EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sun Nov 23, 2014 8:15 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 103 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:43 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Wayne: Borders are real but not real? You are going in circles with this logic. People are real. People are grouped to make up societial divisions, but all people form the overall society. Thus, the society is real. Just as a wolf is real and a grouping of wolves creates a pack a group of people create a society.


Its not that I am going in circles as much as it is that you do not understand. But that you do not understand is okay.


I do understand what you are trying to do, but it makes no sense because it is not consistent or logical.

Quote:
Borders are very real. And they are real because we said so. We have organized them in an even more complex and divisive way so that, depending on which border one aims to cross, one might either be harassed, searched, raped, or even killed. So yes, I know about borders. They are real.


Borders are real .... gotcha.

Quote:
Yet borders are still abstract. God does not say they are real. Aliens do not say they are real. The Big Bang and the evolution of the universe and all the species within it did not say they are real. There is actually no scientific evidence to say that borders are real. Borders are social constructs. We made them up. But we did not make up any form of nature, including ourselves.


Borders are not real, which is a contradiction of the above statement and also wrong. Where you are becoming confused is that borders, while being real, are also arbitrary or subjective in the creation. Once defined the borders do become real and there is plenty of scientific evidence of their existence. There are gates, walls, fences, minefields, trenchs, moats, obstacles, and signs erected on both sides of a border which can easily be determined. God nor aliens drew the borders but both could easily tell there were borders and where they were generally located. Morals on the other hand have no such phyiscal manifestation for their boundaries so they remain in the abstract or subjective realm.

Quote:
In fact, borders have such an impact on the lives of people yet are not even as real as a blade of grass. They are not part of the natural world, but are definitely part of the conceptual world which we are perfectly capable of having created. And we did. So there is real and there is true. Borders are real but not true. No need for confusion in this understanding.


Again, some of the borders are natural and true. Those who follow rivers, shorelines, or other natural features would be both under your definition.

Quote:
So you talk about how slavery was fine and good ...... and that even the slaves agreed to it because it was what was happening at the time ..... but the slave songs, the lamenting, the suffering that has been recorded from that time would disagree with you.


Again you confuse things, because the songs of which you speak were written thousands of years into the practice of slavery and near the end of the general acceptace of the practice. Just like modern medicine laments the practices of the witch doctor in the present, but in the early years those practices were lauded because they were accepted as being the best available.

Quote:
Your view seems to be that of a moral nihilist, or maybe a kid in 4th grade who got caught pulling a pig tail and when caught said, ..... but everyone is doing it so it must be okay .... You would not have been that child who stood apart from it and said, wait a minute .... that is wrong and i will not do it.


The personal view of what may or may not be right or wrong is not the deciding factor, but the view of the rest of society is. Just because you hold a personal belief in right and wrong does not make it correct for any society at any point in tme. What that society says for itself is what makes that determination. This is because morals are abstract, subjective, and arbitrary. There are no stone tablets orbiting the moon with a complete moral code defined as being the correct one.

Quote:
I also do not misunderstand the subject-object view. Again, its understandable that you have misunderstood, but when you do not have the meaning, you can always ask for clarification.


You do misundertand the subjective-objective view as commonly defined. Again, your personal definition is not the correct one because the society makes the decision on the definition because to do otherwise makes communication impossible. Standardization in meanings is critical. For example, if we both used different definitions of "yes" and "no" it would make even simple communication impossible. One of us could at any time try to translate our definition to that of the other, but if both do it the problem is still present unless we find a term with a common meaning to use.

Quote:
After all, we ARE having a discussion because what would be the point of arguing.


Yes, we are having a discussion and a small bit of an argument as well. The argument aspect is not heated nor uncivil, but there is a significant point of disagreement.

ar·gu·ment
/ˈärgyəmənt/
noun

an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.
synonyms: quarrel, disagreement, squabble, fight, dispute, wrangle;

a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
synonyms: reasoning, justification, explanation, rationalization, case;

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:50 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1350
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Wayne: Borders are real but not real? You are going in circles with this logic. People are real. People are grouped to make up societial divisions, but all people form the overall society. Thus, the society is real. Just as a wolf is real and a grouping of wolves creates a pack a group of people create a society.

Its not that I am going in circles as much as it is that you do not understand. But that you do not understand is okay.


Quote:
I do understand what you are trying to do, but it makes no sense because it is not consistent or logical.


What I am 'trying' to do? I hope I am having a conversation ... with an individual! Could you come out of hiding? And please be both consistent and logical.

Quote:
Borders are very real. And they are real because we said so. We have organized them in an even more complex and divisive way so that, depending on which border one aims to cross, one might either be harassed, searched, raped, or even killed. So yes, I know about borders. They are real.


Borders are real .... gotcha.

So as we agree that the bricks and mortar exist ... we all know that borders exist. And now, moving into the digital age ...

Quote:
Yet borders are still abstract. God does not say they are real. Aliens do not say they are real. The Big Bang and the evolution of the universe and all the species within it did not say they are real. There is actually no scientific evidence to say that borders are real. Borders are social constructs. We made them up. But we did not make up any form of nature, including ourselves.


Bord
Quote:
ers are not real, which is a contradiction of the above statement and also wrong. Where you are becoming confused is that borders, while being real, are also arbitrary or subjective in the creation. Once defined the borders do become real and there is plenty of scientific evidence of their existence. There are gates, walls, fences, minefields, trenches, moats, obstacles, and signs erected on both sides of a border which can easily be determined. God nor aliens drew the borders but both could easily tell there were borders and where they were generally located.


