To answer you question directly, I too think 'beauty' is just a feeling. That is a consequence of it being subjective (which we assumed). This also means that nothing has beauty in itself, as it is always a feeling within the subject when observing the object. And if nothing has beauty in itself, then it is never an objective property.

My question for you is, do you know of a way to find if a property is objective or subjective?

The subjective/objective dichotomy is inherently incapable of taking account of that which requires, consists in/of, and/or is existentially contingent upon both a subject/agent and something other than the subject/agent.

Truth. Meaning. Thought. Belief. All of these things require, consist in/of, and/or are existentially contingent upon both, a subject/agent and something other than the subject/agent.

Everything ever thought, believed, spoken and/or written comes through a subject. Strictly speaking, nothing ever thought, believed, spoken, and/or written is objective. That doesn't mean that everything is subjective. It means that the objective/subjective dichotomy is fraught. Best to abandon it altogether... — creativesoul

Worth repeating...

To answer you question directly, I too think 'beauty' is just a feeling. That is a consequence of it being subjective (which we assumed). This also means that nothing has beauty in itself, as it is always a feeling within the subject when observing the object. And if nothing has beauty in itself, then it is never an objective property. — Samuel Lacrampe

You agree that beauty is a feeling about something and that "subjects" only have feelings, so why say that nothing has beauty in itself? If beauty is a feeling and can only be attributed to subjects, then the subject has beauty in itself, no? It would be an objective property of the subject, as I've been trying to show you. It is an objective property of you, not me, as I don't have that feeling when looking at the painting.

What you seem to be saying is that we are mispeaking, or making a category error, when we say that some thing, other than the subject, is beautiful. When someone says, "that painting is beautiful", do you take them to actually mean that the painting is beautiful, or to mean that the person making that statement has a particular feeling that arises when looking at the painting? If by saying, "That painting is beautiful.", we are really saying something about ourselves, or more specifically saying something about a relationship between the painting and us, then we are making an objective claim.

My question for you is, do you know of a way to find if a property is objective or subjective? — Samuel Lacrampe

Nothing is subjective. Everything is objective. Look at creatvesoul's post for example.

The subjective/objective dichotomy is inherently incapable of taking account of that which requires, consists in/of, and/or is existentially contingent upon both a subject/agent and something other than the subject/agent.

Truth. Meaning. Thought. Belief. All of these things require, consist in/of, and/or are existentially contingent upon both, a subject/agent and something other than the subject/agent.

Everything ever thought, believed, spoken and/or written comes through a subject. Strictly speaking, nothing ever thought, believed, spoken, and/or written is objective. That doesn't mean that everything is subjective. It means that the objective/subjective dichotomy is fraught. Best to abandon it altogether... — creativesoul


Worth repeating... — creativesoul

Creativesoul makes all these claims about how reality is. Creativesoul is attempting to make truth statements about the world. Creativesoul is telling us how the world really is and works. Creativesoul contradicts himself when he says that "Strictly speaking, nothing ever thought, believed, spoken, and/or written is objective." Is this an objective statement about everything every thought and belief, spoken or written? Of course it is. Does creativesoul want us to believe this is a statement about reality, or the "reality" in his head? He seems to want to tell us how the world is and at the same time tell us that his post is subjective. If it is subjective, then he's not telling us how the world really is, only how he feels that it is.

When attempting to explain the world, are we attempting to get at the way the world really is, or how we feel it is? Even if it is about how we feel, we are still making an objective statement about the relationship between us and the world.

Creativesoul even says his post is worth repeating. Is it really worth repeating, or is it that only Creativesoul feels it is worth repeating? And even if it is only that Creativesoul feels that it should be repeated, that is an objective statement, "Creativesouls feels that his post should be repeated." because we are making a claim about reality itself, which Creativesoul and his feelings and inclinations are a part of.

Everything is a goat.

Harry has created a set of all sets...

