so how do you discriminate between an opinion and a preference? — Kaarlo Tuomi

A preference is a kind of opinion, which is about yourself. "I prefer chocolate" is a statement about yourself. "Bob prefers strawberry" doesn't contradict that, because it's about Bob, not me. Someone could contradict a statement of my preferences: "no, you prefer vanilla". At least one of those statements about my preferences is wrong. Since I know a lot more about what's going on in my own head than anyone else, it's probably not mine.

It's like "I hear a ringing sound". But then Alice says "I don't." Those aren't contradictory. "There is a bell ringing nearby" and "no there isn't" are contradictory, and at least one of those is wrong. But statements about our own perceptions, sensations, desires (i.e. preferences), appetites, etc, don't contradict just because one person has one and someone else has a different one.

if I understand you correctly, you are just using "preference" to mean the answer to a question that does not have an objectively true answer. — Kaarlo Tuomi

No, because it's still objectively true that I prefer this and you prefer that, but those two objective truths are not contradictory. It's only contradictory to claim both that this is better than that, and that that is better than this, in the same way, in the same contexts, etc. Because that's a claim that's not about someone, it's a claim about the world, and there's only the one world*, while there are many someones, who may differ from each other without contradiction.

(*Leaving aside modal realism, which is a big can of worms it would be counterproductive to open right now).

that would seem to require that you first consider whether or not the question has an objectively true answer. those questions that have objectively true answers go in one box where your philosophy deals with them, and answers that do not have objectively true answers go in the discard pile. correct me if I'm wrong. — Kaarlo Tuomi

My principle of objectivism is that every question has an objectively true answer. No questions ever go in the discard pile. That's the whole point of it. (Since most people easily and casually accept objectivism about reality, the main function of this in practice is to say "don't discard questions about morality").

however, what happens if I disagree with you on that single point, that the question has an objectively true answer. is my answer an opinion or a preference? — Kaarlo Tuomi

Preferences are a kind of opinion, so it's an opinion either way, but it's not just a preference, unless you're just saying "I like it when questions don't have objectively true answers", or "I wish some questions didn't have objectively true answers". That would be a preference... for something that I think can't possibly be. Me thinking that is an opinion, one about the world, not about myself. You thinking otherwise is a contrary opinion about the world, not yourself. The world has to be at most one of those ways, it can't be both, so at least one of us is wrong. Of course I think it's not me, and you think it's not you; otherwise we'd change our opinions.

suppose, for example, I do not believe there is such a thing as objective reality. in that case EVERYTHING would be conditional and subjective. in this case it would not be objectively true that Paris is the capital of France because it isn't even objectively true that France exists. — Kaarlo Tuomi

If your belief that there is no such thing as objective reality was true, then it wouldn't be objectively true that Paris is the capital of France, sure. But I think that that antecedent belief is false, and so the consequent is not entailed.

this claims that there is ALWAYS a right answer. and that cannot be true if some answers are only preferences. — Kaarlo Tuomi

See above.

No, because it's still objectively true that I prefer this and you prefer that... — Pfhorrest

I'm afraid this directly contradicts what you said earlier.

Preferences, being explicitly subjective... — Pfhorrest

which means that you consider your subjective preference to be objectively true.

please forgive me if I find that a little hard to digest.


Kaarlo Tuomi

Preferences are subjective inasmuch as they are states of subjects.

It is objectively true (or false) that a given subject is in a given such state.

A different subject being in a different such state doesn't contradict that. They can both be objectively true.

But the same subject being in a different state, in the same way in the same context, as themselves, is contradictory, so at least one of those claims must be wrong.

Preferences are subjective inasmuch as they are states of subjects. — Pfhorrest

it seems to me that if subjective really is "the state of a subject," then "Paris is the capital of France" is the state of a subject and therefore subjective. but you also said that "Paris is the capital of France" is objectively true. which suggests to me that there is no discernible distinction between subjective and objective.

so if subjective is simply the state of a subject, what does objective mean?




Kaarlo Tuomi

That Paris is the capital of France, and that chocolate is my favorite flavor of ice cream, are both states of France and of me, respectively, and are both objectively true. Paris being the capital of France isn't something that France thinks or feels though, because France isn't the kind of thing that can think or feel. Since France isn't a subject in the sense of something that has thoughts or feelings, there can't be thoughts or feelings that are subjective to it.

