Basis of Belief

[RestlessSoul]

You think the effects of having our head chopped off are just a matter of opinion?

To the Samurai who had just disembowelled himself in the act of ritual seppuko, decapitation by the blade of his second, who was stood behind him waiting to strike, was surely a blissful relief.

So yeah. Subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To the Samurai who had just disembowelled himself in the act of ritual seppuko, decapitation by his second's blade was surely a blissful relief.

So yeah. Subjective.

The way I understand it is a consequence in part of these 2 different and in effect contradictory versions of the word "be".
Definition of BE
: to equal in meaning : have the same connotation as : (let X be 10)
: to have a specified qualification or characterization (the leaves are green)

That it is wrong is not the same version of "be" as the dog is black. And as long as they in effect treat understanding in a brain as the same as seeing, we will be running in circles.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The way I understand it is a consequence in part of these 2 different and in effect contradictory versions of the word "be".
Definition of BE
: to equal in meaning : have the same connotation as : (let X be 10)
: to have a specified qualification or characterization (the leaves are green)

That it is wrong is not the same version of "be" as the dog is black. And as long as they in effect treat understanding in a brain as the same as seeing, we will be running in circles.

Don't know if you're familiar with the character Ali G? He was the creation of English actor and comedian, Sacha Baron Cohen. Anyway, he did a series of spoof interviews with famous people, where he would wrong foot them with his bizarre line of questioning.

Anyway, he asked astronaut Buzz Aldrin, "does the moon exist?" Buzz, commendably, took the question in his stride, replying that not only did the moon exist, but he and his crew went there. Thing is though, this is almost the identical question Einstein (to illustrate a point) asked Niels Bohr - "does the moon exist, when no one is looking at it?" Immanuel Kant, as you probably know, was asking similar questions 100 years previously; does any phenomena or object exist objectively beyond the act of observation, and in what form? These questions aren't as absurd as they first appear, not only to philosophers, but also to physicists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Don't know if you're familiar with the character Ali G? He was the creation of English actor and comedian, Sacha Baron Cohen. Anyway, he did a series of spoof interviews with famous people, where he would wrong foot them with his bizarre line of questioning.

Anyway, he asked astronaut Buzz Aldrin, "does the moon exist?" Buzz, commendably, took the question in his stride, replying that not only did the moon exist, but he and his crew went there. Thing is though, this is almost the identical question Einstein (to illustrate a point) asked Niels Bohr - "does the moon exist, when no one is looking at it?" Immanuel Kant, as you probably know, was asking similar questions 100 years previously; does any phenomena or object exist objectively beyond the act of observation, and in what form? These questions aren't as absurd as they first appear, not only to philosophers, but also to physicists.

As for me, I learned to be critical about religion, yet I don't consider it wrong or any of these other beliefs. But I also learned to be critical about science and philosophy and as absurd as it may be, yo be critical about being critical. That is what makes me a global skeptic.

On the other hand most skeptics here are only critical of religion and the philosophy they consider wrong and use philosophy to support their beliefs in science, rationality, critical thinking, evidence and so on, beyond what those can actually do.
In other words, they are critical about everybody else's subjectivity in some cases, but not their own.

 

[AppieB]

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!

I'm sorry, it doesn't get clearer. I'm confused by your answers.

Is it true (objective) that some people have blue eyes?
Is it true (objective) that people have preferences?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm sorry, it doesn't get clearer. I'm confused by your answers.

Is it true (objective) that some people have blue eyes?
Is it true (objective) that people have preferences?

No, not all of the everyday world is objective. The fact is that I am subjective, when I write "No, not all of the everyday world is objective."
As long as you do: Some cases are objective, therefore all cases are objective; I can't explain it yo you.
You are in effect doing an induction error. Some, therefore all.

 

[AppieB]

No, not all of the everyday world is objective. The fact is that I am subjective, when I write "No, not all of the everyday world is objective."
As long as you do: Some cases are objective, therefore all cases are objective; I can't explain it yo you.
You are in effect doing an induction error. Some, therefore all.

It would help if you answered the questions. I'm trying to pinpoint where we differ.

Is it true (objective) that some people have blue eyes?
Is it true (objective) that people have preferences?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It would help if you answered the questions. I'm trying to pinpoint where we differ.

Is it true (objective) that some people have blue eyes?
Is it true (objective) that people have preferences?

Yes, not that is not all of the everyday world.
As long as you only give objective examples we will agree. But that is not the case for all of the everyday world.

My answer is yes, in some cases, but not all cases for all of the everyday world.

 

[AppieB]

Yes, not that is not all of the everyday world.
As long as you only give objective examples we will agree. But that is not the case for all of the everyday world.

My answer is yes, in some cases, but not all cases for all of the everyday world.

Ok.
Is it true (objective) that some people like coriander and some people don't like coriander?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok.
Is it true (objective) that some people like coriander and some people don't like coriander?

Like and don't like is subjective. It is objective that you can describe that it is subjective, but that you can describe objectively doesn't make it as what goes on objective.

