P1. I like orange juice.
P2. I drink what I like if it is available.
P3. Orange juice is available.
C. I drink orange juice.

Is this not a logical argument? Is it not also a subjective one? — unenlightened

How is it subjective? Every statement looks objective to me. Is it not objectively true that you like orange juice, or does it depend on who you ask?

I think this is usually called consensus, not objectivity. :chin: Objectivity, at least in its most absolute sense, is unchallengeably correct. A consensus is an opinion accepted by most/all; it need not be correct. — Pattern-chaser

No. Equating consensus with objectivity would be overlooking the existence of mass-delusions, which need to be explained.

For instance, most people believe in a creator, but there is no logic, or objectivity in believing what most people believe. You have to account for those that don't believe, and the fact that there are many conflicting descriptions of a creator, and the fact that a creator has not made it's existence known, etc. In other words, you have to come up with an explanation that entails all of these factors and can explain why some people believe in such things and why some don't.

What you seem to be saying here is that when we succeed in converting the subjective into the objective - and good luck with that! :wink: - we will "be at a more objective outlook". Well yes, but why would we even consider such a thing? Subject and object are complements, not enemies. Subjectivity is not less than (or greater than) objectivity; it's a different and complementary perspective. — Pattern-chaser

Subjectivity is always less than objectivity because subjectivity can be seen as parts of objectivity. It's like having only one piece of the puzzle.

It would seem objective/subjective depends on the frame of reference.

Me liking orange juice is subjective.

You knowing I like orange juice is objective.

If time is relative due to our reference, then why can’t other concepts be? The point is you have to state the circumstance we are evaluating from.

Seems like opinion is the acceleration that creates subjectivity.

This represents how difficult to near-impossible it is to be attain true objectivity. — Harry Hindu

There is that no true Scotsman fallacy again. He seems to like this thread a lot.

Heaps come in degrees. Objectivity comes in degrees. — Harry Hindu

Agreed, although I am wary of using that term ad infinitum.

Me liking orange juice is subjective. — Kamikaze Butter

I don't think so. Whether or not you like orange juice is objectively true or false.

Is it not objectively true that you like orange juice, or does it depend on who you ask? — Harry Hindu

Of course it depends who you ask. Some people will say "I don't like orange juice."

Whether or not you like orange juice is objectively true or false. — ChrisH

Whether or not you like orange juice depends on who I'm addressing. It is true or false in any particular case, give or take a bit of indifference, but what does it mean to be 'objectively true or false'? That is to say, what sorts of claim could be 'subjectively true or false'?

I actually addressed that in the next line and put the difference as the last line.

but what does it mean to be 'objectively true or false'? — unenlightened

I've always assumed that 'objectively true' means true regardless of anyone's opinion/preferences.

That's why "X likes orange juice" is an objective claim.

On the other hand "Orange juice is delicious" is subjective - it's dependent on a particular viewpoint.

That''s how I've always understood the distinction.

I've always assumed that 'objectively true' means true regardless of anyone's opinion/preferences.

That's why "X likes orange juice" is an objective claim. — ChrisH

I would have thought that the truth of 'X likes orange juice' was entirely dependent on X's preferences...

So...

1. 'Orange juice is delicious', is subjective.
2. 'I like orange juice' is objective.
3. 'Orange juice is delicious to me'... objective???

And yet, it would seem quite normal to me, if you asked me whether I liked orange juice, to reply 'Yes, it's delicious', without specifying that it is delicious to me but might not be to everyone. The fact that you asked me would suggest you already knew that.

I would have thought that the truth of 'X likes orange juice' was entirely dependent on X's preferences... — unenlightened

No, this doesn't make sense. It's not the case that whether or not X likes orange juice is dependent on whether or not X prefers to like orange juice.

Of course it depends who you ask. Some people will say "I don't like orange juice." — unenlightened

That isn't what I asked. If I asked Donald Trump, "Does Unelightened like orange juice?" will the fact that you do or don't like orange juice be based on Trump's answer, or based on the state-of-affairs that is your fondness of orange juice?

Do YOU, unenlightened, like orange juice or not? You seem to be confusing "I like orange juice" with "Orange juice is the greatest". The former is objective, while the latter is subjective. Any time you make a value statement, you are making a subjective statement. Any time you make a statement about some state-of-affairs, like your relationship with orange juice, then you are making an objective statement.

There is that no true Scotsman fallacy again. He seems to like this thread a lot. — Posty McPostface

I don't see the fallacy in my post.

Agreed, although I am wary of using that term ad infinitum. — Posty McPostface

:sad: I never said we need to use it ad infinitum - only where it applies.

Any time you make a value statement, you are making a subjective statement. Any time you make a statement about some state-of-affairs, like your relationship with orange juice, then you are making an objective statement. — Harry Hindu

Ok. Would you say that truth is a value?

Subjectivity is always less than objectivity because subjectivity can be seen as parts of objectivity. It's like having only one piece of the puzzle. — Harry Hindu

Ancient Greek subject-object metaphysics divides (life, the universe and) Everything into subject and object as its first cut (as Pirsig puts it). There is no way in which it is correct to view the subject or subjectivity as part of the object or objectivity. The "puzzle" is the combination of these two parts. They are complements, the two halves of Everything, as it were. :wink:

Ancient Greek subject-object metaphysics divides (life, the universe and) Everything into subject and object as its first cut (as Pirsig puts it). — Pattern-chaser

I'm almost entirely sure the subject-object distinction came about long, long after the ancient Greeks, and that the words - or their equivalents - didn't even exist in that time either. I'd be curious to be proven wrong, but as far as I know it's an entirely Latinate distinction (which, incidentally, used to mean the exact opposite of what the terms now mean). From Daston and Galison's Objectivity: "Its cognates in European languages derive from the Latin adverbial or adjectival form obiectivus/obiective, introduced by fourteenth-century scholastic philosophers such as Duns Scotus and William of Ockham. (The substantive form does not emerge until much later, around the turn of the nineteenth century.) From the very beginning, it was always paired with subiectivus/subiective, but the terms originally meant almost precisely the opposite of what they mean today".

