Would you agree? — Banno

Yes.

I think two things often happen that lead to confusion about it:

(1) People tend to mistake or conflate "objective" with ideas like agreement/consensus, as well as facts (in the states of affairs sense). That's a mistake because people can agree on subjective things--obviously many people have a preference for Darjeeling, for example, and agreement can be quite widespread--for example, the vast majority of people would say that the London Symphony Orchestra has better musicians than the band the Shaggs (assuming we make sure the people we ask are familiar with both groups). Also it's a fact that one has the preferences that one does, which is going to be due to physiological facts.

(2) People tend to think of things that they feel very strongly about as being objective. There seems to be a bit of projection going on, partially due to feeling that something that seems so unquestionable to that person "can't merely be a disposition that I have and not some more fundamental fact of the universe in general."

It makes sense to talk of my preference for Darjeeling as being subjective, and it makes sense to talk of rising global average temperatures as being objective. — Banno

I dont see the distinction. I can talk of Banno's preferences as an property of Banno, just as I can talk about rising global temperatures as a property of the Earth. One is only subjective if you project your preferences, or values, into things that don't have that property. Subjective statements are category errors.

It makes sense to talk of my preference for Darjeeling as being subjective, and it makes sense to talk of rising global average temperatures as being objective. — Banno

I dont see the distinction. — Harry Hindu

I don't see the distinction either.

I dont see the distinction. — Harry Hindu

The distinction is that the preference for Darjeeling only occurs in brains, whereas the temperatures occur elsewhere.

You don't find the preference for Darjeeling in air masses over the Atlantic, say, and when we talk about global warming, we're not talking about persons' brains increasing in temperature.

The distinction is that the preference for Darjeeling only occurs in brains, whereas the temperatures occur elsewhere. — Terrapin Station

Beliefs about rising global temperatures only occur in brains. I still don't see the distinction.

Beliefs about rising global temperatures only occur in brains. — ChrisH

Rising global temperatures are different than beliefs about rising global temperatures.

Rising global temperatures are different than beliefs about rising global temperatures. — Terrapin Station

What's the relevant difference? Is it, in your view, simply that one exists as a brain state and the other doesn't?

Is it, in your view, simply that one exists as a brain state and the other doesn't? — ChrisH

Yes.

Yes. — Terrapin Station

One definition of subjective is "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."

I'd have thought brain states aren't based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions they are personal feelings, tastes, or opinions .

Taking what you believe to be a "literal" meaning of a dictionary definition, and approaching philosophy as if everyone must be using the dictionary definition you looked at, in what you took to be its "literal" sense, will leave you perpetually confused.

Taking what you believe to be a "literal" meaning of a dictionary definition, and approaching philosophy as if everyone must be using the dictionary definition you looked at, in what you took to be its "literal" sense, will leave you perpetually confused. — Terrapin Station

A dictionary definition is simply an indication of common usage, That's all.

I'm just attempting to understand your usage.

The way I use the terms, which is a common way to use them in philosophy contexts, is that "subjective" refers to mental phenomena (which on my view is a subset of brain function) and "objective" refers to the complement--everything other than mental phenomena, or the mind-independent world.

So philosophy is a kind of religion that singles out mental phenomena as sacred or divine, while all other phenomena are just "meh". This sounds a bit anthropomorphic (subjective).

If most philosophical problems are the result of poorly defined terms and category errors, then we should be looking at how these terms are defined in a more objective way and that is more consistent.

If we can already distinguish a particular kind of phenomena by using terms like "mental", "geologic", "electro-magnetic", etc. then why use terms in a way that is anthropomorphic - as if minds are a special type of phenomena and other phenomena don't deserve that kind of distinction?

The way I use the terms, which is a common way to use them in philosophy contexts, is that "subjective" refers to mental phenomena (which on my view is a subset of brain function) and "objective" refers to the complement--everything other than mental phenomena, or the mind-independent world. — Terrapin Station

Ok but I find your usage confusing (it can be confused with the more commonplace usage I cited earlier). If all mental phenomena are subjective why not just call them mental phenomena - the use of subjective seems to be unnecessary.

