168 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Maria Caliban wrote...
I’d suggest that the majority of human existence is trying to understand an objective world through a subjective lens.

YEESSSSS!!!! OMG thank you, Maria!

this is precisely it. this is the answer to all of your constant questioning. this should explain it to you once and for all, and if it doesnt you either cant be helped or you're just refusing to accept it. all of it boils down to this:

the world is what it is. actions are what they are. existence is what it is. unfortunately we simply cannot accurately perceive this objective truth because we are inherently subjects within that objective reality.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 octobre 2009 - 07:16 .

[Christoph Gasser]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
I’d suggest that the majority of human existence is trying to understand an objective world through a subjective lens.

YEESSSSS!!!! OMG thank you, Maria!

this is precisely it. this is the answer to all of your constant questioning. this should explain it to you once and for all, and if it doesnt you either cant be helped or you're just refusing to accept it. all of it boils down to this:

the world is what it is. actions are what they are. existence is what it is. unfortunately we simply cannot accurately perceive this objective truth because we are inherently subjects within that objective reality.

I would say everybody not only the majority understands the world through a subjective lens. I don't question if the world is objective. The question is if values are objective.

I see that we don't disagree at all. We both think that no human can judge an action as good or bad objectively.

Modifié par Christoph Gasser, 27 octobre 2009 - 10:36 .

[the_one_54321]

Christoph Gasser wrote...

I see that we don't disagree at all. We both think that no human can judge an action as good or bad objectively.

no, i certainly do not disagree with that, at all.

[Christoph Gasser]

you wrote:

unfortunately we simply cannot accurately perceive this objective truth because we are inherently subjects within that objective reality.

and

it depends. it always depends. one of them is wrong. is there any way to tell which one of themis wrong? there almost always isnt a way. because there almost always isnt a way to uncover every single aspect of an individual instance.

so you would say that we are almost always unable to make an objective judgment but in some very few cases we can?

sorry either you are contradicting yourself or I don't get you at all.

Modifié par Christoph Gasser, 27 octobre 2009 - 07:53 .

[the_one_54321]

inherently being subjects within the objective reality we are almost never able to fully perceive the truth of the objective reality. hence, when there is a disagreement, one or both of the subjects are incorrectly perceiving the truth of the objective reality. because of the nature of perception, this is almost always the case.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 octobre 2009 - 07:56 .

[Christoph Gasser]

the_one_54321 wrote...

inherently being subjects within the objective reality we are almost never able to fully perceive the truth of the objective reality. hence, when there is a disagreement, one or both of the subjects are incorrectly perceiving the truth of the objective reality. because of the nature of perception, this is almost always the case.

And as you said yourself above we are almost always unable to definitely say who preceives the truth incorrectly (this statement only applies to value questions, in the realm of science we have ways to determine that). Hence, we are unable to make an objective judgment.

I'm just trying to follow your logic here.

Modifié par Christoph Gasser, 27 octobre 2009 - 08:07 .

[the_one_54321]

Christoph Gasser wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...



inherently being subjects within the objective reality we are almost never able to fully perceive the truth of the objective reality. hence, when there is a disagreement, one or both of the subjects are incorrectly perceiving the truth of the objective reality. because of the nature of perception, this is almost always the case.

And as you said yourself above we are almost always unable to definitely say who preceives the truth incorrectly (this statement only applies to value questions, in the realm of science we have ways to determine that). Hence, we are unable to make an objective judgment.

yes, which is why value judgments are usually impossible in the practical sense. but that doesnt mean they are impossible in the theoretical or philosophical sense. i said this earlier, too.

[Christoph Gasser]

yes, which is why value judgments are usually impossible in the practical sense.

okay, let's agree on that.

[grregg]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
I’d suggest that the majority of human existence is trying to understand an objective world through a subjective lens.

YEESSSSS!!!! OMG thank you, Maria!

this is precisely it. this is the answer to all of your constant questioning. this should explain it to you once and for all, and if it doesnt you either cant be helped or you're just refusing to accept it. all of it boils down to this:

the world is what it is. actions are what they are. existence is what it is. unfortunately we simply cannot accurately perceive this objective truth because we are inherently subjects within that objective reality.

