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). — Samuel Lacrampe

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.

The content of the talk consists of what exactly, if not the talk itself?

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?

We can talk about objects. We can talk about ourselves. We can say true/false things about both. All talk comes through a subject. All true/false things that are said come through the same. Some things are true, regardless of whether or not the subject actually believes them to be. It does not follow that true things(or truth) are(is) existentially independent of a subject(objective). Without thought/belief there is no attribution of meaning. Without thought/belief there is no presupposition of truth. When there is no presupposition of truth and no attribution of meaning, there can be nothing meaningful said, and thus nothing to correspond with fact/reality. When there is no correspondence there is no truth...

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...

What's being said, as compared to the subject saying it?
Help me out here. What counts as "the content" of talk? — creativesoul

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:

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. — 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.

Sorry for the long wait on this.

I defined it as what is helpful to one's goals. — 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?

What's being said, as compared to the subject saying it?
Help me out here. What counts as "the content" of talk?
— creativesoul
Correct. The content of talk is what is being said. — Samuel Lacrampe

So, what's being said is not talk?

I agree with everything you say (some of it is actually quite insightful), up to the following part:

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.
— 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. — Samuel Lacrampe

"Round" is a word.

I don't want you to take me the wrong way here. I'm not so much as disagreeing with what I think that you're trying to do. Rather, I'm attempting to save you from all the troubles that will surely come from employing the objective/subjective distinction.

There are much better ways to talk about things...

Clearly, this is not a triangle. — Samuel Lacrampe

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.

So, what's being said is not talk? — creativesoul

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.

"Round" is a word. — 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?

I don't want you to take me the wrong way here. I'm not so much as disagreeing with what I think that you're trying to do. Rather, I'm attempting to save you from all the troubles that will surely come from employing the objective/subjective distinction. — 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.

I'm just trying to inform you that any and all attempts to categorize everything as either objective or subjective is doomed to fail.

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.

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. — BlueBanana

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.

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. — 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.

Besides, one property of triangles is that the sum of the angles equals to 180 deg. — Samuel Lacrampe

Or maybe it's a property of some specific triangles.

As Aquinas says, contradictions do not fall under the omnipotence of God. — 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.

What counts as objective? I mean, what is the criterion which, when met by a candidate, counts as that candidate being objective? Subjective? — creativesoul

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.

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. — Samuel Lacrampe

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?

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. — Samuel Lacrampe

So, by virtue of attributing truth to a subject it is subjective, and by virtue of attributing truth to the world it is objective?

And a nonsensical statement does not turn into a sensical statement just because we add the concept of omnipotence in front of it. — Samuel Lacrampe

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.

True, but neither does it turn impossible just because we add the concept of nonsensicalness in front of it. — BlueBanana

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?

Making sense or being logical are properties and laws of our universe, and they don't necessarily apply outside it. — 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?

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. — 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.

People disagree all the time about things that happen. That doesn't make the observed event subjective simply because people do not agree upon what happened and/or the best way to frame what happened...

I'm out of this one.

You'll figure it out. The dichotomy dissolves into reductio under careful scrutiny...

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.

I observe a painting and say "this painting is beautiful". We know this property 'beauty' is not objective because many other subjects will disagree. 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. It is therefore subjective. — Samuel Lacrampe

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'.

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. — Samuel Lacrampe

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...

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'. — Samuel Lacrampe

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.

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? — 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:

• (1) "This painting is rectangular."
• (2) "This painting is beautiful."

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.

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.

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? — 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:

(1) "This painting is rectangular."
(2) "This painting is beautiful."

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. — Samuel Lacrampe

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?