better means better ethically? But ethics evolve and are mostly valued from a great distance.. doesn't means much.

No. There is no such thing in the world as "better" except in daily communication that makes it quicker to explain one's decisions to other people who more or less share your view of better and worse.

Yes some people are better than others. They think outside themselves and appreciate the experience of others. — matt

Is this an innate quality of humans or is it something they learn.
If it is innate then in some way it must be genetic and passed on from parents, this does not happen. Many good parents have bad kids and bad parents good kids. And the physical part of it is so bad that beautiful parents in excellent health have had kids that are ugly as sin and as sickly as it is possible to be and continue living
If it is learned, then they are better because society made them better. This is also not true because two people that grow up living next door to each other, go to the same school, have the same friends, have parents that are interchangeable and can still turn out completely different.

The betters also apperciate everything revelatory as if it were significant. Hope can only lie in some kind of faith of truth and beauty. — matt

I have 2 students that suffer from mental short comings, I have never seen anyone else get so happy when they have accomplished their tasks successfully. Does that make them better than the others?

It occurred to me to mention that only 1 out of 3 people ever develope a more refined degree in thinking in problem solving area. I forget if it's called three or four dimetional something... the point is that a person developes this capability by the age of 6 or not at all. And approximately 2 out of 3 never do.

@Plato'sView You response has been posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution!

Better, greater and superior are all value statements and as such are subjective. — Harry Hindu

No they're not.

You and Sapientia seem to be in need of couple's therapy. — Bitter Crank

No. And I have a new policy now, so we'll see how that goes.

And just because we think some traits are better than other traits like having two legs to walk on rather than none; or having properly functioning eyes and ears; doesn't mean that the obvious next step is sending out the poison gas vans to despatch everybody who fails to be "better".

Some people fear that if we admit that some people are "better" than that means everybody who isn't better is worthless. Not so. For one thing, if you list all the traits upon which we might rate people, the list will be very long, and no one will be better at all of them. — Bitter Crank

Yes. Some people just read too much into things.

The question is: Are some people better than others? The answer is simple (isn't it?) — Purple Pond

Yes, the answer is simple: judgements, assessments, evaluations, etc. are subjective. Therefore, people aren't objectively "better" or "worse"--you can't be correct/incorrect with regards to whether someone or something is "better" or not.

Yes, the answer is simple: judgements, assessments, evaluations, etc. are subjective. Therefore, people aren't objectively "better" or "worse"--you can't be correct/incorrect with regards to whether someone or something is "better" or not. — numberjohnny5

Regardless of whether or not your conclusion is true or false, it doesn't follow from that premise alone. So, do you have any missing premises? And, if so, can you reveal them?

I would like to know how it follows that anything humans do is better, or superior, when it is possible that we just might become extinct like the dinosaurs, and we just might take the whole planet down with us. How does that make us better than any other species? Would aliens think that they are a better species than humans? Would they be right? What would make them right? Would that then entitle them to exterminate us?

Regardless of whether or not your conclusion is true or false, it doesn't follow from that premise alone. So, do you have any missing premises? And, if so, can you reveal them? — Sapientia

I wasn't trying to forward a formal argument (I shouldn't have used the word "therefore"); but if I were, it'd go something like this (btw, "subjective" = mental, and "objective" = non-mental):

(1) judgements, assessments, evaluations, etc. are mental states
(2) "better" or "worse" are judgements, assessments, evaluations, etc.
(3) therefore, people/existents/things aren't non-mentally (objectively) "better" or "worse"

I don't think it is fair to compare humans on any metric, nuanced of generalized, since value as a concept is purely subjective.

The only way to accommodate the differences inherent within the people of a society in the context of governance is to remove collectivist notions of arbitrary demographics like race or gender and adopt a more individualist approach to writing legislation. That is to say, provide equal opportunity as a right to every individual and let those individuals decide what to do with those opportunities. Although you wont see equal outcomes between typical demographics, this is as equal as society can get without descending to authoritarianism and/or fascism.

