Principles

[ruby sparks]

Why or how important or whether it matters I call someone a jerk ought to have a truth value independent of both the questions and answers. So, discarding the question, I analyze the statement and find ambiguity leaving the truth dependent on the specific meaning intended on being expressed. I call him a jerk for whatever reason I might have, but in afterthought, one might ask, am I right? If I am intending to convey that he is now at this point in time being a jerk and it fits the bill given the meaning, then the possibilities are what they are, and if I am intending to convey that he is generally a jerk, then the possibilities are what they are to that claim. The key is in digging through the ambiguity to see just what the claim is in fact.

I think we often have to make assessments and predictions about the world, in real time, using insufficient information. This is perhaps especially true of our interactions with other people.

So.......in that traffic situation, the other driver IS a jerk. That is, essentially, all that he or she is at that moment, because it matters.

That does not mean to say that we wouldn't revise the use of the label later.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

But, even as I look to the right, there's both a top and bottom perspective. Consider the statement "cats have four legs." Well, look up, generally they do; hence, in the top sense, what is meant is, "generally, cats have four legs." A looking down perspective of interpreting "cats have four legs" as all cats have four legs doesn't defeat the truth of what is generally true, as one who typically utters "cats have four legs" means not to claim they all do, allowing for exceptions, which gives rise to the statement that exceptions prove the rule, as opposed to disprove the rule.

I hope that you mean 'give or deny strength to a rule rather than determine absolute truth or falsify it. 'Proof'ing something is more about testing it than deciding its veracity.

Now, despite the left of why I might call one a jerk or a liar, we have two perspectives on the right: the top view which translates "he is a jerk" to "generally, he is a jerk" which might be false contrasted with the bottom view which translates "he is a jerk" to "he is always or was at least once or twice a jerk."

So, while there may be a driving reason for labeling a person a murderer, he is nevertheless a murderer. The serial killer is generally a killer, but the one time kill by one who has killed but only once is a killer but not generally a killer. Same holds with a person that lies in that there may be a specific harm that has wanting to mark the person as bad, it's still true or false that he's a liar. Either, he generally is, like a habitual liar, or else he's not a liar in the sense that he generally lies yet a liar in the sense he has done so at least once.

So, I guess, a person who generally holds tight to principles but made an exception is still a person who generally lives by principles while it's also true that he makes rare exceptions, which I suppose is better than one who rarely lives by them, in which case it's not true he generally has good principles if generally he doesn't.

The entire notion of 'holds tight to principles' and 'makes exceptions to the same' and 'generally has good principles' and 'generally doesn't' is yours to interpret - based on your definition of principles, and more generally, integrity.

 

[fast]

But, even as I look to the right, there's both a top and bottom perspective. Consider the statement "cats have four legs." Well, look up, generally they do; hence, in the top sense, what is meant is, "generally, cats have four legs." A looking down perspective of interpreting "cats have four legs" as all cats have four legs doesn't defeat the truth of what is generally true, as one who typically utters "cats have four legs" means not to claim they all do, allowing for exceptions, which gives rise to the statement that exceptions prove the rule, as opposed to disprove the rule.

I hope that you mean 'give or deny strength to a rule rather than determine absolute truth or falsify it. 'Proof'ing something is more about testing it than deciding its veracity.

Now, despite the left of why I might call one a jerk or a liar, we have two perspectives on the right: the top view which translates "he is a jerk" to "generally, he is a jerk" which might be false contrasted with the bottom view which translates "he is a jerk" to "he is always or was at least once or twice a jerk."

So, while there may be a driving reason for labeling a person a murderer, he is nevertheless a murderer. The serial killer is generally a killer, but the one time kill by one who has killed but only once is a killer but not generally a killer. Same holds with a person that lies in that there may be a specific harm that has wanting to mark the person as bad, it's still true or false that he's a liar. Either, he generally is, like a habitual liar, or else he's not a liar in the sense that he generally lies yet a liar in the sense he has done so at least once.

So, I guess, a person who generally holds tight to principles but made an exception is still a person who generally lives by principles while it's also true that he makes rare exceptions, which I suppose is better than one who rarely lives by them, in which case it's not true he generally has good principles if generally he doesn't.

The entire notion of 'holds tight to principles' and 'makes exceptions to the same' and 'generally has good principles' and 'generally doesn't' is yours to interpret - based on your definition of principles, and more generally, integrity.

I don't get it. If someone says cats have four legs, the proposition expressed by the sentence is either true or false. If you find ambiguity in the sentence and thus the proposition, clarification is in order (I.e, what is meant?). Suppose Ann and Bob utter the same sentence but purposefully intends what each intends but so happens to be different. In that case, ascertain the intended proposition and analyze accordingly. If Ann was sloppy in her wording but meant, "all cats have four legs," then clearly, any sentence expressing that proposition is false, as we can produce cats that do not have four legs. If bob, on the other hand, never meant to express that proposition but rather, "as a general rule of thumb, it's accurate to say that generally speaking, cats have four legs, then no exception to a hard and fast rule matters, as the claim is not like ann's. He means, "generally, cats have four legs." That is true. It's true that generally, cats have four legs. That some cats don't effects the truth not one bit.

