Basis of Belief

[Sheldon]

Well, we disagree.

That is objectively true.

 

[AppieB]

Yes.

Would you call it a description about something in reality?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Would you call it a description about something in reality?

No, the everyday world. I don't do reality.

 

[AppieB]

No, the everyday world. I don't do reality.

There is no reality? The every world is not real?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is no reality? The every world is not real?

Okay, we are of different sub-cultures. You have learned to use and understand words like real and reality in a certain sense. I have learned it differently. We are both in the everyday world. If you want to do words like real and reality we end up in philosophy, but we don't have to go there.
We are both in the everyday world. If you want to do metaphysics, ontology, logic and epistemology say so, but we don't have to. We are both in the everyday world.

 

[AppieB]

Okay, we are of different sub-cultures. You have learned to use and understand words like real and reality in a certain sense. I have learned it differently. We are both in the everyday world. If you want to do words like real and reality we end up in philosophy, but we don't have to go there.
We are both in the everyday world. If you want to do metaphysics, ontology, logic and epistemology say so, but we don't have to. We are both in the everyday world.

Fair enough.
We agreed that the statement: human beings have preferences is true and is't a description of the everyday world. Would you call it a fact of the everyday world?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fair enough.
We agreed that the statement: human beings have preferences is true and is't a description of the everyday world. Would you call it a fact of the everyday world?

Yes.

 

[Sheldon]

Okay, we are of different sub-cultures. You have learned to use and understand words like real and reality in a certain sense. I have learned it differently. We are both in the everyday world. If you want to do words like real and reality we end up in philosophy, but we don't have to go there.
We are both in the everyday world. If you want to do metaphysics, ontology, logic and epistemology say so, but we don't have to. We are both in the everyday world.

Is the Eiffel Tower objectively real? In a way that say Hogwarts or The Shire in the Lord of The Rings are not?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is the Eiffel Tower objectively real? In a way that say Hogwarts or The Shire in the Lord of The Rings are not?

We use words differently. Let it be. Your culture is not mine and mine is not yours.

 

[Sheldon]

We use words differently. Let it be. Your culture is not mine and mine is not yours.

Well this is a debate forum, so it seems reasonable to disagree? I'm not sure why that question is a problem? Obviously I asked the question because I believe the Eiffel Tower is objectively real, in a way that Hogwarts or The Shire in the Lord of The Rings are not.

Have you been to the Eiffel Tower, the view from the very topmost viewing platform is nothing short of astonishing. If you're at all uncomfortable with heights though, I would definitely give it a miss.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well this is a debate forum, so it seems reasonable to disagree? I'm not sure why that question is a problem? Obviously I asked the question because I believe the Eiffel Tower is objectively real, in a way that Hogwarts or The Shire in the Lord of The Rings are not.

Have you been to the Eiffel Tower, the view from the very topmost viewing platform is nothing short of astonishing. If you're at all uncomfortable with heights though, I would definitely give it a miss.

Well, let me try to explain. I am a global or philosophical skeptic and in practice it means that I don't believe in any positive version of metaphysics. Not just that I am not an idealist. I am also not a naturalist or any other version.
That ends up as I believe differently than you, yet I am not religious just like you are not.

So if you want to play real, then yes, we can do that. But it is in the end nothing but thoughts in brains. It can be good practice and teach one to be skeptical.
But in practice it ends in what matters in the everyday world

 

[AppieB]

Yes.

Ok, could please answer the following questions.
Is it true that some people have blue eyes?
Would that be a fact/description of the everyday world?
Would you call that objectively true in the everyday world?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, could please answer the following questions.
Is it true that some people have blue eyes?
Would that be a fact/description of the everyday world?
Would you call that objectively true in the everyday world?

@Sheldon
Still, yes.
Let me explain it. Something and its properties are objective in the sense of existing, if it can't be changed based on how you think/fell. That is not the same as objective for formal abstract thinking or the ability to state something without a first person qualitative value evaluation.
So here is the joke. Are those thoughts of mine represented by this text objective or not. Well, in one sense they are not and in another they are, depending one what version of objective you use.
So here is the same effect for the verb "see".
I see a dog
I see that 2 plus 2 can be 11.
As long as some people can't understand when they use different meanings and that all cases of meaningless are not the same, though they use the same word, we will be running in circles and getting nowhere.

So be precise and learn to differentiate between different meanings of the same word including the word meaningless.
If you want play the learning psychology behind how critical thinking works, we can do that, but if you treat all of the everyday world as the same for one category/factor/aspect/sense/respect/property like say physical or objective evidence, I can't help you. I can't think for you and if you think differently, then it is a fact of the everyday world that we individually think differently. And whether that is meaningful or meaningless depends on how you think.

Now what you do with that, is your problem. My problem is in regards to this, how I deal with your answers. And no, they are not meaningless. They make sense based on one form of thinking/feeling and doesn't make sense based on another form of thinking/feeling.
That is what is covered by the terms of cognitive, moral and cultural relativism and yes, those texts that teach you that are obscure and weird.

 

[AppieB]

@Sheldon
Still, yes.
Let me explain it. Something and its properties are objective in the sense of existing, if it can't be changed based on how you think/fell.

Ok, using this definition/context for the word objective: it's a fact of the everyday world which doesn't change on how you think/feel. It's a description of the everyday world.
Whether you or me like or not, there are people with blue eyes.

Is the fact/description of the everyday world "human beings have preferences" objective?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, using this definition/context for the word objective: it's a fact of the everyday world which doesn't change on how you think/feel. It's a description of the everyday world.
Whether you or me like or not, there are people with blue eyes.

Is the fact/description of the everyday world "human beings have preferences" objective?

No, because there are human behaviours in the everyday world that depends on how you think/feel. You just did that in your post. You think that your answer doesn't depend on how you think, but it does.
I think that the everyday world depends on factors depended on thinking/feeling and other factors not dependent on that. Otherwise you can't explain, how we can observe even in brains scans, that humans use their brains differently. If brains had no effect whatsoever we wouldn't be able to observe different thoughts and feelings using science.

 

[AppieB]

No, because there are human behaviours in the everyday world that depends on how you think/feel. You just did that in your post. You think that your answer doesn't depend on how you think, but it does.

So do you mean that it's not objective true that some people have blue eyes?
And that's because we use our brain to think? Therefore it's not objective? I thought you answered yes to the question.

I think that the everyday world depends on factors depended on thinking/feeling and other factors not dependent on that. Otherwise you can't explain, how we can observe even in brains scans, that humans use their brains differently. If brains had no effect whatsoever we wouldn't be able to observe different thoughts and feelings using science.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Can you give one example of something being objectively true and something not objectively true and explain the difference?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...


I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Can you give one example of something being objectively true and something not objectively true and explain the difference?

That is simple. Let us say that someone says everything is objective. Then I subjectively answer: No! It is not objectively true, because because it is subjective, yet is a fact, that I answered: No!

 

[`mud]

I think that we have mis-understood here......

or I'm going just plain nuts...could be !

 

[Sheldon]

That is simple. Let us say that someone says everything is objective.

Why, it is a preposterous straw man?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why, it is a preposterous straw man?

The world is physical, yes?