To think that you can assume that you are right without having to prove it to others - without having exposed your ideas to open criticism - is the problem. — Harry Hindu

Why on earth should that be a problem for someone who doesn't believe in objective morality?

My point is that if one doesn't believe in objective morality, then how can one hope to get along with others in the pursuit of some common goal (which is, presumably, what politics is about, ie. the pursuit of some common goal)? — baker

You don't need to believe that any differences between yourself and others must inevitably be their moral failures in order to negotiate with them. Diplomacy is itself a policy. For the most part, people pursue their own interests rather than a common good.

Assuming that you are right is one thing. Proving it to others is another. — Harry Hindu

Indeed it is. What has that got to do with an OP about how to interpret the disagreement of others?

Once you try to prove it to others and they don't agree, at that point you may want to revisit your assumption. — Harry Hindu

Yep. A good point. One which I'm not sure anyone here would disagree with. If other people disagree with you, one of the things you might want to do is check your workings. Again, how does that have any bearing on the question of how to interpret the disagreement of others on those matters where, one having carried out this check, one still disagrees? Or alternatively, if carrying out this check does not yield any improvement in certainty, then why advocate it?

I'm not saying that you being wrong is the only possibility if someone disagrees, just that it is a possibility to be considered. — Harry Hindu

Definitely a possibility. again, not really progressing on the notion of how to interpret others whilst one is performatively assuming it is not the case.

If you don't consider that, then you would be no better than the person you are arguing with that you assume is wrong and just won't admit it, or even consider it. — Harry Hindu

True again. Still not seeing the link in those situation where one is performatively presuming one is right already.

To think that you can assume that you are right without having to prove it to others - without having exposed your ideas to open criticism - is the problem. — Harry Hindu

This is an odd thing to say. If I'm unsure which path to take, and I decide the left is more likely to lead home than the right, are you saying that, in the absence of a person to talk to about it, i don't consider my assessment of likelihood as 'right'? What status would you say I'd assigned it then?

a philosopher is still a human and still in the process of learning, so to him, there are ideas that are new, even if someone else might have known those ideas for a long time. — baker

Yep, probably. But not all ideas are in this category, surely?

if one doesn't believe in objective morality, then how can one hope to get along with others in the pursuit of some common goal (which is, presumably, what politics is about, ie. the pursuit of some common goal)? — baker

Why would a lack of objectivity preclude commonality. There's no objective 'best film' but that doesn't prevent people from collectively promoting the one they all agree is such.

You don't need to believe that any differences between yourself and others must inevitably be their moral failures in order to negotiate with them. — Kenosha Kid

How does this refer to anything I said?

For the most part, people pursue their own interests rather than a common good.

Dismissing politics right off the bat! Yay!

Yep, probably. But not all ideas are in this category, surely? — Isaac

What do you mean?

My grandmother was a Catholic her whole life, and then renounced it in her 70's. Apparently, some idea had become so prominent to her relatively late in her life that warranted a dramatic change in her beliefs.
People can change, even dramatically, even late in life.

What do you mean? — baker

Some ideas must surely be ideas we've already heard, no? When we re-hear those ideas, must 'philosophers' give them due consideration on each occasion, or may they say "I've already heard this one, and disagree". If the former, then it somewhat gives the floor to whichever ideas are repeated most, which seem inefficient at best.

Why would a lack of objectivity preclude commonality. There's no objective 'best film' but that doesn't prevent people from collectively promoting the one they all agree is such. — Isaac

I suspect that commonality has to do with more than just some moral and epistemic egoists/narcissists discovering that they have something in common. No, I think they firmly believe that there is more to them considering some film to be the best one; that they don't think it's just a matter of their subjective preference, but that there is more to it: that the film truly, really, inherently, objectively _is_ the best one.

One indication for this is how they talk about it. They don't say, "This is my favorite film" or "This is the best film I've seen so far." No, they say, "This is the best film". And when pressed or faced with opposition, they say something like "You're entitled to your wrong opinion" or "You just don't don't know what a good film is".

No doubt such people exist, but that wasn't my question. My question was "why must lack of objectivity preclude commonality?", not "why may it do so in some circumstances?"

Some ideas must surely be ideas we've already heard, no? When we re-hear those ideas, must 'philosophers' give them due consideration on each occasion, or may they say "I've already heard this one, and disagree". If the former, then it somewhat gives the floor to whichever ideas are repeated most, which seem inefficient at best. — Isaac

Must must must. What is it with this must??

Presumably a philosopher, as a lover of wisdom, will act wisely with his time and resources and won't rehash stuff. Nor get himself into exchanges that he reasonably predicts will bear little fruit.

Unless he has some good reason to do so. Like if he's uncharacteristically unexuberant, or he finds some old idea presented in a new context.

Why would a lack of objectivity preclude commonality. There's no objective 'best film' but that doesn't prevent people from collectively promoting the one they all agree is such. — Isaac

There is a difference between "an objective truth" and "being objective".

From a strictly theoretical standpoint, if "being objective" means adopting a certain type of perspective oriented towards agreement with others, then a lack of objectivity certainly has to, at the very least, limit the extent to which commonality can be realized.

Must must must. What is it with this must?? — baker

You introduced necessity, I'm only asking you about it

A philosopher is supposed to "give all ideas a fair shake" — baker

So you seem now to be saying that a philosopher is not, after all supposed to give all ideas a fair shake, but rather only those which would be neither a rehash, nor fruitless?

I agree.

How does this refer to anything I said? — baker

By contradicting:

My point is that if one doesn't believe in objective morality, then how can one hope to get along with others in the pursuit of some common goal (which is, presumably, what politics is about — baker

Politics does not proceed on the basis of a common morality.

