Personal self evaluation in terms of the subject(ive) object(ive) configuration, seems as if it’s based on a functional derivative, where the values are never a constant.
At times an individual becomes more objective, where the referential route is either mitigated, or suppressed within situ.
At times when binary systems prevelant in a reduced set of circumstances\implying a relaxation of censure, or pressured bias, or loss infringement of societal conformation pressure, = then the shift toward more opiniated expression becomes possible.
So called objectivist or subjectivist persons can with the change of venue, develop an ever shifting self opinion on the scale. Self analysis can be the result of continuous change caused by multi functionally derived opinions based on some kind of averaging of both kinds of personal assessment.
This may work only in people with fairly stable and predictable functionally derived sets of opinions, far from approaching a stable automatic set.
How to judge or evaluate ones self where the values of stability, etc., are not consistent within parameters, carry an equivalent uncertainty about them. I would, therefore, not hazard to evaluate mysel in any case, prone more to the doubt which beset one who feels they are being objective, but have no commensurate information to judge by. In order to do that,one would, instead, have to rely on outsider sources of comparable objective criteria.
Bottom line is a variable matrix of fairly predictable self regard, but without the qualifying signification.
I would go further than merely indicate percentages between the two types of character types, it would seem that when such becomes improbable, is, when the difference between them is at a minimum.
That would be “what Gib thinks exists” versus “what a child thinks exists”. That is not “what exists (independently from what anyone thinks)” versus “what a child thinks exists”. To think that “what Gib exists” is the same as “what exists (independently from what anyone thinks exists)” is to eliminate Gib from the equation i.e. it is to take things out of context.
It is true that what one man thinks exists is separate from what another man thinks exists. However, it is not true that what exists is separate from what someone thinks exists. For example, when you say “Santa Claus does not exist” what you are saying is “Gib thinks that Santa Claus does not exist”. We remove “I think” from the sentence for the sake of convenience (imagine if we had to preface each one of our statements with “I think” or “In my opinion…”) and not because the sentence reflects something that is independent from what we think.
That’s true.
Exactly. That’s the difference between relativism and egalitarianism. Relativism merely claims that truth is relative to one’s viewpoint (i.e. method of reasoning and experience.) Egalitarianism claims that anything goes i.e. that every possibility is equal to every other. Since possibilities are equiprobable, what you believe is insignificant. This means that other things, such as social cohesion, can take priority and dictate what you’re going to believe.
What’s the point of saying that what you see in front of you is real? Is there a situation in which it makes sense to say that what you see in front of you is not real?
It is assumptions that are either real or not. Consider the work of an illusionist. Whatever you see in front of you (e.g. a woman cut in half) is neither real nor unreal. Rather, it is your assumptions about what goes behind the scenes that are either real or unreal. For example, you might think that at the point in time when the woman appears to be cut in half that her torso is physically cut in half and that she is therefore dead. But if you were to peek behind the scenes you’d see that’s not the case.
Assumptions are about what we did not experience.
There are two types of assumptions: predictions and retrodictions.
Predictions are about what we have yet to experience.
Retrodictions are about what we haven’t experienced in the past (they are also about what we did experience in the past, but we can ignore that.)
Ultimately, the purpose of assumptions is to predict the future, so retrodictions are subservient to predictions.
You can use the word “reality” if you want to but it introduces vagueness. Why say that assumptions are about reality when you can simply and clearly say that assumptions are about what we did not experience?
Does that mean there is no such a thing as an event that does not have an effect?
What does it mean for an event to have an effect?
It means that you can predict some other event based on it, right?
If there is no such an event, then it has no effect.
So if gib says “Santa Clause doesn’t exist,” then in reality (independently from what anyone thinks exists) Santa Clause actually does exist?
You know that things can be true according to a certain person and at the same time be true in reality (independently from what anyone thinks exists), right?
But I thought you just said:
Well, the only thing I can conclude from this is that we cannot speak of that which exists independently of what I (or you, or him, or her, etc.) think exists. But then why bring up the distinction at all? If I say “X exist,” what’s the point of saying: that just means “Gib thinks X exists,” which is different from saying “X exists independently of what anyone thinks”?
