RE: An argument from basis.
October 6, 2012 at 5:12 pm
(This post was last modified: October 6, 2012 at 5:15 pm by Mystic.)
(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.
