I don’t know that it’s true that some don’t. You’ve already said in this thread that asking about music is a bad example, which kind of implies that even YOU don’t. I’m pretty sure in real life, everyone’s asking for an opinion with that question.
You have indeed demonstrated that you would never question yourself. You hold everyone else to this crazy standard but you don’t have any standard for your own communication.
Yes, it would have to be a specific context - a philosophy class, a music theory class, someone thinks they have poor taste and is wondering about that - for it to mean something objective. And one can pretty much guarantee that if Mozart is the issue, the question will be more like how is it good or what qualities/facets of Mozart’s music make it objectively better than ___________________[a minor composer].
There’s also his odd sense that sometimes people are not answering with their beliefs to, for example, factual questions, if they don’t use phrases like I believe and I think AND their intention is to be objective. Regardless of their intention and even without their use of such phrases, they are expressing their belief about what is objectively true.
Some factors that may be confusing things here: belief in everyday discussions is often meant to be beliefs (a subset) where there is no evidence. He may not realize that in philosophy it doesn’t mean this. Two, the intention to answer objectively doesn’t change the fact that the answer is the expression of a belief about objective reality. Does Santa Claus exist? Both yes and no are expressions of beliefs, but are intended to be objectively true answers. But the intention does not remove the fact that it is a belief. He can’t quite seem to get this. He seems to think that if it is a belief, then it has to be subjective. No, the answer can be objective and intended as objective. It is their belief about what is objectively true.
The weird thing is that I can’t imagine what a subjective response would be here. Intended to be subjective. We are talking about existence.
And for some reason he thinks answers to questions like Is it raining can be like this:
I believe it’s raining but I am probably wrong.
One could only be being honest here if one admits to some kind of compulsive thinking. I can’t stop myself from believing it is raining, but my left brain knows it is not. But the answer cannot be an accurate description because if he thinks he is probably wrong, then he does not simply believe it is raining. He has an ambivalent, cognitively dissonant pair of beliefs.
He doesn’t get that it’s “I believe this is the objectively true answer”. Does he think people just have raw access to The Truth without having to go through beliefs first? It boggles the mind.
Yeah I have no idea how to parse that. If you believe that a particular statement is probably wrong, then you don’t believe that particular statement.
He does say they might be wrong. What I get: they are thinking objectively. They might be wrong, but they are on topic. With Santa Claus I don’t know how one could subjectivize a discussion of whether Santa exists. One could go tangential and say I wish he did exist. OK, fine, that’s a tangent. But he seems to think someone saying I believe he doesn’t exist OR I think he does is being subjective and that is really confused - they are just framing it correctly or more fully than the ones who don’t mention this.
How come? For example, if people ask “Is it good to clone humans?” or “Is it good to club seals?”, do you think they are asking if those are good for something?
Fair enough! So, we disagree about that.
Not necessarily.
How come?
Yes. I wasn’t asking why would Mozart’s music be good. That’s a different question. Now, that could make me curious as to how Mozart’s music would be good and I could ask about it, for sure - but that’s another question.
I have no problem with that - I try my best, but I bet I’m wrong about most of what I write. If I was convinced I was right, I wouldn’t go on to share it and put it up for criticisim (what would be the point of that?). Yeah, everyone can be even radically wrong about a lot of stuff about communication, and more!
People who answer with “yes” and “no” are making it clear too. It may not be clear HOW would it be good, but that’s entirely different - because that was not part of the question. If someone says “I think it is”, they are making clear that they think it - but they are answering a different question.
Not at all, if I ask if X music is good, I want the objective response. Now, if you only have subjective things, it may suffice for communication. For example, try this: How would you go about asking people of all ages and backgrounds about if when they are asking “is X good?” they would like more an objective or subjective answer? What would you bet most would say they’d prefer? My best is most people would choose th objective one. In fact, in usual questions what is meant is the objective one “did you have sexual relationships with that woman?” “when does the train arrive?” and so
I agree that you are sure everyone is asking for an opinion. Now, can you put that to the test?
How come? You sure are sure of that.
That’s interesting
How come?
Are you sure? Is it that another person thinks that or that you think another person thinks that?
That’s a good topic! People do, since you don’t believe prior to existing.
In particular, you can lack belief altogether all around. Is belief needed? For what?
Yes, those people are framing their answer more fully, but their answer is about a different question: “Do you believe Santa exists?”
No they aren’t you goofball XD. If someone answers “yes”, you have NO IDEA what they mean. They most likely mean they think mozarts music sounds good subjectively. The fact that you don’t even consider thas as a possibilty is why you’re the source of the bad communication.
They may mean they are answering another question altogether, for sure (like they liking it), but they may not mean that, necessarily. I’m literally saying that some people answer in that ‘possibility’ a lot of times, from the start.
What is not clear about Mozart’s music being good, whichever that means? The answer is clear: it is good. Now, my understand of what ‘good music’ is could be not clear. Suppose you are studying a foreign language, and you ask “Is this หมั่นไส้?”, and you get “yes” as a response. That doesn’t mean you understood it, for sure, but that doesn’t make the answer to be what is not clear nor not objective
when they are being honest and other types of situation or intention that only muddy the water here.
Well, you try it.
Answer the following question twice.
The first time:Tell me what you believe is true.
The second time: use truth mode.
Is there only matter in the universe?
Or pick any questions where you believe what you don’t think is true.
I’d like to see the question answered twice, in those two modes, where the answers are opposite.
