of fear or self-preservation, it's fairly obvious that unless you can find a way around that, if your fear is rational then acting to keep what you fear to happen from happening is rational.

To me the culture of obedience is anathema to rationality. But as Erich Fromm argues people fear freedom and therefore obedience allows people to rely on something else that they (falsely) believe is an authority. — Andrew4Handel

What context did you have in mind? Rather than forcing me to go around guessing until we're discussing the same thing.

Nevertheless I still process advice through reason and do not just obey instructions unthinkingly. — Andrew4Handel

A great example for me of why this isn't as good as it seems would be this exercise program that I follow stronglifts 5x5. The guy who runs it, Medhi, used to answer questions asked to him and send the answers to his subscribers. The majority of questions were people who thought they knew better than him about what they could be doing, should be doing and what made sense to them.

Stronglfits 5x5 has worked for perhaps hundreds of thousands of people if not millions, the app has a 5-star rating and Medhi has poured a lot of effort into creating the program. He made countless mistakes and learned from them over 15 years of lifting.

Whether it makes "sense" to you is based on what exactly? These people have barely any experience lifting, they don't understand the physiology of the human body and they haven't done sufficient research on the subject. It's easy to see by their questions.

They give their theories, their reasoning and I'm sure to them what they're saying makes perfect sense. So they change their programs based on that and don't end up getting any results because they messed up the program. Go figure.

It's the same on philosophy forums, people try to answer scientific questions with their theories and logic. Is that really a sensible way to be approaching objective truth? When you don't know anything?

I don't know what problem you think that an inexperienced, uneducated person couldn't solve more easily by listening to someone else who isn't those things but even if they exist, the majority of the time it's not like that.

There is let's say a "competence cap" where from thereon, you are the educated one with expertise and you can make your own decisions based on the unique circumstances. It's more like Usefulness of rationality = rationality x knowledge x experience. If knowledge and experience are low then rationality just loses to obedience to competent people every single time.

I don't think rationality and obedience are always separate. Obedience can be rational/logical and I actually think there are more examples where it'd be better to just follow orders/rules than try to think for yourself.

1. Money Management
2. Weight-loss/Muscle building/Nutrition
3. How to succeed in your career
4. Learning to become good at a game/sport or learning a skill
5. Treatment of illnesses both physical and mental, injuries, rashes and so on
6. Operating machinery/equipment

So many things really where it would be much better to seek out someone who actually knows what they're talking about and follow what they say word for word. Many people try to work through things rationally and fail because they have no idea what they're talking about. No experience, no knowledge, no understanding.

Once you've achieved competence then you can start to think for yourself but until then just follow like a mindless sheep. I suppose the aforementioned stance is an attempt to be rational about it, so if you said rationality and obedience aren't separate in this instance then I wouldn't try to argue against that.

So that doesn't mean you should obey people who don't have your best interests at heart or haven't demonstrated the level of competence necessary for them to be teaching you anything.

I am referring to different stages of an individuals life, I'd say, if you were assigned a gender at birth you're powerless to argue against that until you're at least eleven.

It is not my argument, I think gender being socially constructed is a ludicrous notion. I don't think you are representing your opposition as well as you could but I don't feel like arguing further about this.

Good luck arguing against those who think gender is socially constructed, I've given up on them.

Something being socially constructed means it is an invention or an artifice of a given society. What's your definition?

So first of all, I don't claim gender is subjective. I share your views that it is biologically determined what gender you are and personally I think transgenderism is for some a mental disorder and for others an ideological idea - like the example in OP.

However, I disagree with your distinctions.

Culture is socially constructed, you cannot change the culture by yourself but whether you continue to subscribe to it as you get older is up to you. You can change the culture you subscribe to. Within a binary perspective, in so far as gender is concerned, that means a man can choose to become a woman rather than continue being a man.

In a non-binary perspective, society has limited perception of gender into two categories but this is, in fact, wrong and many people don't fit into those categories. Therefore they posit gender is actually a spectrum and many genders exist within that spectrum.

There are transgender people who think gender is biologically determined, that gender is socially constructed and that gender is non-binary.

You have acted like transgender people have unified views on this subject but they don't. That's the only thing I am trying to get across to you.

"Western world" is not fair, take a look at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-10/democracy-index-economist-intelligence-unit-2018/10703184

America is listed as a "flawed democracy" and it's easy to understand why. The money in American politics, the connections that assist in victory and the role of the media in American politics are all extremely concerning.

I think it's a bit rich for Putin to be talking about flawed democracies since I wouldn't even call Russia an actual democracy but he isn't wrong that American democracy is flawed.

This is a dangerous question to asking in a philosophy forum...

People can give reasonable, plausible answers that are backed up by logic and theory but ultimately is that really going to lead you towards the correct answer? I don't really want to discuss this topic because all I can do is theorise and provide anecdotal evidence but if I really wanted an answer to your question then I'd be looking for legitimate studies on sexuality done by experts to indicate what the truth is.

I'm more pointing out that we are all probably reasonable from our own perspectives and unreasonable in at least a few other peoples' perspectives. Is it the result of information asymmetry or unreasonable people being unable to realise they are unreasonable? And if it is the latter then those who are unreasonable are here on this thread agreeing with you about how terrible it is that everyone else is so unreasonable.

That's why it is pointless to talk to a group of people about this problem. In my experience, by calling someone unreasonable they are likely to think you are being unreasonable because how can a reasonable person call a reasonable person (like themselves) unreasonable? Alternatively, it's just ad hominem which is also unreasonable.

It is entirely possible that many reasonable people think other reasonable people are unreasonable because of miscommunication, information asymmetry, the difference in opinions being perceived as too stark. That's why I think people should
1. Constantly question whether they are being reasonable or not
2. Constantly question whether the other person is being unreasonable or not
3. If someone is genuinely unreasonable, just avoid them

If someone really is unreasonable, it's not worth trying to reason with them. There's not much you can do and you will lose the argument even if you win.

If gender is socially constructed (i.e. not determined by the individual) then it's subjective and CAN be determined by the individual. If it is biologically determined then it is the way it is and cannot be determined by the individual.


It's the same as not being able to decide what age you are but being able to decide whether you "act" your age or not.

I guess we must all deal with the situation of being thought of as an unreasonable person by at least a few people. Perhaps only because unreasonable people unreasonably think others are being unreasonable. Usually, all parties are convinced that it's not them. It's a confusing situation that should be handled with care or humour.

But if gender is socially constructed, then gender isn't something that they have a choice in swapping for themselves. It would only be within the power of society as a whole to swap their "gender", not based on their own personal choices. — Harry Hindu

If gender is socially constructed then that means it's a learned behaviour which means you can unlearn it.

In a universe without life, nothing needs to mean anything, things just are. No matter what the limitations of understanding between people are, nothing can change this fact. Meaning comes from interpretation, evidence is also interpreted - all that we are subjected to through the senses is interpreted and given meaning.

Meaning is essential to intelligent beings, it cannot be dispensed with even if you try. We are ignorant beings trying to understand the universe and meaning is an essential tool for us to do that with.

People distinguish between degrees of contentiousness, intersubjective verification has the lowest level of contentiousness within public knowledge. Even I think people who contend with it are fools. We make rules for what mandates belief, what deserves belief and what doesn't. These are all things that don't happen without intelligent life. I do these things because I am an intelligent life form, it is imperative that I do this and do it well.

There are things I assume are real to the point where I won't entertain conversations about them not being real, there's no evidence to support it and I care about evidence. In that regard, we're the same.

That's why I care a lot about the limitations of evidence and how evidence works and I care that it doesn't work by just creating arbitrary rules and making conclusions based on those rules. That's not evidence, that's nothing.

Rules are arguments and some arguments are more convincing than others. How convincing they are is subjective but to me what I want depends on the context but if we're talking objective truth then it's something approximating the scientific method.

People can tell me what trees are and I don't argue because what do I care if they call a tree what I think looks like a bush, I am happy to play by the rules. When the conclusions people make start to matter to me that's when I start to consider whether I still want to play by the rules or not. If I decide I don't want to play by the rules then that's that, they make arguments and I can make arguments too.

That probably begins before we start talking about qualifying the relative value of things but it's unquestionably a consideration once you've started talking about that. You can't make rules for deciding the relative value of things and skills and monopolise the discussion by claiming the rules make your arguments objective, what nonsense.

You decided to first make your counterpoint, and then rudely say that discussing anything with anyone who doesn't believe exactly your version of things is not worth talking to — NKBJ

Haha... when you mischaracterize me to this extent, it is hard to think I should change. Anyway, enough of this.

I was discussing what transgender people do or don't believe. Then I responded to your comment which quoted me and told you I'm not interested in talking to you. Get over yourself.

I am not arguing gender is 100% biologically informed. I am saying people don't gender themselves based on whether they played with trucks or ponies as a child.

You clearly haven't been educated by good philosophers at all, or you'd know not to open a conversation where you're going to dismiss a whole leg of the argument out of hand with no real logical/valid reason. — NKBJ

Sorry but I find this whole topic boring, I also wouldn't discuss it with someone who agreed with me. This is a scientific question and I would need to do a sizable amount of research to demonstrate to a sufficient degree proof of my claims. I would need to do enough to show I'm not cherrypicking or demonstrating confirmation bias. That seems like a lot of work to gain nothing, there's nothing a person who thinks gender is socially constructed can teach me on the subject and I don't want to be taught worthless philosophy that goes against science and evidence.

Most people do think they are correctly gendered to their sex and they know that intuitively, of the people who don't (which is a very small percentage), "most" transgender people think they have been misgendered which means they intuitively understood their gender is not the same as their sex.

Either this is a mental disorder or they're correct, either way it's not an argument for saying gender is socially constructed. The percentage of people who think their gender is non-binary is very small, smaller than 0.001%. These people are mere ideologues and are comparable to people who think they were born the wrong animal and so on.


So when I am talking about gender being "socially constructed" that means gender is created through social engineering. So I think that your gender corresponds to your sex, however, how exactly that plays out is impacted by social and cultural influences.

I only really posted in this thread to clear up the fact that not all or very few transgender people believe gender is a social construct.

Your position could be 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 95% or 100% of gender is socially and culturally constructed. There's a LOT of room for interpretation but once you start going above 50%, to me, that's just not really worth debating. Either you're focusing too much on superficial things like toys, dresses, colours and other crap like that or you've been educated by philosophers about science and that's just a really bad idea.

My understanding is that transgender people don't all have the same understanding. Some think they were born the wrong sex (relative to their brain) while others think they experience gender dysphoria for other reasons and believe transitioning was the best option which would make them happy.

Some people call themselves non-binary and genderfluid. So I guess those guys think gender is socially constructed and they can swap as they want.

Gender is clearly NOT a social construct, I think far, far less is socially constructed than many people assume.
I agree that the incentive for socially constructed gender was philosophical and people would be drawn to it whether science was with them or not.

What do you mean by universal language? One where everyone understands exactly what you mean? There are no universal languages like that, the devil is always in the detail.

Ending slavery and the American civil war, that's what Lincoln is famous for and what he represents. He represents "justice" because he ended an "injustice" of slavery. Uncontentious, yes but contextualised by a lack of context, we assume the obvious which are the aforementioned reasons for his fame. Lincoln is the human face of an idea, the image transcends the man. He isn't a symbol of justice, he is a symbol of a man standing up for justice and that justice is characterised by the injustice of slavery. If he has other views about justice, they don't matter here.

How is saying "chattel slavery is wrong' contentious? How is saying slavery is unjust contentious? What increased clarity do you think bringing up Lincoln is adding here? Lincoln symbolises these things and symbols don't require people to speak English. If you're saying that symbols are a universal language because anyone can recognise them regardless of what language they speak - there's some truth to that but you could have just said that. I don't think anyone would disagree beyond the obvious "well you need to know who Lincoln is but yeah".

Bringing up "justice is hard to define" is a red herring. That's got nothing to do with anything here. Justice is still hard to define even if we knock off chattel slavery as being universally wrong.

Just like what a swastika does for Nazism as a universally recognised symbol. Any universality exists because of a lack of contentiousness in the idea that things like genocide and anti-semitism etc are wrong which an individual could likely and effectively articulate.

Again with your categorisation idea, the devil is in the detail.

This is "bringing up names of great people" is true only if you disregard the need for any specificity and this wouldn't apply for all the names of great people just those known for less than two reasons and at best it serves to introduce a topic without getting into the discussion.

There is no "unified view", just a complete facade facilitated by ignorance of the differences that would be exposed by going deeper. I don't really want to go into more, I don't have anything constructive to say other than that this idea lacks nuance and I don't think you've had a real go at trying your best to understand how it could be wrong.

Are you just saying that ALL information must be interpreted by an agent, so it is all subjective? So does that mean if life disappears then everything vanishes because there are no agents to interpret? — ZhouBoTong

I am not saying it must be interpreted by an agent, I am distinguishing between facts and the interpretation of facts.

If all beings disappear, the universe will still exist but "meaning" won't.

"1+1 = 2 means 1+1 = 2."

1+1 =2 is an objective truth but that doesn't "mean" 1+1 = 2. The idea that 1+1 = 2 means 1+1 = 2 is just a human trying to justify his belief that 1+1 = 2. In this case, what they think 1+1 =2 means and what it actually is are the same thing. At least as far as the evidence suggests.

I am not claiming that Susie doesn't stack more cups than Bob in 30 seconds or that it's subjective that she does. If she does then she does. If that is all one pointed out then who can blame them? It's the truth.

You interpret the fact that Susie can stack more cups than Bob to mean that Susie is better at stacking cups than Bob. You call these rules and say you're being objective but it's just your opinion. You've said the fact that Susie stacks more cups than Bob means she's better at stacking cups. Whatever follows the word "means' is subjective. Regardless of what anyone thinks.

If you are just arguing that because one cannot be better at "nothing" and so it's just a fundamentally incorrect statement to claim you're "better at nothing" then I would advise you to really think about what is being said by "I am better than you". I think the person saying that knows exactly what they mean and why they think that - it's just like calling one movie better than another and it's commonplace and not controversial at all. They've omitted their criteria for their assertion but that doesn't mean they have none.

If you disagree then which part? You believe meaning is not subjective or that rules have special properties which elevate them from being arguments with contestable premises and conclusions?

Do you even know what you’re talking about? — Noah Te Stroete

No, I wondered why you asked that and re-read OP and realised I was talking about something completely different.

I didn't realise you're talking about the philosophy of Stoicism rather just the adjective, never mind.

Why not think of stoicism and cynicism as tools and opportunities to be used in different situations? Knowing what you want and knowing reality, you will be able to suffer when you will be gaining something more important than your comfort in return.

I think the actual opposite of stoicism as you define it isn't cynicism but dark nihilism. Alternatively, perhaps hedonism, cognitive dissonance?

Cynicism to me when contrasted against stoicism only seems appropriate when talking solely about things like delayed gratification or taking on important responsibilities where the cynic has misjudged what is best for himself and his family/friends mostly due to his ignorance. If the cynic has correctly judged that there isn't a whole lot of merit to the suffering then the stoic just appears to be a naive fool.

Well, the end result may be agreeing to disagree but here's what I'm saying.

If you are going to say that it's totally legitimate to create a subjective framework such as rules or definitions and use that to create uncontestable conclusions then your OP is arguing against contentiousness or the validity of subjective frameworks. You don't see "rules" as arguments/interpretations and it's a bit silly imo.

Game
Rule: The best cup stacker is the one who can stack the most cups in 30 seconds
Susie can stack more cups than Bob in 30 seconds
Objective conclusion: Susie is a better cup stacker than Bob.

Argument
Premise: The best cup stacker is the one who can stack the most cups in 30 seconds
Susie can stack more cups than Bob in 30 seconds
My Conclusion: Susie is a better cup stacker than Bob.

So you called a premise a rule and now you're being objective, very cool. I want to try.

Rule: People who are have more financial assets and better looks are better than those who don't.
Susie has more financial assets and better looks than Bob
Objective conclusion: Susie is better than Bob.

The only difference I can see is contentiousness, you give "official" rules special treatment because of their status. You really Bob is a worse cup stacker than Susie is an objective truth?

Why 30 seconds? Bob may have stacked more cups in 1 minute. Why stacking more cups than Bob make Susie better when Bob made 0 mistakes and she made a few? Why doesn't that count for anything?

Your interpretation of what makes a better cup stacker being made into rules doesn't elevate their status. From my perspective, your argument is invalid because you've ignored many factors I consider important in determining who the best cup stacker is.

Now if we compare to 2 mediocre, two poor, and two genius chess player, my statement does not hold up (still subjective), but if we are comparing Bobby Fisher and an average 8 year old, I don't need any additional qualifiers to accept this as objectively true. Under what circumstances could it NOT be true? — ZhouBoTong

Your main argument is contentiousness. There is the truth and there are interpretations of the truth. Interpretations of the truth have degrees of contentiousness. You seem to think high in contentiousness means high in subjectivity and low in contentiousness means high in objectivity. I just don't agree.

Bobby Fischer might beat someone 10000000 times in a row, you'd say he's objectively better at chess than that person. Okay, but to do that you defined what being better at chess means, you did that subjectively, there's no alternative.

I am trying to distinguish between facts and interpretations of facts. Interpretations being necessarily subjective. It is a fact that Susie can stack cups faster than Bob, it is not a fact that Susie is better at stacking cups than Bob because that is an interpretation of the facts. Being non-contentious just reflects wide-scale agreement and a lack of variety of interpretations.

I am still a bit of an objective nihilist...basically amounts to "well nothing REALLY matters, but I decide that I like x, y, and z so I should work toward those ends, because I want to." — ZhouBoTong

I don't like this perspective, characterising subjectivity as preference. Though you can think that way and still avoid dark nihilism.

Pragmatism and consistency to the subjectivist framework are the answers to dark nihilism. If nothing has objective meaning, then objective meaning never had any objective meaning either. That we don't have it means nothing unless we interpret it to mean nothing.

Interpreting it to mean things like "life is meaningless" and "there's no point to do anything" is unnecessary and very unpragmatic. It's the same with objective morality, if you interpret it to mean all morals are equal then that's something you decided using your subjective framework and personal interpretations and it's unpragmatic.

I'm not assuming you struggle with dark nihilism but you seem to lean towards some notions I consider unhelpful. Giving rules and language objectivity status, devaluing subjective frameworks and so on.

I am not talking about a spectrum of objectivity/subjectivity but a spectrum of contentiousness. Objectivity as intersubjective verification is a term best saved for talking about objective truth. You can't bolster the validity of interpretations through intersubjective verification. The interpretations implicit in language and rules shouldn't get special treatment, which makes their inherent arguments contestable.

"We measure who's better at stacking cups by seeing how many cups they can stack in 30 seconds, whoever stacked the most is the best". We've created objectivity!

No? I reject your premise, without a true premise, your premises are false, the argument is invalidated. Simple.

Doesn't Baldur's gate have a lawful evil alignment?

Anyway, if you want villains who had the law on their side, why bother with fiction?

Both communism and anarchy fall into tribalism, I think communism at least, you can hope for a benevolent leader whereas anarchy doesn't appear to have any good outcomes.

I'm not saying communism with a benevolent leader will be better than what we have currently, not even close, just better than anarchy.

Oh yes, I agree we cannot just dispense with our values and get some new ones because we think they'll be more useful :).

What do you think the relationship is between these two things and which one should have a greater influence over the other? — Judaka

I am more interested in this question.

I think it's obvious that certain values will change over time as we learn. We will realise what kind of traits we value, what kind of things are important for success and what kind of things make us happy. I also agree with your sentiments that a brand of pragmatism will be created for each person it is set to serve.

Do you think someone who is more pragmatically-minded will end up implementing different changes to their values than others will? Do you think this could lead to imbalance or problems?

Well, I don't necessarily think it's wrong to think "I'm better than you". Generally, it's expressing a feeling of superiority and contempt than anything else. However, we can use a subjective framework to decide it as you agreed.

The question is what has greater validity than doing something like this?

I think that will define how you look at it.

For me, the answer is, not much.

My feelings are that no one (no-thing) is "better" than anyone (anything), until a qualifier is added for "better". Yes you can be better than me at soccer, or differential equations, or stacking cups; but that does not make one entity "better" than another. I feel this is somewhat obvious, and anyone who is not a moral objectivist would agree, but it seems many people do view some people or things as better than others (not just a specific aspect of that thing - but the "whole" of one is better than the "whole" of the other). — ZhouBoTong

Certain subjective frameworks are less contentious than others. To say Messi is better than me at soccer is a characterisation of the identification and qualification of both of our various skills in soccer. Those skills are ranked in importance and we get some kind of answer. It's the same for doing equations and stacking cups. I think this characterisation is necessarily subjective because it's an interpretation of the facts.

Has universal agreement on particular standards for measuring something made the characterisation less subjective or more valid? You've distinguished between "One can be better AT something than another but one can't be better than another at nothing ".

I disagree with this distinction, you've selected non-contentious comparisons which can be easily tested and there is a lack of variety of interpretations. It's a spectrum, I'm sure you will agree. If I went around saying "I am better at philosophy than Mr X" you'd be approaching that with the same perspective as if I said "Mr X, I'm better than you".

If not, I see this as a contradiction.

You could ask me why I think I'm better at philosophy than Mr X but all you're going to hear about are my interpretations and subjective framework. Exactly the same stuff you'd hear if you asked me why I thought I was better than Mr.X.

I realised I'm not willing to go around saying "I'm better than Mr X" you will hear me saying "I'm a better philosopher than Mr.X". I know it's not an objective truth but at the same time, I want to value my subjective framework and I don't think there's anything more valid or important than it. I think not valuing your subjective framework as a 100% subjectivist leads down the rabbit hole of dark nihilism, where a lack of objective meaning means no worthwhile meaning at all.

That's a nice image and a very balanced perspective. Thanks for answering my questions.

So you see pragmatism's role as being to save us from pursuing our ideals in an unrealistic fashion?

You seem to see the problem of us not necessarily having values which are good but this is a separate issue from pragmatism?

Although this is not my ideal pragmatist, I think many great people have a similar attitude. I think it's very common in today's age to see people being more concerned with being right or being seen as right and far less concern with being useful.

There are lots of people with good intentions but if only those good intentions were directed in a way which would be more conducive to some kind of success.

I think a pragmatic perspective also realisations the difficulties we face in trying to create "equality" for example. Not becoming overwhelmed by despair and disappointment which I think can also occur in people who lack a pragmatic focus.

I think it's important to acknowledge that nine hundred ninety-nine million nine hundred ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine million dollars (1 dollar less than a billion) isn't exactly a small amount.

Here's an interesting video to consider: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydKcaIE6O1k&t=9s

There are many Americans living in absolute poverty, other Western countries have increased taxes not just for billionaires but everyone. To allow for socialist policies which help disadvantaged people have a chance in life.

Another thing to consider is capital is increasing faster than the economy, which means the rich will get richer at a faster rate than everyone else. This will lead to increases in wealth inequality and it may mostly just come down to the inheritance of capital.

I don't know all the ramifications of what might happen if a very high tax rate existed in this day and age but there are lots of good reasons to want wealth redistribution.

I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. I've been going around forums like this for 2-3 years and posting somewhat regularly and I've disagreed with a lot of people but this is the first time anyone has ever called me an idealist.

I don't think you've thought very deeply about this topic at all. I feel like I'm debating a 12-year-old.

Oh well, that's enough.

You've gone wrong straight away. That's what a cup is in my language. You don't get to make the rules. It's my language, not yours. And if you're talking about a different language, then you're changing the subject without warrant. — S

Fair point.

That's absurd. So, because no one is there to understand the meaning, there is no meaning? Surely you can see the error here?

This is clearly the same logic of an idealist, and you should at the very least own up to it. To be is to be perceived? — S

The problem with talking to you is that you decide what my positions are based on what you think is reasonable.

If I talk about meaning, I mean it's coming from interpretation. That's my position. I haven't talked about understanding and I'm getting tired of being misrepresented, I appreciate that from your perspective what I'm saying seems irrelevant but if you don't take what I am saying as I'm saying it then we can't have a conversation.

I can't talk about meaning as though it just exists in the universe like it's matter. To me what you're saying is like love exists without intelligent life, it's like saying confusion exists even if life disappears.

If someone writes down what love is, perhaps the concept is immortalised but the thing love doesn't exist anymore.

You can write down "this means that" but the actual thing of meaning, which is created by intelligent life, isn't present anymore. It's gone.

But yes, let's agree to disagree. There was a lot of miscommunication between us which was unfortunate but it's pretty common in conversations I have with people where they are making assumptions about me from the get-go.

It's kind of to be expected that someone who calls me an idealist with irrational contradictory positions within a few paragraphs of meeting me, isn't going to treat the rest of what I say as though I might have reasonable reasons for thinking the way I do.

I think you've framed this whole debate like you have the standard, acceptable position and I'm over here preaching like a madman about doomsday.

I agree that pragmatism can't exist without values but I don't think values rely on pragmatism, what makes you say that is the case?