Okay. Let's look at your paragraph. I probably would have deleted that first sentence which included the words 'not, 'contradiction', and even "wrong". We are having a conversation here. That's all I need to remember.

Quote:
"Where you are becoming confused is that borders, while being real, are also arbitrary or subjective in the creation."


I am not confused. We all know about borders. They are both arbitrary and subjective. It's clear that we know about borders. And we know of the materials they are made of. Both wise men and aliens might see the borders, but would wonder why we still had them. But that is more a question for us than it is for them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:19 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Wayne: Borders are real but not real? You are going in circles with this logic. People are real. People are grouped to make up societial divisions, but all people form the overall society. Thus, the society is real. Just as a wolf is real and a grouping of wolves creates a pack a group of people create a society.


Its not that I am going in circles as much as it is that you do not understand. But that you do not understand is okay.


animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
I do understand what you are trying to do, but it makes no sense because it is not consistent or logical.


What I am 'trying' to do? I hope I am having a conversation ... with an individual! Could you come out of hiding? And please be both consistent and logical.


I am having a conversation and being both consistent and logical in the process, which is why I am trying to get you there too.

Quote:
Quote:
Borders are very real. And they are real because we said so. We have organized them in an even more complex and divisive way so that, depending on which border one aims to cross, one might either be harassed, searched, raped, or even killed. So yes, I know about borders. They are real.


Borders are real .... gotcha.


Quote:
So as we agree that the bricks and mortar exist ... we all know that borders exist. And now, moving into the digital age ...


Huh? What does the digital age have to do with borders being different? Borders can be crossed more easily using electronic communication unless there is an active attempt to prevent such things.

Quote:
Yet borders are still abstract. God does not say they are real. Aliens do not say they are real. The Big Bang and the evolution of the universe and all the species within it did not say they are real. There is actually no scientific evidence to say that borders are real. Borders are social constructs. We made them up. But we did not make up any form of nature, including ourselves.


Quote:
Borders are not real, which is a contradiction of the above statement and also wrong. Where you are becoming confused is that borders, while being real, are also arbitrary or subjective in the creation. Once defined the borders do become real and there is plenty of scientific evidence of their existence. There are gates, walls, fences, minefields, trenches, moats, obstacles, and signs erected on both sides of a border which can easily be determined. God nor aliens drew the borders but both could easily tell there were borders and where they were generally located.
[/quote]

Quote:
Okay. Let's look at your paragraph. I probably would have deleted that first sentence which included the words 'not, 'contradiction', and even "wrong". We are having a conversation here. That's all I need to remember.


I am sure you would have deleted the portion where your position is in contradiction with itself and that part of it is incorrect at face value, but since that is something important to the points being made, I would not.

Quote:
Quote:
"Where you are becoming confused is that borders, while being real, are also arbitrary or subjective in the creation."


I am not confused. We all know about borders. They are both arbitrary and subjective.


No, they are not subjective. Look up the definition of "subjective" so you can understand nothing can be "subjective" if it has a physical entity, which you previously agreed does exist.

Quote:
It's clear that we know about borders. And we know of the materials they are made of. Both wise men and aliens might see the borders, but would wonder why we still had them. But that is more a question for us than it is for them.


This also shows the physical existence of borders, which by definition makes them "objective" and not "subjective" if we are using English and the accepted common definitions therein. The "why" question has nothing to do with subjective or objective nature.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 3:45 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1350
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Wayne: Borders are real but not real? You are going in circles with this logic. People are real. People are grouped to make up societial divisions, but all people form the overall society. Thus, the society is real. Just as a wolf is real and a grouping of wolves creates a pack a group of people create a society.


Its not that I am going in circles as much as it is that you do not understand. But that you do not understand is okay.


animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
I do understand what you are trying to do, but it makes no sense because it is not consistent or logical.


What I am 'trying' to do? I hope I am having a conversation ... with an individual! Could you come out of hiding? And please be both consistent and logical.


I am having a conversation and being both consistent and logical in the process, which is why I am trying to get you there too.

Quote:
That is funny. You are trying to get me there and I am trying to get you there too! It is comedic. We must take break and laugh at ourselves.


Quote:
Borders are very real. And they are real because we said so. We have organized them in an even more complex and divisive way so that, depending on which border one aims to cross, one might either be harassed, searched, raped, or even killed. So yes, I know about borders. They are real.

So as we agree that the bricks and mortar exist ... we all know that borders exist. And now, moving into the digital age ...


Huh? What does the digital age have to do with borders being different? Borders can be crossed more easily using electronic communication unless there is an active attempt to prevent such things.

Quote:
Exactly. In our efforts to make the illusion of bricks and mortar more prominent, and using technology, we fortify the illusion of borders. Borders are of our own creation. We made them up. And now we have the assistance of technology to fortify them even more. But we still made them up.

Yet borders are still abstract. God does not say they are real. Aliens do not say they are real. The Big Bang and the evolution of the universe and all the species within it did not say they are real. There is actually no scientific evidence to say that borders are real. Borders are social constructs. We made them up. But we did not make up any form of nature, including ourselves.


Quote:
Borders are not real, which is a contradiction of the above statement and also wrong. Where you are becoming confused is that borders, while being real, are also arbitrary or subjective in the creation.

