So, to use what you mention just above, a tree is an example.

Don't be obtuse. Take seeing. You don't see the tree, instead light is incident on your eyes, and then other things happen, resulting in what you and most folks call perception. All of which the tree has nothing to do with. You don't see the tree. Now you make clear exactly how that, that has nothing to do with the tree and that occurs only in your brain can be objective when you define it as subjective.

Take seeing. You don't see the tree, instead light is incident on your eyes, and then other things happen, resulting in what you and most folks call perception. All of which the tree has nothing to do with. You don't see the tree. — tim wood

You're the one being obtuse. I told you that I do not agree with "you don't see the tree." I said that I believe that claim is ridiculous.

I asked you why you believe that, why you buy representationalism, and you didn't answer. So what's the answer as to why you believe it?

I told you that I do not agree with "you don't see the tree." I said that I believe that claim is ridiculous. — Terrapin Station

Apparently your criteria are what you believe, what you agree with, and what on the other hand you think is ridiculous. Must be nice not to have to deal with any substantive issues. You merely consult your criteria and there you are! Well, by that standard, I believe you're an avocado, I agree with that belief, and it's preposterous to think otherwise (than how I think). Therefore, you're an avocado. QED. (Reasoning courtesy of Terrapin.)

But none of this is the issue of the most recent posts, which issue you seem to wish to avoid. You can review it above easily.

C'mon, man. Don't do that stereotypical Internet crap. Let's have a serious discussion. What's the reason that you believe representationalism? This is the third time I'm asking you and you just ignore it every time.

Representationism - whatever that is - is a red herring here. You have given a clear definition of subjective/objective. What you apparently won't turn your eye to is that by your definition, everything is subjective.

"Oh, no!" you say, "I really see the tree!" But you won't say how. Now, do reasonable people suppose that that the tree they see is a reasonable approximation of the tree. Of course they do, no problem. The problem, here, is reconciling your definition of subjective/objective with your account of "objectively" perceiving the tree.

And this makes a difference because here in this thread and across other threads you have consistently maintained that value judgments, among other things, are purely subjective. You get points for consistency. But of course this overlooks the objective components and significance of those components. If you can "not see" them, then you can argue from ignorance, which is to say that you can argue anything.

But just here and now, you're being called out. How do you see a tree? Answer!

Btw, my argument that you're an avocado is exactly as valid as your argument and constructed to be so - that's the point. You can have pure subjectivity; I think it's called idealism c. 1700. But in that case you cannot have objectivity. And this is just some really basic philosophy, which being wrong about has lead you into being wrong on ethical questions. So it matters.

Representationism - whatever that is - is a red herring here. — tim wood

There are different stances in philosophy of perception. The view you're endorsing is one of them. It's known as "representationalism." As you say, "whatever you take to be the tree is just your mental representation." That's representationalism in a nutshell. You believe that what we're actually perceiving, what we're actually aware of, is something mental, where we have no idea how that mental representation actually links up with things external to us (assuming there is anything external to us--under representationalism, there's actually no way to know), because under representationalism, we have no access to things external to us--at least not aside from some possibly "mystery access."

You're treating representationalism as if it's some obvious, common sense default position. It's not. It needs to be justified. So that's what I'm asking for--your justification for believing that "We don't actually see the tree/we're not actually aware of the tree. We're instead only aware of a mental image or 'representation' of the tree."

There must be a reason that you believe that to be the case, no?

When it comes to philosophy of perception, I'm not a representationalist. I believe that representationalism is unsupportable, and any attempts to support it rather wind up undermining it. I'm what's known as a direct or "naive" realist instead.

Read some Kant. And now read this, because I'm going to say for the third or fourth time what I've said already, and which you are apparently so far unable to read or understand.

You have proffered an understanding that is inconsistent. That is, big words, does not make sense. You say that everything mental is subjective, all else objective. I have no problem with there being an object - a tree. But you have defined the tree - which you must perceive in order to say anything at all about it - as objective, while at the same time everything you know or can know is through perception - mental. That is, by your definition, subjective. If it is objective, how, by what means, do you know anything at all about it? If what you know is subjective, then how do you know anything about the tree?

That is your problem; you're back in the early 18th century; and it's fatal to your definition. And in-as-much as your definition underpins a lot of what you post, that means a lot of your ideas are similarly infected.

Now stop evading, distracting, deflecting, avoiding; try for a change thinking and answering.