I’m not sure how an egalitarian philosophy would pan out socially and politically, but let me get this straight (if we can go on a temporary tangent). So formally speaking, egalitarianism is the philosophy that all points of view are equally valid. If it’s not a form of relativism, then all such points of view would have to be equally valid all at once, which obviously allows for contradictions. I don’t quite see how this necessarily leads to social cohesion being the top priority unless such an egalitarian landscape makes way for Darwinian modes of competition between points of view, in which case the strongest survive. But this is a social dynamic, not a logical/philosophical outcome of egalitarianism itself.
Other than hallucinations, mirages, and dreams? Nope. But I can imagine tons of situations in which it makes sense to say that what I see in front of me is real. This very discussion, for example. For another example, affirming rumors about sitings of Bigfoot. If I see him, I’m going to report back that what I saw is real.
Still, whatever I saw is real. Yes, this is accompanied by assumptions that determine how I interpret what I see, and those assumptions can change as a result of different things I see (seeing what happens behind the scenes, for example). One minute, I believe that the woman is sawed in half, the next, I believe it is a trick. But it doesn’t change what I saw. And when such a change in assumptions occurs, it can again be explained with relativism. Relative to my first set of assumptions, the woman was sawed in half. But relative to my second set of assumptions, it was just a trick.
Still, saying “I assume X is the case” is the same as saying “I assume X is the case in reality.”
Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean assumptions are about the future.
Because those aren’t nearly the same thing. I haven’t experienced Santa Clause. Doesn’t mean I assume he exists.
But that’s not the point. I wasn’t talking about what assumptions are about. I was talking about what the word “real” refers to. I was saying that “real” sometimes refers to objects. I was effectively cutting assumptions out of the picture.
That’s right. Which supports my point: if an assumption is that which effects behavior, then there is no such thing as an assumption that has no effect.
In order to say that in reality, independently from what anyone thinks, Santa Claus actually does exist you must accept that “independently from what anyone thinks” is a meaningful statement. Which I don’t. It’s a meaningless statement that was invented by people who, lacking in experience, have no choice but to literally interpret other people’s statements that must be interpreted laterally in order to extract any meaning from them.
Santa Claus is neither existent nor non-existent independently from what anyone thinks. Rather, what we have is people thinking that Santa Claus is either existent or non-existent. In other words, whether Santa claus exists or not depends on what the one choosing between the two options thinks. But that does not mean that people necessarily choose what they are going to believe based on what they want to believe. For example, I think that if I cut my wrist and let it bleed that I will die. Even though this is not what I want to happen. I’d rather stay alive.
There is a difference between what one expects will happen (map) and what will in fact happen (territory.) It is one thing to expect, for example, that it will rain on Monday and another thing to see with your eyes that it is raining on Monday. Note that both of these are subject-dependent. It is the subject that expects and it is the subject who sees with his own eyes. Removing the subject from your statements does not change the fact that each one of these actions is subject-dependent.
Because other people make such a distinction and you want to deny it.
The distinction between “that which exists (independently from what anyone thinks)” and “that which some person thinks exists” is a spurious one. It only exists in language. Outside of language, there is no such a distinction.
I don’t make such a distinction. Other people do. And if you want to address them, you have no choice but to make such a distinction yourself in order to be able to deny it.
Hallucinations, mirages and dreams are not unreal. Rather, it is our assumptions that they extend in ways that they actually don’t that are unreal.
That’s language. Language is flexible. Words are largely ambiguous on their own i.e. they have more than one meaning. The word “break” for example has 40 meanings or so. Words generally don’t have much meaning on their own. Most of their meaning comes from context. You need to put them in context.
And unlike what JSS is telling you, this discussion isn’t about language. It is about how things work. It’s about phenomena.
I saw a woman yesterday and she was a “real” woman in the sense that she had all of the things I expect in a woman.
You are missing the point.
That’s true.
Yes. The only difference is that the former is succint.
They are not. They can be about past. They can also be timeless (as in the case of agents that employ what I call atemporal intelligence that operates on atemporal data, but that’s too strange in relation to how necessary it is in order to demonstrate my point.)
Nowhere is it implied that if you don’t experience something that you assume that it exists. If that were the case, there wouldn’t be much point to assumptions.
Events are not defined by effect. You can have events without any notion of cause-and-effect.
There is such a thing as an assumption that has no effect on behavior. This is pretty much indisputable. I don’t think it’s fruitful to discuss it in depth.
Let’s just say that at the present moment in time the assumption that there is a bomb planted in my house has no effect on my behavior. This means it is not motivating me to do something about it (e.g. defuse it or run away from my house.)
