That is why we use units. You might think a certain board is "long", while I think it is "short". But we will agree on its length if we use units and measure it (if we are in the same reference frame, and even if we aren't we can convert between frames to compare them and get the same result).

This post was edited by Azrad on May 7 2013 09:43pm

This does not seem to be political or religious.

This post was edited by Lifebane99 on May 7 2013 09:53pm

@

standford is a quality site for philosophy, i myself use it (but how many others do you know? that you with your enthusiasm immediately declare it 'the greatest'?)
and it provides a broad overview with many detailed articles, since they do their homework and cover an extensive range it does not imply that every philosopher they mention is good by just being reviewed there (so beware if you intend to read more on that site) - heraclitus certainly has merit as part of the history of philosophy but if you like his ideas you should move on to some of the newer philosophers and see how those ideas have been digested

btw, am i right to get the feeling that you read something different and if you like it you make it the new centre of your universe?

Not quite. Length would require that there be more than three objects in existence in order to measure it in a sort of above-relative relativity way. If it's purely relative, then there is no truly objective length, only relative lengths that depend upon the frame of reference, which is why I believe that there is no such thing as objective length, only relative lengths.


This post was edited by AEtheric on May 7 2013 10:21pm

for 'AEtheric' it's religion

To be honest, I've looked for other philosophy websites, and they weren't as appealing, but, then again, I haven't looked at many. I never said that every philosopher they cover is good. I don't make it the center of my universe, his sayings simply 'clicked' with me when I read them. I am certainly not making it the 'centre of my universe', if you mean that I accept it dogmatically.



Indeed, this is part of my religious beliefs.



Nice job reporting my thread.

This post was edited by AEtheric on May 7 2013 10:08pm

If there is no objective length, when why do people agree on measured lengths? If it is not objective, then this level of agreement must come from conspiracy or coincidence.

Well, like I said, it's above-relative relativity, if that even makes sense. It's like relativity that allows for objectivity while still remaining relative. With one object to measure length with is impossible. With two objects its relative to the position of the two objects, but one can never be sure because there is no third object to define the two in three-dimensional space. With three objects we can measure all distances correctly, but it's still relative. I believe this can be generalize such that with an n-dimensional space it requires n points in order to define length relatively objectively.

How do you know it is the correct answer if it is subjective?!?


Now you are just thrashing around.

This post was edited by Azrad on May 7 2013 10:32pm

politics and religion are two little birdies nesting in the tree of philosophy.