 

[Bronzeage]

I hope that you mean 'give or deny strength to a rule rather than determine absolute truth or falsify it. 'Proof'ing something is more about testing it than deciding its veracity.


The entire notion of 'holds tight to principles' and 'makes exceptions to the same' and 'generally has good principles' and 'generally doesn't' is yours to interpret - based on your definition of principles, and more generally, integrity.

I don't get it. If someone says cats have four legs, the proposition expressed by the sentence is either true or false. If you find ambiguity in the sentence and thus the proposition, clarification is in order (I.e, what is meant?). Suppose Ann and Bob utter the same sentence but purposefully intends what each intends but so happens to be different. In that case, ascertain the intended proposition and analyze accordingly. If Ann was sloppy in her wording but meant, "all cats have four legs," then clearly, any sentence expressing that proposition is false, as we can produce cats that do not have four legs. If bob, on the other hand, never meant to express that proposition but rather, "as a general rule of thumb, it's accurate to say that generally speaking, cats have four legs, then no exception to a hard and fast rule matters, as the claim is not like ann's. He means, "generally, cats have four legs." That is true. It's true that generally, cats have four legs. That some cats don't effects the truth not one bit.

I once saw a litter of six kittens, of which three, had only two legs. Each of these three, did survive to adulthood, and thus became cats who did not have four legs. At some point, we must acknowledge that there are no absolutes, or at least, a very small amount of them.

 

[Juma]

I hope that you mean 'give or deny strength to a rule rather than determine absolute truth or falsify it. 'Proof'ing something is more about testing it than deciding its veracity.


The entire notion of 'holds tight to principles' and 'makes exceptions to the same' and 'generally has good principles' and 'generally doesn't' is yours to interpret - based on your definition of principles, and more generally, integrity.

I don't get it. If someone says cats have four legs, the proposition expressed by the sentence is either true or false. If you find ambiguity in the sentence and thus the proposition, clarification is in order (I.e, what is meant?). Suppose Ann and Bob utter the same sentence but purposefully intends what each intends but so happens to be different. In that case, ascertain the intended proposition and analyze accordingly. If Ann was sloppy in her wording but meant, "all cats have four legs," then clearly, any sentence expressing that proposition is false, as we can produce cats that do not have four legs. If bob, on the other hand, never meant to express that proposition but rather, "as a general rule of thumb, it's accurate to say that generally speaking, cats have four legs, then no exception to a hard and fast rule matters, as the claim is not like ann's. He means, "generally, cats have four legs." That is true. It's true that generally, cats have four legs. That some cats don't effects the truth not one bit.

Language doesnt work from principles. It works from intentionality. An object can be called chair if the intention is to treat the object as a chair. The meaning of the word chair in that context is then a result of the expected intention of the receiver.

 

[humbleman]

Principles.

I never knew those were so important. Even here, everybody going in circles giving classes of what are principles, where principles are come, and more and more pedagogy for the rest, but who knows who is really keeping them.

Principles are something inside us which allow us to be receptacles of their insight without the need of great effort but just letting live as part of us.

One day, I felt jealousy when Louis Armstrong died and Duke Ellington said about the trumpet man: "He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way."

That, that is a principle, no matter if poor or rich... never hurting anyone is greater than all the music he created in all his life.

I felt jealous because I know if I die someday, such words won't be said about me.

Principles, sometimes you learn the hard way how valuable are those.

 

[fast]

I hope that you mean 'give or deny strength to a rule rather than determine absolute truth or falsify it. 'Proof'ing something is more about testing it than deciding its veracity.


The entire notion of 'holds tight to principles' and 'makes exceptions to the same' and 'generally has good principles' and 'generally doesn't' is yours to interpret - based on your definition of principles, and more generally, integrity.

I don't get it. If someone says cats have four legs, the proposition expressed by the sentence is either true or false. If you find ambiguity in the sentence and thus the proposition, clarification is in order (I.e, what is meant?). Suppose Ann and Bob utter the same sentence but purposefully intends what each intends but so happens to be different. In that case, ascertain the intended proposition and analyze accordingly. If Ann was sloppy in her wording but meant, "all cats have four legs," then clearly, any sentence expressing that proposition is false, as we can produce cats that do not have four legs. If bob, on the other hand, never meant to express that proposition but rather, "as a general rule of thumb, it's accurate to say that generally speaking, cats have four legs, then no exception to a hard and fast rule matters, as the claim is not like ann's. He means, "generally, cats have four legs." That is true. It's true that generally, cats have four legs. That some cats don't effects the truth not one bit.

Language doesnt work from principles. It works from intentionality. An object can be called chair if the intention is to treat the object as a chair. The meaning of the word chair in that context is then a result of the expected intention of the receiver.

I don't disagree that language doesn't work from principles. I tend to think I have a pretty good grasp of a wide range of issues regarding semantics. I've been a long-time proponent of making a distinction between the truth of what a person means despite the meaning of what a person says, so I'm quite keen on distinguishing the truth of what a person says versus what a person has in mind. The child may say (say, I say) that the horse has stripes, but the truth is that what the child sees has stripes, but never is it the case that the zebra the child actually sees (despite what the child thinks he sees) is a horse.

If I intend to say one thing but say another, then what I have said is the other while what I did say is the one thing. Meaning, that is lexical meaning, is a function of something quite transparently different than what a person might happen to mean when saying what he does. It takes experience to become adept at deciphering intended meaning from the meaning of what's often unintentionally expressed. Yes, an object can be called (can be called, that is) a chair, but calling an object a chair does not make it so that it is a chair, as whether the something being called a chair is in fact a chair depends on something quite different.

The meaning (that is, the lexical meaning) of a word is a function oh how it's collectively used by fluent speakers of a language. No individual stipulative usage alters the lexical meaning.

My introduction of intentionality was just to highlight distinctions masked by ambiguity.

 

[fast]

I hope that you mean 'give or deny strength to a rule rather than determine absolute truth or falsify it. 'Proof'ing something is more about testing it than deciding its veracity.


The entire notion of 'holds tight to principles' and 'makes exceptions to the same' and 'generally has good principles' and 'generally doesn't' is yours to interpret - based on your definition of principles, and more generally, integrity.

I don't get it. If someone says cats have four legs, the proposition expressed by the sentence is either true or false. If you find ambiguity in the sentence and thus the proposition, clarification is in order (I.e, what is meant?). Suppose Ann and Bob utter the same sentence but purposefully intends what each intends but so happens to be different. In that case, ascertain the intended proposition and analyze accordingly. If Ann was sloppy in her wording but meant, "all cats have four legs," then clearly, any sentence expressing that proposition is false, as we can produce cats that do not have four legs. If bob, on the other hand, never meant to express that proposition but rather, "as a general rule of thumb, it's accurate to say that generally speaking, cats have four legs, then no exception to a hard and fast rule matters, as the claim is not like ann's. He means, "generally, cats have four legs." That is true. It's true that generally, cats have four legs. That some cats don't effects the truth not one bit.

I once saw a litter of six kittens, of which three, had only two legs. Each of these three, did survive to adulthood, and thus became cats who did not have four legs. At some point, we must acknowledge that there are no absolutes, or at least, a very small amount of them.

If X sometimes means A while at other times X means B, such lexical ambiguity still ought not be confused with stipulative usage. You might mean C when saying X, but that doesn't alter the fact that lexically, it's meaning is limited to A and B.

What I say might have two lexical meanings, but personally having a third alternative meaning doesn't alter the only two meanings of what is said, lexically.

 

[rousseau]

Better to be bendy than too stiff.

Morals are always arbitrary based on a set of conditions.

 

[humbleman]

Better to be bendy than too stiff.

Morals are always arbitrary based on a set of conditions.

Like mercy sometimes wisely applied in place of justice.

 

[ruby sparks]

Language doesnt work from principles. It works from intentionality. An object can be called chair if the intention is to treat the object as a chair. The meaning of the word chair in that context is then a result of the expected intention of the receiver.

I don't disagree that language doesn't work from principles. I tend to think I have a pretty good grasp of a wide range of issues regarding semantics. I've been a long-time proponent of making a distinction between the truth of what a person means despite the meaning of what a person says, so I'm quite keen on distinguishing the truth of what a person says versus what a person has in mind. The child may say (say, I say) that the horse has stripes, but the truth is that what the child sees has stripes, but never is it the case that the zebra the child actually sees (despite what the child thinks he sees) is a horse.

If I intend to say one thing but say another, then what I have said is the other while what I did say is the one thing. Meaning, that is lexical meaning, is a function of something quite transparently different than what a person might happen to mean when saying what he does. It takes experience to become adept at deciphering intended meaning from the meaning of what's often unintentionally expressed. Yes, an object can be called (can be called, that is) a chair, but calling an object a chair does not make it so that it is a chair, as whether the something being called a chair is in fact a chair depends on something quite different.

The meaning (that is, the lexical meaning) of a word is a function oh how it's collectively used by fluent speakers of a language. No individual stipulative usage alters the lexical meaning.

My introduction of intentionality was just to highlight distinctions masked by ambiguity.

Fast, I like the way you think about stuff, but in this case, I'm a bit confused as to what issue you are exploring. In the OP you seemed to emphasise the truth or otherwise of labels, so I picked up on that, because the first examples you gave were liar, thief and murderer. And you underlined a statement about frequency being a factor.

Are we still on that tack?

Imo, yes there are principles, as generalities. This allows for exceptions. One reason suggested here as to why an exception might be emphasised over a generality is 'when it matters'. This would tend to skew the overall objective accuracy ('truth'?) of a label, because it is both situation-dependent and/or because it matters in some crucial way.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I hope that you mean 'give or deny strength to a rule rather than determine absolute truth or falsify it. 'Proof'ing something is more about testing it than deciding its veracity.


The entire notion of 'holds tight to principles' and 'makes exceptions to the same' and 'generally has good principles' and 'generally doesn't' is yours to interpret - based on your definition of principles, and more generally, integrity.

I don't get it. If someone says cats have four legs, the proposition expressed by the sentence is either true or false. If you find ambiguity in the sentence and thus the proposition, clarification is in order (I.e, what is meant?). Suppose Ann and Bob utter the same sentence but purposefully intends what each intends but so happens to be different. In that case, ascertain the intended proposition and analyze accordingly. If Ann was sloppy in her wording but meant, "all cats have four legs," then clearly, any sentence expressing that proposition is false, as we can produce cats that do not have four legs. If bob, on the other hand, never meant to express that proposition but rather, "as a general rule of thumb, it's accurate to say that generally speaking, cats have four legs, then no exception to a hard and fast rule matters, as the claim is not like ann's. He means, "generally, cats have four legs." That is true. It's true that generally, cats have four legs. That some cats don't effects the truth not one bit.

But this cat example is not illustrative at all. Everyone on this planet and all others have a full understanding of the number four and can count legs on cats. That's nowhere near the subjectivity of attempting to accurately assess and convey the principled behavior of another individual. Integrity is like driving ability - everyone has it to some degree and everyone will likely insist that theirs is above average.

A person lies once. That is almost as easy to determine as counting the number of legs on cats. Should he be called a liar? Does it even matter? What matters is whether or not you believe him the next time he tells you something - and that is absolutely an individual assessment.

aa

 

[fast]

I hope that you mean 'give or deny strength to a rule rather than determine absolute truth or falsify it. 'Proof'ing something is more about testing it than deciding its veracity.


The entire notion of 'holds tight to principles' and 'makes exceptions to the same' and 'generally has good principles' and 'generally doesn't' is yours to interpret - based on your definition of principles, and more generally, integrity.

I don't get it. If someone says cats have four legs, the proposition expressed by the sentence is either true or false. If you find ambiguity in the sentence and thus the proposition, clarification is in order (I.e, what is meant?). Suppose Ann and Bob utter the same sentence but purposefully intends what each intends but so happens to be different. In that case, ascertain the intended proposition and analyze accordingly. If Ann was sloppy in her wording but meant, "all cats have four legs," then clearly, any sentence expressing that proposition is false, as we can produce cats that do not have four legs. If bob, on the other hand, never meant to express that proposition but rather, "as a general rule of thumb, it's accurate to say that generally speaking, cats have four legs, then no exception to a hard and fast rule matters, as the claim is not like ann's. He means, "generally, cats have four legs." That is true. It's true that generally, cats have four legs. That some cats don't effects the truth not one bit.

But this cat example is not illustrative at all. Everyone on this planet and all others have a full understanding of the number four and can count legs on cats. That's nowhere near the subjectivity of attempting to accurately assess and convey the principled behavior of another individual. Integrity is like driving ability - everyone has it to some degree and everyone will likely insist that theirs is above average.

A person lies once. That is almost as easy to determine as counting the number of legs on cats. Should he be called a liar? Does it even matter? What matters is whether or not you believe him the next time he tells you something - and that is absolutely an individual assessment.

aa

I have something to say, and what I have to say is that "cats have four legs." That is, the proposition expressed by the sentence accords with how things really are. In no way does whether or not it matters alter the truth of what I'm saying.

It might not matter that the cashier has an IQ of 98 and therefore an IQ of less than a hundred, but the truth is that she has an IQ of less than a 100. Who cares? I don't know who cares, but let us pursue that another day. Right now, the question on the table (like a question on a test) is if what I'm saying is true, not whether it matters.

Ann says, okay butter ball buster boy (Ann's been drinkin'), my granny's cat got run over and had a leg amputated and so only had three legs, and not only that, our neighbor had a cat who had a litter of kittens, and one of those kittens was born with only three legs. That there-legged kitten is now a three-legged cat, so that's not just one but two examples of particular cats that do not have four legs, so crazy critter crybaby calf (drinkin' a lot apparently), what you said is not true but rather false.

To which I respond, what I said is, "cats have four legs." I did not say, "all cats have four legs." The sentence, "cats have four legs" does not translate to "all cats have four legs." It translates to "generally, cats have four legs." If it is true that generally, cats have four legs, then even if it's false that all cats have four legs, it's still neverthess true that cats have four legs is true.

Does it matter? Maybe, maybe not, but either way, the truth is independent of whether the truth matters, so while maybe no one will care whether the cashier has an IQ of less than a 100, it'll be true despite the massive lack of care.

CHAPTER TWO:

The guy lied, and he lied under oath, and he lied to protect himself. And guess what, someone had something to say, and boy oh boy was it a doozy: "Mr, you are a liar."

Now, I know, I know, we could care less that he lied or whether he's a liar. If we did, we could drive into town where such matters are resolved, but you and I, well, the only thing we care about is if the uttered sentence, "Mr, you are a liar" is true.

Ann, sweet sweet Ann, still drunk as all get up says, "he lied, so duh, he's a liar." To put it plainly, she is saying because there is an instance where he has lied, he is therefore a liar. Actually, she might have said it more plainly, but either way.

Again, there's a translation issue. If he does not generally lie but rather rarely lies, he is not a liar if to say of one that he's a liar is to say that he does so generally. Clearly, a lot of people translate differently depending on how important the issue, so I am careful not to take the translation possibilities off the table too quickly.

Since the guy rarely lies, I find it false to say he generally lies, so when I hear "he has no integrity" from people just because he got caught lying to save his ass from embarrassment, I'm more inclined to move away from the masses and try to see the truth for what it is, despite why they might say what they do. People say all kinds of things when they're angry, and it's my desire to be immune from the anger and see the truth.

The truth is he lied.
The truth is he seldom lies.
The truth is he generally does not lie.
Now, the question is, is he a liar?

If we take specific instances as a sufficient condition, then yes, but I don't think we should. Does the guy who not just seldomly but rarely lie live by rules of integrity? Of course; he just didn't this time.

 

[fast]

Language doesnt work from principles. It works from intentionality. An object can be called chair if the intention is to treat the object as a chair. The meaning of the word chair in that context is then a result of the expected intention of the receiver.

I don't disagree that language doesn't work from principles. I tend to think I have a pretty good grasp of a wide range of issues regarding semantics. I've been a long-time proponent of making a distinction between the truth of what a person means despite the meaning of what a person says, so I'm quite keen on distinguishing the truth of what a person says versus what a person has in mind. The child may say (say, I say) that the horse has stripes, but the truth is that what the child sees has stripes, but never is it the case that the zebra the child actually sees (despite what the child thinks he sees) is a horse.

If I intend to say one thing but say another, then what I have said is the other while what I did say is the one thing. Meaning, that is lexical meaning, is a function of something quite transparently different than what a person might happen to mean when saying what he does. It takes experience to become adept at deciphering intended meaning from the meaning of what's often unintentionally expressed. Yes, an object can be called (can be called, that is) a chair, but calling an object a chair does not make it so that it is a chair, as whether the something being called a chair is in fact a chair depends on something quite different.

The meaning (that is, the lexical meaning) of a word is a function oh how it's collectively used by fluent speakers of a language. No individual stipulative usage alters the lexical meaning.

My introduction of intentionality was just to highlight distinctions masked by ambiguity.

Fast, I like the way you think about stuff, but in this case, I'm a bit confused as to what issue you are exploring. In the OP you seemed to emphasise the truth or otherwise of labels, so I picked up on that, because the first examples you gave were liar, thief and murderer. And you underlined a statement about frequency being a factor.

Are we still on that tack?

Imo, yes there are principles, as generalities. This allows for exceptions. One reason suggested here as to why an exception might be emphasised over a generality is 'when it matters'. This would tend to skew the overall objective accuracy ('truth'?) of a label, because it is both situation-dependent and/or because it matters in some crucial way.

Skews the overall objective accuracy? That's a hard pill to swallow.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

But this cat example is not illustrative at all. Everyone on this planet and all others have a full understanding of the number four and can count legs on cats. That's nowhere near the subjectivity of attempting to accurately assess and convey the principled behavior of another individual. Integrity is like driving ability - everyone has it to some degree and everyone will likely insist that theirs is above average.

A person lies once. That is almost as easy to determine as counting the number of legs on cats. Should he be called a liar? Does it even matter? What matters is whether or not you believe him the next time he tells you something - and that is absolutely an individual assessment.

aa

I have something to say, and what I have to say is that "cats have four legs." That is, the proposition expressed by the sentence accords with how things really are. In no way does whether or not it matters alter the truth of what I'm saying.

It might not matter that the cashier has an IQ of 98 and therefore an IQ of less than a hundred, but the truth is that she has an IQ of less than a 100. Who cares? I don't know who cares, but let us pursue that another day. Right now, the question on the table (like a question on a test) is if what I'm saying is true, not whether it matters.

Ann says, okay butter ball buster boy (Ann's been drinkin'), my granny's cat got run over and had a leg amputated and so only had three legs, and not only that, our neighbor had a cat who had a litter of kittens, and one of those kittens was born with only three legs. That there-legged kitten is now a three-legged cat, so that's not just one but two examples of particular cats that do not have four legs, so crazy critter crybaby calf (drinkin' a lot apparently), what you said is not true but rather false.

To which I respond, what I said is, "cats have four legs." I did not say, "all cats have four legs." The sentence, "cats have four legs" does not translate to "all cats have four legs." It translates to "generally, cats have four legs." If it is true that generally, cats have four legs, then even if it's false that all cats have four legs, it's still neverthess true that cats have four legs is true.

Does it matter? Maybe, maybe not, but either way, the truth is independent of whether the truth matters, so while maybe no one will care whether the cashier has an IQ of less than a 100, it'll be true despite the massive lack of care.

CHAPTER TWO:

The guy lied, and he lied under oath, and he lied to protect himself. And guess what, someone had something to say, and boy oh boy was it a doozy: "Mr, you are a liar."

Now, I know, I know, we could care less that he lied or whether he's a liar. If we did, we could drive into town where such matters are resolved, but you and I, well, the only thing we care about is if the uttered sentence, "Mr, you are a liar" is true.

Ann, sweet sweet Ann, still drunk as all get up says, "he lied, so duh, he's a liar." To put it plainly, she is saying because there is an instance where he has lied, he is therefore a liar. Actually, she might have said it more plainly, but either way.

Again, there's a translation issue. If he does not generally lie but rather rarely lies, he is not a liar if to say of one that he's a liar is to say that he does so generally. Clearly, a lot of people translate differently depending on how important the issue, so I am careful not to take the translation possibilities off the table too quickly.

Since the guy rarely lies, I find it false to say he generally lies, so when I hear "he has no integrity" from people just because he got caught lying to save his ass from embarrassment, I'm more inclined to move away from the masses and try to see the truth for what it is, despite why they might say what they do. People say all kinds of things when they're angry, and it's my desire to be immune from the anger and see the truth.

The truth is he lied.
The truth is he seldom lies.
The truth is he generally does not lie.
Now, the question is, is he a liar?

If we take specific instances as a sufficient condition, then yes, but I don't think we should. Does the guy who not just seldomly but rarely lie live by rules of integrity? Of course; he just didn't this time.

So we have your standard and Sweet Ann's standard. Why is one more correct than the other?

And again, the cat example is completely immaterial. It's the difference between me saying in rained today and it's warm today. The rain thing is easily verified. If it's 65 degrees F, depends on a whole bunch of context, not the least of which is what you consider to be warm.

aa

 

[fast]

But this cat example is not illustrative at all. Everyone on this planet and all others have a full understanding of the number four and can count legs on cats. That's nowhere near the subjectivity of attempting to accurately assess and convey the principled behavior of another individual. Integrity is like driving ability - everyone has it to some degree and everyone will likely insist that theirs is above average.

A person lies once. That is almost as easy to determine as counting the number of legs on cats. Should he be called a liar? Does it even matter? What matters is whether or not you believe him the next time he tells you something - and that is absolutely an individual assessment.

aa

I have something to say, and what I have to say is that "cats have four legs." That is, the proposition expressed by the sentence accords with how things really are. In no way does whether or not it matters alter the truth of what I'm saying.

It might not matter that the cashier has an IQ of 98 and therefore an IQ of less than a hundred, but the truth is that she has an IQ of less than a 100. Who cares? I don't know who cares, but let us pursue that another day. Right now, the question on the table (like a question on a test) is if what I'm saying is true, not whether it matters.

Ann says, okay butter ball buster boy (Ann's been drinkin'), my granny's cat got run over and had a leg amputated and so only had three legs, and not only that, our neighbor had a cat who had a litter of kittens, and one of those kittens was born with only three legs. That there-legged kitten is now a three-legged cat, so that's not just one but two examples of particular cats that do not have four legs, so crazy critter crybaby calf (drinkin' a lot apparently), what you said is not true but rather false.

To which I respond, what I said is, "cats have four legs." I did not say, "all cats have four legs." The sentence, "cats have four legs" does not translate to "all cats have four legs." It translates to "generally, cats have four legs." If it is true that generally, cats have four legs, then even if it's false that all cats have four legs, it's still neverthess true that cats have four legs is true.

Does it matter? Maybe, maybe not, but either way, the truth is independent of whether the truth matters, so while maybe no one will care whether the cashier has an IQ of less than a 100, it'll be true despite the massive lack of care.

CHAPTER TWO:

The guy lied, and he lied under oath, and he lied to protect himself. And guess what, someone had something to say, and boy oh boy was it a doozy: "Mr, you are a liar."

Now, I know, I know, we could care less that he lied or whether he's a liar. If we did, we could drive into town where such matters are resolved, but you and I, well, the only thing we care about is if the uttered sentence, "Mr, you are a liar" is true.

Ann, sweet sweet Ann, still drunk as all get up says, "he lied, so duh, he's a liar." To put it plainly, she is saying because there is an instance where he has lied, he is therefore a liar. Actually, she might have said it more plainly, but either way.

