Silly Subjectivism

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 04:05 pm
@kennethamy,
fast wrote:
Does the student think the student is polite? Go with it. If he does, then the irrelevant statement made by the student is correct


My initial post to you echoes kennethamy's last:

I don't understand how the student could think his actions were polite. I mean, it would seem to me that he doesn't know what the word "polite" means, as ken said. I suppose there's some wild interpretation you could conjure, but really, it doesn't seem plausible at all that the student could think he was being polite.

But I suppose your "Go with it" there meant that I should just give in to the hypothetical. Fine, fine.
 
Native Skeptic
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 04:06 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;168091 wrote:
Once more we hear the slogan, "One man's so and so, is another man's such and such" ("one man's rude is another's polite", and the prize of them all, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter") which, like all bumper sticker sagacities have a certain initial plausibility, butwhich on any kind of examination, fall apart. Of course, like all such things, they are true about trivialities like, "One man's tastiness is another man's disgusting" since we all know that tastes differ (although not so much as we think they do) and there is, as they say, no arguing about tastes. That is, there is no correct or incorrect when it comes to taste. But when it comes to serious matters, it becomes clear that the slogan in question is simply false when it is understood as saying that there is no correct or incorrect. An example will show that. Someone swaggers into class while the instructor is lecturing, noisily sits down, starts talking loudly to his neighbors, takes out a newspaper, opens it to the sports pages, begins reading it, give a loud laugh every once in a while, all the time the instructor is trying to lecture. So, the instructor stops and says to the student, "You are very rude". The student looks up, and says pleasantly, "One man's rudeness is another man's politeness" and resumes reading the paper emitting loud horse-laughs every once in a while.

Is the student right? What the student was doing might have been rude "to the instructor", but it was "polite to the student".

When you are confronting an abstract slogan then, as Wittgenstein advises, "back to the rough ground". Give an example!


Subjectivism leaves no room for language. Language implies some concrete rules that interconnect and without the understanding of such rules and a cohesion to them, language is impossible.

And thus, one man's chicken cannot be another man's cow. Only if the language is not concrete can this be true, and even then, no language actually exists but only an assortment of sounds that only have meaning to the speaker.

I'm quite frankly surprised Subjectivists don't go on crazy rambles about beets when asking for directions, or talk about their hair when they want to purchase a pizza.

By cohering to a language they unwillingly admit the downfall to absolute Subjectivism; in order for interaction, there must be some concrete similarity, some point of reference. When I point to something and say ball and you understand, there must be something we both share, or you won't understand.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 04:06 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;168232 wrote:
But isn't it still rape, regardless what you, I, or even the pervert think it is?

I would answer: Yes, it is.


Hi Zetherin,

I completely agree with you! but I don't think the Sodomites or baalists would agree.

Best wishes Zetherin.

Mark...
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 04:08 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;168243 wrote:
Hi Zetherin,

I completely agree with you! but I don't think the Sodomites or baalists would agree.

Best wishes Zetherin.

Mark...


Well then that is the point. That this is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion.

And I think this applies to the opening post, too.

Native Skeptic wrote:
When I point to something and say ball and you understand, there must be something we both share, or you won't understand.


Yes, but the subjectivist will say, "Well, it's not a ball to me! It's only a ball to you" or some such nonsense.

This is why I think sometimes violence is the answer Very Happy
 
mark noble
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 04:16 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;168244 wrote:
Well then that is the point. That this is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion.

And I think this applies to the opening post, too.



Yes, but the subjectivist will say, "Well, it's not a ball to me! It's only a ball to you" or some such nonsense.

This is why I think sometimes violence is the answer Very Happy


Hi Zetherin,

Again, I completely agree. I don't condone violence though. But your use of it (the related phrase, that is) has given me a giggle... thank you for that.

And fruit magnificently, sir.

Mark...
 
fast
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 04:19 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;168241 wrote:
My initial post to you echoes kennethamy's last:

I don't understand how the student could think his actions were polite. I mean, it would seem to me that he doesn't know what the word "polite" means, as ken said. I suppose there's some wild interpretation you could conjure, but really, it doesn't seem plausible at all that the student could think he was being polite.