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.
Objectivity is only that which is agreeable to a community of humans. Objective properties are conceptual and are thought to reflect inherent properties in the object itself. However, since all thoughts, ideas and concept exist only in the minds of subjects, it is to those subjects that agreement is required to determine the quality of the objective statement.
If ten people taste a sample of lemon juice, 5 say its sharpness is average, 3 say it is weak and the other 2 say it is strong.
A scientist uses a machine which tells them that the sharpness value of the lemon is 23.7.
All ten people agree that the lemon has a sharpness of 23.7, but two think this number is average, 3 say it is low, and the other 2 say it is a high number.
What is the ACTUAL and meaningful sharpness of that lemon? Is the objective value meaningful?
The fact is that lemons don't care about sharpness. Sharpness is a quality that has a human interest and therefore, although it might be clothed in a veneer of objectivity, it is nonetheless deeply subjective.
The vast majority of things that we wish to determine the objectivity of, are in essence all subjectively interested and partial qualities.

I think we are very close to reaching an agreement.

You agree that beauty is a feeling about something and that "subjects" only have feelings, so why say that nothing has beauty in itself? — Harry Hindu

By "nothing has beauty in itself", I mean it in the sense that nothing is beautiful in itself; not that nothing has beauty as a feeling. As you demonstrated, if beauty is a feeling, and this feeling is in the subject, then subjects have beauty. But this is different than saying that subjects are beautiful. I suppose it is a matter of distinction between data and metadata. The 'feeling of beauty' is data within the subject, where as 'being beautiful' would be metadata about the subject. And the latter is false because beauty is only a feeling. Therefore, although I agree that 'feeling of beauty' is an objective statement about the subject, 'being beautiful' is not an objective property; and as such, 'being beautiful' is what we call subjective.

Another thing that can be subjective are statements: E.g. "This painting is beautiful".
In this statement, the object is 'painting', and as we have established, 'beauty' is not about the object but about the subject of the statement; therefore the statement is subjective. Granted, we can change the statement into an objective one without really changing the meaning, as so: "I feel beauty when observing this painting". In this statement, the object is 'I', and the property 'feeling of beauty when ...' is objective. But I still see two challenges that remain:

1. Since we will still use the first type of sentence in our everyday language, it is useful is make the distinction between subjective and objective statements.
2. We don't always need to say "I feel that X is Y" to make sure the statement is objective; as this depends on the property Y. E.g., if the property 'rectangular' is objective (not merely a feeling), then to say "This painting is rectangular" is already an objective statement. It would be pointless to say "I feel this painting is rectangular".

Objectivity is only that which is agreeable to a community of humans. — charleton

This might be what happens in practice, but in theory, we are aiming to find properties that exist in things in themselves, even if unachievable.

Regarding your example on sharpness, you may be right that it is not possible to objectively find if a lemon is sharp in the absolute sense, because it is may be a relative term. But while relative, it could still be objective. Let's test it with my Relative-Objective Test (still working on the name): If all subjects were to rank the sharpness of two lemons with different degrees of sharpness, what would happen?

(1) Most would find that lemon A is more sharp than lemon B; the rest would find no difference; and none would find that lemon B is more sharp than lemon A.
(2) Some would find that lemon A is more sharp than lemon B; some would find no difference; and some would find that lemon B is more sharp than lemon A.

If result (1) happens, then sharpness is objective, according to my relative-obejctive test. If result (2) happens, then sharpness is subjective.

Then what you are saying is that being "subjective" is misspeaking, or not meaning your words to be taken literally.

If beauty is a feeling then it would be wrong to to use language in a way that implies that the painting has feelings, rather than the human being speaking those words. If, by making this string of sounds, "That painting is beautiful." emanate from your mouth, you actually mean that you feel that the painting is beautiful, and you expect others to understand that is what you mean, then you are simply using shortcuts in your language use to relay your intent to others. In other words, you don't mean your words literally. The only difference between "subjective" and "objective" would be the difference in your use of words by using shortcuts to relay what you really mean, which is always objective (being about reality).

Yes, that is all correct. So subjective means a feeling in the subject when observing the object. And the feeling is itself objective to the subject.

Now for the next question. Consider the following two statements again:
A. "This painting is beautiful."
B. "This painting is rectangular."
We have thus far only assumed that statement A is subjective, and B is objective. But can we back this up? I claim we can by using the Relative-Objective Test, as per the original post.

A. When testing two different paintings, some subjects will observe painting (1) to be more beautiful than painting (2), and some will observe the opposite. Since there is no agreement in the order of degree of beauty, this means that beauty is subjective.

B. When testing two paintings of different shapes (not just size), a large majority of subjects will observe one painting (say painting (1)) to be more rectangular than the other, while the minority (likely blind) will not see a difference; but no one would observe painting (2) to be more rectangular than (1). Since there is an agreement in the order of degree of 'rectangular', (at least no opposite order is observed), this means that 'rectangular' is objective. Thoughts?

