Life's "ultimate meaning", and the value of money

[Betterave]

Sorry, having to do very short posts as I’m way behind on the real-world stuff today, but…

“Rational” does not not imply an objective foundation. “Rational” just means “the use of reasoning”. Reasoning (and thus rational thought) can be subjective, and often is. Where the main (name removed by moderator)uts to reason about are subjective – an emotional reaction, qualia via the senses, judging the relative important tradeoffs of competing personal values and priorities, you have subjective reasoning.

-TS

Short is good in my books.

All reasoning is subjective when subjective means that it is accomplished in a subject by a subject. That is a completely trivial point and does nothing towards proving what you set out to prove in this thread. You will hopefully seriously consider post 77 and respond to it when you get a chance.

When you talk about “the main (name removed by moderator)uts to reason about,” this is a very vague expression used to make a very vague claim. How do we know when “the main (name removed by moderator)uts to reason about” are subjective? Is there an objective test for this? What is an “(name removed by moderator)ut to reason about”? Presumably you mean “objects which are reasoned about” and so when you say “Where the main (name removed by moderator)uts to reason about are subjective” you mean “when the objects of reason are or directly implicate subjects/subjectivity.” Then for some reason you decide to claim that “when the objects of reason are or directly implicate subjects/subjectivity” that the claims resulting from such reasoning will be subjective, whereas it is only their object which has been shown to be subjective. But you can make objective claims about subjective objects. Isn’t this obvious? Again, post 77, when you get a chance.

 

[The_Exodus]

The words may not be valuable, after the fact, or have any redeeming qualities in the mind of the reader. But the dynamics work themselves out in the mind of each reader. There’s no “ought” that is intrinsic to my posts. Whatever value they have obtains from the priority and importance assigned them by any who read (or don’t!).

I read what you say as carefully as I can, and place your thought in the context of the modernist movement and the history of philosophy, and, after much attention and deliberation, continually find your posts to contain the thinking/philosophy of an intellect unable (perhaps through weakness) to grasp the ramifications of its own worldview. That said, they have no persuasive power in my mind whatsoever (and ironically, in others who read them - take this as you will.) So, on both my espoused theistic epistemology and your espoused atheistic philosophy, I am justified in rejecting them, and justified in claiming them to be valueless.

 

[Touchstone]

Originally Posted by Betterave
This is an embarrassingly naive view. Do you really think that you have proven that a valuation is merely subjective by pointing out that it is subjectively apprehended? “If an object is apprehended by a subject, then that object is merely subjective” is the nonsense non sequitur you ground your thinking in here, isn’t it? And what do you think ‘objective’ means? Not apprehended by any subject? That’s nonsense, bud.

How many times have I explained this now? More than you should need. X obtains objectively if it is not DEPENDENT on any mind or will. Apprehension, or observing or knowing doesn’t change the objective reality of X. Neither does lack of apprehension, observation, or knowing. Monetary value obtains solely from a valuer. No valuer, no value. Similarly, meaning. Without a meaning-assigner, no meaning. Meaning only obtains as the consequence of the assignment of value.

I’ll just keep repeating the basics, I guess. All this is clearly stated up thread, more than once. If you are thinking about apprehension, you are confused.

So let’s see how you answered my questions: Do you really think that you have proven that a valuation is merely subjective by pointing out that it is subjectively apprehended?

Argh. See above.

No, you think that you have proven that a valuation is merely subjective by claiming that it is subjectively chosen (‘subjectively’ being redundant here).

It’s not a proof. It’s a definition a tautology. Value is contingent on a valuer. No valuer, no value. No humans, the $20 bill has no monetary value. It’s just an oddly perfect rectangular piece of linen-paper lying on the ground.

The argument in this thread doesn’t even need to bother with proofs. I’m just pointing to the incoherence of the terms commonly invoked – “intrinsic value” and “absolute meaning”, etc. To use these terms is to invoke square circles.

So fine. Let’s modify the question: Do you really think that you have proven that a valuation is merely subjective by claiming that it is (subjectively) chosen?

Value only obtains from a a valuer. This is is subjectivity, by definition. It’s just tautologically true. As above, the use of “intrinsic value” signals the failure to even keep definitional concepts straight. It’s internally inconsistent.

“If an object is (voluntarily) chosen by a subject, then it follows that that object is merely subjective” is the nonsense non sequitur you ground your thinking in here, isn’t it?

Sigh. No. The object is not subjective, think about what you are saying, here. The value that is assigned to the object is subjective. The $20 bill is a piece of paper, and has no value that inheres in itself. It is what it is – linen paper with fancy artwork. Nothing valuable in the object. If I assign value to it with my mind, the assignment, which is a mental construct, is subjective. The object (the bill) remains what it was, remains what it is, totally unaffected by my new opinion on the matter. My thoughts about the $20 bill are subjective, and that is the value, and my mind is the valuer. The $20 bill is just an impersonal inanimate object.

And what do you think ‘objective’ means? Not chosen by any subject? That’s nonsense, bud.

Objective, again (!) means “not dependent on any will or mind”. If a proposition is true objectively, it is true *independently of any mind or will. *If an object is objectively real, its reality obtains independently of any mind or will.

Or not constituted in being by the choice of any subject? Again, that’s nonsense. Your asserting the contrary does not ‘demonstrate’ anything, please stop pretending that it does.

Here’s Wikipedia on the subject:

Objectivity is both a central and elusive philosophical category. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are “mind-independent”—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity or subject.

Hmmm. Sound familiar??? I salute the opening sentence, as it is apparently quite elusive in some cases.

The intended point of the thread and the actual content of the thread are very different matters. So far you have only demonstrated that you are very confused about the concepts that you are attempting to refute, that you don’t understand the position you are trying to attack.

Does “life’s meaning” or any other value obtain independently of any mind or will? Maybe it would be good just to get a clear answer from you on that. That way, even if you continue to struggle with the concept, we can establish even so, whether you are identifying “intrinsic value” or “objective meaning” and the like in a mind dependent way, or not. That is really the point of the thread.

-TS

 

[Betterave]

I wish you could just be wrong. Why do you have to insist on being arrogantly wrong?

How many times have I explained this now? More than you should need.

If by “explained” you mean “asserted”, I didn’t need you to assert this nonsense even once - so you have certainly asserted it more than I need.