But I suppose your "Go with it" there meant that I should just give in to the hypothetical. Fine, fine.


So what if he doesn't know what "polite" means? What's important (I thought) was whether he was polite. I need not know what "knowledge" means in order to know something just as a polite child can be polite and not know what "polite" means.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 04:22 pm
@fast,
fast;168251 wrote:
So what if he doesn't know what "polite" means? What's important (I thought) was whether he was polite. I need not know what "knowledge" means in order to know something just as a polite child can be polite and not know what "polite" means.


No, that is what is important - whether something is polite or not.

But I am just saying, for the record, that it doesn't seem plausible for that student to have thought he was being polite.
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 04:55 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;168243 wrote:
but I don't think the Sodomites or baalists would agree.

At the risk of pursuing a highly unpleasant and unphilosophical tangent: what are you talking about? :eeek:
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 05:09 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;168228 wrote:
As far as that particular statement leads, Ken . I am one-sidedly FOR the complete destruction of such a vile human, commiting such a vile act. But, I am also aware of a global network of such-minded perverts that DO get a positive reaction from said example. And so are you, Ken. (aware, that is). If I were a judge on such a case, I Would burn them all alive, but I'm NOT.

Point remains "One man's pain is another man's pleasure"...Enough said.

Have a beautiful evening Ken.

Mark...


So what is your point? That there are two sides to every story? That's right. Almost anyway. But does that mean the the two sides are morally equvalent? That is silly subjectivism. So, what is your point? And what does "one man's X is another man's Y" mean? If anything?
 
Khethil
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 05:14 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;168211 wrote:
It might be used in that benign way, but, in fact it is not used that way...


Sure it is! I do it all the time, as do many I know, correspond with and hear. My point is that it's usage shouldn't always be assumed immediately to be the extremity I spoke of.

Good luck
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 05:16 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;168243 wrote:
Hi Zetherin,

I completely agree with you! but I don't think the Sodomites or baalists would agree.

Best wishes Zetherin.

Mark...


If forcing yourself on a woman when she does not want you is not forcible rape, then the term, "forcible rape" doesn't mean anything. Just as if the color of fire trucks is not red, then "red" does not mean anything. And what difference do the opinions of Sodomites or balists have to do with that fact? That the color of a fire truck is red is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. So who cares what the opinion is of someone who thinks that fire truck are purple?

---------- Post added 05-24-2010 at 07:20 PM ----------

fast;168251 wrote:
So what if he doesn't know what "polite" means? What's important (I thought) was whether he was polite. I need not know what "knowledge" means in order to know something just as a polite child can be polite and not know what "polite" means.


But if the student really thinks he was polite, then he clearly does not know what the word "polite" means.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 05:25 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
If forcing yourself on a woman when she does not want you is not forcible rape, then the term, "forcible rape" doesn't mean anything. Just as if the color of fire trucks is not red, then "red" does not mean anything. And what difference do the opinions of Sodomites or balists have to do with that fact? That the color of a fire truck is red is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. So who cares what the opinion is of someone who thinks that fire truck are purple?


Yes and this begs the question: what things are actually matters of opinion? And it's also interesting to point out those things which we confuse as being matters of opinion, when they are actually matters of fact.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 05:32 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;168091 wrote:
Once more we hear the slogan, "One man's so and so, is another man's such and such" ("one man's rude is another's polite", and the prize of them all, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter") which, like all bumper sticker sagacities have a certain initial plausibility, butwhich on any kind of examination, fall apart. Of course, like all such things, they are true about trivialities like, "One man's tastiness is another man's disgusting" since we all know that tastes differ (although not so much as we think they do) and there is, as they say, no arguing about tastes. That is, there is no correct or incorrect when it comes to taste. But when it comes to serious matters, it becomes clear that the slogan in question is simply false when it is understood as saying that there is no correct or incorrect. An example will show that. Someone swaggers into class while the instructor is lecturing, noisily sits down, starts talking loudly to his neighbors, takes out a newspaper, opens it to the sports pages, begins reading it, give a loud laugh every once in a while, all the time the instructor is trying to lecture. So, the instructor stops and says to the student, "You are very rude". The student looks up, and says pleasantly, "One man's rudeness is another man's politeness" and resumes reading the paper emitting loud horse-laughs every once in a while.