(2) "better" or "worse" are judgements, assessments, evaluations, etc. — numberjohnny5

And there we have it: the false missing premise. There's nothing stopping you from strictly using those words in that way, but that's not integral to their definition, nor are they always used like that. In fact, they're often not used like that, as when someone says something akin to my example. I do not mean to suggest that it is only my opinion that Usain Bolt is better than I am at the 100 metres. He really is, whether it's my opinion or not.

But that isnt relevant to the title of the thread. Does being better at the 100 meters make you a better person? Doesnt it depend on if one values running speed over other qualities? If someone doesnt value making valid arguments (like yourself), then making valid arguments doesnt make one a better person. What makes one a better person and who decides?

What makes one a better person and who decides? — Harry Hindu

The person making the judgement decides on the basis of their set of standards. This is true whether we are talking about personhood or persons with superior features. "Jack is a better man than Joe because he is strong and honest." I prefer strong, honest men over weak, lying men. I think they are better persons. "Joe is a better carpenter than Jack because his houses are straight and true while Jack's are crooked and leaky." I happen to like houses with straight walls and roofs that do not leak.

Am I entitled to make these judgements about other people? Yes. Are you? Yes.

If you think being the best batter on the team makes you a superior person, that's your business. I don't happen to care that much. To me, being the best batter on the team is pretty much a matter of indifference. On the other hand, being the best batter on the team means he is a better ball player than the other people on the team, even if I am indifferent.

Making judgements about other people according to your opinion doesn't make you a relativist, if you are worried about that. It just makes you a person with opinions about other people, which puts you in the company if over 7 billion other people.

But that isnt relevant to the title of the thread. Does being better at the 100 meters make you a better person? — Harry Hindu

That's not how the title is worded. That's just one interpretation of it. I interpreted it differently. It's down to the person behind the title to clarify its meaning. If the question is whether some people are better than others, as per the title and opening post, then my answer is yes, in some respects they are. Some people are better than others at the 100 metres, for example. The question makes little-to-no sense outside of that context.

Doesnt it depend on if one values running speed over other qualities? — Harry Hindu

No, it depends on the criteria, which can be objective. Your way would make it necessarily subjective, but it isn't.

If someone doesnt value making valid arguments (like yourself), then making valid arguments doesnt make one a better person. What makes one a better person and who decides? — Harry Hindu

Depends on the criteria, and the criteria needn't consist of someone's values. If the criterion is my values, then that's what determines it. And if it's something else, then it's something else that determines it. As for the criteria: better in what respect? You make an error in assuming that it must be about values, and you make an error in assuming that it must be a "who" that "decides" rather than a "what" that "determines".

And there we have it: the false missing premise. There's nothing stopping you from strictly using those words in that way, but that's not integral to their definition, nor are they always used like that. In fact, they're often not used like that, as when someone says something akin to my example. I do not mean to suggest that it is only my opinion that Usain Bolt is better than I am at the 100 metres. He really is, whether it's my opinion or not. — Sapientia

You mean with regards to the conventional definition, right? I don't know if I use the terms "better/worse" unconventionally then.

Two things you've helped me realise is that I didn't read the OP very carefully (I assumed the OP was discussing only one species of "judgment"); and also, that I wasn't very precise in what I meant by "judgments, assessments, evalutations, etc." with regards to "better" or "worse".

Moreover, my premise (2) is not false; it is true. "Better" or "worse" are judgments, which occur in minds. Judgments do not exist external to minds (where would we locate them if they did?). Which leads me onto...

There are at least two species of "judgments, assessments, evalutations, etc.":

(1) ones that attempt to match onto objective (i.e. external-to-mind) things, which might include measurements, comparisons, standards, etc.
(2) ones that do not match onto objective things, which include personal valuations or preferences/taste.

