You tell me. I wasn't watching.

I as going to try to reply to your last to me. But it begins to look like that might be the wrong approach.

My path would be that the uses given for our two key terms in the OP are fine, and that it's also OK to use those words in other ways, so long as we keep an eye on what is going on.

I thought I had shown how a few of the suggested extensions to their use led one astray, but it is apparent that some folk like were it leads.

I'm not in the mood to work through all the stuff done over the last few days. I was going to address replies specific to me.

Is there anything specific you or anyone else here now would like to address? For maybe an hour or so?

I'm not in the mood to work through all the stuff done over the last few days. I was going to address replies specific to me.

Is there anything specific you or anyone else here now would like to address? For maybe an hour or so? — Banno

Nah, you're talking to the wrong person, I think. We're too close in agreement.

My path would be that the uses given for our two key terms in the OP are fine, and that it's also OK to use those words in other ways, so long as we keep an eye on what is going on.

I thought I had shown how a few of the suggested extensions to their use led one astray, but it is apparent...  — Banno

I could do this forever. But I'm not committed to any one perspective, except for one single one, but I don't know what it is.

The point of all this shit is to keep showing more of what you mean and why it is relevant, and sometimes you need to repeat yourself in various ways in order to get your point across.

I know this forum is full of some great philosophers that I think could work through these issues and possibly discover something new, but that's a little too idealistic for me.

Perhaps, if extraordinary language can move ordinary people, ordinary language will move extraordinary philosophers

in particular, don't pretend that there are either only subjective facts, or that there are only objective facts. — Banno

Could we all agree at least on this?

I could agree, but then I'd have to go further, and say they are qualitatively opposed and categorically incompatible

...and then I would say "what the fuck does than mean..."

Roflmfao!!!!

That means: what qualifies as a subjective fact cannot qualify as an objective fact, and all concepts that fall under the category of subjective can have no direct relation to those of the objective (viz. The subjective must be adapted through mediation if it is to be communicated objectively)

Naturalism - what you see out of the window.

Phenomenology - you looking out of the window.

So, phenomenology takes into account 'the act of looking', which naturalism brackets out and then neglects to consider. — Wayfarer

This is what causes the problem - splitting natural events, like looking out the window and what you see out the window into two separate categories. Using your eyes is as natural as using language to explain what you see. I can see you looking out the window and can talk about the contents of your phenomenology by observing your behavior, just as physicists talk about atoms by observing the macro world.

Your mind is just another object that I can talk about - no different than talking about any other thing in nature. The mind is just another thing acted upon and shaped by natural selection per evolutionary psychology.

Using your eyes is as natural as using language to explain what you see.  — Harry Hindu

That is not true, language is a societal phenomenon, sight is a natural phenomenon.

Your mind is just another object that I can talk about - no different than talking about any other thing in nature.  — Harry Hindu

But talking about it and the thing in itself are two different things

in particular, don't pretend that there are either only subjective facts, or that there are only objective facts. — Banno

Subjective facts is a contradiction. Objective facts is a redundancy. There is no such thing as a subjective fact.

That is not true, language is a societal phenomenon, sight is a natural phenomenon. — Merkwurdichliebe

More anthropomorphism.

A societal phenomenon is a natural phenomenon for some particular species. Language doesn't make us separate from nature. It is just a more complex form of communication between organisms.

So you believe.

(See what I did there?)

Then it follows that technology is a natural phenomenon in which case...

More transhumanism

Then it follows that technology is a natural phenomenon in which case... — Merkwurdichliebe

Of course. If you want to separate humans from nature, you'd be practicing some religion, not science.

Other organisms create things and change their environment. We're merely talking about degrees of such.

More transhumanism — Merkwurdichliebe

I would prefer the term, "naturalism".

So you believe.

(See what I did there?) — Banno

Sure, you referred to a fact of reality - namely my beliefs. I have beliefs, you have beliefs. There, I just spoke objectively - referring to some state-of-affairs of reality.

It is beginning to occur to me that this whole debate stems from this notion that humans are special and separate from nature. Humans and their minds are just as natural and part of reality as everything else.

Look how far you have to go to explain how society is a natural phenomenon.

I can't even say that seeing is a natural phenomenon because that is essentially a tautology, and we all know how stupid tautologies are

But I think I've answered your questions, although I grant that I might not have spelled absolutely everything out. — S

But I didn't ask you to spell everything out. I asked you quite specifically about what force of necessity the distinction you've drawn has. What motivates it? Why this distinction, and not any other of the rather fanciful ones I came up with? What presuppositions are at work such that this distinction is significant? What is the drawing of this distinction meant to say - imply - about how the world is, such that it has this significance? What makes this distinction non-arbitrary? The very drawing of this distinction - and not another - has something to say. But what?