Or, as Simon Critchley points out, to the degree that one can look to the Greek for its genesis, 'subject' in the Greek meant more or less what is referred to as 'object' today, and does not function as one-half of an idiotic dualism: "Subjectum translates the Greek hupokeimenon, ‘that which lies under’, ‘the substratum’; a term which refers in Aristotle’s Physics and Metaphysics to that of which all other entities are predicated but which is itself not predicated of anything else. In a classical context, then, the subject is the subject of predication; the hupokeimenon is that which persists through change, the substratum, and which has a function analogous to matter (hule) ... Indeed, one immediately here notes the oddity that the word subject can also designate an object. ... The modern philosophical use of the word subject as the conscious or thinking subject ... first appears in the English language as late as 1796." (Critchley, Ethics, Politics, Subjectivity).

In any case, the Greeks, as far as I know, were neither stupid nor facile enough to employ the subject-object distinction in the manner in which it is generally used today.

Subjectum is a translation of hypokeimenon.

Meanings evolve like everything else. There's nothing stupid about the Cartesian outlook. Yes, it produced conundrums, but what view doesn't (aside from post frontal lobotomy view)?

There is nothing that is not stupid about the Cartesian outlook.

Not really.

All thought, belief, and statements come through a subject.

There is nothing that is not stupid about the Cartesian outlook. — StreetlightX

Cool graphs though.

Ok. Would you say that truth is a value? — unenlightened

No. Truth is the relationship between some state-of-affairs and some statement, explanation, or other representation of that state-of-affairs. Values are derived from having goals.

Is it true that you like orange juice - yes or no? Is that not a fact of reality? Is that not something that is true regardless of who else likes or hates orange juice? Knowing what your likes and dislikes are valuable in any goal I might have to buy you a particular juice to drink.

The words are in common use in the real world. There's absolutely no reason to stop using them when we ponder philosophical questions, the whole point of which is to turn questions on their heads and dissect.

Truth is the relationship between some state-of-affairs and some statement, explanation, or other representation of that state-of-affairs. Values are derived from having goals. — Harry Hindu

So truth is objective. And 'objectively true' is a tautology, like 'truly true'.

I normally avoid the subjective/objective dichotomy, however I want to play with the idea that it may have a good use. Perhaps it can be used to shed light upon how some statement or other is true as established by virtue of the kind of facts to which it corresponds.

The best ice cream is vanilla.

That statement is often held as not able to be true or false. However, on my view it is perhaps much better understood as an incomplete or ill-formed belief statement. It is an expression of personal preference/taste. It is a belief statement. As such, it is true if it is the case that the speaker prefers vanilla ice cream. It would be true by virtue of corresponding to all the events resulting in the speaker's preferences(subjective facts). It's about the speaker's belief. Thus, with an insincere speaker the claim would be false.

My favorite flavor of ice cream is vanilla.

That statement is true/false by virtue of corresponding(or not) to the same set of facts. I'm working on the notion of what makes the statement true. It is true or not despite what everyone aside from the speaker thinks and/or believes. It's truth is established solely by virtue of correspondence to the speaker's belief.

When a statement is true solely by virtue of corresponding to the speaker's belief, then it ought be called something along the lines of "subjectively true"; "true by virtue of sincerity"; or perhaps "true by subjective means".



That is an acorn tree.

That statement is either true or not, by virtue of whether or not the thing being talked about is the kind that we've named an acorn tree. Here, the truth of the statement is not determined(in part) by virtue of corresponding to the speaker's belief regarding his/her own statement. But rather, it is true(or not) by virtue of corresponding to the events which resulted in it's being given a namesake. Those events are the objective facts. The statement tells the name of a thing. The name of the thing is not established by the speaker's belief(we'll assume the tree has already been named). That is an acorn tree or not, and it doesn't depend upon the belief of the speaker.

When a statement is true regardless of whether or not it corresponds to the speaker's belief, then it ought be called something along the lines of "objectively true"; "true by virtue of others' belief"; or perhaps "true by objective means".


I'll leave it there for now, bedtime...

Sure. So long as you recognise that the use in philosophy are often quite divergent from common use.

I suspect the uses are related in some way.

indeed; and yet distinct.

When a statement is true solely by virtue of corresponding to the speaker's belief, then it ought be called something along the lines of "subjectively true"; "true by virtue of sincerity"; or perhaps "true by subjective means"...

...When a statement is true regardless of whether or not it corresponds to the speaker's belief, then it ought be called something along the lines of "objectively true"; "true by virtue of others' belief"; or perhaps "true by objective means". — creativesoul

Hmmm...

This seems to cover some statements. However, what if it is the case that what everyone believes is wrong?

There are no black swans.

That's why I avoid the subjective/objective dichotomy. Some things(facts and truth) in this exercise, are both. Some things are neither. Therefore, the subjective/objective dichotomy is inherently inadequate for taking proper account of events and correspondence to those events.