beyond Objective and Subjective: God.

[Twilight Imperium]

That being sounds like it would be meaningless. A rock could definitely hold all those values.

It was a response to this argument by the OP:

-snip-, if one thinks that abundant fruit is a great-making property for an island, then, no matter how great a particular island might be, it will always be possible to imagine a greater island because there is no intrinsic maximum for fruit-abundance. For this reason, the very concept of a piland is incoherent.

Which we're disagreeing with. How do you conceive of a maximum of a concept that has no formal definition?

[Sociobiology]

Actually, you can get ideas from observation.

It's kind of why we have social constructs in the first place. Not the natural world per se, but human interaction. Unless you are discounting humans are part of nature and you're the kind of person who believes in human exceptionalism.

True, but that's kind of what a social construct is. It's not unreal or irrelevant, but it is defined by human culture and what we do with it.

thus by definition, subjective.

[Unitaristic Regions]

I would like to concieve of a great being of perfect evilness, perfect unjustness, perfect stupidity, and all powerful.

The attributes of this being do have maximums (evil, unjustness, stupidity, power), so one can imagine a being with perfection in each of those areas.

Then we can simply reapply the same ontological arguments.

Evil has no maximum. Arbitrariness has no maximum. Why? Because both are numbers.

Stupidity has no maximum, or is simply a zero of knowledge, which means nothing.

Only power has a maximum, and knowledge, and being. Why? Because this God-Idea knows everything in reality, is reality and has absolute power over everything that is.

[Sociobiology]

That being sounds like it would be meaningless. A rock could definitely hold all those values.

It was a response to this argument by the OP:

Gaunilo’s argument, thus, proceeds by attempting to use Anselm’s strategy to deduce the existence of a perfect island, which Gaunilo rightly views as a counterexample to the argument form. The counterexample can be expressed as follows:

It is a conceptual truth that a piland is an island than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible island that can be imagined).
A piland exists as an idea in the mind.
A piland that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a piland that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Thus, if a piland exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine an island that is greater than a piland (that is, a greatest possible island that does exist).
But we cannot imagine an island that is greater than a piland.
Therefore, a piland exists.

Notice, however, that premise 1 of Gaunilo’s argument is incoherent. The problem here is that the qualities that make an island great are not the sort of qualities that admit of conceptually maximal qualities. No matter how great any island is in some respect, it is always possible to imagine an island greater than that island in that very respect. For example, if one thinks that abundant fruit is a great-making property for an island, then, no matter how great a particular island might be, it will always be possible to imagine a greater island because there is no intrinsic maximum for fruit-abundance. For this reason, the very concept of a piland is incoherent.

that is just one of the many reasons it is incoherent.
for one the assumption that imagination is unlimited is incorrect, that it is a conceptual truth in in error, hell the entire argument is a proof that it is NOT and conceptual truth.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

than what guess work, sure.
The brain actually exists therefore fall under science. everything that exists in the universe falls under science. And yes that includes social constructs, which exist as behaviors.

The brain exist, the universe exist, people behave in certain ways in society, how does that justify a leap into the Social Constructivism, rather than some other Meta-ethical theory, say Moral Realism, other forms of Moral Anti-realism?

would you like a link to a sociology textbook? how about an anthropology one?
your are arguing with a statement equivalent to the luminiferous aether does not exist.

You claim that sociological and anthropological textbooks prove your claim without showing where and how. Societies exist, people's conception of what is good differs from place to place and individual to individual, what is stopping us from saying that some beliefs in what is the good is "wrong" and other "right" from an objective standpoint.

what does that even mean?
why would I try and show it?

A society is a group of individuals, so a shared morality amongst them would mean that it is not up to the single subject to decide what is good and bad, but the entire group. Therefore, all are obliged to accept the group's opinion to override their own, and when their behaviour contradicts with the group, they would be held to be "wrong". A moral subjectivist, however, would hold that morality is based entirely on the individual subject, therefore, the idea that a man may be wrong because he follow his own code of morality, as opposed to the group's, would become absurd.

[Twilight Imperium]

Because this God-Idea knows everything in reality, is reality and has absolute power over everything that is.

How does one human's imagination, which does not contain all knowledge, imbue this perfect knowledge upon a God-idea?

