How to determine if a property is objective or subjective?
What is 'objective' and 'subjective'?
A property is objective if it is linked to the object, that is, the thing observed, thought about, spoken about. A property is subjective if it is linked to the subject, that is, the observer, the thinker, the speaker. Consequently, objective statements can be either true or false; where as subjective statements cannot be false (except when the subject is dishonest).
Can we prove that some properties are objective and some are subjective, as opposed to all properties being either one or the other? Yes we can, for some things are clearly, indubitably subjective or indubitably objective. Indubitably subjective: best colour. Indubitably objective: maths; which is a property of reality as a whole; and consequently, anything that is measurable is objective.
How to determine if a property is objective or subjective?
The problem is that all of us humans are subjects; and all the data we have to work with can either come from the outer reality, or from our inner subconscious selves (such as our feelings). Other than the indubitable examples such as the ones previously stated, how can we determine the source of the data? How about the following scientific experiment: Have numerous independent human subjects observe an object for a given property. If the large majority of subjects agree on the property they observe, then it is reasonable to conclude that the property is objective. If no clear agreement, then we can conclude that the property is subjective. E.g. Testing if ‘colour’ is an objective property by having many subjects observe a coloured ball, and see if they agree on the specific colour.
The relative-objective test:
One challenge with the above test is that test subjects might have differing perceptions in the degree of a property, thereby making it difficult to give a confident answer. E.g. Is the ball really that ‘red’, or more ‘orangey’? Is the tree really that ‘tall’? Is the joke really that ‘funny’? To overcome this issue, let’s improve on the previous test by adding a second object having the same property as the first object observed, but differing in degree. If the large majority of subjects agree on which of the two objects has the highest degree of the observed property, then we can reasonably conclude that the property is objective. If some find the first object to have the highest degree while others find the second object to have the highest degree, then we can conclude that the property is subjective.
Let’s test some properties!
Do you agree with the relative-objective test to determine objectivity? Care to try it out on another property of your choice? Or else, do you know of another way to determine if a property is objective or subjective?
A property is objective if it is linked to the object, that is, the thing observed, thought about, spoken about. A property is subjective if it is linked to the subject, that is, the observer, the thinker, the speaker. Consequently, objective statements can be either true or false; where as subjective statements cannot be false (except when the subject is dishonest).
Can we prove that some properties are objective and some are subjective, as opposed to all properties being either one or the other? Yes we can, for some things are clearly, indubitably subjective or indubitably objective. Indubitably subjective: best colour. Indubitably objective: maths; which is a property of reality as a whole; and consequently, anything that is measurable is objective.
How to determine if a property is objective or subjective?
The problem is that all of us humans are subjects; and all the data we have to work with can either come from the outer reality, or from our inner subconscious selves (such as our feelings). Other than the indubitable examples such as the ones previously stated, how can we determine the source of the data? How about the following scientific experiment: Have numerous independent human subjects observe an object for a given property. If the large majority of subjects agree on the property they observe, then it is reasonable to conclude that the property is objective. If no clear agreement, then we can conclude that the property is subjective. E.g. Testing if ‘colour’ is an objective property by having many subjects observe a coloured ball, and see if they agree on the specific colour.
The relative-objective test:
One challenge with the above test is that test subjects might have differing perceptions in the degree of a property, thereby making it difficult to give a confident answer. E.g. Is the ball really that ‘red’, or more ‘orangey’? Is the tree really that ‘tall’? Is the joke really that ‘funny’? To overcome this issue, let’s improve on the previous test by adding a second object having the same property as the first object observed, but differing in degree. If the large majority of subjects agree on which of the two objects has the highest degree of the observed property, then we can reasonably conclude that the property is objective. If some find the first object to have the highest degree while others find the second object to have the highest degree, then we can conclude that the property is subjective.
Let’s test some properties!
- Tallness: Let’s observe two trees having different degrees of tallness. I foresee that the large majority will agree on which tree is taller than the other. Therefore ‘tallness’ would be objective.
- Funniness: Let’s observe two comedians with different sense of humour. I foresee that there will be no agreement on which comedian is the funniest. Therefore, ‘funniness’ would be subjective.
Do you agree with the relative-objective test to determine objectivity? Care to try it out on another property of your choice? Or else, do you know of another way to determine if a property is objective or subjective?
Comments (168)
Is whether or not a property is objective or subjective difficult to determine? Is it often controversial? I bet you and I could agree for almost any property.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
I'm sure we could develop an objective measure of how much I like blue. Then we could compare it with other colors and determine what my favorite color is. I'm not being facetious here.
Orange by the way. Pumpkin orange, not day-glow. Maybe a bit darker than pumpkin. Orange things make me feel at peace. When people ask me what I want for Christmas, I always say "orange things." All of which is subjective.
On an unrelated note, remember - it's turtles all the way down.
I would add creature-dependency to the relative-objective test.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
The dead animal smells awful. Most humans would agree. But turkey vultures probably find the smell delectable. Maybe that's more how we humans interpret the olfactory sensation than an actual property of the decaying animal.
What about warmth? People can be notoriously picky about the temperature, and there does seem to a degree of relativity involved in whether we think something feels warm or cold. But there's also a temperature range beyond which is cold or hot to all humans (at least in terms of bodily damage).
How about color? Humans can generally get consensus on colors, with some notable exceptions. But does that make the colors we see objective? Or are they dependant on the sorts of eyes we have?
And is a human majority enough for qualifying something as objective? We could say that the traffic light was objectively red when the driver ran through it, upon viewing the video. But is it colored red independent of human vision and for any organism that can see light at that wavelength?
Take this statement that you made:
Quoting Marchesk
You make a claim that colors might be subjective, or related to the observer, but this is an objective claim, no? That color is dependent on the sort of eyes we have would be an objective statement about subjectivity.
Any time we make a statement about some state-of-affairs, are we making an objective statement, or a subjective statement? To say that a particular piece of art makes you feel a certain way would also be an objective statement, no? You are describing how you feel, which is a real state-of-affairs in the world. So are we making objective or subjective statements when we talk about our feelings? What about when we say that different people will have different feelings when looking at a piece of art? Would that be an objective statement about the world, or a subjective statement?
That's a really good point. Hadn't thought of it that way before.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Not sure. You do raise an interesting question. Someone who's committed to radical subjectivism would deny that you're making a statement about state-of-affairs. Not sure wha the Kantians would say. The state-of-affairs would be our shared conceptual apparatus for them. I'll have to think about it. Landru comes to mind with these sorts of discussions (not Kantian but anti-realist).
What else could they be making a statement about? Any claim of how things are, or a statement made that is implied to have some truth to it, would be an objective claim.
Quoting Marchesk"The state-of-affairs would be our shared conceptual apparatus." is an objective statement about reality, or some state-of-affairs, or the way things are. It seems to me that you can't escape making objective claims anytime you refer to some state-of-affairs or how things are.
What if I said that I feel a certain way, and someone else disagreed with me? That actually does happen on occasion. Or they disagree with what I claim to believe or not believe.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I guess so. It would be like making a statement about being inside the Matrix.
I'm not sure I understand the question. You can claim to feel a certain way. That would be an objective statement about some state-of-affairs. If someone disagrees with how you feel, then they would also be making an objective claim - that you are wrong. At that point, who is the one making a correct statement, or who's claim is a true representation of reality? At this point do we say there is a state of subjectivity, or a state of disagreement, and what we say is how things really are (that there is a state of disagreement)?
How do we determine which one is right? And once we determine who is right, can we say that it is they that made the objective claim, and the person who is wrong made a subjective claim?
Does this mean that objective claims are true and subjective claims are false? That's how it seems to me. If the only way to determine the degree of objectivity and subjectivity of a claim is to look at the claim and it's relationship with how things actually are, and any claim that mirrors how things actually are is objective, while subjective claims are how things are skewed to appear through the lenses of our emotions, needs and wants, then it seems to me that objective claims are the most useful and meaningful, while subjective claims aren't because we don't really know the degree of truth associated with subjective claims. As a matter of fact, to say that there is subjectivity is to say that there is a skewing of perception from how things actually are - that there is a lesser degree of certainty in subjective claims than there are in making objective claims.
Hello. I often hear people say "it's just a matter of opinion" on things that seem objective, such as immoral acts on the grounds of religion or culture. Conversely, I see people who judge others on things that seem subjective, such as the way they dress, their taste in music, hobbies, etc. My goal is to come up with a coherent way to talk sense into such people (and myself if I happen to be wrong on some properties).
Quoting T Clark
This is true, but that would be a measure of your own preference, not a measure of goodness in the colour blue. It may sound odd, but "I like blue" is an objective statement where the object is "I"; where as "Blue is a good colour" is a subjective statement where the object is "blue".
Quoting T Clark
How barbaric...
"Turtles"?
Hello. I actually think that goodness of a smell is subjective. Some people love a perfume, and some people hate it. Now I agree with you that the smell of a decaying body is awful to most; but I think this is only due to the association with diseases that could occur if we come in contact with them; and health is objective. In other words, if we could be certain not to fall ill from a rotting body, then we might not find the smell awful.
Quoting Marchesk
Good point. I think health and safety is objective, where as comfort is subjective. When we hit degrees of temperature that affect our health and safety, then the 'goodness of temperature' is objective. In between these extremes, the property is subjective. Also, the statement "x is warmer than y" is objective.
Quoting Marchesk
Indeed, a blind or colourblind person would not see the same colour as others. But I think the relative-objective test would still show that colour is objective, because most people would agree that object 1 is more red than object 2, and although the blind and colourblind may not observe this, they would also not observe that object 2 is more red than object 1.
Quoting Marchesk
Although it is a bit soon to tell, I am hopeful that the relative-objective test is infallible, that is, it is not possible that, if a property is objective, some would observe object 1 to have the highest degree, while others would observe object 2 to have the highest degree of it.
Interesting discussion. Here is my take on it. Consider the following statements S1 and S2:
S1: "This food tastes good"
S2: "I enjoy the taste of this food"
For both statements, I am the subject, the message is roughly the same, and both are true. But in S1, the object is 'food', and the property is 'goodness'. In S2, the object is "I", and the property is 'enjoyment'. S1 is subjective because not all subjects will agree that the food is good. S2 is objective because all subjects, upon observing me, would agree that I enjoy the food.
