What is beauty?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Those are more or less way we define things so we can relate to each other enough to have a discussion. Nobody said an apple was an apple, it isn't called that in other languages, but we agree on it for the sake of communication. Pluto was a planet, but now it isn't anymore according to the people who define what those things are, but it could be a tomato to me, or a pear to someone else. A large rock didn't come from the sky and say that those things were those things because they are.

[Dja Majista]

Apr 26, 2008 8:45:09 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Those are more or less way we define things so we can relate to each other enough to have a discussion. Nobody said an apple was an apple, it isn't called that in other languages, but we agree on it for the sake of communication. Pluto was a planet, but now it isn't anymore according to the people who define what those things are, but it could be a tomato to me, or a pear to someone else. A large rock didn't come from the sky and say that those things were those things because they are.

Ok, then. What about when you said everything is relative? Is that merely relatively true? Because you seem to be defending your point as if it's an absolute truth.

On another note about language, you haven't really addressed the laws within it that I was talking about. Language is like a board game. It's got rules and you can only do certain things with it. In other words there is a right and a wrong way to use language. That can apply to both logic and grammar.

The definition of an apple (and nice try, but it's implied that we are just speaking english here) has in it a necessary condition that it is a fruit. An apple is a fruit. That statement is absolutely true, Based on the laws of the language in which it is being used.
For Pluto, either the definition for a planet changed by consensus, or we realized that Pluto no longer fits into our current definition of a planet. Either way is legal. It's just in the latter case, we were wrong before in saying Pluto was a planet, since it never fit the definition of a planet.

But really, I'm not trying to say it's all about the consensus of language. If your definition of a pear is the same as my definition of an apple, and you call what I call an apple, a pear, that's perfectly legal for you. That would just be how your language works. As long as the object fits the definition, the statement, "My pear is the same as your apple" is true. But as you said before, that would hinder our ability to communicate. But really as the same thing with a color blind person. They see different colors than we do, but they call them the same, because they know what green might look like from their perspective.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Yep even the point that everything is relative is relative. We speak the same language and hold the same principles for the discussion for the sake of discussion. What made pluto a planet and 2+2=4? I could have made 2+2=5 if I wanted to, of course you would say I was wrong, but that's because we've been trained to think otherwise. I remember a kid that was told that blue is green, so when he went to class and the teacher "corrected" him, he asked why, and she didn't have an answer. lol

[Dja Majista]

Wow, I didn't realize you were really a flat out relativist. This after that one day you told me relative was a "white people" word. That was funny.

Ok, if the point that everything is relative is merely a relative truth, what makes you argue it as if it is "correct," and I am wrong.
Lately your rebuttals have been a bit questionable in terms of relevance though:

Those are more or less way we define things so we can relate to each other enough to have a discussion.

Sure they are. Are you saying that's all language is, because I agree with you that it's certainly part of it. But just because we define things the same way for the sake of discussion doesn't mean that there are no principles that govern language. I have already discussed that we label the same phenomena with the same words for the sake of communication. So, let me continue off of that.

Let's say 2+2=5. Those numbers and symbols could mean anything. So let's also say that 1+1=6. But if you maintain the meaning of those numbers and symbols, you would be forced to realized that 2+2=6 is false.

I could have made 2+2=5 if I wanted to, of course you would say I was wrong, but that's because we've been trained to think otherwise..

"Because we've been trained otherwise" isn't relevant. Perhaps we were trained to use language correctly? Isn't that a valid possibility?
And again, I wouldn't say you might or might not be right that 2+2=5 until you translated across the values of that statement in such a way that I can understand.

Furthermore,
What made pluto a planet and 2+2=4?
Why ask this when I've already addressed it? Address what I've said about it, don't just keep asking the same question. Do you think my explanation doesn't answer it properly? Do you think my explanation is weak? Do you think it has too many fallacies? Then tell me.