Quote:
Thank you for making the point I was making in the first place. I think you just agreed with me. How can borders be both real and also arbitrary and subjective? That they are both arbitrary and subjective means exactly that .... They are arbitrary and subjective. Did god or the aliens make them so. Or did we? They are a human construct. We made them up. We made a lot of things up. Are you ready for that conversation?


Once defined the borders do become real and there is plenty of scientific evidence of their existence.

Quote:
Once defined? Scientific evidence to prove that brick and mortar are real? Hire a geologist to help you make your point. Rocks are real. We make walls with them. Who defined the borders? Rocks? Should we now elect geologists as president?

If god and aliens defined them, is there now scientific evidence to prove them so? And if neither god nor aliens defined them, who did? Did we define them? Yes, we did. We did not create the bricks and mortar, but we placed them according to our ideology.
We built the walls. We are now also building a digital edifice to strengthen those walls, ... but they are of our own creation. If we define borders, they do become "real"? You said it Wayne, "once defined borders become real". Who defined them? And, as you say, "there is plenty of scientific evidence of their existence." .... You can easily provide scientific evidence of bricks and mortar, but we put the bricks and mortar there in the first place, which is evidence of our malfunctioning relationship with each other.

Do you personally make them real by proclaiming yourself an "American citizen" or otherwise? If you do, you strengthen the walls.



There are gates, walls, fences, minefields, trenches, moats, obstacles, and signs erected on both sides of a border which can easily be determined. God nor aliens drew the borders but both could easily tell there were borders and where they were generally located.


The divisions are man made. The plants didn't do it, the animals didn't do it. We did.


My hope is to dispel ignorance. Historically, we have made divisions in the way of moats, borders, and fences, minefields, etc. Must we continue?

Wayne, you continue to argue for the state and the lines drawn. Blood is blood; it knows no nationality or religion.

Quote:
It's clear that we know about borders. And we know of the materials they are made of. Both wise men and aliens might see the borders, but would wonder why we still had them. But that is more a question for us than it is for them.


Quote:
Wayne says .... "This also shows the physical existence of borders, which by definition makes them "objective" and not "subjective" if we are using English and the accepted common definitions therein. The "why" question has nothing to do with subjective or objective nature".


The physical existence of borders are only real in the physical sense because we put them there. Rocks are real while ideology is not.
I will not quibble with you about subjective and objective .... either way, we made borders up. They are not science; they are sociology. You cannot see them from space. They are an indication of our own discord.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:14 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1350
You seemed to have found it worthwhile to have quoted this .... :

Quote:
"Social constructionism is the process through which subjective reality (a.k.a., second-order reality) is created. Subjective reality can be contrasted with objective reality (a.k.a., first-order reality) in that it exists in the minds of people and in a social context. Examples of objective reality would include the position of objects in space, the chemical structure of molecules, the force of gravity, and planetary orbits. Examples of subjective reality include all our opinions, ideas, and words for molecules and planets, whether things are good or bad or right or wrong, all thoughts and emotions, political ideologies, religions, and any social phenomenon.
Most of what we call reality is actually subjective reality, and we often confuse subjective reality with objective reality, mainly because it seems so real that it seems impossible to us that it actually exists only within the human mind.



The entire paragraph makes sense and I especially agree with the author ..... "In other words, most of what we call reality is actually subjective reality, and we often confuse subjective reality with objective reality, mainly because it seems so real that it seems impossible to us that it actually exists only within the human mind."

The concept of borders are a subjective reality that are so conditioned within us that we actually see them as being objective. But we made them up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:25 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

Once defined the borders do become real and there is plenty of scientific evidence of their existence.


Once defined? Scientific evidence to prove that brick and mortar are real? Hire a geologist to help you make your point. Rocks are real. We make walls with them. Who defined the borders? Rocks? Should we now elect geologists as president?


It does not matter who or what defines a border, as the arbitrary nature of the definition does not make it any less objective when using the commonly accepted definitions of the terms.

Quote:
If god and aliens defined them, is there now scientific evidence to prove them so? And if neither god nor aliens defined them, who did? Did we define them? Yes, we did. We did not create the bricks and mortar, but we placed them according to our ideology.


And none of this makes borders any more abstract. The idea is abstract until the border is physically defined, but at that point it is an objective creation.

Quote:
We built the walls. We are now also building a digital edifice to strengthen those walls, ... but they are of our own creation. If we define borders, they do become "real"?


Yes, if we define them which physical structures they are real. If they are just defined they are real to us but may not be to anyone not familiar with the definition. Thus, all of the current borders are real.

Quote:
You said it Wayne, "once defined borders become real". Who defined them? And, as you say, "there is plenty of scientific evidence of their existence." .... You can easily provide scientific evidence of bricks and mortar, but we put the bricks and mortar there in the first place, which is evidence of our malfunctioning relationship with each other.


And none of this relates to the initial discussion of what is "objective" and "subjective" does it?

Quote:
Do you personally make them real by proclaiming yourself an "American citizen" or otherwise? If you do, you strengthen the walls.


Yes, I am an American and I am an Earthling too.



Quote:
Quote:
There are gates, walls, fences, minefields, trenches, moats, obstacles, and signs erected on both sides of a border which can easily be determined. God nor aliens drew the borders but both could easily tell there were borders and where they were generally located.


The divisions are man made. The plants didn't do it, the animals didn't do it. We did.