Again, there's a translation issue. If he does not generally lie but rather rarely lies, he is not a liar if to say of one that he's a liar is to say that he does so generally. Clearly, a lot of people translate differently depending on how important the issue, so I am careful not to take the translation possibilities off the table too quickly.

Since the guy rarely lies, I find it false to say he generally lies, so when I hear "he has no integrity" from people just because he got caught lying to save his ass from embarrassment, I'm more inclined to move away from the masses and try to see the truth for what it is, despite why they might say what they do. People say all kinds of things when they're angry, and it's my desire to be immune from the anger and see the truth.

The truth is he lied.
The truth is he seldom lies.
The truth is he generally does not lie.
Now, the question is, is he a liar?

If we take specific instances as a sufficient condition, then yes, but I don't think we should. Does the guy who not just seldomly but rarely lie live by rules of integrity? Of course; he just didn't this time.

So we have your standard and Sweet Ann's standard. Why is one more correct than the other?

And again, the cat example is completely immaterial. It's the difference between me saying in rained today and it's warm today. The rain thing is easily verified. If it's 65 degrees F, depends on a whole bunch of context, not the least of which is what you consider to be warm.

aa

I'm being objective.

It's 65F is a claim that is objective in nature and can easily be verified. It's warm when translated into "it's warm (to me)" can be objectively verified, but I see your point, as it's not an objective claim with the (to me) part--although we can still approach the issue objectively.

Either way, I follow you:
It's 65F ; objective
It's warm; subjective

The problem is this:
Cat's have four legs: objective
Tom is a liar: objective

Why we might call someone a liar might be subjective, but the truth is independent of the why.

Tom is a liar ought to be verifiable, just as cats have four legs ought to be verifiable.

We can objectivity verify whether it's warm to you, but we can't do so without you, so we say it's a subjective claim, as the truth is in part dependent on you. Same thing with chocolate tastes good to you. This is stuff in the subjective arena.

What I'm arguing against is the notion that because the why for the utterance is subjective has no bearing on the truth of the claim. It's an objective claim. The interpretation of the claim is the source for complexity, not what drives the claim to be made.

What I've arrived at are two different objective claims:
Tom is generally a liar vs Tom has at least once lied.

The trick is figuring out which one accords with "Tom is a liar." I say the first.

That's how one can lie and not be a liar.

Does this work with murder?

Maybe not. Bob is a murderer doesn't translate to "Bob generally murders"

How to tell when something should translate one way and not another is perplexing me, but either way, I'm trying to stick to objective claims like it's 65F and Tom is a liar and away from subjective claims like "it's warm" and "chocolate is better than vanilla."

We should not lump "Tom is a liar" in with subjective claims just because there are subjective reasons for making the claim, as the truth value of the proposition is not dependent on the subject making the claim, as it would be if the subject made the claim about warmth or preferred ice cream flavors.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

So we have your standard and Sweet Ann's standard. Why is one more correct than the other?

And again, the cat example is completely immaterial. It's the difference between me saying in rained today and it's warm today. The rain thing is easily verified. If it's 65 degrees F, depends on a whole bunch of context, not the least of which is what you consider to be warm.

aa

I'm being objective.

It's 65F is a claim that is objective in nature and can easily be verified. It's warm when translated into "it's warm (to me)" can be objectively verified, but I see your point, as it's not an objective claim with the (to me) part--although we can still approach the issue objectively.

Either way, I follow you:
It's 65F ; objective
It's warm; subjective

The problem is this:
Cat's have four legs: objective
Tom is a liar: objective

Why we might call someone a liar might be subjective, but the truth is independent of the why.

Tom is a liar ought to be verifiable, just as cats have four legs ought to be verifiable.

We can objectivity verify whether it's warm to you, but we can't do so without you, so we say it's a subjective claim, as the truth is in part dependent on you. Same thing with chocolate tastes good to you. This is stuff in the subjective arena.

What I'm arguing against is the notion that because the why for the utterance is subjective has no bearing on the truth of the claim. It's an objective claim. The interpretation of the claim is the source for complexity, not what drives the claim to be made.

What I've arrived at are two different objective claims:
Tom is generally a liar vs Tom has at least once lied.

The trick is figuring out which one accords with "Tom is a liar." I say the first.

That's how one can lie and not be a liar.

Does this work with murder?

Maybe not. Bob is a murderer doesn't translate to "Bob generally murders"

How to tell when something should translate one way and not another is perplexing me, but either way, I'm trying to stick to objective claims like it's 65F and Tom is a liar and away from subjective claims like "it's warm" and "chocolate is better than vanilla."

We should not lump "Tom is a liar" in with subjective claims just because there are subjective reasons for making the claim, as the truth value of the proposition is not dependent on the subject making the claim, as it would be if the subject made the claim about warmth or preferred ice cream flavors.

I see, and I think that's where we disagree. To me "tom is a liar" is subjective, as is any label that I apply. Tom is tall, Tom is skinny, Tom is a murderer (in that he routinely kills spiders), Tom is a liar. That tom has lied at least once in the past is objective. But where I consider him to be a liar you may not.