-snip-

I'm not saying you're categorically wrong, and the discussion you're having here is a good one. Maybe start another thread for it? This one's about God.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

I would like to concieve of a great being of perfect evilness, perfect unjustness, perfect stupidity, and all powerful.

The attributes of this being do have maximums (evil, unjustness, stupidity, power), so one can imagine a being with perfection in each of those areas.

Then we can simply reapply the same ontological arguments.

Evil has no maximum. Arbitrariness has no maximum. Why? Because both are numbers.

What is meant by this? Why is "Just" and "Good" not numbers as well?

We can only say that evil has no maximum if we consider Good to be the the standard by which evil is to be defined, as Aquinas, Augustine, etc. Inverting that, and declearing that God is the Absolute Evil, then, Good has no maximum, because one can be infinitely seperated from God.

Stupidity has no maximum, or is simply a zero of knowledge, which means nothing.

Again, inverting this, what you call "zero knowledge" is the maximum, and maximum knowledge, that is, zero stupidity, means nothing.

It only depends on what you set to have positive value.

Only power has a maximum, and knowledge, and being. Why? Because this God-Idea knows everything in reality, is reality and has absolute power over everything that is.

Again, I stated that this being of ultimate stupidity, evil, and unjustness is all powerful, and therefore, can be thought of in the same way "as being reality, and has absolute power over everything that is".

[Unitaristic Regions]

Evil has no maximum. Arbitrariness has no maximum. Why? Because both are numbers.

Stupidity has no maximum, or is simply a zero of knowledge, which means nothing.

Only power has a maximum, and knowledge, and being. Why? Because this God-Idea knows everything in reality, is reality and has absolute power over everything that is.

How does one human's imagination, which does not contain all knowledge, imbue this perfect knowledge upon a God-idea?

Extrapolating. If you know of wings and horses, you can imagine a pegasus. If you know of a size differences and a box, you can imagine it to be bigger. If you know of the concept "perfect", reality and imperfect knowledge, you can imagine a perfect power that is reality, and knows it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

True, but that's kind of what a social construct is. It's not unreal or irrelevant, but it is defined by human culture and what we do with it.

thus by definition, subjective.

However then then question becomes how subjective is it?

Individualists would say that the subjectivity extends as far as the individual, Contractarians would say that this extends as far as the society in which one inhabits, and Objectivists would say that nature, or the universe, or an agent like God that is above mankind and created mankind is the only one to determine right or wrong and that we should all either listen to this agent or not do what in nature seems objectively wrong to do.

[Twilight Imperium]

How does one human's imagination, which does not contain all knowledge, imbue this perfect knowledge upon a God-idea?

Extrapolating. If you know of wings and horses, you can imagine a pegasus. If you know of a size differences and a box, you can imagine it to be bigger. If you know of the concept "perfect", reality and imperfect knowledge, you can imagine a perfect power that is reality, and knows it.

Isn't that just guesswork, though? It's one thing to extrapolate a pegasus from wings and horses, those are all within one's experience. Same with boxes and size. But who among us has enough knowledge of perfection to imagine it so well?

After all, if I knew only of wings as things found on airplanes and "horse" being a symptom of a cold, deriving "pegasus" from these would be rather unlikely.

[Unitaristic Regions]

Evil has no maximum. Arbitrariness has no maximum. Why? Because both are numbers.

What is meant by this? Why is "Just" and "Good" not numbers as well?

We can only say that evil has no maximum if we consider Good to be the the standard by which evil is to be defined, as Aquinas, Augustine, etc. Inverting that, and declearing that God is the Absolute Evil, then, Good has no maximum, because one can be infinitely seperated from God.

Stupidity has no maximum, or is simply a zero of knowledge, which means nothing.

Again, inverting this, what you call "zero knowledge" is the maximum, and maximum knowledge, that is, zero stupidity, means nothing.

It only depends on what you set to have positive value.

Only power has a maximum, and knowledge, and being. Why? Because this God-Idea knows everything in reality, is reality and has absolute power over everything that is.

Again, I stated that this being of ultimate stupidity, evil, and unjustness is all powerful, and therefore, can be thought of in the same way "as being reality, and has absolute power over everything that is".