The divisions the animals make are harder for humans to detect sometimes. They most often mark their divisions with pheremones, but sometimes they will use other physical signs humans can more readily detect.


Quote:
My hope is to dispel ignorance. Historically, we have made divisions in the way of moats, borders, and fences, minefields, etc. Must we continue?


Yes, we have historically made divisions in many ways and yes we must continue because the world is too large otherwise. From zip codes to town limits there are needs for such divisions even within borders which may be more defended.

Quote:
Wayne, you continue to argue for the state and the lines drawn. Blood is blood; it knows no nationality or religion.


No, and blood does not know of anything as it is not sentient.

Quote:
It's clear that we know about borders. And we know of the materials they are made of. Both wise men and aliens might see the borders, but would wonder why we still had them. But that is more a question for us than it is for them.


Quote:
Wayne says .... "This also shows the physical existence of borders, which by definition makes them "objective" and not "subjective" if we are using English and the accepted common definitions therein. The "why" question has nothing to do with subjective or objective nature".


Quote:
The physical existence of borders are only real in the physical sense because we put them there. Rocks are real while ideology is not.


Except for some of the borders. You can see the border between the US and Mexico called the Rio Grande which was there before it became a border.

Quote:
I will not quibble with you about subjective and objective .... either way, we made borders up. They are not science; they are sociology. You cannot see them from space. They are an indication of our own discord.


Since the whole discussion arose from your confusion between what is subjective and what is objective, that means some progress has been made? As for the visibility from space, the border which was defined by the Great Wall of China and border between the US and Mexico from the east coast inland are both examples of borders which can be seen from space.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:33 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
You seemed to have found it worthwhile to have quoted this .... :

Quote:
"Social constructionism is the process through which subjective reality (a.k.a., second-order reality) is created. Subjective reality can be contrasted with objective reality (a.k.a., first-order reality) in that it exists in the minds of people and in a social context. Examples of objective reality would include the position of objects in space, the chemical structure of molecules, the force of gravity, and planetary orbits. Examples of subjective reality include all our opinions, ideas, and words for molecules and planets, whether things are good or bad or right or wrong, all thoughts and emotions, political ideologies, religions, and any social phenomenon.
Most of what we call reality is actually subjective reality, and we often confuse subjective reality with objective reality, mainly because it seems so real that it seems impossible to us that it actually exists only within the human mind.



The entire paragraph makes sense and I especially agree with the author ..... "In other words, most of what we call reality is actually subjective reality, and we often confuse subjective reality with objective reality, mainly because it seems so real that it seems impossible to us that it actually exists only within the human mind."

The concept of borders are a subjective reality that are so conditioned within us that we actually see them as being objective. But we made them up.


The concept of where a border goes is subjective, but once in place it becomes objective. Just as a new home is subjective while the plans for it are being drawn, modified, and adjusted, but clearly becomes objective when constructed, so do borders when they are constructed. What the borders represent are always subjective, but not the physical border. That it is called a border is subjective, but not the physical border.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 2:34 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1350
It's clear that we know about borders. And we know of the materials they are made of. Both wise men and aliens might see the borders, but would wonder why we still had them. But that is more a question for us than it is for them.

Quote:
This also shows the physical existence of borders, which by definition makes them "objective" and not "subjective" if we are using English and the accepted common definitions therein. The "why" question has nothing to do with subjective or objective nature.


I have already explained this. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Why?
Brick and mortar are real. Ideology is not. We are creative in that we have great thumbs and are bipedal and have rather large brains. Yay for us. And this is what we do?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 5:27 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1350
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
You seemed to have found it worthwhile to have quoted this .... :

Quote:
"Social constructionism is the process through which subjective reality (a.k.a., second-order reality) is created. Subjective reality can be contrasted with objective reality (a.k.a., first-order reality) in that it exists in the minds of people and in a social context. Examples of objective reality would include the position of objects in space, the chemical structure of molecules, the force of gravity, and planetary orbits. Examples of subjective reality include all our opinions, ideas, and words for molecules and planets, whether things are good or bad or right or wrong, all thoughts and emotions, political ideologies, religions, and any social phenomenon.
Most of what we call reality is actually subjective reality, and we often confuse subjective reality with objective reality, mainly because it seems so real that it seems impossible to us that it actually exists only within the human mind.



The entire paragraph makes sense and I especially agree with the author ..... "In other words, most of what we call reality is actually subjective reality, and we often confuse subjective reality with objective reality, mainly because it seems so real that it seems impossible to us that it actually exists only within the human mind."

The concept of borders are a subjective reality that are so conditioned within us that we actually see them as being objective. But we made them up.


The concept of where a border goes is subjective, but once in place it becomes objective. Just as a new home is subjective while the plans for it are being drawn, modified, and adjusted, but clearly becomes objective when constructed,

The concept of where a border goes is subjective? No. Borders are in themselves subjective. They are not a couch dependent on us arranging furniture. A new house is not real until we construct the thing. At first, it's a vision in someone's mind. It is lumber constructed into rooms. It is made of wood and bricks and other material. It is then called a house. It's just a place to live. It has no political affiliation. Everyone needs a roof over one's head. No problem.

Quote:
So do borders when they are constructed. What the borders represent are always subjective, but not the physical border. That it is called a border is subjective, but not the physical border.


