we are impressed by the shape of the grammar, as if it's shape meant something, yet we all know what it means. — Isaac
But the belief that there is no external referent is in the mind of the speaker, — Isaac
I'm glad someone understood the relevance (or maybe everyone did, but thought it unworthy of response) — Isaac
There can be a truth which is not a collective belief nor intersubjectively confirmed, and that it could be intersubjectively confirmed is irrelevant, because it is already a fact by virtue of the way the world is. A genius could discover a truth unknown by the rest of the world. — S
Fine then give me an example of an unconfirmed fact and I will believe that you are not speaking through your arse. — Janus
But language construction does mean something. — ChrisH
When some people say X is immoral they really don't mean that they personally feel that X is immoral.
Similarly some people apparently believe some works of art really are beautiful (i.e. they don't believe beauty is solely in the eye of the beholder).
The problem here is if you assume all such claims have an implied "In my opinion" attached to them then all such claims become objectively true. I think this would be confusing particularly in the case of moral claims. — ChrisH
I'm just trying to make sense of what might commonly be meant by the term. — ChrisH
In my experience it's quite common ("subjective" not necessarily "subjectively true"). — ChrisH
The existence of Jupiter does not depend on you or me or anyone else or anyone at all, nor on what we think or perceive or judge and so on. It is objective. — S
. If they actually do mean "Shakespeare is a brilliant writer" without any caveats, then they are just plain wrong, not subjectively right. — Isaac
In what way does "The cat is on the mat" set out the speaker's feeling or taste? — Banno
Now, "I believe that the cat is on the mat" sets out an opinion, and hence is subjective. But "The cat is on the mat" and "I believe that the cat is on the mat" express quite distinct things. — Banno
I think that there is some philosophical over-thinking in your approach. I do not think that we would only call a fact objective if people agree about it. I can see no reason why there can't be something that is true, and yet believed false by most folk. I's not hard to think of historical examples. — Banno
So what was the point? I'm not going to do your work for you. — Janus
I have defined meaning as the relationship between cause and effect. What words mean, are what the author intended, and author's are influenced by the language they learn and their skill with using that language.The form of any proposition is either sound or symbols, neither of which has any meaning in itself. Any meaning a proposition has is assigned. No assignment, no assigner, no meaning.
No one has yet defined "meaning." Maybe for the sake of argument we should. — tim wood
Not that distinct. One is about the cat, and the other is about your belief. Both are objective aspects of the world that we can talk about. Is it true that you have beliefs? Is it true that a cat is on the mat? Are both of these things true independent of how people feel about them?Now, "I believe that the cat is on the mat" sets out an opinion, and hence is subjective. But "The cat is on the mat" and "I believe that the cat is on the mat" express quite distinct things. — Banno
Sure, this would be pleading to the authority and isn't what I mean when I say that objectivity is something everyone believes. What I mean is that everyone CAN believe it if stripped of all subjectivity (like emotional attachments to beliefs), and given the same evidence (just the facts, ma'am). This is what the prosecution and defense do in a courtroom in trying to sway the jury to see their side of things. What does the evidence support? What is the logical conclusion given the evidence?I think that there is some philosophical over-thinking in your approach. I do not think that we would only call a fact objective if people agree about it. I can see no reason why there can't be something that is true, and yet believed false by most folk. I's not hard to think of historical examples. — Banno
It's an objective truth in the relevant sense. — S
No, because that's just what meaning, generally speaking, is. — S
While it is true that some philosophers use these meanings, I think it causes more fog than clarity. — Banno
So, if meaning is not objective, it is subjective, a question of taste or opinion. — Banno
Moreover, if meaning is a metal phenomena, then it happens in each mind, independently; and you and I can never talk about the very same thing. — Banno
That strikes me as wrong. Meaning is shared. Indeed, I think it better not to talk about meaning at all, but instead to look at what is being done with the sharing of words. Sentences (propositions, for Terrapin) are not mere mental phenomena. — Banno
I'm lost here because I am not sure what "the relation in question" is. — Banno
My suspicion is that for you truth and belief are pretty much the same, and hence, since opinion is subjective and belief is opinion, that truth is opinion and hence truth is subjective...
But I might be wrong. — Banno
If you came across a group of folk who used "cat" to only refer to what most of us call "dogs," — Banno
What's the relevant sense? — Terrapin Station
That's just another way of trying to sneak an argumentum ad populum in the back door. Argumentum ad populums are fallacious. Things that most people say or do are only relevant to the question of "What do most people say or do?" There's no other implication to it. — Terrapin Station
You don't properly understand what is and what is not an argumentum ad populum fallacy — S
Banno's sense, otherwise you're just talking past him. — S
the nominalism vs. "realism" (realism on universals/types in other words) debate. I'm a nominalist. Maybe you're a realist (on universals) . . . and that would be a worthwhile thing for us to talk about in a different thread — Terrapin Station
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.