Akka does say that that is the reason that schools do not take on adult students. He could be wrong of course but Akka believes it to be true and so do the schools.

Np . It almost does seem like it could work with pain, at least on some level. What with the fact that they don't have the psychological compulsion to not commit suicide that humans do. Like cleric says, for nonmen continuing to live is always a choice.

Ok, so I was trying to write more but when I went back to reread posts I kept getting super confused.

I’m having trouble parsing out your usages of the term metaphysical. You disagree on the specific implications of the term but you all seem to be using the term in similar ways. From what I gather, you are using the word metaphysics to refer to something along the lines of the “the nature of the spiritual”. Am I interpreting you correctly? If so, I think that is way too narrow of a definition. I’ve only ever heard the term used to refer to the philosophical domain called metaphysics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

In philosophy metaphysics is not the mechanics of the non-physical/spiritual specifically. Its more like the mechanics of the pre-physical. It is interested in the nature of the most fundamental features of reality. What is the ultimate nature of reality? What is it like? Why?

So the metaphysics of Earwa do define the mechanics of the spiritual but its broader than that. Together, all of the first order laws that govern the reality of Earwa make up the metaphysical system of Earwa.

Is the way you guys use the term the common meaning of it here?

But what if you had that backwards?  That is, it's not that stabbing someone else is like stabbing yourself, but that stabbing yourself is like stabbing another?

I honestly don't see how that would make much of a difference. Either way, inflicting pain on yourself is not something that is easy to do for most people.

It makes all the difference
I don't think that either of these cases is actually accurate but I think its a cool thought experiment.

The vast majority of people find it is extremely difficult to seriously harm themselves. There is a strong psychological barrier against it. Most people have a hard time even making a small cut in their skin. And then if a person succeeds in injuring themselves there's pain.

The first case is that harming another is like harming oneself. These nonmen would feel a compulsion not to injure other nonmen. If they did, they would experience the pain of the injury themselves.

The second case is that harming yourself is like harming another. These nonmen could cut their own flesh and remain mostly remote from the experience. They would rarely have a reason to do this but when they did it would be easy. But if one was injured and the limb needed to be amputated, he would be capable of sawing through the arm without fighting his self-preservation instincts or even feeling pain.

Cool thought Wic. I like this. It makes you look at the not differentiating between your own touch and the touch of another trait from the right perspective.

In fact, the second possibility but with touch instead of pain seems fits well with the nonmen for me. They are more remote creatures than us. They experience of the world isn't as emotionally immediate as ours is. It's background for us but we have this constant flow of emotion and sensation associating us with our bodies. I can easily imagine the nonmen not having that.

Wow...what a post, dragharrow. I can not at all agree with what you said, but i have to applaud you for it nontheless. I think you made your point very clear.

Thanks Kellais
I've been really enjoying this forum. It's a great community.

Be that as it may...the fundament of the whole thing, namely trying to take apart our format of logic (by Baron Münchhausen, nontheless ) stands on very weak legs. Because the only justification for why point 3 of proofing stuff in the Trilemma is not valuable is only this

Quote

....and because the Greek skeptics advocated deep questioning of all accepted values they refused to accept proofs of the third sort.

And that is, to say the least, not at all sufficient.
This is a very weak argument....i wouldn't even call it an argument. Just because some greeks refuse to accept the third way of proof it follows that... xyz... . No, i'm sorry, cop out.
And to repeat myself, Axioms are not just totally trivial stuff.

A quick rebuttal, on what grounds can you just stop justifying when you reach axioms? If you don't think justification is essential why justify at all? Most premises need support but some just don't? I don't buy it.

This is a very weak argument....i wouldn't even call it an argument.

I can very well say the same thing. Your argument for the insufficiency of my argument is not an argument. You just outright rejected it. Adherents of reason generally accept that knowledge has to be justified.

Axioms are generally accepted for one reason divided into two parts. One, the systems derived from them work therefore they are useful. And two, because we inherit them biologically and socially. We inherit them because they work and are useful. Useful axioms are selected for, reproduced, and live on.