I was referring to (2) with my argument of "better" or "worse". I agree that we can, for example, judge objectively whether one person is faster at running the 100m than another; or whether an artist is more accurately able to represent a landscape than another artist. These are measurements that we can judge and compare as we can observe and measure their existence external to minds. What we can't do is apply that logic to things like personal preferences, as personal preferences do not exist external to minds. I tend to avoid using "better" or "worse" when it comes to (1) because therein confusion/lack of clarity lies.

So I would put your Usain Bolt example like this: "it is a fact that Usain Bolt is faster than I am at the 100 metres." "Better" is too vague to me for me to know in which sense you (or others) are using it (although to be fair, it would be helpful if I analysed comments better too!).

Furthermore, one could use "better" in the sense of (1) and say "Usain Bolt is faster than me when running the 100m". But "faster" does not mean "better" in the sense of (2). Someone might think slower is "better" in the sense of (2), for example.

They're not judgements, assessments, evaluations, etc., because they are part of what we judge, evaluate, assess, etc. Judgements, assessments, evaluations, etc., are what subjects produce. They're the outcome of a cognitive act. Better or worse, on the other hand, are relational qualities, like larger, smaller, greater, etc. Whether the moon is bigger than my foot is not down to my judgement, assessment, or evaluation. I can judge it, but it does not rely on my judgement. And it isn't that judgement, assessment, or evaluation itself. Whether the moon is bigger than my foot is down to objective criteria.

I don't think that the meaning of my Usain Bolt example was ever really vague. The man on the street would understand.

They're not judgements, assessments, evaluations, etc., because they are what we judge, evaluate, assess, etc. They're relational qualities, like larger, smaller, greater, etc. Whether the moon is bigger than my foot is not down to my judgement, assessment, or evaluation. It's down to objective criteria. — Sapientia

"They" are the objects that we judge, sure. I'm saying, ontologically, judgements etc. are mental though. Without minds "comparisons" and the like don't exist. Of course without minds objects are "bigger" or "smaller" in size, for example (even though the whole idea of "bigger" or "smaller" doesn't make sense sans mental ideas of measurement). But there are no evaluations about that without minds. Measurements, standards, comparisons etc. is mental activity only. The whole concept of "bigger" or "smaller" is subjective because they refer to a mental construction for measuring/comparing objective phenomena. Criteria is subjective too.

"They" are the objects that we judge, sure. I'm saying, ontologically, judgements etc. are mental though. Without minds comparisons and the like don't exist. Of course without minds some objects are bigger or smaller in size, for example. But there are no evaluations about that without minds. Measurements, standards, comparisons etc. is mental activity only. Criteria is subjective too. — numberjohnny5

You're saying that judgements are mental, and I agree. But when I say that Usain Bolt is better than me at running the 100 metres, the judgement aspect is not as relevant as the truth aspect. It's like you can't see the wood for the trees! The truth is what answers the question. Pointing out that judgement and subject are involved does not answer the question. It doesn't do anything.

And criteria are not subjective, even if they require a subject to set them, which they don't in at least some cases. No one really needs to set the criteria for what makes the moon bigger than my foot. The criteria are predetermined, unless you change them to something else.

Relational qualities are the topic, not comparison. Comparison relates to the topic, but it doesn't get to the crux of the matter.

But when I say that Usain Bolt is better than me at running the 100 metres, the judgement aspect is not as relevant as the truth aspect. — Sapientia

I view truth as mental too. Maybe you mean "fact" by "truth"...? I use the conventional definition of "fact" as "states of affairs".

Also, when it comes to judgements etc., "relevance" is mental/subjective too.

The truth is what answers the question. Pointing out that judgement and subject are involved does not answer the question. It doesn't do anything. — Sapientia

I think you mean "fact" by "truth."

And criteria are not subjective, even if they require a subject to set them, which they don't in at least some cases. No one really needs to set the criteria for what makes the moon bigger than my foot. The criteria are predetermined, unless you change them to something else. — Sapientia

What actually are (as in, ontologically) criteria to you?

