On ‘judging’ what food you prefer, I would say that is just tasting and deciding which you prefer. It is not properly speaking a judgment, unless you are making your decision on the basis of some kind of conceptual deliberation. This is a matter of how to use the word ‘judgment’ - you could propose to use it in some other way, such that thermometers make judgments, for example (some philosophers have made this suggestion), but that is not a kind of ‘judgment’ that I have any interest in discussing.
I’d agree that thermometers do not judge in a sense I’d call meaningful. But there again I’d say that was with my point rather than against it. By which I mean that a thermometer is totally objective. All it can do is represent the temperature it is exposed to. I’d say this is not a judgement but simply a measurement.
Just to be sure we’re talking about the same thing here, I looked up the definition of judgement of Webster. There are several there, the one I think applies in this discussion is*
“4 a : the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing b : an opinion or estimate so formed”
Does that seem like an appropriate definition to use? If not, would you care to offer a different one? Personally I suspect that the way we are using the word may be different.*
I understand the connotations of ‘judgment’ that you’re referring to here, the kind implied in a phrase like “you’ll have to use your judgment on that one.” But in referring to a judgment I am just talking about the act of making some inference, proceeding from premises to a conclusion. This is indeed always subjective, in that only ‘subjects’ make inferences, but also always aims at objectivity.
Ok, I’m still not convinced that judgements do
always aim at objectivity. For example if the premises are all knowingly subjective then surely the judgement is entirely subjective?*
So other example, why is this piece of art “better” than that one. Our judgement may consider use of light, vibrancy, accuracy of form etc. But another person seeing those same things will conclude completely differently. In this case the premises are based on real (and identifiable)
databut are all subjective in themselves.
Indeed, it is about having an objective perspective, that is, a perspective that is not hermetically sealed but which is open to the views of others and committed to seeking ways of understanding that do not simply contradict the views of others but which understands and synthesizes these other views. Any perspective which did not seek this kind of objectivity would literally be that of a crazy person, who is simply out of touch with reality, floating along in her own private universe.*
Ok, but surely in that case we all have an objective perspective? Since none of us live in the manner described. But that would leave us with any individuals views being “objective” no? Surely this rather degrades the meaning of objective?
But if what you believe is true, restriction to that single true viewpoint is simply the necessary condition of correctly understanding reality. So you may not mean to, but you still seem to be simply dismissing the possibility that a religion might teach the actual truth. (Believing what is true is not ‘closed-minded’ in any interesting sense of the term.)
Ahhh, I think this may be the source of the difference. I said that enforcing a restriction to single opinion on yourself tends to lead to closed mindedness, not that it is in itself an act of closed mindedness. Clearly we all believe our opinions are true / justified. Otherwise we wouldn’t hold them.*
However, where we say “if I’m wrong about X then my life is ruined / pointless” then whether we like it or not our brains will bias us (in assessment of information / evidence) towards believing that which doesn’t cause such problems. I’m sure you are as aware of this affect as I am. This is why it leads to closed mindedness, because if information is presented which would cause a major negative impact the brain wants to reject it as a self preservation mechanism. Rejecting valid information on the basis of a pre-existing viewpoint is (to me at least) closed minded.*
I don’t think this is a very interesting point. I don’t think many people would “kill themselves over it,” but the ‘it’ in question is not a general one, i.e., the issue is not the general issue of changing one’s mind. For the posters you are talking about, they are making a specific counter-factual claim about the objective worth of life in the absence of a particular reality (God)…
Ok, but this still carries the affect I mentioned above. The “it can’t be true, that would be a disaster” affect.
For example, as I have said, if someone proved to my satisfaction that God existed, I’d believe he exists. If necessary based on what I discovered I’d make adjustments to my life. If I thought it’d ruin my life, or cause me to kill myself then I think that would make it very difficult to make an unbiased assessment of the evidence.
…so your attempt to address the essence of what they have said in such general terms really misses the point of what they have tried to say to you.
Agree I wrote that rather poorly, hopefully I’ve explained my view more clearly now?
Again, I think you’re missing the point: this isn’t about people imposing limits on themselves; it’s about how people understand reality to objectively be.
But it is about people imposing limits on themselves. If someone just said “I believe in God”. Then that’s fair enough. What has been the subject here is quite different.*
…under my skin
Let’s just say I know enough about philosophy to know that Mulla Sadr is not a household name among contemporary philosophers, whereas everyone knows that the slogan you mentioned is Sartre’s. In any case, your response still does nothing to explain the synonymy which you claim obtains between the two statements in question. And again: If you don’t understand why you ought to explain claims like that, you really don’t understand the basic purpose of philosophical dialogue, and you should not be giving “Catholic philosophy” (or any form of “Thomism”) a bad name by pretending to participate in this philosophy forum under that aegis. In any case, I’m curious as to whether you’ve ever actually read St. Thomas - what have you read? Meanwhile, I’ll do some research and get back to you. 
