Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (68807)	11/27/2002 4:01:02 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

And both depend on time, place, and people involved as to whether the difference is of importance or not. I think the word importance (as in "the importance of the difference") implies a value judgement and could be seen as subjective, but the difference itself is more objective. Tim

To: The Philosopher who wrote (68807)	11/28/2002 5:11:02 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"Whether they are important differences DOES depend on whether anybody cares about them." I think the point Neo was making was that the differences are OBJECTIVELY important...NOT that they were not sometimes subjectively important, as well. The differences are real and measurable in the reaonable and scientific sense, and thus they are objective differences. Surely this is beyond dispute, even while one admits that there is always a subjective tilting and coloring wherever there is perception and awareness. That things are different is objectively important to a reasonable person, as otherwise things would all be the same--and this would remove the distinction of all subjectivity, thus dismantling any meaningful attempt to consider "caring", "matters", "important" or "subjective" as addressable constituents of the argument. I don't think that Neo was denying that people perceive things differently in accordance with a unique nature and perspective. Rather, I think he was emphasizing that such a commonplace does not contradict the obvious fact that differences may be objectively and rationally qualified and quantified, and that these objective differences are of primary importance...for without them things would all be the same, and comparison and evaluation of the question could not proceed...