Conclusions: 'Goodness in taste' is a subjective property, not a property of food. 'Enjoyment' is an objective property of the object that is the person experiencing it.
Perhaps it is in the nature of objective claims that they can be true, or false, or some intermediate state. What I say isn't a claim: the subjective just is the subjective, that's how I am. It's only susceptible to ideas of truth or falsity if it becomes objective in some way.
So the distinction between objective and subjective is grammatical.
Although if we're being proper, in the first statement the subject is "this food", whereas in the second it's "I".
No, because who would decide the criteria? X-)
And there's your problem in a nutshell. There was a huge conflict over DSM IV, the diagnostic manual for psychological disorders, over this very question: what is a disorder, what is normal behaviour? You'd think if there was a test case for your question, this would be it. But the debate was and is ongoing.
This is not to say there aren't degrees of objectivity or subjectivity. Objectivity is essential in science, jurisprudence, history, and many forms of judgement. Subjectivity is, conversely, the tendency towards idiosyncratic or self-seeking judgement. But nothing is ultimately objective, in the sense that all judgement has a subjective aspect or pole.
I agree for the most part. But to be very picky, it is possible to say something subjectively false, as such: say I really like a song, but for some reason, I say "this song suck".
(EDIT 2017-10-01): The distinction is not dependant on grammar, but on who or what is the subject, object, and property in the given statement. In S1, the subject is me, the object is 'the food', and the property is 'good taste'. In S2, the subject is still me, but the object is now me (I observe myself), and the property is 'enjoyment of the taste of this food'.
Quoting Michael
Not according to the definition in epistemology. The term 'subject' is ambiguous, and I think you are using the definition as per the study of logic: subject vs predicate, where in the statement "A is B", A is the subject and B is the predicate. In epistemology, the subject is the observer, thinker, speaker, etc; and the object is the thing observed, thought about, spoken about, etc. Ironically, the subject in logic is really the object in epistemology. I expressed my frustration about this in a previous post here.
It's a reference to your icon. This is from Wikipedia for "Turtles all the way down."
‘A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"’
You are missing turtles. Perhaps an infinite number.
It is the Great A'Tuin.
Sure. To clarify, I am talking about objective properties, not objective statements. "God exists" is an objective statement (regardless if true or false), but I am concerned whether 'beauty' is an objective property, such as in the statement "This waterfall is beautiful".
Any property that is physical is objective. Why? Because any physical property is measurable (at least in theory), and if measurable, then it is mathematical, and if mathematical, then it is logical, and logic is indubitably an objective property of reality. This is why a science is less prone to debate if it is quantifiable. As such, properties like mass, length, energy, and even colour are properties of the object of thought.
Unfortunately, these are the only examples of properties I can give with confidence right now, without relying on tools like the relative-objective test. Are non-physical properties like 'moral goodness', 'beauty', 'goodness of songs' objective or subjective? It would be great to find out.
I hardly know where to start with this chain of bad reasoning.
Any physical property is objective? I'd give you Bishop Berkeley as a refutation. Or Plato's cave, or Descartes's demon. The fable of the elephant and the nine visually challenged persons. I asked for a single specific example and you have given none. Please give one and we'll take it apart. Name an objective property that can be determined without making a subjective measurement.
Logic is an objective property or reality? Where was the syllogism five minutes after the big bang? Where is modus ponens among the mosquitos? You've managed to name one of the most subjective things there is. Logic is unquestionably the work of the human mind.
So please go back to my first question to you. Please name a single specific thing that is objective so that we have something to talk about. Perhaps you'll name something and I'll go, "Oh yeah I see that you're right and I'm wrong." Without a specific example you're just talking vague generalities.
By way of example -- SPECIFIC example I might add -- we can examine some of the most obvious candidates. Mass. Nope, not objective. Depends on the velocity of the observer. Color. Nope. Depends on the eye/brain system of the observer. Wavelength of light reflected off the object. Nope, depends on the relative velocity toward or away from the the observer. Red shift.
Etc. That's why I'm challenging you to name a SINGLE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of a thing you claim is objective, so that in the spirit of rational inquiry we can examine your claim.
I’d like to give this a try:
That daytime follows nighttime follows daytime follows nighttime (etc.) is objective because subjective me and subjective you (and all other subjective beings, from sunflowers, to bees to … well, etc.) all are constrained by the same information … thereby making this information in due measure independent of what either I or you (or anyone else) may will or believe regarding the matter. Anything physical—from that which I and only I visually see at the current moment, like my own laptop, to the causal webs into which these things are entwined (such as laws of nature)—will be objective for the same reason: they will hold presence independent of what individual minds may will or believe. Hallucinations? These—which, one would think, can only be discovered when contradicting what all other agencies hold to be objective—will be non-objective on grounds of contradicting the causal web of all other givens that all other agencies are bound by and are thereby in one way or another aware of (the logos of the world, it used to be termed) … and, thereby, will be the products of an individual mind.
Other questions could pursue. But I’d like to know in turn, on what system of justification would you deny that nighttime being followed by daytime is not an objective, empirical observation? (Presuming that objective data is not confused with absolute certainties? For which, I grant, no justifications can be provided, tmk. Also presuming that objective data does not equate with an eternally fixed, perfectly stable absolute data that is severed from subjectivity (such that, for example, no awareness of it could occur), for this to me currently seems to be a logical contradiction as regards data.)
Quoting javra
You're right, to argue against your example I'd be forced into levels of sophistry I'm unwilling to embrace. Interesting that your example refers to state changes rather than absolute entities. I wonder if that's characteristic of compelling examples of objectiveness. For example I can argue that a red light might not be red to some particular observer, but the transition of a traffic light from red to green can't be denied. Even though I might not agree that red is always red, I'm forced to admit that red is different than green.
Good one.
I'm on the verge of blushing here. Not good for my reputation. But hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Cheers.
Edit:
Quoting fishfry
Btw, I haven’t gotten into exploring your proposal because it would get into process philosophy—and that murky area of whether or not entities are in fact objective. Your proposal sounds good to me philosophically. That said, kids will think, for example, that the tree over there is objectively real … and I’d here agree with the kids. And, in truth, I innately think this myself even when there are no kids around. So, again, what you bring up would get murky for me.
I was thinking about this driving home from work last night. The standard example for perception is always something like this: I see the road sign, that is a road sign, etc., an observation at a single point in time. But in English at least we have present participles: I am continuing to see the road sign as I drive along the road. (I think a similar point has been made in "embodied" theories of knowledge and perception-- that the persistence or invariance of the object as we move about and investigate is what we should capture. Optical illusions, for instance, often depend on observer position, light source, etc.)
So that would be an example of the object not changing state but the observer. If it's still there when you come back and it's just the same-- no, but if you come back and bring someone else with you, and the two of you walk around, look at it from different angles, maybe do so at different times of day and so on, then we start to think "objective".
My hope is that, if a property is objective, and that object 1 has a higher degree of it than object 2, then most subjects would observe it as such, and the others would not see a distinction, but nobody would be able to observe that object 2 has a higher degree of the property than object 1. The last underlined statement would be the criteria.
Example: test for 'redness'. Let's observe a supposedly red ball 1 and a green ball 2. I foresee most subjects to observe ball 1 as being more red than ball 2; then the rest, being colourblind, will not see a distinction; but nobody would observe ball 2 as being more red than ball 1. If the criteria is met, then 'redness' is an objective property.
Quoting Wayfarer
Quoting fishfry
What about essential properties of objects? E.g. a triangle necessarily has the property of having 3 sides.
Quoting fishfry
How do idealists account for the fact that you and I see the same objects with the same properties? I suppose it could happen that you and I coincidently subjectively posit the same properties at the same time, but this hypothesis is much more complicated than the hypothesis of objective properties, is it not? It would therefore be shaved off by Occam's razor.
Awesome! As Mr Tasmaner said, my icon is the Great A'Tuin from Discworld. I did not know about this whole turtle story, and found out upon further reading of the article that Terry Pratchett, the creator of Discworld, got the idea from that story in the first place.
Mr. Tasmaner was my father. I'm just Srap.
(The things you can say on the internet ...)
You asked for a proof earlier. There is no stronger proof than a logical or mathematical proof, is there? And this is sufficient to demonstrate that logic is objective; or else, how can logical proofs be strong if logic is merely subjective? Even Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum is an "archimedean point" only because of its logic.
Quoting fishfry
Mass of an object depends on the observer? Do you mean that a scale recording an object's mass of 10 kg would change its value if I, an observer, move very fast? This is not rhetorical; I am genuinely ignorant of that phenomenon.
Quoting fishfry
I think you are correct about that one. I think I was referring to something closer to the property that makes only certain light frequencies reflect back, but this is not really the 'colour'. I'll abandon that example to focus on simpler ones.
Unless I am mistaken, then it seems to me that both the "daytime-nighttime" and "road sign" examples are determined to be objective through a process similar to the objective-relative test, thereby arguing in favour of the test.
"This food tastes good" would refer to a state of affairs where this food actually does taste good, or else how could you even say it and what you say is true? Does the food really taste good for someone, or no? That is doesn't taste good to others is another objective statement. You could clarify and say, "This food tastes good to Samuel" - another objective statement.
You can't ever escape making objective statements whenever you associate truth to your statement. Is it true that the food tastes good to Samuel? Can everyone use that statement to refer to a real state-of-affairs? Yes.
Yet another objective statement about some state-of-affairs. "That's how I am" is an objective statement.
To my mind, they are. I’ve myself come to similar enough conclusions as yourself. Maybe some of the disagreements in this thread have been due to conflating—quite understandably—the notion of what is experientially objective with the notion of objectivity as a metaphysical standard. Don’t know.
Thought about it and I’ll give this murky territory a try. I might be coming out of left field with this one. So, some thoughts that I’ll gladly see corrected wherever needed:
First off, objectivity cannot logically be that which is completely severed from subjectivity. Were this so, then empirical objectivity could never obtain. So “independent of” should be interpreted as “indifferent to” … obviously, this without any connotation of sentience being invoked by the phrase.
