How does subjectivity work?

[Brickjectivity]

It's not the case that they accept subjectivity. You have to get into the details of it, because they will simply define subjectivity differently, and all words associated to it. So they say, I accept subjectivity, by which they mean that opinions are a function of the uniqueness of the brain. In extremes they then might go into racism, as that different races have different opinions, but usually they will go into the complexity of the brain, how there are trillions of possible configurations, implying that the uniqueness of the configuration is what makes for opinions.

Are you implying that rejection of subjectivity is the source of atheism of all stripes?

'Subjectivity' is a term that comes from Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel that has a belief system where human thought is the manifestation of God, and Hegel uses his philosophical system as a tool to deal with the seeming contradiction of the death of Christ. In other words, Hegel was searching for a tool to make the concept of the 'Death of God' OK. At the same time he believed in an ontological proof of God. It appears he did not accept your concept of subjectivity since he believed in ontological proofs, yet he is the person who defined 'Subjectivity', the term. When you use this term you bring Hegel with it which imposes that different points of view are simply different aspects of God, so that the death of Jesus (God to him) is not the death of God but the death of death. (Going by the Wikipedia article on Hegel). So his subjectivity is that God is something that is being manifested in our thoughts and seeming contradictions about God are merely different aspects of the same God. This would not even occur to an agnostic as they are doubting the existence of God not the nature of questions about God.

That being said an agnostic has a different idea about subjectivity from Hegel, as they are not dealing with the contradiction of Jesus death upon the cross. (I'm not certain that this is the same subjectivity to you either.) For them subjectivity seems to be something much simpler, merely that not everything is understood by everyone in the same way. They may not even think about the inner workings of the brain. One person once said to me that they thought truth was a diamond with many facets and that we can't see all the facets at one time. They didn't mention brains or psychology at all but were talking about experiences. So when you say 'Subjectivity' it is not always clear which subjectivity you mean.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Are you implying that rejection of subjectivity is the source of atheism of all stripes?

'Subjectivity' is a term that comes from Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel that has a belief system where human thought is the manifestation of God, and Hegel uses his philosophical system as a tool to deal with the seeming contradiction of the death of Christ. In other words, Hegel was searching for a tool to make the concept of the 'Death of God' OK. At the same time he believed in an ontological proof of God. It appears he did not accept your concept of subjectivity since he believed in ontological proofs, yet he is the person who defined 'Subjectivity', the term. When you use this term you bring Hegel with it which imposes that different points of view are simply different aspects of God, so that the death of Jesus (God to him) is not the death of God but the death of death. (Going by the Wikipedia article on Hegel). So his subjectivity is that God is something that is being manifested in our thoughts and seeming contradictions about God are merely different aspects of the same God. This would not even occur to an agnostic as they are doubting the existence of God not the nature of questions about God.

That being said an agnostic has a different idea about subjectivity from Hegel, as they are not dealing with the contradiction of Jesus death upon the cross. (I'm not certain that this is the same subjectivity to you either.) For them subjectivity seems to be something much simpler, merely that not everything is understood by everyone in the same way. They may not even think about the inner workings of the brain. One person once said to me that they thought truth was a diamond with many facets and that we can't see all the facets at one time. They didn't mention brains or psychology at all but were talking about experiences. So when you say 'Subjectivity' it is not always clear which subjectivity you mean.

Well that was a lot of authoritarian nonsense. I have defined subjectivity in the topic. It was well known before Hegel that there is a difference between what is beautiful and how much it measures as. These categorical differences were known, but then I don't know what they called it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Well that was a lot of authoritarian nonsense. I have defined subjectivity in the topic. It was well known before Hegel that there is a difference between what is beautiful and how much it measures as. These categorical differences were known, but then I don't know what they called it.

Ha ha ha!

 

[Logikal]

I see that lots and lots of people focus on evidence, facts, objectivity, forgetting about expressing emotions, opinion, subjectivity. So how does it work? I mean to ask how ordinary subjective statements work, like; "the painting is beautiful", "I love you" etc.

The shortest definition of the logic of subjectivity I've come up with: subjectivity = choosing about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinion.

So to apply this definition to the statement, "the painting is beautiful":

Expression of emotion can only occur with free will, thus choosing the conclusion.

In expressing emotions one chooses between the words ugly and beautiful (simplified).

Both answers ugly and beautiful are equally valid, the validity of an opinion depends on the conclusion being chosen, and not forced.

The word "ugly", means to choose that it is a hate for the way the painthing looks which chooses the word "ugly". Samelike with beauty, then a love for the way the painting looks, chooses the word "beautiful".

