Shawn

All of this sounds very similar to the ethos that pragmatism propounded. For all intents and purposes, "practical reason" and "being pragmatic" could ...

I'll think about that, thanks.

I feel as though we're all talking about the same thing. Just that we're kind of confused about what it is.

I don't quite see your point here. Care to expand? Genuinely interested. Yeah, I'm in the dark here. I wasn't sure, so I had to put it in my own words...

No, the whole German continentalism/romanticism that elevated the welfare of the self above the rest of the world. I think you sort of deflated the is...

Isn't the OED a type of rule-book?

Certainty is not required, though should be the goal of any dispute or conversation. We can get along without knowing if we're using the words the rig...

Sorry to hear. :sad:

*hands over the reigns of this thread to Banno* Because we need a set of rules and principles to delineate between what is the realm of bias, opinion,...

That doesn't mean that the criteria cannot be changed or amended, much like a constitution. If there's no criteria then nothing meaningful can be said...

Sorry, auto-correct changed "Banno" to "Banning" on my phone. Fixed it on my computer. lol

How about criteria Banno? I seem to have fixated on that term to describe what one or more consider something as objective or subjective? Thanks for t...

Yeah, that depends on the criteria we're using to make sense of the world. Here is the Sorites Paradox with me adding the pertinent points that I rais...

No, the whole point is that the predicates "objective" and "subjective" are undefinable. Hence, the paradox of treating them as definitions for things...

I'm still saddened that nobody has agreed that the objective-subjective divide is actually a version of the Sorites Paradox...

I'm not sure what frank is referring to here. So, I'm in the dark too.

Well, I am only for the moment talking about knowledge. To answer you question though, pragmatically speaking the patient is the subject at the doctor...

Yes.

Well, that's because I don't consider knowledge to be subject to the objective-subjective dichotomy.

Then, is that not an objective fact unto itself? Someone had to say it...

It was a prejudice of mine. Nothing more or nothing less.

Well now that, that implicit assumption that I have held has been expressed and open to criticism and examination, I'm not that sure it be true anymor...

No, it's a good thread. I just came off as judgmental. Sorry.

I don't think I need to spell out the fact that nationalism goes hand in hand with authoritarianism.

And the book: http://theauthoritarians.org/Downloads/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

What's the point of this thread? Are you interested in the psychology of right wing authoritarians? Google that term, there's an online book that delv...

All of this objective/subjective stuff pertains entirely to informal languages, not formal one's where ambiguity and vagueness are wholly absent. An i...

I just brought it up because I thought language was self-justifying/self-sealing, giving me the impression that it is neither subjective nor objective...

Also, nobody cared to address my point of determining objective knowledge via a certain criteria as plausible or not. I guess we can let that pass if ...

Well, to put it another way, the definitions of most non-rigid designators are circular and depends on other words to determine their meaning. So, tha...

Which is to say that how other words are used in combination with the word of interest, contextually speaking.

I'm not sure about that. Many philosophers think otherwise; but, am not going to delve into that. Namely, in that through the analysis of the subject ...

That's irrelevant. We don't have to be omniscient to be objective about things.

Nicely put. So, you're talking about intersubjectivity?

So, the issue seems to be, when does one know they are being objective, correct? Yes, words are circular, they derive their meaning from other words. ...

It's either private or it isn't, not both, and more importantly where do you draw the line? So, what is it then? Private or public? Maybe the whole pr...

That's the point, you can't refer to private content. It can't be talked about; but, somehow manifests in the way we talk to one another. For the matt...

Strange, this whole time I was under the impression that Wittgenstein was pointing towards the illogicality of there being a private language. To be h...

Yet, you have said the following: So, from what I gather, you mean to say that I can have private content; but, speak about everything in a public man...

Well, to press your point about there being private content withing one's mind, you can think about it as if one were solipsistic. The limits of my la...

Not really. People aren't only reflexive in nature. We can reason our way out of problems and dilemmas. Your drawing a false equivocation between the ...

I'm sorry Sam, but this sounds like begging the question to my ears or some epistemic unknown that can never be expressed. So, it is a noumenal entity...

What makes you say that Sam? Seems confusing, like some inverted Kantian noumena.

So, just to illustrate what you're getting at Sam, how would you answer the following:

I understand that; but, I don't agree with the Hume'ian sentiment being professed here, if that is the case of reason being the handmaiden to the emot...

I don't know. If you want to appeal to emotions arising from emotions themselves, then you're going to get stuck in a loop. On the whole of it, people...

Are you both right in each instance? Just so it doesn't appear as if I'm trolling or insinuating anything, I am inclined to agree with Pseudonym. For,...

I think you brought up an important issue that Wittgenstein tried to address in his On Certainty. Would you be able to expand on this issue a little m...

The ambiguity keeps on cropping up. I would really like to know the reason why.