I suppose we could consider the social fact of capital-dom to be a state of opinion of the people of France, who we might call "France" collectively, in which case Paris being the capital of France is a subjective preference of "France" as in the French, just like chocolate being my favorite flavor of ice cream is a preference of mine. It's still objectively true that the French consider Paris their capital and that I consider chocolate my favorite flavor of ice cream, but those objective truths are about subjective states: about what the French or I, respectively, think or feel.

Someone else thinking or feeling differently doesn't contradict that, but our thoughts or feelings being different than our own thoughts and feelings does, so one or the other claim about that must be wrong. I can prefer one flavor of ice cream that's different from what another person prefers, and France can have a different capital than England, but my favorite flavor of ice cream can't simultaneously be two contradictory things, and France can't simultaneously have two contradictory capitals; at least, not unless we mean in different contexts (e.g. at different times) or in different ways (one is the religious capital, one is the military capital, etc).

That Paris is the capital of France, and that chocolate is my favorite flavor of ice cream, are both states of France and of me, respectively, and are both objectively true. — Pfhorrest

if you genuinely believe this and are not just jesting with me, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to bow out of this conversation because I am not clever enough, wise enough or sufficiently well-read or intellectually gymnastic to accommodate the idea that a subjective statement can be objectively true.

it is literally impossible for me to imagine what such a statement might mean. to the extent that I struggle to understand how a person capable of saying such a thing could have gone to a university and got a degree in any topic at all. that this is your core topic, that you have a degree in this subject is just utterly mind-expanding.

in the world I inhabit, my favourite flavour of ice cream is strawberry, and that is my subjective opinion, and it can only ever be subjectively true. it is neither right nor wrong, neither true nor false, it is just my opinion. you could, if you really want to stretch things, say that it is objectively true that I said it, because my words are objectively there for anyone to read. but the statement that my favourite flavour of ice cream is strawberry can only ever be subjectively true.


Kaarlo Tuomi

f you genuinely believe this and are not just jesting with me, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to bow out of this conversation because I am not clever enough, wise enough or sufficiently well-read or intellectually gymnastic to accommodate the idea that a subjective statement can be objectively true. — Kaarlo Tuomi

:up:

I agree with you. I encountered a similar remark in another thread.

At least some objects are also subjects, and it is the being-of-that-kind-of-thing-in-the-first-person that makes up their subjectivity. — Pfhorrest

Which overlooks the fact that 'being a subject' is only ever known in the first person. In other words, there is no object that corresponds with the first person.

It is persons are subjects of experience that they are designated 'beings'. And I maintain, beings are not 'objects' except for a metaphorical sense ('she became an object of obsession to him'.)

But designating 'beings' as 'conscious objects' is a disservice to both language and philosophy.

I suppose one would have to concede that 'your preference for icecream' is an objective fact about you, but only when it is considered as a fact about you, which means, it again is a third-person matter, and not a matter of personal preference.

I don't know Bill so all I can do is guess, but for me it's easy to find questions I would myself deem unanswerable. Subjects like ethics and politics are full of them. I don't have to deeply investigate the trolley problem to find that it's unanswerable, nor do I have to study politics to understand that most political dilemmas have no correct answer. Are we living in a simulation? Unanswerable.

However, above I make no distinction between questions that are unanswerable and questions that don't have a correct answer.

In other words, there is no object that corresponds with the first person. — Wayfarer

I don't think I could have put quite as well as you did but I do both agree and thank you. it is reassuring to know that I was not just being obtuse.

as far as I know, object has a number of different definitions according to the arena of thought (trying to avoid using the word subject) in which the discussion takes place. in philosophy it generally means: a thing external to the thinking mind, which equates to third person view, whereas the thinking mind itself, first person view, is the subject. and for anyone not overly familiar with the rule, it goes: I am first person, you are second person, and everyone else is third person.


Kaarlo Tuomi

It’s the “no unquestionable answers” part that is meant to convey a kind of skepticism. The “no unanswerable questions” part is there to guard against skepticism going too far into nihilism. — Pfhorrest

Ok, I agree, but the fact that he rejects answering unanswerable questions raises another question for me. How does he define whether a question is unanswerable? By searching his brain, and if the answer is "I don't know", the question is unanswerable?