So we can see, as fact, the word "beautiful", but we cannot see the asserted love which chooses the word beautiful. The existence of this love is a matter of opinion, which means that one can only reach the conclusion the asserted love is real, by choosing whether or not it is real.

And to state generally, the existence of all what chooses is a matter of opinion.

This is the reason why the most common concept of free will is based around the spirit / soul choosing. The spirit / soul chooses, and the existence of the spirit / soul is a matter of opinion.

If you consider this carefully it is obvious that there could be no evidence for the existence of "what chooses", like the soul. Facts are obtained by evidence *forcing* to a conclusion, resulting in a descriptive model of what is evidenced. You look at the moon, you note down the way it looks this night in a notebook. The moon itself forces the descriptive model you have in your notebook. Those are the facts. But what chooses is obviously free, because it chooses, so any kind of force, including the force of evidence, cannot apply to it.

You refer to only the Empirical or scientific literal meaning of knowledge. Facts are claims that hold the SAME EXACT TRUTH VALUE regardless of the circumstances. Those type of facts are OBJECTIVE. Facts in the emotional and scientific view can change which makes no sense. If I believe the Earth is shaped like a pear is a fact and I am given evidence otherwise then MY BELIEF was false not that THE FACTS changed. Facts are not supposed to change when you specifically describe something. When you vaguely describe something truth values CAN CHANGE. Those types of truths are CONTINGENT truths. The claim "it is raining today" is contingent and depends on context and other things like where I am stating the claim, and so on. If you think facts change then you are being too vague in your claim. The more specific you are in your claim, you will see you are describing a rare instance. So if you MUST use your senses to verify something is so then you will miss the point of objective truths. You will not understand them. The spirit and soul are distinct. These things we are not able to sense verify yet. As a result you can't hold such a discussion for long.

 

[Logikal]

The stereotype of the atheist is that they regard good and evil as fact. For example the Sheldon character, or mister Spock. Sheldon will denote the fact of which women are beatiful and ugly, straight to their face, and try to craft a superior race of people. The emotionless mister Spock, will quantify all life and death issues, calculate what is the right thing to do, given the facts about what is good and evil to sort out the optimal result.

I've talked to a lot of atheists, and 100 percent of them reject subjectivity. Even most of them will know that good and evil are a matter of opinion, they still do not know how to make an opinion, and end up classifying opinion as a subcategory to facts.

How does subjectivity work?

The clue is in that both the statements;
"the painting is beautiful" and,
"the painting is ugly", are valid.

With facts only 1 conclusion is ever valid, the exhaustively accurate representation. "There are 5 sheep in the meadow". Not 4, not 6, only 5 is the valid answer. But with opinions there are always more than 1 valid answers, they are totally different from facts.

Obviously then an opinion is arrived at by choosing it from several available options. That is why there is protection of the freedom of opinion and religion in the law.

The conclusion the painting is beautiful is arrived at by choosing it from the options ugly and beautiful. Expression of emotion occurs only with free will, thus choosing.

All choosing is expression of emotion. If somebody chooses to take out the garbage when the wife asks for it, in stead of laying on the couch, than that may be judged an expression of love.

But subjectivity is not just expression of emotion, it is also saying what the emotions are. To say the painting is beautiful, means to say you have a love for the way the painting looks in your emotions. So subjectivity is an expression of emotions, about emotions.

And as we remember expression can only occur by choosing, it means then that subjectivity is to choose about what it is that chooses.

That means that since both conclusions ugly and beautiful are valid, it also means that both conclusions the love is real, and the love is
not real are valid.

Think about it if the existence of the love were a fact, then this person could not have reached the conclusion that the painting is ugly. Then that love would force him to say the painting is beautiful, and the conclusion the painting is ugly could not be reached.

But if the existence of the love is a matter of opinion, then this person still could have reached the conclusion the painting is ugly, regardless that he said the painting is beautiful.

And of course this is exactly what atheists object to. To have love be real, but the existence of it is a matter of faith, and there is no evidence for it whatsoever.That is the spiritual domain, which chooses the way the material domain turns out.

In my experience all atheists reject subjectivity, without any exception, a full 100 percent of them.

