Sinner or Saint: Which are you closer to?

John J. Bannan said:
How can you prove anything except through your own senses?
Click to expand...
through rationality for one ( for instance while walking towards a building it appears to get bigger and bigger on the horizon, yet by the use of rationalism one can determine that is because we are getting closer to it, rather than the building growing bigger)

through authority for a second ( for instance one may not know the first thing about medicine according to one's sense perception or rationality, yet by going to a doctor, who has a different foundation of sense perception and also rationality to a degree, one can receive the benefits of his knowledge by accepting his authority.
 
Last edited:
John J. Bannan said:
How can you prove anything except through your own senses?
Click to expand...

Don't know. How is it relevant?

John J. Bannan said:
Accordingly, everything has an element of subjectiveness to it.
Click to expand...

Huh? The first statement is disjoint from this one, and your toenails are not subjective.

John J. Bannan said:
However, what we call "objective" is really just a high degree of certainty based on subjective interpretation.
Click to expand...

What we call objective is concensus from reality. Your computer exists and reality agrees. Fire will burn you and reality agrees.

John J. Bannan said:
Of course, morals are subjective in the sense that they are based on human interpretation.
Click to expand...

The base of morals are common values that are genetically influenced as a survival mechanism. For example, if 6 people were in danger of certain death and you could save 5 of them or 1 of them... which would you choose? I bet it's 5 and I bet you don't know why. Morals are objectively based on current genetically encoded behavior; however, there are genetic variations amongst people and alot of learned values over a lifetime are the result of processing events, behaviors, etc through the ol' emotional system and judging the outcome whether it brings on a moment of pleasure, pain, or indifference. Of course the emotional system is tied with a persons cognitive geometry over a lifetime and what brings one person pain brings another person pleasure.

John J. Bannan said:
However, morals can also be "objective" in the sense of a high degree of certainty that they are correct based on a consensus of subjective interpretation.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. If you see a behavior and claim it objectively 'right', then the burden is on you to show that objective reality agrees... and it doesn't. It has no concept of 'right'. For something to be true, reality has to agree... not people.

John J. Bannan said:
And, indeed, what is "objective" today may not be tomorrow. Middle age man thought that objectively speaking the world was flat.
Click to expand...

That they did. In fact they objectively asserted it was, rather than speculate, hypothesize, etc. They issued a claim without supportive evidence. In other words, they had the concensus of people and not reality; hence, it was a subjective claim in objective claim's clothing.

John J. Bannan said:
Today, "objectively" speaking the world is round. Nevertheless, just because "objectivity" is sometimes subject to change, that does not mean it is always subject to change - as in the case of pedophilia.
Click to expand...

Our visibility and knowledge of the objective will change, but the objective itself does not... truth is truth. Subjectivity will always change. As I recall, in older Muslim society, Pedophilia was 'right'.
 
Truth is Truth? Sure, there may be truth out there. But, you will never now for sure, because you are subject to your senses which are subjective.
 
I know that in 5 seconds from now you will not grow 6 feet. I know our planet is in orbit around a star. I know heat breaks down resin. I know that 1+1=2. I know all these things with 100% certainty and I have concensus from reality.

Your senses are not subjective. Your interpretation is. When many people look at reality, they often interpret it as having two eyes, eyebrows, and a mouth. In their minds it becomes a sentient life form, full of human emotion and intent, ... perfect... and 'God' is born. That is an interpretation. That is subjective. Concensus would come from people and reality would not agree.
 
You don't know with 100% certainty any of these things. You only think you do. Try to prove 1 + 1 =2 without reference to your own senses. It is your brain that tells you 1 + 1=2, not reality.
 
I don't think it matters if my senses are referenced. Take a pencil and put it on a table. How many pencils are on the table? Does it equal 2? Add one more pencil to the table and repeat the questions. What is the result? Is it consistent? Is it non-contradictory?
 
Ah, but you must see the pencils to come to that conclusion. Thus, your senses and human interpretation are still at work.
 
John J. Bannan said:
Ah, but you must see the pencils to come to that conclusion. Thus, your senses and human interpretation are still at work.
Click to expand...

The senses are quite objective. The interpretation is subjective and I don't see how it matters if I have a concensus from reality.
 
John J. Bannan said:
Your senses might be a mechanical instrument but their output still has to go through your subjective brain.
Click to expand...

I agree and as long as objective reality agrees with your interpretation then you are truth-testing against an objective source. If people agree with your interpretation then you're truth-testing against a subjective source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top