I
- Status
”
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Your “request” has been taken under “consideration.”
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
“The existence of salt is indisputable.”
Translation: Whether salt exists or not in some particular food is ultimately a matter beyond dispute. It isn’t disputable.
The fact that taste cannot with 100% accuracy verify the existence of salt (taste can err) does not mean the existence of salt is disputable, it means the reliability of the sense of taste is disputable. That does not mean, however, that taste is absolutely to be distrusted regarding establishing saltiness.
Using a thermometer to measure body temperature does not logically require a fever to be present, yet we use body temperature to indicate the presence of a fever. It would be ridiculous to claim thermometers are “subjective” because there is no logical connection between what they measure and the presence of fever.
Yes, I know your objection is that thermometers measure body temperature, not fever.
My response is that they are relied upon to indicate fever just as taste buds are relied upon to indicate saltiness as “quick and dirty” means for doing so. In this respect, taste buds function much as thermometers do in the determination of fever. That does not make “fever” a subjective thing merely because heightened body temperature determined by a thermometer has no logically necessary connection to fever.
The rest of your posts are equally fraught with logical issues, but I don’t have the time right now to address them.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
This is the part of your post that gets very confused, very quickly.
There is no logical rule that states that for a quality to be objective it must not be subjective. This is not an either/or proposition. It is not as if merely having “personal feelings and opinions” about certain questions or aspects of reality makes answering those issues, necessarily, non-objective.
Knowing, itself, is a subjective enterprise. We have no "independent’ means to verify knowledge apart from knowers who are subject to having knowledge. Objects do not possess some quality, in and of themselves, that engenders “knowledge.” Epistemic certainty is a feature of subjects and there is no “independent” means besides checking with other subjects as to whether one subject’s knowledge is adequate or not. That is why universities exist staffed by “experts,” (i.e., other subjects in the field who possess knowledge,) to guide learning
Beauty is a concept that attempts to get at certain qualities of reality. It could be argued that “dog” or “dogginess” is a subjectively determined concept or set of properties that are applied by subjects – capable of knowledge – to aspects of reality in order to make reality comprehensible to other knowing subjects. The fact that we can parse that concept to make it agreeable and comprehensible to most intelligent subjects does not mean the concept is not a “subjective” one. It is determinably subject dependent. But it also “represents” what subjects observe to be true (i.e., corresponds to) about reality.
That some eight year old knowers are a little fuzzy around the edges about whether hyenas are dogs or whether psychotic individual subjects exist who think themselves to BE dogs is neither here nor there as to whether the subjectively arrived at concept of “dog” appropriately fits or represents the objective world.
Similarly, merely because there is disagreement as to the quality of “beauty” – what precisely it is and how it is represented in the real world – does not make the reality the concept purports to represent non-existent. Almost everyone understands the general notion of beauty and do utilize the idea in more or less consistent ways, although there might be disagreement where teasing out what precisely makes a particular work of art, piece of music or some other existent, beautiful. Everyone, virtually without exception, would hold that a piece from Beethoven is more beautiful as music than Clattering Pots in A♭Minor.
Where you get confused, I suspect, is that you are inclined to separate subjective from objective as if the two cannot be associated – that is, if some reality is “subjective” it cannot, by that fact, also be “objective.” I would argue that subjects can be objects – consciousness of self being one example of a subject (oneself) being an object – and therefore subject-based realities can also be objective. Knowledge as opposed to mere objective, physical facts is another example of when a reality grounded in subjectivity (knowledge) can be objective.
This is why I presented the three kinds of propositions or claims:
- Preferences (Entirely subjective and, therefore, not disputable)
- Judgements (Subjective claims ABOUT the objective world, subject to verification)
- Facts (Purely objective claims)
Determinations of beauty, truth and goodness fall under 2) although what some subjects errantly believe is that they, themselves are merely stating 1) their preferences. The mere fact, however, that claims about beauty, truth or goodness are disputable means they CANNOT be mere preference claims.
No one will dispute “I like chocolate ice cream.” There is nothing to dispute because it merely expresses or states a preference. “This fish tastes salty,” is a disputable claim often prompting others to taste for themselves to see if it does, indeed, taste salty – meaning the food contains too much salt for most human palates.
Some individuals might mean “This fish is too salty for me” when they make the statement and THAT would be a preference claim, but not necessarily so.
T
tonyrey
Guest
B
Bradski
Guest
Then please post the link. Because I think you are playing fast and loose with the figures. This link will take you to a pdf which shows the total number of abortion in the UK (and the rate per head of population) has been falling for the last 10 years.
gov.uk/…/Abortion_Statistics__England_and_Wales_2013.pdf
Similarly, this report shows that divorces have fallen from a high of 13.3 per 100,000 in 2002 to 10.8 in 2012.
theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jan/28/divorce-rates-marriage-ons
The only one you have correct is the suicide rate, which has increased by less than 1 in 100,000 over the last 6 years.
So do you believe that the decrease in abortions and divorces is linked somehow to a fall in spiritual beliefs?
I
inocente
Guest
If you redefine words to mean whatever you want then yes, black can be white, but it destroys language as a means of communication.
Subjective = “influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on facts”
Objective = “not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings”
They are antonyms.
Beauty - “an attractive quality that gives pleasure to those who experience it or think about it, or a person who has this attractive quality”.
Dog - “a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, non-retractile claws, and a barking, howling, or whining voice.”
Just because some people don’t know the meaning of words doesn’t mean we must all give up on language.
If beauty is objective then there would necessarily have to be a way that is independent of personal feelings to compare the beauty of one of Pink Floyd’s ditties against something else. All I did was to ask (several times) what that procedure is.