Bigger/smaller/faster/slower/etc. are comparative measurements of phenomena, right? Where in the world does the act of measuring occur?

I view truth as mental too. — numberjohnny5

Why? It's not. If a statement is true, then the truth is what the statement says. How is that mental? It isn't.

Maybe you mean "fact" by "truth"...? I use the conventional definition of "fact" as "states of affairs". — numberjohnny5

A fact is, or corresponds with, the truth. If it's a fact that the cat is on the mat, then the truth is that the cat is on the mat, and vice versa.

Also, when it comes to judgements etc., "relevance" is mental/subjective too. — numberjohnny5

That's pointing to trees.

You: "Look! That's a tree!".

Me: "Okay, but let's talk about the woods".

Maybe "for you" the tree is relevant, but how is this one tree relevant in the context of a question about the woods?

Or, better put, you're focussing on the map instead of the territory.

I think you mean "fact" by "truth." — numberjohnny5

I've clarified what I mean, and it doesn't make that big of a difference whether we focus on truth or fact.

What actually are (as in, ontologically) criteria to you? — numberjohnny5

Determinants. They can be objective or subjective.

Bigger/smaller/faster/slower/etc. are comparative measurements of phenomena, right? Where in the world does the act of measuring occur? — numberjohnny5

No, they're relational qualities between one thing and another. They're separable and independent from comparison or measurement.

Measuring is a thing that subjects or apparatus do. Measurements are what they give when they're done. It can be subjective or objective.

Again, map-territory.

I view truth as mental too. Maybe you mean "fact" by "truth"...? I use the conventional definition of "fact" as "states of affairs". — numberjohnny5

You are right.
Both fact and truth are subjective, they both happen in the mind. I would really like to see someone point out a truth in the street. Truth and fact are descriptive of the events and objects of the external world. And the are both relative to point of view.
If I am in the north in winter and you in the south it will be summer. The sun Is way down south is what I would say but you would say no it is on top of us. If the sun was over the equator both statements, the sun is in the north and the sun is in the south are true at the same time.

We judge, measure, compare the objects in our minds, even if we take measurements with a ruler, the results are processed in the mind.

Bigger/smaller/faster/slower/etc. are comparative measurements of phenomena, right? Where in the world does the act of measuring occur? — numberjohnny5

Exactly, the fact that you can measure 1km using a measuring device make no difference to the fact that both the km and the 1 only exist in the mind. As Plato said mathematics is what we use to describe the universe.

What about the collective mind? saving face, hive mind, group think. Don't they count for something? I don't know if I could definitively say if truth was subjective or objective. Is it possible that truth is beyond subjectivity/objectivity.

I view truth as mental too. — numberjohnny5


Why? It's not. If a statement is true, then the truth is what the statement says. How is that mental? It isn't. — Sapientia

Because "truth" is an aspect of statements in which we make a judgement about things. Judgements are mental, something you agreed with in an earlier post. We say "the cat is on the mat" as a statement we believe to be true. Statements require meaning; statements refer to things. Meaning and reference are subjective, mental occurrences. What the statement is about can be a non-mental thing/event (i.e. the cat on the mat) (but it doesn't necessarily have to be non-mental either--it could be mental, e.g. making a truth-statement about your own mental experience).

A fact is, or corresponds with, the truth. If it's a fact that the cat is on the mat, then the truth is that the cat is on the mat, and vice versa. — Sapientia

I wouldn't say that because the thing that is doing the corresponding (i.e. the thing that is making the reference) is the individual in question. People make statements about the facts, not the other way around.

Or, better put, you're focussing on the map instead of the territory. — Sapientia

I don't understand the analogy you're making re woods and trees.

