I find time and time again that conversations derail into this.
Say, for example, that person A asks:
“Is Mozart’s music good?”
…and person B says:
“Many people like it!”
I think that’s a mild example of subjectivization. I put the example first because I assume a lot of you would have experienced that, be it on the question of what is good, what is beautiful, what is proper, and so on
What has happened is that person A has asked about if something was ‘beautiful’, and person B took that as if something is ‘liked’, which is very different. In the case that person B believes that everything is subjective, person B misreads the first question as if it is about liking it, and answers with an equivocation.
This things I see happening when there are people that believe everythign is subjective.
The example I’ve seen in the forums was the classic of someone asking if something was bad, and someone else answering about if something was disapproved. The first is ethics, the seconds is morals.
Seems to me that this is not about subjectivization.
Before you could even have the discussion about whether terms like good/bad are subjective, the question itself is wrong. Person B is not misreading anything. Person A failed to properly communicate what they mean.
Thats the first thing.
The second: I fail to understand from this example how things would NOT be subjective.
How are they objective? Do you have an objective specific standard for whats “beautiful” or “good”?
I made a thread about this already. Subjectivity is simply a fact of our existence. To prove the opposite of that you’d need to be able to show concepts which hold the same value universally, objectively and observably, regardless of who beholds them.
And thats impossible.
There is no universal standard for beauty, good, ethics or morals.
my first reaction is how odd not to express his or her own opinion. This would be subjective but vastly more common. Unless the world has changed a lot, which I consider possible. I think most people hearing the questions Is___________good? about a song, a film, a composer, etc. is going to weigh in with their own opinion. And in social situations that person is not misreading the question.
But if the question is ‘is it beautiful music?’ and we’re in a philosophy forum I think people are more likely to think this is a cue for the subjective vs objective debate on art or beauty.
How are both of them objective? The question, apart from who asks it, is about the objective thing. Do you think it is about if he likes the music? Now, if it can be answered with certainty is another issue whatsoever
Yes, the same goes for objectivity. We perceive things subjectively, for sure. Now, to say that any and everything is subjetive is another issue that we can address in the thread you made, for sure (I think we already did). Now, that doesn’t mean that when someone is asking, that someone is always asking for the subjective kind of lesser-equivalent of something. Say, when someone asks if something is true, that someone is not asking if that something is not a lie, or if that something is how that person thinks it is. Neither of those are the same.
We can address if that questions of beauty, good, ethics or morals are such in your thread, for sure, but it is exactly subjectivization what you are doing here. You are answering a question about something objective with something subjective (in your view, there is only subjective). Do you see the problem?
People can express their opinion always, but if you are asked how much is 2+2 and you answer “Donald Duck”, you can see that is completely out. The question was not about their opinion (that would be subjective).
Yeah, many people express themselves loosely, but even in that cases, the point is not ‘do you like?’ but ‘is it good?’, which are way way different.
It’s really good but I don’t like it would generally be an odd answer.
My sense is that I cannot demonstrate that there is objective beauty - how do we argue with alien sentient slime moulds about beautiful mates? - but at the same time I think some things are objectively better? I think Mozart is better than the theme to Friends. What would I mean here: I’d mean that the complexity, harmony, the musical narrative does something that is not done in the other music and it is more powerful and nuanced. It is created with more skill and can be more endlessly unwound But I have contradictory thoughts about this. I don’t think people are wrong about what they find beautiful. And at the same time I may well not respect them when hearing their choices. I seem to have different opinions and in the main I don’t care.
I don’t mean this as a discussion on objectivity vs subjectivity in art or beauty, it was just an example, but we can go that way.
It’s only odd for the people that conflate both.
Of course, we would like to demonstrate objective X (be that whatever), and it’s very hard, but even if it is impossible, that’s not enough reason to answer with something subjective to an objective question.
Even without certainty in what constitutes objective X (Truth, beauty, whatever), you can ask about that. To answer with a lesser subjective thing that is tangential to it is to derail the dialogue. In particular, because that’s important is that we do generally ask for what’s objective, not just a subjective lesser counterpart. For example, people ask: “Did he stole my bike?” and not “Do you have an idea that he stealing my bike would match the evidences?”
