Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
The distinction should be very clear. You may well not be able to tell what agent A exactly proposes as a definition of 'O', but you can still tell that agent A's definition is not the same as yours if - say - by your definition, Fs are not Os, but by A's definition - as applied and explained by A -, Fs are Os. It is important because you saidThe AntiChris said:I have no idea what distinction you're trying draw here. Even more baffling is why this is so important to you.
which ridicules my views and arguments by grossly mischaracterizing them. Again, I never claimed that you were in a position to know what RS precisely means by 'objective'. I never even made an either-or argument with that. I meant what I said and explained in detail by now.The AntiChris said:How on earth can what I mean by 'objective' bear on my ability to know what RS precisely means by 'objective'?
As I explained carefully, it does, and further, it is true.The AntiChris said:As I tried to explain before, this makes no logical sense.
Of course it is not. I do not understand why you fail to understand my point. It is detailed - painfully detailed. Here is a summary, but the painfully detailed explanation is of course better:The AntiChris said:My ability to tell that my definition of objective does not comport with anyone else's definition cannot possibly be contingent upon your understanding of my definition.
1. On the basis of an understanding of your proposed definition and ruby sparks's proposed definition based on what was written by you and by him in this thread, I reckon they are very different from each other.
2. If I did not seriously misunderstand your definition, then you too can, on the basis of what was written in this thread, make that assessment (unless you are not sufficiently intelligent, but I rule that out as the assessment in 1. was very, very easy to make).
Of course that is not what I mean. But I'm at a loss as to how you can be at a loss about what I mean. Are you reading my posts for at least, say, 5 minutes?The AntiChris said:This can't be what you mean. But I'm at a loss as to what could possibly mean.
I explained this in detail in this post and this post, the latter being more detailed - really, I dedicate so much time to give every step in the argument, and you still won't dedicate 5 minutes to see it's obviously correct? I doubt you'd need more than that.