But no, I'm trying to clarify and distinctify the difference between subjectivity and objectivity when it comes to judgments etc. (By the way, the way I use the terms, "subjectivity" just refers to the spatio-temporal location of minds; and "objectivity" refers to the spatio-temporal location of anything that are non-minds.)

I've clarified what I mean, and it doesn't make that big of a difference whether we focus on truth or fact. — Sapientia

Just because you believe you've clarified something doesn't mean the other person is clear on what you mean. That's the whole point of a commitment to conversing and arguing with others' perspectives/views. I get the impression that you don't care to help me understand your views better with a statement like that.

Anyway, I think it's important to acknowledge the difference between "fact" and "truth" because the meaning we have for those terms influences the conclusions we make, as well as helps us understand each other. That's what I'm interested in--I'm not interested in being right mainly because I don't think that's generally, in my experience, a good way to argue philosophically. And not many people generally tend to agree with me so I don't bother (i.e. I'm not too emotionally invested in) trying to convince them either. But I do think it's good practice and healthy to challenge my own views and others' views.

Determinants. They can be objective or subjective. — Sapientia

I'm still not clear what that entails. Looking up a dictionary definition yields this:

"a factor which decisively affects the nature or outcome of something."

Is that what you mean by "determinant"?

Also, what are your definitions for "objective" and "subjective"? We may be using them in different ways, which would add to miscommunication here.

No, they're relational qualities between one thing and another. They're separable and independent from comparison or measurement. — Sapientia

I think we agree on that.

Another way of describing objects/things or facts (as events between things) is that, ontologically, there exist a variety of different stuff. What "makes" those things different are the particular properties they have relative to other things; maybe that's what you mean by "relational qualities." So while some objects are bigger than others ontologically, there is no comparison between "big" and "small" without minds. We make up a system of thought (like language, mathematics, etc.) that enables us to compare things with each other.

The act of perceiving, comparing, describing, measuring, judging etc. about that stuff is subjective (i.e. occurring in minds). When we say one object is bigger than another object and that matches/corresponds accurately to what we're referring to, that would be a true statement/judgement.

Another way of putting it is that relations exist and we make particular judgments about them. Some of those judgments can be true, and some false.

Measuring is a thing that subjects or apparatus do. Measurements are what they give when they're done. It can be subjective or objective. — Sapientia

I agree, although again, I'm not sure how you're using "subjective or objective."

Both fact and truth are subjective, they both happen in the mind. — Sir2u

I wouldn't say all facts are subjective. Some facts don't happen in the mind. The reason I believe this is because I think facts are essentially events, and there exist events occurring inside and outside minds.

Truth and fact are descriptive of the events and objects of the external world. And the are both relative to point of view. — Sir2u

That's almost close to my view. I think that "truth" is an aspect/part of statements. Facts can be mental (like neurons firing), but they are not meaningful statements that refer to things, which is what truth-statements are. In other words, "facts/events" only include those things that exist that aren't meaningful (i.e. non-associative qua minds).

If I am in the north in winter and you in the south it will be summer. The sun Is way down south is what I would say but you would say no it is on top of us. If the sun was over the equator both statements, the sun is in the north and the sun is in the south are true at the same time. — Sir2u

Yes, the confusion some people have about this issue, I think, is down to relative, spatiotemporal reference points. For someone in the north, they occupy a particular location relative to the sun; and for someone in the south, they occupy a particular location relative to the sun. So both people can make statements that are true relative to where they're situated in relation to the sun.

We judge, measure, compare the objects in our minds, even if we take measurements with a ruler, the results are processed in the mind. — Sir2u

I agree.

Exactly, the fact that you can measure 1km using a measuring device make no difference to the fact that both the km and the 1 only exist in the mind. As Plato said mathematics is what we use to describe the universe. — Sir2u

Yes, the concept of km and the unit of 1 only make sense in reference to a system of thought like mathematics.

