I don't understand the point of bringing up circularity, as if it's a negative. — Sam26

Also, words don't get their meaning from other words, words primarily get their meaning from how they're used. — Sam26

It's just that an objective view is impossible - paradoxical even. We can only attain a degree of it by using the scientific method. — Harry Hindu

I think of "objective" as how someone completely outside the system, i.e. God, sees things. That's not a definition, but it helps me think about it. Although the concept of objectivity can be useful, I think it's hard to justify on a broader scale. Of course, that probably means that the concept of subjectivity also has a limited application. — T Clark

That seems to suggest to me, that there is a HUGE difference between objective and subjective reasoning. One assessment is from me and one from you. Which is subjective or objective changes situationally. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I had thought, for awhile, that it was preferable to reject the distinction between what is objective and subjective. — Moliere

Now I'm tentatively of the opinion that as long as we set out what we mean then the terms can be used, while keeping an eye on the fact that they are ambiguous and often change meaning depending on the speaker. — Moliere

I didn't say it can't be talked about, some of it can be talked about. — Sam26

It's just that if we do talk about it, it can't be entirely private. — Sam26

This directly corresponds with the beetle-in-the-box, there is no way for me to know what the word beetle is referring too, no outward thing for the word to latch onto, no way for us to know if you're using the word correctly or not. — Sam26

My question is, what can't be verified or falsified? I'm not sure what you're referring too. — Sam26

The point about the beetle-in-the-box is to demonstrate that meaning isn't derived by pointing to something subjective, so your interpretation of what I'm saying doesn't seem to jive with what I'm saying. — Sam26

It's more than that, viz., I have private content, but meaning is not derived from my private content. — Sam26

For example, knowing is not some subjective experience, i.e., the meaning of "to know" is not something private. — Sam26

The problem in much of society today is that we give too much credence to private experiences, as though that's what's important, that's what's primary. — Sam26

All I'm saying is that meaning is not associated with anything private. — Sam26

Note that Wittgenstein's beetle-in-the-box can be associated with any object, there is no way to tell if we are using the word in the same way - no way to tell if there is an error being made. Whatever is in your box IS the beetle, and whatever is in my box IS the beetle, but they may be two or more different things. — Sam26

Remember I can't see what's in your box, and you can't see what's in my box, so whatever we are associating with the word beetle, is something only the person with his or her box can observe, i.e., it's private. — Sam26

I don't follow your point, flush it out a bit. — Sam26

On an individual level human beings are motivated more by emotion than by reason. — Marcus de Brun

Upon a logical level 'ideas' the truth of things and non-things cannot be pursued via emotions or in the service of the emotions/instincts.

The contemporary paradigm is formed out of collective emotion that is validated by some degree of reason. The Nazis have their phrenologists and anthropoligists to give 'reasons' why certain humans were inferior to certain others. These reasoned-reasons were used to satisfy a particular emotive paradigm. — Marcus de Brun

Again we are at odds as a matter of opinion. If one considers the realities of global ecology and wealth distribution, one might equally argue that never before in the history of our race have humans been more destructive of one another and the ecology that sustains us than we are today. If one simply considers the potential kindness, justice and ecological harmony that might be effected via existing material wealth, and technology: we have never had the power to do more good, and yet we choose to do more harm. just look at how the demon that is 'The Market' grows towards its inevitable self consumption. — Marcus de Brun

Fortunately life is terminal of its own accord, and therefore need not be dispensed with in a hurry. — Marcus de Brun

This is only true though if it's a completely private thing we're looking at, i.e., there is no way to objectify the thing in the box. — Sam26

Note that Wittgenstein's beetle-in-the-box can be associated with any object, there is no way to tell if we are using the word in the same way - no way to tell if there is an error being made. Whatever is in your box IS the beetle, and whatever is in my box IS the beetle, but they may be two or more different things. — Sam26

Can there be an action that is morally wrong but contextually right? — Unknown

I have made no appeal to emotions? merely stated that they may be an aspect of that which is truly free. — Marcus de Brun

We must disagree here, BUT it is only on a point of opinion as to the 'most'. I believe that lots of people are good some 20% and most people are bad 80%. The badness is mitigated by the fact that it arises out of an ignorance of self. I suspect that most Germans were good people in the 1940's and it is only history that differs. I imagine that the future will look back upon our treatment of global ecology and will probably assert with equal conviction that most of us were/are bad. — Marcus de Brun

