Matt Faherty

What is "proof" to you? What is "proof" aside from an arbitrary concept that you picked up based on the "assumption" that your senses are accurate, and that you are living in reality, and that you are not a figment of imagination created by a drunken butterfly? You are rejecting the fundamental metaphysical axiom of existence, ie. that A is A. EDIT: I don't believe that you understand what the terms "objective" and "subjective" mean in a metaphysical context. Objective does not mean "the same for everyone," and subjective does not mean "may or may not be the same for everyone." Admittedly the terms are often used colloquially this way.

I think you have set up a false dichotomy. Where do you draw the line between "personal" (morality) and "social" (ethics)? Does morality only concern people living on deserted islands? Surely my interactions with other people are "personal choices." Or as I understand what you are saying, is ethics an exclusively altruistic field?

audiognostic, Your primary error here is the same one that you have made in other thread: you are mixing up philosophical categories. In this case, you are confusing metaphysics and epistemology. "im going to tell you that i like the black car better than the grey one... objectively prove me wrong or right" You are (presumably) objectively correct about your own preferences unless you are lying about your preference. This is because a combination of genetics and association-builidng experiences has caused the metaphysical reality of your brain to develop in such a way that makes you prefer the black car. Therefore, it is "objectively" metaphysically true that YOU prefer the black car. This does not mean that the black car is metaphysically better in any other sense. You are only refering to your own personhood. There is not "objectively" "best" car in any other sense unless you are refering to empirically measured categories like "front-end crash safety." Metaphysically, there is no such thing as "subjectivism." Metaphysical objectivism refers to the concept of acknowleging the accurate realtionship between the subject (the observer) and the object (the observed). Metaphysical subjectivism refers to the beleif that the nature of the object is dependent upon the subject. This is axiomatically and empirically false. "What this proves to me is that emotions are tools of cognition.. and if you follow my entire posts on here.. what im essentially saying is that ALL value judgement essentially are subjective, and therefore come from emotions.." Just the fact that you are attempting to use reasoning in some (ie. substandard) form means that you are rejecting your own conclusion. If you truly believed and followed your point that emotions are a valid tool of cognition, then your thought process would have begun and ended with "I feel that emotions are a valid tool of cognition." In other words, you are using reason as a tool of cognition to invalidate the use of reason as a tool of cognition. "What I am saying is the "primacy of existence" argument does not make sense.." Again, you are confusing categories: this time its metaphysics and ethics. "Primacy of existence" does not refer to the belief that one's life is the highest value (though that notion is also true); it refers to the concept that reality is objective and exists independently of conciousness.