What about the collective mind? saving face, hive mind, group think. Don't they count for something? — matt

I don't think "collective mind" makes sense outside of thinking that it refers to multiple minds thinking in particular ways. But meaning is personal and not literally shared with/by others.

I don't know if I could definitively say if truth was subjective or objective. Is it possible that truth is beyond subjectivity/objectivity. — matt

I use "subjective" to refer to things existing in particular locations: minds. I use "objective" to refer to things existing in particular locations: non-minds. So I don't really see any other alternative option--"truth" exists in one of these, and in my view, it's "subjective".

Thank you for showing that it is arbitrary - which has been my point all along.

That's not how the title is worded. That's just one interpretation of it. I interpreted it differently. It's down to the person behind the title to clarify its meaning. If the question is whether some people are better than others, as per the title and opening post, then my answer is yes, in some respects they are. Some people are better than others at the 100 metres, for example. — Sapientia

If the OP intended the title to mean the way you interpreted it, it would say, "Are Some People Better Than Others At Certain Things?"

If that were the case, then yes, some people are better than others at certain things - but that would be a boring topic as everyone would agree that we have objective measuring sticks of who is a better runner, or ball player. But being a better runner or ball player does not make you a better person.

The question makes little-to-no sense outside of that context. — Sapientia

Exactly. That is why I said earlier, "It is nonsensical to ask a subjective question as if it had an objective answer."

Because "truth" is an aspect of statements in which we make a judgement about things. Judgements are mental, something you agreed with in an earlier post. We say "the cat is on the mat" as a statement we believe to be true. Statements require meaning; statements refer to things. Meaning and reference are subjective, mental occurrences. What the statement is about can be a non-mental thing/event (i.e. the cat on the mat) (but it doesn't necessarily have to be non-mental either--it could be mental, e.g. making a truth-statement about your own mental experience). — numberjohnny5

The problem with your argument is that it connects truisms with one or more false premises. The less time that is spent on these distracting truisms which you - and certain others who indicate a preference to be referred to in a certain outdated way which indicates a certain kind of haughtiness - raise, the better.

Yes, I do agree that judgements are mental. But no, truth is not an aspect of statements in which we make a judgement about things. Truth is what a true statement says. That a truth can be, and in at least some cases is, separable from - and independent to - judgement, refutes that argument. For example, it is a truth that Earth preexisted us. That is true whether it is judged or not. It would be absurd to suggest that the length of time that the Earth has existed depends on our judgement. You can rightly say that our judgement of that length of time depends on our judgement, but that's trivially true and beside the point.

As for meaning and reference, there is a charitable assumption that we are both competent English speakers, and that we aren't using words in unusual ways. So, "the cat" refers to the cat, and not a fish or an idea or my experience. If I had meant to refer to a fish or an idea or my experience, then I could have used the right words. That's a starting point to a sensible conversation, and that's the only kind of conversation that I'm interested in.

A fact is, or corresponds with, the truth. If it's a fact that the cat is on the mat, then the truth is that the cat is on the mat, and vice versa.
— Sapientia

I wouldn't say that because the thing that is doing the corresponding (i.e. the thing that is making the reference) is the individual in question. People make statements about the facts, not the other way around. — numberjohnny5

No, the individual is not doing the corresponding. The individual can make a statement, and it either corresponds with the truth or it doesn't. The correspondence is out of our hands. We can make statements, not correspondence.

I never suggested that people can make facts about statements. That's a misreading of what I said, as can be seen by comparing the two quotes above.

I don't understand the analogy you're making re woods and trees. — numberjohnny5

It means that you're missing the bigger picture by focussing on what's close by. What's close by are the words that I'm speaking and the judgements that I'm making and so on. By I'm trying to get you to step back and look at the bigger picture, or at that which is outside of your immediate vicinity.