I remember a kid that was told that blue is green, so when he went to class and the teacher "corrected" him, he asked why, and she didn't have an answer. lol
That surprises me that she wouldn't have a reason for why she corrected him. You can't go around all your life telling people that things are green when everyone else sees a color they call blue. He'd be fine if he kept it to himself though.

But I want to press the point that you are arguing this idea that "everything is relative" in spite of that statement being relative. Could you explain yourself here?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Wait, before we go on, could you tell me when I said relative was a white person word? I think someone's making stuff up.

[Dja Majista]

No seriously! We were coming home from church, and I made a joke saying something was relative, and you're immediate rebuttal went something like "Relative is a white people word." It was pretty funny.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Apr 29, 2008 23:12:20 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

No seriously! We were coming home from church, and I made a joke saying something was relative, and you're immediate rebuttal went something like "Relative is a white people word." It was pretty funny.

If you say so, I might have in jest.

I'll get to this later tomorrow, I just wanted to do the fast ones before I went to sleep. ;D

[Dja Majista]

Apr 30, 2008 23:19:17 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Apr 29, 2008 23:12:20 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

No seriously! We were coming home from church, and I made a joke saying something was relative, and you're immediate rebuttal went something like "Relative is a white people word." It was pretty funny.

If you say so, I might have in jest.

I'll get to this later tomorrow, I just wanted to do the fast ones before I went to sleep. ;D

Oh yeah, totally in jest . The funniest part was how quickly you responded... as if you'd thought about it before... <(o_0)>
j/k

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

May 1, 2008 13:03:57 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Apr 30, 2008 23:19:17 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

If you say so, I might have in jest.

I'll get to this later tomorrow, I just wanted to do the fast ones before I went to sleep. ;D

Oh yeah, totally in jest . The funniest part was how quickly you responded... as if you'd thought about it before... <(o_0)>
j/k

When then? I'm sure you'd remember?

Anyways, I'll have to do this tomorrow, I had 13 lawns today and I want to put in a decent response.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Apr 28, 2008 9:38:38 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Wow, I didn't realize you were really a flat out relativist. This after that one day you told me relative was a "white people" word. That was funny.

Ok, if the point that everything is relative is merely a relative truth, what makes you argue it as if it is "correct," and I am wrong.
Lately your rebuttals have been a bit questionable in terms of relevance though:

Those are more or less way we define things so we can relate to each other enough to have a discussion.

Sure they are. Are you saying that's all language is, because I agree with you that it's certainly part of it. But just because we define things the same way for the sake of discussion doesn't mean that there are no principles that govern language. I have already discussed that we label the same phenomena with the same words for the sake of communication. So, let me continue off of that.

Let's say 2+2=5. Those numbers and symbols could mean anything. So let's also say that 1+1=6. But if you maintain the meaning of those numbers and symbols, you would be forced to realized that 2+2=6 is false.

I could have made 2+2=5 if I wanted to, of course you would say I was wrong, but that's because we've been trained to think otherwise..

"Because we've been trained otherwise" isn't relevant. Perhaps we were trained to use language correctly? Isn't that a valid possibility?
And again, I wouldn't say you might or might not be right that 2+2=5 until you translated across the values of that statement in such a way that I can understand.

Furthermore,
What made pluto a planet and 2+2=4?
Why ask this when I've already addressed it? Address what I've said about it, don't just keep asking the same question. Do you think my explanation doesn't answer it properly? Do you think my explanation is weak? Do you think it has too many fallacies? Then tell me.

I remember a kid that was told that blue is green, so when he went to class and the teacher "corrected" him, he asked why, and she didn't have an answer. lol
That surprises me that she wouldn't have a reason for why she corrected him. You can't go around all your life telling people that things are green when everyone else sees a color they call blue. He'd be fine if he kept it to himself though.

But I want to press the point that you are arguing this idea that "everything is relative" in spite of that statement being relative. Could you explain yourself here?

