I doubt that we've been talking past each other this whole time, but if that is how you want to finally admit that you're agreeing with everything that I said, that's fine with me.

Its name is useful. — Banno

How/why is a name useful? Useful for what? What are scribbles and sounds from your mouth useful for? To use something means that you have a goal. What is the goal in the mind when using names?

This is one of the odd things pointed out by Old Wittgenstein. It seems that words can be quite useful without previously agreed on definitions.

It's the use that is important. — Banno

How did you learn to use words? For instance, how did you learn to use the scribble/sound, "shrub" or "tree"?, if not by your teacher pointing to these things, or pictures of these things and then showing/saying the scribblee/sound that points to it? Using words isn't much different than using your pointer finger. Saying, "It is raining." is redundant when I'm looking out the window and I see it raining.

Pointing to pictures is easier to define words for those that don't yet know how to use most of the words in a language (like first graders). Once you do, then dictionaries become useful for learning the definitions of the words that you still don't know the meaning to.

Actually upon further consideration I’m not even sure if a word has to be mutually agreed upon at all in order to have useful meaning. — Benj96

Why would you use a word for your own personal use? If you see that it is raining outside, do you also need to tell yourself that it is raining outside? Words are only useful to tell others who don't see that it is raining outside, that it is raining outside.

what pfhorrest is arguing and what you are defending - that Pfhorrest assumes what is right before engaging with anyone.
— Harry Hindu

Where does he say anything like that? — Isaac

It was you who interpretted his words in that way:

I don't understand how this could possibly work as an assessment of a disagreement about an idea you currently think is right. How could it possibly be the case the reason they disagree with you (according to you) is because you're wrong? If you thought you were wrong, you wouldn't hold the idea in question. So we have to only include categories which assume you're right. The question I understood the OP to be addressing is "assuming I'm right, why might my interlocutor think the way they do?" — Isaac

The question is not what might, later, turn out to be the case, but what I now consider the case to be. That I might later be wrong is trivially true of every position I hold, so it's useless as a distinguishing property.

The point (I think) Pfhorrest is making here is strictly about how to treat people whose position you disagree with (now), nothing more. — Isaac

And Pfhorrest agreed with your interpretation:

I'm pleasantly surprised to see Isaac of all people being my staunchest defender here, but yeah, he's basically said everything I'd want to say in response already. Thanks Isaac. — Pfhorrest

The fact that I have to do you homework for you and remember what you said for you, just shows how lazy of a thinker you are.

..so what do you call the solution arrived at via working through this conflict, after we've talked to everyone, asked them all what's right for them, devised some compromise which best meets everybody's views...? That solution is the _____ solution. Fill in the blank for me because I'm having trouble filling it with any word that isn't just a synonym for 'right'.

And what would you say to someone determined to have their solution implemented despite it not being the (right) one we'd just painstakingly worked out.

I'm happy to use whatever terminology you want to pick. — Isaac

So NOW you finally have come around to seeing things as I have been explaining them. The problem is that you believe that compromises can always be reached. If they could, there would be no such things as moral dilemmas. You need to give me an explanation as to what moral "truth" can be true for all in the same way that gravity is true for all. We all fall at the same rate, but how hard we hit the ground depends on our mass, and there is no compromise in that.

What would you make of synethesia which is word based... for example you always see the word green as The colour green or you always smell petrol when you read the word petrol. — Benj96

How would that even happen if the person didn't make an association between the scribble or sound and what it points to prior to seeing and hearing those words?

Also the word “I” can only ever be referential to the thing saying it. Only “I”s say “I” — Benj96

So? Who is speaking to whom about what is a type of context in which we use scribbles and sounds. "I" is still pointing to something.

Establishing context is no different than a computer running an IF-THEN-ELSE statement in its memory. If the self refers to itself, then use "I" else use "you".

Constructivism claims that all assertions of supposed facts are in actuality just social constructs, ways of thinking about things put forth merely in an attempt to shape the behavior of other people to some end, in effect reducing all purportedly factual claims to normative ones. — Pfhorrest

Then Constructivism is just another assertion of supposed facts that is actually just a social construction, ways of thinking about morality put forth merely in an attempt to shape the behavior of other people to some end, in effect reducing all purportedly factual claims to normative ones. So you never assert facts,, like what Constructivism entails,, only normative claims in an effort to manipulate others?? Why do you keep making this same mistake? You keep pulling the rug out from under your own argument.

