1. Honour to objectively exist in some degree must have a basis for all possible degrees of honour.
2. The most honourable possible being is the only possible basis for all possible degrees of honour.
3. Objective honour exists.
4. Therefore the most honourable possible being exists.

(October 6, 2012 at 4:35 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 1. Honour to objectively exist in some degree must have a basis for all possible degrees of honour.
2. The most honourable possible being is the only possible basis for all possible degrees of honour.

Not necessarily. We can imagine something higher than ourselves, or we can say that it is derived from us. Just because the person who came about with the idea of 'honor' was not perfect himself does not mean that he couldn't have based the standards for honor on an imaginary being that was the most honerable possible being. Or he could have simply speculated as to how 'the most honorable possible being' would act, if it existed. You can fathom different degrees of honor, and agree why they are good, and yet you are imperfect. Your second point relies on the assumption that humans cannot fathom something greater than themself without experiencing it.

Mysticknight Wrote:3. Objective honour exists.
4. Therefore the most honourable possible being exists.

(October 6, 2012 at 4:35 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 1. Honour to objectively exist in some degree must have a basis for all possible degrees of honour.
2. The most honourable possible being is the only possible basis for all possible degrees of honour.
3. Objective honour exists.
4. Therefore the most honourable possible being exists.

Honour is just something we use to guage the value of other humans and how much they value us. Very much like morality.
You can't just say for honour to exist , there must be ultimate honour and certainly not the most honourable being possible.

(October 6, 2012 at 5:02 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Not necessarily. We can imagine something higher than ourselves, or we can say that it is derived from us. Just because the person who came about with the idea of 'honor' was not perfect himself does not mean that he couldn't have based the standards for honor on an imaginary being that was the most honerable possible being. Or he could have simply speculated as to how 'the most honorable possible being' would act, if it existed. You can fathom different degrees of honor, and agree why they are good, and yet you are imperfect. Your second point relies on the assumption that humans cannot fathom something greater than themself without experiencing it.

I agree with you that we can fathom some things about higher degrees of honor yet I would say we can't fathom absolute highest honor nor all infinite levels of it and rather just know some properties it must have (without being able to fathom it), but another question to ask is when we are wrong about something being honourable, what are we wrong with respect to? And when we are right, what is the basis of us being right?

---

(October 6, 2012 at 5:11 pm)Haydn Wrote:

(October 6, 2012 at 4:35 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 1. Honour to objectively exist in some degree must have a basis for all possible degrees of honour.
2. The most honourable possible being is the only possible basis for all possible degrees of honour.
3. Objective honour exists.
4. Therefore the most honourable possible being exists.

Honour is just something we use to guage the value of other humans and how much they value us.

But what is objective value derived from? It seems to me for objective value to exist, ultimate value must exist and be the source of all value and the basis of it.

(October 6, 2012 at 4:35 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 1. Honour to objectively exist in some degree must have a basis for all possible degrees of honour.
2. The most honourable possible being is the only possible basis for all possible degrees of honour.
3. Objective honour exists.
4. Therefore the most honourable possible being exists.

What the fuck is this other than mental masturbation?

"Honour" is nothing more than the hollow sense of self importance in an evolution that doesn't give a fuck. Doing nice things is nice and we all like it when others do nice things for us.

But you have just postulated hollowness in the unfortunate vein of human ignorance which our species has always been plauged with.

This loaded Halmark crap is hardly objective and there isn't one point in human history where a person or group didn't think the cure all for humanity convieniently matched their personal desires.

If this were more than " I can sound wordy and fancy" you could take this tripe to the patent office and win a Nobel Prize in science.

All this amounts to me is the same utopian crap I see from theists and polticians "I like shiney objects".

Honor is subjective.

(October 6, 2012 at 6:15 pm)Annik Wrote: Honor is subjective.

That was my point.

It is a hollow word and anyone on any side of an issue who "fights" for what they believe can be percieved to have honor. But most humans forget that they can fight for something and still be wrong. Honor is a loaded word and smacks of tribalism and blind loyalty. It is useful for all parties and a roadblock to all parties in finding our common condition.

(October 6, 2012 at 4:35 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 3. Objective honour exists.

Says who?

(October 6, 2012 at 6:15 pm)Annik Wrote: Honor is subjective.

There is subjective honour and there is objective honour. The existence of subjective honour doesn't disprove objective honour.

The is subjective value and there is objective value. Subjective value doesn't disprove objective value.

For subjective value to have any basis and not be to totally empty and a delusion, objective value must exist.

Quote:Says who?

Says the sword of God in every soul. Just got to listen to it's thundering call.

(October 6, 2012 at 7:11 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

Quote:Says who?

Says the sword of God in every soul. Just got to listen to it's thundering call.

Congratulations, you've just completed the circle.