• What is a white nationalist?
    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 delves into why they believe the things they do.
  • The objective-subjective trap
    All of this objective/subjective stuff pertains entirely to informal languages, not formal one's where ambiguity and vagueness are wholly absent. An important thing to keep in mind, illustrating that ambiguity, vagueness, and inexactness are contributing factors (not the only one's though as there are other factors too, which I am wondering about also) to the objective/subjective divide.
  • The objective-subjective trap
    I don't understand the point of bringing up circularity, as if it's a negative. — Sam26

    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; but, a social construct. And, calling it a social construct doesn't necessarily mean it is subjective or objective; but, intersubjective. I don't know if you recall the old thread over at the old Philosophy Forums, where @Banno had a thread about this same issue or similar to some extent. The whole thread was something like 80 pages long, and people kept on going back and forth trying to justify their own understanding of what it means for something to either be subjective or objective.

    Anyway, it's a negative because there is an implicit criteria being deployed when one is trying to evaluate objective knowledge from subjective knowledge, which I'm not even sure if it (the criteria) can be talked about. It almost seems like an endless task to justify said criteria with another set of criteria to ensure its scope and consistency. The circularity of definitions is a confounding factor to the ambiguity and vagueness of establishing said criteria to evaluate the objective from the subjective.

    So, my whole point is that instead of talking about the futile task of what is the subjective from the objective we ought to talk about the criteria used in delineating the two.
  • The objective-subjective trap
    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 nothing can be said about such a criteria?
  • The objective-subjective trap
    ↪Sam26

    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, that can limit the scope of all things that are not ostensibly defined to be categorized into the subjective category, which I suppose many philosophers agree with. But, then if we assume the implications of the private language argument, then doesn't that mean that the feeling of 'pain' and with it the word used is not in some sense also objective or rather intersubjective?
  • The objective-subjective trap
    Also, words don't get their meaning from other words, words primarily get their meaning from how they're used. — Sam26

    Which is to say that how other words are used in combination with the word of interest, contextually speaking.
  • The objective-subjective trap
    It's just that an objective view is impossible - paradoxical even. We can only attain a degree of it by using the scientific method. — Harry Hindu

    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 (self) relative to the object (the world), one can become more objective. Just a thought.
  • The objective-subjective trap
    I think of "objective" as how someone completely outside the system, i.e. God, sees things. That's not a definition, but it helps me think about it. Although the concept of objectivity can be useful, I think it's hard to justify on a broader scale. Of course, that probably means that the concept of subjectivity also has a limited application. — T Clark

    That's irrelevant. We don't have to be omniscient to be objective about things.
  • The objective-subjective trap
    That seems to suggest to me, that there is a HUGE difference between objective and subjective reasoning. One assessment is from me and one from you. Which is subjective or objective changes situationally. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

    Nicely put. So, you're talking about intersubjectivity?
  • The objective-subjective trap
    I had thought, for awhile, that it was preferable to reject the distinction between what is objective and subjective. — Moliere

    So, the issue seems to be, when does one know they are being objective, correct?

    Now I'm tentatively of the opinion that as long as we set out what we mean then the terms can be used, while keeping an eye on the fact that they are ambiguous and often change meaning depending on the speaker. — Moliere

    Yes, words are circular, they derive their meaning from other words. What do you think this says about the objective/subjective dichotomy? I'm trying to point at a third alternative.
  • Problem of the Criterion
    [Disregard]
  • On 'rule-following'
    I didn't say it can't be talked about, some of it can be talked about. — Sam26

    It's either private or it isn't, not both, and more importantly where do you draw the line?

    It's just that if we do talk about it, it can't be entirely private. — Sam26

    So, what is it then? Private or public?

    Maybe the whole private/public dichotomy needs to be swept away and replaced with something more intuitive or clear?

    This directly corresponds with the beetle-in-the-box, there is no way for me to know what the word beetle is referring too, no outward thing for the word to latch onto, no way for us to know if you're using the word correctly or not. — Sam26

    I agree. I have no grounds to think otherwise. All I have is a set of criteria which I use (call it intuition or the private and public aspect of my being).
  • On 'rule-following'
    My question is, what can't be verified or falsified? I'm not sure what you're referring too. — Sam26

    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.

    The point about the beetle-in-the-box is to demonstrate that meaning isn't derived by pointing to something subjective, so your interpretation of what I'm saying doesn't seem to jive with what I'm saying. — Sam26

    For the matter, I don't believe in the objective/subjective trap, and I'm thinking of starting a thread about it. So many people get stuck with the idea or concept that they are speaking objectively or subjectively. How does one know when they are being objective as opposed to subjective and vice versa?

