|
On May 05 2010 22:21 Gnosis wrote:
But that's the thing, as I understand what you're saying, you haven't demonstrated anything. Just because happiness is the "observable preference of most beings" doesn't mean it's actually good, as objectively distinct from bad, as things which are intrinsic to the universe, distinct from our perceptions. You fall into the error of subjectivism that you attempted to point out above: a moral code as inseparable from our perceptions (in fact your moral code is predicated and founded upon our perceptions!). Why is "individual freedom" good? Why is "happiness" good? Why should I maximize both? What is "good," and who decides? Otherwise all you're arguing for is a unique moral code, which is in some ways inverse to the Islamic world. What makes you right, and them wrong? What makes you seeing these things as good, mean that they are meaningfully good?
But that's the thing! Just by saying that something is "big" you have not demonstrated anything! And how could you!?
As I said "Good" and "Bad" are meaningless unless you put them in a context, just like "big" and "small". Everything is predicted and founded upon our perception! There is no way around it and how would there be? Who decides? Who decides what big is? Please tell me, what makes "big" different from "moral" or "good"?
I also explained what "makes me right" and I can demonstrate it. It is testable. Everything being equal people tend to prefer not suffering over suffering, it is a simple fact of reality and can be observed. Would we be living in a world where people would actually prefer to suffer, we would have a different conversation and different values. This is empirical fact, just like that people have needs and wants. And since I cannot know them all a priori I will need to justify whenever I take freedom away from them. This is a fundamental and important insight! All over a sudden the burden of proof shifts and for taking away freedom of choice from somebody, we need to have a justification (maybe that the freedom of others is inflicted). Basing the freedom of choice of clothing on gender is unjustified, as long as a demonstrable value is identified, which is actually furthered by that. As god is not demonstrable, it is thus not a valid reason. Can you provide any other justification? No? Conclusion: Unfounded, should therefore be abolished. That's how moral progress works!
|
On May 05 2010 22:41 Gnosis wrote:
As for your epistemic problem, wouldn't it be true, then, that you know factually that we will never really know what is factual? (In other words, you know at least one state of affairs in the universe?) Or does this observation too fall to your criticism, and thus we can't know if it's true or not that we'll never really know what is factual (you'll have to excuse me, I'm on some medication which has a habit of making me a bit cheeky).
And I think I have to disagree, just because I believe in something doesn't make it a fact. I would be wrong in believing that unicorn's exist because I'm seeing one while hallucinating. I would be right in believing that I'm seeing a unicorn because I'm hallucinating.
I wouldn't be so "dazzled" that people don't know what subjective and objective mean in a philosophical context. Most people aren't taught philosophy (me included), so we make do with what we can, throwing on the commonsensical for the observations of an educated man behind a desk...
The question whether it is possible "to actually know for sure that you cannot know anything for sure" has been discussed to great length in philosphy and like most dilemmas it doesn't interest me that much, since the statement "I can not know for sure, that I can know something for sure, so not even whether this is true" has the same consequences. When I talk about the fact of "seeing a unicorn", it doesn't actually matter whether the unicorn is there, can exist, is known to not exist or whatever. When I "see a unicorn" I only know that my brain processed something which looked like a unicorn to me. I can deduce from that that the unicorn was there or that it was not there, but this is a different fact (apart from the fact that I "saw one"). The fact that a unicorn was somewhere, can potentially be objective, if it is accessible to impartial study (for instance if other people where there to verify my claim). The fact that I saw the unicorn, is not objective in the same sense unless you can look in my brain and the my "experience" of a unicorn might be completely inaccessible and intrinsically subjective. Both are facts though.
|
On May 05 2010 22:42 MiraMax wrote:
But that's the thing! Just by saying that something is "big" you have not demonstrated anything! And how could you!?
As I said "Good" and "Bad" are meaningless unless you put them in a context, just like "big" and "small". Everything is predicted and founded upon our perception! There is no way around it and how would there be? Who decides? Who decides what big is? Please tell me, what makes "big" different from "moral" or "good"?
The difference is that big is subjective, moral and good are objective.
I also explained what "makes me right" and I can demonstrate it. It is testable. Everything being equal people tend to prefer not suffering over suffering, it is a simple fact of reality and can be observed. Would we be living in a world where people would actually prefer to suffer, we would have a different conversation and different values. This is empirical fact, just like that people have needs and wants.