@Terrapin Station @tim wood

I'm trying to follow this discussion. I thought I understood what was going on, but maybe not. Tim - can you clarify this:

@Terrapin Station Don't be obtuse. Take seeing. You don't see the tree, instead light is incident on your eyes, and then other things happen, resulting in what you and most folks call perception. All of which the tree has nothing to do with. You don't see the tree. — tim wood

When you said this, were you stating your position - OR - were you giving an illustration of what you perceive to be Terrapin's position (presumably in an attempt to demonstrate that his ideas are incorrect)?

BTW - and this goes out to both of you - I would not object if the level of invective came down a few notches . . . . :smile:

Terrapin has put forward a definition. He's been very clear and unambiguous about it. Here it is:
"I use "subjective" to refer to mental phenomena (which again, in my view is a brain functioning in mental ways).
"Objective" is the complement of that ("complement" in the set theory sense). So everything that's not in the set of mental phenomena (that is, in the set of brains functioning in mental ways)."
— Terrapin Station

And this:

Facts are states of affairs. Ways that things are. Remember that the subjective/objective distinction refers to mental phenomena versus non-mental phenomena. So an objective fact is a state of affairs that is NOT mental phenomena. A subjective fact would be a state of affairs that is mental phenomena. — Terrapin Station

So the question: what is the tree, according to Terrapin's definition? Keep in mind it's being asked through the filter of his definition. If it's subjective, then it's not the tree. If it's objective, then it's not a mental phenomena. Do you see a problem with this?

It's a little sharper than just trees. Terrapin has said in this thread categorically that there is nothing wrong with taking illegal drugs.

And this nonsense:

Vitamin A, and other vitamins have an effect on your body. It's up to each individual whether they value that effect or not. There's no objective fact that the effect it has is more valuable than the effects of not having vitamins, or that you should value the effects or anything like that. — Terrapin Station

And that all moral judgment are all subjective.

The ground of all of this appears to be his understanding of subjective/objective, and it's untenable. And this is more than a twice-told tale. It famously exercised Hume and Berkeley, and Kant even more famously resolved it. But Terrapin is apparently innocent of any knowledge of these things. But that's mere ignorance, and we're all ignorant. But he's also been told, so that it really isn't ignorance. What do you call that?

Why is this discussion still going? Is there a genuine problem here if there's a broad consensus? Doesn't it then become their problem? Those in the small minority. And if they can't get to grips with their problem after 34 pages, then what's the likelihood of a resolution? Seems like a waste of time.

Wait, are you even talking about the morality of taking illegal drugs? No, nothing on this page about that.

So which Kant argument do you take to support your representationalism?

Think about and answer these for a moment:

When you taste something, is it your taste that you're tasting?
When you take something, are you taking your taking?
When you give someone something, are you giving them your giving?
If you mash some potatoes, are you mashing your mashing?

The ground of all of this appears to be his understanding of subjective/objective, and it's untenable. And this is more than a twice-told tale. It famously exercised Hume and Berkeley, and Kant even more famously resolved it. But Terrapin is apparently innocent of any knowledge of these things. But that's mere ignorance, and we're all ignorant. But he's also been told, so that it really isn't ignorance. What do you call that? — tim wood

You're basically assuming that if someone is familiar with Kant, then they need to agree with Kant, rather than thinking that Kant was very confused and a crappy writer to boot. (And in both, he deserves a lot of blame for the huge mound of guano that is continentalism.)

Keep in mind it's being asked through the filter of his definition. If it's subjective, then it's not the tree. — tim wood

Why in the world would I think that a tree is subjective/mental?

Why in the world would I think that a perception of a tree, or knowledge of a tree is identical to the tree? What would the words "perception of" or "knowledge of" even be doing there if we believed them to be identical? We'd just say "the tree" in all cases because there would be no difference; just like if you thought that taking or tasting a cookie was identical to a cookie--there would be no need to say "taking/tasting a cookie." Simply saying "a cookie" would already tell you this (at least as long as it is known that the two are identical, supposing they are).

(And if you can't believe that this is material we'd have to cover outside of a short-bus kindergarten class, join the club.))

That your perception of the tree isn't identical to the tree doesn't imply that "Your perception is not of the tree but rather of your own mind," by the way. Just like that your taking a cookie isn't identical to the cookie doesn't imply that you're rather taking your taking (or your hand, or whatever we'd want to say), and not the cookie at all.

"When you take a cookie you're really just taking your hand, because your hand is the only way to take the cookie." <---This should be a pretty obviously stupid argument. And so should "When you perceive a tree you're really just perceiving your mind, because your mind is the only way you perceive the tree."