So philosophy is a kind of religion that singles out mental phenomena as sacred or divine, — Harry Hindu

It's just making a distinction. It's not attaching any valuation whatsoever to that distinction. The reason to make the distinction is that it's something people frequently get confused about. One of the primary aims of philosophy, in many opinions, including mine, should be to help sort out confusions, so that we can have accurate beliefs about what the world is like.

then we should be looking at how these terms are defined in a more objective way — Harry Hindu

That's an example of the sorts of confusions that occur. Definitions are something we create as individuals. We can agree with others to use terms a certain way, but just because something is common, that doesn't make it correct.

Ok but I find your usage confusing (it can be confused with the more commonplace usage I cited earlier). If all mental phenomena are subjective why not just call them mental phenomena - the use of subjective seems to be unnecessary. — ChrisH

It's a synonym for mental phenomena, yes. Maybe synonyms are unnecessary, but they're going to arise and be in usage whether we like it or not, and it's common for people to like them when it comes anything that even comes remotely near literary writing or speech, as at least as many people have an aversion to repeating the same word many times in a passage.

It's a synonym for mental phenomena, yes. — Terrapin Station

It's not so confusing when you use it as a synonym for mental phenomena in general - precise details will vary from subject to subject. Confusion arises when you use 'subjective' to describe a single instance ( e.g. Banno's preference for Darjeeling) - it's not based on anyone's personal feelings, tastes, or opinions - it is a personal feeling/taste.

So if you believe there are objective judgments, what is any evidence for them?

Er wait, later on you're saying that you agree there are no objective judgments. So what are you agreeing on above? What is "there's something out there" about in the context of a discussion about whether there are objective judgments?

Let's solve one issue at a time. Keep things simple so we can solve things and move on. — Terrapin Station

Yes. I acknowledge my difficulties with both the language and the ideas, here.

I'm also going to defend your usage here, on the basis that you have defined it, and it seems to be consistent. But it may be more Procrustean than Occamite, meaning more damaging than efficient - or even wrong!

I find this in your sources on naive realism:
"[N]aïve realism, also known as direct realism, common sense realism or perceptual realism, is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are," (italics in original).

And this:
"Perceptual realism is the common sense view that tables, chairs and cups of coffee exist independently of perceivers. Direct realists also claim that it is with such objects that we directly engage. The objects of perception include such familiar items as paper clips, suns and olive oil tins. It is these things themselves that we see, smell, touch, taste and listen to. There are, however, two versions of direct realism: naïve direct realism and scientific direct realism. They differ in the properties they claim the objects of perception possess when they are not being perceived. Naïve realism claims that such objects continue to have all the properties that we usually perceive them to have, properties such as yellowness, warmth, and mass. Scientific realism, however, claims that some of the properties an object is perceived as having are dependent on the perceiver, and that unperceived objects should not be conceived as retaining them."

I note again the idea of "direct awareness, engagement." It seems to me this in itself is an insurmountable problem. If my perception of the brick is accurate, so far as it goes, then I have no real complaint. It means to me that under ordinary circumstances, I have an expectation that the brick itself will not stand as contradictory to any of my perceptions. But this is a narrow qualification.

It's for you to give account as to how I, over here, can have any direct awareness or engagement with the brick over there- or anything else over there. It must be indirect. The only real question is if perception is reliable - it seems to me it is. But how can it ever be direct, or take in anything "as it really is"?

it's not based on anyone's personal feelings, tastes, or opinions - it is a personal feeling/taste. — ChrisH

His personal feeling/taste is a mental phenomenon, right?

His personal feeling/taste is a mental phenomenon, right? — Terrapin Station

Yes but I'm saying it's not based on his personal feeling/taste (it's not common usage subjective)..

Unless you're saying his personal feeling/taste is based on his personal feeling /taste?

It's for you to give account as to how I, over here, can have any direct awareness or engagement with the brick over there- or anything else over there. It must be indirect. The only real question is if perception is reliable - it seems to me it is. But how can it ever be direct, or take in anything "as it really is"? — tim wood

"Direct" is opposed to "representational" basically. Basically, representationalists believe that you get data via your senses, that that data is processed into something uniquely mental, and what you're actually aware of is the mental stuff. Direct realists believe that you get data via your senses, and what you're aware of is that data.

An analogy might be helpful.