Which brings us back to my original point. We use axioms because they are useful not because they are true.

I can only think of two ways you could attempt to justify your axioms. Either, you accept in some form that axioms are justified by their effectiveness. Or you accept them a priori. I don't yet know where you stand but this will likely be the crux. I am not satisfied with those.


We can not inquire from an objective removed position so we can not trust ourselves or our tools. We are located in the very philosophical swamp we hope to gain insight on. Whatever you believe Kellais I assume that there are people with whom you disagree or think are deluded. Those with different political or religious views to you, those you consider dumb, children or the mad?

In those people you should see ample evidence of how we are hard programmed to take our given frame to be objective truth (I'm cribbing Bakker here). This alone should make you suspicious of your axioms. What makes you different?
 

But, Royce, if you are convinced of something, then that is subjective truth, is it not?! By definition, something that is subjective has only to hold for one subject. Superb if it holds for many many people, but it already fulfills the definition if only one of us sees it that way and holds it for the truth. So i guess you are talking yourself into a dead-end, my friend

About the objective truth...i guess it depends on how strict you are on your definition. I am saying that we have some fields of knowledge, where there is a clear wrong and right. But it is true that even in the purest, most logical science Mathematics, you have to first make some "assumptions" aka put up Axioms. But from there on out, you  can prove everything that follows as true or false.
People who now go "yeah, but you have those axioms and those are made up..." are a bit too hung up on nitpicking...because nothing exists in a Vacuum, right?! So you always have to have a starting point. And let me tell you, those axioms are much more complicated than something you can just make up

This is my position in a nutshell.

In claiming that something is true, you must present a justification. Any justification that you present, I can call into question. You will then have to justify that your previous justification, and so on. Because of this there is no way to prove any claim to truth. The justifications for whatever you believe must ultimately take one of three (in my opinion unsatisfactory) forms. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma :

If we ask of any knowledge: "How do I know that it's true?", we may provide proof; yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen trilemma is that we have only three options when providing proof in this situation:
-The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point)
-The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever)
-The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty)
The first two methods of reasoning are fundamentally weak, and because the Greek skeptics advocated deep questioning of all accepted values they refused to accept proofs of the third sort. The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.

While this problem obviously doesn't necessarily show that reality itself is relative or that there is no truth out there somewhere, it does make it impossible to prove that one's knowledge is correct.

Further, even the basic tools we use to deal with knowledge can be called into question. The legitimacy of logic and reason can no more be proven than can faith in a holy scripture. The most basic claim on which logic relies, ~(A & ~A) or that something cannot both be true and false simultaneously, is unreliable. If I ask you to justify that claim you cannot. It is an arbitrary axiom. The only reason you accept it is because, in your experience of the world, it appears to hold and is useful to you. But the truth of your experience of the empirical world is itself not solid. You might be mad, or brain in a vat, or a mathematical expression, or logic could not hold and your existence could be beyond reckoning. Ultimately you accept the things you do because they are useful, not because you know them to be true.

We have no reliable compass or anchor by which to navigate the storm of reality, so why assume that their even is a truth out there at all? Again, I get that this does not prove that reality is subjective, but for me, it raises the question.

From their, my relativism is informed by the apparent power of frames. Things are defined by the frames in which they exist and the lenses through which they are viewed. Any insight we might have is based on an appeal to the rules of a frame. The argument I made above was founded on the axioms taken by the logical frame. You know your own experience of the world to be subjective, its nature is ultimately determined by the lenses through which you see it. If we modify the axioms normally used for geometry, we can explore non-Euclidean geometry, an entirely different but apparently internally consistent frame.

My position is the foundationalist response to the trilemma, minus the usual assumption that one frame of reference must be THE frame of reference.

 Without an unbiased external frame of reference it is impossible to compare frames or weigh the absolute truth of one over the other. We can only ever see a frame through another frame, and the truth value of a frame is different when viewed from within an alternate frame.

