Silly Subjectivism

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Arjuna
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 06:44 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;168308 wrote:
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.
To refer to a physician's diagnosis when the thread has contained references to rape is to suggest that moral judgements are equivalent in character to empirical results.

In other words, you're suggesting moral absolutes. Is that what you intended to say?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 06:45 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;168313 wrote:
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.



It is not a matter of opinion whether it is a matter of opinion whether vanilla or chocolate ice-cream tastes better since there is no fact of the matter about whether something tastes better or not. Of course a physician could argue about whether the word "measles" is applicable to the malaise the child is suffering from. Doctors often argue about the diagnosis of a disease. Sometimes it is difficult to be sure whether the person has a particular disease of not. What has that to do with the word, "measles" though, is more than I can tell. Are you actually saying that we cannot apply the word "measles" to a set of symptoms because the word is "abstract" (whatever that may mean)? In any case, the fact that doctors may not be sure whether the kid has measles or not is irrelevant to whether the kid has measles or not. The kid either has measles or he does not. It is not a matter of opinion whether the kid has measles. It is a matter of fact.

---------- Post added 05-24-2010 at 08:50 PM ----------

Arjuna;168325 wrote:
To refer to a physician's diagnosis when the thread has contained references to rape is to suggest that moral judgements are equivalent in character to empirical results.

In other words, you're suggesting moral absolutes. Is that what you intended to say?


What are you talking about? What has measles to do with rape? Please, do get a grip.

In fact, whether or not someone has been forcibly raped is not a moral question. It is a factual and legal question. Of course, we do make moral judgments about the legal/fact. But that is something different. But whether rape has occurred or not is not a moral question. It is, as I said, a factual/legal question.
Of course, whether someone has been statutorily raped is a question of the person's age (a factual question) and the law (a legal question). Again, it is not a moral question.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 07:05 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;168326 wrote:
It is not a matter of opinion whether it is a matter of opinion whether vanilla or chocolate ice-cream tastes better since there is no fact of the matter about whether something tastes better or not.

But that's just your opinion....Smile
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 07:09 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;168339 wrote:
But that's just your opinion....Smile


Ugh. It is my opinion, certainly, But what makes you think it is just my opinion?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 07:09 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;168326 wrote:
Sometimes it is difficult to be sure whether the person has a particular disease of not. What has that to do with the word, "measles" though, is more than I can tell. Are you actually saying that we cannot apply the word "measles" to a set of symptoms because the word is "abstract" (whatever that may mean)? In any case, the fact that doctors may not be sure whether the kid has measles or not is irrelevant to whether the kid has measles or not. The kid either has measles or he does not. It is not a matter of opinion whether the kid has measles. It is a matter of fact.


Measles is an abstraction that organizes experience. We can point to certain "symptoms" ("symptom" is an abstraction, which already implies the abstraction "disease" --concepts exist systematically) and more convincingly we can take samples and look at certain germs in a microscope. Even to name these germs is to see them as unities in a certain context. From a practical point of view, all of this is unnecessary. And the measles are better treated by a doctor than a philosopher. But when it comes to other issues, the abstractions are still omnipresent. Many of our facts depend on abstractions for there truth. This means you can't simply point at something, but must be understood. Even your favorite Quito line depends on someone understand the abstraction of a capital city. And "Quito" the proper name is the unification of various buildings and laws, etc. etc.Smile

---------- Post added 05-24-2010 at 08:12 PM ----------

kennethamy;168344 wrote:
Ugh. It is my opinion, certainly, But what makes you think it is just my opinion?


I didn't say it was just your opinion. I'm just suggesting the issue is more complicated than the way you present it.

This ties into the proof/persuasion issue. What is truth? Is truth something that person treats as the case? Or something that a plurality of persons agrees upon? Does truth wait outside of us for recognition? Is truth the by-product of the language use of a particular form of life?
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 07:31 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;168345 wrote:
What is truth? Is truth something that person treats as the case? Or something that a plurality of persons agrees upon?

