Silly Subjectivism

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Twirlip
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 06:55 am
@apehead,
apehead;169891 wrote:
Good Point. I guess you could say that I'm not an orthodox radical skeptic, i.e. I still think that actual, real, objective knowledge may be possible, but it would require omniscience and observation beyond the limitations of the mind and body.

I'm inclined to agree with you here (although I think that "omniscience" may be overstating it). Something of a theistic nature seems to be implied - did I but know the logic needed for the implication! - by my intuitively grounded belief in the possibility of reliable objective judgement by such obviously ridiculously unreliable biological beings as ourselves. But it is theism that is (seemingly, at least) implied by the belief in a reliable faculty of judgement, not the other way around. The God I am vaguely starting to believe in is a form of Self, but obviously not any particular human self.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 06:58 am
@apehead,
apehead;169891 wrote:

First, I'd like to congratulate you on solving the whole nature-nurture (chicken-egg) problem. And second, who determines the persons rudeness? The others around said acting individual? God? The Sheriff? Why are their opinions on rudeness more valid that the acting party?




To ask who determines the person's rudeness is like asking who determines the fire truck's redness. The answer in both cases is, no one. Why should anyone have to determine whether a fire truck is red for it to be red, and why should anyone have to determine that a person is rude for the person to be rude? Your question contains a false assumption, which is that someone has to determine that someone is rude for that person to be rude. Your question, in other words, commits the fallacy of begging the question. (Sometimes known in logic books as "the fallacy of many questions").
 
apehead
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 07:18 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;169904 wrote:
It is encouraging to know that you believe that to ask someone what he means by a term before you comment on it, is to make a "good point". That gives me some hope for you.

Now, let's see whether we can build on this sliver of a foundation. I think I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. I think so because I have overwhelming justification for that belief, and it is true. Now, why do you believe that I may not know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador? (You just may have to say a little about what is meant by the term "knowledge" to answer my question).

It may be your belief that you are justified in that statement, but since you must still take the raw data of your perception and strain it through the grey computer in your skull, the reality may be completely different. Perhaps you are in a catatonic coma, a dreamworld in which you've fabricated you, me, Quito, Ecuador, South America, The Earth, etc. As ridiculous as it sounds, there would be no way for you to prove or disprove either of our ontological hypothesis, making them equally possible.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 07:20 am
@apehead,
apehead;169923 wrote:
It may be your belief that you are justified in that statement, but since you must still take the raw data of your perception and strain it through the grey computer in your skull, the reality may be completely different. Perhaps you are in a catatonic coma, a dreamworld in which you've fabricated you, me, Quito, Ecuador, South America, The Earth, etc. As ridiculous as it sounds, there would be no way for you to prove or disprove either of our ontological hypothesis, making them equally possible.


But how does it follow from the fact that the reality may be different that I do not know what the reality is?
 
apehead
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 07:29 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;169925 wrote:
But how does it follow from the fact that the reality may be different that I do not know what the reality is?

Well, you may have guessed correctly, but you wouldn't know whether your theory was true or not, in the objective sense.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 07:46 am
@apehead,
apehead;169930 wrote:
Well, you may have guessed correctly, but you wouldn't know whether your theory was true or not, in the objective sense.


Why not? Why would I not know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador just because it might not be the capital of Ecuador. (You keep using this term,"objective sense" just as if I am supposed to know what that sense is. I don't.). How would I be guessing that Quito is the capital of Ecuador when all my maps, my encyclopedias, and the tons of information I have confirm that it is, and there is no reason to suppose that it is not. That is called "guessing" that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. Not according to my understanding of the word "guess" it isn't. Why don't you look up "guess" in a dictionary?
 
mark noble
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:10 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;169559 wrote:
Not my personal values at all. That kind of behavior is simply called rude behavior in English. Just as the color of a fire truck is called "red" in English. Anyone who would not call the color of the fire truck "red" would be either someone who did not know the meaning of color terms in English, or was color blind, or maybe, joking. Similarly, anyone who did not think that the student's behavior was rude would not know the meaning of the word, "rude" in English, or would have some mental problems, or would be joking. The difference between "red" and "rude" is, of course, "red" carries no moral connotations along with it, but "rude" does. I already explained by "rude" carries those moral connotations. It is because rude behavior is condemned by most people, as it well should be! Anything else?


Hi Ken ,

In MY story he's polite. Anything else?

Thank you, and have a lovely day.