On page 1 of this thread I contributed this:

I do not think the lie is defensible. On the other hand, on its face it's immoral to break the law - of course this is problematic. The real question is what is right for you to do, and runs your "license" up against your duty. Do you know what your duty is, and how did you figure it out? — tim wood

You were #15 on page 1, viz:

No, it's not immoral in and of itself. And it's not immoral, even at first blush, just because it would be breaking the law - Tim is simply wrong about that. I am not duty bound to adhere to any law unless it is justified. The lie is much worse on this comparison. — S

Why am I wrong? I guess because I just am, end of argument. 34 pages later and you're still making useless, pointless, substance-less posts. Maybe try looking at Terrapin's definition, listed on this page. See if you can figure out what's wrong with it and why it matters. Until then....

Yours a clear exhibition of not having a clue about the simplest parts of Kant's ideas.

I wish you'd give a more substantive reply . . . but in any event, to repeat:

"You're basically assuming that if someone is familiar with Kant, then they need to agree with Kant, rather than thinking that Kant was very confused and a crappy writer to boot. (And in both, he deserves a lot of blame for the huge mound of guano that is continentalism.) "

You're basically assuming that if someone is familiar with Kant, then they need to agree with Kant, rather than thinking that Kant was very confused and a crappy writer to boot. (And in both, he deserves a lot of blame for the huge mound of guano that is continentalism.) — Terrapin Station

Of course. Kant, of whose ideas you apparently have not an inkling, is of course "very confused and a crappy writer to boot." And of course his ideas are, or are to blame for, a pile-of-shit thinking. Thank you, Terrapin, for pointing all that out.

That your perception of the tree isn't identical to the tree doesn't imply that "Your perception is not of the tree but rather of your own mind," by the way. — Terrapin Station

Yes. But now reconcile that with your definition of subjective/objective.

How about a more substantive reply? Maybe offering reasons that you believe representationalism? Maybe addressing my attempts to straighten out the confusions you have over my views?

Yes. But now reconcile that with your definition of subjective/objective. — tim wood

On my view you're not perceiving your own mind. I explained this above. That's just like you're not taking your own hand when you take a cookie.

Your mind is perceiving. It's not perceiving itself. Your hand is taking. It's not taking itself.

Maybe you could try to support why you think you're perceiving your own mind/taking your own hand?

ow about a more substantive reply? Maybe offering reasons that you believe representationalism? Maybe addressing my attempts to straighten out the confusions you have over my views? — Terrapin Station

That you think I am something you call a "representationalist" while I am referencing Kant simply demonstrates willful ignorance. Idealist and realist views were in an irreconcilable standoff in the early 18th century. Kant resolved the standoff through a synthesis of both views.

We may reasonably suppose that he distinguished what we know from how we know it. As a world-class scientist, he knew perfectly well what he knew. As a metaphysician - someone who thinks about thinking - he recognized that he did not really know how he knew it. That is, knowledge had no firm ground. The term he used is Wissenschaft, then and now the common word for science. He meant that science was not well-grounded.

His solution was that, in terms of our tree, that we have perceptions of, we perceive, the tree. The trouble is that perception itself is in-itself nothing. It requires reason to put the perception into the order that, for example, we all non-critically from time immemorial have called seeing.

Two disparate things, then, put together. Object and mind/reason - not "or," but and. Because the objects of knowledge are a synthesis of perception of the object and mind/reason, you don't get to the object as ground. On the other hand, as practical knowledge, the "what" of what is known, no such problem. And just here the so-called problem of the noumenon, the thing-in-itself, the ding-an-sich, evaporates away.

Your many claims that so many things are subjective runs right over, without noticing or even being aware of, the putting together of mind/reason and perception. You rule out mind/reason.

I write mind/reason because Kant argued that reason would be, should be, within, even define, the capacity of any reasonable being, not necessarily a human being, or even a Prussian c. 1770.

Why in the world would I think that a perception of a tree, or knowledge of a tree is identical to the tree? — Terrapin Station

Because in your definition, everything is subjective or object(ive) (it's - they're - both). You hold the tree is objective, which is irreconcilable with your definition, because in its objectiveness, you rule out mind.

That you think I am something you call a "representationalist" while I am referencing Kant simply demonstrates willful ignorance. — tim wood

Again, the view you described is representationalism. Maybe there are some differences between your views and representationalism, but you haven't detailed those views yet.

The trouble is that perception itself is in-itself nothing. — tim wood

I don't recall what the argument is for that. It sounds nonsensical on the face of it. So what is the argument for it?

If it's just saying that there is no "intransitive perception," I agree with that, but why would we say that there's any trouble with it? Perception needs to be of something, like a(n objective) tree.

The same goes for taking. There's no "intransitive taking." You need to take something, like a cookie.