Exactly. The physical components of borders are just that; brick and mortar constructs. It is the ideology behind them that creates the problem. Houses provide shelter and there is only biological necessity there and thus no problem. Houses are not imbued with the ideology of nationalism. Biology is a need; ideology is not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 8:16 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
It's clear that we know about borders. And we know of the materials they are made of. Both wise men and aliens might see the borders, but would wonder why we still had them. But that is more a question for us than it is for them.


Quote:
This also shows the physical existence of borders, which by definition makes them "objective" and not "subjective" if we are using English and the accepted common definitions therein. The "why" question has nothing to do with subjective or objective nature.


I have already explained this. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Why?
Brick and mortar are real. Ideology is not. We are creative in that we have great thumbs and are bipedal and have rather large brains. Yay for us. And this is what we do?


You have tried to do soemthing, but explaining how "why" we have borders does not make the borders "subjective" rather than "objective" using the commonly accepted defininition. That is why I mentioned that fact again ..... and again. You have explained how borders are abstract and there is no disagreement there, but there is and always will be disagreement to the claim they are subjective.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 8:35 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
You seemed to have found it worthwhile to have quoted this .... :

Quote:
"Social constructionism is the process through which subjective reality (a.k.a., second-order reality) is created. Subjective reality can be contrasted with objective reality (a.k.a., first-order reality) in that it exists in the minds of people and in a social context. Examples of objective reality would include the position of objects in space, the chemical structure of molecules, the force of gravity, and planetary orbits. Examples of subjective reality include all our opinions, ideas, and words for molecules and planets, whether things are good or bad or right or wrong, all thoughts and emotions, political ideologies, religions, and any social phenomenon.
Most of what we call reality is actually subjective reality, and we often confuse subjective reality with objective reality, mainly because it seems so real that it seems impossible to us that it actually exists only within the human mind.



The entire paragraph makes sense and I especially agree with the author ..... "In other words, most of what we call reality is actually subjective reality, and we often confuse subjective reality with objective reality, mainly because it seems so real that it seems impossible to us that it actually exists only within the human mind."

The concept of borders are a subjective reality that are so conditioned within us that we actually see them as being objective. But we made them up.


The concept of where a border goes is subjective, but once in place it becomes objective. Just as a new home is subjective while the plans for it are being drawn, modified, and adjusted, but clearly becomes objective when constructed,


animal-friendly wrote:
The concept of where a border goes is subjective? No. Borders are in themselves subjective. They are not a couch dependent on us arranging furniture. A new house is not real until we construct the thing. At first, it's a vision in someone's mind. It is lumber constructed into rooms. It is made of wood and bricks and other material. It is then called a house. It's just a place to live. It has no political affiliation. Everyone needs a roof over one's head. No problem.


You are very confused. If we construct the brick and mortar, metal and wire, gates, and all other physical aspects of the border once we have determined where they go, we have the "couch", the "house", and the "border" as objective items. You have agreed the constructs are solid physical creations. why you mention political affiation is beyond me as that has no relation to whether the construct exists or not. A communist's house can be taken over by a capitalist, a liberal's house may be taken over by a conservative, and in both cases the house is still objective regardless. So is the border regardless of the change of politics related to the territory on either side.

Quote:
Quote:
So do borders when they are constructed. What the borders represent are always subjective, but not the physical border. That it is called a border is subjective, but not the physical border.


Exactly. The physical components of borders are just that; brick and mortar constructs. It is the ideology behind them that creates the problem. Houses provide shelter and there is only biological necessity there and thus no problem. Houses are not imbued with the ideology of nationalism. Biology is a need; ideology is not.


Ideology does not have any impact on whether the construct is real or not and that is the only differential between "subjective" and "objective" ... the reality.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 10, 2014 4:29 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1350
You seemed to have found it worthwhile to have quoted this .... :

Quote:
"Social constructionism is the process through which subjective reality (a.k.a., second-order reality) is created. Subjective reality can be contrasted with objective reality (a.k.a., first-order reality) in that it exists in the minds of people and in a social context. Examples of objective reality would include the position of objects in space, the chemical structure of molecules, the force of gravity, and planetary orbits. Examples of subjective reality include all our opinions, ideas, and words for molecules and planets, whether things are good or bad or right or wrong, all thoughts and emotions, political ideologies, religions, and any social phenomenon.
Most of what we call reality is actually subjective reality, and we often confuse subjective reality with objective reality, mainly because it seems so real that it seems impossible to us that it actually exists only within the human mind.



The entire paragraph makes sense and I especially agree with the author ..... "In other words, most of what we call reality is actually subjective reality, and we often confuse subjective reality with objective reality, mainly because it seems so real that it seems impossible to us that it actually exists only within the human mind."

The concept of borders are a subjective reality that are so conditioned within us that we actually see them as being objective. But we made them up. Exactly as this author explains.

Quote:
The concept of where a border goes is subjective, but once in place it becomes objective. Just as a new home is subjective while the plans for it are being drawn, modified, and adjusted, but clearly becomes objective when constructed,


Uh-uh. Borders are, in themselves, subjective both as they are being conceived in someone's mind and after the objective stones have been laid. Stones are not subjective. Stones are real. Once the border of stones have been placed, they are still stones. It is our ideology about those stones which is subjective. Stones are real, ideology is not. Borders are purely conceptual.

The concept of where a border goes is subjective? No. Where to lay the stones, and more importantly, WHY, is completely subjective. Borders are in themselves subjective. They are not a couch dependent on us arranging furniture. A new house is not real until we construct the thing. At first, it's a vision in someone's mind. It is lumber constructed into rooms. It is made of wood and bricks and other material. It is then called a house. It's just a place to live. It has no political affiliation. Everyone needs a roof over one's head. No problem.

Quote:
You are very confused. If we construct the brick and mortar, metal and wire, gates, and all other physical aspects of the border once we have determined where they go, we have the "couch", the "house", and the "border" as objective items.


I am not confused. You simply do not seem to be able to get beyond the constructs of language. Once we have constructed the brick and mortar, metal and wire, gates and borders, we have the couch, house and border. So we all agree that the materials used to construct this thing we call a "couch" is simply an object we have constructed and then called a "couch". It is made up of materials. The materials are real, but the couch is a concept, and since it is useful, we tend to like the creation and the use of this pragmatic invention. We call it a couch. We sit on it. Wire is usually made of metal. Metal is real. It is naturally occurring. Gates are made out of wood. Borders are made out of naturally occurring materials which are an actual objective reality.

What we do with all of these things, the way be place them and the words we give them is subjective. The stones we use to create borders are real and objective. The ideology for why we place them and how we place them is subjective ..... and we do so according to ideology.

If we create huge borders from stone, such as the Great Wall of China, of course such a man made construct can be seen from space. The Rio Grande can also be seen from space, but it is a naturally occurring river, not an ideologically imposed placement of stones between ideologically conceived nation states. It's a grand river; majestic and beautiful and completely without politics. We impose politics; rivers do not.

Quote:
You have agreed the constructs are solid physical creations.


Yes, they are solid physical "creations".


Quote:
why you mention political affiation is beyond me as that has no relation to whether the construct exists or not.


How is political affiliation beyond you? How is that possible? Did the stones place themselves there or did we? Are the stones political or are we? The construct exists because we put it there, according to our political affiliation.

Quote:
A communist's house can be taken over by a capitalist, a liberal's house may be taken over by a conservative, and in both cases the house is still objective regardless.


Communism and capitalism are economic and social concepts. Even a house is concept, but the trees used to make it are not. Some subjective creations are quite practical, such as houses, but they are still made up of materials, like wood and stone, which are objective. A house is also a concept, and a very useful one at that.

Quote:
So is the border regardless of the change of politics related to the territory on either side.


Politics change all the time. So do borders change according to shifting ideologies and power struggles. We just move the objective stones according to our subjective ideas about where the objective stones should be.

Quote:
So do borders when they are constructed. What the borders represent are always subjective, but not the physical border. That it is called a border is subjective, but not the physical border.


Borders are subjective and stones are real. Houses are subjective, and wood is not. How can stones be subjective? The physical components of borders are just that; brick and mortar constructs. It is the ideology behind them that creates the problem. Houses provide shelter and there is only biological necessity there and thus no problem. Houses are not imbued with the ideology of nationalism. Biology is a need; ideology is not.[/quote]

Quote:
Ideology does not have any impact on whether the construct is real or not and that is the only differential between "subjective" and "objective" ... the reality.


Of course ideology has no impact on the reality of a stone, but it certainly has an impact on the physical constructs that we both erect and imbue with subjective meaning. Where we lay the stones and why we lay the stones has an impact .... not on the naturally occurring materials we use to construct these edifices, but on the edifices themselves. If it were not for ideology, we would have left these stones in the Earth where they lay in the first place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 10, 2014 6:05 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
You seemed to have found it worthwhile to have quoted this .... :

Quote:
"Social constructionism is the process through which subjective reality (a.k.a., second-order reality) is created. Subjective reality can be contrasted with objective reality (a.k.a., first-order reality) in that it exists in the minds of people and in a social context. Examples of objective reality would include the position of objects in space, the chemical structure of molecules, the force of gravity, and planetary orbits. Examples of subjective reality include all our opinions, ideas, and words for molecules and planets, whether things are good or bad or right or wrong, all thoughts and emotions, political ideologies, religions, and any social phenomenon.
Most of what we call reality is actually subjective reality, and we often confuse subjective reality with objective reality, mainly because it seems so real that it seems impossible to us that it actually exists only within the human mind.



The entire paragraph makes sense and I especially agree with the author ..... "In other words, most of what we call reality is actually subjective reality, and we often confuse subjective reality with objective reality, mainly because it seems so real that it seems impossible to us that it actually exists only within the human mind."

The concept of borders are a subjective reality that are so conditioned within us that we actually see them as being objective. But we made them up. Exactly as this author explains.


You are confusing the concept with the reality. A house plan is a concept. A constructed house is not. Thus, a house is objective. The same applies to a border. The concept as to where it is to go may have a subjective nature or not. If it follows a natural boundary, it is not subjective. If it encloses a natural division of peoples, it is not based on a sibjective concept either.

Quote:
Quote:
The concept of where a border goes is subjective, but once in place it becomes objective. Just as a new home is subjective while the plans for it are being drawn, modified, and adjusted, but clearly becomes objective when constructed,


Uh-uh. Borders are, in themselves, subjective both as they are being conceived in someone's mind and after the objective stones have been laid. Stones are not subjective. Stones are real. Once the border of stones have been placed, they are still stones. It is our ideology about those stones which is subjective. Stones are real, ideology is not. Borders are purely conceptual.