Mark...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:11 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;169949 wrote:
Hi Ken ,

In MY story he's polite. Anything else?

Thank you, and have a lovely day.

Mark...


Not the same guy, then. That would just be like saying that in your story, the fire truck is green. In that case, it would not be the same truck.
 
apehead
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:12 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;169938 wrote:
Why not? Why would I not know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador just because it might not be the capital of Ecuador. (You keep using this term,"objective sense" just as if I am supposed to know what that sense is. I don't.). How would I be guessing that Quito is the capital of Ecuador when all my maps, my encyclopedias, and the tons of information I have confirm that it is, and there is no reason to suppose that it is not. That is called "guessing" that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. Not according to my understanding of the word "guess" it isn't. Why don't you look up "guess" in a dictionary?


OK, looks like some definitions are in order:

"Objective - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased; of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality"

"Fact - something that actually exists; reality; truth; something known to exist or to have happened; a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true"

"Guess - an opinion that one reaches or to which one commits oneself on the basis of probability alone or in the absence of any evidence whatever."

*(all definitions from Dictionary.com)

Now, please explain to me how a mortal human can determine an objective fact that isn't just a guess.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:17 am
@apehead,
apehead;169952 wrote:
OK, looks like some definitions are in order:

"Objective - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased; of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality"

"Fact - something that actually exists; reality; truth; something known to exist or to have happened; a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true"

"Guess - an opinion that one reaches or to which one commits oneself on the basis of probability alone or in the absence of any evidence whatever."

*(all definitions from Dictionary.com)

Now, please explain to me how a mortal human can determine an objective fact that isn't just a guess.


What makes you think I care whether or not Quito is the capital of Ecuador? Why should I. So, I must be quite objective about the proposition that Quito is the capital.

It is known that Quito is the capital, so it is a fact that it is.

I have an immense amount of evidence that Quito is the capital, therefore it cannot be a guess that it is.

Anything more?
 
fast
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:25 am
@kennethamy,
[QUOTE=kennethamy;168819]All facts are true. "True fact" is a pleonasm. The question is, what is the fact. For instance, is it a fact (is it true) that the attack on Dresden was an act of terrorism? That is where the controversy arises.[/QUOTE]

So, a fact and a truth are the same thing.

A proposition is either true or false, and all true propositions are facts, and since all facts are truths, all true propositions are truths.

But, there is a difference between propositions and what propositions are about. A proposition is what is expressed by a sentence, but what a proposition is about is not what is expressed by a sentence, but isn't what true propositions are about also facts? Thus, "fact" is ambiguous?

Strangely, a fact is about facts? Or to put it another way, a fact (or truth--or true proposition) is about not the propositions themselves but rather about what the propositions are about -- which are the world's objects and states of affairs.

Man, this stuff can get twisted mighty quick.

---------- Post added 05-28-2010 at 10:28 AM ----------

apehead;169952 wrote:
"Fact - something that actually exists; reality; truth; something known to exist or to have happened; a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true"


The rock is on the ground.

Is the rock a fact?
 
apehead
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:29 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;169955 wrote:
What makes you think I care whether or not Quito is the capital of Ecuador? Why should I.

I don't know why you care. You brought it up.
kennethamy;169955 wrote:
So, I must be quite objective about the proposition that Quito is the capital.

I don't understand this passage.

kennethamy;169955 wrote:
It is known that Quito is the capital, so it is a fact that it is.


I don't follow.

"Know - to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty"

"Truth - being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact"

Just because it is perceived as truth (known), doesn't make it objectively true (fact).

kennethamy;169955 wrote:
I have an immense amount of evidence that Quito is the capital, therefore it cannot be a guess that it is.


Sure it can. Since we are incapable of objective observation, you are relying on faith in the perception of others, and the probability that they haven't all been misinterpreting the data. So, according to the dictionary definition of guess, that is exactly what you are doing.

Anything more?[/QUOTE]
 
fast
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:32 am
@apehead,
apehead;169965 wrote:
Just because it is perceived as truth (known), doesn't make it objectively true (fact).
Perceived as true? Perceived as true doesn't imply knowledge. Knowledge (on the other hand) does imply truth, so if a proposition is known, then the proposition is true.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:33 am
@fast,
fast;169961 wrote:


So, a fact and a truth are the same thing.

A proposition is either true or false, and all true propositions are facts, and since all facts are truths, all true propositions are truths.