That last part is a bit of a convoluted sentence, but I think I see where we differ. To me, “independently from what anyone thinks” is a meaningful sentence insofar as I can imagine states of reality and contrast those with thoughts in people’s heads. I can imagine that all such thoughts–that is, in everyone’s head–differ from the state of reality. ← But this is a thought experiment. In the thought experiment, I don’t have to imagine myself as generating that state of reality. I can imagine myself as one of the oblivious dopes who carry mistaken thoughts about reality. The me who is generating this reality (i.e. the reality which is dependent on me) is the me in the real world, but it’s trivially obvious that a reality in a thought experiment is dependent on the one conjuring up the thought experiment.
But in any case, the point is that I don’t have to believe a sentence in order for it to be meaningful to me–I just have to be able to imagine a scenario in which the sentence makes sense.
So what’s your response when I say: Santa Clause is real according to the child but not real according to me?
And then, what’s your response when I say: Santa Clause isn’t real?
Can I not argue that “Santa Clause isn’t real” = “Santa Clause isn’t real according to me”?
Why do you insist that, when I say it, “Santa Clause isn’t real” = “Santa Clause isn’t real independent of what anyone thinks”?
Well, this just means the map and the terrain are both subject dependent. But the map can still be accurate. Or if we take someone else’s map (someone else’s expectations) which happen not to be accurate, then we can say that what exists on the terrain is different (independent of) from what that person expects.
You’re the one saying that “that which exists (independently from what anyone thinks)” is meaningless. If there’s no distinction between that and “that which some person thinks exists” then the latter is meaningless too.
I don’t deny there’s a distinction in the meaning. I merely say that when something is the case according to you, that’s usually the same as you saying something is the case independently from what anyone thinks.
Extend meaning what? That they are real outside our perception of them?
If you want to say that hallucinations, mirages, and dreams are real in the sense that one actaully experiences them, then of course they’re real! But you know that’s not what I meant. And you know it’s a perfectly good example of a situation in which it makes sense to say they’re not real.
What’s missing from the context? I see Bigfoot, I report that Bigfoot is real.
We’re discussing the difference in meaning between “X is true,” “X is true independently of what anyone thinks,” “X is true according to me,” etc. We’re discussing what the word “real” refers to ← If that’s not about language, I don’t know what is. Once we’ve established what these terms mean, we can move on to talk about phenomena (or subjectivity vs. objectivity) which is the main point of this thread.
I know what your point is. You’re saying that the word “real” refers to assumptions. I’m saying that it sometimes refers to objects. Assumptions can enter the picture and taint how we see objects, but when we say, “That object is real,” we are not saying “The assumption in my head is real.”
I suppose this is true if you have a series of spontaneous happenings with no causal explanation whatsoever, but this is typically not how our world works.
I agree. If in one moment you say assumptions are that which have an effect on your behavior, and now you say there are assumptions that have no effect on your behavior, then it’s pretty fruitless to discuss.
Are you saying that assumptions which you don’t hold have no effect on your behavior?
Any sentence can be meaningful if you give it some meaning.
You are comparing an imagination (the imagined state of reality) against other imaginations (those that reflect what other people believe is true.)
Is that what you’re saying?
Yes. But that does not change the fact that that state of reality is in fact an imagination that was generated by you.
When you watch a movie or play a video game you forget about the fact that it is only a simulation, right? You start believing it is a reality, right? But that does not change the fact that it is not reality.
Yes. But there are people who take words literally. As a consequence, they deny that what we say is true is merely our opinion about what is true.
You can. That’s what most of us do anyways.
Let’s see. Earlier you said:
Basically, you denied that “what exists” is the same as “what one thinks exists”.
Yes. Our predictions can turn out to be correct. However, before the event that we are trying to predict happens, the correctness of our prediction is measured in relation to what happened in the past.
It is meaningless if you take it literally.
It is not. The meaning of the first statement is the same as that of the second. That’s my point. But not everyone sees it this way. Moreover, it’s not always the case . . .
What people mean when they say “truth is independent from what anyone thinks” is that “truth is dependent on evidence”.
Interestingly, evidence is subject-dependent, but that’s not a problem.
The point is that you can have thoughts that are not backed up by evidence i.e. thoughts that are nothing more than wishful thinking.
We all are subjective anyway (but that does of course not necessarily mean that we all are subjectivists). So when I say “I am an objectivist”, I just mean that the objective part of my inner subjective/objective dualism is above average (whatever that means ).
