The reason why is I get tired of arguing around ideas that cannot be solved. Someone mentioned that the materialists have not won. — Kamikaze Butter
Fundamentally, it seems that the claim that one is being either objective or subjective is the Sorites paradox. — Posty McPostface
I think of "objective" as how someone completely outside the system, i.e. God, sees things. That's not a definition, but it helps me think about it. — T Clark
You have a view from somewhere, not from everywhere, which is why you rely on others to verify your interpretation of what you are experiencing. It's just that an objective view is impossible - paradoxical even. We can only attain a degree of it by using the scientific method. — Harry Hindu
That’s why they are philosophical issues. They are matters of speculation. — Kamikaze Butter
Once a philosophical issue can be observed and measured, it becomes a science. — Kamikaze Butter
Until that point, our actions in dealing with them are subjective. — Kamikaze Butter
We say that homosexuals do not make a choice in being homosexual, so there is no moral issue with them being attracted to the same sex.
But do pediphiles choose their predilection? If not, how are they morally culpable for their urges? That is not to advocate child screwing, but to ask that if a peodophile admits they cannot control their urges does society not have an obligation to incarcerate or seclude them comfortably, as they had no choice in their desire? — Kamikaze Butter
How about providing one of those "ways" of seeing things that is more objective than science.I don't think science is any closer to objectivity or truth than lots of other ways of seeing things. In fact, it's further away than some because it tries to give the illusion of objectivity where none exists. — T Clark
How about providing one of those "ways" of seeing things that is more objective than science. — Harry Hindu
I had thought, for awhile, that it was preferable to reject the distinction between what is objective and subjective. — Moliere
Now I'm tentatively of the opinion that as long as we set out what we mean then the terms can be used, while keeping an eye on the fact that they are ambiguous and often change meaning depending on the speaker. — Moliere
That seems to suggest to me, that there is a HUGE difference between objective and subjective reasoning. One assessment is from me and one from you. Which is subjective or objective changes situationally. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
I think of "objective" as how someone completely outside the system, i.e. God, sees things. That's not a definition, but it helps me think about it. Although the concept of objectivity can be useful, I think it's hard to justify on a broader scale. Of course, that probably means that the concept of subjectivity also has a limited application. — T Clark
I don't think science is any closer to objectivity or truth than lots of other ways of seeing things. In fact, it's further away than some because it tries to give the illusion of objectivity where none exists. — T Clark
How about providing one of those "ways" of seeing things that is more objective than science. — Harry Hindu
So you can't provide just one way of seeing things that is more objective than science.I don't think an objective way of seeing things exists. The problem is that science pretends to be one. — T Clark
That's irrelevant. We don't have to be omniscient to be objective about things. — Posty McPostface
It's just that an objective view is impossible - paradoxical even. We can only attain a degree of it by using the scientific method. — Harry Hindu
I don't think an objective way of seeing things exists. The problem is that science pretends to be one.
— T Clark
So you can't provide just one way of seeing things that is more objective than science. — Harry Hindu
Science doesn't pretend anything. You do science anytime you use reason to explain your experiences and error-check to ensure that they are consistent with the rest of your experiences. — Harry Hindu
So, the issue seems to be, when does one know they are being objective, correct? — Posty McPostface
Yes, words are circular, they derive their meaning from other words. What do you think this says about the objective/subjective dichotomy? I'm trying to point at a third alternative. — Posty McPostface
I wouldn't say "speculation," I'd say preference. My view is not a majority view. — T Clark
I don't see it that way. I think philosophical and scientific issues are different in kind. — T Clark
This seems like a non sequitur. Anyway, to me, it's not the fact that homosexuality is not voluntary that makes it not a moral issue, it's because it's none of our damn business. As for pedophilia, we shouldn't prosecute people for thoughts or fantasies, but if they hurt a child, throw them in the slammer. For a long time. — T Clark
In the medical field there is a term of SOAP notes on a patient. That acronym delineates the difference between objective and subjective this way. S stands for subjective reporting: that which the patient themselves are reporting. O stands for Objective reporting: that which the Doctor observed of the patient while in their presence. A stands for Assessment: the Doctors diagnosis and P stands for Plan of Action: what treatment is prescribed, for what diagnosis and the anticipated result from the treatment plan. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Which is to say that how other words are used in combination with the word of interest, contextually speaking. — Posty McPostface
Well, to put it another way, the definitions of most non-rigid designators (objective terms) are circular and depends on other words to determine their meaning. So, that can limit the scope of all things that are not ostensibly defined to be categorized into the subjective category, which I suppose many philosophers agree with. But, then if we assume the implications of the private language argument, then doesn't that mean that the feeling of 'pain' and with it the word used is not in some sense also objective? — Posty McPostface
I don't understand the point of bringing up circularity, as if it's a negative. — Sam26
I don't understand the point. The nature of metaphysical things like free will are simply speculation unless we can somehow observe them. — Kamikaze Butter
How so? I mean I noted they were different, so we do not need Democritus' philosophizing on atomic theory any longer, as we are smashing atoms together to study the subatomic level. — Kamikaze Butter
It's more of an object lesson in subjectivity. Why exactly is anything other individuals do our business? What does "hurt" a child mean? Why are you characterizing pedophilia as a crime rather than a mental disease?
You do not have to answer those. The point is we can debate the answers, but the basis for and resulting belief will come down to "because I want it to be that way." Which is subjective. — Kamikaze Butter
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.