Now my question is, when you define objectivity in this way, why would you expect to find objectivity in logic, which is a case of human thinking? You have given examples of how objectivity is impossible to obtain with logic, but you have defined "objective" such that it is self-evident that objectivity cannot be obtained by human thinking, and logic is a form of human thinking. — Metaphysician Undercover
All these things, value, knowledge, and morality, are known to be the products of human thought. — Metaphysician Undercover
What is the point of this thread? — Metaphysician Undercover
I actually also believe that a truly self evident premise is impossible because it needs the assumption that logic preserves truth but the laws of logic are all pivots which is why there are multiple types of logic. So yeah objectivity as I defined it is not even obtainable by logic — khaled
To get he people that claim that a morality/value/knowledge that transcends human thought exists and is acquirable by humans to defend their beliefs and to attack mine. You're not one of those people — khaled
I don't really know what you mean by a "pivot", — Metaphysician Undercover
It is your definition of "objective" which stipulates a separation between thought and objective reality, — Metaphysician Undercover
If we remove the necessity of "objective" (as defined) from — Metaphysician Undercover
we allow that these laws may be part of reality. — Metaphysician Undercover
Without this separation we can say that these things are part of reality which are apprehended by human thought, and that these things also transcend human thought. — Metaphysician Undercover
Pivot: A premise taken to be true with no reliance on another premise for proof. Ex: God exists. Why? Just cuz — khaled
We get relativism because there will be multiple possible interpretations of reality all based on different choices of starting pivots — khaled
We allow these laws to be part of A reality. If you don't have an objective premise (as defined) (which I believe is impossible to get but I am open to having my mind changed) you will always get some defree or relativism. — khaled
That is a contradiction no? One can never know from the "apprehended" reality whether or not an external reality even exists or what it looks like. We may all be brains in vats. — khaled
What if someone is for some reason adamently convinced that a magical bearded sky man created the world and will take him to heaven if he kills blasphemers. Assuming that premise to be true, it is obviously morally right for that person to become a terrorist. Additionally, that someone will not argue with anyone that does not start off with this specific pivot (that there is a magical bearded sky man) because that would be "obviously wrong" in the eyes of this individual. — khaled
My point is that there is so many of these irreconcilable pivots to pick from that to claim one is right is completely unsubstantiated in my opinion. This is because to claim one is right one needs to use a pivot to confirm it and THAT pivot is in turn arbitrary. I happen to pick the logic pivots but other people might not and that's where you get your relativism. — khaled
As I explained above, each pivot is supported by reasons, and the reasons are not necessarily pivots, they are usually some sort of experience, or conglomeration of experiences. — Metaphysician Undercover
However, it is useful to assume that there is the absolute, for many purposes, and not useful to assume that there is not, because this assumption would contradict itself if it were true. If it was true that there is no absolute, this would itself be an absolute, refuting itself. Therefore the assumption that there is such an absolute, assumes as a principle, what is a useful possibility, and that there is no absolute assumes as a principle what is impossible. We must therefore dismiss the latter, as impossible, but the former might better be expressed as the "possibility" that there is such an absolute. However, that there is no absolute has now been dismissed as impossible, therefore we can claim with absolute certainty that there is such an absolute. — Metaphysician Undercover
To prove that there is would seem to require that the absolute be apprehended, and proven to be the absolute. This I believe is beyond the capacity of the human being, — Metaphysician Undercover
Even if we get to the conclusion that we cannot possibly know the absolute truth, this still does not support relativism which claims that there is no absolute truth. — Metaphysician Undercover
Does this not sound like relativism to you? You have tied truth to a person's experiences. — khaled
Now instead of having irreconcilable pivots, you have irreconcilable experiences. — khaled
You're still using consensus as a basis for claiming that humans get closer to objective reality when that is not at all the case. — khaled
That's not what relativism claims. It claims that the truth is unrealizable — khaled
I don't think we think relativism means the same thing. I define it as: an objective truth is unachievable and you define it as: an objective truth does not exist. See I'm reading everything you're saying and I'm like "yeah, exactly". There is no reason to assume consensus brings us any closer to this objective reality. It only brings us closer to reconciling the biggest set of experiences under one explanation. There is no reason to assume that gets us any closer to objective reality at all — khaled
The belief that an objective value/knowledge/morality is non existent — khaled
Let me answer that question with a falsehood, since it has the same value as the truth. — unenlightened
See, I see a sort of enigma with nihilism in that according to it, believing in objective morality, God, superstition, etc is just as good as believing in nihilism — khaled
No, you're making the same category error here. There is no objective value. That doesn't mean that there is no subjective value. You simply have to locate the phenomenon in the right place. It's like noting that (barring unusual circumstances etc.) a beer isn't going to get cold by sitting in the microwave, but it will get cold in the refrigerator. You have to locate it in the right place. Value is something that brains do. It's not something that the world outside of brains does. So it's not at all the case that x is just as good as y unconditionally. Things are as good as, or better or worse than other things to someone. — Terrapin Station
I have seen surprisingly few posts on this philosophy to which I adhere which is starting to make me think it might have some gaping logical hole somewhere that I'm not seeing. I am open to having my mind changed in any way (God, inherent meaning in objects, cosmic Consciousness, etc) so present your best arguments against this philosophy.
Quick definition: The belief that an objective value/knowledge/morality is non existent — khaled
How exactly do you mean value here? — DingoJones
I wouldnt say that a hammer has no objective value as a nail hitting tool, — DingoJones
depending on what the goal is, certain things will be objectively better or worse for achieving that goal. — DingoJones
I think what some are getting at here is that subjective values all have the same level of justification, based on (from what I can tell) the premiss that all subjective values have the same basis (someone made them up, came to them through culture or preference of some kind).
Do you agree with any of that? — DingoJones
But this forgets how and why we started using 'black' in the first place. Similarly, a 'true' or 'perfect' objectivity that doesn't actually exists has little to do what how people tend to use 'objective,' except as an exaggeration for a particular purpose, which might in retrospect seem to be a silly purpose. — macrosoft
Well, objectively, a hammer can be used to hit nails. So can a lot of other things. It's persons who have preferences about which thing to use, which features to prefer, and so on. — Terrapin Station
It's not objectively better or worse, but sure, we can define a goal re wanting something to have such and such properties, and then objectively, some things will have those properties, or be closer to having those properties, than other things. That's not objective value. It's just the fact that there are objective properties and we can search for certain properties if we like. — Terrapin Station
A hammer is objectivly better for hitting nails than say, a dead fish. A person may or may not have a preference to use a dead fish to hit nails, but a hammer objectively has more value for hitting nails. (According to your own definition which specifically mentions “utility”) — DingoJones
I don't understand what you're saying re "the same level of justification." — Terrapin Station
Let's try it this way. The objective "better" in the above is a property of what? That is, where is the property ( "This is better than that") found? — Terrapin Station
I would say in its utility, its value as a hitting nails device. — DingoJones
That everything is equally justified if they are subjective human constructs, as they all have the same basis of simple subjective preference. — DingoJones
he argument is essentially saying its all opinion and no ones opinion is more or less wrong. — DingoJones
but some opinions actually are objectively wrong sometimes too — DingoJones
An inch is a subjective thing, a measure of distance made up by a human mind that doesnt exist objectively — DingoJones
"In its utility"? What sort of location is that? I'm asking you where as in a spatial location. — Terrapin Station
In its shape and attributes. You want me to say “in the mind of user” or some-such? — DingoJones
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.