Shoutbox.[Chiropractic Medicine is] glorified massage. If lawyers didn't need a way to "medically" document and treat subjective complaints of injury from car wrecks, there'd be no chiropractors. — Hanover
Well there is a sense at least in which all truths are dependent on minds, to the extent that truth is a property of propositions, and propositions need proposers. I think you need stronger term than 'dependent on' - would you say that subjective truths are about (states of) mind? But even then, one can establish beyond reasonable doubt mens rea in a court of law. — unenlightened
If earths and moons ceased to exist, truths about earths and moons would cease to exist. If Sam did not exist, he would not have likes - what's the difference? — unenlightened
Can you give an example of a fact in realty that is not a conceptual fact? — T Clark
And then wouldn't we actually be using the dichotomy as opposed to dropping it? — Moliere
For us to talk about the facts (states-of-affairs) we need the concepts, but the existence of facts are not dependent on the concepts, they're only dependent on the concepts if we are to talk about the facts. Any existent thing is separate from the concept used to refer to it, so the fact that the Earth has one moon is separate from anything conceptual. So I think the confusion can be in our talk about facts, verses the thing itself. — Sam26
I'm still saddened that nobody has agreed that the objective-subjective divide is actually a version of the Sorites Paradox... — Posty McPostface
I don't know if I agree, but I think I know what you are talking about. Doesn't it all come down to how we break the world up? — T Clark
The paradox, if it is one, just recognizes the vagueness of the way we conceptualize things. — T Clark
The bolding is my doing.The sorites paradox sometimes known as the paradox of the heap) is a paradox that arises from vague predicates.[2] A typical formulation involves a heap of sand (knowledge), from which grains are individually removed (evaluating). Under the assumption that removing a single grain does not turn a heap into a non-heap (determining the objective from subjective), the paradox is to consider what happens when the process is repeated enough times: is a single remaining grain still a heap (problem of delineation between the objective and subjective)? If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?(how do we know when we are being objective as opposed to subjective?) — Wiki
The bolding is my doing. — Posty McPostface
what does that even mean? — Posty McPostface
Whoever says that we can meaningfully escape that objective voice is crazy. We can analyze and imagine a pre-reflective state, but that's more objective story telling. We can't escape it unless we stop thinking (and fall back into unity with the world.) — frank
The TTC is expressed in 3rd person. — frank
*hands over the reigns of this thread to Banno* — Posty McPostface
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.