Of course Good has no maximum, but that's an argument against God, not the God-Idea. And a maximum zero is still zero, and doesn't mean shit. It's nothing.

What is interesting here I think, is just Being. The concept of the God-Idea merely has to be bigger than reality.

[Unitaristic Regions]

Extrapolating. If you know of wings and horses, you can imagine a pegasus. If you know of a size differences and a box, you can imagine it to be bigger. If you know of the concept "perfect", reality and imperfect knowledge, you can imagine a perfect power that is reality, and knows it.

Isn't that just guesswork, though? It's one thing to extrapolate a pegasus from wings and horses, those are all within one's experience. Same with boxes and size. But who among us has enough knowledge of perfection to imagine it so well?

After all, if I knew only of wings as things found on airplanes and "horse" being a symptom of a cold, deriving "pegasus" from these would be rather unlikely.

Meaningless wordplay with words, not concepts, your second paragraph is .

What is perfection? The absense of flaw, for most. You can think away flaw easily. Incomplete knowledge is flawed knowledge.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

What is meant by this? Why is "Just" and "Good" not numbers as well?

We can only say that evil has no maximum if we consider Good to be the the standard by which evil is to be defined, as Aquinas, Augustine, etc. Inverting that, and declearing that God is the Absolute Evil, then, Good has no maximum, because one can be infinitely seperated from God.



Again, inverting this, what you call "zero knowledge" is the maximum, and maximum knowledge, that is, zero stupidity, means nothing.

It only depends on what you set to have positive value.



Again, I stated that this being of ultimate stupidity, evil, and unjustness is all powerful, and therefore, can be thought of in the same way "as being reality, and has absolute power over everything that is".

Of course Good has no maximum, but that's an argument against God, not the God-Idea. And a maximum zero is still zero, and doesn't mean shit. It's nothing.

That is because you insist on calling "stupidity" a negative, when we can just as easily call it a postive, and knowledge to be the "privation of stupidity", to appropiate a well known phrase. Thus, in this view, Maximum Knowledge becomes a meaningless "maximum zero".

What is interesting here I think, is just Being. The concept of the God-Idea merely has to be bigger than reality.

What does it mean to be "bigger than reality", pray? Because if he is reality, he cannot be bigger than himself.

[Camicon]

Does the word "factual" mean anything to you?

You can claim anything to be factual, but without acutal evidence and arguments for its factuality, there is no reason to accept your claims.

No, but see, here's the thing: in order for any sort of social construct to be objective, there must be something to make it objective. That something would have to be a universal property, otherwise it would not be objective. Since no such thing exists, judging by the complete lack of scientific evidence, then the hypothesis that social constructs are objective cannot be accepted as true. Social constructs can only be objective or subjective, and since they cannot be objective they must be subjective.

Logic. How does it work?

[Twilight Imperium]

Isn't that just guesswork, though? It's one thing to extrapolate a pegasus from wings and horses, those are all within one's experience. Same with boxes and size. But who among us has enough knowledge of perfection to imagine it so well?

After all, if I knew only of wings as things found on airplanes and "horse" being a symptom of a cold, deriving "pegasus" from these would be rather unlikely.

Meaningless wordplay with words, not concepts, your second paragraph is .

What is perfection? The absense of flaw, for most. You can think away flaw easily. Incomplete knowledge is flawed knowledge.

Not necessarily. Incomplete knowledge is what most of not all humans have. It's ignorance, a lack of specific facts. That's not necessarily a flaw, it's incompleteness. Complete knowledge would be a total lack of any ignorance. You can think away flaws in most things because of your knowledge of those things - i.e. you can imagine Pac-Man becoming a circle because you know of circles. It might seem like I'm arguing mere semantics here, but what I'm trying to get at is that there's a substantive difference between imagining things you've seen, mentally rearranging concepts, concept synthesis, and ultimate ideals.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

You can claim anything to be factual, but without acutal evidence and arguments for its factuality, there is no reason to accept your claims.

No, but see, here's the thing: in order for any sort of social construct to be objective, there must be something to make it objective. That something would have to be a universal property, otherwise it would not be objective. Since no such thing exists, judging by the complete lack of scientific evidence, then the hypothesis that social constructs are objective cannot be accepted as true. Social constructs can only be objective or subjective, and since they cannot be objective they must be subjective.

