Submitted by Maxwellsdemon17 t3_xsrx5g in philosophy
Reply to comment by Helios4242 in “The objective requires the subjective as a foil if it is to play the scientific role late nineteenth-century philosophers assigned to it, not to mention to become accessible through our perceptual apparatus in new kinds of mathematical and logical symbolism.” by Maxwellsdemon17
>pointing out that the thought behind the opinion and the fact that the opinion exists is worth mentioning in my opinion
In many cases, you may be right, but the principle is more argumentative than generalizable. Saying "it is a fact that it is an opinion" might confound people who over-simplify the idea of subjectivity (generally folks who want to use 'subjective' as a dismissive characterization and 'objective' as an insinuation of omniscience) but as I said before, this technique actually amplifies the intellectual basis of the conflict while misrepresenting its cogency.
>But I would argue that the content of the opinion, if aligned with that outside state of affairs, is more likely to align with generalizable truths. In that way, it is what makes it objective.
I feel like you are working hard to declare that the content of an opinion (which is to say, the opinion) is either what determines, or can be determined by, whether it can be considered "objective". I believe this is motivated by a desire to use the term "objective" as a synonym for "right" (not an untoward substitution in all cases, but not an appropriate one in every case.) You're shifting around the dichotomy from 'objective/subjective' to 'fact/opinion' (or "more/less generalizable") in the same "clever" way, and end up being simply a contrarian, chasing your tail and encouraging others to do the same.
>whether the content of the opinion is objective depends on how much it is true beyond a certain point of view.
Not really, no. This approach conflates objective with popular, or risks doing so, and misrepresents what (if anything) distinguishes facts from opinions. In general (not to put too fine a point on it) your perspective (opinion) is a useful enough approximation of the truth for being argumentative in conversation, but not factually accurate enough for a philosophical consideration.
>many different aspects of any "fact" can be some gradient of more generalizable or less generalizable.
The same can be said of any opinion, though.
I apologize if my replies seem like hectoring. I intend no insult. These issues have more significance than just the matter of off-handed comments, and I like to explore them as a test of my philosophical perspective.
>>But I would argue that the content of the opinion, if aligned with that outside state of affairs, is more likely to align with generalizable truths. In that way, it is what makes it objective.
>I feel like you are working hard to declare that the content of an opinion (which is to say, the opinion) is either what determines, or can be determined by, whether it can be considered "objective".
This seems like the opposite of my interpretation of the text.
Since you probably have the same (problematic) notion of what makes something "objective" (confounded by an assumption that whether it is objective is the same as whether it can be known to be objective) that is not surprising. Can I ask whether you believe that the content of an opinion determines or can be determined by whether it is considered (presumably by either you or whoever holds that opinion) to be objective? My concern about the original text was not whether what is objective is more likely to align with generalizable truth (that much is simply a timid tautology) but whether "In that way, it is what makes it objective" is a supportable contention.
>Since you probably...
Of course.
>Can I ask whether you believe that the content of an opinion determines or can be determined by whether it is considered (presumably by either you or whoever holds that opinion) to be objective?
I believe so.
>I believe so.
So that would explain both why you interpreted the text as agreeing with your opinion, and why you didn't follow my conjecture about its import.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>So that would explain
I think you mean could.
Also, you are incorrect.
Your uncertainty and posturing proves my point, though. So now I can replace "would" with "does", since you weren't able to provide any coherent refutation besides an unsupported and not very believable denial.
Your thinking style is fascinating.
Your flailing is still pointless.
This is a prediction/perception about reality, including the future, aka clairvoyance.
It is a reasonable presumption, which you've been kind enough to confirm was accurate.
There is an important distinction between "is" and "equals".
What?
What do you mean please?
You should explain the distinction, what makes it important rather than irrelevant in this context, and its relevance to my comment, along with what implications it supposedly has to the issue.
"Your flailing is still pointless."