Yeah, pig-headedly refusing to address an issue doesn't make the issue go away. We're talking about moral dilemmas. Moral dilemmas are almost exclusively social which means that any answer cannot be individually tailored. There can only be a single right answer and it must apply to everyone sharing the common interest that isvthe subject of the dilemma. — Isaac

And that is what pfhorrest is arguing and what you are defending - that Pfhorrest assumes what is right before engaging with anyone. Every time you post a reply you contradict yourself, just like Pfhorrest. Its impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you.

What I've been saying is what you assume to be right or wrong can only be the case for yourself and that you have to talk to others to discover what is right or wrong for them.

Moral dilemmas are the result of conflicting goals. They are a dilemma because every individual is considered equal and should have the equal right of achieving their goals. So moral dilemmas are the result of the idea of equality.

Ironic how the idea of an objective morality stems from the idea that not everyone is created equal - that there are some that have the power to determine what is right or wrong for others, that there are some that can realize their goals sooner than others.

So this is what? An exception to the rule? Something you somehow know to be right in ways others can't access? — Isaac

Like I've been saying all along, but your not payng attention, you can only claim what us right or wrong for yourself. Are you saying it is right for you to infringe on other peoples rights? :roll:

Indeed. Nor did I ever, anywhere, say that it was. — Isaac

Then we have been agreeing all this time that Pfhorrest's assumption that what they consider right is right for all, is actually wrong? It was you asserting that Pfhorrest is right in their assumption that they know what is right for others. It was me telling you that assuming that you know what is right for others is the wrong way to go about engaging others about what they consider right or wrong.

You seem to be incapable of maintaining a consistent thought in your head.

Just because morality is subjective doesn't mean that we can't come to an understanding of what is right or wrong for an individual and why. Going into the discussion already assuming that you know what is right for them isn't going to get you anywhere in understanding that.

Yes, I was talking about within one country, obviously. — Isaac

Then, again, you've forgotten that you were the one trying to make the case for what is right for all, not just one (objective vs. subjective morality).

So what? There's still only one car. How do they decide? — Isaac

That's your problem, not mine. Remember that you were the one asserting the existence of objective morality, not me.

To make it clear why I'm picking examples like that (which I thought might have gone without having to explain), there's only one atmosphere, there's only one ocean, there's only one biosphere. And that's for the whole world. When it comes down to countries and communities, there's only one hospital, there's only one school, there's only one park, there's only one road network...

The example is like every political dilemma I can think of. Which is why I asked you for any alternatives. You seemed to think we can have one right answer each. — Isaac

My point is that even if the two occupants of the vehicle can come to an agreement about where to go, that doesn't mean that that is the right conclusion for everyone in every situation where the occupants of a vehicle can't agree on where to go.

There are many variables that can affect what type of compromise can be reached. Whose car is it and who is driving? You can always go to both places, but not at the same time. So if one isn't in a hurry then the other gets to go where they want to go first. These are but a small fraction of variables that can be in effect, and they are not all the same in each and every instance where occupants of a vehicle cannot decide where to go.

Like I said, it's the problem of induction. How do you know that what is true in this instance is true in every instance? Well, the problem is that every other instance is unique. States-of-affairs can be similar, but never exactly the same. The amount of similarity and difference between states-of-affairs is dependent upon the level of detail (measurement) we are talking about, or that is useful in some particular instance.

No. If people generally carry weapons, then others will feel the need to do so themselves, violent assaults are then more likely to involve weapons and therefore be more harmful to all involved. Do you think the difference in homicide rates between the US and the UK is entirely unrelated to the fact that we've banned guns? — Isaac

Again, you are conflating carrying a weapon with using it against innocent unarmed people. Does carrying a hammer make you want to bash people's heads in? Does driving a car make you want to run people over? Not everyone that owns a hammer, car, or gun harms innocent people with those things. In fact, most people that own those things don't harm innocent people with those things. Taking away the rights of everyone based on the actions of a few is what I consider wrong as it infringes upon the rights of innocent people. This is no different than racial profiling, which I think you would agree is wrong. So, why would you want to be inconsistent in your application of the rules, if not because of some political bias?