Back to the subjective-objective dichotomy: As per the OP’s outline, to my mind this naturally leads to a stratification of layers regarding that which is externally objective—i.e., regarding that which externally is in manners indifferent to what any subject might will or believe.
As regards perception, first layer will always be that of an experienced direct realism between beings that share common, genotypically inherited modes of perception: all of us non-blind/color-blind people will visually perceive the same colors; what we see is what we get color wise.
Also as regards perception, a deeper layer of objectivity can be found between species of sentience: humans and bees both pay special attention to the sun’s sunlight and location in the sky (as do many other species of life—e.g., all that hold any form of circadian rhythm); both species interact with this causality-endowed-web-of-information (i.e., Heraclitean logos) produced by the sun (and which also in part is the sun) and, so, have physiological means of sensing this information. This information remains the same for both species, yet, from the vantage of both species’ perceptions of it, the information will hold a type of lowest common denominator in respect to its objective appearance relative to the two species. Hence, it will hold a common appearance to which both species, each in its own way, builds up upon vie its own species-specific means of interpreting this information. This layer of objectivity regarding what externally is in regard to perception results in a type of indirect realism.
Likewise with objects being objective: all of us humans innately know via direct experience that objects occur in the external world; we agree upon the objects’ attributes and, so, can hold objective appraisals of which objects are and which are not. Nevertheless, conjoining experience and reasoning does result in a conclusion as old as Heraclitus that it’s all processes in relation to one another. On this deeper layer of contemplation, there objectively are no objects but only processes.
This multi-layering of objective reality can be extended in many directions. Yet, in this mode of thinking, reality itself is not what dwells at the very pith of these multiple layers but, rather, the entirety of all these layers as is (fully including the subjects that are entwined with and make sense of this logos).
This, then, also has some interesting implications for truth—here interpreted via correspondence to. When one is only aware in an intuitive manner of direct perception of the rock other there, one would express—relative to one’s momentary awareness—a full truth in that the rock over there is an objective object (say, not an imagined object). However, when one has process theory in mind and views the same rock, one would then express—again relative to one’s momentary awareness—only a partial truth in saying the same thing … for while one is honest in what one innately sees, one here overlooks the additional reality one is aware of regarding the rock being only a bundle of process and, in this sense, not an object.
Like I was saying, it’s a murky territory.
One summary of this perspective is that—while always remaining indifferent to subjects at all layers and at any particular time—interpretations of what is objectively real in terms of external givens will nevertheless remain relative to the commonly shared awareness of cohort(s) of subjective beings. For simplicity of argument, and because only humans think about such things, we can safely say “relative to the commonly shared awareness of sapient beings”. (Edit: this conforming to the same conclusion of the quote from ST.)
Nevertheless—to further complicate things—in accordance with Harry Hindu’s posts, this would also lead to conclusions such as: the presence of subjects is objectively real. Going by the definition of “indifferent to subjective appraisals”, so too can intra-personal states of being be objectively real (e.g., my current emotion is objectively real, regardless of how I may interpret it after the fact). Also, leading to a kind of pseudo-paradox: the subject is itself objectively real; i.e., the presence of the subject is objective, and thereby fully entwined with objective reality in total.
Thoughts?
Truth is not a criteria to determine if a property is linked to the object or subject. "Yellow is the best colour" is indubitably subjective, for how could there be an objectively best colour? Yet this statement is true to the speaker.
If subject 1 says "this food tastes good", and subject 2 says "this food tastes bad", both are giving true information. But truth cannot contradict truth. Therefore the truth in both statements cannot be about the object, which is the same in both statements; and must be about the subjects, which differ in both statements.
Quoting javra
This paradox is caused by not clearly identifying who or what is the object in the situation. Example:
I observe the colour yellow and say "Yellow is the best colour". In this case, the object is 'yellow', the subject is me, and the property is 'best colour'. The property is obviously subjective because it is not linked to the colour yellow in itself. Now, you come in, and observe me saying that statement "Yellow is the best colour", and so you conclude "Sam's best colour is yellow". In this case, the object is me, the subject is you, and the property is 'best colour being yellow'. The property is now objective, because any new subjects, you or someone else, will hear me saying "Yellow is the best colour".
To sum up, it is imperative to clearly identify who or what is the subject, object, and property for any given context. Once this is done, the paradox is resolved.
I screwed up. I still claim that whatever is measurable is objective, but it is not because it is a mathematical kind of property. I think it is actually because the property is measured by an instrument which cannot have any subjective bias.
I’m in general agreement.
Here’s where it gets even trickier for me: Is the first-person point of view an object/entity, a process/becoming, both, or neither? These (we) first-person points of view are the very subjects whose presence is the source from which all subjectivity we are aware of emerges. Nevertheless, our presence as first-person points of view is, in and of itself, objectively real. Furthermore, for example: Grammatically, “me” is an object addressed and “I” is the subject that is addressing—yet both terms can hold the same exact referent.
To my mind, one way to resolve this is to interpret all objects as bundles of processes. Conversely, to not think of first person points of view as being bundles of processes leads to the conclusion of homunculi (of conscious agents as objects in the roundabout sense we typically think of rocks as objects: as somehow being perfectly stable and integral in their constituency). But, then again, to me this works its way into the difficulties of identity theory; there typically is a pervasive stability—however imperfect it may be—to a conscious agency throughout a lifetime (otherwise we typically address extreme mental disorders).
BTW, a day ago you asked about the possibility of such things as moral goodness being objective. As far as I understand things, goodness can only hold the possibility of being objective from the vantage of being a lowest common denominator that is universal to all first-person points of view. But, for emphasis, here we’d be addressing abstract universals that are integral to all, and not particulars that are relative to any context. Still, all first-person points of view hold in common so being first-person points of view … regardless of how otherwise different they may be relative to each other. If they likewise all share some attribute X whose fulfilment would be innately desired by all (though each in its own way), than the fulfilment of this attribute X would then equate to an objective good … such that its presence would be in manners indifferent to beliefs and choices. This form of reasoning, however, does require that conscious agents—i.e., first-person points of view—be acknowledge to be objectively real … but this again gets into identity theory in terms of what they (we) might metaphysically be: in essence, addressing the tricky issue I first mentioned in this post.
Let's rely on the relative-objective test to determine if moral goodness is an objective property of human behaviour. Object 1: A man acts towards others as he would want them to act towards him. Object 2: The man acts in such a way that he would hate others to act towards him. Which object would subjects observe to have the highest degree of moral goodness? I foresee that a large majority would say object 1, and the remaining few, if any, would be indecisive. But I also expect that virtually nobody would choose object 2. If this is the case, then moral goodness is objective.
Thoughts?
Of some things we can be objective e.g. the length of a stick or the abortion debate. However, some things are purely subjective e.g. likes and dislikes.
It depends on the area of discourse on what position we can assume - subjective or objective.
In general, it's preferrable to be objective because it brings us closer to the truth but, as I said, there are things on which we can only be subjective.
While I’d like it to be this easy, I deeply believe Donald Trump--for example--would hate being around people who act toward him the way he acts toward others (the “you’re fired” attitude among others). Given that he’s the elected president of the USA, I don’t find his personality to be too exceptional in today’s culture. I’d say a lot of people are this way and find a sense of satisfaction in so being: bullies, for instance; but I suppose it can also be characters that we don’t intuitively think of as bad. Does a shy wallflower treat others the way he/she would hate to be treated—this, say, at social gatherings? This could be so for at least some. And if it pleases people to be so, on what grounds could we justify that it’s bad for them to be so?
Myself, I’d for example here lean more on Buddhist-like philosophy of suffering and the desire to minimize it--or at least something similar to this perspective. Were this to be evidenced a universal drive, we could then say something along the lines of “that which would successfully minimize suffering, and increase happiness, for one and all would be an objective good (a good that is universal to all sentience irrespective of contexts)”. Then this can be applied to scenarios 1 and 2 which you’ve provided. If we could logically maintain that the golden rule is better at minimizing the suffering of one and all than is the standard of “doing onto others as one would hate to be done onto oneself”, then we could safely conclude that scenario 1 is closer to an objective good than is scenario 2 … and that those who follow scenario 2 go about what they truly want in (logically) wrong, or inappropriate, ways. (Here, this would hold even when many would choose scenario 2.) Though more involved, I again think this type of approach would serve as a best means of justifying what would be objectively good, and why it would so be.
Quoting Samuel LacrampeThen I don't get why they'd say "This food tastes good", as opposed to "My mental state is this food tasting good." Both are true, and objective.
Exactly. Once we switch to speaking objectively, we switch to stating truths about the way things are - the way reality actually is. The subject is an object, state-of-affairs, or an aspect of reality, that we talk about and have an expectation of truth associated with what we are talking about.
I side with SL on this: Truth cannot contradict truth.
As to why one expression over the other, to me it in part has to do with our tendency to project what is objectively real states of mind within ourselves upon external reality, including upon what the other subjects’ objectively real states of mind consist of—this being a natural occurrence that can range from being very healthy to being very nerve-racking (to say the least).
In parallel, it’s the same as saying “I’m visually perceiving this flower to be white” rather than saying “this flower is white”. The first statement can be argued to be more epistemically honest; the second statement is however more gregarious and, thereby, socially practical … since it implicitly acknowledges that it is already known that there is commonality between all people concerned in respect to what their own objectively real states of mind are when visually perceiving the given flower. Yet, however we express what objectively is, in this case truths will not contradict with truths.
Now, to build upon SL's statements, some of us may have more experience than others with honestly saying to the family chef that “This one dish doesn’t taste good; I’ll instead eat of that other dish you’ve cooked” and being told in reply, “But, it does taste good, dear; try some more of it and you’ll see”. Here truths—regarding the objectively real states of mind concerned in relation to the dish addressed—will contradict. And so these truths cannot now be deemed in any way objective respective to what they reference but, instead, can only be concluded to be relative to each subject’s personal inclinations—i.e., to be subjective truths.