    Isn't the whole point/issue about criteria?
  • On 'rule-following'
    It's more than that, viz., I have private content, but meaning is not derived from my private content. — Sam26

    Strange, this whole time I was under the impression that Wittgenstein was pointing towards the illogicality of there being a private language. To be honest, your claim can not in any way or form be verified or falsified, which leads me to believe that it's redundant to talk about private content.

    For example, knowing is not some subjective experience, i.e., the meaning of "to know" is not something private. — Sam26

    I'm not sure about that; but, there's nothing I can say about any alternative to that matter.

    The problem in much of society today is that we give too much credence to private experiences, as though that's what's important, that's what's primary. — Sam26

    I agree with that. If you analyze the structure of language, its at odds with how we have emotions in my opinion. Language (at least English) categorizes things into classes; but, emotions don't exist as if in discrete units of measurement. I'm bi-lingual and can appreciate the fact that the grammar of my second language allows for more room to express the private content of my inner mind or something to that matter.
  • On 'rule-following'
    All I'm saying is that meaning is not associated with anything private. — Sam26

    Yet, you have said the following:

    Note that Wittgenstein's beetle-in-the-box can be associated with any object, there is no way to tell if we are using the word in the same way - no way to tell if there is an error being made. Whatever is in your box IS the beetle, and whatever is in my box IS the beetle, but they may be two or more different things. — Sam26

    Remember I can't see what's in your box, and you can't see what's in my box, so whatever we are associating with the word beetle, is something only the person with his or her box can observe, i.e., it's private. — Sam26

    So, from what I gather, you mean to say that I can have private content; but, speak about everything in a public manner. Was that what Wittgenstein meant to portray with the private language argument?
  • On 'rule-following'
    I don't follow your point, flush it out a bit. — Sam26

    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 language are the limits of my world. It does not make much sense.
  • The only problem to be solved is that of the human psychology?
    On an individual level human beings are motivated more by emotion than by reason. — Marcus de Brun

    Not really. People aren't only reflexive in nature. We can reason our way out of problems and dilemmas.

    Upon a logical level 'ideas' the truth of things and non-things cannot be pursued via emotions or in the service of the emotions/instincts.

    The contemporary paradigm is formed out of collective emotion that is validated by some degree of reason. The Nazis have their phrenologists and anthropoligists to give 'reasons' why certain humans were inferior to certain others. These reasoned-reasons were used to satisfy a particular emotive paradigm.     — Marcus de Brun

    Your drawing a false equivocation between the faculty that reason is and on the other hand, rationalization, I think.

    Again we are at odds as a matter of opinion. If one considers the realities of global ecology and wealth distribution, one might equally argue that never before in the history of our race have humans been more destructive of one another and the ecology that sustains us than we are today. If one simply considers the potential kindness, justice and ecological harmony that might be effected via existing material wealth, and technology: we have never had the power to do more good, and yet we choose to do more harm. just look at how the demon that is 'The Market' grows towards its inevitable self consumption. — Marcus de Brun

    We will survive. That's just our instinctual imperative.

    Fortunately life is terminal of its own accord, and therefore need not be dispensed with in a hurry. — Marcus de Brun

    Dark.
  • On 'rule-following'
    ↪Sam26


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

    This is only true though if it's a completely private thing we're looking at, i.e., there is no way to objectify the thing in the box. — Sam26

    So, it is a noumenal entity. Hence what?
  • On 'rule-following'
    Note that Wittgenstein's beetle-in-the-box can be associated with any object, there is no way to tell if we are using the word in the same way - no way to tell if there is an error being made. Whatever is in your box IS the beetle, and whatever is in my box IS the beetle, but they may be two or more different things. — Sam26

    What makes you say that Sam? Seems confusing, like some inverted Kantian noumena.
  • On 'rule-following'
    ↪Sam26


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

    Can there be an action that is morally wrong but contextually right? — Unknown
  • The only problem to be solved is that of the human psychology?
    I have made no appeal to emotions? merely stated that they may be an aspect of that which is truly free. — Marcus de Brun

    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 emotions.