In point of fact, that I apply that label 'liar' to Tom after hearing him lie once says more about me than it does Tom.

aa

 

[humbleman]

Mary is 14 years old: Objective.

Parents see Mary as a child: subjective.

Mary sees herself as an adult: subjective.

Principles are also subjective.

 

[fast]

So we have your standard and Sweet Ann's standard. Why is one more correct than the other?

And again, the cat example is completely immaterial. It's the difference between me saying in rained today and it's warm today. The rain thing is easily verified. If it's 65 degrees F, depends on a whole bunch of context, not the least of which is what you consider to be warm.

aa

I'm being objective.

It's 65F is a claim that is objective in nature and can easily be verified. It's warm when translated into "it's warm (to me)" can be objectively verified, but I see your point, as it's not an objective claim with the (to me) part--although we can still approach the issue objectively.

Either way, I follow you:
It's 65F ; objective
It's warm; subjective

The problem is this:
Cat's have four legs: objective
Tom is a liar: objective

Why we might call someone a liar might be subjective, but the truth is independent of the why.

Tom is a liar ought to be verifiable, just as cats have four legs ought to be verifiable.

We can objectivity verify whether it's warm to you, but we can't do so without you, so we say it's a subjective claim, as the truth is in part dependent on you. Same thing with chocolate tastes good to you. This is stuff in the subjective arena.

What I'm arguing against is the notion that because the why for the utterance is subjective has no bearing on the truth of the claim. It's an objective claim. The interpretation of the claim is the source for complexity, not what drives the claim to be made.

What I've arrived at are two different objective claims:
Tom is generally a liar vs Tom has at least once lied.

The trick is figuring out which one accords with "Tom is a liar." I say the first.

That's how one can lie and not be a liar.

Does this work with murder?

Maybe not. Bob is a murderer doesn't translate to "Bob generally murders"

How to tell when something should translate one way and not another is perplexing me, but either way, I'm trying to stick to objective claims like it's 65F and Tom is a liar and away from subjective claims like "it's warm" and "chocolate is better than vanilla."

We should not lump "Tom is a liar" in with subjective claims just because there are subjective reasons for making the claim, as the truth value of the proposition is not dependent on the subject making the claim, as it would be if the subject made the claim about warmth or preferred ice cream flavors.

I see, and I think that's where we disagree. To me "tom is a liar" is subjective, as is any label that I apply. Tom is tall, Tom is skinny, Tom is a murderer (in that he routinely kills spiders), Tom is a liar. That tom has lied at least once in the past is objective. But where I consider him to be a liar you may not.

In point of fact, that I apply that label 'liar' to Tom after hearing him lie once says more about me than it does Tom.

aa

Tom is tall isn't subjective. It's relative.

Let's say Tom is 6'2". That is tall (objectively so) compared to average height. We can objectively compare the two and come to a definitive answer. Lisa says he's short compared to most people on the basketball team. So, is he tall or short? Well, compared to what? Once we know what's missing in the question, we can answer the question that is objective, not subjective. I don't think the statement is subjective. It's not like preferred ice cream flavors. "Tom is tall to me" is just an objective statement in desguise. Maybe Margarie is unusually short and doesn't see many tall people and says "he's tall to me." That might be subjective.

Is the truth subject dependent? If so, that's one thing. If not, that's something else entirely.
Tom is taller than Joe to me doesn't make sense, and whatever is missing (relatively) doesn't make it therefore subjective, just unexplicitly relative.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I see, and I think that's where we disagree. To me "tom is a liar" is subjective, as is any label that I apply. Tom is tall, Tom is skinny, Tom is a murderer (in that he routinely kills spiders), Tom is a liar. That tom has lied at least once in the past is objective. But where I consider him to be a liar you may not.

In point of fact, that I apply that label 'liar' to Tom after hearing him lie once says more about me than it does Tom.

aa

Tom is tall isn't subjective. It's relative.

Let's say Tom is 6'2". That is tall (objectively so) compared to average height. We can objectively compare the two and come to a definitive answer. Lisa says he's short compared to most people on the basketball team. So, is he tall or short? Well, compared to what? Once we know what's missing in the question, we can answer the question that is objective, not subjective. I don't think the statement is subjective. It's not like preferred ice cream flavors. "Tom is tall to me" is just an objective statement in desguise. Maybe Margarie is unusually short and doesn't see many tall people and says "he's tall to me." That might be subjective.

Is the truth subject dependent? If so, that's one thing. If not, that's something else entirely.
Tom is taller than Joe to me doesn't make sense, and whatever is missing (relatively) doesn't make it therefore subjective, just unexplicitly relative.

This is a distinction without a difference. If 'Tom is tall' is unexplicitly relative then so is 'Tom is a liar'.

One cannot obtain the objective truth of either statement without further context.

aa