So no one told you life was gonna be this way
It’s like you’re always stuck in second gear when looking for objective things
(IF we go by the topic of at least somewhat universal concepts) the idea A really wanted to express is something monstrously more complex than just “is it good?”, they basically asked whether or not the music meets a universal standard of beauty/harmony/structure.
What they really attempted to convey was absolutely not covered by their question.
Well thats my point. They are not objective.
Someone asks you whether or not Mozart is good → There is no universal metric for “good” so your brain defaults the question to “What do you think of Mozart’s music?” because thats what makes sense.
You can give your own subjective impression of Mozart’s music, thats no problem, but whats the alternative?
Is Mozart’s music good by what metric or standard?
How do you measure good? Compared to what?
What are the specifications of “good” so it can be referred to universally and measured?
Sure. Thats absolutely fair. Ofc you can ask/discuss.
Asking is not the problem. HOW you ask it is the issue, especially in the example between A and B.
If you want to discuss higher context concepts such as philosophy, you always need to be specific about it because under normal circumstances its not subjectification that poisons dialogue, its the opposite: philosophy, demagogy, ideology, playing catch with definition and meaning is what DEFINITELY will poison a normal dialogue.
In example:
Your mother or wife makes you lunch and afterwards ask whether or not it was good.
You will not respond to that question by telling your mother or wife that “there are plenty of better and worse dishes” or “well, whats your standard for good?” or “compared to what?”.
Why will you not respond like that? Because it’d instantly poison the dialogue.
Because despite all of those answers being true, they are neither constructive nor fulfilling. In fact, they will be interpreted as an insult of the cooking not meeting standards.
Cant say i do.
First: Because i do not know what you mean by “something objective“.
A question about something objective… what is supposed to be the objective part of the question? Mozart’s music? Good? Is? Whether or not you can have a discussion about objectivity?
Honestly i have no idea what you just labeled with “objective”.
Second: I might be really overthinking this since i have absolutely no idea what you meant in the first place, but the plain text of that 1 sentence you just wrote there is “why are you telling me your own opinion instead of the universal truth of all existence and god’s omniscient wisdom that cannot be questioned”
How the heck do you imagine me giving you any objective answers in a discussion about philosophy?
I am not (A) god. You are having a conversation with lil old me. Just another human being. As such i can only give you MY answers.
(A) god could give you objective answers because they are omniscient. I am not. Therefore i can only respond with my own views, which are subjective to me.
No, is if it is good. There may not be any ‘standard’ to meet.
Well, in your view there is, for sure, but not necessarily. Suppose you do answer that way, and the person says ‘Sorry, no, it’s about if it is good’, would you again respond from your tastes?
I’m not saying I have a good-o-meter to measure up things, but the question is not about the taste, but about if it is good. It’s a question, after all.
I find it funny that I see usually the reverse. In fact, demagogy and such tends to use subjectivization quite a lot.
Yeah, that environment is poisoned from the start, quite like ‘are my friends beautiful?’ kind of questions.
You certainly went overboard about assuming asking is having an answer like god’s view.
By using your creativeness like any other human being? Yeah, but something subjective is not necessarily not objective. For example, you perceive that something exists, and that is objective
You’re pointing toward the distinction between objectivity and intersubjectivity. Person A asks whether Mozart’s music is objectively good (whatever that means), and person B answers that it’s intersubjectively good.
Note though that person B doesn’t even say most people like it, but only “many” people—which is a relative term. So there might be even more people who dislike it—not to mention potential non-human subjects.
GTA III Definitive Edition Driving Classics - Le Nozze Di Figaro - PC (4K UHD 60fps) - DVDfeverGames
Could you give a specific, concrete answer to the question Is Mozart good? that you think fits the question? Not just yes or no, but one of those with justification.
But then you have to defend that “Mozart is good” depends on whether you like Mozart or whatever subjective measure.
Excellence and beauty are objective referals. If a person thinks Mozart is not good, that person has no taste, rather than Mozart’s excellence being relative to any given person’s opinion.