So, while my position cannot be proven, neither can other. As the entirety of my experience indicates that truth is subordinate to frame, I have come to suspect that is the nature of reality. Frame is prime. There is no absolute, true, bedrock. Only shifting frames and lenses.

If anything, I would say that the trilemma might indicate that blind faith based systems of belief are likely to be truer than logically informed ones, as they are not self-invalidating. In its ceaseless questioning, logic eats its own tail. Faith, on the other hand, is generally perfectly consistent. Premise = god is true. Conclusion = god is true. It isn't like its axioms are any less provable than those of logic.

Royce you did a lot of dancing to avoid offending anyone . The whole 'treat all ideas as equal' is nonsense. Truth/facts do exist and/or are generally accepted. They can turn out to be wrong, and then a new truth/fact takes its place, but the ability to correct mistakes or fix errors does not make every possible idea a viable one. Though that, in my observation, is a major difference between science and religion. Science (where most people find there facts, right?) is aware of its fallibility and adapts, whereas religion tends more toward absolute truths that are set in stone.

Science takes axioms, just like any other frame. Empiricism is just as arbitrary as any other way of inquiring into the truth.

if you subscribe to the multi-verse theory and infinite probabilities, there is a universe where every idea in our own universe could be found to be 'objective' in another. Then you beg the questions, what makes it objective then, if it only holds in a limited space-time (albeit a space-time the size of a universe...)

I don't think my position is incompatible with this. In fact, I think they support each other. Perhaps the universes are just better understood as overlapping sets of rules.

Which is probably very considerate of you. However, I do not have patience for that. And I feel that with some fellow humans this course of action is really not feasible. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade - how am I supposed to react to some of my students' blatant xenophobia? Yes, I do tell them then openly, that they are off the mark and their ideas are stupid (not they - but their ideas).

That's fine I guess. I certainly would do the same. I just don't think you should think your positions is truly objective in any sense. Like I said, just because I'm a relativist doesn't mean I don't have moral or philosophical commitments. I just know they are arbitrary. I would never let philosophical relativism prevent me from standing up for something I believed in. That would descend into nihilism and there is no greater sin.

In summation, my relativism is an argument for the primacy of frames over truth. As every truth I have encountered has been subordinate to its frame, it seems unwise to believe in truth before frame.

The second bolded part...i'm really wondering if you believe that to be true in that general a way? In your opinion, are there no hard facts? Nowhere? So nobody can ever be really wrong (or right)?! I don't think that you are saying that...but i hope you can elaborate on that

As i tried to explain (most probably not that well), i do think there are topics where you can be wrong about something. Especially in the field of hard sciences. So i guess there are some things were one can be right and, if you want to put a negative spin on in, "superior".

I would love to talk about this more at some point because I consider myself to be a pretty hard relativist. A few months ago I would have wholeheartedly defended the position that there are no objective facts whatsoever. Recently, however, I've begun to cautiously reexamine that position. But as of now, I still do lean towards total fact relativism. I don't think it is an incoherent position at all. Understand, I am not a nihilist nor am I agnostic. I still have a system of epistemic, factual, and moral commitments that I use to interpret the world and guide my behavior. I just suspect that these commitments are themselves subjective or even arbitrary, and that they create the truth of the world I live in more than extract a preexisting truth from a preexisting world. I accept logic and empiricism, and utilize science and philosophy, not because they are true but because they are useful. When I believe that other epistemic systems, such as faith or mysticism, could be useful in the pursuit of my will, I take them up and put them to work. The most likely case still seems to me to be that there are no universals, no objective truths. I genuinely suspect that everything is subjective. Everything is frame dependent.

Quote

I wish I had the emotional depth to bear the water.

You do, dragharrow... you have only to pluck thine gaze from this world and you shall feel the water swell within you .

Woah, Madness, you can't promise that. Careful with throwing around advice like that! Look what happened to Moengus.

I'm no Dunyain. I'm just saying, not everyone's cut out for Indara's water.