I've already went over all of this. What makes the language "correct", there was no person that said the language has to be certain form, and just that. Language changes and grows constantly as cultures and people mingle, there is spoken language and there is written language and there are ways we perceive language. Sure in the classroom we are taught that a certain way is the correct way because we have to be similar in some ways for us to work together. We obey traffic laws for safety. If everyone did what they wanted to it would cause chaos. They are put in for order, not because they are necessarily "correct"a discussion like this requires someone to think out of the box.
I already know if we used the symbols the way we were taught to that 2+2=4, but that was never my point. Because my point was that everything was relative. A spoken word could be taken in thousands of different ways. There is no one "correct" way to do things.

The teacher could have told the student they were wrong, but all she could say was "because that's how we teach it". There is no real reason it is that color other than we labeled it just that.

[Dja Majista]

May 1, 2008 23:29:35 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

May 1, 2008 13:03:57 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Oh yeah, totally in jest . The funniest part was how quickly you responded... as if you'd thought about it before... <(o_0)>
j/k

When then? I'm sure you'd remember?

Anyways, I'll have to do this tomorrow, I had 13 lawns today and I want to put in a decent response.

I already said. We were coming home from church Wednesday night. You want a date? probably sometimes in 2007. And no, I'm sure I wouldn't have remembered a month and day for just one of your jokes/ or "non" jokes (I couldn't really tell).

[Dja Majista]

May 2, 2008 22:35:14 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Apr 28, 2008 9:38:38 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Wow, I didn't realize you were really a flat out relativist. This after that one day you told me relative was a "white people" word. That was funny.

Ok, if the point that everything is relative is merely a relative truth, what makes you argue it as if it is "correct," and I am wrong.
Lately your rebuttals have been a bit questionable in terms of relevance though:

Those are more or less way we define things so we can relate to each other enough to have a discussion.

Sure they are. Are you saying that's all language is, because I agree with you that it's certainly part of it. But just because we define things the same way for the sake of discussion doesn't mean that there are no principles that govern language. I have already discussed that we label the same phenomena with the same words for the sake of communication. So, let me continue off of that.

Let's say 2+2=5. Those numbers and symbols could mean anything. So let's also say that 1+1=6. But if you maintain the meaning of those numbers and symbols, you would be forced to realized that 2+2=6 is false.

I could have made 2+2=5 if I wanted to, of course you would say I was wrong, but that's because we've been trained to think otherwise..

"Because we've been trained otherwise" isn't relevant. Perhaps we were trained to use language correctly? Isn't that a valid possibility?
And again, I wouldn't say you might or might not be right that 2+2=5 until you translated across the values of that statement in such a way that I can understand.

Furthermore,
What made pluto a planet and 2+2=4?
Why ask this when I've already addressed it? Address what I've said about it, don't just keep asking the same question. Do you think my explanation doesn't answer it properly? Do you think my explanation is weak? Do you think it has too many fallacies? Then tell me.

I remember a kid that was told that blue is green, so when he went to class and the teacher "corrected" him, he asked why, and she didn't have an answer. lol
That surprises me that she wouldn't have a reason for why she corrected him. You can't go around all your life telling people that things are green when everyone else sees a color they call blue. He'd be fine if he kept it to himself though.

But I want to press the point that you are arguing this idea that "everything is relative" in spite of that statement being relative. Could you explain yourself here?

I've already went over all of this. What makes the language "correct", there was no person that said the language has to be certain form, and just that. Language changes and grows constantly as cultures and people mingle, there is spoken language and there is written language and there are ways we perceive language. Sure in the classroom we are taught that a certain way is the correct way because we have to be similar in some ways for us to work together. We obey traffic laws for safety. If everyone did what they wanted to it would cause chaos. They are put in for order, not because they are necessarily "correct"a discussion like this requires someone to think out of the box.
I already know if we used the symbols the way we were taught to that 2+2=4, but that was never my point. Because my point was that everything was relative. A spoken word could be taken in thousands of different ways. There is no one "correct" way to do things.

The teacher could have told the student they were wrong, but all she could say was "because that's how we teach it". There is no real reason it is that color other than we labeled it just that.