No, Rousseau, I use words. These are a subset of the scribbles and sounds. — Banno

Not much different than what said. What makes a subset of scribbles and sounds words and not just scribbles and sounds?

You use scribbles and sounds. HOW you use scribbles and sounds is what makes them words or not. Are you writing or drawing? Depends on how you use the scribbles.

Sure you have, and you haven't gotten anywhere. So maybe it's time to think about it differently?

You make an assertion. I show you how your assertion is wrong. You say you aren't interested. Predictable.

You seem to be confusing different opinions about the right course of action with different possibilities over the right course of action. There can, for example, only be one import tax rate. There might be a hundred different opinions as to which is the best rate, but there can be only one rate, and so somehow a choice must be made about which is the right rate given all those diverse opinions. We cannot have one rate each. — Isaac

It's not that simple. There can be different import tax rates for different countries, and the right rate depends on the country. So there isn't only one import rate. There are numerous rates dependent upon the needs of the country and it's relationship with other particular countries.

I didn't ask for the answers people would give. — Isaac

LOL! I know! Because you don't give a shit what other answers people would give. You already assume that you know what the right answer is for them. That's my point!

I asked for an example of a dilemma for which it is possible to tailor the answer to each individual. For example, two men share a car, one thinks they should go left, the other right. It is simply not possible to tailor the answer to this dilemma to satisfy their individual preferences. There's only one car and it must go either left of right. I'm saying most ethical and political dilemmas are like this, I'm asking you to give me any examples of ones which aren't. — Isaac

Whether you go left or right depends on where they want to go. What if they want to go to different places? Your examples are stupid.

Yes. That carrying a weapon in public is wrong. It only works if it's considered wrong for everyone. If it's the case that those who think it's wrong don't carry one but those that don't can carry one with impunity, then everyone will have to carry a weapon to defend themselves. Moral rules which de-escalate violence only work if they apply to everyone. — Isaac

Carrying a weapon in public does nothing to infringe upon your right to be happy and healthy. Using a weapon on an unarmed person is wrong as it goes against what I said in infringing on other people's goals of being happy and healthy. So you are confusing the distinction between carrying a weapon in public and using one on innocent, unarmed people. Carrying a weapon can prevent you being a victim of an armed attack. Speak softly but carry a big stick.

Sure, they do. Beliefs exist only in minds for a period of time before you think of something else. Thinking takes time.

Not helpful.

:roll:

I don't see how that changes the logic. You're right, of course, when dealing with subjective preferences, but since politics and ethics hardly ever deal with subjective preferences, I hardly see how it's relevant to the discussion. — Isaac

Thats is where you are wrong. If that were the case, then why all the political disagreements, wars, ethical dilemmas, etc.? It's like asserting that there is only one god, but then all I have to do is point to all the other gods that are believed in. Which god is the right god?

Maybe I'm missing something. Can you give me an example of an ethical or political dilemma where the 'right' answers can be tailored to each individual? — Isaac

That would require me to know what it is like for every individual - what makes them happy and their preferences for obtaining happiness. I know that you haven't been really reading what I've said, but I'll say it again: That isn't knowable unless you ask them first. It's not something that you assume.

Can you give me an example of a moral conclusion that can be applied in all instances for everyone person in the same way that gravity works for every person?

That's just it, HarryHindu. You equate the two: conceptual thought and dots a scribbles. That is, if I may make this observation, your mistake in your reasoning. Whereas here you clearly stated "... by using scribbles and sounds".

I don't suppose you see my point, or that you ever will. Using something. Do I make that something into the thing that I am using it to create it?

A few examples: Pyramids, highways, railroads and buildings: People were used to build them. Are railroads (the actual rails) people, money, design or execution? No, they are railroads. Yet according to you, how you use dots and scribbles, the dots and scribbles are the concept themselves. Well, no. You are making a huge mistake by being unable to separate the two.