What do you mean by VALID? You are not using the term as defined in logic. You seem to be expressing TRUTH. Is that so?
Secondly, when did facts become a subcategory to OPINION? The fact that all women are human beings is my OPINION? You are confusing terms and this leads to improper reasoning. If I were never born would women NOT be human beings? They would be something else if I were not around? I take myself out of the picture so that you don't talk about what I was taught by authorities and so on.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This weird thread opens not with logic so much as talk. Its new definition of 'Subjectivity' is "choosing about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinion." (From opening post) Its a phrase that makes absolutely no sense unless you're just making up words. Its like saying that a definition is an imagining about what it is that defines resulting in a definition. Its not even a sentence, and if you try to understand or discuss then you're an authoritarian. Basically its throwing out the window a perfectly usable and common definition of subjectivity in order to, I think, introduce frustration into otherwise meaningful sentences. Its saying "No, we cannot use the common definition, because clarity is authoritarian nonsense!"

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You refer to only the Empirical or scientific literal meaning of knowledge. Facts are claims that hold the SAME EXACT TRUTH VALUE regardless of the circumstances. Those type of facts are OBJECTIVE. Facts in the emotional and scientific view can change which makes no sense. If I believe the Earth is shaped like a pear is a fact and I am given evidence otherwise then MY BELIEF was false not that THE FACTS changed. Facts are not supposed to change when you specifically describe something. When you vaguely describe something truth values CAN CHANGE. Those types of truths are CONTINGENT truths. The claim "it is raining today" is contingent and depends on context and other things like where I am stating the claim, and so on. If you think facts change then you are being too vague in your claim. The more specific you are in your claim, you will see you are describing a rare instance. So if you MUST use your senses to verify something is so then you will miss the point of objective truths. You will not understand them. The spirit and soul are distinct. These things we are not able to sense verify yet. As a result you can't hold such a discussion for long.

Well that was useless. Facts and opinions were already defined as distinct from each other in the orignal posting. Your argumentation, the mess that it is, is completely besides the point.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This weird thread opens not with logic so much as talk. Its new definition of 'Subjectivity' is "choosing about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinion." (From opening post) Its a phrase that makes absolutely no sense unless you're just making up words. Its like saying that a definition is an imagining about what it is that defines resulting in a definition. Its not even a sentence, and if you try to understand or discuss then you're an authoritarian. Basically its throwing out the window a perfectly usable and common definition of subjectivity in order to, I think, introduce frustration into otherwise meaningful sentences. Its saying "No, we cannot use the common definition, because clarity is authoritarian nonsense!"

That's nonsense. The sentence has a meaning, if you understand how choosing works. That you do not comprehend the sentence demonstrates you have no idea how choosing works.

Any choice can turn out at least 2 different ways. So it means there are at least 2 valid answers to the question what it is that a makes a decision turn out the way it does.

This is obviously why the statement the painting is beautiful, is just as valid as the statment the painting is ugly. So to say, you can verify that this logical construct is consistent with how subjectivity works in common discourse.

You are an authoritarian because you demand the authority of Hegel be applied, because he supposedly coined the term subjectivity (which is derived from latin). Because of the authority of this idiosyncratic philosopher, we cannot talk about the categorical differences between fact and opinion apparently. That is all the argumentation you have, the authority of Hegel....

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What do you mean by VALID? You are not using the term as defined in logic. You seem to be expressing TRUTH. Is that so?
Secondly, when did facts become a subcategory to OPINION? The fact that all women are human beings is my OPINION? You are confusing terms and this leads to improper reasoning. If I were never born would women NOT be human beings? They would be something else if I were not around? I take myself out of the picture so that you don't talk about what I was taught by authorities and so on.

I said that atheists make opinion into a subcategory of facts. You don't read well, you only screech, you've got no argument.

 

[Logikal]

Well that was useless. Facts and opinions were already defined as distinct from each other in the orignal posting. Your argumentation, the mess that it is, is completely besides the point.

How YOU defined FACT is the PROBLEM which is what I addressed.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

How YOU defined FACT is the PROBLEM which is what I addressed.

This is how I defined fact:
"Facts are obtained by evidence *forcing* to a conclusion, resulting in a descriptive model of what is evidenced. You look at the moon, you note down the way it looks this night in a notebook. The moon itself forces the descriptive model you have in your notebook. Those are the facts. "

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH IT !!!!

 

[Logikal]

This is how I defined fact:
"Facts are obtained by evidence *forcing* to a conclusion, resulting in a descriptive model of what is evidenced. You look at the moon, you note down the way it looks this night in a notebook. The moon itself forces the descriptive model you have in your notebook. Those are the facts. "

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH IT !!!!