You are speaking from a ~relative perspective ("is"), not an absolute perspective ("equals").
All speaking is always done from an unavoidably relative perspective; that is a factual certainty, given the nature of speech, consciousness, and metaphysics. Since I never used the word "equals" and it has nothing to do with the conversation, and it is rarely used except by tossers pretending to have absolute perspectives or someone pronouncing "=" out loud, your initial comment on the matter, and all your follow up comments, consititue flailing.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
> All speaking is always done from an unavoidably relative perspective....
False.
Also: requires omniscience.
> that is a factual certainty, given the nature of speech, consciousness, and metaphysics.
Actually, it is a belief.
> Since I never used the word "equals"
My complaint is that you seem to be using another word, but with that meaning.
> ...and it has nothing to do with the conversation...
This is a belief.
> ...and it is rarely used except by tossers pretending to have absolute perspectives or someone pronouncing "=" out loud, your initial comment on the matter, and all your follow up comments, consititue flailing.
This is rhetoric. Also consciousness in action.
> > > > Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
It does! And thank you for your time, as always.
>>All speaking is always done from an unavoidably relative perspective....
>False.
>Also: requires omniscience.
Unsubstantiated balderdash. Also: malarkey. How would speaking require omniscience, and how could it avoid a relative perspective?
>Actually, it is a belief.
As I've patiently explained to you several times, in different ways and across several conversations, and you have failed to address let alone refute in every instance, there isn't any absolute distinction between facts and beliefs you assume and wish there were. So yes, it is actually a belief that all speech is a relative perspective, and it is unavoidable fact, as well. Since it is unavoidable, the more you try to evade it, the more you appear to be flailing desperately.
>My complaint is that you seem to be using another word, but with that meaning.
Would the term "synonym" be applicable, perhaps? Yes, in this context, as in almost every other, 'is' and 'equals' can be considered synonyms, despite the fact they are not exactly the same. Either meaning or word would be sufficient, for my purposes, as they probably would be to any reasonable person reading my thoughts. Your flailing is both the cause and the effect of your inability to be a reasonable person, in that way.
>This is a belief.
It is your belief that it is a belief. But all truths are merely the belief that they are truth. This causes no problems to my position or in my philosophy, but it must to yours, or why else would you keep bringing up whether something is a belief as if were relevant, like that is a prima facie indication it isn't true or not also a fact?
>This is rhetoric. Also consciousness in action.
All text is rhetoric. Also consciousness in action. Yes. Once again, your observation does not provide a counter-argument to the statement.
Keep flailing!
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
> >>All speaking is always done from an unavoidably relative perspective.... > > >False. > > >Also: requires omniscience. > > Unsubstantiated balderdash.
Please present your proof then...or at least some sort of evidence.
> As I've patiently explained to you several times, in different ways and across several conversations, and you have failed to address let alone refute in every instance, there isn't any absolute distinction between facts and beliefs you assume and wish there were.
Ok then, would you be comfortable with acknowledging that everything you say is merely your opinion then?
Also: would it be too much to ask for you to STOP READING MY MIND?
>Please present your proof then...or at least some sort of evidence.
I did.
>Ok then, would you be comfortable with acknowledging that everything you say is merely your opinion then?
Of course not. Most of my opinions here are based on facts and solid reasoning, very thoroughly considered and carefully constructed to be taken seriously in the context of philosophical discussions and presenting that reasoning honestly and at some length, despite the restrictions of the format. They are far more than "merely" opinions.
Your responses have been either parroting other people's opinions or flailing, in contrast.
>Also: would it be too much to ask for you to STOP READING MY MIND?
All I can do is read your words, and make honest and reasonable conjectures based on them. Crying about it without actually demonstrating (by something more than mere denials, while repeating the very behavior that led to those apparently well-justified conjectures) that my suppositions are inaccurate won't suffice to stop me from reading your words, and knowing that those words came from your mind.