Or maybe we should all stop asking “was it good?” and just start saying “whatever impression it left on you is of no significance because when I hear it it will be a pristine subjective experience with no objective relevance to the one you had.”
Even asking “did you like it?” implies that their like or dislike has some objective reference.
Good is a standard by itself, and its dependent on comparison.
”There might not be any ‘standard’ to meet” would mean that “good” has no meaning of any kind in the first place.
I would respond by asking for a clarification on what “good” means.
Why would that be the case? What prevents you from answering objectively just like in the case of Mozart?
What i perceive can only be objective if everyone else agrees with me on what i perceived,
because ironically, my senses and perception are the very definition of subjective.
Two people can stick their hands in the same bowl of warm water at the exact same time and both can say “its warm”, yet neither of them will have the slightest hint of an idea what the other person has felt or whether or not they felt anything at all.
Objectivity is born out of matching subjective descriptions about the same thing.
We consider things objective because we all agree on it’s specifics collectively.
I can hallucinate, i can have a hundred different afflictions that makes me see, hear and feel things, i can be under the influence of drugs, and everything i perceive will be literally only there for me. Subjectively.
I don’t know, it’s a question. Let’s say yes, and I dislike it.
Good point, I haven’t thought of that
Not really. Standards are customary things, what is asked about good or bad is not customary.
“Good as objectively good”
Because that questions are mostly not honest. They’re not about even the gradation of how you like it compared to all food in the world.
Not at all. That’s would be intersubjective, not objective. You perceive that something exists because you perceive that you do, and you are something. Yes, you perceive subjectively, that’s why you can perceive that something exists at all.
You seem to be confusing objective with intersubjective. For this discussion in particular, intersubjective is the same as subjective, since a bigger amount of ‘subjective’ is the same here.
Not everything. It will be ‘for you’: you exist. So something exists.
By the way, I’m not breaking any ground here - just the usual point that guy that makes a thousand thread makes: ‘you cannot say you don’t exist because you have to exist in order to say it’ type of things
You keep on referring to some kind of universal standard and/or concept, but you refuse to elaborate on it or define it. What is “objectively good”? Good for who? What?
Indeed. They are about whether or not YOU liked it.
Objectivity and intersubjectivity are mutually inclusive concepts.
There is no confusion. If something is objective, then its also intersubjective.
Then objectivity as a whole and as a concept no longer exist.
For something to be objective it needs to exist regardless of the observer, regardless of subjectivity. By definition this means that its something everyone should be able to perceive and agree upon universally and objectively.
You are trying to ask the question “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” but removing everything from it that is agreed upon, so it looks something like this:
”If in and no one, does it?”
There are objectively no such things as persons whose value as valuers is universal. Lol JK. That’s what personhood IS…my bad.
You mean “bad even if you approve” versus “only bad if you disapprove”… Sadly, morals & ethics get used synonymously, so. Kierkegaard’s “ethical stage” he realizes requires transcending… is the cultural approval sort. It’s called voluntarism in certain contexts. Preferably/ideally our ethics/actions express the universal value of persons [(re)evaluators].
all the Nietzscheans are gobsmacked with deer-in-the-headlights jaw-dropped head-scratching definitely being recorded for posterity and sent to all major news outlets
I agree with your position, I just want to add the following:
Once we say that something is independent of human perspective, either it is universal (as you suggest) or there is something else that transcents humans, which implicitely leads to metaphysics or God.
In my opinion, only through a deity (theism/deism) or a metaphysical framework the concept of objectivity without universality can be defended philosophically.
That is probably true, but its a league of it’s own.
Once you deal with the prospect of higher dimension beings, you will end up like flatlanders do in relation to the three dimensional world.
That being said, objectivity without universality is a 50/50 concept.
You can never verify it nor debunk it, so it will always remain open as a potential possibility, but not more and not less.
This is the same thing that distinguishes agnostic and gnostic atheists.
One view is objectively stating that we do not have the required information to make definite conclusions about the existence of something like god, meanwhile the other is just the belief that everybody else’s belief is wrong.
