|
On May 06 2010 05:12 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 05:09 Yurebis wrote: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?
everything in reality, yes
consciousness... maybe but it's impossible to know.
However since no one knows the future, we act on an illusory sense of free will, that is no less relevant to concepts of responsibility and all. Free will can be redefined to be compatible w\ determinism.
Also let me be cute and say that just because "everything has a cause", doesn't mean that "everything is fatally determined to be", so I'm not emo, k?
|
On May 06 2010 04:09 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 02:02 Squeegy wrote: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.
But you are. To disagree with what I am saying would be to disagree with the law of non-contradiction. Now I wonder how many philosophers would do that?
As I said in my original post that you may be using words in a funny sense. Usually when people talk about subjective truth or fact they mean something like that X is true for me but not for you. And that is nonsense. If it is true for me, then it is also true for you. X cannot be both true and false.
"Chocolate is good." Is it true that chocolate is good? No. That is subjective. It may be true that chocolate is good to you though. And that is of course an objective truth.
|
On May 06 2010 05:25 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 04:09 MiraMax wrote:On May 06 2010 02:02 Squeegy wrote: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. It may be true that chocolate is good to you though. And that is of course an objective truth.
I wouldn't concede that. How do you go about proving it?
|
On May 06 2010 05:17 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 05:12 Gnosis wrote:On May 06 2010 05:09 Yurebis wrote: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? everything in reality, yes consciousness... maybe but it's impossible to know. However since no one knows the future, we act on an illusory sense of free will, that is no less relevant to concepts of responsibility and all. Free will can be redefined to be compatible w\ determinism. Also let me be cute and say that just because "everything has a cause", doesn't mean that "everything is fatally determined to be", so I'm not emo, k?
You must have had some poor experiences in the past with my question. You can be "cute" if you want, I'm not going to call you "emo" (why I would in the first place, I do not know). I take it then that you're a compatibilist of some form, that's fine. I really don't have the desire to get into a discussion of causal determination, or even our moral responsibility within a compatibilist framework (that would be for another thread). I'm certainly not a compatibilist myself, though feel it would be silly for me to deny that all choices are influenced in the very least (and so I think in this sense it could be said that they are "determined").
Was just wondering, thanks for the reply 
|
On May 06 2010 06:10 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 05:17 Yurebis wrote:On May 06 2010 05:12 Gnosis wrote:On May 06 2010 05:09 Yurebis wrote: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? everything in reality, yes consciousness... maybe but it's impossible to know. However since no one knows the future, we act on an illusory sense of free will, that is no less relevant to concepts of responsibility and all. Free will can be redefined to be compatible w\ determinism. Also let me be cute and say that just because "everything has a cause", doesn't mean that "everything is fatally determined to be", so I'm not emo, k? You must have had some poor experiences in the past with my question. You can be "cute" if you want, I'm not going to call you "emo" (why I would in the first place, I do not know). I take it then that you're a compatibilist of some form, that's fine. I really don't have the desire to get into a discussion of causal determination, or even our moral responsibility within a compatibilist framework (that would be for another thread). I'm certainly not a compatibilist myself, though feel it would be silly for me to deny that all choices are influenced in the very least (and so I think in this sense it could be said that they are "determined"). Was just wondering, thanks for the reply
np
YOU WERE MEANT TO WRITE THAT hurr
|
On May 06 2010 05:57 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 05:25 Squeegy wrote:On May 06 2010 04:09 MiraMax wrote:On May 06 2010 02:02 Squeegy wrote: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. It may be true that chocolate is good to you though. And that is of course an objective truth. I wouldn't concede that. How do you go about proving it?
If it is true that chocolate is good to you, then it obviously is true for me as well that chocolate is good to you. Why wouldn't it be?