Heh... I'd say that this is how fundamentalists often start. You have this great system but people question it. After some discussions you arrive at the conclusion the system is wonderful, but people just don't get it.
Pretty soon you realize that some people can perhaps can be re-educated to accept the system, but there are always some hopeless cases.

Usually at this point the "avoid injurious action" principle gets readjusted so that it does not stand in the way of righteous smacking that the pesky questioners so richly deserve.

That was a joke by the way, no need to send Inquisition over.

More seriously though, to both you and Maria. I do not object to the systems you propose. Generally what I have trouble with is you calling them objective. I honestly do not see how they are in any way objective.

If it does not look like a duck and it does not quack like a duck, then perhaps it is not a duck?

[the_one_54321]

grregg wrote...
I honestly do not see how they are in any way objective.

and i dont see where the objectivity is lacking. the world is what it is. the concept of survival and perpetuation of species is what it is. i honestly dont know if it can get any more base or universal than "i dont want to die."

[Odelpex]

Maria Caliban wrote...
I’d suggest that the majority of human existence is trying to understand an objective world through a subjective lens.

Exactly, and our morality is that lens.

[soteria]

If the world is objective, but our lens is subjective, and all we have is our subjective lens to view the world through, then is it useful or profitable to claim that the world is objective? The world, after all, only exists through our senses.

[the_one_54321]

soteria wrote...



If the world is objective, but our lens is subjective, and all we have is our subjective lens to view the world through, then is it useful or profitable to claim that the world is objective? The world, after all, only exists through our senses.

of course it is profitable. to claim that there is no point in recognizing the objective existence of the world is like saying "i will never be perfect, so there is no purpose to ever improving myself."



at least that is my opinion on it. i think it can be used to better our own perception of what goes on around us.

[PsychoBlonde]

Objective is an epistemological term which means that a given idea corresponds with reality. (Correspondence theory of truth.) Reality is not objective or subjective, it just is. Ideas (like ethics) are objective *if they correspond with reality*. You demonstrate this by tying them back to demonstrable evidence.



So instead of saying that human existence is like trying to know the objective via subjective means, I'd say that the proper human endeavor is using the means we have (our sensory apparatus) in order to form objective knowledge. When we fail in this, our ideas, thoughts, emotions and lives become subjective, torn adrift from reality and thus from any hope of meaning or achievement.



Ultimately, the good consists of embracing reality and making the most that you can out of it.

[the_one_54321]

PsychoBlonde wrote...



Objective is an epistemological term which means that a given idea corresponds with reality. (Correspondence theory of truth.) Reality is not objective or subjective, it just is. Ideas (like ethics) are objective *if they correspond with reality*. You demonstrate this by tying them back to demonstrable evidence.



So instead of saying that human existence is like trying to know the objective via subjective means, I'd say that the proper human endeavor is using the means we have (our sensory apparatus) in order to form objective knowledge. When we fail in this, our ideas, thoughts, emotions and lives become subjective, torn adrift from reality and thus from any hope of meaning or achievement.



Ultimately, the good consists of embracing reality and making the most that you can out of it.

although i am really liking the sound of this, i am going to ask you to similarly qualify "subjective" before i respond.

[grregg]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Objective is an epistemological term which means that a given idea corresponds with reality. (Correspondence theory of truth.) Reality is not objective or subjective, it just is. Ideas (like ethics) are objective *if they correspond with reality*. You demonstrate this by tying them back to demonstrable evidence.

So instead of saying that human existence is like trying to know the objective via subjective means, I'd say that the proper human endeavor is using the means we have (our sensory apparatus) in order to form objective knowledge. When we fail in this, our ideas, thoughts, emotions and lives become subjective, torn adrift from reality and thus from any hope of meaning or achievement.

Ultimately, the good consists of embracing reality and making the most that you can out of it.

As far as I know 'objectivity' is a bit of a tricky concept. Discussions about it continue. For the last two thousand years or so....