Borders are not just stones, they are also gates, fences, walls, rivers, coastlines, mountains, and other clear physical divisions. It is the physical element which you are missing in the concept. What we call a border is subjective, but the physical presence is not. The physical element cannot be ignored in the vain attempt to change the definition.

Quote:
The concept of where a border goes is subjective? No.


Which would make the border objective just by the process of elimination.

Quote:
Where to lay the stones, and more importantly, WHY, is completely subjective.


Why is not a consideration in the determination of subjective and objective. The reason why someone has a child does not make the child subjective as once there is a physical entitiy it is objective.

Quote:
Borders are in themselves subjective. They are not a couch dependent on us arranging furniture. A new house is not real until we construct the thing. At first, it's a vision in someone's mind. It is lumber constructed into rooms. It is made of wood and bricks and other material. It is then called a house. It's just a place to live. It has no political affiliation. Everyone needs a roof over one's head. No problem.

Quote:
You are very confused. If we construct the brick and mortar, metal and wire, gates, and all other physical aspects of the border once we have determined where they go, we have the "couch", the "house", and the "border" as objective items.


Quote:
I am not confused. You simply do not seem to be able to get beyond the constructs of language. Once we have constructed the brick and mortar, metal and wire, gates and borders, we have the couch, house and border. So we all agree that the materials used to construct this thing we call a "couch" is simply an object we have constructed and then called a "couch". It is made up of materials. The materials are real, but the couch is a concept, and since it is useful, we tend to like the creation and the use of this pragmatic invention. We call it a couch. We sit on it. Wire is usually made of metal. Metal is real. It is naturally occurring. Gates are made out of wood. Borders are made out of naturally occurring materials which are an actual objective reality.


Yes, what we call a "border" is subjective, but the ojects are not. Thus, the border is not subjective, but the language used to describe it is.

Quote:
What we do with all of these things, the way be place them and the words we give them is subjective.


Yes, but once placed they become objective. The language aspect is a non sequitur as all language is subjective in terminology.

Quote:
The stones we use to create borders are real and objective. The ideology for why we place them and how we place them is subjective ..... and we do so according to ideology.


Again, prior to the physical creation everything created is a concept and subjective by definition, but once created are objective. Morals and ethics are always subjective because there is no physical construct to make them objective. They can be changed and have been changed often throughout our history.

Quote:
If we create huge borders from stone, such as the Great Wall of China, of course such a man made construct can be seen from space. The Rio Grande can also be seen from space, but it is a naturally occurring river, not an ideologically imposed placement of stones between ideologically conceived nation states. It's a grand river; majestic and beautiful and completely without politics. We impose politics; rivers do not.


The border is thus objective. The politics are not, but the border is the point of discussion not the politics behind it.

Quote:
Quote:
You have agreed the constructs are solid physical creations.


Yes, they are solid physical "creations".


Not "creations" but creations.


Quote:
Quote:
why you mention political affiation is beyond me as that has no relation to whether the construct exists or not.


How is political affiliation beyond you?


It is not "beyond me" it is not relative to whether the border has a physical existence or not.

Quote:
How is that possible? Did the stones place themselves there or did we? Are the stones political or are we? The construct exists because we put it there, according to our political affiliation.


Just as we put houses in places, but they are not considered subjective are they? We have also lived in caves and hollow trees in the past and they are not subjective. We have used natural boundaries or borders as well and they are not subjective. You are confused in the naming being subjective or the decision for placement being abstract when the only question is whether there is a physical demarcation for the border or not.

Quote:
Quote:
A communist's house can be taken over by a capitalist, a liberal's house may be taken over by a conservative, and in both cases the house is still objective regardless.


Communism and capitalism are economic and social concepts. Even a house is concept, but the trees used to make it are not.


A house is not a concept, it is a physical creation, which you have stated your self. You are now refuting your own arguments.

Quote:
Some subjective creations are quite practical, such as houses, but they are still made up of materials, like wood and stone, which are objective. A house is also a concept, and a very useful one at that.


If a house is a concept, you whould be able to walk through it without touching anything rekated to a house. If you cannot do so that is an objective creation.

Quote:
Quote:
So is the border regardless of the change of politics related to the territory on either side.


Politics change all the time. So do borders change according to shifting ideologies and power struggles. We just move the objective stones according to our subjective ideas about where the objective stones should be.


Yes, and the ojective border is still objective unless and until the physical aspects are removed. The border may not retain its political goals, but it is still a border until it is removed.

Quote:
So do borders when they are constructed. What the borders represent are always subjective, but not the physical border. That it is called a border is subjective, but not the physical border.


Quote:
Borders are subjective and stones are real. Houses are subjective, and wood is not. How can stones be subjective?


Stones, wood, borders, and houses are all objective unless you can walk through them without touching them.

Quote:
The physical components of borders are just that; brick and mortar constructs. It is the ideology behind them that creates the problem.


The "problem" is a moot point. The BORDER is still objective once there is a physical aspect to it.

Quote:
Houses provide shelter and there is only biological necessity there and thus no problem. Houses are not imbued with the ideology of nationalism. Biology is a need; ideology is not.


Houses are objects thus they are objective. Anyone looking at a house will see the same thing. Anyone looking at a border fence will see the same thing. Not everyone looking at a cow being slaughtered will see a cruelty aspect. Thus, the physical aspects are all objective, but the intangible aspects are subjective.

Quote:
Quote:
Ideology does not have any impact on whether the construct is real or not and that is the only differential between "subjective" and "objective" ... the reality.