I am getting angry. This is by no way to affect you, as I believe and hope that I have kept my tone civil. But I can't hold back much longer. Please forgive me, but I must terminate my debate with you, on extended doctor's orders. This is a reflection on you, and on my condition. Please forgive me, but this is it for this topic. I ran out of patience. — god must be atheist

I don't understand the turn in your emotional state regarding this topic. There really is nothing to get emotional about. You've actually moved the ball forward with your examples. Thanks.

To use your example of say the Pyramids, yes, it took people and their tools and the actual materials to make the Pyramids. This is equivalent to you using pen and paper, or a computer with a keyboard, to create scribbles on the paper or the computer screen. The scribbles are the finished product, or result of people and their tools. The scribbles are a representation of the conceptual thought, just as the pyramids are a representation of concept that created them (a visual of large pyramids).

My point is that while the physical pyramids are not the same as the conceptual pyramids, they both appear in the same way - as a visual of a shape of a pyramid constructed by stones that is used to house the corpses of pharoahs. What I'm saying is that you use the same visual of scribbles in your head that you then use to create those on paper with a pen. When thinking, "All husbands are married men." all you are thinking of are sounds and scribbles in your head, just as when thinking about pyramids before contructing them, you are thinking of the visual of a pyramid. To say that one is thinking of a pyramid, one could be thinking of the Pyramids in Egypt, or some other pyramid - even one that only exists in their head, but they all have the shape of a pyramid in their mind because that is what thinking of a pyramid entails.

I asked how do you know the difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge. The same can be asked about how do you know that you're thinking of a pyramid or a cube? They appear different visually - no matter if the pyramid and cube is in your head or out in the world. The same can be said about a priori and a posteriori knowledge. They appear differently in the mind or on a computer screen as a pattern of scribbles/sounds. Given that most of us talk to ourselves in our mind and not write to ourselves in our minds, a priori knowledge often takes the form of sounds in your head or sounds spoken from your mouth.

If you want to say that those scribbles and sounds point to real things in the world, then that is simply more of what I've been saying - that what those scribbles point to is the justification of that knowledge.

What is necessary for all husbands to be married men? Men and marriage? Language? What? Wouldn't those things be the justification for "All husbands are married men"?

This is an odd thing to say. If I'm unsure which path to take, and I decide the left is more likely to lead home than the right, are you saying that, in the absence of a person to talk to about it, i don't consider my assessment of likelihood as 'right'? What status would you say I'd assigned it then? — Isaac

This is a red herring. The right way home for you is not the right way home for others, nor will it be the right way home all the time as traffic, accidents, and other obstacles can change which way is the best way home from day to day.

In assuming that you are right, you are only assuming that it right for yourself. To assert that it is right for others, you need to ask them, not assume it.

That is what you and Pfhorrest fail to understand. It's no surprise that you don't understand it. Authoritarians inherently have trouble understanding this. It's what makes them authoritarians.

My point is that if one doesn't believe in objective morality, then how can one hope to get along with others in the pursuit of some common goal (which is, presumably, what politics is about, ie. the pursuit of some common goal)?

I also don't believe there is objective morality, but I think it is of vital importance to assume and act as if there was objective morality. Otherwise, we're talking about a bunch of moral egoists/moral narcissists who will never be able to get anything done together. — baker

We are all human beings, and most humans share the same goals. It's just the means by which we attain them can vary. Most agree that being happy and healthy is good, but we disagree on what makes one happy and healthy or the means by which we obtain happiness and health.

We are also social animals and social animals depend on the social relationships with others of their kind to be happy and healthy. How we go about establishing relationships, and what kinds of relationships, can vary. There is no particular right way to be happy that applies to all. There is a wrong way to be happy and that is to take other's happiness away. That is the only means by which one can obtain happiness that should be denied. Why should it matter how another obtain's happiness if it doesn't affect how you obtain happiness? If you are only happy in telling others how to live their lives or that they should obtain happiness and health the way you do then you are the problem of society, not those that don't agree with that assumption.

Why on earth should that be a problem for someone who doesn't believe in objective morality? — baker

There is what is true in one instance, and then there is believing that makes it true in all instances.

you are absolutely right. I don't see any point in your objection. If you insist on equating conceptual thought to dots and scribbles, and you deny that meaning transcends physical signs that convey it, then I especially see no point in your objection. — god must be atheist

How else do you justify that you engage in conceptual thought if not by using scribbles and sounds? Michael was on the right track by equating it to language (symbol-use). The scribbles point to observable things and events (men and weddings). Categorization is a type of information processing and is based upon goal-oriented behavior. To say that the category is true is to conflate truth with an arbitrary rule/goal by which information is processed.

,

I don't understand how this could possibly work as an assessment of a disagreement about an idea you currently think is right. How could it possibly be the case the reason they disagree with you (according to you) is because you're wrong? If you thought you were wrong, you wouldn't hold the idea in question. So we have to only include categories which assume you're right. The question I understood the OP to be addressing is "assuming I'm right, why might my interlocutor think the way they do?" — Isaac

You seem to be just as thick-headed as Pfhorrest. Assuming that you are right is one thing. Proving it to others is another. Once you try to prove it to others and they don't agree, at that point you may want to revisit your assumption. I'm not saying that you being wrong is the only possibility if someone disagrees, just that it is a possibility to be considered. If you don't consider that, then you would be no better than the person you are arguing with that you assume is wrong and just won't admit it, or even consider it.

To think that you can assume that you are right without having to prove it to others - without having exposed your ideas to open criticism - is the problem.

The important point is that the OP is about ethics, not knowledge in general. In most ethical cases one must act in accordance with some assumption (many more empirical cases of knowledge fall into this category too). Personally I don't see much merit in making an entirely academic distinction between 'acting as if x were right / the case' and 'believing x is right / the case', especially in ethics and politics, the two are for all intents and purposes, the same. Which means that, for all binomial dilemmas (and obviously all dilemmas can be framed binomially as x,~x), we can treat each person as believing either x or ~x. — Isaac

Ethics is about knowing the difference between right and wrong. So ethics is based upon a sound epistemology. The problem of induction is akin to the problem of ethics. Is what is right for me in this particular circumstance good for another in a similar circumstance? How do you know that what is right for you in a particular circumstance is always right for not just you, but everyone else?

there is no such thing as an objective morality
— Harry Hindu
How can one do politics if one belives that? — baker

That's the point. If you need a Big Brother, that's your problem, not mine.

The point (I think) Pfhorrest is making here is strictly about how to treat people whose position you disagree with (now), nothing more. — Isaac

My point was that one of the ways of how you treat people whose position you disagree with (now) is by acknolwedging that there is the possibility that the reason they disagree with you is because you are wrong. That never seems to be even a contemplated possibility for Pfhorrest.

I don't really understand how this comment relates to either my post, or the OP. Regardless of that, it's obviously wrong. Some people believe quite strongly in principles like democracy, for example, where, in its most radical form, what the majority believe is the right course of action is exactly the right course of action. It can also be a very useful heuristic in situations where one is inexperienced (especially where the group in question is vastly more experienced). There are numerous scenarios where trusting the collective judgement of a group is a good logical choice. — Isaac

Sure, for your own social well-being, not because of what they said is true.

My point was that there is no such thing as an objective morality. We all do what we think is right for ourselves, but whether that is right for others in every possible circumstance is highly questionable and illogical to assume.

At best, it's just a useful heuristic for navigating social life more easily. — baker

That is questionable. Assuming that people think a certain way because of how they look often gets you into trouble.

It's worse than that even. Since there's no objective set of rules as to what words in a language 'really' mean, nor boundaries where one language ends and another starts (pidgin English for example), you don't even know that all husbands are married a priori after you've learnt a language. You know it in no less a way than you know the earth is round. All the while you continue to successfully use the terms synonymously, it's true. At any point in future, or within any given sub-set of language speaker, or within any new language game, it may cease to be the case. — Isaac

It would always remain the case, even if humans became extinct and language disappeared from the universe, that husbands were once defined as married men by a particular human society. Or you could at least say that a particular society of humans at one time organized scribbles in this way: "Husbands are married men".