X obtains objectively if it is not DEPENDENT on any mind or will.

So IF X is not dependent on any mind or will, THEN X obtains objectively. (You ASSERT this, you do not EXPLAIN it.)

But you want to claim also that IF X is dependent on any mind or will, THEN X does not obtain objectively. (That’s the EQUIVOCAL claim that you seem to mean to ASSERT, again without explaining anything.)

Apprehension, or observing or knowing doesn’t change the objective reality of X. Neither does lack of apprehension, observation, or knowing. Monetary value obtains solely from a valuer. No valuer, no value. Similarly, meaning. Without a meaning-assigner, no meaning. Meaning only obtains as the consequence of the assignment of value.

…Similarly judgments: therefore ‘objective judgement’ is an oxymoron. (TS, unwitting apostle of the absurd.)

I’ll just keep repeating the basics, I guess. All this is clearly stated up thread, more than once. If you are thinking about apprehension, you are confused.

Please stop asserting and start thinking.

It’s not a proof. It’s a definition a tautology. Value is contingent on a valuer. No valuer, no value. No humans, the $20 bill has no monetary value. It’s just an oddly perfect rectangular piece of linen-paper lying on the ground.

The argument in this thread doesn’t even need to bother with proofs. I’m just pointing to the incoherence of the terms commonly invoked – “intrinsic value” and “absolute meaning”, etc. To use these terms is to invoke square circles.

LOL! Right, your whole case is based on your stipulation of arbitrary definitions which your opponents don’t accept! Great demonstration!

Value only obtains from a a valuer. This is is subjectivity, by definition. It’s just tautologically true. As above, the use of “intrinsic value” signals the failure to even keep definitional concepts straight. It’s internally inconsistent.

“Value only obtains from a valuer” is NOT “subjectivity, by definition.”
Where do you come up with stuff like this?

Sigh. No. The object is not subjective, think about what you are saying, here. The value that is assigned to the object is subjective. The $20 bill is a piece of paper, and has no value that inheres in itself. It is what it is – linen paper with fancy artwork. Nothing valuable in the object. If I assign value to it with my mind, the assignment, which is a mental construct, is subjective. The object (the bill) remains what it was, remains what it is, totally unaffected by my new opinion on the matter. My thoughts about the $20 bill are subjective, and that is the value, and my mind is the valuer. The $20 bill is just an impersonal inanimate object.

In other words, like I said, you think the following: “If an object (paper money) is (voluntarily) chosen by a subject, then it follows that that object (paper money) is merely subjective” - but the antecedent is true, and the consequent is false. The worth of paper money is not merely subjective. You can assign it whatever value you want “with your mind” - that won’t change its objective value. Try it if you don’t believe me.

Objective, again (!) means “not dependent on any will or mind”. If a proposition is true objectively, it is true *independently of any mind or will. *If an object is objectively real, its reality obtains independently of any mind or will.

Yet another assertion of your stupid stipulative definition - thanks for that. From your nonsense definitions here it follows that it is not ‘objectively true’ (as opposed to ‘subjectively true’??) that minds and wills exist.

Does “life’s meaning” or any other value obtain independently of any mind or will? Maybe it would be good just to get a clear answer from you on that. That way, even if you continue to struggle with the concept, we can establish even so, whether you are identifying “intrinsic value” or “objective meaning” and the like in a mind dependent way, or not. That is really the point of the thread.

It’s hard to give a clear answer to an unclear question. (Santayana’s lovely comment comes to mind here: “that’s not right… that’s not even wrong!” You really need to be more careful in trying to understand the terms of the propositions you use before launching into arguments.)

 

[Touchstone]

I wish you could just be wrong. Why do you have to insist on being arrogantly wrong?

In for a penny, in for a pound…

If by “explained” you mean “asserted”, I didn’t need you to assert this nonsense even once - so you have certainly asserted it more than I need.

You have a problem with the definition used – see the Wikipedia article I linked, or one of any number of other places that use these terms in philosophy. Or better yet (and this is a pattern emerging), don’t be passive, offer your own ideas of what “objective” and “subjective” mean and how they get applied so we can see how they fare. As I read this, I’ve got nothing more than a complaint with the definitions used in philosophical discourse on the topic. That’s pretty thin gruel.

So IF X is not dependent on any mind or will, THEN X obtains objectively. (You ASSERT this, you do not EXPLAIN it.)

It’s a definition, a working concept for communication. The only acceptance needed is understanding. Is it “dependent” you are having trouble with? What? The moon doesn’t need your mind or my mind to exist, so it’s existence is objective with respect to our minds. If we coin a new word for some purpose, to further a conversation, the meaning we agree on would be subjective with respect to our minds, as the meaning depends on our minds – without our minds and their agreement, the word would not have any meaning.

This is a principle that is used far and wide in philosophy, heavily in science, and philosophy of science, but elsewhere as well, all the time.

But you want to claim also that IF X is dependent on any mind or will, THEN X does not obtain objectively. (That’s the EQUIVOCAL claim that you seem to mean to ASSERT, again without explaining anything.)

It’s a definition. See the moon/neologism explanation above.

…Similarly judgments: therefore ‘objective judgement’ is an oxymoron. (TS, unwitting apostle of the absurd.)

It is an oxymoron, strictly speaking. If I come to a judgment “objectively”, the objectivity obtains in the nature of the evidence and reasoning I deploy. Such a conclusion putatively stands on its own, independent of my mind or any mind. I might say “the moon exists” as an objective judgment for example. The “objective” part obtains (if it obtains) from the basis of the moon’s independence of any mind to exist. But I’m still rendering judgment with my mind, which necessarily makes my verdict subjective on its face. As minds, we are unable to transcend our minds to render any verdict, so the subjectivity of our judgments is implicit, a given, and what we mean when we classify a judgment as “objective” or “subjective” is not the dependency of our judgment as the product of our mind, but rather the nature of the evidence and reasoning that supports our (subjective) judgment.

So, if we want to be pedantic, yes, it is an oxymoron. But it’s annoying and cumbersome to have to label every conclusion as such, so it’s taken as a given, and when we speak of “objective judgment”, we skip the given part, and focus on the epistemic grounds for the conclusion beyond that. “The moon exists” can be supported by more objective evidence and reasoning, less dependent on the will or minds of people than “Pink Floyd is the world’s greatest rock band”. Both are superficially subjective, though, as all judgments are.