Taking a step back, our commonly shared, external, objective reality will never be deemed to hold any contradictions. It will always be innately deemed to be non-contradictory in all of its aspects both big and small. This factor, I very much believe, plays into the very commonsensical notion of there being only one universe (akin to: one-ubiquitously-consistent-logos-bundle of which we are all entwined with) as regards the physical world. For example, it’s why we know that our current Theory of Relativity and QM are not the last word as regards physical reality: as of yet, there are aspects of these two models that are not fluidly congruent relative to each other (in respect to observations). But truths always cohere to truths. So we know that there is yet some subjectivity at play in at least one of these models that is incongruent to reality; else stated, that at least one of these two models contains some non-objective properties.
I agree. I think that some things are purely subjective, and some things are purely objective. I also think it is important to find out which it is for a given property, because there are consequences. We should fully allow subjective disagreements, but should work on (respectfully) finding the correct thing for objective disagreements.
A subjective statement can still be true or false. Say that in truth, I feel that yellow is the best colour. So if I say "Yellow is my best colour", then I speak the truth. But if I say "Blue is my best colour", then I don't speak the truth. I guess subjective truth is synonymous to honesty.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I guess you are right that we can always turn a subjective statement into an objective one by making ourselves the object, and our feeling or perception into the property; and since feelings and perceptions are objective properties of ourselves, then this will always result in an objective statement.
However, we must be careful to avoid doing this when the original property in question is already objective. E.g. the statement "This tree is 2 m tall" is already an objective statement. No need to change the statement into "I perceive this tree is 2 m tall", just to make sure the statement is always objective. The former statement is more informative than the latter, and also more interesting for others.
Bringing it back to the original topic of discussion, it appears that some properties are inherently linked to the object, and some are inherently linked to the subject, regardless of the way the statement is said. 'Goodness in colour' will always be a subjective property; and 'tallness' will always be an objective property.
Subjective-objective divide assumes there's an objective reality. Two problems with this are:
1. How do we know? There's no contradiction in everything being subjective, save the one that arises from self-reference. Do you think there's any problem with ''everything is subjective"?
2. Can we even access this objective reality? Your method that many same observations is objective amounts to saying subjective + subjective + subjective +... = objective and that means the objective is only a subset of the subjective. There's something wrong with this, I believe.
Both of you have switched examples of what it was we were talking about. Don't move the goal posts.
The first example was, "This food is good.". The point I was trying to make with this is that IF the person were referring to their mental state rather than some state of the food, then they would probably want to make that clear in communication because, as you pointed out, most people use shortcuts to communicate and most of believe that what is good for one may be good for others, and that may cause them to try it.
Some people might say that you're stating a personal preference, or making a value statement, because they also know that others might disagree. What you say isn't literally true.
In the example, "The flower is white", we're referring to an actual state of the flower in it's capacity to reflect all wavelengths of visible light. Seeing white is acquiring some knowledge the flower. The flower really isn't white. It reflects all wavelengths of visible light, and that reflected light's interaction with our eyes and brain causes us to see white. White is a representation of that property the flower has, and provides information about the flower.
I think that everyone that can see can see the color white, even color blind people, compared to the number of people who may find that "this food is good". Everyone that looks at the flower will see it as white which tells us something about the flower.
The color could also mean that they are ripe for eating, which explains why natural selection would promote the ability to make distinctions in certain states of food sources by means of color representation. It improved the ability of animals to use their energy more efficiently in consuming those food sources by targeting those that had the best nutritional value by the distinction in their color. In this case, the flower would also taste good to most members of its species as well.
If we are talking about one's projection of one's own experiences onto the flower that isn't a property of the flower, but a property of one's mental state and history, then we aren't making objective statements about the object, rather we'd be making objective statements about one's mental state and history projected onto the object.
So, to say that something is "the color white", is to say something about the object. To say that something is "good" is to make a value statement. That same food that is good will turn to bad if you are force fed enough of it.
"Good" and "bad" are value statements and are related to our goals. What is "good" or "bad" is what is helpful or harmful to our goals. Because we are individuals we can have different goals that sometimes come into conflict. Because we are members of the same species, we can often have shared goals where we work together for a common goal. Morality is the one thing that I can think of that isn't objective. There is no objective good and bad - only goals and what is helpful and harmful to achieving them.
1. "Everything is subjective" is a self-contradiction, because it means that nothing is objectively true, not even this very statement.
2. Quoting TheMadFool
Sure we can. The previous statement "Some things are objective" is undeniably true and objective, as previously demonstrated. Another example is the laws of logic and math: Even if there were an evil demon feeding me false data my whole life, he could not feed me illogical or mathematically wrong information, like seeing a square circle, or seeing 2 apples and 2 more apples, and only seeing 3 apples as a result.
Quoting TheMadFool
It could be the case, but how would you account for the fact that all subjects observe the same property? There is indeed the hypothesis that we all coincidently project the exact same subjective property onto the object, but this hypothesis is much less likely than the hypothesis that we are observing a property of the object.
I see what you mean now. "This food is good" is not literally true because it is formulated as as though goodness is a property of the food, which it is not. I accept the distinction. Just a side note that this type of statement would be an expression of common language, and everyone understands what the speaker means by it.
I agree with everything you have said, up to the quotes below:
Quoting Harry Hindu
Could we generalize that all that is considered good is a value? What if I said "I find this food to taste good, and yet I do not value taste"? I don't see anything contradictory in that statement, and it would imply that not all that we find good is a value statement. It seems to me that we consciously choose our values, but we don't necessarily consciously choose what tastes good to us.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I disagree when it comes to two values, which I claim are objective: health, and morality. The second one may be harder to prove, so I will focus on the first one for now.
What is good in terms of health is objective. I am sure there is a standard criteria in evaluating if a living cell is healthy or not. And so, using the relative-objective test, every subject observing two cells of different health state would agree on which cell is the healthiest. Furthermore, if health was only a matter of opinion, then there would no health practitioners to tell us what is healthy for us.
As I said, if something is good, it helps you achieve your goal. Your goal would be to seek pleasurable experiences and the food's taste does just that. This is why some people turn to food in order to alleviate stress. Feeling good, rather than feeling bad or stressed is a goal that every human has. It's just that different things make different people feel good. You eating good food and me listening to good music are two different actions but achieve the same goal for each of us - providing stress relief.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
Being healthy is a sub-goal of survival. To say that one has good or bad health is to say that their health is beneficial or a hindrance to their survival.
Assuming what you say is true, it still does not follow that all that is subjectively good is necessarily a value statement. Let's say I like the taste of donuts, so their taste is, to me, good. But because of health reasons, I have a negative value about eating donuts. Well this does not change the fact that they taste good to me. So a negative value is compatible with a subjective good.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I agree. Now, in your last statement, the object is 'one', and the property is 'good or bad health', or 'health that is beneficial or a hindrance to their survival'. The property is linked to the object; therefore 'goodness of health' is objective.
No bully wants to be bullied. Therefore even the unjust person perceives the unjust treatment to be bad. They do it not because they believe it is moral, but typically to gain pleasure or avoid displeasure. E.g. it is easier to lie than to tell an uncomfortable truth. So I claim that no one, not even the immoral ones, can perceive object 2 to be morally better than object 1.
Quoting javra
This seems to be a good goal in general, but there are exceptions to it. Would it be okay for me to withhold truth from you, on the grounds that learning it would make you suffer? E.g. I know your spouse cheats on you, and you ask me if this is true or not. Lying to you would be moral according to your philosophy of minimizing suffering, but immoral according to the Golden Rule, because nobody wants to be lied to.
Quoting Samuel LacrampeI think it would be more accurate and simpler to use the terms, "healthy" and "unhealthy" rather than "good health" and "bad health", as that is what you objectively mean by using the terms "good health" and "bad health". Being in good health is bad if you intend to commit suicide, or if you intend to follow through on a hunger strike.
To be honest, this is my intuitive center of gravity as well, so to speak … and I easily project it upon all others. In no way proud of this, when I as a young kid burned ants with a magnifying glass, I knew darn well what caused them suffering and what didn’t (I had no doubts that they weren’t automata or the like; it takes an adult to dream up that one) … and I fully knew that I would not have liked to be treated the way I then treated these few ants. And so, if I’d been asked, I would have known that what I was doing was wrong -- even if it was a means for me to relieve the stress of having been bullied.
But people can sometimes act out in even stranger ways, even as adults. Think of someone, for example, who is sadistic one day and then masochistic the next—maybe as a psychological means of feeling that justice is done in terms of the previous sadisms they acted out (e.g., though, maybe, only marginally related: I’ve read that men of great power, like male judges, are the typical customers in the paid-for services of dominatrixes).
So while I fully agree that this sentiment of “no bully wants to be bullied” is a good rule of thumb, I so far still think that more involved principles would need to be invoked were one interested in accounting for all human behavior (even more so for all sentient behavior).
For example, some can be said to innately believe that a maximized control-over-other is the only means of successfully minimizing bad for oneself and for others. Fascism, Stalinism, even kingships all tend toward this conception of “objective good”: one of centralized power of sentience over all other sentience through which all other becomes ordered, thus stable, thus maximally happy. Again, it is not an uncommon perspective of what is objectively good (be it further justified as God-ordained or nature-ordained). Yet this outlook stands in direct opposition to the notion of “do onto others as you’d have done onto you” (which can be justified in like manners).
So the question again resolves into how does one justify what in fact is objectively good? For instance, why would a maximized control-over-over be immoral (unjust) in the first place? (certainly this state of being is what bullies aspire for; btw, I'll play the devil's advocate with this for a while if need be)
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
I acknowledge that there are exceptions to what I’ve previously mentioned. As to relation between truths and suffering, there can be found various explanations for why truths sometimes lead to suffering: e.g. truths sting bubbles of ego (when the ego is not already aligned with that which is true)—this stinging of ego being the hubris-driven tragedy needed for any catharsis. In attempts to explain this relation, one can even rely on the statement of “truth shall set us free” and somehow work backwards in terms of finding the proper moderations and degrees of expressing truths … this with the reasoning that too much suffering too quickly will in the long term drive someone away from the desire to experience the cathartic pleasures of new truths. (or something like this)
Still, as you illustrate, the understanding of suffering as has been so far here expressed is not, in fact, universal to all at all times. To me, however, this only means we’d need to get deeper into what then is in fact a universal drive to all sentience … whose fulfillment would be innately deemed good by each and every sentience.
