If all (perception and understanding of) reality is subjective then the burden of proof is not on th
Edit: If all (perception and understanding of) reality is subjective then the burden of proof is not on the claimant but on the disagreer.
Thoughts.
Thoughts.
Comments (51)
Burden of proof is not on.........what.
I don’t understand your question :sweat:
What kind of category mistake is 'reality is subjective?'
I seem to have made a mistake while posting.
"If all (perception and understanding of) reality is subjective then the burden of proof is not on the claimant but on the disagreer"
Now I understand you and yes! It is a good point. Agreed :100:
Shouldn't that be -If all (perception and understanding of) reality is subjective then the burden of proof is no longer relevant?
Ok, thanks.
Usually the burden on the claimant, at the very least, is to show warrant in the text of the claim. Otherwise, there is naught but mere assertion.
In the case of the OP, however, by saying “if all perception and understanding.....”, no claim has been made, but merely a premise has been stated, from which a claim is to follow in the predicate of the proposition. You’ve given the “if, but not the “then”, so you haven’t claimed anything, so there is no burden for anybody.
Actually....what purpose do the parentheticals hold? What’s the difference between “if all perception and understanding of reality....” and “if all (perception and understanding of) reality....”? Either way, the conditions under which “all reality” must necessarily be taken, is exactly the same.
I agree, by the way. All perception and understanding of reality is subjective. How could it be otherwise. Doesn’t mean reality is itself subjective.
The statement is an objective claim about the ontology of perception and understanding, which is just another way of saying epistemology. Any time you make a statement that asserts how some state of affairs exists for all humans, not just yourself, like what perception and understanding is for all humans, you are making a objective statement.
Even stating how things are for just you is objective as you are part of this reality and any statement that is true regardless if others disagree is objective. Stating that you like strawberries is objective. It is objectively true that you like strawberries even if I were to disagree.
What is subjective is when you project qualities of yourself onto an object that has no such properties. When you say strawberries are good, you are projecting your feeling that you have when eating strawberries, not asserting anything true about the strawberries. To me strawberries are bad, but that is just a projection. Harry Hindu doesn't like strawberries is objective because I am now correctly stating that the property has more to do with me than the strawberries.
In a nutshell, subjective statements are category errors.
Quoting New2K2
But the disagreer has a subjective reality too. Which subjective reality is the disagreer disagreeing with? Ultimately they'd both be talking past each other.
It is partially true that all perception and understanding of reality is subjective. Is my previous statement objective or subjective?
There are subjectivist philosophies that go to the epistemological extremes; most notably, post modernism - but more generally, subjectivist philosophers do an end run around the burden of proof by asserting the - often cultural relativism of truth claims.
To my mind, it's somewhere between polite and cowardly, that in face of often quite delicate questions of race or religion - we do not bang on the objectively existing table about what we can prove, but retreat to a live and let live subjectivist relativism that has us pander to the lived experience of the least informed.
I think it's okay to tell people when they're wrong; why they're wrong, and why it must be some other way instead - but, on the other hand, even as an outspoken objectivist, I accept there is a burden of proof on me in doing so.
Point, but of questionable relevance.
Subjective statements are categorical errors, insofar as statements are technically empirical objects in the world, hence are not contained in the mind....or brain, if you wish....hence not subjective. Nevertheless, statements are themselves merely empirical manifestations of cognitive goings-on.....reason.....of the subject that creates them. The inescapable folly of language games. No statement is at all possible without the subject that creates it, so.....
I just figured it went without saying, that because perception and understanding are faculties belonging to all humans in general and thereby to each human in particular, then it follows necessarily that the objects of those faculties belongs to any human in possession of them. Which is sufficient reason to claim perception and understanding of reality, or anything at all in fact, is entirely subjective, the ontology of perception and understanding themselves, standing beside the point. They are given from the conditions of human nature, from where makes no difference. And refutable by the principle of induction, sure, but if you find a human without these faculties, no one will deny you your Nobel. (grin)
Then there's the issue of science, which aims to describe the world absent people. And at least physics, is extremely successful, even if we still don't understand what 95% of the universe is made of, aside from naming them "dark matter" and "dark energy" respectively.
You mean to say that if I make a claim P to another person X, the burden of proof (for P) is X's? That doesn't sound right.
A couple of things to consider. Suppose Mr. X claims P. He can't do that without an argument i.e. Mr. X must have an argument that proves P. If Ms. Y disagrees with Mr. X, all Ms. Y has to do is prove Mr. X's argument's unsound i.e. show that the argument is invalid and/or that at least one of the premises is false. Ms. Y doesn't have to prove P is false. In short, disagreeing that P doesn't amount to saying ~P [P is false]. Disagreeing that P can simply mean that P hasn't been proven and, take note, that P hasn't been proven isn't the same as claiming ~P.