According to the Channel 4 television documentary Dispatches: The Lost Girls of South Africa (which, I should caution you, is almost unbearable to watch), in a survey of a quarter of a million schoolchildren in that country, 63% of male respondents stated that forcing sex on someone is not an act of violence. Is the endemic rape of young girls in that country then not truly violent?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 07:48 pm
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;168356 wrote:
According to the Channel 4 television documentary Dispatches: The Lost Girls of South Africa (which, I should caution you, is almost unbearable to watch), in a survey of a quarter of a million schoolchildren in that country, 63% of male respondents stated that forcing sex on someone is not an act of violence. Is the endemic rape of young girls in that country then not truly violent?


Depends on who you ask, I guess. "Violence" is another abstraction. And yes, I know what it generally means. Good writers often avoid fuzziness by presenting particulars. What does "forcing sex" mean to the respondents? Is it persistence or handcuffs and duct tape? You see what I mean? As long as we play with abstractions, we are blowing smoke.
Hey, I hate rape. But that doesn't mean I'm going to dialectically fold on a significant issue, just because language gets abused. Hell, that survey just supports my point. We can't afford to be naive about the slipperiness of language.

Laws should be as precise and clear as possible. So should surveys. But generality is often useful. No easy solution. Smile
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 07:54 pm
@Reconstructo,
Its not a matter of opinion that either vanilla or chocolate tastes better.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 08:08 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;168292 wrote:
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.


I will have to research this "indeterminacy of meaning".
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 10:32 pm
@Reconstructo,
The majority of people take truth to be something other than merely what the majority of people take truth to be. Therefore, even if truth is merely what the majority of people take truth to be, then truth is not merely what the majority of people take truth to be. Therefore, truth is not merely what the majority of people take truth to be. Therefore, truth is what (but not merely what) the majority of people take truth to be. :shifty:
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 07:50 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;168345 wrote:


---------- Post added 05-24-2010 at 08:12 PM ----------




This ties into the proof/persuasion issue. What is truth? Is truth something that person treats as the case? Or something that a plurality of persons agrees upon? Does truth wait outside of us for recognition? Is truth the by-product of the language use of a particular form of life?


Truth is not something that any one treats as the case, since it would be true even if no one treated it as the case. It is not something that a plurality of persons agrees on, since it would be true even if no one agreed it was. Yes, it may wait outside us for recognition since there have been many truths which went unrecognized. No, truth is not a by-product of anything (although, of course, without language it could not be expressed).

I hope that answers all of your questions. Although I don't see what your questions have to do with silly subjectivism.

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 09:58 AM ----------

GoshisDead;168364 wrote:
Its not a matter of opinion that either vanilla or chocolate tastes better.


Well, now you have said so, we know I am wrong. We will all now turn to you as the voice of authority. Yours is another kind of silly subjectivism masquerading as objectivism. "I say it, so it is true". Give me a break!

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 10:04 AM ----------

Reconstructo;168363 wrote:
Depends on who you ask, I guess. "Violence" is another abstraction.


Could you say what difference that makes (whatever it means)? Yes, "violence" (the word) is not violence. Agreed. So what? What am I supposed to conclude from that? You too, give me a break!
 
mark noble
 
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 08:30 am
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;168262 wrote:
At the risk of pursuing a highly unpleasant and unphilosophical tangent: what are you talking about? :eeek:


Hi Twirlip,

The inhabitants of Sodom (which God destroyed) And the worshippers of Baal (A decadent false deity).

Have a great day

Mark...
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 08:41 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;168570 wrote:
The inhabitants of Sodom (which God destroyed) And the worshippers of Baal (A decadent false deity).

I repeat, what are you talking about?
 
fast
 
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 09:00 am
@GoshisDead,
[QUOTE=GoshisDead;168364]Its not a matter of opinion that either vanilla or chocolate tastes better.[/QUOTE]
If it's not a matter of opinion, then it's a matter of fact, and if it's a matter of fact, then it's either true or false that vanilla tastes better than chocolate, but I don't see that it's true or false that vanilla tastes better than chocolate.

Does the sentence, "Vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate ice cream" actually express a proposition? Meaningful yes, but cognitively meaningful? I don't think so since it's not true or false (hence, not a matter of fact--but instead a matter of opinion) that one tastes better than the other.

Now, if I can just say it twice more! It'll definitely be true.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 09:56 am
@fast,
fast;168577 wrote:

If it's not a matter of opinion, then it's a matter of fact, and if it's a matter of fact, then it's either true or false that vanilla tastes better than chocolate, but I don't see that it's true or false that vanilla tastes better than chocolate.