BTW, I’ve little hope that we can get to the bottom of things as to what objective goodness signifies; I nevertheless hold the attempts in high regard.
I agree that the goal of wanting to be healthy can cause the negative value about eating the donut. But where does the goal of "wanting to experience the taste of donuts" come from? Just because I like the taste of donuts, it does not follow that I have a goal associated to it, does it? One does not control their taste buds like they can control their hands. Maybe with time and perseverance, we may be able to change our habits and modify our subjective preferences, but it can't happen by mere will power.
Quoting Harry Hindu
This sounds ad hoc. You could do this for any type of good: goodness in taste is tasty or delicious; goodness at a task is skilled; goodness of a song is pleasurable, and so on. I will resist the temptation to ask for a definition of 'goodness'... Instead, let's just agree that we all have an implicit knowledge of what goodness means. With that, let's consider the following dialogue.
Person P1: "I don't want to eat this food because it does not taste good."
Person P2: "You should still eat it because it is good for you".
Both persons are using the word 'good'. P1 uses it to mean taste, and P2 uses it to mean health.
The goal of wanting to experience the taste of donuts comes from the stored experience of eating a donut and you enjoying it. We all seek to have pleasurable experiences and to avoid unpleasant ones. That is the ultimate goal from which all other sub-goals are derived.
Quoting Samuel LacrampeLike I said, you can be full but still like the taste of donuts. Again, we are simply talking about a conflict of goals - you being full and you liking the taste of donuts. You being full doesn't make the donut taste bad, it still tastes good, which is why you have a conflict of goals. If the donut tastes bad when you are full, then you wouldn't have a conflict.
Quoting Samuel LacrampeIf both persons are using the word "good" to mean taste and health, then their sentences wouldn't make any sense as they would be:
Person P1: "I don't want to eat this food because it does not good good."
Person P2: "You should still eat it because it is good for you[r] [good]".
I don't agree that we all have an implicit knowledge of what goodness means. That is why I defined it as what is helpful to one's goals. If we all have an implicit knowledge of what goodness means, then it should be really easy to define and everyone will agree on the definition.
If I understand, you would like to find first principles of morality, is that it? That is up my alley.
How far do you want to extend the topic? Ethics of humans only, or of all beings? I'll keep it about humans for now. I think most of your questions can be answered by the concept of 'ontological value', or 'value of beings', where if every human has the same ontological value, then it follows that they all deserve the same level of respect.
So to answer some of your questions:
Q: "How does one justify what in fact is objectively good?"
A: By definition, Ethics is the study of how a being ought to treat other beings, and the ethical is essentially to treat each being according to their proper ontological value.
Q:"Why would a maximized control-over-[others] be immoral (unjust) in the first place?"
A: Because all humans have the same ontological value.
Note, this does not necessarily lead to communism, where all humans are equal in every way: jobs, skills, wealth, power etc. I only claim we are equal in ontological value; and as such, we ought to treat all humans as ourselves (also human) would want to be treated if we were in their shoes.
Truth. Meaning. Thought. Belief. All of these things require, consist in/of, and/or are existentially contingent upon both, a subject/agent and something other than the subject/agent.
Everything ever thought, believed, spoken and/or written comes through a subject. Strictly speaking, nothing ever thought, believed, spoken, and/or written is objective. That doesn't mean that everything is subjective. It means that the objective/subjective dichotomy is fraught. Best to abandon it altogether...
This quite mistakenly presupposes that everyone has the same morality and/or personal value system, i.e; not everyone likes being treated the same way in the same situation.
However, valuing another simply because they are human is the best starting point, for afterall, we all have much more in common - particularly during the formative years - than many may think/believe.
There are a whole realm of statements that are true of everyone regardless of individual particulars.
I’ve been thinking about this some. As before, I agree that your position serves as a very good rule of thumb. I feel I could easily complicate this issue, but I don’t believe that so doing would result in the obtainment of a more satisfactory answer. Because of this, I’ll back away from the conversation for the time being. All the same, at the end of the day, we’re in agreement in regard to the Golden Rule being a good.
I agree when it comes to thought, belief and perhaps meaning, by definition of the words; but why truth? Is it not true that the Earth revolved around the sun way before subjects like humans existed?
Quoting creativesoul
I understand the inherent challenge; but what about things that are indubitably objectively true, such as "2+2=4", or "a triangle has three sides"?
I think everyone does. To quote C.S. Lewis:
"The human mind has no more power of inventing a new [moral] value than of imagining a new primary colour, or, indeed, of creating a new sun and a new sky for it to move in." - The Abolition of Man
Who would want injustice and not want justice done to them?
Right on. To loop back to the original topic: If ontological values are real, then morality is objective. Failure to prove that ontological values are real, then we may be able to rely on the relative-objective test to prove that morality is an objective property of reality.
On my view, truth is correspondence 'between' thought/belief and fact/reality. It is presupposed within thought/belief formation. Without an agent there is no thought/belief. Without thought/belief there is nothing to be true/false.
Those sorts of things are "true" by definition. Our definition.
It's not merely a challenge. The dichotomy cannot account of the aforementioned things. It is found to be sorely lacking in explanatory power. In addition, because everything ever thought/believed and/or spoken comes through a subject, there is no such thing as an objective thought, belief, and/or statement thereof.
The dichotomy, if strictly adhered to, is untenable, useless.
Yes, I see what you mean now, and think you are correct. For a while, I was wandering what the difference was between the terms 'truth' and 'reality'. As I now understand, reality cannot be true or false; it just is. Only statements/thoughts are true or false, and these necessitate a subject. So reality is linked to the object, where as truth is linked to the subject, even if the truth is about an object.
This is getting interesting. I challenge your claim about man-made definition of things, by summoning Plato and his theory of forms or essences. Words, such as 'triangle', are indeed man-made; but concepts, such as 'the surface that has three sides', are part of reality. Words are signs that point to concepts, and us subjects can discover these concepts through abstraction. This explains how Socrates could argue with others about the objective definition of concepts like 'justice', instead of arbitrarily making up a definition that they can all choose to agree on. To sum up, if we know the essence of a word, then it follows that the essential properties are objective properties of the concept. E.g. 'having three sides' is an objective property of the concept we call 'triangle'.
If it were true that everyone presupposes that everyone else has the same morality and/or personal value system, then we would not be having this conversation, for I wouldn't have been able to point out that not everyone does.
C.S. Lewis is assuming that humans do not determine their own codes of conduct/morality.
Not this again :-x
Hey! This is my discussion and I can talk about whatever I want in it. >:)
I would think that finding necessary properties of concepts would be sufficient to prove that we can in fact escape said dichotomy. But here is another reason: How do you explain the phenomenon that many subjects agree on a given property of an object? E.g. all subjects observe that the chair has four legs.
What do you mean "triangles are not defined by having three sides"? What is the true definition then?
I'm not sure what the issue is.
There is no need to provide a way to prove that we can 'escape' the objective/subjective dichotomy. We know that it is an utterly inadequate framework because it cannot take account of that which consists in/of and/or requires both, and is thus neither.
What more explanation is needed?
Similarly I could ask, do you claim the definition of triangle to be that they have three sides or that they have three angles? What if there was hypothetically speaking a shape that only had one of those properties? And on a related note, how should we approach the fact that real life triangles don't have straight sides, or that we can recognize this as a triangle?
I am not saying that everyone presupposes that; and just because some do not, it does not follow that it is false, because no one's opinion is infallible. Admittedly, neither is C.S. Lewis. Let's raise the quality of the arguments on both sides.
I summon the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you want them to do unto you. The fact is that this rule occurs in some form in nearly every religion and ethical tradition. Source. And this rule implies that all humans have equal ontological value, or else we would not demand to treat them as equals.
It's not good to treat another in a way that they do not like being treated simply because it is a way in which we like being treated.
Understand?
Maybe I was attacking a straw man the whole time. Can you clarify what position you have in this discussion? I genuinely thought you were claiming that it is impossible for us to determine if a property is objective or subjective, that is, linked to the object or the subject. If that is not the position you are defending, then just ignore my previous comment.
Truth. Meaning. Thought. Belief. All of these things require, consist in/of, and/or are existentially contingent upon both, a subject/agent and something other than the subject/agent and therefore are neither objective nor subjective.
Everything ever thought, believed, spoken and/or written comes through a subject. Strictly speaking, nothing ever thought, believed, spoken, and/or written is objective. That doesn't mean that everything is subjective. It means that the objective/subjective dichotomy is fraught. Best to abandon it altogether.
The dichotomy cannot account of the aforementioned things. It is found to be sorely lacking in explanatory power. In addition, because everything ever thought/believed and/or spoken comes through a subject, there is no such thing as an objective thought, belief, and/or statement thereof.
The dichotomy, if strictly adhered to, is untenable, useless.
Here are all the essential properties of the concept of triangle-ness: 'flat surface' + 'three straight sides'. This implies that it also has three angles, and so it would be redundant to add it as a property, similar with the property that the sum of its angles is 180 deg.
Quoting BlueBanana
There is: a flat surface with three angles and rounded sides. Like this. Clearly, this is not a triangle.
Quoting BlueBanana
Perfect triangles can exist, even if only in our minds. I am guessing you know what I am talking about, and this fact proves that we both have the same concept of what a triangle is. As for your linked example, sure I can guess the shape of a triangle in there, but I would not bet all my money on it, because it does not clearly show the aforementioned essential properties.
This is what I suspected before; and I find a contradiction in the following two statements:
(1) "... because everything ever thought/believed and/or spoken comes through a subject, there is no such thing as an objective thought, belief, and/or statement thereof."
(2) "I would agree that we can find ourselves defining(talking about) that which is not existentially contingent upon human thought/belief and/or language."
Best I can agree with, is that the thought is subjective in the sense that the subject produces it, but the content of the thought can be objective, if it is about the object.
:s
There is no contradiction. The first statement shows the consequence of employing the dichotomy. The second rejects it.
