<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Jebadiah Moore wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTi=TfagMs2MZotefVC4v_SpigAgD+0k8HVkxbir7@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">2010/8/15 John Clark <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jonkc@bellsouth.net">jonkc@bellsouth.net</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="">
<div>
<div class="im">
<div>Then forget about good or bad, is relativism objectively true? </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="">
<div>
<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> only that objectivity doesn't exist.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
But is what you just said really true, objectively? If we can't talk
about good or evil or truth or falsehood then that would rather
seriously limit the scope of philosophy and we'd only have the
contemptible "the story of Adam and Eve and the talking snake is true
for me" or "it's true for me that 2+2=5". Jebadiah, do you really think
that is the proper way to figure out how the world works?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Depends what you mean by "objective". Most people take things
which are shown by logic to be "objectively" true, and I agree with
this. The problem is, you always have to start with some axioms, or
you can't show anything. And because we can't know anything
directly--we have to rely on induction through our
senses/experiences--we have no truly "known" axioms, and thus can't
prove anything is true about our universe.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
There is no other way of knowing possible except through some form of
sensory apparatus processed by some form of processing and pattern
extraction unit like a brain. If anyone believes that there is I would
be very keen to learn exactly how you think that would work or could
come to be. We only have what is as congruent with what we perceive
and non-contradictory processing of that and the patterns derived from
it and as scrupulously checked as we are able and willing. But to
say that isn't "objective" makes no sense. It is as objective as it is
possible in reality for any intelligence to be. There is nothing
better to compare it to in a seemingly denigrating manner.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTi=TfagMs2MZotefVC4v_SpigAgD+0k8HVkxbir7@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>We can prove things about posited universes, though, and we can
posit descriptions of a universe which matches our experiences, then
test whether our theorems still match our experiences. This is what
learning and science and whatnot are all about.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
And sound epistemology in general. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTi=TfagMs2MZotefVC4v_SpigAgD+0k8HVkxbir7@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So, we can prove things objectively, but we can't prove things
about our universe objectively. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
That does not compute. You are claiming that only pure logic based on
axioms is "objective"?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTi=TfagMs2MZotefVC4v_SpigAgD+0k8HVkxbir7@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> In fact, we can't prove that there is an objective universe at
all, containing anything but our own mind (the "everything is in your
head" scenario).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
That is a very limited definition of "objective" as it requires some
godlike absolute knowledge that is impossible for any actual mind to
ever ever have in order to have any objective knowledge about anything
much beyond maths. That is an absurd position.<br>
<br>
- samantha<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>