It requires reason to put the perception into the order that, — tim wood

Again, this just sounds nonsensical on the face of it. "Put the perception 'into the order'"??? What was Kant's argument for that again?

Because the objects of knowledge are a synthesis of perception of the object and mind/reason, — tim wood

"Synthesis of perception of the object and mind" is just gobbledygook. Perception is a mental activity. "Perception of the object" is not something different than a mental event. Saying that it necessarily involves reason doesn't follow (again, what's the argument for this?), but that doesn't really matter, anyway.

you don't get to the object as ground. — tim wood

As "ground"? Why think of anything as "ground"?

You rule out mind/reason. — tim wood

That bears no resemblance to anything I say. Shouldn't you be able to paraphrase my views in a way that I'd agree with prior to criticizing them?

reason would be, should be, within, even define, the capacity of any reasonable being, — tim wood

That's not really saying anything aside from "reasonable beings are reasonable." Well, duh.

Because in your definition, everything is subjective or object(ive) (it's - they're - both). — tim wood

What definition of mine says that everything is subjective or objective?

You hold the tree is objective, which is irreconcilable with your definition — tim wood

Irreconcilable with which definition?

, because in its objectiveness, you rule out mind.

Which makes it irreconcilable with which definition?

The above is why I don't like for us to do long posts, by the way. Now we've got nine or ten different issues to discuss. If you respond even longer to all of the points above, then we'll have probably nine or ten additional issues to discuss, so then we'll have 20 or so. Eventually we'd get up to hundreds of things that we never address in any depth, never solve in any manner. That seems like a waste of time. Why don't we just pick one small thing at a time, focus on it, try to solve or at least come to some understanding about it with respect to each others' different views, and then move on to the next focused thing?

Good god, the TREE is objective, the idea, image or memory of the tree is subjective.
You are an imbecile, belligerently ignorant, aggressively arrogant...you aren’t really reading what anyone is telling you and are clueless as to how foolish and stupid you sound when you run around in these pedantic, semantic and wholly dishonest circles. You have not argued in good faith here in the slightest and you should be embarrassed. You constantly side-track, ignore and accuse your opponents of doing the things that you yourself are doing. What an absolute disgrace to a forum like this, I find you to be just as offensive as some of the trolling or bigoted/racist shit that the mods delete or ban.
It is foolish to engage with Tim Wood everyone. Just say no to the troll. (That rhymes if you say it right).

I don't mind to take him as sincere, but it does seem like pulling teeth to try to get to any focused discussion about anything.

I know this won't help, but I'm kind of getting an impression of him as a Kant fanboy in the vein of people who are hardcore religious apologists or Randroid Objectivists (or we could just say cult members in general), where anything that leads them off script is something that they basically can't parse. They try to veer things back on script, where they can wax poetic within comfortable boundaries.

Good god, the TREE is objective, the idea, image or memory of the tree is subjective. — DingoJones

You get it, though you don't yet understand it. No one questions that there is tree, I suppose you think you see the tree, here sticking with sight and the tree as examples. Tell me, how does that work? You're over here, the tree is over there. What is it, exactly, that you see?

And you're not taking me on, that wouldn't be worth your or my time. It's Kant you're taking on, who is right up there with Plato, Aristotle, Newton. And Kant's ideas are still mostly current. His are not just quaint theory dredged up from the dustbin of history. They are instead current business for those who care. A warning though, there are lots of people who have not, cannot, will not read any Kant, but are quite sure they know all of his mistakes and can criticize his thinking. They should sooner box with Mike Tyson. And we're just in the simple stuff.

So the question to you, because you seem to think you know the answer, is how, exactly, you see the tree, and what, exactly, you see.

And the background for the asking of this question is Terrapin's definition of subjective and objective. If he can deny the objective parts of ethics, then all ethics are subjective - per his definition. But his definition doesn't hold because it has fatal problems.

Perception is a mental activity. "Perception of the object" is not something different than a mental event. — Terrapin Station

Yep, by your definition, and by your definition, subjective. But what do you perceive? The tree? If that's what you perceive, that's subjective. On the other hand, if the tree is an object - objective, again by your definition - then how do you perceive it?

You don't perceive perceiving. You don't take taking. You don't throw throwing.

You don't perceive your mind. You dont take or throw your hand/arm.

Your mind is what performs the action of perceiving. Your hand/arm is what performs the actions of taking or throwing.

Perceiving, taking and throwing are examples of transitive verbs. They're something you do, something you perform, with respect to particular objects.

You're conflating perception and what the perception is of.

It would be just like conflating taking and what we're taking. Conflating your hand and a cookie. You wouldn't do that, would you? So why are you getting so easily confused when it comes to perception?