Please stop asserting and start thinking.

blink

LOL! Right, your whole case is based on your stipulation of arbitrary definitions which your opponents don’t accept! Great demonstration!

As opposed to non-arbitrary definitions? I am beginning to suspect you are on a long term campaign to just pull my leg, here. All definitions are arbitrary, and vested by agreement and convention. They mean whatever we deem them to mean.

“Value only obtains from a valuer” is NOT “subjectivity, by definition.”
Where do you come up with stuff like this?

It is, because the “-er” in “valuer” implies a personality, a mind, a will. Value is thus necessarily subjective, given that.

In other words, like I said, you think the following: “If an object (paper money) is (voluntarily) chosen by a subject, then it follows that that object (paper money) is merely subjective”

I don’t think anything like that, and that reads as nonsense. “Is merely subjective” is poorly formed, to boot. Merely subjective with respect to what? Existence? The object’s existence is subjective because I’ve… “chosen”… ah, I give up.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

• but the antecedent is true, and the consequent is false. The worth of paper money is not merely subjective. You can assign it whatever value you want “with your mind” - that won’t change its objective value. Try it if you don’t believe me.

OK, so here’s the question, then. In a world with no minds or wills whatsoever, the paper money you are thinking of, above, has value, absolute value, objective value? Is that your position? It must be given you refer to its “objective value”. See I did try it, as I didn’t believe you, and the test failed – in such a world with no minds, “value” doesn’t mean anything at all. By contrast, the existence of an object in a world without minds is coherent – the moon can exist, and the concept of existence doesn’t break down when we imagine this other universe.

Yet another assertion of your stupid stipulative definition - thanks for that. From your nonsense definitions here it follows that it is not ‘objectively true’ (as opposed to ‘subjectively true’??) that minds and wills exist.

Ayiyi. All definitions are stipulative! These are not my definitions. I didn’t come up with them, and they were in wide philosophical use long before I was born.

I think it is objectively true that other minds exist – the existence of other minds does not depend on my mind or anyone’s mind to obtain. But this proposition, this conclusion, as a product of my own mind, is necessarily subjective as a conclusion. See above. The epistemic status of the proposition and the mental provenance of the proposition are not the same thing.

It’s hard to give a clear answer to an unclear question. (Santayana’s lovely comment comes to mind here: “that’s not right… that’s not even wrong!” You really need to be more careful in trying to understand the terms of the propositions you use before launching into arguments.)

What’s not clear?

Does “life’s meaning” or any other value obtain independently of any mind or will?

Can you name a value that doesn’t obtain from a mind or a will? A value that would be just as “value-able” if no mind/will existed anywhere? The big rock we call the moon is what it is – it doesn’t need my mind or your mind to exist. But the meaning of “life” is quite different. It’s a mental construct, and thus only exists where and when minds exist.

-TS

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

The theist who suggests that life does not have meaning in the absence of God is in this position. The currency of our lives is what we want it to be, and want we make it, individually, and collectively. Life is meaningful in God’s absence (and especially so in that case!) because we have resources like time and energy to invest, and life is the means of investing it. We have ambitions, emotions, goals and instincts we are born with, and which we develop as part of our nature. We are social species, and together, these produce all the real, practical meaning that is to be had.

Since we believe that God is an objective reality that can only be known through a subjective prism, and only dimly at that except perhaps for those who strive to be in tune with Him, we cannot be objectively (truly and completely as possible) fulfilled with all the other values of life until we come to terms with the ultimate value that transcends all others … our relationship with our Creator. Money, sex, power, fame, knowledge and so forth are poor substitutes for God. They always have been and always will be. The only possible way to give objective meaning to our lives is to have some kind of meaningful relationship with God. This relationship transcends all others, but certainly does not exclude all the others. A man can be consumed with lesser relationships and passions, but in the back of his mind God waits with outstretched arms calling him to an intimate and loving relationship. The man can run, but he cannot hide.

Many atheists run from God. But they cannot hide. God finds them at Catholic Answers.

 

[Betterave]

In for a penny, in for a pound…

LOL! Well first off I will say that these last posts are more credible as actual attempts at explanation, not just assertion of your position. Let’s take a look:

You have a problem with the definition used – see the Wikipedia article I linked, or one of any number of other places that use these terms in philosophy. Or better yet (and this is a pattern emerging), don’t be passive, offer your own ideas of what “objective” and “subjective” mean and how they get applied so we can see how they fare. As I read this, I’ve got nothing more than a complaint with the definitions used in philosophical discourse on the topic. That’s pretty thin gruel.

I offered two reductiones ad absurdum of your definitions. Why call that thin gruel? “I know you are but what am I” comes to mind here.

It’s a definition, a working concept for communication. The only acceptance needed is understanding. Is it “dependent” you are having trouble with? What? The moon doesn’t need your mind or my mind to exist, so it’s existence is objective with respect to our minds. If we coin a new word for some purpose, to further a conversation, the meaning we agree on would be subjective with respect to our minds, as the meaning depends on our minds – without our minds and their agreement, the word would not have any meaning.

This is a principle that is used far and wide in philosophy, heavily in science, and philosophy of science, but elsewhere as well, all the time.

Yes, “dependent” is one problem…

It’s a definition. See the moon/neologism explanation above.

Yes, an ambiguous one…

It is an oxymoron, strictly speaking. If I come to a judgment “objectively”, the objectivity obtains in the nature of the evidence and reasoning I deploy. Such a conclusion putatively stands on its own, independent of my mind or any mind. I might say “the moon exists” as an objective judgment for example. The “objective” part obtains (if it obtains) from the basis of the moon’s independence of any mind to exist.

But I’m still rendering judgment with my mind, which necessarily makes my verdict subjective on its face. As minds, we are unable to transcend our minds to render any verdict, so the subjectivity of our judgments is implicit, a given, and what we mean when we classify a judgment as “objective” or “subjective” is not the dependency of our judgment as the product of our mind, but rather the nature of the evidence and reasoning that supports our (subjective) judgment. [uh, yeah! - obviously!]