Indeed they are. If I say "God exists" and you say "God does not exist", both of our claims are equally objective, even though one must be true and the other one must be false.
The same would apply to any and all claims regarding any and all things...
Who does not like justice, and likes injustice done to themselves? Who does not like being treated with respect? Who likes being lied to? Virtually nobody. But maybe I misunderstand your statement. Maybe you can provide an example, and I will see if I can clarify how the Golden Rule applies.
If the thought content is about the object, then it is objective; and if it is about the subject, then it is subjective. The important thing is to figure out if it is in fact about the object or about the subject. "The ball is round" is an easy enough example of an objective statement. But what about "the ball is beautiful"? Is 'beauty' an objective or subjective property? The relative-objective test can determine this.
All talk is linked to a subject. If being linked to a subject makes something subjective, then there is no such thing as an objective statement.
Talk can be about an object. All talked is linked to a subject...
I do not know how else to show you that the dichotomy is fraught. You've ignored every counterargument given thus far.
I think you are confusing the content of the talk with the talk itself. Sure, the talk is linked to the subject insofar as the subject is talking. But the content of the talk may be about an object. E.g. "This animal is dead". The property 'dead' is clearly about the object, not about the subject saying it.
And if this still does not address your objections, then we can leave it here.
Meaning of the utterance?
The 'object' of thought?
The subject matter?
What's being said, as compared to the subject saying it?
Help me out here. What counts as "the content" of talk?
The subjective/objective dichotomy cannot take any of that into account. I know it's popular to talk like that. That doesn't make it an adequate method for understanding thought, belief, meaning, and truth.
There are things that consist in/of and/or are existentially contingent upon both a subject and something other than the subject(object if you must). These things consist of and/or are existentially contingent upon both, and therefore it makes no sense to say that any of them are either 'subjective' or 'objective'.
These things that are neither include thought, belief, meaning, and truth. There is nothing that can be said which does not require all of these things. All things said consist of things that are neither subjective nor objective. That is... the content of all talk consists of that which is both, objective and subjective... Thus, all talk is neither.
I don't know how else to help...
Correct. The content of talk is what is being said.
I agree with everything you say (some of it is actually quite insightful), up to the following part:
Quoting creativesoul
This simply cannot be true. Let's suppose that the earth is round in reality (a safe supposition I think). It is therefore round whether subjects like us exist or not. Therefore 'round' is a property of the object, and is fully independent of subjects and their talks. Now I, a subject, say "The earth is round". According to you, "the content of all talk consists of that which is both, objective and subjective... Thus, all talk is neither." But as previously stated, 'round' is an objective property of the earth in reality. Therefore, the content of this talk, being about an objective property of the object of talk, is objective.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I am intrigued about this definition of 'good'. Does it follow that if there is no goal, then there is no good? What if I say "something is good looking". What goal would that refer to?
So, what's being said is not talk?
"Round" is a word.
There are much better ways to talk about things...
I heavily disagree. Most people would recognize that object, or a triangle with rounded angles, as a triangle. Furthermore, it's only our culture that has taught us what is a "proper" triangle; without that influence, a human could recognize the three examples as equally triangle-like.
Now, my favourite part of the argument (which unfortunately is a tad off-topic so no further comments on this): an omnipotent being could create a triangle with four sides. This is, however, independent of whether the definition of triangle is its triangleness or that it has three straight sides and angles.
When one is talking, the content of the talk is not necessarily about talking. Ironically, we are talking about talking right now, but we could be talking about unicorns too. Analogy: A story book has a story in it. The story is not necessarily about books, although the story is told through a book.
Quoting creativesoul
Round is indeed a word, said by me, the subject, about the earth, the object when I observe it. The question is, when I say "the earth is round", am I saying something about me or about the object?
Quoting creativesoul
At this point, I suspect that you and I are not on the same page; and if we are not, then we cannot have a productive argument. Maybe it is best to leave it at that. It could be due to my own limitations by the way.
Perhaps a different tack will help...
What counts as objective? I mean, what is the criterion which, when met by a candidate, counts as that candidate being objective?
Subjective?
I've already shown how the OP's criterion fails.
They are like triangles, and it might be a useful description in everyday talk, but they are not triangles. Similar to an egg being like a sphere or close to a sphere, but it is not a sphere. Besides, one property of triangles is that the sum of the angles equals to 180 deg. These rounded triangles don't have this property.
Quoting BlueBanana
I am not sure if you are saying that an omnipotent being could in fact create a triangle with four sides, or if you are saying that this idea is absurd. My position is the latter. As Aquinas says, contradictions do not fall under the omnipotence of God.
Or maybe it's a property of some specific triangles.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
As Gandhi says, argumentum ad verecundiam.
Where did Gandhi say that? Also I thought last time was your last comment on this. ;)
It sounds like you want a reason to believe that logical contradictions are not part of omnipotence. Alright. To say something that is illogical is simply to say something that is nonsensical. As such, saying "a triangle can have four sides" is no more sensical than saying "the smell of purple is tall". The former statement may appear more sensical than the latter, but it is not insofar that a contradiction is present. And a nonsensical statement does not turn into a sensical statement just because we add the concept of omnipotence in front of it. As such, an omnipotent being cannot create a triangle with four sides, any more than it can create a tall smell of purple.
In theory here are the criteria: a property is objective if it is attributed to the object; and subjective if it is attributed to the subject. In practice, I don't know of any way other than my relative-objective test. Maybe my test is flawed, but there is no denying that some properties are attributed to the objects and some properties are attributed to the subjects. Again, if in reality the earth is round, then 'being round' is an objective property of the earth.
Subjects are just other objects. Just as we can describe the differences between objects based on their attributes and properties, we can also make distinctions between subjects based on their attributes and properties. We also refer to subjects as if they were objects.
If there is a difference between a subject and an object, then what is it, without going in circles?
So, by virtue of attributing truth to a subject it is subjective, and by virtue of attributing truth to the world it is objective?
True, but neither does it turn impossible just because we add the concept of nonsensicalness in front of it. Making sense or being logical are properties and laws of our universe, and they don't necessarily apply outside it.
I aim to reductio ad absurdum this one. If omnipotence is capable of creating nonsense, then this omnipotent being may both exist and not exist, may be you, and me, and everyone else, may turn truth into falsehood, and good into evil. As a believer of such a being, are you an atheist, a theist, and a pantheist, all at the same time?
Quoting BlueBanana
I don't agree that other universes may have different laws of logic; only different laws of physics. Can I back that up? Alas I cannot because any logical and sensical argument I could come up with would only beg the question. That said, I suspect you of being inconsistent: if you entertain the idea of having different laws of logic in other universes, then why not entertain it for our universe as well?
Quoting Harry Hindu
I see your point, Mr. Hindu. Let me try again to describe the difference between an objective and subjective property. A property is objective if it is attributed to the object. So far so good. But, a property is subjective, not if it is attributed to the subject, (for as you say, this is still objective towards the subject), but if it is projected by the subject onto the object. This sounds complicated, so here is an example.
(Edited) I observe a painting and say "this painting is beautiful". Let's assume we know that 'beauty' is subjective. So 'beauty' is not a property of the painting in itself. It is also not a property of me, because my expression of 'beauty' was never about me; only about the painting. Rather, this property is a projection of my feeling of beauty onto the painting. This is what we call subjective.
I'm out of this one.
You'll figure it out. The dichotomy dissolves into reductio under careful scrutiny...
But this doesn't go against what I said. I said that we can make distinctions between subjects, just as we can make distinctions between objects. The distinction in your example is that you think the painting is beautiful, and I don't. So, we can point to both subjects, as if they are objects, and say that they are different things, just like objects.
It is also an objective statement about reality to say that you find the painting beautiful and I don't. It isn't subjective to say that you find the painting beautiful and I don't. It is a true statement about some state of reality - something that we can both agree on.
Yeah you're right; my bad. I have changed my last post to assume that 'beauty' is subjective. My point was not to focus on how to prove if a thing is subjective, but to determine the relationship between a subjective property, and the subject and object.
See you later.
You are making an error. To say "the painting is beautiful" is not the same as to say "I feel the painting is beautiful". In the first statement, the object is 'painting', and the property is 'beautiful'. In the second statement, the object is 'I', and the property is 'feeling the painting to be beautiful'. In the first statement, 'beautiful' is subjective, because it is only a projection of my feeling and not a property of the painting in itself; where as in the second statement, 'feeling the painting to be beautiful' is objective, because it is a property of me at that moment.
To put this finding in general terms, properties such as 'beauty' is always subjective, where as properties such as 'feeling of x' is always objective. The trick is to remember that 'beauty' is not the same property as 'feeling of beauty'.
No worries Crampster...
No need for apologies. Doesn't seem like you've done anything blameworthy from where I sit.
I suggest that you focus upon the idea that there are some things which are not existentially contingent upon people/subjects, some things that are entirely so, and other things that require both people/subjects and something other than people/subjects...
No, it is you that is making the error because you are putting words in my mouth. I never said that you feel the painting is beautiful, I said that you think the painting is beautiful. I never mentioned the word "projection" either. You did.
What does it mean to "project" beauty onto the painting - as if beauty is a ray of light that emanates from you and onto the painting? If beauty were a projection, wouldn't that make it objective? I don't see beauty as something that is projected. If it were, then beauty would have a causal effect on the painting itself when projected onto it. I don't see anything projecting from you and onto the painting. You're "projection" is a misconception.
Also, what is beauty? Besides being what you call, "subjective", what is beauty? Is it not a feeling? Isn't it a feeling you get when looking at the painting, and not a projection (because that doesn't make any sense)? And in this case, the feeling would be attributed only to you.
You are an object, no? A human being is an object last I checked - something that can be interacted with physically.
By projecting beauty onto the painting, I just mean that I, the subject, get a sensation or feeling of beauty when observing the painting, which is also what you mean I think; I don't mean any physical projections.
Quoting Harry Hindu
This is the part where I claim you are making an error. Yes, my feeling of beauty is a property of me, and is therefore objective. But no, 'beauty' is not a property of me, as it is only a feeling I get when observing the painting, and neither is it a property of the painting. It is therefore subjective.