It’s saying to not give up just because you haven’t answered a question yet. Assume there is some answer that you just haven’t found yet. And consequently give any possible answer a chance. But then (because no unquestionable answers either) test each of those possibilities and reject the ones that fail, and consequently discard any supposed possibilities that could not in principle ever be tested as meaningless, not even saying anything. — Pfhorrest

I'm not sure that I really understand what you mean here. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I take it that you're trying to say that Bill thinks we should try our best to answer all questions and never take "I don't know" as an answer?

my favourite flavour of ice cream is strawberry, and that is my subjective opinion, and it can only ever be subjectively true. it is neither right nor wrong, — Kaarlo Tuomi

If I told you that your favorite flavor of ice cream was pistachio, would I not be wrong?

Ok, I agree, but the fact that he rejects answering unanswerable questions raises another question for me. How does he define whether a question is unanswerable? — Have some tea

It’s not that I reject answering certain kinds of questions I deem “unanswerable”, it that I reject ever deeming a question “unanswerable”. It’s a principle to never give up in principle, even though in practice you will of course sometime have to take a break. Taking a break is just saying “I don’t know yet”, but giving up is saying “it can’t be known”.

Ahhhhh, ok, now I get it. Thanks for the explanation! I have to say this is a very positive and optimistic view :up:

It is persons are subjects of experience that they are designated 'beings'. And I maintain, beings are not 'objects' except for a metaphorical sense ('she became an object of obsession to him'.)

But designating 'beings' as 'conscious objects' is a disservice to both language and philosophy. — Wayfarer

Not to digress, but that's a great point that almost deserves another thread. Consider that Beings are in fact material aesthetic objects (Classic Greek Eros/objects of desire). I don't think that appreciating Eros is necessarily a 'disservice' in the original classic sense (not in the Platonic sense).

As it relates to English, it is not all that straight forward either. In English, the subject is usually before the verb. That implies subordination to the object, which in turn supports your notion that being the subject is only known in the first person. However, saying "John seemed tired." (the subject is 'John') and "I love Chocolate" ( the subject is "I" ), still subordinates the objects from the first person who perceives the actual object itself (in the first place).

That begs other questions like what does it mean to be a Being (?) and what is the nature of same. And as it relates to the primacy of subjective truth in this thread, is it Kierkegaard and Berkley who are ruling the day here LOL.

We are trapped in a subjective-objective reality.

If I told you that your favorite flavor of ice cream was pistachio, would I not be wrong? — Pfhorrest

if I told you that my favourite flavour of ice cream was strawberry, would you have any means by which you could determine, independently of me, whether or not the statement is true?

the answer is no, you could not.

you have no way of knowing whether I have ever eaten ice cream, or whether I am in fact a being that is able to eat ice cream. the list of things you know, with any certainty, is extremely short. it consists of the single subjective statement by me that my favourite flavour of ice cream is strawberry. this statement is neither true nor false, it just is. but that's all you have.

therefore, the only option available to you is to believe what I said. or not.

when you respond that my favourite flavour is actually pistachio, even if you are trying to deliberately contradict what I said, even you have no way of knowing whether what you said is true. you do not know the truth value of your own statement. you are operating in an information void. therefore, your statement that my favourite flavour is pistachio is neither right nor wrong. it just is.


Kaarlo Tuomi

Thanks! I do actually associate that “no unanswerable questions” position with a certain sense of “optimism”, and the “no unquestionable answers” with a certain sense of “pessimism”. Optimism in that something or another is right and it’s possible to figure out what it is; pessimism in that something or another is wrong and we can never be sure that our opinion isn’t it. But that kind of optimism is also anti- a different kind of pessimism, the kind that would say it’s just not possible to ever be right, because nothing is. And my kind of pessimism is anti- a different kind of optimism, the kind that would say that our opinions are definitely the right ones and there’s no chance they’re wrong.

if I told you that my favourite flavour of ice cream was strawberry, would you have any means by which you could determine, independently of me, whether or not the statement is true? — Kaarlo Tuomi

No, but you do. And if I tell you otherwise, you know whether I’m wrong or not.

There being a correct answer is not the same thing as anyone knowing what it is.