Yes, I know. We say that dreams are not real all of the time. And we make a legitimate point by doing so. However, at the same time, we say that dreams are real because they are something that we experience. And we also make a legitimate point when we do so. The question that I am interested in is what exactly is the difference between the two kinds of real? Why do we say that dreams are unreal rather than real? What causes us to do so? And why do we say that dreams are also real rather than unreal? What causes us to do so?
One of the reasons why we say that dreams are unreal is to highlight our observation that events that occur in a dream do not have the same real life consequences that events that occur when you are awake do. They can have the exact same consequences in a dream but their consequences in real life are usually very different, in fact, negligible. For example, if you kill someone in a dream the police might be after you. Just like in real life. But when you wake up, no police will be after you.
The word “unreal” in this particular case applies to our assumptions regarding the events that take place in wakeful consciousness that are based entirely on the contents of one’s dream. If someone dies in your dream that does not mean that he will be dead when you wake up. In other words, the probability that he will be dead when you wake up is nil. That’s what we mean when we say that dreams are unreal.
When we say that dreams are real, on the other hand, what we want to say is that the assumption that people in general have dreams or that this or that person had or will have this or that dream is backed up by evidence. Nothing else. It always comes down to assumptions.
In my experience, people who initiate this questioning of subjectivity versus objectivity, who present it as such a dichotomy are usually seeking to escape reality.
In their presentation the subjectivist is somebody who thinks that their subjective experience of reality is what best approximates reality, or simply what reality is (for them). In turn they present the objectivist as someone who knows about what reality is and who proposes that an agreement about what this reality is exists among all (sane) people.
Both are effectively solipsists in this scenario or let’s say the idea is a solipsism shared among all humans (or even rocks, for the apostles of self valuing).
It is quite obvious that the people have different definitions for “subjectivity” and “objectivity”. The number of subjectivists is very much larger than the number of objectivists. It is impossible to get those required definitions in a discussion (1) between subjectivists and (2) between the many subjectivists and the few objectivists.
Being the subjectivist you can always agree to disagree and being evasive is a virtue among the effeminate. So that’s why most people will choose the “It’s all cool, man, it’s all just an opinion, man.” option.
But, there comes a point where the masses become irritated with all the most extreme looney cases among them who demand equal air time or even more air time with their subjective opinions and that’s when they cry for more objectivism. Objectivism for them means that an authority figure(s) sets boundaries for right opinions.
People are in their lives much more often subjective than objective with their assessment of something and why wouldn’t they. It’s their life which depends on evaluating something in accordance with their needs.
Objectivity helps with this decision making, it provides a more accurate evaluation of reality in particular longterm consequences but ultimately the decision is always based on what is good for us as a subject, or what we deem to be good.
So what is a subjectivist and an objectivist?
Does the subjectivist denounce the validity of trying to be objective in an assessment of reality?
Does the objectivist not ultimately consider his subjective preferences and needs when making decisions? Are they universal?
The goal of an objectivist is to just not consider his subjective preferences and needs in order to make decisions. Whether this goal is accomplished is a different question. So, an objectivist should not claim that his decisions are universal. If he claimed this, he would be more a subjectivist than an objectivist. An objectivist needs to be calm, serene. So, it is not easy to be an objectivist. Even saying “I am an objectivist” is not easy, if one is a real objectivist. An objectivist can never be sure whether he really is an objectivist or not. So, “being an objectivist” is more like “becoming an objectivist”. It is easier to be a subjectivist, although a subjectivist has a similar problem with his self-referentiality, because he too has senses and a brain, and it is not easy to deny that there are objects.
Everything that is an object can be this only with reference to a subject, but in order to know, to decide what this object exactly is, there must be such an object and not only a subject (regardless whether the object is merely in the brain of the subject or really there [in the world]).
The subject/object dichotomy is a relatively old problem of epistemology. I believe that it is unsolvable.
It is likely impossible to be an absolute subjectivist or an absolute objectivist. So, it is likely that there are merely relative subjectivists and merely relative objectivists.
Do you mean to not exclusively consider his subjective preferences when making his decisions or do you mean to not consider his subjective preferences?
Because objective inquiry is always detached from making decisions. It’s about understanding the phenomenon at hand.
A judgement is always subjective but of course it’s not necessarily based on only very narrow-minded considerations.
For some Europeans there exists a desire to be objective in their judgement of others or in other words a sense of fairness, of truthfulness which must be fulfilled. This sense can be misdirected and exploited by hypocritical cheats and liars.