Let me put the same point in a different way. Consider the following two statements:
Statement (1) is objective because 'rectangular' is attributed to the object, which is the painting. Statement (1) is not objective because 'beauty' is not attributed to the object. It is therefore subjective.
I hope this clarifies things.
The last part seems to be making a distinction between your feeling and beauty itself, as if beauty were more than a feeling. I asked you what beauty was, besides being subjective (because that would be circular), and you came back with, "It's subjective". You're simply running in circles. If it's more than just a feeling, then what is it?
To answer you question directly, I too think 'beauty' is just a feeling. That is a consequence of it being subjective (which we assumed). This also means that nothing has beauty in itself, as it is always a feeling within the subject when observing the object. And if nothing has beauty in itself, then it is never an objective property.
My question for you is, do you know of a way to find if a property is objective or subjective?
Worth repeating...
What you seem to be saying is that we are mispeaking, or making a category error, when we say that some thing, other than the subject, is beautiful. When someone says, "that painting is beautiful", do you take them to actually mean that the painting is beautiful, or to mean that the person making that statement has a particular feeling that arises when looking at the painting? If by saying, "That painting is beautiful.", we are really saying something about ourselves, or more specifically saying something about a relationship between the painting and us, then we are making an objective claim.
Quoting Samuel LacrampeNothing is subjective. Everything is objective. Look at creatvesoul's post for example.
Quoting creativesoul
Creativesoul makes all these claims about how reality is. Creativesoul is attempting to make truth statements about the world. Creativesoul is telling us how the world really is and works. Creativesoul contradicts himself when he says that "Strictly speaking, nothing ever thought, believed, spoken, and/or written is objective." Is this an objective statement about everything every thought and belief, spoken or written? Of course it is. Does creativesoul want us to believe this is a statement about reality, or the "reality" in his head? He seems to want to tell us how the world is and at the same time tell us that his post is subjective. If it is subjective, then he's not telling us how the world really is, only how he feels that it is.
When attempting to explain the world, are we attempting to get at the way the world really is, or how we feel it is? Even if it is about how we feel, we are still making an objective statement about the relationship between us and the world.
Creativesoul even says his post is worth repeating. Is it really worth repeating, or is it that only Creativesoul feels it is worth repeating? And even if it is only that Creativesoul feels that it should be repeated, that is an objective statement, "Creativesouls feels that his post should be repeated." because we are making a claim about reality itself, which Creativesoul and his feelings and inclinations are a part of.
Harry has created a set of all sets...
A property is objective if it is linked to the object, that is, the thing observed, thought about, spoken about.[/i][/b]
Objectivity is only that which is agreeable to a community of humans. Objective properties are conceptual and are thought to reflect inherent properties in the object itself. However, since all thoughts, ideas and concept exist only in the minds of subjects, it is to those subjects that agreement is required to determine the quality of the objective statement.
If ten people taste a sample of lemon juice, 5 say its sharpness is average, 3 say it is weak and the other 2 say it is strong.
A scientist uses a machine which tells them that the sharpness value of the lemon is 23.7.
All ten people agree that the lemon has a sharpness of 23.7, but two think this number is average, 3 say it is low, and the other 2 say it is a high number.
What is the ACTUAL and meaningful sharpness of that lemon? Is the objective value meaningful?
The fact is that lemons don't care about sharpness. Sharpness is a quality that has a human interest and therefore, although it might be clothed in a veneer of objectivity, it is nonetheless deeply subjective.
The vast majority of things that we wish to determine the objectivity of, are in essence all subjectively interested and partial qualities.
Quoting Harry Hindu
By "nothing has beauty in itself", I mean it in the sense that nothing is beautiful in itself; not that nothing has beauty as a feeling. As you demonstrated, if beauty is a feeling, and this feeling is in the subject, then subjects have beauty. But this is different than saying that subjects are beautiful. I suppose it is a matter of distinction between data and metadata. The 'feeling of beauty' is data within the subject, where as 'being beautiful' would be metadata about the subject. And the latter is false because beauty is only a feeling. Therefore, although I agree that 'feeling of beauty' is an objective statement about the subject, 'being beautiful' is not an objective property; and as such, 'being beautiful' is what we call subjective.
Another thing that can be subjective are statements: E.g. "This painting is beautiful".
In this statement, the object is 'painting', and as we have established, 'beauty' is not about the object but about the subject of the statement; therefore the statement is subjective. Granted, we can change the statement into an objective one without really changing the meaning, as so: "I feel beauty when observing this painting". In this statement, the object is 'I', and the property 'feeling of beauty when ...' is objective. But I still see two challenges that remain:
1. Since we will still use the first type of sentence in our everyday language, it is useful is make the distinction between subjective and objective statements.
2. We don't always need to say "I feel that X is Y" to make sure the statement is objective; as this depends on the property Y. E.g., if the property 'rectangular' is objective (not merely a feeling), then to say "This painting is rectangular" is already an objective statement. It would be pointless to say "I feel this painting is rectangular".
This might be what happens in practice, but in theory, we are aiming to find properties that exist in things in themselves, even if unachievable.
Regarding your example on sharpness, you may be right that it is not possible to objectively find if a lemon is sharp in the absolute sense, because it is may be a relative term. But while relative, it could still be objective. Let's test it with my Relative-Objective Test (still working on the name): If all subjects were to rank the sharpness of two lemons with different degrees of sharpness, what would happen?
(1) Most would find that lemon A is more sharp than lemon B; the rest would find no difference; and none would find that lemon B is more sharp than lemon A.
(2) Some would find that lemon A is more sharp than lemon B; some would find no difference; and some would find that lemon B is more sharp than lemon A.
If result (1) happens, then sharpness is objective, according to my relative-obejctive test. If result (2) happens, then sharpness is subjective.
If beauty is a feeling then it would be wrong to to use language in a way that implies that the painting has feelings, rather than the human being speaking those words. If, by making this string of sounds, "That painting is beautiful." emanate from your mouth, you actually mean that you feel that the painting is beautiful, and you expect others to understand that is what you mean, then you are simply using shortcuts in your language use to relay your intent to others. In other words, you don't mean your words literally. The only difference between "subjective" and "objective" would be the difference in your use of words by using shortcuts to relay what you really mean, which is always objective (being about reality).
Yes, that is all correct. So subjective means a feeling in the subject when observing the object. And the feeling is itself objective to the subject.
Now for the next question. Consider the following two statements again:
A. "This painting is beautiful."
B. "This painting is rectangular."
We have thus far only assumed that statement A is subjective, and B is objective. But can we back this up? I claim we can by using the Relative-Objective Test, as per the original post.
A. When testing two different paintings, some subjects will observe painting (1) to be more beautiful than painting (2), and some will observe the opposite. Since there is no agreement in the order of degree of beauty, this means that beauty is subjective.
B. When testing two paintings of different shapes (not just size), a large majority of subjects will observe one painting (say painting (1)) to be more rectangular than the other, while the minority (likely blind) will not see a difference; but no one would observe painting (2) to be more rectangular than (1). Since there is an agreement in the order of degree of 'rectangular', (at least no opposite order is observed), this means that 'rectangular' is objective. Thoughts?
No. You seem to be having a problem reading and replying to my posts without putting words I didn't say in my mouth.
I said that what is "subjective" (the word is in quotes because it's just a placeholder that we don't really need) is when you use language in such a way as to associate a feeling with things that don't have feelings in order to relay information about your state in the most efficient means possible, which includes using shortcuts in our language. So, "subjective" doesn't really exist, except as a means of relaying objective information, like your emotional state.
I honestly don't see a difference between your definition and mine. Regardless, under this definition, it is coherent to use the word 'subjective' when describing a statement such as "this painting is beautiful".
But surely, you see a distinction between the two previously stated sentences A and B, do you not? That A is related to the subject's feelings (what I call subjective), and B is related to the object.
Sorry this is unavoidable. Sharpness is a value judgement, and even if measured objectively is it still subjectively understood.
Your contention that "most would find...." is totally humancentric. Even if you could test every human, this would not be objective in the way people want it to mean; regardless of human interest or opinion.
yes... then absolutely NO.
How can it be objective and subjective.This is an abuse of language.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe No, it isn't. That is the problem you still don't understand. I said that "subjective" doesn't really exist, so it would be incoherent to use the term at all. It would be more accurate to say that it is "misspeaking", not "subjective". The painting isn't really beautiful. You have a feeling of a beautiful painting. You're not speaking subjectively. You're simply misspeaking.
If, by saying, "This painting is beautiful.", you mean that you have a feeling of beauty when looking at the painting, then you are speaking objectively, not subjectively.
If, by saying, "This painting is beautiful.", you mean that the painting is actually beautiful, or has feelings itself that can be described as "beautiful". Then you are simply misspeaking, not speaking subjectively, because paintings don't have feelings.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
Quoting Samuel LacrampeNo. This means beauty is a feeling. Stop using the term, "subjective".
Quoting Samuel LacrampeAgreement has nothing to do with it. People can agree on things that are just wrong. People agreed that the Earth was flat. Is the Earth flat, or does it only seem that way from our perspective? Is the Earth objectively flat, subjectively flat, or is it our perception of the world is flat?
Then how would you test if a property is objective or not? Otherwise, do you agree with the following example? Some people may not find snow to be that cold, and some others may not find a hot tub to be that hot; but everyone finds a hot tub to be more hot than snow. As such, coldness and hotness are objective properties. They are relative, but still objective, because everyone finds that X is hotter than Y. We don't see that phenomenon with subjective things like beauty.
Quoting charleton
Assuming that this is true, this still would not be a proof that it is subjective. There is such a thing as objective values. ;)
Quoting charleton
I'll explain. If 'beauty' is subjective, then the statement "This painting is beautiful" says nothing about the object which is the painting, and says everything about the subject, namely that he feels beauty when observing the painting. But then saying "I feel beauty when observing the painting" is now an objective statement, because the property 'feeling beauty' is about the object which is 'I' in that statement.
So you don't seem to buy into my Relative-Objective test. In which case, how do you yourself claim that such a property as 'beauty' is only a feeling but a property like 'rectangular' is a real property of the object?