Actually, thinking about it again I can understand your point. Knowing that all husbands are married is knowing that "husband" means "married man", and knowing that "husband" means "married man" isn't a priori knowledge, and so therefore knowing that all husbands are married isn't a priori? — Michael

Not only that, but it requires the existence of marriage and men - both of which are visual concepts. The statement is about men and marriage, without which the statement makes no sense. We are talking about things that we can observe and whose existence is the justification for such statements.

Perhaps the distinction is that a priori truths are truths that derive from the meaning of the words and a posteriori truths are truths that don't. After learning a language I can know that all husbands are married but I can't know that all men are married, and that is how the distinction is made. — Michael

It's more like just how we think, or the process of thinking, or categorizing. It seems that a priori truths are being conflated with the process of thinking and reasoning. Thinking is always about things. The process by which we categorize observable things is still dependent upon observed things. The same process can be applied to other things. Categorization isn't a truth. It's a way of processing information.

What is this other category in which we could place those who disagree with us ethically aside from misinformed, misguided, or wrong? — Isaac

Its not possible for us both to be objectively correct, but it is possible for both of to be objectively wrong. Pfhorrest seems incapable of acknowledging the latter, or at least acknowledge the possibility that there is no objective morality.

A group-thinker doesn't know what is wrong or right. Group-thinkers look to the group to tell them what is wrong or right. This is pleading to popularity and authority, which are logical fallacies, therefore cannot be the objectively right thing to do.

I do. The "fence sitter" in the conversation elsewhere that inspired this thread reminds me of a younger me. It's for the sake of people like that that I'm even thinking about this topic. I don't want to see them treated as enemies, but as potential friends. — Pfhorrest

The problem is that you don't see fence-sitting as a legitimate position, like the left or right. The only possible positions for you is left or right and any other position is "fence-sitting". What a limited way to see the world.

Because politics is a normative field. The questions at hand are what are the right or wrong things to do with our society. Anyone who thinks that nothing is actually right or wrong are just bowing out of that discussion. Anyone who is participating in that discussion is asserting something as right or wrong and acting as though some people (like themselves) are correct in their assessment of which is which and others are incorrect. — Pfhorrest

In other words, people that don't limit their thinking like you do and think like you do can't be part of the discussion, but you can decide what is right for me? Damn, bruh. You're nothing more than an authoritarian despot. You're getting worse everyday.

I do think something is wrong with society. I just don't see the right answers coming from the authoritarian left or the authoritarian right. I see the correct answers in letting each individual speak for themselves and not be dictated by group-think. My right answer would be to abolish the left and right so that everyone is a "fence-sitter" - capable of being reasoned with. Emotionally invested group-thinkers like yourself are incapable of being reasoned with.

Is it right or wrong to speak for others and to determine what is right or wrong for others? Who determines what is right or wrong for yourself, Pfhorrest?

You totally missed my point.

If a priori truths don't need justification, then what were you trying to show with visual scribbles on the screen?

My beliefs about my cat include the cat — creativesoul

Then what does it mean to be about your cat if it includes your cat? You either have beliefs about cats in your mind (realism), or cats in your mind (solipsism). Not both. Which is it?

...you could still argue humankind 'ought' to become extinct. Is that what you're saying?
— counterpunch

Indeed. — Banno

You first.

People who solidly hold correct opinions for good reasons — Pfhorrest

Wtf is a "correct opinion"? Politics has obviously driven some our members insane.

Putting people.that you don't know into groups. Sounds like a bigot to me.

Mice, trees, cups, cupboards, and tables... — creativesoul

So your beliefs are composed of actual mice, trees, cups, cupboards and tables, rather than visuals and feelings OF mice, trees, cups, cupboards and tables? Lazy thinking on your part.

Exactly. Reasoning is the act of providing reasons, or justifications, for your conclusion. How do you arrive at conclusions (knowledge) without reasons or justifications?

I think that philosophy tends to run away with language in that people say stuff that they believe is interesting and profound, but when you parse their statements it makes no sense whatsoever.

I contend that our relationship to science is mistaken; a consequence of arresting Galileo for the heresy of proving the earth orbits the sun, and supressing science as an understanding of reality even while using science to drive the industrial revolution. In short, we used the tools - but we didn't read the instructions, and that is why we are headed for extinction. — counterpunch

I think it was Ben Carson that proposed the idea of the Logic Party. The problem is that he was also a theist.