So, if we want to be -]pedantic/-] confused, yes, it is an oxymoron. But it’s annoying and cumbersome to have to label every conclusion as such, so it’s taken as a given, and when we speak of “objective judgment”, we skip the given part, and focus on the epistemic grounds for the conclusion beyond that. “The moon exists” can be supported by more objective evidence and reasoning, less dependent on the will or minds of people than “Pink Floyd is the world’s greatest rock band”. Both are -]superficially/-] ontologically subjective, though, as all judgments are.

Close, but not quite. It is *not *true, strictly speaking, that ‘objective judgment’ is an oxymoron. It is an expression that only a pedantic (or, dare I say, stupid?) person might misinterpret to refer to a judgment that was not the judgment of a mind (same goes for ‘objective value’). But no one would think this unless they mistakenly believed that ‘objective’ meant ‘exclusive of mind’ or ‘unrelated to mind’ or ‘independent in every conceivable sense of the word of mind’ - and ‘objective’ does not mean any of those things, certainly not in this context.

When you write: “The “objective” part obtains (if it obtains) from the basis of the moon’s independence of any mind to exist,” you seem to be confused. The moon’s existing independently of mind (mindlessly, ‘objectively’) decribes an ontological proposition: “this is how the moon is”. This proposition could just as well be about a mind which does not exist ‘objectively’, that is, its mode of existence is that of a subject, it is not mindless. Either way we can make an objective judgment about these things. When we shift to speaking about judgments, however, we are no longer talking about ontological objectivity/subjectivity; we are talking about epistemological obj./subj.

 

[Betterave]

As opposed to non-arbitrary definitions? I am beginning to suspect you are on a long term campaign to just pull my leg, here. All definitions are arbitrary, and vested by agreement and convention. They mean whatever we deem them to mean.

“All definitions are arbitrary”? So I suppose the definition of ‘arbitrary’ is arbitrary, just as the definition of ‘non-arbitrary’ is. Are you serious? Seriously, are you serious? What must you think of those people who decide what goes in dictionaries! It must be a strange kind of expertise which is required for such an arbitrary exercise.

It is, because the “-er” in “valuer” implies a personality, a mind, a will. Value is thus necessarily subjective, given that.

Er, yeah, just like the “-er” in “judger”… So value and judgments do necessarily imply a relation to a mind, and yes, minds are characterized by ontological subjectivity… But that is merely obvious and does nothing, nada, to prove your contention in this thread.

 

[Betterave]

I don’t think anything like that, and that reads as nonsense. “Is merely subjective” is poorly formed, to boot. Merely subjective with respect to what? Existence? The object’s existence is subjective because I’ve… “chosen”… ah, I give up.

Yes you do think like that, you just don’t understand that you do. Asking a question like “Merely subjective with respect to what?” is a very good sign, however. Please try to ask yourself questions like that more often.

OK, so here’s the question, then. In a world with no minds or wills whatsoever, the paper money you are thinking of, above, has value, absolute value, objective value? Is that your position?

You imagined that *you *were there in that world with no minds, observing it, making judgments about it - therefore you are mistaken in thinking that you imagined a world with no minds. One mind, yours, was there in your imaginary world, you just didn’t notice it.

Anyway, no, paper money is (objectively) ontologically dependent on minds, so in a world with no minds money wouldn’t even exist. Your ridiculous argument could just as well be used to prove that the moon does not exist objectively: “In a world where nothing existed in outer space, the Moon you are thinking of exists, objectively exists? Is that your position?”

It must be given you refer to its “objective value”. See I did try it, as I didn’t believe you, and the test failed – in such a world with no minds, “value” doesn’t mean anything at all. By contrast, the existence of an object in a world without minds is coherent – the moon can exist, and the concept of existence doesn’t break down when we imagine this other universe.

As you can hopefully now see, you weren’t paying attention to what you (subject) were (objectively) doing when you took your little trip to make-believe land. Why don’t you stay in the real world and try it? Go try to buy a flat of beer for a nickel, after you’ve assigned the value of a flat of beer to that nickel ‘with your mind’.

Ayiyi. All definitions are stipulative! These are not my definitions. I didn’t come up with them, and they were in wide philosophical use long before I was born.

LOL again! So I guess the definition of ‘definition’ is stipulative too? And the definition of ‘stipulative’ as well? Strike two.

I think it is objectively true that other minds exist – the existence of other minds does not depend on my mind or anyone’s mind to obtain. [whether or not it depends, depends on what you mean] But this proposition, this conclusion, as a product of my own mind, is necessarily subjective as a conclusion. See above. The epistemic status of the proposition and the mental provenance of the proposition are not the same thing.

No, no, no: it is not subjective as a proposition or conclusion - these are epistemic entities. They are ontologically instantiated in minds, so that is the sense in which they exist ‘subjectively’ - which, b.t.w., is a perfectly objective fact about them.

What’s not clear?

Does “life’s meaning” or any other value obtain independently of any mind or will?

Can you name a value that doesn’t obtain from a mind or a will? A value that would be just as “value-able” if no mind/will existed anywhere? The big rock we call the moon is what it is – it doesn’t need my mind or your mind to exist. But the meaning of “life” is quite different. It’s a mental construct, and thus only exists where and when minds exist.

Hopefully you have already understood where you were confused, but I’ll take this question to try to make sure you get the point: “Can you name a value that doesn’t obtain from a mind or a will?” Answer: There is no value which is not ontologically dependent on a mind or a will. All values, whether objective or subjective, imply mental acts of valuation. But again, this point is obvious and does nothing towards proving your point in this thread. Obviously the meaning of life only exists where meaning and life exist; that does not in the least show that the meaning of life is not objective (‘objective’ in the sense, obviously, in which any intelligent person would understand the term, the epistemic sense).

Please note: The ontological notion/predicate of ‘subjectivity’ *adds *a determination to certain objects; it does not make those objects cease to be objects/objective.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

The big rock we call the moon is what it is – it doesn’t need my mind or your mind to exist. But the meaning of “life” is quite different. It’s a mental construct, and thus only exists where and when minds exist.

But how do you know the big rock called the Moon does not need God’s mind to exist?