Another way this might be put: as it stands, the whole question of 'objectivity' as you've set it out is merely nominal. 'Objectivity', as you use it, simply names a particular (let's call it) state of affairs, which may or may not be the case. And what is being wrangled over is nothing but the applicability of a name ("turns out, the existence of Jupiter is (what we call) an objective fact! Wow!); But again, why this distinction and not another? It is simply arbitrary that this relation (between 'us' and Jupiter) is called 'objective'? Or is the significance of this distinction - from whence it draws the force of its necessity - being guided by a certain set of (as yet un-spelled-out) presuppositions? If you're doing any kind of philosophy worthy of the name, then of course it is. If.

Could we all agree at least on this? — Banno

I can easily agree that there are both, by my understanding of what those terms mean.

...and then I would say "what the fuck does than mean..." — Banno

I know, right. And he called me unclear.

But I didn't ask you to spell everything out. I asked you quite specifically about what force of necessity the distinction you've drawn has. What motivates it? Why this distinction, and not any other of the rather fanciful ones I came up with? What presuppositions are at work such that this distinction is significant? What is the drawing of this distinction meant to say - imply - about how the world is, such that it has this significance? What makes this distinction non-arbitrary? The very drawing of this distinction - and not another - has something to say. But what? — StreetlightX

How does pointing out that the distinction is useful in certain contexts, and explaining what it means, and explaining what it says about the world, and so on, not answering your plethora of questions? What more do you want from me? You want me to declare that it's the best thing since sliced bread?

Another way this might be put: as it stands, the whole question of 'objectivity' as you've set it out is merely nominal. 'Objectivity', as you use it, simply names a particular (let's call it) state of affairs, which may or may not be the case. And what is being wrangled over is nothing but the applicability of a name ("turns out, the existence of Jupiter is (what we call) an objective fact! Wow!); But again, why this distinction and not another? It is simply arbitrary that this relation (between 'us' and Jupiter) is called 'objective'? Or is the significance of this distinction - from whence it draws the force of its necessity - being guided by a certain set of (as yet un-spelled-out) presuppositions? If you're doing any kind of philosophy worthy of the name, then of course it is. If. — StreetlightX

I think I've addressed this by pointing out that it is useful in certain contexts. It's this distinction, rather than others, because a bunch of people came up with the philosophy of idealism, and the terms are of obvious usefulness in that context.

Non-answers, both paragraphs.

Non-answers, both paragraphs. — StreetlightX

You're just looking for peculiarly particular answer that I don't have. I answered it in my own way. If that's not satisfactory to you, then so be it. You're creating a problem that I don't accept as a real problem.

@Banno, do you grant Streetlight's "problem"? How would you respond? Do you think I'm not properly dealing with a serious problem that he is raising?

I need an outside perspective on this which I can trust. (To some extent. Don't let that go to your head, lol).

@StreetlightX I do think @S answered your question.

But I didn't ask you to spell everything out. I asked you quite specifically about what force of necessity the distinction you've drawn has. What motivates it? Why this distinction, and not any other of the rather fanciful ones I came up with? — StreetlightX

It's this distinction, rather than others, because a bunch of people came up with the philosophy of idealism — S

There is a motivation there. It's just a reactive, rather than creative one. It's taking something that's already there and using it, in order to define oneself against some clearly demarcated, monolithic tradition of Hocus Pocus.

I feel like that is a type of philosophy. It's not OLP, tho. It's whatever New Atheism is, in essence. More charitably, I guess you could call it Voltairism.

There is a motivation there. It's just a reactive, rather than creative one. It's taking something that's already there and using it, in order to define oneself against some clearly demarcated, monolithic tradition of Hocus Pocus.

I feel like that is a type of philosophy. It's not OLP, tho. It's whatever New Atheism is, in essence. More charitably, I guess you could call it Voltairism. — csalisbury

Yeah, that's not far off.

I feel like that is a type of philosophy. It's not OLP, tho. It's whatever New Atheism is, in essence. — csalisbury

You might be onto something, and it's a pathetic excuse for philosophy, but an acceptable excuse nevertheless.

Non-answers, both paragraphs. — StreetlightX

More like every paragraph he writes in response to an inquiry. Nothing but dodging the question

It is beginning to occur to me that this whole debate stems from this notion that humans are special and separate from nature. — Harry Hindu

Not my opinion.

And he called me unclear. — S

But that's what we do.