You can hide an object in a closed box and ask me to guess what’s in it, and even though I have no way of knowing, my guess is either right or wrong because there’s something or another in that box (unless it’s actually empty, in which case all guesses are wrong—but still objectively wrong).

No, but you do. — Pfhorrest

well, actually, I don't. and the reason is to be found in an earlier post in this thread but you dismissed it in a very superficial way so I'm not sure you even really took it in or thought about it.

suppose, for example, I do not believe there is such a thing as objective reality. in that case EVERYTHING would be conditional and subjective. — Kaarlo Tuomi

which you dismissed with this...

But I think that that antecedent belief is false, and so the consequent is not entailed. — Pfhorrest

since we are no longer discussing your philosophy, but mine, I think I should declare that I don't actually have a favourite flavour of ice cream. I don't understand what folk mean when they say, "my favourite [insert appropriate noun]." the expression is essentially gibberish to me, and when I say those words it is as though I were reading a story written in a foreign language, I suspect my audience might understand but I do not personally have a clue what it means.

having got that out of the way, since I do not believe in an objective reality, everything really is conditional on some prior assumption or other, and usually on a whole pile of them that, for the most part, folk don't even realise they are making. and before you are tempted to dismiss this as glibly as you did last time I will just point out that you cannot even prove something as basic and fundamental as your own date of birth so ideas of "objectivity" are tenuous at best.


Kaarlo Tuomi

I don't actually have a favourite flavour of ice cream. I don't understand what folk mean when they say, "my favourite [insert appropriate noun]." the expression is essentially gibberish to me, and when I say those words it is as though I were reading a story written in a foreign language, I suspect my audience might understand but I do not personally have a clue what it means. — Kaarlo Tuomi

In that case, every statement that something is your favorite flavor of ice cream is objectively false. Like every guess about the contents of an empty box (besides “it’s empty”) is objectively false. If I say your favorite flavor of ice cream is pistachio, and you know you have no favorite flavor of ice cream, then you know my claim is false. And the answer to the question of what is your favorite flavor of ice cream is “you have no favorite flavor of ice cream”, and if indeed you don’t, as you say, then that answer is objectively true, even if I don’t know whether it’s objectively true or not. (You might be lying to me and I can’t read your mind).

everything really is conditional on some prior assumption or other, and usually on a whole pile of them that, for the most part, folk don't even realise they are making. — Kaarlo Tuomi

This is an epistemic claim, about what is known, not an ontological claim, about what is real. It’s important to distinguish them from each other. I never claimed that anything is ever known with complete certainty—quite the opposite actually.

It doesn’t follow from “everything is uncertain” to “nothing is true”, and vice versa saying “some things are true” doesn’t mean anything is certain.

“I don’t know” is always an acceptable response, but “we can never know” never is. — Pfhorrest

Hi Forrest!

In what context are you referring? In other words, are you suggesting there is an objective standard that precludes mystery, arbitrariness, subjectivity, and/or the unknown? Examples that are too numerous to mention include but are not limited to: paradox of time and self-reference, conscious existence, cosmological existence, Love, metaphysical will, ad nauseum.

In that case, every statement that something is your favorite flavor of ice cream is objectively false. — Pfhorrest

But if it is subjectively true that one person does not like ice cream in general, how do you reconcile or preclude the arbitrariness behind the subjective truth with the objective truth of the statement? And even if one did like ice cream, how could you objectively account for the feelings that person has about his love for ice cream?

In that case, every statement that something is your favorite flavor of ice cream is objectively false. — Pfhorrest

demonstrating quite clearly that you still do not appreciate the difference between subjective and objective. it is literally impossible for any statement I make about my preference to be "objectively false".

Kaarlo Tuomi

In what context are you referring? In other words, are you suggesting there is an objective standard that precludes mystery, arbitrariness, subjectivity, and/or the unknown? Examples that are too numerous to mention include but are not limited to: paradox of time and self-reference, conscious existence, cosmological existence, Love, metaphysical will, ad nauseum. — 3017amen

I don’t know what some of those are, but the ones I do understand I would say are perfectly compatible with my principles here.

But if it is subjectively true that one person does not like ice cream in general, how do you reconcile or preclude the arbitrariness behind the subjective truth with the objective truth of the statement? — 3017amen

I can’t understand this question.