You are mistaking the idea that "objective" is the same as truth.
Your example is RELATIVE, and as such it is not about objectiveness. The objective truth about snow is that it is colder than 0 centigrade, and that a hot tub is colder than 100degrees centigrade. All the rest is a value judgement and more relevant to us for that.
I think this is wholly nonsensical.
You misunderstood me. I did not ask for your position, but the reason why you have this position. Why do you think that beauty is a mere feeling of the subject, as opposed to a property of the painting; and why do you think 'rectangular' is in turn a property of the painting, and not a mere feeling of the subject? In other words, the title of this discussion: How to determine if a property is objective or subjective?
Yes, it is a relative example. It is a relative objective example. Your own example I quote below is an example of a relative objective statement. You yourself call it objective, and it is describing an object relative to a standard.
Quoting charleton
So relative things can be objective at the same time; and therefore to say "snow is colder than hot tubs" is an objective statement. It is either true or false.
Quoting charleton
Maybe I can help you understand, but I'm gonna need more productive input from you than saying it is nonsensical.
The visual of a rectangle refers to the shape of the painting. The feeling of beauty refers to the self, not the painting. This is why we can agree on the rectangular shape of the painting but not on it's beauty. We can only agree that you find the painting beautiful and I don't.
In talking about the beauty of the painting, we are really talking about each of our selves, not the painting, which is why we disagree on the beauty of the painting. In disagreeing, we are referring to each of our different states, one which has beauty and one which doesn't, not the painting.
We agree that the painting is rectangular because that is a property of the painting. We aren't referring to our selves, but rather the painting.
I'm not sure if that is clear or not.
I think that is a reasonable answer. I agree with it. But maybe the example was a bit too easy. What about the colour of an object? Touch does not help us differentiate between different colours.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I agree with everything you say, and that is because this sounds close to my relative-objective test, where I claim subjects cannot disagree on the ranking of degree of objective properties. Now I find it odd coming from you because I think this contradicts the following quote:
Quoting Harry Hindu
Now, that is a good example to work with. Color exists only in minds. You could say that our visual experience is also a feeling. But colors are the result of reflected light interacting with the eye-brain system, and the light is reflected off the object. So color is a relationship between the object, light and our eye-brain system, as color carries information about all these things because they are all a cause of your experience of color.
So, when I say, "The apple is red." I'm really referring to this relationship, not just myself, not just the apple, but the whole relationship - which is objective. The same can be said about the painting, as you only get the feeling of beauty when looking at the painting, so beauty is a relationship between you and the painting.
Quoting Samuel LacrampeWhat I was attempting to do is to explain WHY subjects can or cannot disagree on the objective properties. We disagree about beauty ONLY if we mean that beauty is a property of the painting. If we are actually referring to our feelings, then we agree. So our disagreement comes from one, or both, of us misspeaking, or making a category error. You and I can still disagree on our theories of reality and our relationship with it, but we would both still be making objective statements about the world, so our disagreement isn't based on a category error, but simply a differing of explanations of the world and our place in it.
I think you are right that colour is in the mind, if we talk about what is being perceived only, because if the object or subject is travelling at high speed, then the colour perceived may change. But if we talk about the property that reflects only a particular light range, then it is a property of the object, because it is part of it.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I agree with you that, in theory, we should not argue about properties of feelings, and should only argue about objective properties of outer reality. But this is still putting the cart before the horse, because some people might still argue about the beauty of the painting, claiming that beauty is in fact a property of outer reality. So far, we have found one solid criteria: touch. I will also add anything that is measurable by an instrument, because instruments cannot be biased with feelings. Thoughts?
Such has to be the case with all value judgements.
But to say that "beauty is a feeling in the subject because it is a value judgement" is begging the question, because value judgements are made only on things which are not properties of the observed objects.
Values are inherent to the observer, not the object.
Are feelings not part of "outer" reality? Am I, and you, and charleton, all parts of reality? From each of our perspectives, the other two, and their feelings, exist in this "outer" reality. So to talk about each other's feelings is to talk objectively about the world. I don't really know how better to say what I've been saying all this time - that "subjective" language is either using shortcuts in speaking objectively, or misusing language by projecting properties of one object onto other objects that don't have those properties.
I think you might be confused by the use of "subject" in this instance.
You can talk about feelings - other people's inner reality, but you can't ask the painting if it is beautiful - that way lies madness.
And whilst we can agree that we "share" a love of the Mona Lisa, it is impossible that that love is equal, or that ANY "shared" feeling is felt in the same way.
Even if it was the case, that feelings were so dull and one dimensional in humans, we would only have an intersubjective agreement - the beauty of a painting is never a property of the painting.
Quoting charleton
Did neither of you understand what I said? From each of our perspectives, our feelings are external to the other. So, if your feelings are external to me, and mine to you, then how is it again that feelings are not part of the external world? Do you agree that you and I are part of the world, and to talk about each other and each other's feelings, would be to talk objectively about the world?
I understood perfectly what you said.
Feelings are internal. Though it is clear that others may have them, you do not have access to feeling of others. You only have access to evidence of the feelings of others; in their claims, in their behaviour and in your observations. Feelings are part of their internal world, not in your external world, they are hidden behind a veil of material.
It's not only that you can be fooled by another, but that no matter how hard you try to understand another's feelings, you cannot feel their feeling, only your own.
Just because you don't have access to the feelings of others doesn't mean that it isn't external to you. There are atoms inside the table. We can't access them, but can deduce their existence from the behavior of matter. Are the atoms internal, or external to your perspective?
Do you have a point here? If so, why not make it?
So what? What's the point of thinking that way? How does it advance any argument?
Do tell!
Is everything objective? What's the point of having the words objective and subjective if they don't mean anything?
I agree with you, that there is merit in calling the world of feelings the 'inner reality', because while it is part of objective reality, feelings are always in a subject, and never in an object that is not a subject like a painting.
Harry.
We are on the same page that even feelings are part of objective reality about the subject. Where we disagree however, is that the term 'subjective' becomes obsolete as a result. This is not true. Consider once again the following statements:
A: "This painting is rectangular."
B: "This painting is beautiful."
First, there is clearly a difference between these two types of statements. A is literally true, while B is not, as you also pointed out earlier. This alone is enough to use the terms 'objective' and 'subjective' to differentiate between the two types of statements. But there is more.
In statement A, the property 'rectangular' is directly linked to the object 'the painting'. Therefore 'rectangular' is clearly an objective property of the painting. In statement B, the property 'beautiful' is not directly linked to the object 'the painting'. Therefore 'beauty' is not an objective property of the painting. But is it an objective property of the subject? I claim that it is not. If it was, then it would mean that the subject is objectively beautiful. But the subject is not beautiful; the subject only experiences the feeling of beauty when observing the object. Feeling x is not the same thing as being x. The painting is really rectangular. Neither the painting nor the subject is beautiful. Therefore the property 'beauty' is subjective.
Really? I thought feelings are always part of a body, not a subject. I think that is the reason why you can't escape using the word, "subjective".
Quoting Samuel LacrampeWhat is so difficult about this? By saying that the sentence isn't literally true, is saying that you mean something else when you say it - something objective, not subjective!
Quoting Samuel LacrampeGive me a break! Did we not agree that beauty is a feeling?! Doesn't that mean that the person has the feeling of beauty?! Again, when you utter the sentence, "The painting is beautiful." you are talking about your feelings toward the painting. If you mean that "I am beautiful." then you'd be committing the same mistake as saying the painting is beautiful. You'd wouldn't mean it literally! So no, you aren't being a feeling. You are a person that currently has the feeling of beauty - a property of a person.
I'm pretty sure feelings are never part of a body that is not a subject. Paintings don't have feelings, and neither do corpses (former subjects). On the other hand, properties like 'heaviness' can be part of paintings, subjects, or corpses.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Then what makes statement A literally true, and statement B not literally true, if not the type of property described?
Quoting Harry Hindu
Again, feeling or sensing x is not the same as being x or having x. E.g. "I sense the painting is rectangular" is not the same as saying that I, the subject, is rectangular, or have rectangular-ness. Similarly, feeling or sensing beauty is not the same as being beautiful or having beauty. If nothing has beauty in itself, then beauty is not a property of any object, and is therefore not objective. Conversely, some objects are rectangular, and therefore 'rectangular' is objective.
Another way to look at it: objective properties are in the object, independent of subjects or other objects. If the painting is rectangular, it remains rectangular even when no subjects are present. Conversely, subjective properties, while in the subject, are dependant on objects. If I feel beauty about the painting, then the feeling of beauty is dependant on the painting being observed. I may not feel beauty in another painting, even though I, the subject, am the same in both cases.
Corpses aren't alive and therefore all the bodily processes have ceased, which includes the nervous system and how it feels. You're still getting hung up on there being a "subject". There is simply a body that is alive, or not - a body that feels a particular way, or not.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
Because you are attributing a property to something that just doesn't have it. Paintings don't have feelings. Organisms that are alive do. It isn't literally true that the painting has the feeling of beauty. You do. So what you really mean is, "I have the feeling of beauty when looking at this painting." when you say, "the painting is beautiful." Didn't we already go over this?
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe This isn'y my position, so you are attacking a straw-man. "Being" and "having" are not the same verbs with the same meaning. Having something is part of your being - like having feelings. That doesn't mean that you are being your feelings. You are being a body having a particular feeling at this moment.
Quoting Samuel Lacrampe
I just don't get why you can't get away from using those terms. I don't know what a subject is, if not an object that has particular qualities, like feelings. When I talk about your feelings, I'm talking about your body having a particular feeling at this moment.
P1: A property is called 'objective' if it is attributed to an object, independent of subjects observing the object. E.g. If a painting is rectangular, then it is so even when it is not observed.
P2: Beauty is also a property attributed to an object, because if I feel the painting to be beautiful, then the feeling is about the painting, not about me. But it is not independent of the subject observing the object, because if I feel the painting to be beautiful, it is I who feels this, and others might have different feelings.
C1: Beauty is not an objective property, as defined in P1.
P3: If a property is not objective, then it is called 'subjective', because they are opposite terms.
C2: Beauty is a subjective property.