 

[Touchstone]

Close, but not quite. It is *not *true, strictly speaking, that ‘objective judgment’ is an oxymoron. It is an expression that only a pedantic (or, dare I say, stupid?) person might misinterpret to refer to a judgment that was not the judgment of a mind (same goes for ‘objective value’). But no one would think this unless they mistakenly believed that ‘objective’ meant ‘exclusive of mind’ or ‘unrelated to mind’ or ‘independent in every conceivable sense of the word of mind’ - and ‘objective’ does not mean any of those things, certainly not in this context.

OK, well you have a Wikipedia article to go fix, when you have time. “Objective” is the term we use to point to the “exclusive of mind” concept. I gave the clip from Wikipedia which you just ignored, here’s Webster:

b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries…are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare subjective 3a

and

a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>

You can dismiss this all you like, but the definition is just a recap of how the word is actually used. Words mean what people choose them to mean and agree they mean. You still have not provided your definition of “objective” and “subjective”. What is it?

When you write: “The “objective” part obtains (if it obtains) from the basis of the moon’s independence of any mind to exist,” you seem to be confused. The moon’s existing independently of mind (mindlessly, ‘objectively’) decribes an ontological proposition: “this is how the moon is”. This proposition could just as well be about a mind which does not exist ‘objectively’, that is, its mode of existence is that of a subject, it is not mindless. Either way we can make an objective judgment about these things. When we shift to speaking about judgments, however, we are no longer talking about ontological objectivity/subjectivity; we are talking about epistemological obj./subj.

But ‘life has intrinsic meaning’ is an ontological proposition. You’re recapitulating the same mistake identified in the thread’s first post. “intrinsic value” explicitly identifies the claim as ontological – that’s what ‘intrinsic’ signifies, “in and of itself”. This is why the money example is effective, because we have a much clearer view to the absurdity of idea that money has intrinsic value. As an ontological proposition about the $20 bill itself, “money has instrinsic value” isn’t even coherent, let alone wrong.

This is the very same principle at work in “life has intrinsic value”. As an ontological proposition, it’s nonsense, incoherent.

This is the whole thesis of the thread, that theist’s ontological language is vacuous. God as a valuer is still a mind/will serving as valuer, making any value subjective. The value does not obtain in the object (a human, a $20 bill, a music CD), and can’t by definition. It’s assigned by a valuer, making whatever meaning life has for the Catholic subjective, ontologically.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

“All definitions are arbitrary”? So I suppose the definition of ‘arbitrary’ is arbitrary, just as the definition of ‘non-arbitrary’ is. Are you serious?

Yes, how do you think words get their meaning? People who compile dictionaries don’t assign meaning, they report meaning that has been assigned in practice.

When Murray Gell-Mann coined (heh- notice the connection to money and valuation!) the term “quark”, he didn’t go to the dictionary to see what the word would be – there was no word for this new idea. He chose “quark”, from James Joyce’s *Finnegan’s Wake:

Three quarks for Muster Mark!
Sure he has not got much of a bark
And sure any he has it’s all beside the mark.

He could have named the ‘quark’ any number of things. But this is what he chose, and this is why ‘quark’ means what it does in science. For more detail, see The Quark and the Jaguar, by Gell-Mann.

Once again, you’re astonished and apparently offended by the way things actually work, but yet you don’t bother to tell us how you think things work. How does a word acquire meaning? By being put in a dictionary, you suppose? Does the creator of a word need to be “inducted” into some special community? Did Gell-Mann break the rules, somehow in choosing ‘quark’?

Seriously, are you serious? What must you think of those people who decide what goes in dictionaries! It must be a strange kind of expertise which is required for such an arbitrary exercise.

Sigh. Compilers of dictionaries do not assign meaning. They report what meaning has been assigned. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Er, yeah, just like the “-er” in “judger”… So value and judgments do necessarily imply a relation to a mind, and yes, minds are characterized by ontological subjectivity… But that is merely obvious and does nothing, nada, to prove your contention in this thread.

It necessarily means that “intrinsic meaning of life” is incoherent. You’ve just granted the case, right here. Meaning necessarily implies a relation to a mind. The value only obtains from mind, not from life qua life, intrinsically.

If you suppose this is obvious, then you can help make my case to others, here, and with this reply of yours, I think you have, thank you. Many here I think do not yet see this point.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Yes you do think like that, you just don’t understand that you do. Asking a question like “Merely subjective with respect to what?” is a very good sign, however. Please try to ask yourself questions like that more often.

Zzzzz…

You imagined that *you *were there in that world with no minds, observing it, making judgments about it - therefore you are mistaken in thinking that you imagined a world with no minds. One mind, yours, was there in your imaginary world, you just didn’t notice it.

No, my mind is in this world, imagining that world. That doesn’t put me in that world. You’ve confused subject and object.

Anyway, no, paper money is (objectively) ontologically dependent on minds, so in a world with no minds money wouldn’t even exist. Your ridiculous argument could just as well be used to prove that the moon does not exist objectively: “In a world where nothing existed in outer space, the Moon you are thinking of exists, objectively exists? Is that your position?”

These aren’t equivalent, or even similar. In another universe without any minds or any life at all, there may exist amounts of gold, a material that in this world has a lot of assigned value for many humans. The same gold (in terms of chemical/physical constitution) exists in both universes, and exists objectively – exists exclusive of mind (there are none in the other universe).

Value isn’t like that. It can’t exist in the other universe, as there are no valuers to give rise to any value.

A moon can possibly exist without minds. A value can’t. The moon can possibly exist objectively. “Meaning of life” cannot.

As you can hopefully now see, you weren’t paying attention to what you (subject) were (objectively) doing when you took your little trip to make-believe land. Why don’t you stay in the real world and try it? Go try to buy a flat of beer for a nickel, after you’ve assigned the value of a flat of beer to that nickel ‘with your mind’.

Value is a collective agreement, when we are talking money. I don’t get to assign value all by myself. Monetary value obtains through collective agreement and social contract (and often legal statute).

LOL again! So I guess the definition of ‘definition’ is stipulative too? And the definition of ‘stipulative’ as well? Strike two.

See my prior post on Gell-Mann’s choice of the word “quark”. Words mean what we choose them to mean. If Gell-Mann chooses “quark” for his particle, and the rest of us agree to adopt the term and use it, there you go, a newly coined term, rich with new meaning.