I don't think you're quite getting what I'm saying. This tendency doesn't make an action "good" or "bad," "right" or "wrong". In and of itself, this just means that people prefer certain things (happiness to sadness, prosperity over suffering). But do we always act on the tendencies of a person? No, we don't. If someone is made happy through the suffering of others, we don't allow that. I've never disagreed with you that you can build a moral code on the above precepts, what I've disagreed with is your notion that this constitutes an objective moral code--it doesn't. And while you can say "people prefer X and don't prefer Y," you still haven't shown how these preferences themselves correspond to something in reality, and thus you still haven't shown how these actions are moral or immoral, independent of us.
And since I cannot know them all a priori I will need to justify whenever I take freedom away from them. This is a fundamental and important insight! All over a sudden the burden of proof shifts and for taking away freedom of choice from somebody, we need to have a justification (maybe that the freedom of others is inflicted). Basing the freedom of choice on closing on gender is unjustified, as long as a demonstrable value is identified, which is actually furthered by that. As god is not demonstrable, it is thus not a valid reason. Can you provide any other justification? No? Conclusion: Unfounded, should therefore be abolished. That's how moral progress works!
That's not how progress is made. Progress is towards an "end" (which means at some point you've stopped progressing, because you've arrived). On a subjective level this is impossible, because there is no end to look forward to. You might try to arrive at the "best possible moral code," but different societies will have different conceptions of a "best possible moral code". Objectivism does allow this movement towards an end, because all people's of all times are bound to the same (progressing) moral code.
And again, I can easily believe that (1) moral imperatives come from god and (2) the actions of people reveal these moral imperatives. Essentially, the "proof" you use for how we should act is the same proof I can use. But that's not answer the question, of where moral imperatives come from. We're just addressing how people prefer to be treated (but is this preference actually meaningful?). I think you're oversimplifying the issue, and are having a bit of difficulty providing a foundation for your moral precepts.
|
On May 05 2010 22:54 MiraMax wrote:
The question whether it is possible "to actually know for sure that you cannot know anything for sure" has been discussed to great length in philosphy and like most dilemmas it doesn't interest me that much, since the statement "I can not know for sure, that I can know something for sure, so not even whether this is true" has the same consequences.
It should interest you, especially if an observation insulates itself from the objection it launches against all other epistemic theories. The consequence may be the same, but it doesn't mean the approach is correct. Is it true, an objective fact, that we can never really know what the facts are? Then we have a problem, and philosophers need to stop knocking their heads together. Head aches make for bad philosophical assertions.
When I talk about the fact of "seeing a unicorn", it doesn't actually matter whether the unicorn is there, can exist, is known to not exist or whatever. When I "see a unicorn" I only know that my brain processed something which looked like a unicorn to me. I can deduce from that that the unicorn was there or that it was not there, but this is a different fact (apart from the fact that I "saw one"). The fact that a unicorn was somewhere, can potentially be objective, if it is accessible to impartial study (for instance if other people where there to verify my claim). The fact that I saw the unicorn, is not objective in the same sense unless you can look in my brain and the my "experience" of a unicorn might be completely inaccessible and intrinsically subjective. Both are facts though.
Right, so we agree 
|
On May 05 2010 22:55 Gnosis wrote:
The difference is that big is subjective, moral and good are objective.
Do you really think that the statement "this square is bigger than the other square" is subjective? In what way is it more subjective than "this action is better than the other action"? The former statement is much more specific and is indeed objective as we have devised a common understanding of the term bigger and even means to measure it impartially. Without this common understanding the term would be as meaningless as "better" or "moral" is.
That's not how progress is made. Progress is towards an "end" (which means at some point you've stopped progressing, because you've arrived). On a subjective level this is impossible, because there is no end to look forward to. You might try to arrive at the "best possible moral code," but different societies will have different conceptions of a "best possible moral code". Objectivism does allow this movement towards an end, because all people's of all times are bound to the same (progressing) moral code.