Anyway, if the proper human endeavor is to use the means we have in order to form objective knowledge, then I propose that we should kidnap a large number of people, imprison them somewhere and run a series of horrific, painful experiments in order to form some objective medical knowledge. Given the large enough number of victims, we should surely be proclaimed saints. How about it?

[grregg]

the_one_54321 wrote...

grregg wrote...
I honestly do not see how they are in any way objective.

and i dont see where the objectivity is lacking. the world is what it is. the concept of survival and perpetuation of species is what it is. i honestly dont know if it can get any more base or universal than "i dont want to die."

Let me put it that way. The world is what it is and we don't know what it is. The concept of survival and perpetuation of species is what it is (and I think we understand it fairly well). And I do not see how you got from "perpetuation of species" to "avoid injurious behavior if possible, etc".

[soteria]

the_one_54321 wrote...

soteria wrote...

If the world is objective, but our lens is subjective, and all we have is our subjective lens to view the world through, then is it useful or profitable to claim that the world is objective? The world, after all, only exists through our senses.

of course it is profitable. to claim that there is no point in recognizing the objective existence of the world is like saying "i will never be perfect, so there is no purpose to ever improving myself."

at least that is my opinion on it. i think it can be used to better our own perception of what goes on around us.

What the heck kind of analogy is that?  I'm not sure what you're saying in reference to my post.  We're talking about "good," how did you take that to "the objective existence of the world"?  Sure, I said "the world," but read in context of the conversation.

[Nighteye2]

soteria wrote...
If the world is objective, but our lens is subjective, and all we have is our subjective lens to view the world through, then is it useful or profitable to claim that the world is objective? The world, after all, only exists through our senses.

Well, there exists such a thing as triangulation. Basically, the average of many subjective views is supposed to be closer to the objective than any single subjective view can be expected to be.

Consider the analogy with numerical guesses: some people guess too low, other people guess too high, and the average of all guesses is fairly accurate.

[the_one_54321]

grregg wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

grregg wrote...
I honestly do not see how they are in any way objective.

and i dont see where the objectivity is lacking. the world is what it is. the concept of survival and perpetuation of species is what it is. i honestly dont know if it can get any more base or universal than "i dont want to die."

Let me put it that way. The world is what it is and we don't know what it is. The concept of survival and perpetuation of species is what it is (and I think we understand it fairly well). And I do not see how you got from "perpetuation of species" to "avoid injurious behavior if possible, etc".

perpetuate the species.
diversity of species leads to higher chance of perpetuation.
mutual perpetuation is mutually beneficial.
in some cases members of one species must kill members of other species.
this promotes diversity, ergo mutually beneficial.
however, the elimination of a species leads to less diversity, ergo not mutually benficial.
therefore avoid injurious behavior if possible.

soteria wrote...
What the heck kind of analogy is that? I'm not sure what you're saying in reference to my post. We're talking about "good," how did you take that to "the objective existence of the world"? Sure, I said "the world," but read in context of the conversation.

in other words: just because we will never arrive at the perfect answer does not mean that we should not bother seeking it.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 28 octobre 2009 - 02:34 .

[Maria Caliban]

grregg wrote...

More seriously though, to both you and Maria. I do not object to the systems you propose. Generally what I have trouble with is you calling them objective. I honestly do not see how they are in any way objective.

If it does not look like a duck and it does not quack like a duck, then perhaps it is not a duck?

I didn't call my system objective. In fact, I was very clear that my system was not objective.

[soteria]

Nighteye2 wrote...

soteria wrote...
If the world is objective, but our lens is subjective, and all we have is our subjective lens to view the world through, then is it useful or profitable to claim that the world is objective? The world, after all, only exists through our senses.

Well, there exists such a thing as triangulation. Basically, the average of many subjective views is supposed to be closer to the objective than any single subjective view can be expected to be.

Consider the analogy with numerical guesses: some people guess too low, other people guess too high, and the average of all guesses is fairly accurate.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying either that whatever most people believe to be right is true, or that if some people believe one extreme, and other people believe another extreme, the answer is in the middle.  Is that correct?  I don't want to set up a straw man.

