The end of the subjectivity debate

[Ecmandu]

Your argument about subjectivity, is just subjective.

Subjectivity is a self defeating stance of itself.

[surreptitious75]

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

[promethean75]

i tried to tell you, mandu.

[Ecmandu]

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

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.

[surreptitious75]

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

[Ecmandu]

But that's just subjective.

[Guide]

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.

[Ecmandu]

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.

[phyllo]

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.

[Serendipper]

Point being that unless there are some agreed upon objective contextual standards, how can one know where a subjective statement lies on the agreed upon "spectrum"? Might be nonsense, might be 'God's own truth'. It would be impossible to function effectively with only arbitrary subjectivity.

FIFY

[phyllo]

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.

[Serendipper]

A dead squirrel can't tell the difference between a tree and dirt as well is I can ... without any agreement between us. since such illusory differentiations are subject to having a functioning mind.

These tasks seem to I'm often confounded by even the greatest amateur philosophers.

I have your back, man

[Mad Man P]

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!"

[phyllo]

A dead squirrel can't tell the difference between a tree and dirt as well is I can ... without any agreement between us. since such illusory differentiations are subject to having a functioning mind.

These tasks seem to I'm often confounded by even the greatest amateur philosophers.

I have your back, man

I didn't write that.

Changing other people's posts ... what does that say about you?

[Silhouette]

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".

[Serendipper]

A dead squirrel can't tell the difference between a tree and dirt as well is I can ... without any agreement between us. since such illusory differentiations are subject to having a functioning mind.

These tasks seem to I'm often confounded by even the greatest amateur philosophers.

I have your back, man

I didn't write that.

Changing other people's posts ... what does that say about you?

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.

[Ecmandu]

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".

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

[Prismatic567]

Your argument about subjectivity, is just subjective.
Subjectivity is a self defeating stance of itself.

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.

[Prismatic567]

The name of your fallacy is "Equivocation".

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

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].

[Ecmandu]

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

[Serendipper]

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?

Let's try this:

s-->(s-->(s-->(s--> ... forever ))))))

[Ecmandu]

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?

Let's try this:

s-->(s-->(s-->(s--> ... forever ))))))

Doesn't matter, the whole point of forever is that you can't count it, nobody can.

[Serendipper]

Doesn't matter, the whole point of forever is that you can't count it, nobody can.

Infinity only seemingly exists because the eye is looking at itself, but it doesn't really exist. Infinity is an artifact of an error.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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?

To me it sounds like this argument relies on distinguishing between the quale and the object, which would mean it hangs on the distinction between objects and experience of objects. It's not that I see realism as without problems. I just find it odd that there is a sudden defense of pure subjectivism where I wouldn't expect it: in you and Seredipper. Though I am more surprised but you.

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.

I haven't followed the whole debate, but it seems to me that here you are focusing on knowledge whereas Serendipper is working at a deeper ontological level. There are no things beyond experience, he seems to be saying. You might be being Wittgensteinien and saying that we cannot speak of those things, or our knowledge always has subjective aspects. He seems to be going beyond that and making a quite different ontological claim. Not external reality, perception, fallible and filtered knowledge and beliefs of subjects, but something closer to pure idealism.

I mean, I'm a pantheist, so I have little problem with his position. I'm just surprised it seems to be his and, then, yours.

I get it, you are not ruling out degrees of justification. Fine, no surprise there. I get the 'just a theory' comparison.

But that's in the knowledge of what is out there. Serend is saying there is no out there.

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"

If you take away all realism, this becomes a reasonable response. If one argues that our knowledge will always be via our experience, and so the knowledge is tailored to how we experience things, and hence our knowledge helps us to have certain specfic experiences and is not a perfect image of the ding an sich...peachy. But once you get to what I think Serendipper's position is, you are into idealism. Not aspects, but just subjectivity. There need be no connection between what is called knowledge and what it is about. In fact it is not about anything.

[Serendipper]

whereas Serendipper is working at a deeper ontological level.

This is old old old to me. I started this as kid when I first heard of "subject and object" then wondered what the heck it could possibility mean (without reading the owner's manual, mind you). I simply thought "Well, if subjectivity has a subject observing an object, then objectivity must be void the subject. What else could it possibly mean?" Then I was done with it and put it on a shelf until now. I'm actually surprised there is so much debate and pretty much figured it was common knowledge contained in any philosophy textbook... like a definition. I'll concede that conceptualizations of subjectivity and objectivity can be terribly difficult to get one's head around, but if I have any advantage it's just that the idea has been rattling around my head for many years, which doesn't warrant any parades in my honor.

Subjectivity (S --> O)
Objectivity (O)

It's nothing special.