And even if one did like ice cream, how could you objectively account for the feelings that person has about his love for ice cream? — 3017amen

If you mean an explanation of why they have those feelings, that would be a complex psychological question, and you’d have to ask an expert on that exactly how, but it would involve some kind of empirical observation like all scientific questions do.

demonstrating quite clearly that you still do not appreciate the difference between subjective and objective. it is literally impossible for any statement I make about my preference to be "objectively false". — Kaarlo Tuomi

It is if you’re lying. If you say your favorite flavor is strawberry but you actually have no favorite flavor, you have said something objectively false. That’s what lying is.

I suspect what you mean is that I can’t ordinarily (without some kind of mind-reading technology) check whether or not you’re lying, but that just shows that you‘re confusing epistemology with ontology again. Just because nobody knows someone doesn’t mean there is no truth about it.

don’t know what some of those are, but the ones I do understand I would say are perfectly compatible with my principles here. — Pfhorrest

How so?

can’t understand this question. — Pfhorrest

What is it about my love of ice cream that makes it a correct opinion?

that would be a complex psychological question, and you’d have to ask an expert on that exactly how, but it would involve some kind of empirical observation like all scientific questions do. — Pfhorrest

Does that qualify as an unanswerable question? If not please provide an objective explanation for the feelings I have for the love of ice cream.

What is it about my love of ice cream that makes it a correct opinion? — 3017amen

It is a correct opinion that you love ice cream (assuming you actually do). Whether you love it or not is an objective fact.

Your love of it inasmuch as that means an intention to eat it is in and of itself only correct or incorrect in some ethical sense, but that is something that is objectively correct or not too. In any given instance, you eating a particular ice cream is either the right thing to do then or not. It's impractical to figure out whether it is, just like it's impractical to figure out all the positions of all the particles that make up your ice cream, but there's some truth of the matter anyway.

But in this case, keeping in mind modal truths is important. Much more practically, we can say what is possible good or necessarily bad, which is to say, permissible or forbidden. And unless there's some extenuating circumstances I don't know about, it's probably usually permissible (not necessarily bad, i.e. not forbidden) for you to eat ice cream. Objectively permissible, because modal claims are still objective claims.

Does that qualify as an unanswerable question? If not please provide an objective explanation for the feelings I have for the love of ice cream. — 3017amen

Just because I don't know the answer doesn't mean there isn't one. That's the whole point of the principle this thread is about: never assume there is no answer, just because you don't know it yet.

It is a correct opinion that you love ice cream (assuming you actually do). Whether you love it or not is an objective fact. — Pfhorrest

But that would qualify as a subjective opinion that extends to arbitrary feelings of Love. If it wasn't it would mean the all people either like or dislike ice cream. Objectively correct opinions assume either right or wrong. You can't think of sensory perception as black or white like a priori logic and mathematics.

In other words what if I only loved ice cream a little bit. How would you quantify a little bit?

Just because I don't know the answer doesn't mean there isn't one. That's the whole point of the principle this thread is about: never assume there is no answer, just because you don't know it yet. — Pfhorrest

But if I'm understanding that correctly you would reject unanswerable questions as a temporary state of existing. Alternatively, using modal logic or what are you thinking that might unlock the door to that unknown/mystery?

In other words what domain is appropriate for the philosopher to study here? Is it some sort of synthetic a priori knowledge?

But that would qualify as a subjective opinion that extends to arbitrary feelings of Love. If it wasn't it would mean the all people either like or dislike ice cream — 3017amen

Not at all. I am 72 inches tall. That is an objective fact about me. It being an objective fact about me doesn’t mean that everybody is and always has been 72 inches tall. It just means that anyone who says I am a different height is wrong .

Objectivists means that whether an opinion is right or wrong doesn’t depend on who you ask. It absolutely can and must depend on who or what (and what time and place etc) you’re asking about.

In other words what if I only loved ice cream a little bit. How would you quantify a little bit? — 3017amen

Objective facts don’t have to be about boolean properties. Am I tall? Kinda. I’m a little tall, but not like pro basketball tall. I can tell you exactly how tall I am: 72 inches. And in principle one could say on some scale just how much you love ice cream. And that would be an objective fact that you love i e cream just that much, just as it’s an objective fact that I am just this tall.