Of course, but how does this relate to your question about reality being subjective?
Objective. Again you are asserting a state-of-affairs that exists for ALL, and you are implying that this state-of-affairs is true even if no one knows it is true. Any time you try to make a case for what reality is, and how it is, then you are making an objective statement.
If it were subjective, you would only be speaking for yourself and your perception and understanding, not about others perception and understanding.
And the burden of proof is on whoever is doing that thing, not the person they’re doing it to. IOW you’re free to think whatever you like for no particular reason, until reason to think otherwise is presented; so anyone telling you to think otherwise needs to give reasons for that, reasons beside your own lack of reason to think so.
I'm talking about what the statements are about. The statements are implied to be about other empirical objects and states-of-affairs, not the personal feelings and emotional states of the person making the statement. That is the category error - when a statement is asserted to be about the empircal state-of-affairs when it is really about the person's feelings or emotional state.
Quoting Mww
Which part of this statement is subjective? Which part is objective? What reason would you have of making subjective statements to others? What use would they be to others and why? If we both can only speak from our subjectivity, then aren't we simply talking past each other - talking about our own subjective states rather than the objective states of the world?
Nah. I used all to refer to my faculties of perception, and hence my unique experience. In other words, I wanted to encompass the various modes of perception under the quantifier 'all'. It was not a statement about the universality of perception for other entities (human or otherwise).
Sounds like the standard approach in religious apologetics.
Quoting J O Lambert
Agreed. For only such a person would take up that burden.
Because every statement ever made is first constructed by a subject, and because a subject has feelings, then any implied empirical statement is really a statement about feelings, hence a category error?
Too absurd to be true, so I’ll grant the benefit of the doubt and assume that’s not what you meant.
"Less reality oriented" and "less authoritative" aren't always married. The King (authority) has little inclination to prove he is naked. It's always on that little boy in the crowd (more reality oriented). But, as Baker said, only his ilk would take up such a burden. And that is so even if the burden should be on the King, according to the King's own rules.
But your faculties of perception are not all faculties of perception. You seem to have a problem with how to use words, or are simply moving the goal posts.
If statements are about feelings, then what are feelings about? Are you an anti-realist or solipsist?
Mr. Baker' s muse was not being quite serious. Delusional dotards are the bane of all our lives.
And if they’re not, why would it matter?
Quoting Harry Hindu
Depends. Is there prize or penalty for the right answer?
More thoughts:
I think Logic determined that it would be illogical for Logic to place the burden of proof upon the student. I think Logic arrived at this conclusion thus:
Where A = “Because I said so” and B = “the burden is upon you to prove I am wrong” then A = B. Since Logic has already said that A cannot = B, then one of the two must give. Logic decided that B must give, and therefor Logic (never in doubt about itself), assumed the burden of proving that “Because I said so” is correct. Logic now sits in a dark corner, wringing its illogical little hands, and sweating in consternation. The crowds gather ‘round their King in defense and attack any who would deny that A = B.
To put Logic in a better light, I think Logic assumed the burden because Logic is a child of Philosophy. Philosophy, as a lover of wisdom, is a fan of the question. While the student will have questions, so too will the "teacher." The true teacher does not ask the question rhetorically, but in a sincere desire to know what the student thinks, all in a search for truth. If the burden of proof is placed upon those who ask, then the love of wisdom, Philosophy, Logic, and the asking stop. Where the student asks why does X = X and the teacher says "The burden is upon you to figure that out" then the only logical response of the student would be this: "If the burden is upon me, and you've got nothing to contribute, then I'll no longer ask you. Sorry to have wasted your precious time."
Socrates, overseeing this exchange says "Jailer, get me that poison!"
What interest would I have in "all" of your faculties if perception? What use would it be for me if your faculties of perception are not similar to mine, and how would either of us know if they are or not, if all knowledge is subjective?
Exactly. If feelings aren't about anything, then your words and your feelings wouldn't matter to anyone except yourself, so what would be the point in putting your feelings into words to tell others how you feel? There would be nothing anyone could do about how you feel because there would be no reason for how you feel.
How are we even communicating if our words don't exist apart from us after we type them for others to observe and read? I would be reading my own feelings, not your words and you reading your feelings, not my words. Our feeling of reading words is about words that exist on the screen, not our feelings, or we'd never get at what each other are saying.
Quoting Harry Hindu
You: If statements are about feelings, then what are feelings about?