Yes, that is all correct. So subjective means a feeling in the subject when observing the object. And the feeling is itself objective to the subject. — Samuel Lacrampe

No. You seem to be having a problem reading and replying to my posts without putting words I didn't say in my mouth.

I said that what is "subjective" (the word is in quotes because it's just a placeholder that we don't really need) is when you use language in such a way as to associate a feeling with things that don't have feelings in order to relay information about your state in the most efficient means possible, which includes using shortcuts in our language. So, "subjective" doesn't really exist, except as a means of relaying objective information, like your emotional state.

I honestly don't see a difference between your definition and mine. Regardless, under this definition, it is coherent to use the word 'subjective' when describing a statement such as "this painting is beautiful".

But surely, you see a distinction between the two previously stated sentences A and B, do you not? That A is related to the subject's feelings (what I call subjective), and B is related to the object.

Regarding your example on sharpness, you may be right that it is not possible to objectively find if a lemon is sharp in the absolute sense, because it is may be a relative term. — Samuel Lacrampe

Sorry this is unavoidable. Sharpness is a value judgement, and even if measured objectively is it still subjectively understood.

Your contention that "most would find...." is totally humancentric. Even if you could test every human, this would not be objective in the way people want it to mean; regardless of human interest or opinion.

Yes, that is all correct. So subjective means a feeling in the subject when observing the object. And the feeling is itself objective to the subject. — Samuel Lacrampe

yes... then absolutely NO.
How can it be objective and subjective.This is an abuse of language.

So, "subjective" doesn't really exist, except as a means of relaying objective information, like your emotional state. — Harry Hindu

I honestly don't see a difference between your definition and mine. Regardless, under this definition, it is coherent to use the word 'subjective' when describing a statement such as "this painting is beautiful". — Samuel Lacrampe

No, it isn't. That is the problem you still don't understand. I said that "subjective" doesn't really exist, so it would be incoherent to use the term at all. It would be more accurate to say that it is "misspeaking", not "subjective". The painting isn't really beautiful. You have a feeling of a beautiful painting. You're not speaking subjectively. You're simply misspeaking.

If, by saying, "This painting is beautiful.", you mean that you have a feeling of beauty when looking at the painting, then you are speaking objectively, not subjectively.

If, by saying, "This painting is beautiful.", you mean that the painting is actually beautiful, or has feelings itself that can be described as "beautiful". Then you are simply misspeaking, not speaking subjectively, because paintings don't have feelings.

But surely, you see a distinction between the two previously stated sentences A and B, do you not? That A is related to the subject's feelings (what I call subjective), and B is related to the object. — Samuel Lacrampe

A. When testing two different paintings, some subjects will observe painting (1) to be more beautiful than painting (2), and some will observe the opposite. Since there is no agreement in the order of degree of beauty, this means that beauty is subjective. — Samuel Lacrampe

No. This means beauty is a feeling. Stop using the term, "subjective".

B. When testing two paintings of different shapes (not just size), a large majority of subjects will observe one painting (say painting (1)) to be more rectangular than the other, while the minority (likely blind) will not see a difference; but no one would observe painting (2) to be more rectangular than (1). Since there is an agreement in the order of degree of 'rectangular', (at least no opposite order is observed), this means that 'rectangular' is objective. Thoughts? — Samuel Lacrampe

Agreement has nothing to do with it. People can agree on things that are just wrong. People agreed that the Earth was flat. Is the Earth flat, or does it only seem that way from our perspective? Is the Earth objectively flat, subjectively flat, or is it our perception of the world is flat?

Your contention that "most would find...." is totally humancentric. Even if you could test every human, this would not be objective in the way people want it to mean; regardless of human interest or opinion. — charleton

Then how would you test if a property is objective or not? Otherwise, do you agree with the following example? Some people may not find snow to be that cold, and some others may not find a hot tub to be that hot; but everyone finds a hot tub to be more hot than snow. As such, coldness and hotness are objective properties. They are relative, but still objective, because everyone finds that X is hotter than Y. We don't see that phenomenon with subjective things like beauty.

