Painful Truth has objected to my use of language saying I was an anarchist
using anarchist tactics by using “subjective vocabulary”
I just thought I was using language in the usual way.
Let us understand the difference.
I say to my wife, I love you. Now this cannot be objective because
of the word, Love. Does the word love mean the same thing to her
as it does to me? NO, it cannot because we have different experiences about love and
different expectations about love. So when I say to my wife, I love you.
She takes love to mean one thing and I take love to mean something else.
We have been together for 15 years so we have come to some rough understanding
of the word love, but no “objective” usage of the word love.
We each use words such as love, honor, peace, for example differently because
we each understanding the words different because of our different experiences
and different expectations. Take the word “philosophy” I understand that word
differently then say, kriswest and both of us understand the word “philosophy” different from
say IMP. So we have three people who understand the same word three different ways.
So when I convey thoughts about the word “philosophy” I am using the word
subjectively due to my experiences, and each of us use the word differently
because the three of us all experience the word “philosophy” differently.
There can not be any objective language because everybody has different experiences about
and different expectations about words.
the idea is to be able to come to a common and useably similar definition of any given word when you are communicating, even if it’s a silent agreement.
That’s why philosophers have to be very specific in their grammar, so as to remove as much ambiguity as possible.
If that’s true, then communication is impossible and the dictionary is irrelevant. “Love” could mean “hate”. Anarchy could mean libertarianism which could mean papistry which could mean Zoroastrianism. You use love as an example because it is a blend of the subjective and the objective, but that doesn’t mean the words usage can’t be, and is, communicated through context.
Like I said, the first target of the anarchist is the dictionary and you’re proving my point. You say you left anarchism because it was not possible to achieve it in the near future and became an (extremist) Democrat. No, you aren’t a Democrat, you’re working from within and using the Democrat Party which is pretty close to anarchy right now (moveon.org et al), toward the anarchy you never abandoned.
We learn what words mean from others. Likewise, we learn the names of things (including “subjective” feelings) from others. The formation of a person’s vocabulary is, first and foremost, a social process - so subjectivity is limited. It still creeps in though, because what words mean and what they stand for is often under dispute or never fully determined in the first place. Relatively few of the things we have names for are scientifically defined, after all - there’s so much ambiguity in words, and that’s a mixed blessing - it gives us freedom and allows creativity, but semantic confusion generates SO MUCH unecessary conflict in the world . . . particularly in philosophy!
Part of the problem is people’s hesitancy to exercise interpretive license - the meaning of a statement should never be judged solely on the words used to express that statement - the meaning of all statements is contextual, if not necessarily subjective. We need to learn to read beyond symbols in order to really communicate effectively.
I’m with the Paineful Truth here. While we can construct logical frameworks where was Peter is saying is true, from a realist perspective it cannot said to be true since it would demand that communication be ineffective and that you are reading what I am writing and understanding it shows that communication is indeed effective. I think a lot of the subjectivity vs. objectivity debate is a post-Christian hangover. If objectivity is defined as a God’s eye view of the situation, sure that doesn’t exist because God doesn’t exist (or at the very least, human beings cannon achieve a God’s eye view). If, instead, we root objectivity in humanity and the human experience we can readily see that it reigns. Saying that a red delicious apple is red is not a statement of a subjective opinion, it is an objective fact. And that is notwithstanding things like colorblind, which I am. If I tried to argue that the red delicious apple was green or, more properly red-green since I cannot properly distinguish the two, I would be wrong. Likewise with stoplights. I can’t argue that it is “green for stop and red for go” that has been defined outside of me and my condition. And if I were to try and reverse the signals or simply ignore them, I would be punished.
Given that it was knowingly bred for color as well as durability at the sacrifice of taste, I think the ‘delicious’ part was ironic on the part of the people who dubbed it.
The effectiveness/usefulness of communication can be seen in how it gets us what we want, not whether person A understands person B.
If I tell you “jump” and you jump, then my communicating my desires to you has been effective. However, I have no idea whether you really understood that I asked you to jump or you thought I said “Someone’s taking shots at your feet” and you jumped to avoid the bullet.
Such a formulation would render every effective piece of communication a miracle. That is a lot of miracles on any given day! Mr. Occam has a few things to say about that . . .