But, there is a difference between propositions and what propositions are about. A proposition is what is expressed by a sentence, but what a proposition is about is not what is expressed by a sentence, but isn't what true propositions are about also facts? Thus, "fact" is ambiguous?

Strangely, a fact is about facts? Or to put it another way, a fact (or truth--or true proposition) is about not the propositions themselves but rather about what the propositions are about -- which are the world's objects and states of affairs.

Man, this stuff can get twisted mighty quick.


Yes, there are two different senses of "fact". In one sense, it just means "a truth". When Jack Webb used to say, "Just the facts, Ma'm" on Dragnet, he just meant, just the truths, no embellishment.

But in a different sense, a fact is what makes a proposition or statement true. A fact is a "truth-maker". It is because of the fact that the cat is on the mat that the sentence, "the cat is on the mat" is true.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:36 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;169951 wrote:
Not the same guy, then. That would just be like saying that in your story, the fire truck is green. In that case, it would not be the same truck.


Hi Ken,

Colours don't have an opposing value on a spectrum of opinion, neither do capital cities. The manner in which I use these "silly (wise) Subjectivisms" is based on the presence of " An opposing value".
Great thread though!!!

Have a fantastic day Ken.

Mark...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:43 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;169972 wrote:
Hi Ken,

Colours don't have an opposing value on a spectrum of opinion, neither do capital cities. The manner in which I use these "silly (wise) Subjectivisms" is based on the presence of " An opposing value".
Great thread though!!!

Have a fantastic day Ken.

Mark...


Whatever that means. But, if you happen only to mean that although whether the fire truck is red is not a matter of opinion, but whether the student is rude is (and who knows what you mean?) then you are simply begging the question since you are assuming exactly what is at issue. That is just the question, and you are begging it.
 
apehead
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:55 am
@fast,
fast;169961 wrote:
The rock is on the ground.

Is the rock a fact?

You perceive the rock on the ground. Hence, you perceive it to be true that the rock is on the ground. According to the dictionary definition, you now know that the rock is on the ground. Now, whether or not that is a fact, or true objectively, external and independent from your perception, is an unanswerable question. The closest you can get is to observe other phenomena, and make an educated guess about the veracity of your perception.

In summary, we may perceive observations as true (knowing), but it is impossible (barring omniscience) to determine if those same observations are facts.

fast;169961 wrote:
Perceived as true? Perceived as true doesn't imply knowledge. Knowledge (on the other hand) does imply truth, so if a proposition is known, then the proposition is true.


Please see the above and the definitions of "Know", "Fact" and "True" I posted earlier.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 08:59 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;169975 wrote:
Whatever that means. But, if you happen only to mean that although whether the fire truck is red is not a matter of opinion, but whether the student is rude is (and who knows what you mean?) then you are simply begging the question since you are assuming exactly what is at issue. That is just the question, and you are begging it.


Hi Ken,

Don't you understand "opposing values" Good and Evil, Up and Down, Right and left, For and against, Wide and narrow, Deep and shallow, Heavy and light, Bravery and Cowardice, Saint and sinner, etc. There are lots of them - Pick up a "thesaurus" read the words within and (usually after the multiple likeness definitions) look up their opposites. It's great fun, AND knowledgeable too.

Let me know if you find any good (Evil) ones? see...

Thank you Ken, and have a great day.

Mark...
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 09:01 am
@apehead,
apehead;169952 wrote:
Now, please explain to me how a mortal human can determine an objective fact that isn't just a guess.

Isn't that the topic of Searle's The Construction of Social Reality? (Don't ask me, I haven't read it yet, but it looks like it.)
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 28 May, 2010 09:05 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;169980 wrote:
Hi Ken,

Don't you understand "opposing values" Good and Evil, Up and Down, Right and left, For and against, Wide and narrow, Deep and shallow, Heavy and light, Bravery and Cowardice, Saint and sinner, etc. There are lots of them - Pick up a "thesaurus" read the words within and (usually after the multiple likeness definitions) look up their opposites. It's great fun, AND knowledgeable too.

Let me know if you find any good (Evil) ones? see...

Thank you Ken, and have a great day.

Mark...


Up and down are opposing, but they are not values. Wide and narrow are opposing, but they are not values. Rude and polite are both, opposing and are values. But the values they have has nothing whatever to do with their opposition to each other. You are confusing opposition with value. (Aside from having begged the question. See my earlier post).
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/03/2021 at 01:27:12