Your definition for a pragmatism appears value-laden, do you dispute that a pragmatist could have considerations vastly different from the ones you've listed?


In your mind, will the ideal pragmatist select values which are in his estimation pragmatic or try to determine goals based on his values and strive towards those accomplishments in a pragmatic fashion?

Now, can you simply tell me why "cup" would cease to mean a small bowl-shaped container for drinking from, typically having a handle, in my language — S

This is not what a cup is, there are all kinds of shapes in cups. There are also things which fit this description which are not cups like bowls, pots etc.

It'd be easier if you just made up your own language. "ifhefihefo fiohewofi feo9fupojqpo fnewofi".
Which would in your language, perfectly describe what a cup is in a way that can't be achieved in English. It is perfect from all perspective, no problems whatsoever at all and this is an immutable fact. Excellent work, there's nobody who can dispute it so therefore you must've created objective meaning.

If we all went extinct right now, what would happen to linguistic meaning? — S

All we could say about language is how it used to be used. Without anyone there to interpret what the words meant, they would mean nothing.

What does 1+1 = 2 mean? No interpretation, no meaning.

Interpretation literally means to determine (consciously or subconsciously) "this means that", it's something only a living creature can do. You can write things down, make up your own rules and do whatever you want but these things only have meaning so long as you're around to interpret their meaning.

So basically here's what I got from you.
1. English (or any language) has objective meaning
2. However, not all of the language, just some of it
3. There are rules for the language that create this objective meaning
4. But we don't know exactly what they are, they are just floating around somewhere and you shouldn't have to explain what they are, it's a trivial point really

I've already addressed this. Once again, some degree of ambiguity is not sufficient to refute my argument. In these cases, the speaker presumably knows what he meant to a higher degree of accuracy. The speaker would be the rule setter. So the rule would be that this particular word in the speakers statement has this particular meaning. Once the rule is set, the speaker is no longer required. Why would it be otherwise? This is what you must account for if you intend to argue against me. I'm still waiting for a proper response to this from you. Are you going to attempt to justify your idealist premise? — S

5. Speakers create some rules when needed (which seems to be often), they become part of the English ruleset and fix the problem of lack of rules.
6. Demonstrating that definitions are insufficient for specificity is not a problem.
7. All of this is purely hypothetical and English clearly is interpreted when being used, however, I'm being idealistic by thinking English lacks objective meaning (something which would invalidate interpretation) when it's not being used.

I talked a lot about logical validity but apparently, you thought I was saying your argument lacked logical validity rather than me saying objective meaning requires logical validity so idk, we'll just leave that out.

I'm going to be honest with you, I've already presented a lot of counter-arguments and I've gone back and read some of your responses. You either don't see them as arguments, you misunderstood what I was saying or you waved them off as irrelevant by adding new information to your position not previously disclosed. I just have no idea how to argue against your position in a way that will make you happy. You seem to think we're having this understanding and I'm just being difficult, I assure you, there's very little understanding going on here, for both sides.

I actually think your argument could be blown over by the wind. It's vague, it's not clear how to disprove it and it's fairly dishonest. You also aren't really understanding anything I say. I mean you've quoted me here saying "English lacks rules sufficient for objective meaning" and called it not an argument. This is basically my experience talking to you.

If I really am bringing up arguments that don't refute your "argument" it's because I legitimately have no idea how to disprove your argument. I have no idea what logic you're leaning on, no idea what evidence you have and I really don't understand what you are talking about with "rules". Your argument seems to me just "it's obvious my stance is right, disprove me".

Okay, let's try this again since you gave such a reasonable response.

Let me tell you just a tiny bit about myself; I am a hardcore pragmatist, who's generally never interested in epistemology or metaphysics unless it's absolutely necessary. I'm also a moral relativist and I reject the idea of objective meaning as a concept. This is an important point to me in many different areas, religion, politics, morality, language and so on.

If I didn't think the objective meaning would be problematic as a concept, I probably wouldn't bother talking about it or thinking about it at all. This isn't a discussion about whether we want objective meaning or not - but whether it exists but I think it's important to understand my motivations here. I consider it to be a dreadful thing, when the concept of objective meaning is invoked, I am less concerned by the falseness of the claim but with how this idea threatens many things I hold to be of great value. That's another thread though.