Of course ideology has no impact on the reality of a stone, but it certainly has an impact on the physical constructs that we both erect and imbue with subjective meaning.


The meaning is subjective, but the border itself is not. It is very simple once you stop trying to add to or remove the parts that screw up your claims. You have gone so far in trying to show where objects are actually subjective, you have shown that morals and ethics cannot ever be objective in comparison.

Quote:
Where we lay the stones and why we lay the stones has an impact .... not on the naturally occurring materials we use to construct these edifices, but on the edifices themselves. If it were not for ideology, we would have left these stones in the Earth where they lay in the first place.


Which has no bearing at all on whether the border is or is not objective. It does show the ideology behind the determination of morals and ethics must always be subjective since they have no physical attributes at all and you have gone so far to claim things with physical attributes are still subjective.

Thank you for being so helpful in making that point.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 21, 2014 3:45 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1350
Quote:
Yes, it is a claim. Cruelty is a subjective determination so what you believe may be cruel is not what the consensus of the society believes is cruel. In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim.



A scenario: What if you were captured and tortured? You had your finger nails ripped out, you were burnt and whipped, you were slowly starved of food and water. You were contained within concrete walls with no sunlight and no chance of human contact other than your torturers. And what if you lived in a society where this was accepted practice? In such a scenario, you would suffer, both physically and psychologically. But you are saying you would be okay with this if the society consensus agreed on it? Is your subjective experience of 'cruelty' .... the pain you suffer as you are being tortured, not relevant because this society has come to a consensus that it's just fine? And if your brother was in the next cell, would his suffering not be the same as yours as his finger nails were being ripped out?

Quote:
"Cruelty is a subjective determination"


Especially if you happen to be the subject! And we are all the subjects. We all experience the same pain, hunger, heat, cold, fear, loneliness, depression and exaltation, joy ... sometimes, for some of us. We are all the subjects. I am not religious but I understand Jesus's teaching that we treat each other as ourselves. The truth is that we ARE each other.

Quote:
In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim.


If the majority follows along with what the majority is doing, it must therefore be logical? Is the 'majority', because it is the bulk of the population, logical and therefore the logical basis for "any claim"? I wonder what this "majority" that you speak of will do next.

The majority is abstract. You are not. But perhaps that is rushing things?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:55 am 
Online
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
Yes, it is a claim. Cruelty is a subjective determination so what you believe may be cruel is not what the consensus of the society believes is cruel. In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim.



A scenario: What if you were captured and tortured? You had your finger nails ripped out, you were burnt and whipped, you were slowly starved of food and water. You were contained within concrete walls with no sunlight and no chance of human contact other than your torturers. And what if you lived in a society where this was accepted practice? In such a scenario, you would suffer, both physically and psychologically. But you are saying you would be okay with this if the society consensus agreed on it? Is your subjective experience of 'cruelty' .... the pain you suffer as you are being tortured, not relevant because this society has come to a consensus that it's just fine? And if your brother was in the next cell, would his suffering not be the same as yours as his finger nails were being ripped out?


If I grew up in that society, it is very possible that I would accept this as the norm. I may not like it and I may call it cruel, but my opinion of what is and is not cruel does not define the society's view.

For example, there are people in our society today who believe keeping pets is cruel. The society does not share this view, so for our society keeping pets is not cruel regardless of what those folks may think. If the situation were reversed and society believed that keeping pets was cruel and the few fringe folk disagreed the reverse would be true and keeping pets would be cruel for that society.

Quote:
Quote:
"Cruelty is a subjective determination"


Especially if you happen to be the subject! And we are all the subjects. We all experience the same pain, hunger, heat, cold, fear, loneliness, depression and exaltation, joy ... sometimes, for some of us. We are all the subjects. I am not religious but I understand Jesus's teaching that we treat each other as ourselves. The truth is that we ARE each other.


Again you start off on a tangent which will confuse you by trying to redefine the terms and take your view as the "one true" definition even if it does change over time.

Quote:
Quote:
In this case the majority belief would be the logical basis for the determination of any claim.


If the majority follows along with what the majority is doing, it must therefore be logical?


You are trying too hard to twist things here. Of course the majority will make the determination FOR THE SOCIETY. This is because there is NO absolute code which determines such things, which is why it is SUBJECTIVE.

Quote:
Is the 'majority', because it is the bulk of the population, logical and therefore the logical basis for "any claim"? I wonder what this "majority" that you speak of will do next.


No, the majority (which can be quantified so there is no need to place it within quotation marks) does not have to be logical in the determination. They can be just like you. O:) What IS logical is to use the majority view to determine what is and is not acceptable for that society.

Quote:
The majority is abstract.


How can you reach that conclusion? Do you not understand the thing called Math? The majority is not an abstract because it can be quantified, it has a concrete physical component. You can take everyone and physically have them divide themselves using whatever question you desire and have a physical representation of the majority, which will be the largest group after said division.

Quote:
You are not. But perhaps that is rushing things?


No, it not rushing anything other than logic and it is being rushed out the door in the attempt to redefine anything and everything in order to allow you to decide what is and is not cruel for all history.

Take eleven pennies and flip them. Put the ones which came up heads in one pile and the ones which came up tails in the other. According to your logic presented here the larger pile does not exist because it is the majority and thus abstract. That would in turn make the smaller pile the majority and in turn cease to exist for the same reason.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 103 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group