Hopefully you have already understood where you were confused, but I’ll take this question to try to make sure you get the point: “Can you name a value that doesn’t obtain from a mind or a will?” Answer: There is no value which is not ontologically dependent on a mind or a will. All values, whether objective or subjective, imply mental acts of valuation.

OK, so life has no intrinsic meaning, and can’t by virtue of this. This is the point of the thread. God assigning it value posits God as a valuer, and any value is assigned to life, and by definition not intrinsic to life, something that obtains in and of itself. When a Catholic says “Life has intrinsic value”, she is not talking about intrinsic value at all, but has used that as a euphemism, for “I believe in a God who I take as the authority in value assignments, and God value’s life, so life has assigned value”.

But again, this point is obvious and does nothing towards proving your point in this thread.

I think you’ve misunderstood the point I was making in this thread, then. It may be obvious to you (I note it took quite a circuitous path for you to arrive at the obvious here), but this is very much the point of the thread, that valuation demands a valuer, and thus an object doesn’t have intrinsic value, but assigned value.

Obviously the meaning of life only exists where meaning and life exist; that does not in the least show that the meaning of life is not objective (‘objective’ in the sense, obviously, in which any intelligent person would understand the term, the epistemic sense).

I’ve given my own definitions and cited others we typically rely on. You have conspcuously avoided given your definition of “objective” and “subjective”, even as you appeal to some version you hold to that “any intelligent person would understand”.

-TS

 

[Charlemagne_II]

TS

This is the whole thesis of the thread, that theist’s ontological language is vacuous. God as a valuer is still a mind/will serving as valuer, making any value subjective. The value does not obtain in the object (a human, a $20 bill, a music CD), and can’t by definition. It’s assigned by a valuer, making whatever meaning life has for the Catholic subjective, ontologically.

When God assigns a value, He does not do so as a subjective valuer. The universe of His creation has objective value, unlike the $20 bill, which subjectively today might be worth $10 or tomorrow might be worth $30. When God created the universe, he created it Good, not Good one day and Bad the next. The universe and everything (everyone) in it has true, objective and intrinsic value.

A subjective value in human terms is assigned to human beings by other human beings when they want to abuse them in some way or get rid of them. Hitler did not want to see the intrinsic (objective) worth of Jews as human beings, and so assigned them a subjective (imposed) value as vermin. Abortionists do not want to see the intrinsic humanity of the unborn, and so they subjectively define them as mere lumps of tissue.

With Christianity no such lie is allowed, even though many a Christian has dishonored his own faith.

An objective value cannot with good reason be overturned. The laws of physics may be objective or subjective, depending on how much we really know about them. The law of gravitation is not subjectively assigned to nature. It is objectively determined by experiment. Jump from the tallest building and that law asserts itself objectively, not subjectively. You land dead on arrival. Every time.

Whereas humans can make subjective valuations that result in error, God can only make objective valuations that result in truth. To call God’s valuations no more objective than man’s valuations (in other words, to call them subjective) is to put God on the same plane as man. No Catholic does that. Even though every Catholic believe that man was made in the image and likeness of God, no Catholic believes that God is as promiscuous in the subjectivity of his values as man has become. That is why Catholic morality, because it comes from God, both in the natural law and through Scripture, is objective rather than result of mere subjective preference. For the same reason, those who depart from God’s law will always hate the Catholic Church because they know, even though they are afraid to admit it, that they are wrong and the Church is right.

How prophetic He was Who said: “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake.” Matthew 24:9

 

[Touchstone]

When God assigns a value, He does not do so as a subjective valuer. The universe of His creation has objective value, unlike the $20 bill, which subjectively today might be worth $10 or tomorrow might be worth $30. When God created the universe, he created it Good, not Good one day and Bad the next. The universe and everything (everyone) in it has true, objective and intrinsic value.

The degree of value doesn’t change the ontology, or make the value more or less objective. It’s the provenance of the value itself – no matter if it changes or not – that is problematic for claims of “objective value” and “intrinsic meaning”. Keeping the value assignment by God a constant at his discretion doesn’t affect this at all.

A subjective value in human terms is assigned to human beings by other human beings when they want to abuse them in some way or get rid of them. Hitler did not want to see the intrinsic (objective) worth of Jews as human beings, and so assigned them a subjective (imposed) value as vermin. Abortionists do not want to see the intrinsic humanity of the unborn, and so they subjectively define them as mere lumps of tissue.

Assignment is assignment. I understand that you find God’s assignment of value more valuable (!) to you than Hitler’s, but God’s assignment doesn’t make it “non-assignment” because it’s God. It’s just a supreme authority (in your view) doing the assigning.

With Christianity no such lie is allowed, even though many a Christian has dishonored his own faith.

Fine, but you’re just quibbling about the merits of one assignment over another, at that point. You’re now off the topic of “life has objective value” and talking about whether God as the valuer is someone to agree with or not.

An objective value cannot with good reason be overturned. The laws of physics may be objective or subjective, depending on how much we really know about them.

It depends on whether physics obtains from the mind and will of God. If so, our universe is fundamentally subjective. If there is no God involved, and the nature of the universe obtains impersonally, not subject to the will of any mind, our reality obtains objectively.

The law of gravitation is not subjectively assigned to nature.

It is if that is determined to be as it is from the mind of God.

It is objectively determined by experiment. Jump from the tallest building and that law asserts itself objectively, not subjectively. You land dead on arrival. Every time.

Not if God wills it otherwise! How a Christian can so thoroughly confuse his own framework, I can’t fathom. Tell me if I jump from the top of the Empire State Building, and it is of utmost importance to God that I land gently, unhurt, what do you believe will happen. A Christian can in no way say “every time”, carrying around a book that talks about Resurrection – here, men dead three days stay dead, every time. If Christianity is true, nothing is objectively real or true, nothing at all. It’s all subject to the mind and will of God.

Whereas humans can make subjective valuations that result in error, God can only make objective valuations that result in truth./

Well, now, I have to ask you what I asked Betterave: whatever do you mean by the word “objective”, here?

To call God’s valuations no more objective than man’s valuations (in other words, to call them subjective) is to put God on the same plane as man.