Are you serious???? You do not read well. Well let's start with the REQUIREMENT that something has to be sense verifiable. That is what is wrong with it!! You requiring SCIENCE is on the level of any bias. Something can be a ALLEGED FACT to you and latter on be corrected. That is a PROBLEM with it. For example, Pluto has been taught AS A FACT for many students to be a planet in our solar system. This has changed yes or no? What do you do when you have to retract the claim: say the first one was a fact but really wasn't? Or do you try to pull of FACTS can CHANGE?

Are you aware of any OBJECTIVE FACTS? That is, claims that do not change truth value. That was how I was taught how to use the word FACT. A Fact should be forever true. YOU are CONFUSED and think CONTINGENT TRUTHS are FACTS.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Are you serious???? You do not read well. Well let's start with the REQUIREMENT that something has to be sense verifiable. That is what is wrong with it!! You requiring SCIENCE is on the level of any bias. Something can be a ALLEGED FACT to you and latter on be corrected. That is a PROBLEM with it. For example, Pluto has been taught AS A FACT for many students to be a planet in our solar system. This has changed yes or no? What do you do when you have to retract the claim: say the first one was a fact but really wasn't? Or do you try to pull of FACTS can CHANGE?

Are you aware of any OBJECTIVE FACTS? That is, claims that do not change truth value. That was how I was taught how to use the word FACT. A Fact should be forever true. YOU are CONFUSED and think CONTINGENT TRUTHS are FACTS.

You are not reading what I write. It says that a fact is in essence a model. There is the moon, and there is a book about the moon containing the facts about it in the form of words, pictures, mathematics. These facts in the book are a 1 to 1 model of the moon.

That is how the word fact is used in common discourse. If a witness is interviewed by the police then they will try to get the facts, which means to make an exact as possible 1 to 1 model of what happened.

And for Pluto the facts were incomplete, or maybe they were wrong, or maybe it was just a matter of new definition of what a planet is.

 

[Brickjectivity]

if you understand how choosing works.

People say 'How choices are made' not 'How choosing works', but maybe you don't mean that either? Perhaps you mean how choices are made or how a choice is made. I believe this turn of phrase has been throwing me off of what your were trying to say, and only just now do I actually understand your phrase 'How choosing works'.

That's nonsense. The sentence has a meaning, if you understand how choosing works. That you do not comprehend the sentence demonstrates you have no idea how choosing works.

No, what I say is not nonsense. If I wanted to say nonsense then I would make it obvious and would point out that it was a joke if you didn't get it. This situation in which I have attempted to express something to you and you have wasted my time by not attempting to converse, and that is unfortunate for both of us. Why did you start this conversation? Was there something you wanted to say other than insulting me?

Any choice can turn out at least 2 different ways. So it means there are at least 2 valid answers to the question what it is that a makes a decision turn out the way it does.

This could be better said as "...question. There is something behind each decision."

This is obviously why the statement the painting is beautiful, is just as valid as the statment the painting is ugly. So to say, you can verify that this logical construct is consistent with how subjectivity works in common discourse.

Let me restate that in a way that is readable: The sentence 'The painting is beautiful' is just as syntactically valid just as the sentence 'The painting is ugly'. The truth or falsity of them is not equal.

The rest of what you said here I cannot decode, because it is too cryptic. I have worked hard to understand what you are saying yet cannot understand what you mean by 'How subjectivity works in common discourse'. Nobody uses the term 'Subjectivity' in common discourse, and your reinvention of it seems more like stealing a word and changing its meaning. What reason can you have for doing that instead of coming up with your own word and explaining it? My best guess is you seem to disagree with many people about the process through which people contemplate. You believe it is a spiritual rather than a physical process, but it has taken many posts to find that out. Why not just say that is what you want to discuss instead of trying to insist that subjectivity means something new? It just confuses me, and if it confuses me who while to understand what you are saying then its got to be confusing anyone reading your words more passively, but I am not sure if that is what you are trying to say either.

You are an authoritarian because you demand the authority of Hegel be applied, because he supposedly coined the term subjectivity (which is derived from latin). Because of the authority of this idiosyncratic philosopher, we cannot talk about the categorical differences between fact and opinion apparently. That is all the argumentation you have, the authority of Hegel....

Why would I demand anything? What does 'Ideosyncratic mean' and who uses that in sentences? Does it pertain to ideosyncrasy which is a mode of behavior or way of thought peculiar to an individual, or do you mean something completely different? I don't know what you mean, because you seem to use words with different meanings from the norm. How soon will I know what you mean? You have not once mentioned that you wanted to discuss 'Categorical differences between fact and opinion.' I'm only just now hearing that. Is that what this has been about this whole time?