Me: And if they’re not, why would it matter?
You: Exactly. If feelings aren't about anything, then your words and your feelings wouldn't matter...
Statements not about feelings are statements about things.
Feelings don’t matter in statements not about feelings but about things.
Statements not about feelings doesn't mean feelings aren’t about anything.
Feelings are always about something. If feelings aren’t about anything, statements with feeling as predicates are worthless tautologies, re: beauty is a feeling.
Quoting Harry Hindu
No. Our understanding of reading words is about words that exist, and that from an assertorial judgement on a given cognition on empirical grounds; feeling is only an aesthetic judgement that is not given from any cognition, but on a priori ground alone. Understanding is an affect on experience; feeling is an affect on personality (technically, subjectivity) because of an experience.
Do try to separate feelings from cognitions, psychology from philosophy.
Yet you failed to do so and don't even realize it. So you weren't making the case for how your faculties of perception are regardless of what I think your faculties of perception are? Or are you saying that your faculties of perception are not part of reality (real)?
Ah we are such good sophists. Going round and round and getting nowhere. I'm stepping off now. Good game.
Feelings are things. Ideas are things. Feelings and ideas are a causal part of the world, just like everything else we make statements about.
Quoting Mww
...which was the point I was making about the distinction between objective and subjective statements - when you confuse talking about things that are not your feelings with talking about your feelings. When you tell me the apple is red, are you talking about the apple or your feeling?
Quoting Mww
That is the answer to my question:
Excellent, then we agree that words are about feelings and other things, as well as feelings are about other feelings and other things. You can have feelings about the way others feel, just as you can have feelings about your favorite sports team losing, or the injury to your toe after stubbing it. Now, can we agree that confusing words that are about your feelings with things that are not your feelings is a category error and what makes a statement subjective rather than objective?
Quoting Mww
Making a statement is a behavior. All behaviors make statements (leave effects). Effects make statements about their causes. Your behavior (the statement that you make) is indicative of your ideas and feelings. I can gather what you think from what you state, just as I can gather what a dog feels from it's yelp and what tree rings state about the age of a tree. We apply the same type of reasoning in determining what words mean as we do in determining what tree rings mean.
Quoting Mww
I'm not understanding. You see scribbles on the screen. Is your visual experience the same thing as the scribbles on the screen? If not then your visual experience is about the scribbles on the screen. Understanding only comes after you have a visual experience that is OF, or ABOUT the thing you are looking at. Understanding is then OF, or ABOUT, your visual experience, while your visual experience is OF, or ABOUT the very thing light is reflecting off of that you then see. One might say that what you see is more about the light than the object it reflects off of. So then in talking about what we see, are we talking about light or the object that the light reflects off of?
Feeling is a tactile sensation. Seeing is a visual sensation. Hearing is an auditory sensation. Smelling is an olfactory sensation, and tasting is a gustatory sensation. We know the world through our sensations. One sensation can verify what the other is informing us of. They are all the same in that they inform us of some state-of-affairs, whether it be the state of our bodies and brains, or the state of the weather. What we talk about are our sensations. We have good reason to believe that our sensations are about the world, so that are words are about the world, not just our sensations.
Which part? What does it even mean to be partially true? Doesn't it mean the same as partially false? What does it mean to be true or false?
Quoting emancipate
I didn't see it as a game. But you obviously did because you kept moving the goal posts. When one sees language as a game and the other doesn't, where else would you expect a conversation to go?
See what - the truth?
Partially.
I disagree. That which is given to sensibility is a thing, that which to us becomes phenomena. Causality for things in the world requires both sufficient reason and necessity; feelings are sufficient reason for some things but do not carry necessity for those same things, so fails the criteria for causality of things in the world.
But, if you ain’t buyin’ none of that, that feelings are not things, c’mon over and we’ll crack open this brand new jug of righteousness, grill up some happy, top off the evening with nice game of timid, and we’ll talk about these......er..... things.
—————-
Quoting Harry Hindu
One cannot talk intelligibly about his feelings without some object in the predicate of the proposition, that identifies them, that predicate immediately makes the proposition objective. A purely subjective proposition has the form, “I feel bad”. Or, “Juicy ripe apples make me feel happy”, where the predicate is the feeling. Both worthless tautologies. A big fat.....yeah, and???
Rather than a category error, I think the distinction between objective and subjective statements is what can be possibly done with them. Objective, possible dialogue; subjective, no dialogue, or amendment to an objective statement in order to facilitate a possible dialogue.
Or not. Too much bother, methinks. The technicalities beyond the scope.