Subjective=fallible

Very eschatological

Yawn. Objective just means reproducible under fixed conditions. Nothing more. The blather about mind and feelings and independence and perception and reality and truth and so on is just noise.

The sooner people realize objective and subjective do not form an antithetical pair, the better. — StreetlightX

But it works for me, whereas your proposal seems vague and untested. Let's test it:

When I say that the existence of Jupiter is objective, you take me to mean that the existence of Jupiter is reproducible under fixed conditions?

Nope, doesn't seem to work. That's not what I mean at all.

When I say that the existence of Jupiter is objective, you take me to mean that the existence of Jupiter is reproducible under fixed conditions?

Nope, doesn't seem to work. That's not what I mean at all. — S

Please explain. What do you mean?

And as for ‘subjective' - frankly, nobody knows what ‘subjective’ means. — StreetlightX

I do.

Right, so 'the existence of Jupiter' is not the kind of thing that can be qualified as objective - or not. You're projecting a grammar mistake onto the thing itself. It doesn't work because you've commited a category mistake.

I mean what's usually meant. It's not like we've all been living under a rock or have no access to the internet.

But you already know I'm an octopus with abnormal intelligence, I also live under a rock with no internet access, somewhere in Switzerland.

So as I see it, the usual meaning is: "frankly, nobody knows what ‘subjective’ means"

Right, so 'the existence of Jupiter' is not the kind of thing that can be qualified as objective - or not. You're projecting a grammar mistake onto the thing itself. — StreetlightX

I usually find your answers weirdly mistaken. It's like you're engaged in a futile fight against common sense. You present instead some account which you seem to think is more sophisticated, but which actually causes more problems. The main problem here seems to be that you're trying to dictate language instead of conforming to what it ordinarily means. It just won't work.

I usually find your answers weirdly mistaken. It's like you're engaged in a futile fight against common sense. You present instead some account which you seem to think is more sophisticated, but which actually causes more problems. The main problem here seems to be that you're trying to dictate language — S

This sounds like you too.

But that is how it works. Or at least, in any real life scientific context where objectivity is said of expriments and their results. It's only here, among 'philosophers', where I am 'attempting to dictate language'. But consider that you've been using language wrong, from the very beginning.

This sounds like you too. — Merkwurdichliebe

In what respect? The dictating language part, I get. But in the bigger picture, ordinary language will win without any input from me. The "sophisticated" language of philosophy doesn't pick up well outside of a tiny little group.

Where is your argument for such a claim, how and why will lame-ass ordinary language philosophy prevail? it's been around about a century now and it has settled nothing

But that is how it works. Or at least, in any real life scientific context where objectivity is said of expriments and their results. It's only here, among 'philosophers', where I am 'attempting to dictate language'. But consider that you've been using language wrong, from the very beginning. — StreetlightX

No, that's just how it works in a very narrow context. Consider that you're using language wrong in both the context around us, which is philosophy, and in general, which is ordinary language.

Where is your argument for such a claim, how and why will lame-ass ordinary language philosophy prevail? it's been around about a century now and it has settled nothing. — Merkwurdichliebe

I spoke of ordinary language, not ordinary language philosophy. And the prevalence of the former is extremely noticeable.

But in the bigger picture, ordinary language will win without any input from me. — S

That's hilarious coming from someone who declares that they eschew the thinking of the mob; which ordinary language so obviously reflects.

... addendum:

And usually the one who smelt it dealt it. And I'm not so sure about the OLP claim that philosophy has historically wandered into confusion and settled nothing due to the misuse of language, im inclined to think this claim more aptly describes OLP.

OLP=ordinary language philosophy

There it is...while we're all here philosophizing, you are just blabbing

That's hilarious coming from someone who declares that they eschew the thinking of the mob; which ordinary language obviously reflects. — Janus

And once again, you demonstrate your lack of close attention. In the context of ethics, I eschewed treating the thinking of the mob as sacrosanct, as you do, because it leads to obvious problems which you can't resolve.

Even in contexts outside of ethics, and in general, I do not treat common sense as sacrosanct. I just think that it can be a good guide.

In the context of ethics, I eschewed treating the thinking of the mob as sacrosanct, as you do, because it leads to obvious problems which you can't resolve. — S

I am opposed with you there

I am with you there. — Merkwurdichliebe

Oh. I had stopped paying attention when you began to blab.

Wriggle away, man; you're dead wrong about my following 'mob-thinking" in ethics. You simply don't have a clue what I was getting at. In fact I don't think you have a clue what you are getting at either; you just like the sound of your own voice.

Now can we get back on topic, I was digging what StreetlightX had to say.

Wriggle away, man; you're dead wrong about my following 'mob-thinking" in ethics. You simply don't have a clue what I was getting at. In fact I don't think you have a clue what you are getting at either; you just like the sound of your own voice. — Janus

That was basically your definition of morality. Although you're inconsistent with it.

Morality is herd-morality! Just don't expect me to properly deal with any thought experiment which shows the glaring fault in my pet theory!

Just don't expect me to properly deal with any thought experiment which shows the glaring fault in my pet theory — S

Your pet theory is full of holes and leaking fallacy all over the place

What's laughable is that you think I ever claimed that morality equates to "herd-morality". You should go back and read carefully what I wrote. You really should learn to do that kind of thing if you don't want to spend the rest of your life as a toxic fool.

Now can we get back on topic, I was digging what StreetlightX had to say. — Merkwurdichliebe

That makes sense, given your clearly expressed gripe with both OLP and whatever I have to say.

Go ahead then, return to, "These terms really mean something completely different", and block out any criticism of that approach.

You really should learn to do that kind of thing if you don't want to spend the rest of your life as a toxic fool. — Janus

Toxic fools are necessary, I think they provide a healthy counterbalance to edifying wisdom

Well that went downhill fast. Oh well, brush it off and move on. I can handle being called names.

Go ahead then, return to, "These terms really mean something completely different", and block out any criticism of that approach. — S

But you haven't made any relevant points yet. I'm willing consider your points if your will present them philosophically, and stop all the babbling

Nah, they're good for a laugh or two, and that's about it.

It seems strange to talk about a "healthy balance" when on one side you have unhealthy foolishness and on the other side healthy wisdom. Overall the balance would seem to be neutral.