Take the Eiffel tower. Imagine that this is the tower outside of our perception, the objective tower, or the noumenal tower, so to speak (I'm using a photograph here, and I'll use paintings for our perceptions):



Representationalists believe that your senses get that data, but then it's turned into something mental that can at least potentially be quite different than the objective/noumenal tower. You're not aware of the objective tower on their view, you're aware of the mental "translation"--maybe something like this, where there's no way to know the exact relation of our perception to the objective/noumenal stuff:



Direct realists, however, believe that our awareness, via our senses, is more or less just how the objective/noumenal stuff is from the perspective we happen to be located at--so something like this, which is actually a painting:

Unless you're saying his personal feeling/taste is based on his personal feeling /taste? — ChrisH

What else would it be based on?

What else would it be based on? — Terrapin Station

You see no problem with saying one's preferences are based on one's preferences?

You see no problem with saying one's preferences are based on one's preferences? — ChrisH

They're certainly not based on something that's not one's preferences. That would be deriving a normative from a fact.

They're certainly not based on something that's not one's preferences. — Terrapin Station

I'm afraid that makes no sense to me.

If one's preferences must be based on other preferences, then those preferences must be based on other preferences which in turn...

They're certainly not based on something that's not one's preferences. — Terrapin Station

How do you explain why anyone has any particular preference? Why do organisms appear to have preferences? And can one confidently say that all preferences are mental and not merely biological?

It's not attaching any valuation whatsoever to that distinction. — Terrapin Station

Sure it is. When you have a synonym specifically for one kind of phenomena that distinguishes it from all other phenomena, and not a similar synonym for any other phenomena, then that use of the term implies something special about it. Can you think of some other phenomena that has a similar synonym?

How do you explain why anyone has any particular preference? Why do organisms appear to have preferences? And can one confidently say that all preferences are mental and not merely biological? — Harry Hindu

Again the mental is "merely biological." It's a term for a subset of properties of brain function. Brains are biological, obviously. Why anyone has the preferences then due to brain states, which are the way they are via a combo of genetics and environmental factors.

Sure it is. When you have a synonym specifically for one kind of phenomena that distinguishes it from all other phenomena, and not a similar synonym for any other phenomena, then that use of the term implies something special about it. — Harry Hindu

We went through this dance before, if you recall, but the special thing about it, which I mentioned above, is that people keep saying confused things about the properties and relationships of mental to non-mental things. It's one of the more popular confusions (maybe the most popular) when approaching anything like philosophical talk.

Again the mental is "merely biological." It's a term for a subset of properties of brain function. Brains are biological, obviously. Why anyone has the preferences then due to brain states, which are the way they are via a combo of genetics and environmental factors. — Terrapin Station

Then you were wrong here:

They're certainly not based on something that's not one's preferences. — Terrapin Station

Then one's preferences are based on something that isn't their preference. They are based on genes and environmental factors.

We went through this dance before, if you recall, but the special thing about it, which I mentioned above, is that people keep saying confused things about the properties and relationships of mental to non-mental things. It's one of the more popular confusions when approaching anything like philosophical talk. — Terrapin Station

:meh: Uh, yeah. That is exactly what I'm saying that you are doing with your subjective/objective distinction - saying confused (contradictory) things.

Then one's preferences are based on something that isn't their preference. They are based on genes and environmental factors. — Harry Hindu

That would only be the case if you're defining "based on" as being about contributing factors that aren't identical to what we're talking about. But of course, one wouldn't have to use "based on" that way.

One of the common confusions to avoid here, a confusion that the "based on" phrase is likely to engender, is the belief that any fact that's not a normative can imply any normatives. They can not. (And facts, when it comes to normatives, solely consist of individuals thinking should/ought or value expressions--an example would be, "Bill feels that Marines ought to leave no person behind." It's a fact that Bill endorses that normative.)

That is exactly what I'm saying that you are doing with your subjective/objective distinction - saying confused (contradictory) things. — Harry Hindu

What would be an example of a confused thing that I'm saying (re this distinction) in your view?

That would only be the case if you're defining "based on" as being about contributing factors that aren't identical to what we're talking about. But of course, one wouldn't have to use "based on" that way. — Terrapin Station

Then what are you saying - that preferences are brain states, which are also genetic and environmental phenomena? I thought they were mental phenomena. How do you distinguish between genetic and environmental phenomena and brain states, or is it all the same to you? Is a preference an interaction between genetics and environment? Is that what a brain state is - an interaction between genetic and environmental phenomena?

Factors are not identical to the product. Causes are not identical to the effect.