That’s why I said “whoever”. I don’t know where the quote came from.

I just realized that intersubjective doesn't work, because most people experience their model that they can know things about objective reality as working for them. — Coben

But one must confer with the community in order to determine that one isn’t completely crazy, delusional, or hallucinating. This is learned as a toddler in most cases in that a toddler forms ideas about the outside world by learning from others and observing how others interact with the shared outside world. A schizophrenic, for example, if she has insight into her illness will inquire of others about the outside world and listen to those she trusts, trust being something learned through interaction with others. So, yes, objective reality certainly IS a certain way, but that doesn’t give us its objective nature or how it would be absent a percipient.

There is no point in discussing values until the whole is portrayed graphically. End-values or elemental forms of society then show themselves. In the ultimate analysis we simply have a choice between them, or do as we must do. — S

Premise 1: values are given to wholes, such as persons, pets, sentimental objects, etc.

Premise 2: Some of these wholes have intrinsic value.

Conclusion: We choose between wholes with intrinsic value or sometimes wholes with pragmatic value such as ideas or concepts, or, we do what necessity demands.

Whoever posted the above quote was most likely a marijuana connoisseur.

Without the element of risk inherent to action (without which an action would not be an action, but a mere mechanical process), responsibility cannot be attendant to the agent who engenders it. — StreetlightX

But maybe this is confusing the epistemic issue (risk or not knowing the unintended consequences of an action) with the metaphysical issue (whether actions are indeed mechanical or ‘information in, action out’)? I’m not sure now. I think moral responsibility is just a convenient framework that people use to place blame or give praise and separate people who are dangerous from those people we want in our community.

Stronger than this: 'need not' implies an option. I'm saying this is a matter of principle, of necessity: we are only responsible to the degree that we are not 'ultimately' (?) in control of our actions. In yet other words: responsibility implies an exposure, on our part, to the accidental, to the unforeseen, and to the 'uncontrollable'. Without such an exposure or risk, it makes no sense to speak of responsibility (or 'accountability'). Without the element of risk inherent to action (without which an action would not be an action, but a mere mechanical process), responsibility cannot be attendant to the agent who engenders it. — StreetlightX

This is quite a profound ontological claim. I’m sure you’re right, too. I agree with you even though I’ve never encountered such a claim as this. It’s kind of an “aha!” moment for me. :chin: :up:

I think that's a very hard position to defend, because he will need to show why science can't reach OR and this will require him to explain the nature of OR and scientists to show the latter cannot approach the former. Fruit of the poisoned tree and all that. — Coben

Didn’t Einstein say something like objective reality is probably stranger than can be theorized by science? Patternchaser is making a philosophical, metaphysical and epistemological claim about objective reality. That is not science’s domain. Most scientists, unlike Einstein, know jack about philosophy.

As long as what to you is my face I call a horseshoe, then my concept about what a horseshoe is is correct?

Whether someone calls it a "horseshoe" or not depends on their individual concept. It's simply a matter of what they personally require to call something a "horseshoe." — Terrapin Station

So people need not agree on what a horseshoe is? There is no collective knowledge? I’m sure I misunderstand you, and that’s not what you’re saying.

So presumably his model is subjective, but I am not sure that is meaningful, and then you'd think it would be heavily qualified. Like 'the following model seems to fit my experience and I'm guessing other people's.' — Coben

Maybe. Or maybe he was trying to work things out as he was going. Anyway, I think his model is really inter-subjective in that people seem to agree on science which deals with sense data as well as theories explaining sense data. This is a communal activity. Whether or not it is knowledge of objective reality or things in themselves is impossible to know due to the nature of perception and theorizing.

I’m sorry. Will you forgive my transgression? I will either read from the beginning or I won’t. I probably won’t intrude again, but I really don’t care about angering Tim.

Forgive me, but I think you’re being pedantic. One cannot “know” things in themselves (OR) but still have a model of OR from AR. You might call that a contradiction. I call it two types of “knowing”. One is modeled socially (OR), but what is known is really AR.

Okay. So are you saying that maybe some people could know OR if their model is complete?

Did y’all get to the thesis-antithesis-synthesis part of Hegel yet? Because the way I see it, according to Hegel, historical reality is progressing to a type of perfection. Perhaps truth apprehended through intuition results in historical thesis, giving rise to historical antithesis, further resulting in synthesis. Collectively we who grasp this through intuition arrives at perfection ultimately at some future point in history? So, God grasped through intuition results in the ultimate truth of perfection at the end of history? Correct me if I’m confused.

Let me assume you mean that the OR is consistant in the sense that I should be like him, my perception is like his. If that assumption is not correct, let me know. — Coben

I think you’re each using the term “perception” differently. Patternchaser is strictly using the term to mean “sense perception” in that we all see, hear, smell, and taste the same things and can communicate meaningfully about our experiences. You’re using the term to mean subjective experience which differs from person to person in that we all model OR differently. Or is that wrong? Correct me if I’m wrong.

Ah! I see what you’re saying now. But isn’t it safe to say that OR is shared through a collective AR? It must be consistent, no? One can say that OR is consistent without knowing the things in themselves (a la Kant).

The con man says there’s nothing to worry about (regarding Kim) and that he’s got it under control. In all fairness to the con man, I’m not sure what he can do about it without China’s help.

The Subject in the subject-object relation is necessarily private. Is that what you’re saying? I don’t think he would disagree with this, but you are also saying there is another kind of knowledge, viz. self knowledge. Right?

I think you’re each saying different things, both of which are true.

Can you expand a bit? — Coben

Perception doesn’t involve direct apprehension of objective reality. Do you directly apprehend radio waves, microwaves, and atoms through perception? The short of it is “no”. One has to theorize about objective reality from what appears to our perception (apparent reality).