I think we will agree that there is no clear cut distinction between objectivists and subjectivists. It is a matter of degrees. This is because objectivity is measured by the degree to which one’s judgments are informed by what happened in the past. And higher degree of objectivity isn’t necessarily better than lower degree of objectivity. It depends on many things among them one’s needs. Sometimes, being objective is an overkill. Not all truth is relevant.
So “Apples are fruit,” is meaningless unless we give it meaning?
Yes, that’s how meaning works. You have to use your imagination in order to conceptualize the meanings of terms. If I use the word “apple” in a sentence, you have to image the idea of an apple in order to understand the meaning of the word.
I don’t think I’ve ever mistaken a video game for reality. We get emersed in games, and sometimes metaphorically we say that it becomes reality for us, but if this were literally true–for example if I were playing Call of Duty–I’d probably shit my pants (getting shot at is hella scary).
Besides, I thought you were the one arguing that reality is whatever we believe it is. So believing the video game is reality does change the fact that it is not reality (according to you).
Not sure I get the relevance of that to what I said.
Excellent!
These are subtly different. “Independent of what anyone thinks” means everybody. “One” means a particular individual. ← That individual is the child in this case, and that Santa Clause doesn’t exist is true according to me, a different individual.
In terms of what it means, yes. And potentially in reality too.
This is true.
How else is one supposed to take it?
Meaning of X = meaning of Y
Meaning of X = meaningless
Ergo: meaning of Y = meaningless
^ Basic syllogism.
Or is this an instance where it is not always the case? So you brought up an example to make a point, but the example you brought up doesn’t apply in this case.
No, what people mean is that truth refers to reality and not people’s thoughts on reality. That might imply the existence of evidence, but it may not. Many people believe in things for which there is no evidence.
Usually what we mean is that dreams are real as dreams (i.e. fabrications in our heads), but when we say they’re not real, we mean the things we see in our dreams don’t exist in the real world.
That’s true. In fact, this is what we do for any experience we have for which a later experience invalidates it–that is, when a later experience can’t possibly be real unless the previous experience is unreal. This is where we get the idea of “imaginary” things, or “mental” things. The mind cannot process two or more contradictory or incompatible experiences, so it selects one (usually the most recent, or the one with the most evidence) and the rest are regarded as “only mental”.
True.
I agree that what we say is real or unreal is based on assumptions (or is an assumption), but I don’t think that means that what we say refers to those assumptions; it’s just backed by those assumptions.
Yes, we don’t forget reality to such an extent. But we do forget it to a smaller extent. For example, we often forget that we have to do this or that (say, I don’t know, laundry) because these activities are irrelevant in the context of video games. So when you quit playing video games you go “oh shit, I forgot to do the laundry!”
My point is that decontextualization (taking things out of context or quite simply ignoring certain aspects of reality) can make you forget about the fact that it is you who’s ignoring these aspects of reality and not reality that lacks them.
Truth isn’t independent from human judgment.
If we say so it’s for the sake of convenience and not because we mean it literally. Unless we’re not so bright.
Truth is a product of human judgment.
Specifically, it is a product of human reasoning and by reasoning I mean the proces by which we choose what to assume regarding the unknown (i.e. something we haven’t experienced.)
There is an infinite number of ways to reason but there is only one that has evolved in humans and that has persisted through time.
And that’s reasoning based on evidence.
Hume says that induction is a custom.
I support his view.
You can take it to mean that what you think is true is different from what others think is true.
You can also take it to mean that what is true depends on evidence and not on what anyone thinks is true. Thoughts and evidence being two different things.
That’s a good way to ignore what I am saying i.e. to misunderstand me.
You are now stepping into the territory of non-sense. If there is no evidence that something exists how can you know that it exists? Unless you simply imagine that it exists?
Simply repeating “but if there is no evidence that it exists it does not mean that it does not exist” is stupid.
Yes, it is true, but that’s merely because our assumptions are inescapably fallible.
Whatever you think, no matter how certain you are, you might be wrong.
The point is that we determine what exists and what does not based on whatever evidence we have.
This is why I can say that God does not exist.
What is my evidence that God does not exist?
The totality of my personal experience is my evidence that God does not exist.
Yes, but that is not sufficiently precise.
My point is that words such as real and unreal apply only to assumptions. An assumption is said to be real not something mystical.
).