Once the model implicit in the question is on the table, one would be swimming uphill starting to respond. Once, say the subject object split is assumed, for example. The subject here, controlling the existence of things out there.
I'm not an anti-realist or solipsist, so it's not my position, but it seems like answering that question is problematic for those who are, but because it presumes realism.
I don't know what a more neutral formulation would be,since that would depend on their philosophy, its ontology. And there's certainly nothing wrong with formulating the question from your perspective. But it's also a Trojan Horse. — Coben
Why would the existence of something like a rock hinge on anything about us? — Terrapin Station
ultimately it is environmental feedback, experience and reason that determines an individual's concept of truth — sime
The sentence "The sky is orange" is objective. It is objective because it is truth-evaluable. It happens to be false, but so be it. — Kornelius
Why wouldn't it? — leo
Why would the existence of something like a rock hinge on anything about us? — Terrapin Station
It wouldn't; the perception of the rock, though, does - as you note elsewhere. As to perception, though, that's mental, yes? And if mental, then you have to allow for some access to the objectivity of the rock, by some criteria, in order to even have the idea that it's a rock, so far yes? That is, some aspect of the rock that is in your mind/brain produced perception, must in some way or sense - not sayin' how - be from the rock itself, somehow. If not, then no objectivity - it's all in and of your mind - by your own definition. Do you find anything to disagree with here? — tim wood
Why are you avoiding answering the question I asked in the other thread? — Terrapin Station
"The way that you can take a cookie, despite taking being a function of your arm/hand is
— Terrapin Station
"The way." I shall take that to mean how. Pace, neurobiologists: my brain, processing a lot of perceptions and internal states, orders my muscles to move in certain ways the result of which language easily describes as taking, yes? — tim wood
An Objective statement is one that correctly describes some aspect of Objective Reality, i.e. that which actually is. A statement correctly identified as Objective cannot be challenged or doubted because there is no possibility of it being wrong. And that is the "more" you asked for. :smile:
The silliness comes in when we remember that Objective statements cannot be correctly made by humans, except to say that Objective Reality exists. — Pattern-chaser
Because we're no longer infants. Our brains have developed past a stage where we believe that we're the entirety of the world, so that if we cover ourselves in a blanket, we've effectively disappeared, where we believe that the world is centered on us, and where we are not capable of understanding different from ourselves. — Terrapin Station
we realize that we are not passive observers of a world that doesn't depend on us, — leo
Well, since I think that idealism is pretty stupid--I'm not joking when I say that I think it amounts to adults being stuck in a preoperational (a la Piaget) development phase, — Terrapin Station
your denial of objectivity — tim wood
You do realize that this puts you in the camp of people who can't read, right? — Terrapin Station
ou have not in other threads denied objectivity? — tim wood
From where are you getting the notion of someone positing "passive observers of a world that doesn't (in any way) depend on us"? — Terrapin Station
What we call the material world can also be interpreted as a shared imagination — leo
And the reason that you'd pick that option is? — Terrapin Station
Our concept of a material world stems from experiences we have in common. If you are willing to believe that your subjective experiences depend on you (in the sense they stop when you die), what prevents you from believing that your shared experiences depend on you and those you share them with? — leo
That's the thing, is it true that "The sky is orange" is false? What if I'm watching a sunset and I see the sky orange? What if someone perceives differently and see the sky orange when others see it blue? What if someone doesn't perceive a sky (in which case the sentence wouldn't be truth-evaluable for that person)? How could we say that "The sky is orange" is false for everyone? How could we find anything that is necessarily false (or true) for everyone?
My point is we can't find anything that is true for everyone. And that even the sentence "we can't find anything that is true for everyone" wouldn't be true for everyone. And so on in an infinite regress — leo
Wait, is that telling me why you'd pick one option over other options? — Terrapin Station
I find that option no less plausible than believing the experiences we have in common stem from a world that exists independently of us. I am sure that I have experiences, I am confident that others have some experiences in common with me, I am less certain that these experiences stem from a world independent of us (as in a world that doesn't depend on minds). — leo
So in what sense can "rocks" be said to exist, if none of the things that make a thing a "rock" exist? — Echarmion
I am asking in what way distinct objects with their specific properties exist outside of human cognition. — Echarmion
Do you then agree with the idea that truth is individual-dependent and not something that has independent existence? — leo
I can enumerate for you an infinite number of objectively true propositions. I will start with one:
This is objectively true. It is objective because I can easily create a truth-table to show its relevant truth-conditions for any truth-value assignments for and . It is true because this sentence is true on any possible truth-value assignments. That is, it is a logical truth.
Now let be an enumeration of infinitely many propositions with different contents. It is easy to see that:
Is a logical truth and, so, both objective and true. Further,
is also objective and true for the same reasons. — Kornelius
I can equally generate many empirical sentences that are both objective and true. For example, "More than two lions exist in Africa at this moment", where we can qualify "this moment" with the precise time of my writing. There are so many propositions of this sort. — Kornelius
Yes, as far as truth is concerned, perspectivism is unavoidable. But that isn't to say that I necessarily believe in the possibility of first-person centered epistemology. A far as epistemology is concerned, the 'third-person' subject seems unavoidable, in so far as knowledge is communicable representation. — sime
I think the third-person perspective gives rise to a lot of confusion though, because it gives the impression that what we say applies to everyone and everything, instead of simply to the people who share a given truth. And then people fight each other to prove that their truth is right and others are wrong, to make their truth prevail. If we stopped having that third-person perspective, I think there are a lot of things we could solve, a lot of problems that would disappear. We would listen more, and impose less. — leo
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.