"Conservatives only use hate & fear while Liberals use logic & reason."

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not trying to make a point! I'm trying to get people to give up on this thread.

You see, I have a strange form of OCD that makes me check up on any thread I've posted in, which means that I'm forced to actually read this j/k

However, I do think that this argument is getting nowhere and deserves to be put to sleep. Everyone is running around in circles.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We only do it to annoy you

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But the main point stands... idealism CAN become reality. It may require the 'work of a realist', but it can enter into force in the real world. In fact most of our governmental structures are the products of applications of idealist ideas.

Are they still ideals when they have been realised? Or does it then stop being an ideal, something to strive for, since it exists, and it becoems a reality. I don't know, but anyways, it's its semantics, since they are the same thing, whether it is called an ideal or a reality (or both) at that point.

[Whaleboy]

a relativist can still be relativist while wanting to impose his not-more-worthy-than-any-other moral system on other people

No. One does not want to impose, one wants to convert or leave be.

idealism CAN become reality

Please read above posts.

The rub is that I don't believe it is. I think they are very similar conceptual entities. They are basically two sides of the same coin

No. Flour and bread are two completely different things.

Which would be ok if consistency always equalled correctness

There is no correctness . For all intents and purposes I'm afraid that ours is philosophically correct (in terms of established flowery philosophy), and conceptually consistent. QED

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Drogue
Sorry though, just surprised to see Maniac here

Well I actually read Off Topic quite a lot. I just don't post here much. And when I do, I have the tendency of never posting in that thread again. So you have to be a real attentive observer to see a trace of my maniacal presense.

[Whaleboy]

I wouldn't go that far. Us using the same terminology would be a break from the norm

The concepts behind our communication of it is the same. Dammit you both know me too well for that not to be the case!

[Kuciwalker]

Ok, I'll get into this.

elijah, there IS objective truth - for example, one plus one equals two. There is NO internally consistent mathematical system in which this is not true. There are untrue truths - those that are internally inconsistent.

Most religions I know of are internally inconsistent. Thus, they are untrue.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
For all intents and purposes I'm afraid that ours is philosophically correct (in terms of established flowery philosophy), and conceptually consistent. QED

We are all high and mighty today aren't we

Originally posted by elijah
The concepts behind our communication of it is the same. Dammit you both know me too well for that not to be the case!

We know them, it's whether we agree or not that is a point

[Whaleboy]

However, I do think that this argument is getting nowhere and deserves to be put to sleep. Everyone is running around in circles

But its so much more fun! Admittedly, it was rather flattering having a thread devoted just to me!

[Drogue]

Originally posted by skywalker
Ok, I'll get into this.

elijah, there IS objective truth - for example, one plus one equals two. There is NO internally consistent mathematical system in which this is not true. There are untrue truths - those that are internally inconsistent.

Most religions I know of are internally inconsistent. Thus, they are untrue.

I'm looking forward to this. Since I am unconvinced either way, I can see if I'm convinced either way

[Whaleboy]

elijah, there IS objective truth - for example, one plus one equals two. There is NO internally consistent mathematical system in which this is not true. There are untrue truths - those that are internally inconsistent.

For this universe. Its quite easy to conceive of a system where that is not true. Even on the level of cognetive relativism, it is not an ultimate truth.

Most religions I know of are internally inconsistent. Thus, they are untrue

Try telling that to those that believe in them.

We are all high and mighty today aren't we

Just today?

We know them, it's whether we agree or not that is a point

Oh I know you do! Read what you've been writing too! Idealism is something completely differerent to what Imran is proposing. Replace "idealism" with "non pragmatism" and "progressivism" and then you're getting there.

[Ben Kenobi]

there are certain things you cant act upon, in order to maintain liberty

elijah:

Again, why should liberty be valued over a tolitarian control? You have no right to tell me what I can or cannot do! That would be forcing your morality on me.

Suppose I valued efficiency over liberty, like the Borg. What need would I have for personal freedoms?

Most religions I know of are internally inconsistent. Thus, they are untrue.

Skywalker:

A prudent post prefers to pacify your allies rather than aggravating them further.

[Whaleboy]

1 + 1 = 1

a = 1
b = 1

a = b
a^2 = b^2
a^2 - b^2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0
(a+b) = 0
1 + 1 = 0
2 = 0
1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1

Now who can tell me the flaw in that!!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by elijah
For this universe. Its quite easy to conceive of a system where that is not true. Even on the level of cognetive relativism, it is not an ultimate truth.

Mathematics is independent of this universe. The concept "one" being "added" to "one" will always result in "two". To prove me wrong, you'd have to create a COMPLETELY internally consistent mathematical system in which this is not true.

Try telling that to those that believe in them.

What's your point? That they're irrational?

If something is internally inconsistent, it must be untrue, because it CANNOT be true. Its truth would invalidate itself.

EDIT: stupid cross-post

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by elijah
1 + 1 = 1

a = 1
b = 1

a = b
a^2 = b^2
a^2 - b^2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0
(a+b) = 0
1 + 1 = 0
2 = 0
1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1

Now who can tell me the flaw in that!!

1 = 0

That is the inconsistency.

