Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
I already showed, beyond a reasonable doubt, that definitions (explicit definitions, for that's what we're talking about; some people use the word "definition" in a broader sense that would make any meaningful word defined even if no definition is ever given, but that's not what we're talking about) are not needed for objectivity.First, subjective observations aside (whatever that is), there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Tom Sawyer holds that there is objective inanity, right?
Second, I already showed repeatedly the mistakes in his definition-based argumentation - you just haven't realized it, and maybe will not, but that is not the point -, and regardless of whether he holds that there is objective inanity.
But with respect to inanity, he's saying that it's inane to say homosexuality is a mental illness because it impairs the ability under consideration (see the exchange), but heterosexuality isn't even if it impairs some other parallel ability (see the exchange).
But for that matter, if there is no objective fact of the matter as to whether it's inane, someone might insist in making the distinction and holding that homosexuality but not heterosexuality is a mental illness. Is there an objective fact of the matter about that?
By the way, if my assessment that Tom Sawyer holds that there objective inanity is mistaken, then he can always correct me, but the wording of his posts decisively supports the assessment that he does hold so, even if implicitly (i.e., even if he has not thought about it).
At any rate, you can always ask him.
That is false.
The problem seems to be that you do not understand the exchange, else you would have changed your position on the issue of objectivity already, and you would refrain from making such false accusations against me.
By the way, do you hold that there is objective illness?
If so, do you know what the relevant difference between illness and immorality is, which basis your different assessments, objectivity-wise?
Remember, "illness" is not defined (else, please provide a definition; your argument will not work if you do, though, for the same reasons Tom Sawyer's arguments didn't), and definitions are not required for objectivity in the first place, anyway.
If you do not understand the difference between subjective and objective, and believe definitions are not needed for objectivity, there is no point to this discussion. It is simply your rehashing of the same statements, over and over again.
But I can show it again, also beyond a reasonable doubt. There is an objective fact of the matter as to whether, say, bears are cars. They are not. And that is true even if no definition of "car" is given. In fact, people do not define "car" while they use the word. Some legislations do, but then, others don't, also legal definitions aren't always the same, and also, even before anyone gave a definition, the assertion that there was an objective fact of the matter as to whether bears are cars would have been true, using the words in the assertion in the way they were used before anyone ever gave a definition of "car".
Moreover, the claim that definitions are required for objectivity is self-defeating, because as I explained, whenever you give a definition, you define it in terms of other words. But some of those other words would not be defined in turn, so there would be no objective fact of the matter as to whether the conditions in the definition are met. Or, if all of the words in your definition are defined, then some of the words in terms of which the words in your definition are defined, are in turn not defined, or..., the point is that as a matter of fact, there is no infinite definitional regress, so in the end you get undefined words.
By the way, you're the one who has a false theory of what "objective" and "subjective" mean, and certainly in some of your posts you are not using them in a way remotely like the way anyone making a metaethical argument for theism would be using it (they would use those words either in the colloquial sense, or in some philosophical sense, but certainly not according to your usage).
As a sample:
Why don't you ask anyone pressing a metaethical argument for theism, or any philosopher with expertise in metaethics (or, really, any philosopher) whether that is true?Bronzeage said:There is nothing more subjective than judging an act to be moral or immoral, based on the motive for the action and not the results of the action.
But if you don't want to believe them, why don't you read such arguments, read philosophy papers (and all of the the basics you need in order to understand those papers in the first place, of course), and reconsider the matter?