I'm gonna recommend a book to you ok? David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. He breaks knowledge into two different forms: matters of fact and most important to the discussion, relations of ideas. Concerning relations of ideas, this deals primarily with logic, the proper standard of language use. After all language without logic would just be meaningless utterances. That's why language has a standard to determine true and false.

Let me put it this way: a word means nothing in itself, it merely signifies an idea. The operation of those ideas in conjunction with one another is how we get logic. Logic does not depend on the words; it depends on the ideas which they signify. So essentially, words are meant specifically for the simplification of ideas (into syllables) and for the sake of communication. But words are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to language. Language is intended to encompass ideas and the relations of ideas together to form knowledge.

So to recap, I'm saying that yes, you're right; language has to use the same words for communication. But that's only part of it. The ideas and relations of ideas which language is meant to signify determine the standard of "correct" and "incorrect" in language use.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

That's no different than math being an expression. I could say 2+x=0, but X could be -2, or it could be (3-5). It is a logical part, but there are many ways to say the same thing. Human communication and expression definitely aren't absolutes because they evolve and change all of the time.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

May 3, 2008 10:29:34 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

May 1, 2008 23:29:35 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

When then? I'm sure you'd remember?

Anyways, I'll have to do this tomorrow, I had 13 lawns today and I want to put in a decent response.

I already said. We were coming home from church Wednesday night. You want a date? probably sometimes in 2007. And no, I'm sure I wouldn't have remembered a month and day for just one of your jokes/ or "non" jokes (I couldn't really tell).

I was talking about the "thinking about it" part and not the actual event, trains of thought.

[Dja Majista]

May 3, 2008 16:33:53 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

That's no different than math being an expression. I could say 2+x=0, but X could be -2, or it could be (3-5). It is a logical part, but there are many ways to say the same thing. Human communication and expression definitely aren't absolutes because they evolve and change all of the time.

Like I said, it's not the communication aspect, it's the laws within the language, and the language has already been established in order to signify things in reality. Relations of ideas implies that the absoluteness is within the language itself. For your equation, consider 2+x=0 again. What if I say x is (3-2)? Wouldn't I be wrong?

I'm going to drive this point though: What makes you think I am wrong when I say "Not everything is relative," if the statement "Everything is relative" is only relatively true? Why would we argue about something that's relative anyways, as if one answer is "correct" and the other is "incorrect"?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

That is relative in itself. I was waiting for that part.

[Dja Majista]

May 9, 2008 21:37:20 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

That is relative in itself. I was waiting for that part.

...and?
go on...

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

No need too...

[Dja Majista]

If it's relative in itself and in itself only, I believe that means it's absolute.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Absolutely relative.

[Dja Majista]

This is going nowhere fast...
You don't even think absolute and relative opposites do you?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

May 15, 2008 14:54:17 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

This is going nowhere fast...
You don't even think absolute and relative opposites do you?

Well that is all relative too... the opposite of a circle is still a circle, relatively speaking.

[Dja Majista]

whoa man, that's deep.
/TRANSLATE
I have no idea what the hellz you're talking about.
Do you know what the hellz your talking about?
Why the hellz don't you explain it to me?

There, I asked nicely. I even made a poem for you. Now speak your mind in such away that you attempt to explain things so that dummies like me can understand.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

You can't have the opposite of something that is equal on all sides and connecting be different than the other side.

[Dja Majista]

You know what, I didn't mean to say "opposite," here.

This is going nowhere fast...
You don't even think absolute and relative opposites do you?

I meant to say "mutually exclusive." In other words, you think something can be described under the same context as both absolute and relative?Not necessarily one or the other?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

It's all relative I guess. *shrugs*

Sorry but it's kind true.

[Dja Majista]

booooooo hisssss...
lol this topic is boring.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

All relative to the person's point of view.

[Dja Majista]

yeah yeah. reality is a lie.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

May 27, 2008 18:41:39 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

yeah yeah. reality is a lie.

All relative of course.