Instead you keep responding with arguments from obfuscation. By redefining “subjective” to give it a private meaning, you conflate it with “objective” such that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength, as the slogans on the Ministry of Truth read in Orwell’s 1984.
So, in summary you made a claim and until you substantiate it objectively, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” stands tall.
I
inocente
Guest
Then instead of El Rey, I’ll think of you as El Presidente, or just jefe if you prefer.
I don’t think his objective was to explain that.
No, Lady Bracknell,
you asked me for factors which might produce a decline in religious belief and I gave one which I think applies globally - increased exposure to other cultures.Whether there is a global decline I don’t know. The English and Americans have a tendency to forget the other 95% of us even exist.
UK proportion of world population: 0.9%
US proportion of world population: 4.5%
I cited stats for 100% of the world, not just the UK’s 1%.
The stats I cited show a drop in abortions worldwide. I don’t know whether there is a decline in moral values or spiritual beliefs in the UK, or whether they correlate with a fall in church attendance in the UK.
Outside the UK, in the other 99% of the world, I don’t know whether there is a fall in moral values or spiritual beliefs, or whether that correlates with attendance at places of worship. As I said, I don’t know enough about this to comment.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
It “stands tall” only if Ultimate Reality as the ground for objective reality is NOT itself “subjective.” That means, if God exists and physical reality is grounded in and embued with meaning by the subjective reality of God, then qualities such as beauty, goodness and truth are more properly basic than non-subjective qualities such as inertness, dimension, or duration.
Beauty being in the “eye if the beholder” means it pertains to qualities at a higher level, apprehended by beings at a higher level, BECAUSE those qualities represent higher levels of reality.
Your argument is, thus, a weak attempt at overthrowing proper perspective.
Rocks cannot think. Subjects can think.
So merely having characteristics that rocks possess or having the competency to compile a list of “rock” characteristics with some degree of accuracy - weight, dimension, chemical structure, etc., does not make you, qua subject, superior to a subject who can appreciate higher qualities such as beauty, goodness or truth.
Rocks cannot BE good nor BE truthful or, in any meaningful sense, BE beautiful, but subjects can. AND subjects can potentially appreciate or grasp - to some degree, no matter how tentative - these higher qualities.
Hoisted on your own petard? You do need, however, to stand even taller to see the perspective and to view reality from it. Just saying.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Quite true. If you ever come to the USA take note that that when people here say “America” they often are not including any countries in Central America, South America, or even Canada.
They are referring to the USA only (often excluding USA territories, as it seems to be a popular misconception that these territories are other countries).
I
inocente
Guest
I don’t see much point in continuing as it seems the only way you can keep your conjecture alive is by redefining every word in the dictionary to mean the opposite of the common understanding. As granny proudly exclaimed “look, all the soldiers are out of step except for Peter”.
I
inocente
Guest
I been to the US several times and like it, but then:Quite true. If you ever come to the USA take note that that when people here say “America” they often are not including any countries in Central America, South America, or even Canada.
youtube.com/watch?v=jNzN3q-VgwI
A
Aloysium
Guest
I conclude that the USA is made up of many good-natured people, who do not take themselves seriously and can laugh at themselves. I know this because the person with the microphone does not bear the consequences of a good swift kick to the head.
I
inocente
Guest
I was emailed this BBC report yesterday about an expert on Fox making claims such as “in London Muslim religious police beat anyone who doesn’t dress according to religious Muslim attire”.
I especially liked the retaliatory tweet from a UK town where apparently non-Catholics are beaten by squads of nuns with rulers.
bbc.com/news/uk-england-30773297
A
Aloysium
Guest
Truth also can be understood, as being in the ‘eye if the beholder’ in the sense that certain qualities of an object, like its beauty or goodness, are apprehended in different ways, representing different aspects of the particular objective reality and of the person doing the observing.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
If the dictionary determined reality rather than merely attempted in some inadequate way to depict it, you might have a point.I don’t see much point in continuing as it seems the only way you can keep your conjecture alive is by redefining every word in the dictionary to mean the opposite of the common understanding. As granny proudly exclaimed “look, all the soldiers are out of step except for Peter”.
Unfortunately, your soldier metaphor also brings to mind dark sinister looking uniforms marching in the same direction doing the goose step, along with a child standing by innocently observing that the emperor has no clothes.
I guess metaphors can be used to score points on all sides. The question still to be asked is where the truth of the matter is to be found.
Your claim seems to be that certain truth is only that which is quantifiable or, in some sense, subject to replication. I doubt that is true for the simple reason that the significance or import of a thing cannot be determined by simply measuring or replicating it. Ergo, verification CANNOT determine whether something is worth knowing or believing.
Dictionaries are absolutely no help in that regard. They may help clarify to some degree, but they do not signify.
I
inocente
Guest
Then if some observers see ugly and others beauty, all views must be accepted as truth, since they each represent a different aspect of the particular objective reality. The objective beauty is the sum of all the aspects seen by all the observers, from ugly through to beautiful. It cannot be only one of them, it has to be all, since every observer has equal claim.
And this everyone calls subjective.
I
inocente
Guest
dzsgdaszg ase dfgh aewgaewv raestg sdg drfs drs drae!
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I guess you have arrived at what could be called the “final and definitive statement” of your position.
One that no one could possibly argue against because it is completely undecipherable and incoherent.
Well done, you!
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Why?
Idiocy MUST be accepted as wisdom?
Why?
Lies MUST be accepted as truth?
Why?
The above was your penultimate statement of truth that MUST have lead you to the conclusion that
MUST also be true
- Status