 

[Logikal]

You are not reading what I write. It says that a fact is in essence a model. There is the moon, and there is a book about the moon containing the facts about it in the form of words, pictures, mathematics. These facts in the book are a 1 to 1 model of the moon.

That is how the word fact is used in common discourse. If a witness is interviewed by the police then they will try to get the facts, which means to make an exact as possible 1 to 1 model of what happened.

And for Pluto the facts were incomplete, or maybe they were wrong, or maybe it was just a matter of new definition of what a planet is.

Wrong. You completely MISS the point! What DOES "The facts were incomplete . . . MEAN? IT WAS WRONG!!!
THE EVIDENCE NOW shows that it WAS WRONG to call Pluto a PLANET from the START. IT WAS AN ERROR that was later corrected. Do you see WHY you should not be USING the TERM FACT? If things change someone will sound like a fool for being WRONG and later corrected. Teaching the definition to children YOUR way aka the science requirement way will lead to problems because the children will encounter error in things that were ONCE called FACT and are no LONGER FACT. This will set up the infamous "ALL things are subjective" claim which is FALSE. You are setting people up for failure at least SOME of the time when a conflict arises. They won't know what to do. Call nonsense to the empirical fact definition or the define FACT in the objective sense which you ignore.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This could be better said as "...question. There is something behind each decision."

Let me restate that in a way that is readable: The sentence 'The painting is beautiful' is just as syntactically valid just as the sentence 'The painting is ugly'. The truth or falsity of them is not equal.

No it couldn't be better stated as that, because then the logic ceases to function. Being "behind" has no functional meaning. A decision between A and B, B is chosen, then the question what made the decision turn out B in stead of A, has at least 2 valid answers, any of which can be chosen. That is the construct of how subjectivity works.

The logical validity of an opinion depends on that it is chosen. That means when a statement is offered as an opinion, but it is not chosen, for example it is forced, then it is invalid. Also the opinion must be about what makes a decision turn out the way it does.

Those are simply 2 rules which make for a logical construct, which construct is consistent with how common subjective statements like "the painting is beautiful are arrived at".

Therefore first is chosen between beautiful and ugly, beautiful is chosen. Expression of emotion, with free will, thus choosing. Check validation criteria 1. Then the term beautiful means to have a love for the way the painting looks, the term love is defined as agency of a decision, it is what made the decision turn out beautiful in stead of ugly. Therefore check 2 of validation criteria, the statement refers to what makes a decision turn out the way it does. Therefore it is a valid opinion.

You are still with the ridiculous argument that I am stealing the word subjectivity from Hegel, and in complete contradiction to that, you also complain that I am not using common discourse definitions. Common discourse definitions and definitions from some German philosopher are different.

You are just writing a lot of bureacratic nonsense about authority to a German philosopher, in order to not actually veryify if or not the construct as presented is consistent with how common subjective statements about beauty and such are arrived at.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Wrong. You completely MISS the point! What DOES "The facts were incomplete . . . MEAN? IT WAS WRONG!!!
THE EVIDENCE NOW shows that it WAS WRONG to call Pluto a PLANET from the START. IT WAS AN ERROR that was later corrected. Do you see WHY you should not be USING the TERM FACT? If things change someone will sound like a fool for being WRONG and later corrected. Teaching the definition to children YOUR way aka the science requirement way will lead to problems because the children will encounter error in things that were ONCE called FACT and are no LONGER FACT. This will set up the infamous "ALL things are subjective" claim which is FALSE. You are setting people up for failure at least SOME of the time when a conflict arises. They won't know what to do. Call nonsense to the empirical fact definition or the define FACT in the objective sense which you ignore.

What a load.... People can just be wrong, facts can turn out to be false. This does not set up the all things are subjective claim, it just says there can be inaccuracies in making a model of something. I am guessing at first Pluto looked like a planet, but later when they got more data, then it showed it fit the criteria for a comet or whatever.

Your bizarre definition of fact is unworkable as for example witnesses being interviewed by the police. We want people to understand the word fact in terms of making a 1 to 1 model, this is very useful. Very useful to have witnesses understand the word fact is to make a 1 to 1 recreation of what occured.

 

[Logikal]

What a load.... People can just be wrong, facts can turn out to be false. This does not set up the all things are subjective claim, it just says there can be inaccuracies in making a model of something. I am guessing at first Pluto looked like a planet, but later when they got more data, then it showed it fit the criteria for a comet or whatever.