Logic. How does it work?

That isn't logical, and you can tell by listing out the entire argument:

(1)in order for any sort of social construct to be objective, there must be something to make it objective.
(2)That something would have to be a universal property, otherwise it would not be objective.
(3)Since no such thing exists, judging by the complete lack of scientific evidence, then the hypothesis that social constructs are objective cannot be accepted as true.
(4)Social constructs can only be objective or subjective, and since they cannot be objective they must be subjective.

(1) is already flawed in assuming that morality, the good, etc. is a social construct.
(3) is flawed in that it makes a claim without providing proof of that claim
(4) is flawed for the same reason as (1), but also because it states that a thing can either be "objective" or "subjective", that is, it either has a universal property, or else it is relative to the individual subject. That is untrue, as Social Constructs are relative to the society, which is composed of many individual subjects, who are obliged to follow its morals.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You can claim anything to be factual, but without acutal evidence and arguments for its factuality, there is no reason to accept your claims.

No, but see, here's the thing: in order for any sort of social construct to be objective, there must be something to make it objective. That something would have to be a universal property, otherwise it would not be objective. Since no such thing exists, judging by the complete lack of scientific evidence, then the hypothesis that social constructs are objective cannot be accepted as true. Social constructs can only be objective or subjective, and since they cannot be objective they must be subjective.

Logic. How does it work?

You're using raw empiricism to make a philosophical claim. That's... not kind of how it works.

You're trying to bring paper-mache to a book-writing contest.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

No, but see, here's the thing: in order for any sort of social construct to be objective, there must be something to make it objective. That something would have to be a universal property, otherwise it would not be objective. Since no such thing exists, judging by the complete lack of scientific evidence, then the hypothesis that social constructs are objective cannot be accepted as true. Social constructs can only be objective or subjective, and since they cannot be objective they must be subjective.

Logic. How does it work?

You're using raw empiricism to make a philosophical claim. That's... not kind of how it works.

You're trying to bring paper-mache to a book-writing contest.

Let's grant Camicon naturalism and empiricism...how does any of what s/he says prove hir point?

[Unitaristic Regions]

Of course Good has no maximum, but that's an argument against God, not the God-Idea. And a maximum zero is still zero, and doesn't mean shit. It's nothing.

That is because you insist on calling "stupidity" a negative, when we can just as easily call it a postive, and knowledge to be the "privation of stupidity", to appropiate a well known phrase. Thus, in this view, Maximum Knowledge becomes a meaningless "maximum zero".

What is interesting here I think, is just Being. The concept of the God-Idea merely has to be bigger than reality.

What does it mean to be "bigger than reality", pray? Because if he is reality, he cannot be bigger than himself.

I'll answer, but ipad typing sucks so later

[Twilight Imperium]

You're using raw empiricism to make a philosophical claim. That's... not kind of how it works.

You're trying to bring paper-mache to a book-writing contest.

One could also make the case that you're using raw philosophy to make an empirical claim

"because this this and this, God exists"

Philosophy and empiricism are different, but they kind of have to agree about reality. They just take different paths to get there.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, but see, here's the thing: in order for any sort of social construct to be objective, there must be something to make it objective. That something would have to be a universal property, otherwise it would not be objective. Since no such thing exists, judging by the complete lack of scientific evidence, then the hypothesis that social constructs are objective cannot be accepted as true. Social constructs can only be objective or subjective, and since they cannot be objective they must be subjective.

Logic. How does it work?

That isn't logical, and you can tell by listing out the entire argument:

(1)in order for any sort of social construct to be objective, there must be something to make it objective.
(2)That something would have to be a universal property, otherwise it would not be objective.
(3)Since no such thing exists, judging by the complete lack of scientific evidence, then the hypothesis that social constructs are objective cannot be accepted as true.
(4)Social constructs can only be objective or subjective, and since they cannot be objective they must be subjective.

(1) is already flawed in assuming that morality, the good, etc. is a social construct.
(3) is flawed in that it makes a claim without providing proof of that claim
(4) is flawed for the same reason as (1), but also because it states that a thing can either be "objective" or "subjective", that is, it either has a universal property, or else it is relative to the individual subject. That is untrue, as Social Constructs are relative to the society, which is composed of many individual subjects, who are obliged to follow its morals.

but if they are relative to a society wouldn't that still make it relative as the values of each society are different?