|
On May 06 2010 06:15 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 06:10 Gnosis wrote:On May 06 2010 05:17 Yurebis wrote:On May 06 2010 05:12 Gnosis wrote:On May 06 2010 05:09 Yurebis wrote: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? everything in reality, yes consciousness... maybe but it's impossible to know. However since no one knows the future, we act on an illusory sense of free will, that is no less relevant to concepts of responsibility and all. Free will can be redefined to be compatible w\ determinism. Also let me be cute and say that just because "everything has a cause", doesn't mean that "everything is fatally determined to be", so I'm not emo, k? You must have had some poor experiences in the past with my question. You can be "cute" if you want, I'm not going to call you "emo" (why I would in the first place, I do not know). I take it then that you're a compatibilist of some form, that's fine. I really don't have the desire to get into a discussion of causal determination, or even our moral responsibility within a compatibilist framework (that would be for another thread). I'm certainly not a compatibilist myself, though feel it would be silly for me to deny that all choices are influenced in the very least (and so I think in this sense it could be said that they are "determined"). Was just wondering, thanks for the reply np YOU WERE MEANT TO WRITE THAT hurr
Depends what you mean by "meant"
|
On May 06 2010 06:20 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 05:57 Yurebis wrote:On May 06 2010 05:25 Squeegy wrote:On May 06 2010 04:09 MiraMax wrote:On May 06 2010 02:02 Squeegy wrote: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. It may be true that chocolate is good to you though. And that is of course an objective truth. I wouldn't concede that. How do you go about proving it? If it is true that chocolate is good to you, then it obviously is true for me as well that chocolate is good to you. Why wouldn't it be?
I don't follow.
Unless you mean good like, for my health?
|
On May 06 2010 06:32 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 06:20 Squeegy wrote:On May 06 2010 05:57 Yurebis wrote:On May 06 2010 05:25 Squeegy wrote:On May 06 2010 04:09 MiraMax wrote:On May 06 2010 02:02 Squeegy wrote: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. It may be true that chocolate is good to you though. And that is of course an objective truth. I wouldn't concede that. How do you go about proving it? If it is true that chocolate is good to you, then it obviously is true for me as well that chocolate is good to you. Why wouldn't it be? I don't follow. Unless you mean good like, for my health?
I actually meant the taste, but it was just an example. Good can mean chicken here and what I said would still be true.
|
How do you know if it tastes good for me?
I could be lying, I could be delusional
You have no objective way of knowing... you can only assume what I say or how I react translates into me liking it
|
On May 06 2010 07:02 Yurebis wrote:
How do you know if it tastes good for me?
I could be lying, I could be delusional
You have no objective way of knowing... you can only assume what I say or how I react translates into me liking it
Why do I need to know it for it to be true? Do you think general relativity became true only when Einstein thought it up?
|
On May 06 2010 07:05 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 07:02 Yurebis wrote:
How do you know if it tastes good for me?
I could be lying, I could be delusional
You have no objective way of knowing... you can only assume what I say or how I react translates into me liking it Why do I need to know it for it to be true? Do you think general relativity became true only when Einstein thought it up?
You don't need to know it to be true, but arguing that something is true when you don't know it to be true is pointless. Like claiming to know what's in a far away planet without going there.
Einstein had a whole set of premises to back him up... and I can't comment on the truth value of his theory because I personally have not read it...
But it's a theory on the physical reality, not the unreachable sphere of another person's consciousness. Very different claims.
If you can prove to me that you can read my mind, I concede that there can be a truth value in you claiming to know what other people think. Till then, you and me are assuming. Thats what the separation of subjective and objective is made for... the subjective isn't part of reality... etc.
|
On May 06 2010 07:56 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 07:05 Squeegy wrote:On May 06 2010 07:02 Yurebis wrote:
How do you know if it tastes good for me?
I could be lying, I could be delusional
You have no objective way of knowing... you can only assume what I say or how I react translates into me liking it Why do I need to know it for it to be true? Do you think general relativity became true only when Einstein thought it up? You don't need to know it to be true, but arguing that something is true when you don't know it to be true is pointless. Like claiming to know what's in a far away planet without going there. Einstein had a whole set of premises to back him up... and I can't comment on the truth value of his theory because I personally have not read it... But it's a theory on the physical reality, not the unreachable sphere of another person's consciousness. Very different claims. If you can prove to me that you can read my mind, I concede that there can be a truth value in you claiming to know what other people think. Till then, you and me are assuming. Thats what the separation of subjective and objective is made for... the subjective isn't part of reality... etc.
You should pay attention to the word "if" in my post.
But I'll try again. This is what I'm saying: If something is true then it cannot be false. It is true that chocolate tastes good to you, if, and only if, chocolate tastes good to you. If you agree with these two statements, then in what sense could it be true for you, that chocolate tastes good to you, and false for me, that chocolate tastes good to you? It can't because that is nonsense. There are only objective truths.
|
On May 06 2010 08:44 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 07:56 Yurebis wrote:On May 06 2010 07:05 Squeegy wrote:On May 06 2010 07:02 Yurebis wrote:
How do you know if it tastes good for me?