But no, I'm trying to clarify and distinctify the difference between subjectivity and objectivity when it comes to judgments etc. (By the way, the way I use the terms, "subjectivity" just refers to the spatio-temporal location of minds; and "objectivity" refers to the spatio-temporal location of anything that are non-minds.) — numberjohnny5

Judgements don't make sense without something to judge. I'd rather we talk about that something, rather than getting bogged down by the judging and the judgement that is produced, as I think that it has a better chance of getting an answer to the question of the discussion.

Just because you believe you've clarified something doesn't mean the other person is clear on what you mean. That's the whole point of a commitment to conversing and arguing with others' perspectives/views. I get the impression that you don't care to help me understand your views better with a statement like that. — numberjohnny5

So then you explain to me why my clarification has not clarified it for you, and we work from there.

Anyway, I think it's important to acknowledge the difference between "fact" and "truth" because the meaning we have for those terms influences the conclusions we make, as well as helps us understand each other. That's what I'm interested in--I'm not interested in being right mainly because I don't think that's generally, in my experience, a good way to argue philosophically. And not many people generally tend to agree with me so I don't bother (i.e. I'm not too emotionally invested in) trying to convince them either. But I do think it's good practice and healthy to challenge my own views and others' views. — numberjohnny5

Okay, but I think that it's important to acknowledge the similarity.

And I prefer not to digress too much by, for example, talking about talking, or talking about the other person, or their motives, or talking about myself, and so on.

I'm still not clear what that entails. Looking up a dictionary definition yields this:

"a factor which decisively affects the nature or outcome of something."

Is that what you mean by "determinant"?

Also, what are your definitions for "objective" and "subjective"? We may be using them in different ways, which would add to miscommunication here. — numberjohnny5

Sure, why not? I would turn that around and ask you why you think that that definition is inadequate, if that is what you think.

Some words are difficult to precisely define in a way which avoids problems, like "chair" or "game", yet we know roughly what they mean, are able to correctly identify them, provide examples, and communicate effectively. The words "subjective" and "objective" are like that. I don't think it necessary to attempt to precisely define them, and I'm not willing to do so unless you give me a good enough reason. I could quote you a dictionary definition or give you some examples, but is that really necessary? If your interpretation differs from the norm, then that may be where the problem lies. And if it doesn't, then I'm not sure why you think that there's a problem.

(By the way, the way I use the terms, "subjectivity" just refers to the spatio-temporal location of minds; and "objectivity" refers to the spatio-temporal location of anything that are non-minds.) — numberjohnny5

I use the terms in a not too dissimilar manner. Off the bat, and loosely, I'd say that what is subjective is what relates to, or comes from, or is about, or depends upon, or is produced by, the subject. So, thinking, judgement, opinion, evaluation, experience, and that kind of thing. And what is objective is otherwise, like facts, the truth, rocks, planets, reality, and that kind of thing.

I think we agree on that. — numberjohnny5

Okay.

Another way of describing objects/things or facts (as events between things) is that, ontologically, there exist a variety of different stuff. What "makes" those things different are the particular properties they have relative to other things; maybe that's what you mean by "relational qualities." So while some objects are bigger than others ontologically, there is no comparison between "big" and "small" without minds. We make up a system of thought (like language, mathematics, etc.) that enables us to compare things with each other. — numberjohnny5

Yes.

The act of perceiving, comparing, describing, measuring, judging etc. about that stuff is subjective (i.e. occurring in minds). When we say one object is bigger than another object and that matches/corresponds accurately to what we're referring to, that would be a true statement/judgement. — numberjohnny5

Yes.

Another way of putting it is that relations exist and we make particular judgments about them. Some of those judgments can be true, and some false. — numberjohnny5

And yes.

I agree, although again, I'm not sure how you're using "subjective or objective." — numberjohnny5

Okay, well I think that I might have just gone some ways to clarifying that. This time, I'll let you tell me whether I have or haven't. :wink:

Everyone is born equal, under God. A person's life choices will make oneself different from others, but from the beginning we are all same, and will be the same forever, as God loves all (John 5:42).