Does the sentence, "Vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate ice cream" actually express a proposition? Meaningful yes, but cognitively meaningful? I don't think so since it's not true or false (hence, not a matter of fact--but instead a matter of opinion) that one tastes better than the other.

Now, if I can just say it twice more! It'll definitely be true.


The fact of the matter is given two discrete preference inputs one is prefered over the other, all the time. If we extend the range of discrete preference to suicide bombing, the bomber will be either a freedom fighter or a terrorist all the time. However since a suicide bomber is a singular entity with variable preference unlike chocolate and vanilla which are two discrete entities, the suicide bomber is simultaneously a a freedom fighter and a terrorist. There is no need for him/her to be one or the other aside from a definition a third party imposes on the actions taken by the bomber.
 
Native Skeptic
 
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 10:10 am
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;168571 wrote:
I repeat, what are you talking about?



Star Trek. Baal taught the village folk to kill the pointy-eared devil.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 10:19 am
@kennethamy,
Goshisdead wrote:

There is no need for him/her to be one or the other aside from a definition a third party imposes on the actions taken by the bomber.


Of course we're going to use the definitions. What do you mean we impose the definitions, though? The actions taken by the bomber are what make him a terrorist, and not, say, a humanitarian.
 
fast
 
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 10:26 am
@GoshisDead,
[QUOTE=GoshisDead;168594]The fact of the matter is given two discrete preference inputs one is prefered over the other, all the time. [/QUOTE]

I like the taste of vanilla ice cream better than I do the taste of chocolate ice cream. That is not a matter of opinion. That is a matter of fact.

That vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate is not a matter of fact. It's a matter of opinion. Even if everyone alive today preferred the taste of vanilla ice cream over the taste of chocolate ice cream, not even that wouldn't change the fact that it's a matter of opinion.

"Better" versus "better to"; that the taste of vanilla is better to me doesn't imply that it's therefore better. That the taste of chocolate is better (to more people than not) doesn't imply that it's therefore better.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 10:30 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;168598 wrote:
Of course we're going to use the definitions. What do you mean we impose the definitions, though? The actions taken by the bomber are what make him a terrorist, and not, say, a humanitarian.


The idea I was attempting to get accross is that the bomber is both, or rather anywhere/all definitions on the scale between the two since, unlike the inept example of vanilla and chocolate which are discrete inputs the bomber is singular input witnessed on a relative kline. Much like a language or dialect continuum the bomber's actions serve different functions/ Isofunctions or isofunction bundles within the cultural system of the witness. In one system s/he serves an actual freedom fighter function, integral to the perpetuation of the system. In another s/he serves a terror function, also integral to the perpetuation of the system. It is legitimate to call the person both, and to an unbiased observer, which none of us are, it could be that the bomber serves either no function in the system or all functions between two possible poles in the system. Also along the cultural continuum between the two cultural systems the bomber can serve any integral function between the two poles, making the bomber both freedom fighter and terrorist and anything inbetween for the continuum system as a whole.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 10:43 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;168602 wrote:
The idea I was attempting to get accross is that the bomber is both, or rather anywhere/all definitions on the scale between the two since, unlike the inept example of vanilla and chocolate which are discrete inputs the bomber is singular input witnessed on a relative kline. Much like a language or dialect continuum the bomber's actions serve different functions/ Isofunctions or isofunction bundles within the cultural system of the witness. In one system s/he serves an actual freedom fighter function, integral to the perpetuation of the system. In another s/he serves a terror function, also integral to the perpetuation of the system. It is legitimate to call the person both, and to an unbiased observer, which none of us are, it could be that the bomber serves either no function in the system or all functions between two possible poles in the system. Also along the cultural continuum between the two cultural systems the bomber can serve any integral function between the two poles, making the bomber both freedom fighter and terrorist and anything inbetween for the continuum system as a whole.


You are saying that because two cultures could consider the person differently (one culture could consider the person a freedom fighter, and the other a terrorist), that the person is both a freedom fighter and a terrorist. But this is false.

Remember that the issue is not what we think is true, but rather, what is true. No matter what anyone thinks, the person is either a terrorist or not.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 12/03/2021 at 12:32:42