[Twilight Imperium]

but if they are relative to a society wouldn't that still make it relative as the values of each society are different?

Yes. That's why it's hard to use them in logical proofs.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

That isn't logical, and you can tell by listing out the entire argument:

(1)in order for any sort of social construct to be objective, there must be something to make it objective.
(2)That something would have to be a universal property, otherwise it would not be objective.
(3)Since no such thing exists, judging by the complete lack of scientific evidence, then the hypothesis that social constructs are objective cannot be accepted as true.
(4)Social constructs can only be objective or subjective, and since they cannot be objective they must be subjective.

(1) is already flawed in assuming that morality, the good, etc. is a social construct.
(3) is flawed in that it makes a claim without providing proof of that claim
(4) is flawed for the same reason as (1), but also because it states that a thing can either be "objective" or "subjective", that is, it either has a universal property, or else it is relative to the individual subject. That is untrue, as Social Constructs are relative to the society, which is composed of many individual subjects, who are obliged to follow its morals.

but if they are relative to a society wouldn't that still make it relative as the values of each society are different?

I have always assume the the word "relativism" is distinct from "subjectivism", where relativism broadly refers to the idea the morals are relative to some thing, say, a society or an individual, and subjectivism to mean, narrowly, that morals are relative to the individual subject.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

You're using raw empiricism to make a philosophical claim. That's... not kind of how it works.

You're trying to bring paper-mache to a book-writing contest.

One could also make the case that you're using raw philosophy to make an empirical claim

Because empirical evidence only gives us information, we still need a tool to interpret that information. Philosophy is one way to interpret that information.

"because this this and this, God exists"

what?

Philosophy and empiricism are different, but they kind of have to agree about reality. They just take different paths to get there.

Empiricism is itself a philosophy.

[Sociobiology]

than what guess work, sure.
The brain actually exists therefore fall under science. everything that exists in the universe falls under science. And yes that includes social constructs, which exist as behaviors.

The brain exist, the universe exist, people behave in certain ways in society, how does that justify a leap into the Social Constructivism, rather than some other Meta-ethical theory, say Moral Realism, other forms of Moral Anti-realism?

the fact morality is product of evolutionary selection of brains. no evidence for moral realism has ever been shown, anti-realism is not a single position but a useless catchall term. morality is a behavior selected by evolution to increase gene transmission. vampire bats have a form of morality as do many social species, but these moralities are dependent on the biology of the species.

would you like a link to a sociology textbook? how about an anthropology one?
your are arguing with a statement equivalent to the luminiferous aether does not exist.

You claim that sociological and anthropological textbooks prove your claim without showing where and how.

no if you recall I asked if you wanted links. Those being social constructs could easily be disproven by showing them to exist as objects. such as magnetism or the earth. social constructs are things that only have a meaning because society gives them a meaning. if you have evidence of good existing in another form, feel free, otherwise the only empirical position left is that it is a social construct. any link will go through various other arguments and refuting them, showing something is a social construct is simply showing it is nothing else.

Societies exist, people's conception of what is good differs from place to place and individual to individual, what is stopping us from saying that some beliefs in what is the good is "wrong" and other "right" from an objective standpoint.

a lack of a objective good, or objective right.
although there are some instinctual commonalities explained by evolution (such as altruism), but it also shows why they would not exist for other forms of life.

what does that even mean?
why would I try and show it?

A society is a group of individuals, so a shared morality amongst them would mean that it is not up to the single subject to decide what is good and bad, but the entire group.

except I never claimed any of that, a social construct can still exist with only a single individual.
being a social construct just means it exists only as the results of behavior.

Therefore, all are obliged to accept the group's opinion to override their own, and when their behaviour contradicts with the group, they would be held to be "wrong". A moral subjectivist, however, would hold that morality is based entirely on the individual subject, therefore, the idea that a man may be wrong because he follow his own code of morality, as opposed to the group's, would become absurd.

neither is true, morality exists as a combination of instinctual behavior, individual conclusions, and cultural practice.
it does not exist objectively, it is subjective in nature, which can still be a consensus.
for reference subjective morality =/= moral subjectivism.