Is the student right? What the student was doing might have been rude "to the instructor", but it was "polite to the student".

When you are confronting an abstract slogan then, as Wittgenstein advises, "back to the rough ground". Give an example!



One man's silly subjectivism is another man's open-mindedness. Just kidding.

---------- Post added 05-24-2010 at 06:33 PM ----------

Zetherin;168278 wrote:
Yes and this begs the question: what things are actually matters of opinion? And it's also interesting to point out those things which we confuse as being matters of opinion, when they are actually matters of fact.

But what if the debate is about whether something is an opinion or a matter of fact? In some cases, the folks won't even agree on that. This goes back to the notion that proof is ultimately persuasion. What good is a person's certainty if others are not persuaded?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 05:37 pm
@kennethamy,
Reconstructo wrote:
In some cases, the folks won't even agree on that.


But remember, that is largely irrelevant. Something is a matter of opinion or it is not, regardless if we agree on it or not.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 05:38 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;168278 wrote:
Yes and this begs the question: what things are actually matters of opinion? And it's also interesting to note those things which we confuse as being matters of opinion, when they are actually a matters of fact.


I have not begged any question, since that means that I have assumed something that really needs proof. I think what you mean is not "begged the question". You mean, "raised the question". Isn't that right? Those two phrases are now being confused.

One of the problems with the phrase, "matter of opinion" is that it is sometimes confused with the term, "opinion" (by itself). My opinion that the child has measles is not a "matter of opinion". Either the child has measles or he does not. To say that it is my opinion that he has measles is only to hedge my bets. It is to say that I don't have enough information (or I am unable to say, based on the information I have) whether the child has measles. To say it is just a matter of opinion whether the child has measles is to say that there is no "fact of the matter" whether the child has measles. But that, of course, is false.

There is no contrast between fact and opinion as Reconstructo seems to imagine that is. My opinion that the child has measles may turn out to be true, that is, turn out to be a fact. To say that it is my opinion is, as I pointed out, just to hedge my bet. It is not to say the it isn't true that the child has measles. On the contrary, it is to say that it is true that he has measles, but I am not prepared to assert it is true.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 05:43 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;168286 wrote:
I have not begged any question, since that means that I have assumed something that really needs proof. I think what you mean is not "begged the question". You mean, "raised the question". Isn't that right? Those two phrases are now being confused.


Ah, yes, raise the question is what I meant. Sorry, I tend to use that phrase even though I am aware of the fallacy.

Quote:
One of the problems with the phrase, "matter of opinion" is that it is sometimes confused with the term, "opinion" (by itself). My opinion that the child has measles is not a "matter of opinion". Either the child has measles or he does not. To say that it is my opinion that he has measles is only to hedge my bets. It is to say that I don't have enough information (or I am unable to say, based on the information I have) whether the child has measles. To say it is just a matter of opinion whether the child has measles is to say that there is no "fact of the matter" whether the child has measles. But that, of course, is false.


Yes, that is right. But can you give me examples of things that are not matters of fact?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 05:49 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;168288 wrote:
Ah, yes, raise the question is what I meant. Sorry, I tend to use that phrase even though I am aware of the fallacy.



Yes, that is right. But can you give me examples of things that are not matters of fact?


I have. Whether vanilla tastes better than chocolate ice-cream is not a matter of fact, but a matter of opinion. In that case, there is no fact of the matter, which is to say that there is not true or false about whether vanilla tastes better than chocolate. Quine thinks that there are times when there is no fact of the matter about what I mean by what I say. That there may be a number of things that I might mean, but that there is no fact of the matter about which of them I do mean. He calls that the indeterminacy of meaning.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 06:13 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;168285 wrote:
But remember, that is largely irrelevant. Something is a matter of opinion or it is not, regardless if we agree on it or not.