Moral progress means to me that we have developed a moral framework whose foundational values better match observations about our world. That's actually the only definition of progress I can fathom. Even if there is no "best moral code", this definition of progress is still applicable. There might be completely different moral frameworks which are all completely in line with what we can observe about reality, but so what!? We should strive for one of them and if we have found one, would still need to look for alternatives according to critical rationalism. Like always, the search is the goal.
And again, I can easily believe that (1) moral imperatives come from god and (2) the actions of people reveal these moral imperatives. Essentially, the "proof" you use for how we should act is the same proof I can use. But that's not answer the question, of where moral imperatives come from. We're just addressing how people prefer to be treated (but is this preference actually meaningful?). I think you're oversimplifying the issue, and are having a bit of difficulty providing a foundation for your moral precepts.
Keep in mind that I don't directly derive my foundation from actions of people. I derive it from existing elementary wants and needs which I deduce from their actions (subjective facts, eh). That's why individual freedom is so important in enlightened philosophy.
You can very well believe that the "nature" of people and all things has been determined by a creator. And if you really look at this nature to determine what the creator wants to tell us about morality, we are actually doing the same thing!
The irony for me is, that in this case you are essentially piggybacking on a naturalistic world view as all over a sudden you are also required to bring forth evidence in order to verify whether you got that nature right! And that's where we both started: either way, evidence rules!
|
On May 05 2010 23:45 MiraMax wrote:
Do you really think that the statement "this square is bigger than the other square" is subjective? In what way is it more subjective than "this action is better than the other action"? The former statement is much more specific and is indeed objective as we have devised a common understanding of the term bigger and even means to measure it impartially. Without this common understanding the term would be as meaningless as "better" or "moral" is.
Of course not, that statement is objective. My point was that for morality to exist objectively it has to exist in and of itself. That it was true 13.5 billion years ago that the proposition "rape is wrong" was a morally meaningful phrase (even though no one could utter it), just as its true today. The size of a thing can only be measured in relation to another thing. Moral statements are true independent of moral agents giving them contexts.
Moral progress means to me that we have developed a moral framework whose foundational values better match observations about our world. That's actually the only definition of progress I can fathom. Even if there is no "best moral code", this definition of progress is still applicable. There might be completely different moral frameworks which are all completely in line with what we can observe about reality, but so what!? We should strive for one of them and if we have found one, would still need to look for alternatives according to critical rationalism. Like always, the search is the goal.
That's the issue, "our" world. How many different cultures have perceived "our" world differently? The Islamic "world" views burqas as morally required, you view them as immoral, because they restrict human freedom and happiness (apparently). This is what happens when you attempt different moral frame works which are "all in line"--some of them contradict, and then you have the task of trying to say, "no, this is wrong". But you can't, because it's all in your perception.
You understand that if the search is the goal, then you're searching nonsensically for the "moral code that best matches our observations about the world". You'll never find it, so you can't ever make progress. The "progress" we make will be undone by another society, at another time.
Keep in mind that I don't directly derive my foundation from actions of people. I derive it from existing elementary wants and needs which I deduce from their actions (subjective facts, eh). That's why individual freedom is so important in enlightened philosophy.
I'm keeping it in mind. My point is that you will attempt to impose your moral understanding on another when they disagree with your observations. Which leaves the question unanswered, and gives you no justification for imposing your moral order, or calling burqa imposing Muslims wrong.
You can very well believe that the "nature" of people and all things has been determined by a creator. And if you really look at this nature to determine what the creator wants to tell us about morality, we are actually doing the same thing!
The irony for me is, that in this case you are essentially piggybacking on a naturalistic world view as all over a sudden you are also required to bring forth evidence in order to verify whether you got that nature right! And that's where we both started: either way, evidence rules!
That's been my point There is much value in reason and in the natural world, I'm not some theist with a "pie in the sky" mentality. I would say that the tendency of people, as it seems to be true of all people in all cultures, is evidence of a higher moral order (even what you've been saying, quite adamantly). And even though we might disagree on what morality is or how we arrive at it, we can still all act in a moral way. And that's what I think is more important.
|
On May 06 2010 00:18 Gnosis wrote:
That's the issue, "our" world. How many different cultures have perceived "our" world differently? The Islamic "world" views burqas as morally required, you view them as immoral, because they restrict human freedom and happiness (apparently). This is what happens when you attempt different moral frame works which are "all in line"--some of them contradict, and then you have the task of trying to say, "no, this is wrong". But you can't, because it's all in your perception.