    We must disagree here, BUT it is only on a point of opinion as to the 'most'. I believe that lots of people are good some 20% and most people are bad 80%. The badness is mitigated by the fact that it arises out of an ignorance of self. I suspect that most Germans were good people in the 1940's and it is only history that differs. I imagine that the future will look back upon our treatment of global ecology and will probably assert with equal conviction that most of us were/are bad. — Marcus de Brun

    Yes, I agree. Intentions are always a mystery if one assumes that psychology is the sole motivating factor for morality/ethics.

    Again this is a matter of opinion. I believe that truth has always been antagonistic to the herd and it will always be murdered. When it is murdered one can be confident that it was truth, until then it may just be more of the same. — Marcus de Brun

    Yet, progress is possible and has been made. We're at the most peaceful time in human history... Think about that.

    Because Kant has iterated the methodology, Descartes has iterated what the subject actually is, Schopenhauer has pointed to the usual fallacy (that MUST be avoided), and Freud has outlined the basic mechanics. — Marcus de Brun

    This is too much for me to address adequately. So, I'll just pass.
  • The only problem to be solved is that of the human psychology?
    Should we avoid the elucidation or comprehension of a potentially all encompassing 'fatalistic' reality out of a fear of this potentially 'overwhelming futility and pessimism'? — Marcus de Brun

    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.

    This futility is already at the heart of most sensible philosophers who look at the world with a mind that is relatively independent of social/herd programming. — Marcus de Brun

    On the whole of it, people are generally good. It's the strange philosophers that paint with a very broad brush that are to be suspect.

    The pessimism and futility are entirely mitigated by ones potential liberation from the herd, an experience of the vast infinite beauty contained equally within the mind, and the material/natural Universe. This infinite source of happiness merely requires freedom from the herd, if it is to be enjoyed. — Marcus de Brun

    Yes, Socrates died from the hands of the 'herd'. What about it?

    Personally I have no belief in 'agency'. The Universe is clearly determined and much of contemporary philosophy is concerned with the maintenance of a contrary and empty delusion, for reasons that you allude to. However, in spite of the determined nature of the Universe, I feel there is scope for freedom, within the confines of thought. Emotional freedom, meta-thought (thought upon thought), these and more may be the true realms of potential individual 'freedom' and the only opportunity for 'Agency', and this realization can be as liberating as it might appear to be pessimistic. — Marcus de Brun

    How are you so sure of all this?
  • Math and Motive
    We cannot simultaneously hold a view on what a rule is and faithfully, with good intent, make a mistake in applying it. — Pseudonym

    As I described, it is impossible to follow a rule, and simultaneously make a mistake. — Metaphysician Undercover

    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, if one were to follow a rule, then the criteria for following it is dictated by something beyond the rule itself.
  • On 'rule-following'
    Also use doesn't always determine the correct use of a word, nor does context. There are groups of people who use (in the Wittgensteinian sense) words incorrectly, and there are groups of people who use words incorrectly within a context. So we have to be careful about being too dogmatic about use and context. Although use and context do tell us much about meaning. — Sam26

    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 more? I'm genuinely interested.
  • If I were aware of the entire list of logical fallacies, would I be exempt from making wrong/bad...
    Closer, yes, but not all the way. — Harry Hindu

    The ambiguity keeps on cropping up. I would really like to know the reason why.
  • The only problem to be solved is that of the human psychology?
    There is no alternative because there is no 'material' interventionist supreme authority to arbitrate on the matter and incarcerate or silence the fools. — Marcus de Brun

    Whoa. You can't be serious. This reduces the importance of agency in our lives and assumes some fatalistic psychological stance, much like the one Freud and other psychologists covered, which leads to an overwhelming sense of futility and pessimism in one's life.

    There is only the God of truth and its handmaiden 'logic and reason', whom the God must accept are often presenting untruths and illogical suppositions. — Marcus de Brun

    So, as long as we're being reasonable, then progress is being made, yes?

    Nietzsche reminds that we should have as much respect for un-truth as truth, and in this sense the fool is often correct. In this sense too, even the liars, the mud-slingers, the sycophants to intellectual self-serving fashions, and the fools; may indeed have something that is worth listening to. At the very least their anger (when they are exposed) is an exposition of worshiped fallacies. — Marcus de Brun

    Nietzsche professed a philosophy that entices and encourages the rise of delusions, with his appeal to psychological needs as the only motivating force in a man's life. I'm working on trying to formalize this into a logical whole; but, you get the gist I think.