 

[AppieB]

Like and don't like is subjective. It is objective that you can describe that it is subjective, but that you can describe objectively doesn't make it as what goes on objective.

Agreed (I think)

So we can describe objectively that people have preferences, right?
And we can describe objectively that some people like coriander and some people don't like coriander, right?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Agreed (I think)

So we can describe objectively that people have preferences, right?
And we can describe objectively that some people like coriander and some people don't like coriander, right?

Good, and that is subjective.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It would help if you answered the questions. I'm trying to pinpoint where we differ.

Is it true (objective) that some people have blue eyes?
Is it true (objective) that people have preferences?

You would first have to define what you mean by objectivity, and what you mean by truth, before you could answer those questions. Because what is true for you may not be true for me, in various circumstances.

That said, it would be a stretch to deny that the existence of blue eyed people among us is a veritable fact. We could, by almost any definition, agree that this is an objective truth (though we might ask, what would that mean to a blind person?).

The subject of personal preferences, on the other hand, is not something we can possibly address objectively. Do you prefer heat to cold? Wind to rain? Oceans to skies? Without a lot more information, without setting very definite parameters, amd without some debate regarding what it means to prefer one thing over another and how this might manifest, these are unanswerable questions. Not just unanswerable, they're meaningless...

 

[AppieB]

Good, and that is subjective.

I'm asking for confirmation (or rejection). How is this a proper response?

We were talking about facts of the everyday world (descriptions) that are objective in the sense that "it can't be changed based on how you think/fell."

So again:
1. Is it an objectively true (description of the everyday world) that some people have blue eyes?
2. Is it an objectively true (description of the everyday world) that some people like coriander and others don't like coriander?

 

[AppieB]

You would first have to define what you mean by objectivity, and what you mean by truth, before you could answer those questions. Because what is true for you may not be true for me, in various circumstances.

Objectively true in the sense that these are descriptions of reality (everyday world). It's fact of reality and the opinion of people have no influence on the fact (whether they like it to be true or not).

That said, it would be a stretch to deny that the existence of blue eyed people among us is a veritable fact. We could, by almost any definition, agree that this is an objective truth (though we might ask, what would that mean to a blind person?).

Agreed.
It might mean nothing to a blind person, but that doesn't negate the facts that some people have blue eyes. Therefore objective.

The subject of personal preferences, on the other hand, is not something we can possibly address objectively. Do you prefer heat to cold? Wind to rain? Oceans to skies? Without a lot more information, without setting very definite parameters, amd without some debate regarding what it means to prefer one thing over another and how this might manifest, these are unanswerable questions. Not just unanswerable, they're meaningless...

The personal preference itself is indeed subjective. It's not true that coriander doesn't taste good. It's just that I don't like it.

 

[Sheldon]

To the Samurai who had just disembowelled himself in the act of ritual seppuko, decapitation by the blade of his second, who was stood behind him waiting to strike, was surely a blissful relief.

So yeah. Subjective.

You're talking about his feelings, I'm talking about the objective effect of having your head chopped off. Your example is clearly a straw man, as I made no such claim. However even in your example it is objectively harmful to have your head chopped off, it ends the life instantly. Unless you think ending someone's life is not objectively harmful? No one is suggesting objective facts are absolutes either, only that they exist. It is an objective fact that the world is not flat, it is also an objective fact that all living things evolved from common or shared ancestors. They are objective facts because they are not solely reliant on someone's feelings or opinions.

 

[Sheldon]

On the other hand most skeptics here are only critical of religion

It's a forum for general religious discussion, so that topic is the main focus yes. that doesn't mean atheists are only sceptical about religion, only that they only sceptical of religion in a forum for debating religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm asking for confirmation (or rejection). How is this a proper response?

We were talking about facts of the everyday world (descriptions) that are objective in the sense that "it can't be changed based on how you think/fell."

So again:
1. Is it an objectively true (description of the everyday world) that some people have blue eyes?
2. Is it an objectively true (description of the everyday world) that some people like coriander and others don't like coriander?

I give up. I don't have the words to describe that not everything is objective in the everyday world, because like and don't like are subjective, yet you obsess with the fact that it can be objectively described. And you don't seem to understand that act of objectively describing something subjective, doesn't make the subjective something objective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's a forum for general religious discussion, so that topic is the main focus yes. that doesn't mean atheists are only sceptical about religion, only that they only sceptical of religion in a forum for debating religion.

Yeah and your definition of religion is not absolute and nor is mine and I use another one than you. So religion is not the same for us.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're talking about his feelings, I'm talking about the objective effect of having your head chopped off. Your example is clearly a straw man, as I made no such claim. However even in your example it is objectively harmful to have your head chopped off, it ends the life instantly. Unless you think ending someone's life is not objectively harmful? No one is suggesting objective facts are absolutes either, only that they exist. It is an objective fact that the world is not flat, it is also an objective fact that all living things evolved from common or shared ancestors. They are objective facts because they are not solely reliant on someone's feelings or opinions.

Yeah, his feelings are subjective. That is the point. Now for objective you have to explain what defintion you mean.