For your analogy of numerical guesses... make of this what you will, but I remember a time in school when we had to guess how many skittles were in a jar.  The number I put down was, I believe, two or three times higher than the next lowest guess.  Even my guess was low.  The average of all the numerical guesses would have been way off.

[Maria Caliban]

soteria wrote...

If the world is objective, but our lens is subjective, and all we have is our subjective lens to view the world through, then is it useful or profitable to claim that the world is objective? The world, after all, only exists through our senses.

I don't know if I agree that the world only exists through my senses. For instance, my thoughts and feelings aren't senses but they appear to exist, and that appearance isn't based on any of the traditional senses. I suppose you might be referring to my sense of self.

Anyways, you asked if it were useful. It’s certainly more useful than the alternative when it comes to ethics. If there’s no objective reality than nothing could be said to exist. A universe in which nothing exists, but somehow that non-existence has convinced itself that it exists in an interesting idea, but it’s not a useful frame to build an ethical standard on.

We could also have a reality where only one thing exists and while the rest of reality is its subjective and untrue. In this case, we might say that all of reality is not good as it’s based on a lie, or we might say that all of reality is good because it entertains/amuses the one thing that exists.

Interesting, but not useful to us.

If you want to ask what is good, which is the purpose of this thread, it is very useful to have an objective world with independent actors who exist, and whose influence on the world is similar to what we perceive it to be.

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Objective is an epistemological term which means that a given idea corresponds with reality. (Correspondence theory of truth.) Reality is not objective or subjective, it just is. Ideas (like ethics) are objective *if they correspond with reality*. You demonstrate this by tying them back to demonstrable evidence.

So instead of saying that human existence is like trying to know the objective via subjective means, I'd say that the proper human endeavor is using the means we have (our sensory apparatus) in order to form objective knowledge. When we fail in this, our ideas, thoughts, emotions and lives become subjective, torn adrift from reality and thus from any hope of meaning or achievement.

Ultimately, the good consists of embracing reality and making the most that you can out of it.

Yeah, I'm so horribly mangling the terms then.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 28 octobre 2009 - 03:28 .

[the_one_54321]

soteria wrote...
If I understand you correctly, you're saying either that whatever most people believe to be right is true, or that if some people believe one extreme, and other people believe another extreme, the answer is in the middle. Is that correct? I don't want to set up a straw man.

no, that's not actually what he is saying.

there are three people looking at something that is fairly far away from each of them. each of them makes an estimate of the precise location of that thing. none of them are correct in their estimate. however, by using all of their estimates together the three of them are able to make a last estimate that is much closer than all of the first three.

triangulation, in specific, is where three points are able to tell you only their precise distance from an object. none of them actually know where it is, each only knows exactly how distant the object is. then, knowing how distant all three of those points are from the object you are able to determine its exact location since there is only one point in space that matches all three distances.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 28 octobre 2009 - 04:01 .

[soteria]

the_one_54321 wrote...

soteria wrote...
If I understand you correctly, you're saying either that whatever most people believe to be right is true, or that if some people believe one extreme, and other people believe another extreme, the answer is in the middle. Is that correct? I don't want to set up a straw man.

no, that's not actually what he is saying.

there are three people looking at something that is fairly far away from each of them. each of them makes an estimate of the precise location of that thing. none of them are correct in their estimate. however, by using all of their estimates together the three of them are able to make a last estimate that is much closer than all of the first three.

triangulation, in specific, is where three points are able to tell you only their precise distance from an object. none of them actually know where it is, each only knows exactly how distant the object is. then, knowing how distant all three of those points are from the object you are able to determine its exact location since there is only one point in space that matches all three distances.

I know what triangulation is, geometrically speaking.  I didn't get the impression he meant that, though.  Besides, triangulation isn't about estimation--it's precise, unless you're using it for astronomy--and you only need two points of view, not three, and none of the points "knows" their distance from the object, only their distance from each other and the relative angles.

What you said in your first paragraph is basically "Everyone takes a guess at how far away it is and then average the guesses."  Hence, my question.