    I fear that if you change the current rules upon the battle field, you will cause something important to be lost. What is important to bear in mind is the fact that there is a logic and a truth and one must continue to 'fight' for it and against it in order to make it real. Personally I think this truth has more life and more of its source in the old questions rather than the 'new' fashionable answers. — Marcus de Brun

    Well, we would hope that everyone is their own referee.
  • What's the use of discussing philosophy without definitions?
    The below seems pertinent to the issue also:

    Fallacies of definition.
  • If I were aware of the entire list of logical fallacies, would I be exempt from making wrong/bad...
    ↪VagabondSpectre


    The meaning is that arriving at the 'truth' is like a kafka-trial periled with being aware of all the logical fallacies there are in existence. It's a hopeless task, I suppose where one is forever guilty of being fallacious and has no hope of exoneration.
  • What's the use of discussing philosophy without definitions?
    I feel as though philosophy is rife with stipulative definitions. So, one is bound to find themselves struggling to reach some agreement in understanding with trying to present a stipulative definition, when words are circular in how they attain meaning. I suppose the only solution is to be clear and precise in which instances do the stipulative definitions derive their meaning from. However, given the nature of philosophy, that's a difficult task to accomplish.
  • If I were aware of the entire list of logical fallacies, would I be exempt from making wrong/bad...
    This list is much too long to be practical, but wouldn't it sound cool to suddenly accuse someone of if-by-whiskey pit-tu-quoque-spike kafka-trapping? — VagabondSpectre

    I see what you did there. :wink:
  • Is philosophy in crisis after Nietzsche?
    Not at all. I'm asking about a quest for truth. — Ron Cram

    First, let's get the idea out of our head that philosophers are like prophets that have access to The truth. That's just a delusion some philosophers like to believe themselves and then go about trying to convince the folk to that matter.

    So, my point is that you should be wary of philosophers who claim to know the truth, as Nietzsche described.

    Philosophers have attempted to show that it is reasonable to believe the state of affairs is that God does not exist but objective moral good and evil do exist and that it's possible for one's life to be lived in a way that is objectively good and so has purpose. — Ron Cram

    Yeah, and the two are not mutually exclusive.

    What philosophers have attempted to show this? Has anyone succeeded? Who has failed and why? — Ron Cram

    How do you evaluate those qualitative terms you have used? Such as 'succeeded' and 'failed'?
  • Is philosophy in crisis after Nietzsche?
    Has the search for such a philosophy ever been successful? — Ron Cram
    [...]
    What philosophers have tried and failed? How did they fail? — Ron Cram

    Well, what you are asking here is about the utility or function (at accomplishing a certain goal or purpose) of believing in a certain philosophy. Correct?
  • The Education of the Emotions
    Peters concludes by claiming: “In other words emotions are basically forms of cognition. It is because of this central feature which they possess that I think there is any amount of scope for educating the emotions.” — michael r d james

    How does one go about this? Therapy?
  • Is philosophy in crisis after Nietzsche?
    What philosopher since Nietzsche is able to reject God's existence and yet still find objective meaning for life? — Ron Cram

    The two aren't mutually exclusive.
  • Wiser Words Have Never Been Spoken
    I must endure the idiocy of my peers, but equally they must endure mine. — Marcus de Brun
  • The only problem to be solved is that of the human psychology?
    I must endure the idiocy of my peers, but equally they must endure mine. — Marcus de Brun

    Why must it be that way? Is there no alternative to this sorry predicament?
  • If I were aware of the entire list of logical fallacies, would I be exempt from making wrong/bad...
    I'm going to put in more thought to this and come back with some more thoughts. I've been wanting to talk about logical fallacies for a while. Posty McPostface - if you'd rather I do this in a separate thread, let me know. — T Clark

    By all means, go ahead. You can reference this thread as the template or draft of the final product of the chain of thought culminating in your thread.
  • If I were aware of the entire list of logical fallacies, would I be exempt from making wrong/bad...
    Part of my motivation in starting this thread is to understand if the concept of 'epistemic closure' is fallacious in informal languages, instead of formal ones.

    Just a thought to consider.
  • If I were aware of the entire list of logical fallacies, would I be exempt from making wrong/bad...
    But it would be insufficient to find all truths, or even all truths that can be found by man, because this would only cover deductive reasoning, and you would lack perfection in inductive reasoning; that is, finding essences and principles. — Samuel Lacrampe

    That's a given because inductive reasoning is wholly based on the empirical?
  • If I were aware of the entire list of logical fallacies, would I be exempt from making wrong/bad...
    Kind of? — MindForged

    The ambiguity is the issue here, in my opinion.
Home » Shawn