Understanding vs Meaning

Let me clarify my position, understanding requires interpretation or "this means that". Understanding is not the same as meaning but meaning also requires interpretation. To understand language, we need to have some idea of the meaning of words and phrases, obviously, so I'd argue understanding requires meaning and meaning requires interpretation.

My understanding is that your position is that language has a coherent ruleset, the meaning of words is defined in the language and there are correct ways to use the language and incorrect ways. The language no longer requires interpretation, you simply need to follow the rules.

Now we're talking about language without anyone to speak it, so there's no "you" and the rules will persist regardless of whether or not anyone is there to interpret or use them.

The first really important thing we needed to clarify is what are the actual rules for English you're referring to. I don't think you ever appreciated how big of a hurdle this is. I am going to limit myself to talking about English in a universe where no humans exist so I hope you'll do the same since that's what we're talking about.

Very odd question. I would advise them to learn the language in the usual ways, and use the usual resources, such as a dictionary or a language learning app. We've all learnt a language as children through to adulthood, and that entails learning language rules. A great deal of it is automatic for us, of course. We learnt the rules long ago. You understand what I'm saying without any need to learn the rules. — S

Let me rephrase the question then, in a universe where there is nobody. Where are the rules for English? You're saying English has these rules that will exist regardless of people but I don't know what rules you're talking about. I don't know what you think I'm trying to prove by asking this from you so let me clarify.

My position is that English does have some basic rules, these rules are insufficient to argue for objective meaning, like not even close. They don't even attempt to do that, they are just some basic rules of which half of them a lot of people just ignore anyway. I use Grammarly to help me with my punctuation and half the time I ignore its advice because I disagree with it.

If you want to argue English has rules to an extent that creates objective meaning then you need to clarify what they are. If you take this exercise seriously, I hope this in itself will disprove the idea that English has rules sufficient for objective meaning. If not then, we can continue to debate once we have some rules and talking about what they can and can't do.

It will not be an easy task to show any ruleset you provide is some kind of official ruleset for English. Dictionaries are not the same, common use of English bypasses some of its rules and new words are created, definitions change and the language is not being used the same way by everyone. However, I will not make this an issue, just bring up some rules and we can examine them.

If you can't do this, then at least rephrase your argument. It's preposterous to argue that the rules of English do this or that without even explaining what the rules for English are and just telling me "You know them" when this whole exercise assumes I don't even exist.

You think so?

Does no trust mean that you always plan for the worst case scenarios as though they're the most likely?

Never enter your house without a weapon and make sure to clear all the hiding places?

Never ride in anyone else's car.

Complete paranoia in all things?

My employees might do their jobs properly or might not, I don't know but I certainly don't trust them to do their jobs. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's worth my time to micromanage.

If I don't trust anyone, work off solely probability and how likely I think it is for an employee to do their job in this particular field. If I weigh up the pros and cons of taking any overseer action as opposed to not taking overseer action and I decide it's better to act in accordance with what I think will give me the best results and that happens to be only dealing with the problems employees cause reactively because proactively monitoring them is resources and time spent ineffectively. That I've acted like I trust them is only an interpretation, what I am really acting like is someone who is only concerned with pragmatism.

That's my take on it anyway.

I agree with most of your sentiment - that capital should be put to better use than accumulating wealth for already uber-rich dynasties and individuals. This seems like a point that any reasonable people would agree with and understand the utility of. However, it remains that taxation of the uber-wealthy still occurs and the more wealthy they are, the more money the government receives from them. So all of the things you're talking about, the uber-rich do contribute to - they should just clearly contribute more.

I wouldn't argue that all of the uber-wealthy are making successful and productive businesses but there are clearly some who, if nothing more than to amuse themselves, create and expand businesses and property which ostensibly they try to see succeed - if nothing else than for their ego.

I am not sure what all the ramifications would be for increased taxation in this globalised day and age but now that I have learned about r>g. I feel a new passion for this topic that I didn't feel before. Taxation as a means to prevent oligarchy... on top of all of the benefits you lay out and more... compelling.

I never really bought the idea that hard work and industriousness were absolute indicators of financial success but I think the illusion that it is could be preventing Americans from supporting these changes. r>g is a powerful debating tool in this regard, combined with the knowledge of the success of socialist programs. Such a more compelling argument (at least for me) could be made about this topic than is being made by the current left which focuses entirely on economic growth and the morality aspect, it's quite misleading.