(guy 2's post, for serious)Me wrote:Therefore, one can't prove anything, because some people don't believe in objective reality.Guy 1 wrote:This argument is officially useless. You clearly do not understand what the word "objective" means. I cannot apply to opinions. Period. If it cannot be proven, it is not a fact. One cannot prove something is good or bad, because what defines good varies from person to person.
I don't agree with this statement. >:PGuy 1 wrote:Without a definition of what is to be proven that may be agreed upon, the proof is pointless, and the facts will never arrive.
What is the proper response to this sort of thing? Because every response I can seem to formulate is...Guy 2 wrote:Correct. "Proof" is simply a kind of stronger opinion, or a model of the way things appear to be to most people. Nothing can be proven, but some things can be "proven" such as the shape of the Earth or the composition of water.Me wrote: Therefore, one can't prove anything, because some people don't believe in objective reality.Congratulations, you have realized that logic is as subjective as anything else; it is simply the most commonly used standard because it works the best, as far as we can tell. (By our definition of best, of course. You are free to use a different one, though everyone else will ignore you.)Me wrote: I don't agree with this statement.
(I was not planning to post, but people with no understanding of philosophical concepts irk me greatly. On another note, I greatly prefer modern art and primarily read Tolkien for his prose and general writing style. In addition, all of the things mentioned above are entirely and subjectively my opinion. :) )
I mean, the best I can formulate is a direct response to "logic is just as subjective as anything else", which consists of "No." Maybe it's just because the post pisses me off so much that I can't formulate a proper response.