You do not have to demand, as you’ve been doing throughout this thread, that I only use words to refer to things that you want them to mean, when I am explicitly disclaiming any intimacy with the terms as they are used in technical philosophy and making a real effort to taboo my words in order to explain what I actually mean. Read the article on Better Disagreement and try to respond to what I’m actually saying instead of trying to argue over definitions.
Hank,
If you don’t use the technical jargon, it is not clear what you mean, or if you are using the same meaning every time you use a term, or whether your meaning captures what it gestures at in a meaningful, non-contradictory way.
To give a historical example, thinkers once thought they knew what infinity meant. Then different infinite sets that were “obviously” different in size were show to be the same size. But not all infinite sets were the same size. Now, we know that the former usage of infinity was confused and precise references to infinite sets need some discussion of cardinality.
In short, you can’t deviate from a common jargon and also complain that people are misunderstanding you—particularly when your deviations sometimes appeal to connotations of the terms that your particular usages do not justify.
In short, you can’t deviate from a common jargon and also complain that people are misunderstanding you
Yes I can—if 1) I use the word in it’s basic common sense way, and then, as a bonus in case people are confusing the common sense usage with some other technical meaning, 2) I specifically say “I’m not intimately familiar with the technical jargon, so here is what I mean by this”, and then I explain specifically what I mean.
Hank, I’m sorry—I was a little too harsh. My general difficulty is that I don’t think you endorse what Jack calleduniversal relativism. If you don’t, then
I addressed this previously, explaining that I am using ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ in the common sense way of ‘mind-independent’ or ‘mind-dependent’
and
I don’t understand why people insist on equating ‘objective morality’ with something magically universal.
don’t go well together.
It is the case that objective != universal, but objective things tend to cause universality. If you have a reason why universality isn’t caused by objective fact in this case, you should state it.
Hank,
If you don’t use the technical jargon, it is not clear what you mean, or if you are using the same meaning every time you use a term, or whether your meaning captures what it gestures at in a meaningful, non-contradictory way.
To give a historical example, thinkers once thought they knew what infinity meant. Then different infinite sets that were “obviously” different in size were show to be the same size. But not all infinite sets were the same size. Now, we know that the former usage of infinity was confused and precise references to infinite sets need some discussion of cardinality.
In short, you can’t deviate from a common jargon and also complain that people are misunderstanding you—particularly when your deviations sometimes appeal to connotations of the terms that your particular usages do not justify.
Edit: Remove comment re: editting
Yes I can—if 1) I use the word in it’s basic common sense way, and then, as a bonus in case people are confusing the common sense usage with some other technical meaning, 2) I specifically say “I’m not intimately familiar with the technical jargon, so here is what I mean by this”, and then I explain specifically what I mean.
Hank, I’m sorry—I was a little too harsh. My general difficulty is that I don’t think you endorse what Jack called universal relativism. If you don’t, then
and
don’t go well together.
It is the case that objective != universal, but objective things tend to cause universality. If you have a reason why universality isn’t caused by objective fact in this case, you should state it.