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
Correct. The content of talk is what is being said.What's being said, as compared to the subject saying it?
Help me out here. What counts as "the content" of talk? — 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.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
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?I defined it as what is helpful to one's goals. — Harry Hindu
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
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
Clearly, this is not a triangle. — Samuel Lacrampe
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.So, what's being said is not talk? — 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?"Round" is a word. — 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 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
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.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
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.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
Besides, one property of triangles is that the sum of the angles equals to 180 deg. — Samuel Lacrampe
As Aquinas says, contradictions do not fall under the omnipotence of God. — Samuel Lacrampe
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.What counts as objective? I mean, what is the criterion which, when met by a candidate, counts as that candidate being objective? Subjective? — creativesoul
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.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
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
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
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?True, but neither does it turn impossible just because we add the concept of nonsensicalness in front of 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?Making sense or being logical are properties and laws of our universe, and they don't necessarily apply outside it. — BlueBanana
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.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
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.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
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, 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.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
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.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
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?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
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.