|
|
|
Re:Subjects and Relations 2 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 10
|
|
JHuber wrote:
Extrinsic and intrinsic subjects are quite real. Consider the statement, "One has a right to their possessions." This is a rationally true statement that would not be possible without the existence of extrinsic and intrinsic subjects.
Very well, but do you really think that, "Ignorance of this system... is the reason we are at war"? How?
|
|
|
|
 Logged
|
|
|
¡¿
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
JHuber
Fresh Boarder
Posts: 42
|
|
Re:Subjects and Relations 2 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 1
|
|
Szavieur wrote:
JHuber wrote:
Extrinsic and intrinsic subjects are quite real. Consider the statement, "One has a right to their possessions." This is a rationally true statement that would not be possible without the existence of extrinsic and intrinsic subjects.
Very well, but do you really think that, "Ignorance of this system... is the reason we are at war"? How?
Our enemy does not share the same worldview as we do. Thus, different worldviews enables the distinction between us and them. With this system, that of subjects and relations, all subjects are contained within it. The only way to not be within this system is if you were an object instead of a subject.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:Subjects and Relations 2 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 10
|
|
JHuber wrote:
Our enemy does not share the same worldview as we do. Thus, different worldviews enables the distinction between us and them. With this system, that of subjects and relations, all subjects are contained within it. The only way to not be within this system is if you were an object instead of a subject.
What does this mean? That your theory counts every individual as deserving what our enemies (who?) deny us? But what proves the theory?
On the site you write:
Let's say someone is not in the Subjations system. Therefore, this person is not a subject. He has no name. He can't be identified. Not only that but this person would deny his relatives. Family members would be the same as all other people to him. He wouldn't believe in groups or coherence. Such an existance is impossible.
It's one thing to say that a person is a subject. It's another to say that, as a subject, whatever that is, he or she also admits to being defined in terms of the following list:
Subject - a cross-utilized unit of a relation
Relation - more than one subject combined together
Extrinsic Subject - subject given to a relation
Intrinsic Subject - subject contained in a relation
Right - if a subject is within an extrinsic subject
Wrong - if a subject is not within an extrinsic subject
Possession - if an intrinsic subject is within a subject
Good - what increases a relation
Bad - what hinders or decreases a relation
The first 2 definitions are circular (not to mention incomplete: what do you mean by "cross-utilized"?), the 3rd and 4th not altogether clear (extrinsic or intrinsic to what? Relations?), and the last 5 totally unproven (what does a subject being within an extrinsic subject have to do with action?).
Or so it seems to me.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
¡¿
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
JHuber
Fresh Boarder
Posts: 42
|
|
Re:Subjects and Relations 2 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 1
|
|
What does this mean? That your theory counts every individual as deserving what our enemies (who?) deny us? But what proves the theory?
Even if it were a law to subscribe to a worldview one could still deny it to themselves privately. However, everyone is a subject, there is no denying that. Also, we all have relatives.
Proving that relations are composed of subjects is not much different than proving that a whole is composed of parts or plural is composed of singularities.
The first 2 definitions are circular (not to mention incomplete: what do you mean by "cross-utilized"?), the 3rd and 4th not altogether clear (extrinsic or intrinsic to what? Relations?), and the last 5 totally unproven (what does a subject being within an extrinsic subject have to do with action?).
The term 'subject' can be utilized in place of any proper noun, common noun, generalization or category. It can be cross-utilized for any of these.
An extrinsic subject is a subject given to a relation. For example, fruit is the extrinsic subject to apples and bananas. Europe is the extrinsic subject to Spain and Italy. The extrinsic subject is the whole and the intrinsic subjects are the parts. Intrinsic subjects are related together. With procedures, the extrinsic subject is the goal and the processes are the intrinsic subjects. A procedure is nothing more than a relationship of actions.
The following five: right, wrong, possession, good and bad are always true. It doesn't matter what the subject is. Take, for example, fish. Is a salmon a fish? Yes, that is right. Is a salmon a mammal? No, that is wrong. Salmon are fish so fish own the subject of salmon. More salmon would be good for fish, fewer salmon would be bad for fish.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:Subjects and Relations 2 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 10
|
|
JHuber wrote:
Even if it were a law to subscribe to a worldview one could still deny it to themselves privately. However, everyone is a subject, there is no denying that. Also, we all have relatives. Proving that relations are composed of subjects is not much different than proving that a whole is composed of parts or plural is composed of singularities.
Yeah, but that sounds like equivocating on the meaning of the word relative. My genetic/by-marriage relatives/relations are not the same thing altogether as the general category of relativity or relation.
The following five: right, wrong, possession, good and bad are always true. It doesn't matter what the subject is. Take, for example, fish. Is a salmon a fish? Yes, that is right. Is a salmon a mammal? No, that is wrong. Salmon are fish so fish own the subject of salmon. More salmon would be good for fish, fewer salmon would be bad for fish.
But, "Yes, that is right," means, "Yes, that is true," not that, "Yes, that is morally how things are to be." And fish don't "own" the subject of salmon except inasmuch as the word belonging disambiguates into a moral and a predicative sense. And what if more fish means overpopulation, which leads to fish depopulation owing to food shortages? Would more fish be "good for fish" then?
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
¡¿
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
JHuber
Fresh Boarder
Posts: 42
|
|
Re:Subjects and Relations 2 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 1
|
|
Yeah, but that sounds like equivocating on the meaning of the word relative. My genetic/by-marriage relatives/relations are not the same thing altogether as the general category of relativity or relation.
Why not? Your family has a last name, a surname. This is an extrinsic subject. It identifies your family. Right, wrong, good, bad, possession and the rest all apply to your family just as any other relation does. If it didn't, there wouldn't be such a thing as infidelity.
But, "Yes, that is right," means, "Yes, that is true," not that, "Yes, that is morally how things are to be." And fish don't "own" the subject of salmon except inasmuch as the word belonging disambiguates into a moral and a predicative sense.
Salmon belong to the category of fish. This is an example of possession. It is as simple as that.
Right is a synonym of truth. If you want to discuss the moral meaning of right we could go there. Most people believe the moral meaning of right depends on cultural factors. This is of course certainly true but in this theory there is a cognitive reason also. One of my axioms states that, "Related subjects do not combine for the same reason that unrelated subjects do not separate." This statement is logically provable and therefore is an extrinsic subject for a moral reason of right.
And what if more fish means overpopulation, which leads to fish depopulation owing to food shortages? Would more fish be "good for fish" then?
You are using second order logic here. The practical application of good is of course more complicated than its generic definition. For example, is a good car one with much horsepower or one with much gas mileage? Is a good golfer one with the highest score or one with the lowest? This depends on one's values. I have value in my theory, value is the direction of a relation.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
Facebook.com
Twitter.com
