• Banno
    8.4k
    Hmm. Fair call. Do you enjoy watching other contortionists?

    images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTTIbNE8VGV-Sg3xyERSPFJqrXkyJve5lhmBw&usqp=CAU
  • Enai De A Lukal
    98


    Heh, yeah, that's about it too.. although I suppose it would be even more appropriate if he was attempting to insert his head into his own hind-end.
  • Adam's Off Ox
    52
    Ah, so none of what you say is true.Banno

    The things I write still get themselves believed or denied, but they appeal much less to a body of truth (as an existing thing). Other than "none of what I say is true", I would offer that the phrase "___ is true" does not predicate, in much the same way as a subjective/objective distinction of sentences does not offer clear expression of what the author wants to convey.

    We still offer sentences as speech acts, but focus less on existences and essences, and instead come to understanding of what happens in that the happening contributes to our experience.
  • Adam's Off Ox
    52
    I would genuinely love to watch the spectacle of someone trying to "moving past the illusion of truth entirely" with complete consistency. I'm extremely skeptical that its even possible, but would be quite curious to see what it would look like in practice, even just the attempt.Enai De A Lukal

    I'll give it my best shot. It's been a while since I absorbed myself in the style that brings about consistency. Some of what I write will get called, and I'll likely find myself agreeing that what I have written is inconsistent or didn't obtain of the meaning I wanted. In the early stages some sentences will get scrapped for better ones.

    I apologize if the process gets clunky. Again, while I don't consider myself a postmodernist, I do find value in the critiques that arise from that style. I hope (but don't demand) that you'll be able to differentiate between the rustiness of the author (me) and the effectiveness of the method I'm trying to convey. The writing will improve over time as this author engages with criticism.
  • Gregory
    1.1k
    Who did that?Banno

    Hey friend. I think you were referring to me comment "Saying it is eternally wrong to lie is to make something temporal eternal. It smacks of Platonism". Making the temporal eternal and painting our reality into a Renaissance painting is what the statement "objective morality exists" is all about. Did you know Indian art is designed to bring out fear? Western traditional art is the way of beauty. So there's overcoming fear vs loving beauty as the opposite ways of East and West. I use to love Thomism and the West. I can't get into it anymore. Maybe I'm envious of those people, but again it's always greener on the other side
  • Harry Hindu
    3.2k
    Notice that the OP says pretty much the same thing, even though I removed the word Objective.

    How's that?
    Banno

    So I'll answer my own question. It's truth that is important, not objectivity.Banno
    I thought the answer was that "objective truth" was a redudancy. You could remove "truth" from the OP and replace it with "objectivity", and get the same meaning, too. So the fact that you can get by with using just one of the terms and that they are intergchangeable, means that they are redudant.

    That I prefer vanilla is justified subjectively. The answer to "why do you prefer vanilla" can be "I just do".

    Objective justifications can be contrasted to this. That Hydrogen is flammable is not subject to my preference.
    Banno
    The fact that you prefer vanilla is justified objectively.

    The answer to "why is hydrogen flammable" can be "It just is".

    That you prefer vanilla is not subject to my or even your preference about you preferring vanilla.

    A "subjective truth" would be an oxymoron. A subjective statement is like a category error. If you say, "Vanilla is good", that would be a "subjective truth", where you attributed "good" to the vanilla, when "good" is a characteristic of you when eating vanilla, not a characteristic of the vanilla.

    I may disagree. "Vanilla is not good. Chocolate is good." Our disagreement is a product of our projecting our state of "good and not good" onto the ice cream (if flavors of ice cream is what we were talking about). If we realized that what we are actually talking about were our different mental states when eating chocolate and vanilla ice cream and not some innate property of the ice cream, then we realize that we aren't disagreeing at all - we're simply talking about different things (our mental states) and not the same thing (chocolate/vanilla flavored ice cream).

    It is an "objective truth" that you prefer vanilla and I prefer chocolate. Our family and friends may know this and give us the appropriately flavored ice cream with the appropriate flavored cake on our birthday. It is a "subjective truth" that "chocolate/vanilla cake is the best".
  • Banno
    8.4k

    OK, Harry. I'm somewhat loath to enter into a conversation with you, on past experience. But once more...

    I'll agree with you that "objective" can take on the sense of "true"; hence, when it replaces "true" in the OP it does so without replacing the meaning.

    Otherwise, your post seems to me a list of the problems ensuing from taking the object/subject distinction seriously.
  • Harry Hindu
    3.2k
    OK, Harry. I'm somewhat loath to enter into a conversation with you, on past experience. But once more...

    I'll agree with you that "objective" can take on the sense of "true"; hence, when it replaces "true" in the OP it does so without replacing the meaning.

    Otherwise, your post seems to me a list of the problems ensuing from taking the object/subject distinction seriously.
    Banno
    I wouldn't expect anything more from someone who claims that language is a game.

    So you agree with me that "true" and "objective" are synonyms but my attempt to define "subjective" in relation to "objective" is taking the distinction seriously? Are you saying that there is no distinction, or that the distinction isn't useful?

    It would seem to me that if you agreed that "objective" and "true" are synonyms, then isn't "subjective" the opposite of "objective", meaning that "subjective" would be the antithesis of "true"?
  • Banno
    8.4k
    So you agree with me that "true" and "objective" are synonymsHarry Hindu

    No, I said that you used "objective" to take on the sense of "true".

    You're trading on that ambiguity.
  • Harry Hindu
    3.2k
    So you agree with me that "true" and "objective" are synonyms
    — Harry Hindu

    No, I said that you used "objective" to take on the sense of "true".
    Banno

    No, you said
    I'll agree with you that "objective" can take on the sense of "true"; hence, when it replaces "true" in the OP it does so without replacing the meaning.Banno
    What is a synonym if not a word that can replace another and does so without replacing its meaning?

    Maybe you would be less loathesome to enter into a discussion with me if you didn't try so hard to disagree with me just for the sake of disagreeing. If you actually agree, and it appears that you do, then you don't have to talk to me at all. Just let what I said stand. :roll:
1234Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.