Your bizarre definition of fact is unworkable as for example witnesses being interviewed by the police. We want people to understand the word fact in terms of making a 1 to 1 model, this is very useful. Very useful to have witnesses understand the word fact is to make a 1 to 1 recreation of what occured.

I guess concepts are not YOUR thing. The point I am making is that your definition is CONFUSING and CONFLICTING. Why bother using the term FACT if facts can be wrong? That is what I would like an answer to. You could just use MODEL or some other term. If the truth value can change then what you EXPRESS is NOT A FACT, period. It is a CONTINGENT TRUTH. That is the correct terminology. Your empirical example about a witness being interviewed is not about certainty but is subjective. I do not see how you can escape the subjectivity of it. Plenty of people have already jumped aboard the "All is subjective" ride. I do not see why you are in denial. If there are inaccuracies then this leaves little room for actual FACTS. Hence all is subjective is how "the practical" thinkers mind will work. The educated know better. A triangle has three sides is A FACT. All dogs are mammals is a FACT. All women are human beings is a FACT. None of my examples will change with the day of the week. None of my examples will change with the room temperature. None of my examples change truth values period: THAT IS WHY THEY ARE FACTS. They can be sense verified so I do not see why you are against an intelligible definition of the word FACT.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I guess concepts are not YOUR thing. The point I am making is that your definition is CONFUSING and CONFLICTING. Why bother using the term FACT if facts can be wrong? That is what I would like an answer to. You could just use MODEL or some other term. If the truth value can change then what you EXPRESS is NOT A FACT, period. It is a CONTINGENT TRUTH. That is the correct terminology. Your empirical example about a witness being interviewed is not about certainty but is subjective. I do not see how you can escape the subjectivity of it. Plenty of people have already jumped aboard the "All is subjective" ride. I do not see why you are in denial. If there are inaccuracies then this leaves little room for actual FACTS. Hence all is subjective is how "the practical" thinkers mind will work. The educated know better. A triangle has three sides is A FACT. All dogs are mammals is a FACT. All women are human beings is a FACT. None of my examples will change with the day of the week. None of my examples will change with the room temperature. None of my examples change truth values period: THAT IS WHY THEY ARE FACTS. They can be sense verified so I do not see why you are against an intelligible definition of the word FACT.

My usage of the word fact is already common usage. If you want to change that usage of the word fact into the word model, well whatever, go ahead and try. What matters foremost is the logic and not the name of the term. And the logic is to make a 1 to 1 model. If people know how to do that, it is very useful. It is the way science works, and many things in daily life.

You've got no logic that I can see. You only got definition of terms. The term triangle is defined as an object having 3 sides. A unicorn is defined as a horse with a horn.

 

[Straw Dog]

Hello Moh,

I see that lots and lots of people focus on evidence, facts, objectivity, forgetting about expressing emotions, opinion, subjectivity. So how does it work? I mean to ask how ordinary subjective statements work, like; "the painting is beautiful", "I love you" etc.

The shortest definition of the logic of subjectivity I've come up with: subjectivity = choosing about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinion.

So to apply this definition to the statement, "the painting is beautiful":

Expression of emotion can only occur with free will, thus choosing the conclusion.

In expressing emotions one chooses between the words ugly and beautiful (simplified).

Both answers ugly and beautiful are equally valid, the validity of an opinion depends on the conclusion being chosen, and not forced.

The word "ugly", means to choose that it is a hate for the way the painthing looks which chooses the word "ugly". Samelike with beauty, then a love for the way the painting looks, chooses the word "beautiful".

So we can see, as fact, the word "beautiful", but we cannot see the asserted love which chooses the word beautiful. The existence of this love is a matter of opinion, which means that one can only reach the conclusion the asserted love is real, by choosing whether or not it is real.

And to state generally, the existence of all what chooses is a matter of opinion.

I'm not sure that I catch your drift, but here is a tentative counter opinion...

Subjective experience is irreducible, but still depends upon a factual context. They are two sides to the same coin. Our 'choices' are made according to particular reasons. Whether or not they are good reasons is a different matter.

Can we really choose what it is that we find to be beautiful? Have you ever looked at a pile of dung and thought, "Okay, I'm just choosing to experience disgust"? Have you ever fallen in romantic love with someone and thought, "Okay, I'm just choosing to love this person and can stop at any time"?

It goes deeper than mere social convention. Freewill is an illusion. Our 'choices' depend upon a causal chain of previous mental states. The opposite of determinism is randomness, not freewill.