I could be lying, I could be delusional
You have no objective way of knowing... you can only assume what I say or how I react translates into me liking it Why do I need to know it for it to be true? Do you think general relativity became true only when Einstein thought it up? You don't need to know it to be true, but arguing that something is true when you don't know it to be true is pointless. Like claiming to know what's in a far away planet without going there. Einstein had a whole set of premises to back him up... and I can't comment on the truth value of his theory because I personally have not read it... But it's a theory on the physical reality, not the unreachable sphere of another person's consciousness. Very different claims. If you can prove to me that you can read my mind, I concede that there can be a truth value in you claiming to know what other people think. Till then, you and me are assuming. Thats what the separation of subjective and objective is made for... the subjective isn't part of reality... etc. You should pay attention to the word "if" in my post. But I'll try again. This is what I'm saying: If something is true then it cannot be false. It is true that chocolate tastes good to you, if, and only if, chocolate tastes good to you. If you agree with these two statements, then in what sense could it be true for you, that chocolate tastes good to you, and false for me, that chocolate tastes good to you? It can't because that is nonsense. There are only objective truths.
Ok I see what you mean now.
I don't know if I made the same mistake that I'm about to imply you did (I might have) but
it would do us good if we separated objectively true to subjectively true.
Me liking chocolate is subjectively true, because it depends entirely on myself to make it true or not. It can't become part of reality just by me wishing it so, and because it is not part of reality, it cannot be objectively true.
objective truths are true statements on reality
subjective truths are true statements on a subject's conscience, preference, experience
how bout that.
conflating the two types just makes it unnecessarily confusing imo, and just a matter of semantics really
|
On May 06 2010 09:13 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 08:44 Squeegy wrote:On May 06 2010 07:56 Yurebis wrote:On May 06 2010 07:05 Squeegy wrote:On May 06 2010 07:02 Yurebis wrote:
How do you know if it tastes good for me?
I could be lying, I could be delusional
You have no objective way of knowing... you can only assume what I say or how I react translates into me liking it Why do I need to know it for it to be true? Do you think general relativity became true only when Einstein thought it up? You don't need to know it to be true, but arguing that something is true when you don't know it to be true is pointless. Like claiming to know what's in a far away planet without going there. Einstein had a whole set of premises to back him up... and I can't comment on the truth value of his theory because I personally have not read it... But it's a theory on the physical reality, not the unreachable sphere of another person's consciousness. Very different claims. If you can prove to me that you can read my mind, I concede that there can be a truth value in you claiming to know what other people think. Till then, you and me are assuming. Thats what the separation of subjective and objective is made for... the subjective isn't part of reality... etc. You should pay attention to the word "if" in my post. But I'll try again. This is what I'm saying: If something is true then it cannot be false. It is true that chocolate tastes good to you, if, and only if, chocolate tastes good to you. If you agree with these two statements, then in what sense could it be true for you, that chocolate tastes good to you, and false for me, that chocolate tastes good to you? It can't because that is nonsense. There are only objective truths. Ok I see what you mean now. I don't know if I made the same mistake that I'm about to imply you did (I might have) but it would do us good if we separated objectively true to subjectively true. Me liking chocolate is subjectively true, because it depends entirely on myself to make it true or not. It can't become part of reality just by me wishing it so, and because it is not part of reality, it cannot be objectively true. objective truths are true statements on reality subjective truths are true statements on a subject's conscience, preference, experience how bout that. conflating the two types just makes it unnecessarily confusing imo, and just a matter of semantics really
I'm not really sure what mistake you think I made.
My playing football depends entirely on myself to make it true or not. I also have a feeling that you're using 'reality' to mean something like the world outside ourselves instead of what is actually real (it is real that I like chocolate). I'm not really sure if you disagree or are just trying to reason why we still should use the term subjective truth.
|
On May 06 2010 09:46 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 09:13 Yurebis wrote:On May 06 2010 08:44 Squeegy wrote:On May 06 2010 07:56 Yurebis wrote:On May 06 2010 07:05 Squeegy wrote:On May 06 2010 07:02 Yurebis wrote:
How do you know if it tastes good for me?