I see what you are saying, and generally agree. But for the sake of friendly argument, let's imagine I did not. And I asserted that the statement above was a matter of opinion and not of fact.

Don't get me wrong. I find many many statements more than sufficiently proven, but I don't see how proof is anything more than effective persuasion. Wittgenstein wrote an excellent and quite skeptical book on mathematics (well, the book was assembled from remarks over the course of his career).

I think he makes a strong case that even mathematical proofs depend upon certain intuitions, certain things in theory arguable that are simply accepted. I mention mathematics because this is considered the queen of sciences, and even as something based on tautology. Well, even here, the skeptic has an opening. Personally, I prefer to understand the person I'm discussing, and try to not play insincere doubt games. But I still would currently say that the difference between opinion and fact is one of degree. Rorty makes a strong case that facts are sentences, even if they refer to reality. So facts are subject to all the complexities of language. For instance, ye old Quito issue. A practical man is going to agree with Kenneth and get along just fine. But there are dialectical weaknesses to this quite practical position.

---------- Post added 05-24-2010 at 07:14 PM ----------

kennethamy;168292 wrote:
I have. Whether vanilla tastes better than chocolate ice-cream is not a matter of fact, but a matter of opinion.

What is someone argued that this preference was a matter of fact. Yes, that would be silly. But how does one argue against this? Does one just use persuasion? Or is there a way to prove that flavor preferences are matters of opinion?

---------- Post added 05-24-2010 at 07:17 PM ----------

kennethamy;168272 wrote:

But if the student really thinks he was polite, then he clearly does not know what the word "polite" means.


Perhaps you will agree that meaning is found in use. But what if the use is extremely varied? Does one take a poll? And then the question of how one phrases the question(s) in such a survey. I know you hate Derrida and co., but some of those guys make good points on the difficulties of language.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 06:25 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;168299 wrote:
I see what you are saying, and generally agree. But for the sake of friendly argument, let's imagine I did not. And I asserted that the statement above was a matter of opinion and not of fact.



To say that it is a matter of opinion whether vanilla tastes better than chocolate is not to say that whether that is true or not cannot be known because of the lack of enough information, as you seem to believe. That is not what it means to say that something is "a matter of opinion". What it means to say that something is "a matter of opinion" is that there is no fact of the matter at all. There is nothing true or false about it. That is very different from saying that the physician's opinion is that the child has measles. There, an opinion is not a matter of opinion, since there is a fact of the matter whether the child has measles. He either has measles or he does not. It would be insane to say that whether the child has measles is a matter or opinion. That would mean that there was no fact of the matter. And that would be insane.

You are confusing opinion with matter of opinion.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 06:33 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;168308 wrote:
To say that it is a matter of opinion whether vanilla tastes better than chocolate is not to say that whether that is true or not cannot be known because of the lack of enough information, as you seem to believe. That is not what it means to say that something is "a matter of opinion". What it means to say that something is "a matter of opinion" is that there is no fact of the matter at all. There is nothing true or false about it. That is very different from saying that the physician's opinion is that the child has measles. There, an opinion is not a matter of opinion, since there is a fact of the matter whether the child has measles. He either has measles or he does not. It would be insane to say that whether the child has measles is a matter or opinion. That would mean that there was no fact of the matter. And that would be insane.

You are confusing opinion with matter of opinion.


I see why you would say that, but I still don't think it's that simple. Because it's a matter of opinion as to whether or not something is a matter of opinion. "Measles" is just a word, an abstraction. And doctors could argue about whether this word was applicable.

And who determines whether or not there is a fact of the matter or not? Is this something told us by unseen authority, or something humans must debate? Obviously it was once considered a fact that God ruled the universe. Now we call it a matter of opinion.

Furthermore, couldn't a person declare your quoted post above in its entirety a statement of opinion? Don't we depend on a certain amount of agreement to be understood? Aren't there implicit axioms in any successful conversation?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 12/03/2021 at 01:57:20