You understand that if the search is the goal, then you're searching nonsensically for the "moral code that best matches our observations about the world". You'll never find it, so you can't ever make progress. The "progress" we make will be undone by another society, at another time.
No, that is flawed thinking. Just like Newtonian Physics will never be undone, even though we now know there are more accurate views of the world. That's the advantage of testable evidence. And if it was the case, then also according to your definition it could be made undone as soon people turn to other gods. They won't even need evidence for that, so where is the advantage?
I'm keeping it in mind. My point is that you will attempt to impose your moral understanding on another when they disagree with your observations. Which leaves the question unanswered, and gives you no justification for imposing your moral order, or calling burqa imposing Muslims wrong.
If somebody believed the earth was flat and you "impose your view" on him demonstrating that the earth is not flat you are doing the same thing. But that's the advantage of basing an argument on observable evidence. It cannot be refuted unless evidence to the contrary is provided. This is all the justification you need or will ever have to impose any view on others.
That's been my point There is much value in reason and in the natural world, I'm not some theist with a "pie in the sky" mentality. I would say that the tendency of people, as it seems to be true of all people in all cultures, is evidence of a higher moral order (even what you've been saying, quite adamantly). And even though we might disagree on what morality is or how we arrive at it, we can still all act in a moral way. And that's what I think is more important.
I completely agree with your last two sentences here. And since I realize we are somewhat turning in circles, we have at least found something important to agree on!
Just to make it clear, I think that the notion of a god is not necessary for a working moral system and that objectivity in morals can be reached the same way in principle, that it can be reached for any other concept.
I understood now that you think there is a difference for the special concept of morality and that, if that is the case, a god is necessary for resolving this issue.
I cannot think of anything more to add to my arguments, so I would like to thank you for the interesting discussion and your patience! Take care!
|
On May 06 2010 00:40 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 00:18 Gnosis wrote:
That's the issue, "our" world. How many different cultures have perceived "our" world differently? The Islamic "world" views burqas as morally required, you view them as immoral, because they restrict human freedom and happiness (apparently). This is what happens when you attempt different moral frame works which are "all in line"--some of them contradict, and then you have the task of trying to say, "no, this is wrong". But you can't, because it's all in your perception.
You understand that if the search is the goal, then you're searching nonsensically for the "moral code that best matches our observations about the world". You'll never find it, so you can't ever make progress. The "progress" we make will be undone by another society, at another time.
No, that is flawed thinking. Just like Newtonian Physics will never be undone, even though we now know there are more accurate views of the world. That's the advantage of testable evidence. And if it was the case, then also according to your definition it could be made undone as soon people turn to other gods. They won't even need evidence for that, so where is the advantage? Show nested quote +
I'm keeping it in mind. My point is that you will attempt to impose your moral understanding on another when they disagree with your observations. Which leaves the question unanswered, and gives you no justification for imposing your moral order, or calling burqa imposing Muslims wrong.
If somebody believed the earth was flat and you "impose your view" on him demonstrating that the earth is not flat you are doing the same thing. But that's the advantage of basing an argument on observable evidence. It cannot be refuted unless evidence to the contrary is provided. This is all the justification you need or will ever have to impose any view on others. Show nested quote +That's been my point There is much value in reason and in the natural world, I'm not some theist with a "pie in the sky" mentality. I would say that the tendency of people, as it seems to be true of all people in all cultures, is evidence of a higher moral order (even what you've been saying, quite adamantly). And even though we might disagree on what morality is or how we arrive at it, we can still all act in a moral way. And that's what I think is more important. I completely agree with your last two sentences here. And since I realize we are somewhat turning in circles, we have at least found something important to agree on! Just to make it clear, I think that the notion of a god is not necessary for a working moral system and that objectivity in morals can be reached the same way in principle, that it can be reached for any other concept. I understood now that you think there is a difference for the special concept of morality and that, if that is the case, a god is necessary for resolving this issue. I cannot think of anything more to add to my arguments, so I would like to thank you for the interesting discussion and your patience! Take care!