Well, there are different degrees of effectiveness, and some things are easier to communicate effectively than others. Sure, communication works often enough to make it necessary, but sometimes it doesn’t - like when Paineful T accuses Peter K of subjectifying words, obviously something has gone awry, wether it’s PK’s failure to accurately convey his meaning or PT’s failure to understand, or both. In a lot of cases, as gib pointed out, we may not even realize that we don’t understand one another - i may have completely misinterpreted your post and, had i chosen not to respond, we would never know - or maybe i understood and somebody else read it and misinterpreted it - that much at least, is subjective. PT’s assertion that PK is trying to spread anarchism through his ostensible misuse of language could very well be a perfect example of this if, for example, PK in fact has no such intentions - but again, we may never know for sure, because communication is at least subjective enough to preclude that kind of certainty.
Absolutely. I just wish “post-Christian” was, objectively speaking, a more apt desription of the zeitgeist
If you are using “objective” primarily to connote a broad, socially recognized consensus about something, then youre correct - but, in that sense, we’re then talking about DEGREES of objectivity or subjectivity - which, as you point out, kind of renders the strict sub/ob dichotomy increasingly obsolete - also notice, that, in that case, the meaning of “objective” is fairly ambiguous - which is ironic, but more importantly, also evocative of some of the limits of effective communication
I’ll agree the distinction is blurrier than in the theoretical God’s eye view, but I don’t think the line is abolished. I’d generally say ‘objective’ is that which we can’t control through substitution of symbols. If I swap “red” with “rot”, the apple does not change. Indeed, if I were able to undergo some operation that would eliminate my color-blindness, the apple wouldn’t change either merely my perception/symbol for it. The apple creates the phenomenon, I’m merely interpreting it.
Gib,
Check out what you said again:
If we accept that person A is unable to understand person B, then there is no reason why person B would react as person A desires short of a miracle. On the other hand, if person B is able to repeatedly and reliably react as person A desires after person A has attempted to communicate said desires, we can agree that person B does indeed understand person A.
You seem to be fond of using color-blindness in your examples, so let me offer something similar. We all know the common philosophical question: Do you see red as I see red, or do you see it as I see (say) green? If you see it as I see green, we’ll never know, for you would have been brought up and taught the English language just the same as me. You will call ‘red’ those things I see as red even though, were I to experience your perceptions, I’d call them ‘green’.
OK, so supposing you saw red as green (but learnt to call it ‘red’), if I asked you “Please pass me the red ball”, you’d probably pass me the red ball (the one I see as red). Yet when I tell you “The ball looks red to me”, you will consistently misinterpret my saying ‘red’ for the color green, for that’s what ‘red’ means to you. It doesn’t seem to affect the success of my communication with you one iota - at least, insofar as we can cooperatively get things done in the world (like passing me the red ball). This wouldn’t be a miracle.
You are using pointless skepticism. What useful results are gained from such a line of reasoning? What predictions can be made?
Does it matter what color “redness” actually corresponds to if it has been dubbed the same for all people. If one person does see what others see as “blue” for “red” and vice-versa, what information does this statement actually contain? I think it is pretty easy for someone (like a verificationalist) to argue that since the empirical results obtained from the two different formulations are the same, the two formulations are equivalent.
Yes, I understand my point doesn’t have strong implications in any practical sense, but I wasn’t trying to make a practical claim. My point was very simple: that the meanings of the words we use can have differing meanings without necessarily compromising effective communication. Yes, a lot of the time, it will, but that doesn’t mean we have to understand words and statements exactly the same way under all conditions. I’m using extreme and fanciful scenarios in the hopes that the logic of those scenarios comes through, as it is the logic that applies in a practical sense. The OP’s example of the word ‘love’ is an excellent example. If one spouse has all his/her life told the other “I love you” and the other smiles warmly and says “And I you”, they very well may have slightly different meaning of the word ‘love’, but what does that matter. They communicated their emotions, and judging from the warm smile they get in return, it seems to be effective communication.
So you are positing a realm that has no effect on the world, we have no access to, is useless, and (by its very nature) we have no reason to believe it exists . . . why?
No effect = “Yes, I understand my point doesn’t have strong implications in any practical sense”
No access = Your ball example
Useless = Technically redundant with ‘no effect’, but you have separated cause from effect, which renders the system inoperable from a predictive standpoint. “that the meanings of the words we use can have differing meanings without necessarily compromising effective communication.” would be an example of this.
No reason to believe it exists = This also is somewhat redundant with ‘no access’ but, it is slightly broader. Your argument is veering incredibly close to solipsism. After all, we can’t know whether other people understand us despite seeming to is pretty much saying the same thing as we can’t know whether other people have minds, despite seeming to. Now, if you are willing to embrace solipsism, that is fine. But I’m not sure we’d have much to talk about if you do.