There, you just did it again. You told me a fact about me. I am not you. I am outside you. You didn't say it appears to me that you do not have knowledge of OR. You said how it must be. — Coben

I think @Pattern-chaser is positing a view of knowledge a la Kant.

IOW, we need not be ultimately responsible for our actions in order to be morally culpable? If this is what you’re saying, then I agree. One may not be in control of one’s emotions that override the frontal lobe’s inhibiting influence, but no one but they are responsible for any negative actions taken.

You make some sense. However my objections to this poster (who frequents other forums with the same 'questions') is nothing to do with the negligible 'contents' ( ..anybody can read up on Gnosticism..) but on the grounds that he merely engages in challenging conventional 'believers' in order to reinforce his own belief system. In other words, he contributes nothing. — fresco

I tend to agree concerning this poster. Not only is he engaged in an exercise that produces no fruit, but also he is annoying and insufferable.

It’s meaningful in that the words and ideas have meaning whether shared or individual to the user(s). Oftentimes the meaning of terms used are not shared, which leads to a lot of confusion and endless argument. Other times people just plain disagree on the truth values of concepts with shared meaning. But, metaphysics is good for the proverbial soul to entertain the possibilities of what indeed could be true states of affairs if only to humble oneself at the lack of possible knowledge of said states of affairs.

*Shrug* I don't see any reason to worry about a president who is going to let a psychopathic dictator continue to develop nuclear weapons because he writes him "beautiful letters". — Baden

Not to mention that Trump may single-handedly be bringing on a world recession with his trade war with China. Not to mention the appeasement by Trump of Russia’s interference in the world’s democratic governments. Not to mention the escalation of tensions with Iran over pulling out of the nuclear deal, pushing Iran into a corner where they have no choice but to lash out.

Wot. Are you saying people wouldn’t want to change who they are? I’m not chastising you or anything, it’s just that all the people I know have this one habit they want to kick or one they want to start. I don’t get how you could want to want to change but also say you wouldn’t want to change — khaled

Because I believe people usually want to change from outside pressures, the Other looking down on the Self for some perceived shortcoming. Or, the Self with low esteem wanting what others have or do. Accepting oneself for things one cannot change is healthy. I like doing philosophy and yard work. I am otherwise lazy and others look down on me for it. At one time I was feeling pretty low about myself for being low energy. I know it is because my medications slow me down significantly, but I need my medications or I wouldn’t be able to live in society. I cannot change my low energy, so now I accept it instead of beating myself up over it. I wish I weren’t low energy in that I wish my medications didn’t slow me down significantly, but I choose to accept my limitations instead of feeling bad about it. Everyone does what they do and are what they are for very good reasons only known to them. Instead of trying to live up to others’ expectations, we should all give ourselves a break.

Which raises the point that all of us are guilty of blowing down houses of cards at times when we mischaracterize or misunderstand others’ arguments and ideas. But how do we know we are doing this unless we engage in the arena of ideas?

I never felt more alive than when I got a fistful of rings in the eye or the time someone smashed a beer glass in my face. I went off both times. I recommend it to anyone who feels dead inside so they can awake from their slumber. I’ve since moved on to the more subtle arts as Wallows called philosophy. But for anyone who’s depressed, perhaps what they really need is a good jack in the kisser. (But you didn’t hear that from me.) :wink:

Some thinkers need a house of cards to blow down so they can continue to fool themselves that they really are indeed thinking.

I want to want to not be so lazy. I’m not sure I dopamine-induced want to be lazy. It’s just what I am. So, if I really knew what was good for me, then I wouldn’t even want to want to not be lazy. I’d want to want to be exactly what I am for my own mental health. Acceptance is key to mental health, I think. What do you think?

One person’s porn or heroin addiction is another person’s hobby.

I think it's more like: only one possibility exists, but you don't know what it is, therefore you imagine all kinds of different possibilities exist. (You meaning the general you; human.) — god must be atheist

Kind of like picking out which porn video to watch. There seems like endless variety and options, but for some reason it was determined at the Big Bang that I would pick the redhead today. :grin:

I appreciate your effort. — god must be atheist

That’s what she said.

How do I know I’m not an AI in a simulation? :lol: :fear:

Yes I think it's something akin to Maslow's hierarchy or needs, also the internet. Looking at a typical middle ages peasant, he didn't have time to worry about his "purpose in life" when he was more concerned with providing food for himself. — khaled

Exactly. The monastic life certainly led to philosophical thought because their time was devoted to meditation and prayer. Thinking about
Aquinas here. The privileged have time for philosophy while peasants don’t have the time or awareness. Certain thoughtful peasants probably wondered about the inequality between them and the aristocracy, though.

(I have no idea what it means for "ought" statements to be a delusion.) — Magnus Anderson

The OP was saying (as far as I can tell) that the world IS a certain way. “Ought” statements are a wishing of how people want it to be. At least some kinds of “ought” statements are therefore delusional.

morality is not a delusion — Magnus Anderson

It is a delusion in the sense that it need not be the case that there are “ought” statements. Other animals don’t seem to have them, and if the universe is completely deterministic, then saying how things ought to be is a form of delusion. It is denying how things must be. If you believe that there is a Categorical Imperative that emerges from living in a community, then it is not delusion. If we have libertarian free will, then it is not delusion.

You’re smarter than me and most others. :wink:

Sounds like someone’s defensive. Privileged much?

There are correlations even if they are unfalsifiable in the strict scientific controlled experiment sense.

Are you making more of a normative argument for how civilization is better? Because I’m not “glamorizing” ancient tribes. That was not my intention, anyway. I happen to be grateful to civilization. I was making a descriptive argument for why the majority of people hate their jobs. This seems to be the case with almost everyone I’ve ever talked to.