Again this is a matter of opinion. I believe that truth has always been antagonistic to the herd and it will always be murdered. When it is murdered one can be confident that it was truth, until then it may just be more of the same. — Marcus de Brun

Because Kant has iterated the methodology, Descartes has iterated what the subject actually is, Schopenhauer has pointed to the usual fallacy (that MUST be avoided), and Freud has outlined the basic mechanics. — Marcus de Brun

Should we avoid the elucidation or comprehension of a potentially all encompassing 'fatalistic' reality out of a fear of this potentially 'overwhelming futility and pessimism'? — Marcus de Brun

This futility is already at the heart of most sensible philosophers who look at the world with a mind that is relatively independent of social/herd programming. — Marcus de Brun

The pessimism and futility are entirely mitigated by ones potential liberation from the herd, an experience of the vast infinite beauty contained equally within the mind, and the material/natural Universe. This infinite source of happiness merely requires freedom from the herd, if it is to be enjoyed. — Marcus de Brun

Personally I have no belief in 'agency'. The Universe is clearly determined and much of contemporary philosophy is concerned with the maintenance of a contrary and empty delusion, for reasons that you allude to. However, in spite of the determined nature of the Universe, I feel there is scope for freedom, within the confines of thought. Emotional freedom, meta-thought (thought upon thought), these and more may be the true realms of potential individual 'freedom' and the only opportunity for 'Agency', and this realization can be as liberating as it might appear to be pessimistic. — Marcus de Brun

We cannot simultaneously hold a view on what a rule is and faithfully, with good intent, make a mistake in applying it. — Pseudonym

As I described, it is impossible to follow a rule, and simultaneously make a mistake. — Metaphysician Undercover

Also use doesn't always determine the correct use of a word, nor does context. There are groups of people who use (in the Wittgensteinian sense) words incorrectly, and there are groups of people who use words incorrectly within a context. So we have to be careful about being too dogmatic about use and context. Although use and context do tell us much about meaning. — Sam26

Closer, yes, but not all the way. — Harry Hindu

There is no alternative because there is no 'material' interventionist supreme authority to arbitrate on the matter and incarcerate or silence the fools. — Marcus de Brun

There is only the God of truth and its handmaiden 'logic and reason', whom the God must accept are often presenting untruths and illogical suppositions. — Marcus de Brun

Nietzsche reminds that we should have as much respect for un-truth as truth, and in this sense the fool is often correct. In this sense too, even the liars, the mud-slingers, the sycophants to intellectual self-serving fashions, and the fools; may indeed have something that is worth listening to. At the very least their anger (when they are exposed) is an exposition of worshiped fallacies. — Marcus de Brun

I fear that if you change the current rules upon the battle field, you will cause something important to be lost. What is important to bear in mind is the fact that there is a logic and a truth and one must continue to 'fight' for it and against it in order to make it real. Personally I think this truth has more life and more of its source in the old questions rather than the 'new' fashionable answers. — Marcus de Brun

This list is much too long to be practical, but wouldn't it sound cool to suddenly accuse someone of if-by-whiskey pit-tu-quoque-spike kafka-trapping? — VagabondSpectre

Not at all. I'm asking about a quest for truth. — Ron Cram

Philosophers have attempted to show that it is reasonable to believe the state of affairs is that God does not exist but objective moral good and evil do exist and that it's possible for one's life to be lived in a way that is objectively good and so has purpose. — Ron Cram

What philosophers have attempted to show this? Has anyone succeeded? Who has failed and why? — Ron Cram

Has the search for such a philosophy ever been successful? — Ron Cram

What philosophers have tried and failed? How did they fail? — Ron Cram

Peters concludes by claiming: “In other words emotions are basically forms of cognition. It is because of this central feature which they possess that I think there is any amount of scope for educating the emotions.” — michael r d james

What philosopher since Nietzsche is able to reject God's existence and yet still find objective meaning for life? — Ron Cram

I must endure the idiocy of my peers, but equally they must endure mine. — Marcus de Brun

I must endure the idiocy of my peers, but equally they must endure mine. — Marcus de Brun

I'm going to put in more thought to this and come back with some more thoughts. I've been wanting to talk about logical fallacies for a while. Posty McPostface - if you'd rather I do this in a separate thread, let me know. — T Clark

But it would be insufficient to find all truths, or even all truths that can be found by man, because this would only cover deductive reasoning, and you would lack perfection in inductive reasoning; that is, finding essences and principles. — Samuel Lacrampe

Kind of? — MindForged