I could be lying, I could be delusional
You have no objective way of knowing... you can only assume what I say or how I react translates into me liking it Why do I need to know it for it to be true? Do you think general relativity became true only when Einstein thought it up? You don't need to know it to be true, but arguing that something is true when you don't know it to be true is pointless. Like claiming to know what's in a far away planet without going there. Einstein had a whole set of premises to back him up... and I can't comment on the truth value of his theory because I personally have not read it... But it's a theory on the physical reality, not the unreachable sphere of another person's consciousness. Very different claims. If you can prove to me that you can read my mind, I concede that there can be a truth value in you claiming to know what other people think. Till then, you and me are assuming. Thats what the separation of subjective and objective is made for... the subjective isn't part of reality... etc. You should pay attention to the word "if" in my post. But I'll try again. This is what I'm saying: If something is true then it cannot be false. It is true that chocolate tastes good to you, if, and only if, chocolate tastes good to you. If you agree with these two statements, then in what sense could it be true for you, that chocolate tastes good to you, and false for me, that chocolate tastes good to you? It can't because that is nonsense. There are only objective truths. Ok I see what you mean now. I don't know if I made the same mistake that I'm about to imply you did (I might have) but it would do us good if we separated objectively true to subjectively true. Me liking chocolate is subjectively true, because it depends entirely on myself to make it true or not. It can't become part of reality just by me wishing it so, and because it is not part of reality, it cannot be objectively true. objective truths are true statements on reality subjective truths are true statements on a subject's conscience, preference, experience how bout that. conflating the two types just makes it unnecessarily confusing imo, and just a matter of semantics really I'm not really sure what mistake you think I made. My playing football depends entirely on myself to make it true or not. I also have a feeling that you're using 'reality' to mean something like the world outside ourselves instead of what is actually real (it is real that I like chocolate). I'm not really sure if you disagree or are just trying to reason why we still should use the term subjective truth.
Look, it may be true that you like chocolate, and I can say that it is true that I like chocolate, OK, I conceded that, but my point is that these truths are verifiable only to ourselves, and that's why I think it's worth to put them on a separate category of truths.
And your mistake I implied to be that you did not separate them, you're conflating objective truths (statements on the world that have been verified to be true) with subjective truths (statements on your mind that can only be verified and have been verified to be true by you)
but whatever maybe I'm the one being a semantical dick this time.
|
Of course I am conflating them because there is only one way for something to be true. This is not a mistake. Now, I suppose you can use the distinction if you wish, but make sure you explain how you use the terms because a lot of people will point out what I just did (that all truths are objective).
|
if by objective you mean "existing as an object in reality"
then explain or demonstrate to me how can a subjective truth exist in reality
I don't know man, do you call tautologies objective truths too?
It's just a weird use of the word truth when there's no discernment
no, bad example, meh I'm confused. whatever.
ok, it is semantics. simply said, I don't believe your nor mine liking to chocolate to be an object in the real world and therefore, it can't be an objective truth
but you don't have that same definition of truth since you say all truths are objective, and I don't even know what objective means in yours.
I don't like word wars though so whatever.
|
On May 06 2010 05:25 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 04:09 MiraMax wrote:On May 06 2010 02:02 Squeegy wrote: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. But you are. To disagree with what I am saying would be to disagree with the law of non-contradiction. Now I wonder how many philosophers would do that? As I said in my original post that you may be using words in a funny sense. Usually when people talk about subjective truth or fact they mean something like that X is true for me but not for you. And that is nonsense. If it is true for me, then it is also true for you. X cannot be both true and false. "Chocolate is good." Is it true that chocolate is good? No. That is subjective. It may be true that chocolate is good to you though. And that is of course an objective truth.
I do not understand how subjective facts violate the law of non-contradiction. Could you explain that?
I think that thoughts and states of mind are real, they are facts. I come to this conclusion by seeing the consequences of my thoughts. I can make a calculation in my head, get to a result and then apply this result in reality where everybody can see the consequences. I can even make mistakes in my calculation and when I see an ill effect in reality, I can reflect on it and correct it. Since I believe that something unreal cannot have an effect on something real,I conclude that my thoughts are real and factual and from what I got, you would agree there.
In philosophy those facts which are contingent on a single mind are referred to as subjective. There is currently a big debate in contemporary philosophy about the consequences of some special aspects of this distinction. In the football example of Yurebis you say that the fact that somebody likes football is an objective truth. But how do you establish that? Which objective method do you use? As long as personal inquiry is all you have, there is, in my opinion, a meaningful distinction to be made. Likewise are experiences of situations so tied to the mind of the person that experiences it, that the experience itself is a subjective fact. It is a part of reality, but in a different way than the "state of affairs" that is experienced.
It is true that subjective and objective are used slightly differently in everyday talk, but would you say that the differentiation is meaningless to you?
|
Those are some nice videos. "Open-mindedness" one reminded me of my psyhological portrait at Keirsey.com:
Architects (INTP) regard all discussions as a search for understanding, and believe their function is to eliminate inconsistencies, which can make communication with them an uncomfortable experience for many
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