But if I'm understanding that correctly you would reject unanswerable questions as a temporary state of existing. — 3017amen

I would not call something that is only temporarily unanswered “unanswerable”, just unanswered. We can never know for sure if an unanswered question will ever be answered until it is, but my principle says to always proceed on the assumption that some day it can be.

In other words what domain is appropriate for the philosopher to study here? Is it some sort of synthetic a priori knowledge? — 3017amen

This sounds like a non-sequitur. The domain of philosophy isn’t “the unknown” or “the mysterious”. Science investigates lots of unknowns too.

The domain of philosophy was broader in the past, incorporating things like science too, but today I would say it is the investigation of how to go about answering various kinds of questions and why to do it that way instead of some other way. What are we even asking, what kind of thing would count as an answer, how do we apply those criteria, who is to do so, what does it take for them to do it, why bother, etc.

Not at all. I am 72 inches tall. That is an objective fact about me. It being an objective fact about me doesn’t mean that everybody is and always has been 72 inches tall. It just means that anyone who says I am a different height is wrong . — Pfhorrest

I'm afraid you're comparing apples and oranges as it were. Of course that's an objective fact about your material physical existence. How is that germane to the question about my love of ice cream?

Objectivists means that whether an opinion is right or wrong doesn’t depend on who you ask. It absolutely can and must depend on who or what (and what time and place etc) you’re asking about — Pfhorrest

That's another reason why it's not germane to the topic, yes?

And that would be an objective fact that you love i e cream just that much, just as it’s an objective fact that I am just this tall. — Pfhorrest

How is it an objective fact that I love ice cream just a little bit? Quantify my partial love of ice cream objectively.

would not call something that is only temporarily unanswered “unanswerable”, just unanswered. We can never know for sure if an unanswered question will ever be answered until it is, but my principle says to always proceed on the assumption that some day it can be. — Pfhorrest

But I thought I understood you to say you reject unanswerable questions? What does that really mean,?

The domain of philosophy isn’t “the unknown” or “the mysterious”. — Pfhorrest

Really? All events must have a cause. Is that true or false? And whether it's true or false or unknown, what kind of logic and knowledge is that?

How is that germane to the question about my love of ice cream? — 3017amen

The only thing subjective about your love of ice cream is that it’s about you. My height is about me. Both of those can be objective without everyone else having to be the same in that regard, which is what you said that I was replying to.

How is it an objective fact that I love ice cream just a little bit? Quantify my partial love of ice cream objectively. — 3017amen

That we haven’t invented a scale to measure it by doesn’t mean that there’s no particular amount that you love it.

What does that really mean,? — 3017amen

What I just said.

true or false or unknown — 3017amen

This is the problem. “Unknown” isn’t an alternative to “true” and “false”. Something can be true but not known. Unknown isn’t UNKNOWABLE or NO-TRUTH-VALUE.

That we haven’t invented a scale to measure it by doesn’t mean that there’s no particular amount that you love it. — Pfhorrest

Does that qualify as an unanswerable question? It kind of seems so... Yet you would reject such a question. I'm confused. I thought you said objectivity solves everything,?

This is the problem. “Unknown” isn’t an alternative to “true” and “false”. Something can be true but not known. Unknown isn’t UNKNOWABLE or NO-TRUTH-VALUE. — Pfhorrest

Could that mean that it's metaphysical?

Does that qualify as an unanswerable question? It kind of seems so... Yet you would reject such a question. I'm confused. I thought you said objectivity solves everything,? — 3017amen

Objectivity means always proceeding on the assumption that things can be solved.

It doesn't mean that you already know how to solve it.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat that.

Could that mean that it's metaphysical? — 3017amen

What does that even mean?

Things are either true or false.

Orthogonal to that, they're either known or unknown.

So they can be known true, known false, true but unknown, or false but unknown.

Whether you know it or not has no bearing on whether it's true or false.

I'm afraid you're comparing apples and oranges as it were. Of course that's an objective fact about your material physical existence. How is that germane to the question about my love of ice cream? — 3017amen

When you report your (sincere) love of ice cream, you're reporting your brain state (attitude). Brain states are commonly regarded as having material physical existence.

Claims about one's height and claims about one's love of ice cream are both claims about aspects of one's own material physical existence.