If you don't believe identifying something a belief calls into question whether or is a fact, why do you keep blankly asserting, as if it were an informative observation, that my assertions are beliefs? Something about your argumentation is severely deficient in explaining the reason for your argumentation. I suspect I know exactly what it is. Does that bother you?
Fear not, we are in r/philosophy so it is quite appropriate!
I think we must define our terms then. What do you define "subjective", "objective", "fact", and "opinion" as?
For me:
Something subjective is the experience a subject has. It is inherent related to the subject's point of view. Something objective is what is true about the object itself, outside of the experience. A green object reflects a certain wavelength of light (an objective fact), and that gives a viewer the subjective experience of what color it is. The subjective fact is the experience of green, through many physical processes we would call objective.
The word Fact I am using as a particular case/item/detail that is true (this can be at different levels of truth, either a scientific fact that we have good evidence to treat as true or speaking abstractly about a Fact which we want to know is part of any "Truth"). But i admit that usage could be cleaned up. I'm mainly just using it as a detail we want to know or are experiencing (for example, the light reflects off the green object).
It's also worth noting that I would not say I'm conflating "subjective" and "opinion" but rather that an opinion is a straightforward example of a subjective truth. Other subjective truths could include experiences.
Naturally, there's always interplay between the two and value to understanding/discussing both. I share your urge to not use subjective pejorativly.
>This approach [how much something is true beyond a certain point of view] conflates objective with popular, or risks doing so, and misrepresents what (if anything) distinguishes facts from opinions.
Not for nothing, how else do we approach identifing what is objective? Peer review is all about identifying what holds up across multiple perspectives. It dies indeed risk "popular" theories being passed as objective until such time as we disprove that iteration, but that is a mighty effective strategy.
>The same can be said of any opinion, though
This, to some extent, is my point I suppose.
In the end you're definitely right; I was too caught up in the (erronous, lay, and/or postmodern) debate between subjective and objective that sees an opinion as subjective rather than the use of the term to merely describe whether we are talking about the object or the experience of the object. So I appreciate the discussion.
>I think we must define our terms then
All of your "definitions" seem mundane and conventional, so I don't see any need to quibble with them. All of my definitions are implicit and otherwise correspond to the ineffable meaning the words have in any arbitrary context.
>It's also worth noting that I would not say I'm conflating "subjective" and "opinion" but rather that an opinion is a straightforward example of a subjective truth
This is an example of the conflation I was observing. I don't believe "truth" comes in objective or subjective varieties. Your note reiterates the "clever" approach you started with, and is subject to the criticisms I've already expressed about that technique. Being an honest opinion is not the same, either colloquially or philosophically, as it being true. Rhetorically, of course, people are used to making their conjectures unfalsifiable by resorting to the ambiguity of whether a "true opinion" is merely honest or "is likely to align with generalizable truths". That makes it a practice I would guard against rather than encourage.
> Other subjective truths could include experiences. [...] I share your urge to not use subjective pejorativly.
I believe such usage is intrinsic in your perspective. I mention using it dismissively as an example of the results (and the cause as well) of using it ambiguously, and from my perspective, you continue to use it ambiguously. To be honest, outside of philosophical discussions about the term itself, I make it a practice to simply never use the word at all. It cannot be divorced from its pejorative connotations in postmodern (contemporary) language.
>Not for nothing, how else do we approach identifing what is objective?
Well, when we avoid using "subjective" at all, we rarely need to identify what is objective, per se.
>Peer review is all about identifying what holds up across multiple perspectives.
I would dispute this notion, but we may have different processes in mind when using that term. "Peer review" is about identifying what cannot hold up under any reasonable perspective. It is a process that precedes publication of a scholarly paper. I believe you may be referring to public scrutiny, the process which follows publication, when other experts with different perspectives can consider and criticize the thesis.
>So I appreciate the discussion
I'm glad to hear it. I too, as well.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments