Subjectivization as a poison of dialogue

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
181

It’s like that with anything - you can never completely define something that is not just a figment of imagination (and maybe not even that can be properly defined). Language is based on luck, at least partially. But when you ascertain ‘not Y’, in the case that it is not understood, it is way more clear. In fact, I’d say it’s much more clear to say what something you mean is not rather than what that something is. In any case, it’s all good to have a go at answering in whichever way possible, then when that has been cleared that (for example) taste was not at stake, to insist there is weird.

Quite the contrary, I’m asking what is true. If I was asking what they think is true, I would ask “Do you think X is true?” instead of “Is X truth?”. If you say I believe some korean band is the best I’d say yes. If you say is that truth? I’d say no.

How come it doesn’t make sense? I don’t think it probably won’t, it just probably won’t.

182

You’re not even trying. You don’t even want to try to express what you mean, but you expect other people to just know. That’s a genuinely toxic way to communicate.

At least with “ethically good” you’re making an attempt to be understood. But now you’re just making excuses to not even try.

183

I think you’re missing some very basic concepts here about how people answer questions like that. If you ask what is true, and I want to answer you honestly, I will answer with what I believe to be true.

“Did humans land on the moon”

I’m going to answer Yes. Why will I answer yes? Because I believe that’s the correct and truthful answer. What other kind of answer are you expecting, that isn’t based on belief?

184

Not at all! Quite the contrary: you can see that in being clear about what it isn’t. It is about what is good but not about taste, you can phrase it that way, but it would be inconsiderate for the people that do understand that without that particular clarification to put that up and foremost. In particular, when something is open-ended, as a question or as a field of research, I’d doubt it could be defined first and foremost in order to ponder about it.

I agree.

Many people answer with subjectivities about objective topics. One can answer honestly and wrong at the same time. For example, if you ask if it will rain tomorrow and I say “Yes” by telling you what I believe it will happen, I’m being both honest and wrong in the topic answered, even if it rains tomorrow.

For example: Is it truth that you can be wrong?

185

right but if you are asking humans, they can only tell you what they think is true. They may word it as a bare assertion or they may word it in some other way ‘I think….’ ‘I believe’ But however they word it they are telling your their belief about what is true. If you want someone not in that position then you need to ask another kind of entity, perhaps a deity. And this is not me saying that what they will say can’t be true. It may well be true, but all they can do is tell you what they believe is true.

186

Lots of excuses not to try.

You’ve said good doesn’t mean in the subjective taste way, you’ve also said it doesn’t mean ethically good. What does it mean then? I still don’t know, any you still aren’t trying. Another example of you poisoning the conversation. You’re just praying to be understood without trying. It’s not going to work. You have to try.

I’m asking you to try. What do you mean?

What state of affairs would make the answer “yes” to the question “is Mozarts music good”? What state of affairs would make the answer “no”?

187

You then hold contradictory beliefs. Which is often the case. The second part makes the first part partially false at best.

I don’t believe what I know is true is absurd. I think it’s true, but I also sometimes think it is false. Now we are getting to a better description of how our beliefs can contradict each other.

X is the case. That is true. I don’t believe it. That person is confused.

You can turn on your truth answering switch and the turn on your belief answering switch.

Oh, pseudoai wants the truth. Ok, I won’t tell him what I think, I will opt to tell him the truth.

Who are these people?

188

I tried something similar at one point.

189

Or he could give an example of an acceptable answer. If “it’s good because I like it” isn’t acceptable, then what does an acceptable answer look like? It’s good because… what?

But he’s just being no help at all :rofl:

190

He did try to answer that when I asked, way up in the thread. It didn’t get far. I think he said something along the lines that he doesn’t know enough to give a good answer after he tried. He aimed at what he considered the question to actually be asking.

I think we are reacting because that is not what people mean when they ask that question. And since the thread title and his assertion that he encounters this a lot lead to the implication that a lot of people are responding to requests for objective answers with subjective ones. When I say that I don’t think this is true because that’s not what people are asking for with that question, he says it doesn’t matter what most people mean or think.

It may not in that situation where one person is looking for objectivity, but it does matter in terms of his sense that people are being poisonous when they, following common language use, interpret it as requesting they subjective sense of X. And the ones asking the question are getting the answers they want.

And it is so easy to give context clues to try to get objectivity. Of course, then some people will fail or not be able to answer well, like he wasn’t, but there’s no big problem here and the title of the thread is on the hysterical side.

No, no, I meant like objectively, what makes Mozart’s music good? Is it the complicated harmonies? or whatever…..

191

I agree. However, the answer, methinks, must then be “I don’t know.” That is, if it remains a general question like that. Should it become particular, like "is it good for plants?", then we might say with Google’s AI Overview:

“Yes, playing Mozart and other classical music is generally considered good for plants, as studies suggest that gentle, harmonic sound vibrations can stimulate plant growth, enhance nutrient absorption, and improve plant health.”

Sure you can!

:grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

192

Yes, which was more or less his answer to the question, when I asked for his answer.

So subjectivism is a poison in these discussions because it doesn’t let us, supposedly, get the answer ‘I don’t know.’ I think we can be fair to the responders to the question when they respond to a question the way it is responded to in their culture and when they assume the questioner is actually trying to find something out.

193

You agree with what? That it’s a clear question?

But then you call it “general” and say the only valid answer is “I don’t know”??

That doesn’t sound clear at all. “General” sounds like a synonym for “vague” here.

If I ask a question, and the question ISN’T subjective, there’s usually going to be some way to talk about it in a non “general” way, or even to explicitly do something to find a real answer.

If I see you holding a vinyl record and I ask, “is that a 7” vinyl?”, there’s some sequence of steps you can do to find an answer to this question. THIS is a question that clearly isn’t about someone’s subjective tastes. No matter what your subjective tastes are, there’s an answer to the question. It’s not “general”, and if you don’t know the answer, there’s a clear way to find out.

That, to me, is what it looks like to have a clear question that demands a non subjective answer.

So… I don’t see why you’re saying you agree. What are you agreeing with? And why?

194

No, not necessarily. For example, they can lie. And even by virtue of lying, telling some truth.

If it was a topic about Mozart, I’d do that (as you can see in the topic about what is not the universe), but it’s a topic about that topics. I presented that Mozart thing not even seriously, as I’ve pointed out.

I don’t know, I don’t know what is good musically, but that doesn’t make anyone unable to respond if it is musically good or not and not just a belief or taste

How come? I’m not saying I believe it won’t rain, I just say it won’t rain. Those are different.

Regular people, like you and me.

Oh no, I’m not saying people do that on purpose (tho some may), I’m saying the problem is the subjectivitization, not the people.

How come? I’d picture something as simple as ‘what is not the universe’ would be quite obvious, and not even that was the case. I link it to that recounting of daoists asking “Who are you?” - then someone replying with their name, occupation, memories and so, and the daoist saying “No, I’m not asking about your context, I’m asking who are you”. In what way you can ask that such that it is not taken subjectively? “What is not you?” I have come across at least several people that answer the question along the lines of “I don’t know” or “I’m a consciousness”, so it’s not like everyone interprets that subjectively

Yeah, but ‘good for’ is an entirely different question than ‘good’. Say, killing a healthy baby is good for your economy, but it isn’t good (or necessarily good).

About the objective things, since they are not conjured via definitions, no actual wording will suffice. Much like pointing to a dog.

Not just that one. Being given one example doesn’t span all the possible answers. I got completely lost in your last sentence about ‘respond’, truly.

195

Sigh. I was talking about people honoring the question and answering it. Yes, they could fart also. Perhaps you’re just taking the piss, and on a practical level, it might as well be so sometimes.

1 Like
196

Here to point out that ”belief in” presupposes an objective truth, a rendering of which is subscribed to and called a belief.

If no objective truth existed, the word “belief” would be redundant.

Of course, communication at all would be impossible, but we’re navigating from the surface here.

197

How come? People believe in Santa. Does Santa exist?

They can, too, randomly type on their keyboards, and what the keyboard ends up typing be true

198

It means that the question of Santa Claus’s existence is implied by “belief in” to be a matter of objective truth, and the belief itself is a stake taken in that matter.

199

That is, if a person declares “I believe in Sanata Claus,” they don’t mean “subjectively only for me,” they mean for everyone objectively.

1 Like
200

I’m glad you’re concern with derailing has eased.