The end of the subjectivity debate

Your argument about subjectivity, is just subjective.

Subjectivity is a self defeating stance of itself.

Any argument including ones that use logic / evidence / proof is ultimately subjective
Although the name we give to these types of arguments is confusingly called objective
Because for us objective is not something that is mind independent but inter subjective

i tried to tell you, mandu.

Besides the ability to outargue that, this only means that your argument is just another subjective argument, that neither you nor anyone should give credence to or pay any heed towards.

Subjectivism is self defeating.

Your argument is that people should just ignore it and you should have never written it.

You have got that completely wrong because subjectivity exists on a spectrum :

At one end are opinions based on prejudice or ignorance that are logically fallacious and have no reason at all
At the other end are opinions based on fact or logically valid propositions and which are as rigorous as can be

So while everyone is entitled to their opinion not all opinions are of equal value : it helps to actually know this

But that’s just subjective.

Even the vague thing summoned by the name, long worn out, subjectivity: is subjective. Thus, the marvelous abyss.

On an interesting side note, in the university, there is an authoritative myth that subjectivity is distinguishable from an earnestly-believed-in god called “objectivity”. Ergo, the speed of certain objects when they fall, and other such matters, are less “subjective” according to this habit of the abiotic coming forth of all things.

Human beings, so called, don’t act out of reason any more than did the earthquake of Lisbon strike in order to signal a taking of sides in the Catholic Protestant debate, then richly topical and consuming all hearts and minds.

But that’s just subjective.

Point being that unless there are some objective standards, how can one know where a subjective statement lies on the “spectrum”? Might be nonsense, might be ‘God’s own truth’. It would be impossible to function effectively with only subjectivity.
:evilfun:

FIFY :wink:

A squirrel can tell the difference between a tree and dirt as well is I can … without any agreement between us.

A lizard finds a table just as I do.

These tasks seem to confound the greatest philosophers.

I have your back, man :wink:

:laughing:

Semantics, isn’t it great folks?

Jester: “my choice of words is better than your choice of words!”
Fool: “oh yeah? how would you describe this situation?”
Jester: “using the same mental acrobatics I did before, of course!”
Fool: “you rapscallion, that would imply x, y and z, which is silly”
Jester: “aha, but I have redefined x, y and z and therefor it’s not silly at all”
Fool: “you can’t just redefine x, y and z, they have a meaning, it’s in the dictionary”
Jester: “I can and I have, if you were not such a slave to authority you would think for yourself and agree with me!”
Fool: “I’m going to think by myself, good day sir!”

I didn’t write that.

Changing other people’s posts … what does that say about you?

This reminds me of the phrasing “but x is only a theory”.

The layman uses the term “theory” as conjecture, or at best “hypothesis”. Of course in the scientific world, there are many steps to take before even considering something to qualify highly enough as “theory”. Even a hypothesis isn’t simply a guess, it has to be founded on something… but when the layman sees that term “theory” in the scientific context, they take it in their own context and dismiss it easily thusly - when that is the last thing they ought to be doing.

“But x is just subjective”.

As above the layman understands “subjective” much the same as “arbitrary”. One may dismiss the arbitrary on the grounds that it may just as validly be thought of differently, with no reason to pick one over the other. But of course, the philosopher isn’t using the term “subjective” in this same way. Subjective merely implies the dependence of e.g. some phenomena on a person or consciousness for it to take the form that it takes - for instance qualia. Without human consciousness, what is the experience of yellowness but an electromagnetic wave frequency? All human knowledge, even, is human knowledge - requiring or at least involving a human to found it and take it to the point that passes for knowledge. Even if it is resolved that the inclusion of the human does not ultimately appear to be necessary for such a thing to be known - such as with “objective” knowledge that seems to happen regardless of there being anyone there to perceive it. In such a case we have subjective methodology to potentially result in objective conclusions through a dialectic interaction between human understanding and that which humans are understanding: a subject-object interaction no less. There is quite clearly a presence of both.

Isn’t it then so convenient a toy for the layman or even the sophomore to play with: the phrase “but that’s just subjective” - being either not wiling or able to appreciate the meaning of the word in its appropriate context?

You’re not worthless, Ecmandu, but what you are resorting to here is truly facile and deserving of its treatment as such. You should be ashamed of resorting to such low depths, and correct yourself as quickly as possible.

The name of your fallacy is “Equivocation”.

I’m guilty of no underhandedness, but what does criticizing someone’s means of conveyance say about you? Well, I guess it depends whose microscope you’re under.

It’s certainly not equivocation when the primary argument in those threads is that truth is ONLY subjective.

And here: you’re also misrepresenting my entire use of the word “only”.

It literally means ONLY in the logical sense, and ONLY in the sense of dismissiveness.

Subjectivists are using both these meanings as well.

What I’m saying is fair

No! should be,

“Your argument about [personal, etc.] subjectivity, is on the meta-subjective level.”

At the meta-subjective level we bring out all the relevant tools of philosophy to extract what is objectivity from intersubjectivity.

Therefore our argument about subjectivity [or anything else] can be made objective when we rely [via intersubjective consensus] on philosophy-proper and its tools to infer whatever as objective.

Note scientific theories are claimed to be the most objective [relative] of all human knowledge at present, BUT note, according to Popper [as implied] scientific theories are at best, merely polished [via intersubjective consensus] subjective conjectures.

It is equivocation.
You are using different concepts of ‘subjectivity’ in the same sense, i.e.

  1. Subjective as in one person’s subjective judgment
  2. Subjective as in many subjects arriving at intersubjective consensus

You are equivocating and conflating 1 and 2.

Objectivity is always reducible to subjectivity, i.e. intersubjectivity consensus by many subjects but not to the view of one subject [which is also subjective].

Here’s an open post for all to respond:

Why can’t objects exist without subjects? How do subjects observe them if they don’t exist?

Here’s what subjectivists look like to objectivists:

Some of the best proofs we have are called inferential proofs.

The most popular one is the well ordered set of counting numbers, which we will never count all of, so how can we know that it’s a complete ordered set. We just do.

So, in comes the subjectivist, and says it’s not a well ordered set, prove it, count them all.

Objectivists understand that you can make this argument, but it is absurd.

That’s how a subjectivist looks to an objectivist