The opposition would be theocrats and politicians as both are based on emotions and the subjective nature of morality and pleading to popularity and authority.

You conflate what it means to be the opposition in politics with opposition to truth. — baker

Then politics sits opposite of science.

Yep, those too are part of it. — creativesoul

What else would there be?

Thinking in words is no different than thinking in visuals and sounds. — Harry Hindu

That is not true. All words are visuals and/or sounds. Not all visuals and sounds are words. — creativesoul

If all words are visuals and sounds then you think in visuals and sounds. :roll:

The question then is what does such meaningful belief consist of? — creativesoul

Visuals, sounds, smells, feelings, etc.
Words are a particular type of visual or sound.

Thinking in words is no different than thinking in visuals and sounds. Words are typically one color - black, and come in simple shapes. What they represent can be multicolored and complex, or not colored at all as in a smell, taste or feeling. So words are simple symbols meant to represent more complex concepts that are more than one color and more visually complex than a scribble on paper. We ultimately use words to simplify communication of ideas and beliefs to others.

Use your words. — Banno

No. You use scribbles and sounds, not words. Using scribbles and sounds to point to things makes those scribbles and sounds words, and not just merely scribbles and sounds.

As polarized as politics has become, I am not sure the casual observer from either side would have difficulty coming to this conclusion. — synthesis

If they are just a casual observer then they are not from one side or the other. To see your position as the righteous one for everyone and anyone that disagrees is a bigot or racist IS extremism is a nutshell. If you don't see your side as possessing a monopoly of morality, then that isn't really taking a side as you are acknowledging that each "side" is just a different means of achieving liberty and equality for the individual.

If you want to be told how to live your life, or what is good for you, then that is your own personal choice. I am not one of those people. Nor am I one to tell you how to live your life, or what choices you have to make, unless those choices you are making infringe upon my rights of having personal choice.

So ultimately, religion/politics is the extreme in that is a means of controlling individuals. If you actually do believe in personal liberty, then you haven't taken any side as you believe that each individual is simply a different side that cannot be imposed on another individual. To think that you can speak for others that you don't know is what is extreme and is the nature of religion and politics.

Both sides see each other as extreme because they are extreme. — synthesis

They are extreme, but that isn't why they see each other as extreme, or else they would see not only the other as extreme, but their own party as extreme as well. It takes a more objective, a-political outlook to see both as extreme.

For example, conservatives generally want to keep things the way they are (for obvious reasons including the fact that they are benefiting from the status quo) whereas progressives see the need for change in order to allow more folks to participate/prosper. — synthesis

Both parties can claim that they are for allowing more folks to participate/propsper, as they both have libertarian tendencies, but they both have authoritarian tendencies as well, so neither one can actually declare that they possess the monopoly on libertarianism.

The Progressives are only such in name only. They are actually authoritarian socialists in libertarian clothes. Once they achieve what they want - which is the same as any political party wants: control over individuals - they become defenders of the status quo and any objectors become the progressives.

True progressives would be those that actually value individualism over collectivism, as collectivism is what we've bascially had ever since religions became political.

There are two kinds of truths: a priori and a posteriori. The first kind is true at any time, in any part of the world, because it does not depend on empirical observation. The second kind is the truth we find in such things that can be demonstrated to be false by experiment, by observation (if any).

Reason can't defeat a truth if it's an a priori truth. And reason is part of the a priori truth.

Reason can't defend the truth of an a posteriori truth. Only observation can defeat it, and nothing can defend it in an absolute sense. — god must be atheist

Why do a priori truths not need justification (observation), but a posterior truths do? It seems to me that there is still an observation taking place or else how do you distinguish the a priori from a posterior truths? How do you know the difference between them to be able to make an objective assertion for what a priori and a posterior truths are not just yourself, but for others too? What are we to look for in distinguishing a priori from a posteriori truths?

Words are just scribbles and sounds, so a priori truths take the form if scribbles and sounds which are empirical forms.

To know that you know anything requires some sort of empirical justification, which can include use of sounds and scribbles.