Sounds like the standard approach in religious apologetics.Edit: If all (perception and understanding of) reality is subjective then the burden of proof is not on the claimant but on the disagreer. — New2K2
Agreed. For only such a person would take up that burden.The burden of proof lies with the less reality orientated disputant - the less authoritative party. — J O Lambert
That is the category error - when a statement is asserted to be about the empircal state-of-affairs when it is really about the person's feelings or emotional state. — Harry Hindu
The burden of proof lies with the less reality orientated disputant - the less authoritative party. — J O Lambert
But your faculties of perception are not all faculties of perception. You seem to have a problem with how to use words, or are simply moving the goal posts.Nah. I used all to refer to my faculties of perception, and hence my unique experience. In other words, I wanted to encompass the various modes of perception under the quantifier 'all'. It was not a statement about the universality of perception for other entities (human or otherwise). — emancipate
If statements are about feelings, then what are feelings about? Are you an anti-realist or solipsist?Because every statement ever made is first constructed by a subject, and because a subject has feelings, then any implied empirical statement is really a statement about feelings, hence a category error?
Too absurd to be true, so I’ll grant the benefit of the doubt and assume that’s not what you meant. — Mww
If statements are about feelings, then what are feelings about? — Harry Hindu
Are you an anti-realist or solipsist? — Harry Hindu
What interest would I have in "all" of your faculties if perception? What use would it be for me if your faculties of perception are not similar to mine, and how would either of us know if they are or not, if all knowledge is subjective?I have multiple faculties of perception. I used the word 'all' to encompass them. As a quantifier. As an umbrella term. I think it is you who struggles with words. But this is pure sophistry, as is usual in philosophy discussions. — emancipate
Exactly. If feelings aren't about anything, then your words and your feelings wouldn't matter to anyone except yourself, so what would be the point in putting your feelings into words to tell others how you feel? There would be nothing anyone could do about how you feel because there would be no reason for how you feel.And if they’re not, why would it matter? — Mww
*Any time you try to make a case for what reality is, and how it is, then you are making an objective statement. — Harry Hindu
Our feeling of reading words is about words that exist on the screen — Harry Hindu
I wasn't making an objective assertion about reality when speaking of my faculties of perception.
*Any time you try to make a case for what reality is, and how it is, then you are making an objective statement. — emancipate
Feelings are things. Ideas are things. Feelings and ideas are a causal part of the world, just like everything else we make statements about.Statements not about feelings are statements about things. — Mww
...which was the point I was making about the distinction between objective and subjective statements - when you confuse talking about things that are not your feelings with talking about your feelings. When you tell me the apple is red, are you talking about the apple or your feeling?Feelings don’t matter in statements not about feelings but about things. — Mww
That is the answer to my question:Statements not about feelings doesn't mean feelings aren’t about anything.
Feelings are always about something. If feelings aren’t about anything, statements with feeling as predicates are worthless tautologies, re: beauty is a feeling. — Mww
Making a statement is a behavior. All behaviors make statements (leave effects). Effects make statements about their causes. Your behavior (the statement that you make) is indicative of your ideas and feelings. I can gather what you think from what you state, just as I can gather what a dog feels from it's yelp and what tree rings state about the age of a tree. We apply the same type of reasoning in determining what words mean as we do in determining what tree rings mean.Because every statement ever made is first constructed by a subject, and because a subject has feelings, then any implied empirical statement is really a statement about feelings, hence a category error? — Mww
I'm not understanding. You see scribbles on the screen. Is your visual experience the same thing as the scribbles on the screen? If not then your visual experience is about the scribbles on the screen. Understanding only comes after you have a visual experience that is OF, or ABOUT the thing you are looking at. Understanding is then OF, or ABOUT, your visual experience, while your visual experience is OF, or ABOUT the very thing light is reflecting off of that you then see. One might say that what you see is more about the light than the object it reflects off of. So then in talking about what we see, are we talking about light or the object that the light reflects off of?No. Our understanding of reading words is about words that exist, and that from an assertorial judgement on a given cognition on empirical grounds; feeling is only an aesthetic judgement that is not given from any cognition, but on a priori ground alone. Understanding is an affect on experience; feeling is an affect on personality (technically, subjectivity) because of an experience.
Do try to separate feelings from cognitions, psychology from philosophy. — Mww
Which part? What does it even mean to be partially true? Doesn't it mean the same as partially false? What does it mean to be true or false?I am saying that what I said is partially true. :wink: — emancipate
I didn't see it as a game. But you obviously did because you kept moving the goal posts. When one sees language as a game and the other doesn't, where else would you expect a conversation to go?Ah we are such good sophists. Going round and round and getting nowhere. I'm stepping off now. Good game. — emancipate
See what - the truth?So, it's not a game but there are goalposts. I see. — emancipate
Feelings are things. Ideas are things. Feelings and ideas are a causal part of the world, just like everything else we make statements about. — Harry Hindu
Feelings don’t matter in statements not about feelings but about things.
— Mww
...which was the point I was making about the distinction between objective and subjective statements - when you confuse talking about things that are not your feelings with talking about your feelings. When you tell me the apple is red, are you talking about the apple or your feeling? — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.