If you didn’t understand it, it’s not clear. That’s what it means for something to be clear. It means the same thing as being understood.
I suppose that’s not entirely true, clarity exists in two forms here: clarity of communication, and clarity of understanding. If you don’t understand, then you certainly can’t say it’s clear to you, even if the person did communicate it clearly.
However, with the answer “yes”, it’s not clear in either case. Given the state of the language, if you already know “yes” can mean “yes, I subjectively think it sounds good”, but yes can also mean “yes, I think it’s good in some unstated objective sense”, then they also haven’t communicated it clearly. So no, it’s not clear in either way. “Yes” is not clearly understood nor clearly communicated, in that case.
That’s assuming that there are multiple meanings to “good” at play here. But imo, there aren’t. There’s one clear meaning of “yes”, and that’s the subjective one. Clearly, someone means they subjectively think something’s good if they answer “yes”. That’s what a native english speaker would mean, and a listener would understand. If you don’t mean it that way, or understand it that way, the ambiguity is coming from you.
It’s same answer, same question. Because questions and answers are between sentient beings. So, they answer with what they believe (to be true).
For some reason you think you can get two different answers.
Does Santa exist? No.
Do you believe Santa exists? Yes.
But without distraction situations like the person is lying or changed their mind between the times of the two questions or has mental problems, this is not possible. Nor would, No then Yes be.
Try asking a few thousand people.
Now if you want to say it’s not a popularity things, au contraire. We are talking about language use and the human condition.
I don’t think you have really justified why these questions should be interpreted as being different. Both questions will have the same answer, based in the same criteria, every time. One question is just the other question with more words.
“Does Santa exist?” If you ask me that, I will search my brain for the reasons why the answer might be yes, reasons why the answer might be no, they’ll weigh for more heavily for no, I’ll answer no.
“Do you believe Santa exists?” If you ask me that, I will search my brain for the reasons why the answer might be yes, reasons why the answer might be no, they’ll weigh for more heavily for no, I’ll answer no.
There’s no scenario where the answer to one question is different from the answer to the other question. We can only answer it based on our beliefs, there’s no other resource we have available to answer it with.
I didn’t understand that
Done:
The first is “No”, because if you ask the contrary “Is there not just matter in the universe?” the responses would be:
As far as I’m aware, I don’t believe, so I don’t know.
So, if we get a text which some person doesn’t understand, that text is not clear. All of philosophical writings are not clear then. The text being clear is a property of the text, not of the reader.
The person who doesn’t understand it certainly can’t say it’s clear to them, no. If I ask you, “is that clear?” and you say “yes”, instead of saying “I’m not sure, I didn’t understand it”, then you’re poisoning the conversation.
The only slight difference I can see is interpersonal. If you ask what they believe they may feel like they don’t need to qualify. But the answers are both beliefs.
Do you believe the universe is only made of matter? No.
Is the universe only made of matter? Yes.
That’s nonsense.
I don’t believe that what I consider to be true is true.
Does element 119 exist? Don’t tell me what you believe.
Yes, that’s a nice way to show the problem. You can’t even answer ‘I don’t know.’ because that’s also a belief, though about something else.
P1: Does element 119 exist? Don’t tell me what you believe.
P2: Yes.
P1: Oh, you don’t believe that there is an element 119?
P2: Yes, I do. I said yes.
P1: Sure, but I said don’t tell me what you believe. Did you follow my instructions?
Same with no, but reversed.
I genuinely don’t know where this guy gets off accusing others of poisoning the conversation XD. You’d think he could be more charitable, given his own communication problems.
Check out my previous post just to see if we are on the same page.
I feel like I almost understand the error he is making. Not where it is, but exactly how it is being made. But that almost is still there.
If the texts of famous philosophers were clear for everyone, we wouldn’t have so many authors discussing and analyzing their writtings.
A text clear for you is not necessarily clear for me and vice versa. The text reflects the writer’s thoughts, those are not similarly understood by everyone.
Funny enough, even the writer sometimes forgets what the text actually meant in the first place. When you write something using deep thinking, it reflects certain mentality at the time you did it. Leave it a long period without looking at it and then revisit your text. You will be surprised seeing that you may fail to understand it in its totality.
In your definition of clear: Yes, to you it is clear for you that you interpret someone answering “Yes” as subjective. I know you have an idea of how all speakers would communicate.
Becuase I’m not talking about what you find clear, nor your idea of speakers, but of the text and the real persons, that’s different.
Not at all! Precisely because questions and answers are between sentient and thinking beings. That’s why they can answer with what is objective, or answer a different question (about what they believe), or fart, or lie and so and so.
Exactly! Yeah, it’s not about consensus, because it’s the human condition, and the human condition is that we are all mostly the same, but different, and change and so on. Apart from that, the basic thing about being human is that you think and criticize, not that you follow customs (that’s not particularly human)
I agree that it for you, in your version of what is clear, that is clear. I agree. It just so happens that it’s not the same question.
You do you, I completely agree: do as you will. Now, same goes with others.
How come?
Yeah, but one thing is ‘is it clear’ and another ‘is it clear to me’, very different stuff.
How come? I don’t believe either way.
Yes
Now, answer me: “Are you wrong?”
That would not happen. I don’t believe it exists, and I don’t believe it doesn’t exist.
Of course, that’s why I didn’t say “clear for”. Now, I completely agree: the sentence Tôi tư duy, do đó tôi tồn tại is clear, just not clear for me.