Sharpness is a value judgement — charleton

Assuming that this is true, this still would not be a proof that it is subjective. There is such a thing as objective values. ;)

How can it be objective and subjective.This is an abuse of language. — charleton

I'll explain. If 'beauty' is subjective, then the statement "This painting is beautiful" says nothing about the object which is the painting, and says everything about the subject, namely that he feels beauty when observing the painting. But then saying "I feel beauty when observing the painting" is now an objective statement, because the property 'feeling beauty' is about the object which is 'I' in that statement.

So you don't seem to buy into my Relative-Objective test. In which case, how do you yourself claim that such a property as 'beauty' is only a feeling but a property like 'rectangular' is a real property of the object?

Beauty is a feeling, which is a real property of you when looking at the painting. Rectangular is a shape, which is a real property of the painting. I doesn't get much simpler than that.

Then how would you test if a property is objective or not? Otherwise, do you agree with the following example? Some people may not find snow to be that cold, and some others may not find a hot tub to be that hot; but everyone finds a hot tub to be more hot than snow. — Samuel Lacrampe

You are mistaking the idea that "objective" is the same as truth.
Your example is RELATIVE, and as such it is not about objectiveness. The objective truth about snow is that it is colder than 0 centigrade, and that a hot tub is colder than 100degrees centigrade. All the rest is a value judgement and more relevant to us for that.

I'll explain. If 'beauty' is subjective, then the statement "This painting is beautiful" says nothing about the object which is the painting, and says everything about the subject, namely that he feels beauty when observing the painting. But then saying "I feel beauty when observing the painting" is now an objective statement, because the property 'feeling beauty' is about the object which is 'I' in that statement. — Samuel Lacrampe

I think this is wholly nonsensical.

You misunderstood me. I did not ask for your position, but the reason why you have this position. Why do you think that beauty is a mere feeling of the subject, as opposed to a property of the painting; and why do you think 'rectangular' is in turn a property of the painting, and not a mere feeling of the subject? In other words, the title of this discussion: How to determine if a property is objective or subjective?

Yes, it is a relative example. It is a relative objective example. Your own example I quote below is an example of a relative objective statement. You yourself call it objective, and it is describing an object relative to a standard.

The objective truth about snow is that it is colder than 0 centigrade, and that a hot tub is colder than 100degrees centigrade. — charleton

So relative things can be objective at the same time; and therefore to say "snow is colder than hot tubs" is an objective statement. It is either true or false.

I think this is wholly nonsensical. — charleton

Maybe I can help you understand, but I'm gonna need more productive input from you than saying it is nonsensical.

My answer would be that you can't reach out and touch beauty on the painting. It's not a thing out there. It's a thing in here. You can reach out and touch the rectangular shape of the painting.

The visual of a rectangle refers to the shape of the painting. The feeling of beauty refers to the self, not the painting. This is why we can agree on the rectangular shape of the painting but not on it's beauty. We can only agree that you find the painting beautiful and I don't.

In talking about the beauty of the painting, we are really talking about each of our selves, not the painting, which is why we disagree on the beauty of the painting. In disagreeing, we are referring to each of our different states, one which has beauty and one which doesn't, not the painting.

We agree that the painting is rectangular because that is a property of the painting. We aren't referring to our selves, but rather the painting.

I'm not sure if that is clear or not.

My answer would be that you can't reach out and touch beauty on the painting. It's not a thing out there. It's a thing in here. You can reach out and touch the rectangular shape of the painting. — Harry Hindu

I think that is a reasonable answer. I agree with it. But maybe the example was a bit too easy. What about the colour of an object? Touch does not help us differentiate between different colours.

This is why we can agree on the rectangular shape of the painting but not on it's beauty. We can only agree that you find the painting beautiful and I don't. In talking about the beauty of the painting, we are really talking about each of our selves, not the painting, which is why we disagree on the beauty of the painting. In disagreeing, we are referring to each of our different states, one which has beauty and one which doesn't, not the painting. We agree that the painting is rectangular because that is a property of the painting. — Harry Hindu

I agree with everything you say, and that is because this sounds close to my relative-objective test, where I claim subjects cannot disagree on the ranking of degree of objective properties. Now I find it odd coming from you because I think this contradicts the following quote:

Agreement has nothing to do with it. People can agree on things that are just wrong. People agreed that the Earth was flat. Is the Earth flat, or does it only seem that way from our perspective? — Harry Hindu

I think that is a reasonable answer. I agree with it. But maybe the example was a bit too easy. What about the colour of an object? Touch does not help us differentiate between different colours. — Samuel Lacrampe

Now, that is a good example to work with. Color exists only in minds. You could say that our visual experience is also a feeling. But colors are the result of reflected light interacting with the eye-brain system, and the light is reflected off the object. So color is a relationship between the object, light and our eye-brain system, as color carries information about all these things because they are all a cause of your experience of color.