No, it doesn’t. God’s will may be perfectly efficacious and binding on reality, which couldn’t be more different from man’s “plane”. But even so, it’s still subejctive, and in fact, maximally subjective. God is the apotheosis of subjectivity. On Christianity, God’s thoughts can and do shape reality itself. Everything and anything is subject to his will. You cannot get more subjective and less objective than that. Objectivity measure the independence of a thing, or an aspect of a thing from mind and will. Per Christianity, there is no way in principle to be more subjective than God is, for nothing obtains independently, ever, from his mind and will. The very universe was created at his behest, according to Christianity. That’s maximal subjectivity.

No Catholic does that. Even though every Catholic believe that man was made in the image and likeness of God, no Catholic believes that God is as promiscuous in the subjectivity of his values as man has become.

And that’s not being argued here. It doesn’t matter how much “higher” or more consistent or “perfect” God’s performance is on any measure. That doesn’t change the world’s dependence on God’s mind and will for its existence, it’s structure, its ongoing features and development.

That is why Catholic morality, because it comes from God, both in the natural law and through Scripture, is objective rather than result of mere subjective preference.

This is just confused language, or rather an attempt to steal the equity of “objective” and credit it to God. God is just the “Authoritative Subject” in the Christian model, and his value assignments are considered binding, and universal. But that doesn’t and can’t make them any less subjective than they are.

For the same reason, those who depart from God’s law will always hate the Catholic Church because they know, even though they are afraid to admit it, that they are wrong and the Church is right.

OK, well, stroke your conceits, there. Have at it. Your opponents really know you’re right, and are just to much the scoundrel to admit. Otherwise, your ideas would get the credit they really deserve from everybody.

-TS

 

[Betterave]

OK, well you have a Wikipedia article to go fix, when you have time.

What, specifically, do you think I ought to feel the need to fix?

“Objective” is the term we use to point to the “exclusive of mind” concept.

After all I just wrote, I can’t believe you go back to the well on this same kind of bald unqualified assertion. This is true on the ontological use of the term only, as I clearly explained. Please try to respond to what I say instead of just repeating the old familiar lines you’re comfortable with.

I gave the clip from Wikipedia which you just ignored, here’s Webster:

Quote:
b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <our reveries…are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare subjective 3a

Try to notice the significance of each word when you read. When you summarize a view by dropping out a word like “individual”, you end up completely perverting the original meaning and this means that you have wasted your time referring to the dictionary.

Quote:
a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Okay… you think I dismiss this? Did you read what I wrote?

You can dismiss this all you like, but the definition is just a recap of how the word is actually used. Words mean what people choose them to mean and agree they mean. You still have not provided your definition of “objective” and “subjective”. What is it?

That’s idiotic, TS. Read what I have written again. I most certainly have explained the meanings of those terms, in particular the different meanings they have in different contexts.

But ‘life has intrinsic meaning’ is an ontological proposition. You’re recapitulating the same mistake identified in the thread’s first post. “intrinsic value” explicitly identifies the claim as ontological – that’s what ‘intrinsic’ signifies, “in and of itself”. This is why the money example is effective, because we have a much clearer view to the absurdity of idea that money has intrinsic value. As an ontological proposition about the $20 bill itself, “money has instrinsic value” isn’t even coherent, let alone wrong.

OH my. You’re sooo confused: ‘life has intrinsic meaning’ is an ontological proposition, sure. But so what? How the heck do you jump to the conclusion that it is therefore an absurd proposition?

This is the very same principle at work in “life has intrinsic value”. As an ontological proposition, it’s nonsense, incoherent.

What principle?

This is the whole thesis of the thread, that theist’s ontological language is vacuous. God as a valuer is still a mind/will serving as valuer, making any value subjective. The value does not obtain in the object (a human, a $20 bill, a music CD), and can’t by definition. It’s assigned by a valuer, making whatever meaning life has for the Catholic subjective, ontologically.

So you think that value is ontologically subjective - fine, that’s obvious. But you also think that the notion of an objective product of an ontologically subjective being is incoherent - correct? But WHY?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

I’m afraid that most of your post was long winded and incoherent. One point, though, really interested me.

*God’s will may be perfectly efficacious and binding on reality, which couldn’t be more different from man’s “plane”. **But even so, it’s still subejctive, and in fact, maximally subjective. *God is the apotheosis of subjectivity. On Christianity, God’s thoughts can and do shape reality itself. Everything and anything is subject to his will. You cannot get more subjective and less objective than that. Objectivity measure the independence of a thing, or an aspect of a thing from mind and will. Per Christianity, there is no way in principle to be more subjective than God is, for nothing obtains independently, ever, from his mind and will. The very universe was created at his behest, according to Christianity. That’s maximal subjectivity.

Since God’s will is absolute, it is likewise objective because it is law without exception. All humans are equally valued as His children. That’s hardly the same as the subjective preference some parents may have for their different children.

Yes, all of creation is a product of God’s will, but it is also a product of His intellect. And his intellect is not subject to the willy-nilly assignment of values. God* knows* exactly what He wills. He knows that He has created a universe independent of His own being, even though the universe cannot exist without His will sustaining it. However, God is not to be confused with the universe, unless you are a pantheist. For that reason, God permits evil, even though it is no part of Himself or His will. That is, God does not value evil, and has even given us the power to overcome it if we will.

Because we are separate from God, objects of his creation rather than emanations of Himself, we are imperfect. Our imperfection comes from the fact that we contain less objectivity (truthfulness) in our values than God owns. Our subjectivity (willingness to assign our own subjective values rather than God’s objective will) is always the source of our undoing. God objectively values life, as He does all creation. The abortionist, for example, subjectively denies that objectively true value (God’s will) and substitutes for God’s will his own.

In short, subjectively assigning values that depart from God’s objective values is what gets us into trouble.

I came to this discussion late, so I’m not sure what exact definition you had in mind for subjective as opposed to objective valuations. However, if you are giving a different definition for God’s subjectivity as opposed to human subjectivity, then it’s a new game. Yes, God does impose his values on Creation, and in that sense is subjective, and supremely so. But He is certainly not subjective in the sense of the word as it applies to human values, such as how we value a twenty dollar bill. The values He assigns are objectively intrinsic to His creation … that is, truthful and fixed with respect to the objects of his creation. They are objectively real, not false or imaginary.