"For the most part, people pursue their own interests rather than a common good."
Dismissing politics right off the bat! Yay! — baker

It's becoming increasingly clear that you have an idiosyncratic idea of what politics is.

It's becoming increasingly clear that you have an idiosyncratic idea of what politics is. — Kenosha Kid

What can I do, there's still a smidgen of a romantic in me, thinking that politics ought to be about, you know, getting things done. Silly me!

So you seem now to be saying that a philosopher is not, after all supposed to give all ideas a fair shake, but rather only those which would be neither a rehash, nor fruitless? — Isaac

There comes a point when it's important not to be an ass, Buridan's or otherwise.

"Fairness" is relative to one's situation, as it is, on the spot.

Politics does not proceed on the basis of a common morality. — Kenosha Kid

Maybe not, but that is definitely part of the standard under which democracy operates:

Decisions about laws typically involve a combination of validity claims: not only truth claims about the likely consequences of different legal options, but also claims about their moral rightness (or justice), claims about the authenticity of different options in light of the polity's shared values and history, and pragmatic claims about which option is feasible or more efficient.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/habermas/

No doubt such people exist, but that wasn't my question. My question was "why must lack of objectivity preclude commonality?", not "why may it do so in some circumstances?" — Isaac

Because to begin with, people, unless they are pathologically narcissistic, have an existential need to believe there is more to their preferences than just subjective whims and molecular chance.
This need becomes pronounced when interacting with others: people must believe that what they have in common are more than subjective whims and molecular chance, or else they'll have a sense that what they're doing together is wrong or at least not worthwhile.


I don't have a study to support this, but it seems to me that this sketches out best an explanation for why people are the way they are when they are together and how they can take their joint pursuits seriously.

What can I do, there's still a smidgen of a romantic in me, thinking that politics ought to be about, you know, getting things done. Silly me! — baker

Oh, I don't object to the sentiment :)

if "being objective" means adopting a certain type of perspective oriented towards agreement with others, then a lack of objectivity certainly has to, at the very least, limit the extent to which commonality can be realized. — Pantagruel

True. But since that's not what "being objective" typically means, I'm not sure I see the relevance.

True. But since that's not what "being objective" typically means, I'm not sure I see the relevance. — Isaac

You think that "being objective" is typically used in the sense of "possessing objective knowledge?" I'd have to strongly disagree. I'd submit that in its usual use and here "being objective" in the sense of "trying to minimize one's personal biases to achieve a more collectively consistent perspective" is a much better description of "objectivity" than "possessing objective knowledge".

I don't have a study to support this, but it seems to me that this sketches out best an explanation for why people are the way they are when they are together and how they can take their joint pursuits seriously. — baker

So how are you judging it to be 'the best' explanation?

its usual use and here "being objective" in the sense of "trying to minimize one's personal biases to achieve a more collectively consistent perspective" — Pantagruel

So if I found myself in a group of Rolling Stones fans, a more 'objective' view of whether Mick Jagger hit the right note would be obtained, not by analysing the recording, but by adjusting my belief thereby gained to be more consistent with that of his fan base, regardless of the spectrum analyser.

So if I found myself in a group of Rolling Stones fans, a more 'objective' view of whether Mick Jagger hit the right note would be obtained, not by analysing the recording, but by adjusting my belief thereby gained to be more consistent with that of his fan base, regardless of the spectrum analyser. — Isaac

If you were at a concert, yes. Also, what if he was "objectively" out of tune, but so was the entire band, uniformly? Then he would be objectively in tune. This really illustrates the point.

So how are you judging it to be 'the best' explanation? — Isaac

Relative to my current state of knowledge and understanding.

If you were at a concert, yes. — Pantagruel

This seems exceedingly odd. If you're at a concert, the most objective way of determining the pitch of a note is not to use a spectrum analyser, but to ask the crowd? This is an extremely heterodox use of the term.

what if he was "objectively" out of tune, but so was the entire band, uniformly? Then he would be objectively in tune. — Pantagruel

Maybe, but I wasn't talking about being in tune, I was talking about pitch (an absolute measure, not a relative one). I didn't just pick the example at random.

Relative to my current state of knowledge and understanding. — baker

And you're not willing to give any other views a fair shake?

Objective measurement is only valid within limits. Whether it is the limit of the accuracy of a device or the limit of our current knowledge. And the context within which this discussion is occurring is that of the real-world exchange of ideas. I think my example of the "relative in-tune-ness" of a band in a concert setting is far more a propos than yours of walking around with a spectrum analyzer.....

- People who solidly hold correct opinions for good reasons

- People who just socially identify with the side of those correct opinions

- People who don't have strong opinions one way or the other and just try to give all ideas a fair shake

- People who have been duped or manipulated into thinking that bad causes are good causes

- People who honestly and devoutly have genuinely bad intentions — Pfhorrest

People who hold (what they think are) correct opinions for (what they think are) good reasons: the ideologues. Steer clear of them.

People who don't have strong opinions one way or the other and just try to give all (non-dogmatic, non-ideological) ideas a fair shake:the critical thinkers, the fair-minded, the realists, the anti-idealogues. Cleave to them, for they are the only hope for humanity.

People who just socially identify with the side of those (purportedly) correct opinions: people who have been duped or manipulated into thinking that bad causes are good causes.

People who honestly and devoutly have genuinely bad intentions: don't engage with them, ignore them, ostracize them, lock them up or kill them as the situation requires and/ or allows.

People who don't have strong opinions one way or the other and just try to give all (non-dogmatic, non-ideological) ideas a fair shake:the critical thinkers, the fair-minded, the realists, the anti-idealogues. Cleave to them, for they are the only hope for humanity. — Janus

How do people who don't have strong opinions one way or the other take any action at all? These people sound positively dangerous to me, in a dynamic situation such as real life.