So, when I say, "The apple is red." I'm really referring to this relationship, not just myself, not just the apple, but the whole relationship - which is objective. The same can be said about the painting, as you only get the feeling of beauty when looking at the painting, so beauty is a relationship between you and the painting.

I agree with everything you say, and that is because this sounds close to my relative-objective test, where I claim subjects cannot disagree on the ranking of degree of objective properties. Now I find it odd coming from you because I think this contradicts the following quote:

Agreement has nothing to do with it. People can agree on things that are just wrong. People agreed that the Earth was flat. Is the Earth flat, or does it only seem that way from our perspective? — Harry Hindu — Samuel Lacrampe

What I was attempting to do is to explain WHY subjects can or cannot disagree on the objective properties. We disagree about beauty ONLY if we mean that beauty is a property of the painting. If we are actually referring to our feelings, then we agree. So our disagreement comes from one, or both, of us misspeaking, or making a category error. You and I can still disagree on our theories of reality and our relationship with it, but we would both still be making objective statements about the world, so our disagreement isn't based on a category error, but simply a differing of explanations of the world and our place in it.

Now, that is a good example to work with. Color exists only in minds. You could say that our visual experience is also a feeling. But colors are the result of reflected light interacting with the eye-brain system, and the light is reflected off the object. So color is a relationship between the object, light and our eye-brain system, as color carries information about all these things because they are all a cause of your experience of color.

So, when I say, "The apple is red." I'm really referring to this relationship, not just myself, not just the apple, but the whole relationship - which is objective. The same can be said about the painting, as you only get the feeling of beauty when looking at the painting, so beauty is a relationship between you and the painting. — Harry Hindu

I think you are right that colour is in the mind, if we talk about what is being perceived only, because if the object or subject is travelling at high speed, then the colour perceived may change. But if we talk about the property that reflects only a particular light range, then it is a property of the object, because it is part of it.

We disagree about beauty ONLY if we mean that beauty is a property of the painting. If we are actually referring to our feelings, then we agree. So our disagreement comes from one, or both, of us misspeaking, or making a category error. You and I can still disagree on our theories of reality and our relationship with it, but we would both still be making objective statements about the world, so our disagreement isn't based on a category error, but simply a differing of explanations of the world and our place in it. — Harry Hindu

I agree with you that, in theory, we should not argue about properties of feelings, and should only argue about objective properties of outer reality. But this is still putting the cart before the horse, because some people might still argue about the beauty of the painting, claiming that beauty is in fact a property of outer reality. So far, we have found one solid criteria: touch. I will also add anything that is measurable by an instrument, because instruments cannot be biased with feelings. Thoughts?

Yes, what is clear is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder to use a well worn phrase.
Such has to be the case with all value judgements.

But to say that "beauty is a feeling in the subject because it is a value judgement" is begging the question, because value judgements are made only on things which are not properties of the observed objects.

You seem to be saying nothing, as "Things" not properties of the observed objects is exactly what I mean = Values.
Values are inherent to the observer, not the object.

That is precisely my point about your previous argument: Beauty is in the subject because it is a value; and values are things in the subject. We can simplify by saying "beauty is in the subject because it is in the subject". This is circular. How do you know it is only a value?

I agree with you that, in theory, we should not argue about properties of feelings, and should only argue about objective properties of outer reality. But this is still putting the cart before the horse, because some people might still argue about the beauty of the painting, claiming that beauty is in fact a property of outer reality. So far, we have found one solid criteria: touch. I will also add anything that is measurable by an instrument, because instruments cannot be biased with feelings. Thoughts? — Samuel Lacrampe

Are feelings not part of "outer" reality? Am I, and you, and charleton, all parts of reality? From each of our perspectives, the other two, and their feelings, exist in this "outer" reality. So to talk about each other's feelings is to talk objectively about the world. I don't really know how better to say what I've been saying all this time - that "subjective" language is either using shortcuts in speaking objectively, or misusing language by projecting properties of one object onto other objects that don't have those properties.