What I see here is a confounding of two definitions of subjectivity. One concerns ontological subjectivity (which may be said of God), and the other concerns psychological subjectivity, which may be said of men.

But where does that get us so far as the point of this thread is concerned?

In your next to last paragraph in the first post you seem to be saying that these subjective values you enumerate are all we need in this life. That, of course, is not true if God exists and His objective (true and fixed) will is that we should put our relationship with him above all other preferences.

Indeed, if we value money rather than God, when we cross the river Styx, we will not even have two coins to pay the boatman.

 

[Betterave]

Yes, how do you think words get their meaning? People who compile dictionaries don’t assign meaning, they report meaning that has been assigned in practice.

When Murray Gell-Mann coined (heh- notice the connection to money and valuation!) the term “quark”, he didn’t go to the dictionary to see what the word would be – there was no word for this new idea. He chose “quark”, from James Joyce’s *Finnegan’s Wake:
He could have named the ‘quark’ any number of things. But this is what he chose, and this is why ‘quark’ means what it does in science. For more detail, see The Quark and the Jaguar, by Gell-Mann.

Once again, you’re astonished and apparently offended by the way things actually work, but yet you don’t bother to tell us how you think things work. How does a word acquire meaning? By being put in a dictionary, you suppose? Does the creator of a word need to be “inducted” into some special community? Did Gell-Mann break the rules, somehow in choosing ‘quark’?

It would be difficult to correct all of the errors in these paragraphs, but I’ll address one basic and obvious point. You start off asking about how words get/acquire meanings, then in an attempt to illustrate your point you discuss an example of a meaning got/acquired a word, and conclude by switching back to your original formulation - apparently oblivious to the reversals of the terms. Then you trail off into irrelevant drivel.

Sigh. Compilers of dictionaries do not assign meaning. They report what meaning has been assigned. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Dictionaries: descriptive, yes; not prescriptive, no (your error here: false dichotomy). You are very obviously wrong here (VERY). Think about it. If you don’t get it, just say “I don’t get it” and I’ll explain.

It necessarily means that “intrinsic meaning of life” is incoherent. You’ve just granted the case, right here. Meaning necessarily implies a relation to a mind. The value only obtains from mind, not from life qua life, intrinsically.

So what’s your argument?

P1. Meaning necessarily implies a relation to a mind.
P2. The -]value/-] meaning only obtains from mind, i.e., rational life, life with mind, not from life qua -]life/-] mindless, -]intrinsically/-].
C. Therefore… “intrinsic meaning of life” is incoherent? - non sequitur. Therefore “intrinsic meaning of life” refers to the intrinsic meaning of the kind of life that characterizes minds.

If you suppose this is obvious, then you can help make my case to others, here, and with this reply of yours, I think you have, thank you. Many here I think do not yet see this point.

-TS

When you try to serve someone a tray full of stinking garbage to eat and they refuse the whole tray without noticing that there is one small perfectly good piece of cheese on the tray, you should try to be understanding about this oversight.

 

[Betterave]

Zzzzz…

…zzzut alors!

No, my mind is in this world, imagining that world. That doesn’t put me in that world. You’ve confused subject and object.

I’ve confused subject and object, have I? Please explain.

Here’s what you imply here, probably without realizing it: You can actually *know *about what happens in a world without having any *real ontological interaction *with it. So real knowledge is not dependent on real experience. Do you actually want to try to embrace that position (consistently, I mean)?

These aren’t equivalent, or even similar. In another universe without any minds or any life at all, there may exist amounts of gold, a material that in this world has a lot of assigned value for many humans. The same gold (in terms of chemical/physical constitution) exists in both universes, and exists objectively – exists exclusive of mind (there are none in the other universe).

First, the existence of gold is only partially determined by its chemical/physical constitution. Second, the existence of gold may be identical in one respect, its chemical constitution and amount, but it cannot possibly be (objectively!) identical in all respects if it has value in one world and not in another. If the gold existed strictly ‘exclusively of mind’ *in all respects *in both universes, then it would be equally valueless in both universes. Can you see that?

If there is a huge nugget of gold sitting under a rock on the Moon, this gold is in this universe, but it is objectively true that it is not valuable (even we exist and we value gold). This is true because of the *objective *conditions governing the value of gold. A more down-to-earth example: many deposits of hydrocarbons are not valuable, while others are ‘black gold.’ Which is the case for a given deposit is again a matter of the objective conditions governing the value of hydrocarbons.

A moon can possibly exist without minds. A value can’t. The moon can possibly exist objectively. “Meaning of life” cannot.

Eventually you have to get this: that’s a non sequitur.

Value is a collective agreement, when we are talking money. I don’t get to assign value all by myself. Monetary value obtains through collective agreement and social contract (and often legal statute).

Correct. There are objective conditions governing the value of money.

See my prior post on Gell-Mann’s choice of the word “quark”. Words mean what we choose them to mean. If Gell-Mann chooses “quark” for his particle, and the rest of us agree to adopt the term and use it, there you go, a newly coined term, rich with new meaning.

Again, you got this bass-ackwards: Gell-Mann chose a word for a meaning, not a meaning for a word.

OK, so life has no intrinsic meaning, and can’t by virtue of this. This is the point of the thread. God assigning it value posits God as a valuer, and any value is assigned to life, and by definition not intrinsic to life, something that obtains in and of itself. When a Catholic says “Life has intrinsic value”, she is not talking about intrinsic value at all, but has used that as a euphemism, for “I believe in a God who I take as the authority in value assignments, and God value’s life, so life has assigned value”.

No, your basic comprehension of terms is way wrong (as I’ve explained) and your theology is way wrong (based on the wrongness of your comprehension of terms).

I think you’ve misunderstood the point I was making in this thread, then. It may be obvious to you (I note it took quite a circuitous path for you to arrive at the obvious here), but this is very much the point of the thread, that valuation demands a valuer, and thus an object doesn’t have intrinsic value, but assigned value.

Again, please, please don’t ignore this point: that is a non sequitur.

I’ve given my own definitions and cited others we typically rely on. You have conspcuously avoided given your definition of “objective” and “subjective”, even as you appeal to some version you hold to that “any intelligent person would understand”.

-TS

The perpetual darkness may be ‘conspicuous’ to the blind man, but not so much to those who can see.