[Whaleboy]

Again, why should liberty be valued over a tolitarian control? You have no right to tell me what I can or cannot do! That would be forcing your morality on me.

Hence, we could only have the Mill Limit by a slow evolution and... wait for it... democracy God I hate admitting that.

http://www.geocities.com/ben_j_elijah/mill.htm

I cant be bothered to explain the benefits of libertarianism here, just read that. Thats a different matter though. The borgs view is as valid as mine, says my relativism.

[Whaleboy]

That is the inconsistency

But 1 is 1 is it not? How can something be and not?

[Kuciwalker]

Huh?

[Whaleboy]

But 1 is 1 is it not?s it not?

I'm sorry, I was mistaken!

x = 1
x^2 = x
x^2 - 1 = x - 1
(x - 1)(x + 1) = x - 1
x + 1 = 1
1 + 1 = 1
2 = 1
1 = 2

[Ned]

Originally posted by elijah
1 + 1 = 1

a = 1
b = 1

a = b
a^2 = b^2
a^2 - b^2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0
(a+b) = 0
1 + 1 = 0
2 = 0
1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1

Now who can tell me the flaw in that!!

Why is 0/0 = 0?

[Whaleboy]

Ned: Because that is just silly

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
1 + 1 = 1

a = 1
b = 1

a = b
a^2 = b^2
a^2 - b^2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0

This is the discrepancy. If you are doing it in algebra, you cannot assume that (a-b)=0, and thus you cannot simply ignore the 0/0 and put 0 on the rhs. However if, as you stated earlier, that you are usuing numbers for a and b, then you must use the (1-1)(1+1)/(1-1)=0 form, in which the multiplication must be done first. This is because you cannot devide any number by 0, and to know that there was a 0 on the top to cancel with the 0 on the bottom, you would have to have worked out the top already. With algebra you can go (a-b)(a+b)/(a-b)=(a+b) but then you would have to presume that you are working with non designated letters, in which case the rhs would have to be shown as 0/(a-b). There are rules to prevent the misuse of maths like that (even if I explain them in such an awful way).

[Whaleboy]

Its flawed maths by the way ladies and gentlemen, except that when you change the rules of maths, but can still keep it consistent, then these "proofs" actually hold.

In the meantime, assuming "proper" maths, can anyone tell me where I went wrong in the proofs?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by elijah
Its necessarily subjectivist, but it lends itself to, and is indeed far better when you account for pseudo-objectives. That is what my position is based on, indeed, most liberals I talk to have a similiar notion, albeit not as a discrete concept more of a disposition.

This makes no real sense. You get docked 10 points for being needlessly confusing.

[Kuciwalker]

Elijah - if it's internally consistent, it CANNOT claim things like 1 = 2. By definition, every single distinct number is only equal to itself.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
x = 1
x^2 = x
x^2 - 1 = x - 1
(x - 1)(x + 1) = x - 1
x + 1 = 1
1 + 1 = 1
2 = 1
1 = 2

Again, are you using algebra or numbers? If you are using x as x then you cannot presume that x^2=x. If you are using numbers then (1-1)(1+1)=x-1 is not equivilant to 1+1=1. You cannot persume that x can act as an x for some and act as a 1 for others. It is either an x or a 1, and where the two will give different answers, you must be consistant.

[Kuciwalker]

x^2 does equal x when x is 1 or 0

You can interchange x and 1 if x = 1

He's wrong, but your reasons that he is wrong are also wrong

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
Its flawed maths by the way ladies and gentlemen, except that when you change the rules of maths, but can still keep it consistent, then these "proofs" actually hold.

No they don't. You need to be consistant.

Originally posted by elijah
In the meantime, assuming "proper" maths, can anyone tell me where I went wrong in the proofs?

I have. You must be consistant, and use an x or a 1. In both you have presumed that the x is a 1, but then presumed that the x can act as an x on others.

[Kuciwalker]

Drogue - still wrong.

What he went wrong with is two things - division by zero and 1 = 2. Division by zero is undefined BECAUSE it results in internal inconsistancies when defined.

[Whaleboy]

Drogue: Well yes . The idea is that it is flawed maths, but could hold for another system. This logic is natural for this universe because of certain variables that are variable (funny that).

DD: Let me put it another way. Relativism is necessarily subjectivist, you cannot be absolutely relativist (cognetively particularly and an objectivist. You can of course still be a relativist to a reasonable degree, enough to be liberal, as is the case with the theologians, but you cant be "the ultimate relativist". I trust the irony of that term isn't lost on you.

Relativism however is naturally placed to accept the notion of pseudo-objectives. Indeed, it pretty much does but not discretely. I have a given context of two equally valid subjectives and an independent observer who has to decide between them. He does so, and thus becomes sided with that subjective, but his judgement is pseudo-objective and to him, his viewpoint and decision is objective. That is logical judgement. Illogical judgement is where one subjective forces itself onto the other without the involvement of the pseudo-objective. That is necessarily objectively illogical (from the independent observers point of view that is) because until he judges, both views are equally valid. Relativism is really a means of one subjective emulating pseudo-objectivity to empathise with others and realise the validity of other concepts for other contexts, while still maintaining the validity of your own, for your own.

As humans, we do relativism all the time as should be now clear.