Agreed, a very pleasant conversation (and a rarity)
|
On May 05 2010 21:53 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 21:32 Squeegy wrote:On May 05 2010 20:13 MiraMax wrote:On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote:
I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact. All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not. Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion. Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking. There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective. Well, there are a lot of philosphers who disagree with you. I think you are really just confusing "factual" with "objective". I will give you the standard philosophical example: If I have a hallucination and see a unicorn it is a fact that there is no unicorn, but it is also a fact that I see one. Both state of affairs are facts. One of the two facts is objective (or better the statement about the fact) and the other is not, unless we find I way to untie my view from my view (some philosophers think that this is not possible). It might sound confusing and irrelevant, but it is actually a meaningful concept. If you strip subjective and objective of their meanings and equivocate factual with objective would you then say that subjective is not factional?
I disagree. Unless they're continentals. But their opinions are irrelevant. I think you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying.
And no, I am not confusing 'factual' with objectivity. I am using 'factual' as a synonym for truth. So, what I am in fact saying is that all truths are objective. And that is of course yet another fact.
|
miramax, your argument about definitions is diverting and all, but here let side step it for a second and put this in a way that you won't have to inexplicably take issue with.
factual/non-factual = descriptions of reality
objective/subjective = descriptions of statements
all the objective and subjective statements in the world have no influence whatsoever on facts. now you seem to indulge in this pleasant fantasy of some "we" out there carefully comparing and exchanging their objective statements in order to get to the bottom of things, at which point mankind will have an objective moral good that they can institutionalize and embrace all sexes, races, creeds, etc. etc. what a beautiful concept, etc. etc.
but what a silly idea really. even the one discipline (science) most invested in producing objective facts does not use the discourse about those facts in order to get at them. they use something call experiments. have fun designing an experiment about how to find morality.
you will say "but they have to engage this discourse lol! it's possibly inseparable from the facts omg!" not really they don't. there's a reason why scientists more and more evaluate one another's articles simply by ignoring the (typically poor) writing and looking instead at the data and figures
i mean the one thing you've got to hang on to is the reassurance that all these philistines out here don't even *gasp* understand the difference between objective and subjective. you are "dazzled." you might do better to reconcile yourself to the fact that there is no objectively correct way to use words and the fact that people will use them in ways that, oh my god, you don't happen to approve of is a linguistic inevitability.
but i'll admit it, it's a much easier argumentative strategy to shit bricks about how someone "doesn't know what a word means" (as if there is such a thing as a word, quaint idea) than to actually attempt to engage what they are trying to say in their unrefined, unphilosophical discourse.
|
On May 06 2010 02:25 tinman wrote:
miramax, your argument about definitions is diverting and all, but here let side step it for a second and put this in a way that you won't have to inexplicably take issue with.
factual/non-factual = descriptions of reality
objective/subjective = descriptions of statements
all the objective and subjective statements in the world have no influence whatsoever on facts. now you seem to indulge in this pleasant fantasy of some "we" out there carefully comparing and exchanging their objective statements in order to get to the bottom of things, at which point mankind will have an objective moral good that they can institutionalize and embrace all sexes, races, creeds, etc. etc. what a beautiful concept, etc. etc.
You completely misunderstood me it seems. I am not sure whether I am really so unclear or whether you just don't try. We agree that factual and objective is not the same. I don't think we will ever get to the bottom of anything and also don't think that we will ever live in lala land where everybody is happy.
I do think that moral questions are real and can be objectivized in the same sense that size is real and can be objectivized. I can live with people who think differently.
but what a silly idea really. even the one discipline (science) most invested in producing objective facts does not use the discourse about those facts in order to get at them. they use something call experiments. have fun designing an experiment about how to find morality.
you will say "but they have to engage this discourse lol! it's possibly inseparable from the facts omg!" not really they don't. there's a reason why scientists more and more evaluate one another's articles simply by ignoring the (typically poor) writing and looking instead at the data and figures
An experiment is designed to objectivize a matter. Its only mean is bring it away from the subject (even though this is never fully possible). A major reason to do that is to reach agreement. If an experiment always has the predicted result irrespective of who does it, it convinces people. That's one of its main merits. And rightfully so, because agreement by many people makes individual mistakes less likely. It doesn't rule them out, it doesn't mean what we saw is actual fact. But it's the best we have imo.
i mean the one thing you've got to hang on to is the reassurance that all these philistines out here don't even *gasp* understand the difference between objective and subjective. you are "dazzled." you might do better to reconcile yourself to the fact that there is no objectively correct way to use words and the fact that people will use them in ways that, oh my god, you don't happen to approve of is a linguistic inevitability.
but i'll admit it, it's a much easier argumentative strategy to shit bricks about how someone "doesn't know what a word means" (as if there is such a thing as a word, quaint idea) than to actually attempt to engage what they are trying to say in their unrefined, unphilosophical discourse.
Yes, there is no correct way to use any word. Nonetheless people often seem to understand each other. Fascinating, isn't it? I didn't mean to "shit any brick". I was just fascinated by how you constantly use insults to bring about a point, so I thought I try it too. Didn't work out well, it seems ... maybe we can all learn from that.
|
here's the only word you're using that i still don't understand: we.
|
tinman at first I thought you were an asshole but ur actually pretty cool
No troll
Miramax there can't be a factual subjective because the subjective is not part of reality. To put it in your view, it's not demonstrable whether you or "we" think something or not, it's assumed on our (factual, observable) actions in reality. You crying does not prove that youre sad, it's assumed that you're sad. You could be faking. And we can never know whether you really dreamed about an unicorn, even though you can say you did and we can just assume you did. You could be lying. We would never know. Still not factual. Still not part of reality.
The only way I can see that you could possibly demonstrate what you think is when science gets to such a point where every brain synapse is traceable and it can be demonstrated what people are thinking when those observable synapses occur (but even then it would be debatable if it would be objective an accurate depiction of the subjective since science would still have trouble defining a conscience where subjective thoughts occur)
o yea, and I hate the word "we" too, I use it sparingly
|
On May 06 2010 02:02 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 21:53 MiraMax wrote:On May 05 2010 21:32 Squeegy wrote:On May 05 2010 20:13 MiraMax wrote:On May 05 2010 19:42 Squeegy wrote:
I think you two are arguing a different subject. Tinman is right in saying that what is objective is objective regardless of our opinions. And Miramax is right in saying that it is in fact what we think that is objective that matters to us. Or maybe you're arguing about something more complex.
But I do have to point out that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And that is not an opinion but a fact. All I am arguing is that tinman doesn't know what "objective" means and you also seem to get it wrong there. Factual and objective is not the same, since there are also subjective facts (those that are not independent of the observer), like my feelings or even my opinions. It is the effects of my feelings which can in parts be demonstrated and it is things in reality that my feelings point to which are factual or not. Let me take your example. I say that Hamburg is the capital of Ecuador. This is my opionion and I claim it is a fact of reality that I am of this opinion. First of all I can hardly demonstrate my opinion to you, so you would need to believe me, when I say it. It is at least difficult to "objectivize" my claim about my opinion. You would need to establish a method to investigate whether it is my true belief (whatever that means). So let's take it as a subjective fact that I am of this opinion. Now, we bring both of our opinions to the test to see which of the two, if any, actually reflects reality accurately. Mind you, they could both be wrong. We need to establish a methodology to find out the truth value, so we would need to both agree that there are countries which have names and cities which have names and that one city per country is defined as capital. We could agree that consulting one or many atlases is a good mean to find out what is the correct (agreed upon) name of the capital city of Ecuador and we would find out that your opinion actually reflects reality and mine doesn't. The fact is the agreed upon name, what I have in my head (and what is in your head) is merely an opinion about this fact. This is a difference that matters and its understanding is one of the conrner stones of critical thinking. There is no such thing as subjective fact, unless you are using words in a funny sense. As in, it is an objectively true that you are of whatever opinion you are or that you feel however you feel. They are of course subjective in some sense, but a truth value is always objective. Well, there are a lot of philosphers who disagree with you. I think you are really just confusing "factual" with "objective". I will give you the standard philosophical example: If I have a hallucination and see a unicorn it is a fact that there is no unicorn, but it is also a fact that I see one. Both state of affairs are facts. One of the two facts is objective (or better the statement about the fact) and the other is not, unless we find I way to untie my view from my view (some philosophers think that this is not possible). It might sound confusing and irrelevant, but it is actually a meaningful concept. If you strip subjective and objective of their meanings and equivocate factual with objective would you then say that subjective is not factional? I disagree. Unless they're continentals. But their opinions are irrelevant. I think you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying. And no, I am not confusing 'factual' with objectivity. I am using 'factual' as a synonym for truth. So, what I am in fact saying is that all truths are objective. And that is of course yet another fact.
I am not misunderstanding you, I hope at least. There are, in fact, "truths" or facts which are referred to as subjective in philosophy. Metaphysically subjective are those facts which only exist in minds, like my hallucinated unicorn. It is a fact that it was in my mind (or at least could be a fact), so it was really there, just not phsically. Its notion is contingent on my mind and my mind alone. This fact is also epistemically subjective so long as I cannot establish its truth value without using my mind. Epistemically subjective facts can become epistemically objective, if someone devises a method that somehow detects the notion of a unicorn in my brain reliably and independently of who uses this method. Subjective and objective in this sense are not mutually exclusive but rather on two different ends of the spectrum of perception. This is a common distinction in modern philosophy and I only know of few philosphers who critizise for instance Thomas Nagel's work and if they do than usually because they falsely think this would "beat" the scientific method. I would be really be interested to hear about philosophers who reject this notion completely and for what reasons.
|
On May 06 2010 02:57 tinman wrote:
here's the only word you're using that i still don't understand: we.
What I mean with "we" depends on the context in which I use it. It can mean "we" as mankind, "we" as long as we are intellectually able to process rationally, or just us two. I will try to avoid using the term we if it confuses you.
|
On May 06 2010 03:47 Yurebis wrote:
Miramax there can't be a factual subjective because the subjective is not part of reality. To put it in your view, it's not demonstrable whether you or "we" think something or not, it's assumed on our (factual, observable) actions in reality. You crying does not prove that youre sad, it's assumed that you're sad. You could be faking. And we can never know whether you really dreamed about an unicorn, even though you can say you did and we can just assume you did. You could be lying. We would never know. Still not factual. Still not part of reality.
If you really hold this view you would need to conclude that your thoughts are not factual, just because you can't demonstrate them to anybody else. Is that what you mean? I for one, do think that my thoughts are real and factual. It is a meta-physical claim up to a certain extent, just like any ontological claim has a meta-physical component. But I actually think that practically everybody thinks that his thoughts are real.
|
On May 06 2010 04:15 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 03:47 Yurebis wrote:
Miramax there can't be a factual subjective because the subjective is not part of reality. To put it in your view, it's not demonstrable whether you or "we" think something or not, it's assumed on our (factual, observable) actions in reality. You crying does not prove that youre sad, it's assumed that you're sad. You could be faking. And we can never know whether you really dreamed about an unicorn, even though you can say you did and we can just assume you did. You could be lying. We would never know. Still not factual. Still not part of reality.
If you really hold this view you would need to conclude that your thoughts are not factual, just because you can't demonstrate them to anybody else. Is that what you mean?
yes
On May 06 2010 04:15 MiraMax wrote:I for one, do think that my thoughts are real and factual. It is a meta-physical claim up to a certain extent, just like any ontological claim has a meta-physical component. But I actually think that practically everybody thinks that his thoughts are real.
Ok, but why make that claim?
Doesn't seem to accomplish anything, besides just fog what is objective and subjective.
|
On May 06 2010 04:23 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 04:15 MiraMax wrote:On May 06 2010 03:47 Yurebis wrote:
Miramax there can't be a factual subjective because the subjective is not part of reality. To put it in your view, it's not demonstrable whether you or "we" think something or not, it's assumed on our (factual, observable) actions in reality. You crying does not prove that youre sad, it's assumed that you're sad. You could be faking. And we can never know whether you really dreamed about an unicorn, even though you can say you did and we can just assume you did. You could be lying. We would never know. Still not factual. Still not part of reality.
If you really hold this view you would need to conclude that your thoughts are not factual, just because you can't demonstrate them to anybody else. Is that what you mean? yes Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 04:15 MiraMax wrote:I for one, do think that my thoughts are real and factual. It is a meta-physical claim up to a certain extent, just like any ontological claim has a meta-physical component. But I actually think that practically everybody thinks that his thoughts are real. Ok, but why make that claim? Doesn't seem to accomplish anything, besides just fog what is objective and subjective.
I make this claim in the same way and for the same reason that I make the claim that something I can see, touch and smell is real. Because it is a meaningful basis of operations. If you think your thoughts are not real, then why think at all? And how could you think that you could accomplish anything by critical thinking if thoughts are not real? You don't think that "cogito ergo sum" might have at least some merit?
|
On May 06 2010 04:42 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 04:23 Yurebis wrote:On May 06 2010 04:15 MiraMax wrote:On May 06 2010 03:47 Yurebis wrote:
Miramax there can't be a factual subjective because the subjective is not part of reality. To put it in your view, it's not demonstrable whether you or "we" think something or not, it's assumed on our (factual, observable) actions in reality. You crying does not prove that youre sad, it's assumed that you're sad. You could be faking. And we can never know whether you really dreamed about an unicorn, even though you can say you did and we can just assume you did. You could be lying. We would never know. Still not factual. Still not part of reality.
If you really hold this view you would need to conclude that your thoughts are not factual, just because you can't demonstrate them to anybody else. Is that what you mean? yes On May 06 2010 04:15 MiraMax wrote:I for one, do think that my thoughts are real and factual. It is a meta-physical claim up to a certain extent, just like any ontological claim has a meta-physical component. But I actually think that practically everybody thinks that his thoughts are real. Ok, but why make that claim? Doesn't seem to accomplish anything, besides just fog what is objective and subjective. I make this claim in the same way and for the same reason that I make the claim that something I can see, touch and smell is real. Because it is a meaningful basis of operations. If you think your thoughts are not real, then why think at all? And how could you think that you could accomplish anything by critical thinking if thoughts are not real? You don't think that "cogito ergo sum" might have at least some merit?
I'm a determinist so not really.
You could be a robot with no thoughts and I'd still argue with you, I'd still say your thoughts are subjective because I can't see into your mind.
Your premises are no less valid or invalid to me for having or not having a conscience...
So thats why I don't see why you need to come from the notion that your conscience exists in reality. I really don't care if it does, first, and second, you can't prove it does, so... why?
Why do I think? Thats my business, fuck off, lol jk.
|
On May 06 2010 05:09 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 04:42 MiraMax wrote:On May 06 2010 04:23 Yurebis wrote:On May 06 2010 04:15 MiraMax wrote:On May 06 2010 03:47 Yurebis wrote:
Miramax there can't be a factual subjective because the subjective is not part of reality. To put it in your view, it's not demonstrable whether you or "we" think something or not, it's assumed on our (factual, observable) actions in reality. You crying does not prove that youre sad, it's assumed that you're sad. You could be faking. And we can never know whether you really dreamed about an unicorn, even though you can say you did and we can just assume you did. You could be lying. We would never know. Still not factual. Still not part of reality.
If you really hold this view you would need to conclude that your thoughts are not factual, just because you can't demonstrate them to anybody else. Is that what you mean? yes On May 06 2010 04:15 MiraMax wrote:I for one, do think that my thoughts are real and factual. It is a meta-physical claim up to a certain extent, just like any ontological claim has a meta-physical component. But I actually think that practically everybody thinks that his thoughts are real. Ok, but why make that claim? Doesn't seem to accomplish anything, besides just fog what is objective and subjective. I make this claim in the same way and for the same reason that I make the claim that something I can see, touch and smell is real. Because it is a meaningful basis of operations. If you think your thoughts are not real, then why think at all? And how could you think that you could accomplish anything by critical thinking if thoughts are not real? You don't think that "cogito ergo sum" might have at least some merit? I'm a determinist so not really. You could be a robot with no thoughts and I'd still argue with you, I'd still say your thoughts are subjective because I can't see into your mind. Your premises are no less valid or invalid to me for having or not having a conscience... So thats why I don't see why you need to come from the notion that your conscience exists in reality. I really don't care if it does, first, and second, you can't prove it does, so... why? Why do I think? Thats my business, fuck off, lol jk.
What does a determinist like yourself believe, anyway? Do you believe that the whole of reality is "determined," including your thoughts, beliefs, personal expressions, etc. Or do you believe that these things aren't determined?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
