That this text is written in English is not dependent on my own taste or feelings. Hence it is an objective truth. — Banno

Truth there can't have the property of being objective because the relation in question only obtains via an evaluation that an individual makes, based on how they assign meanings to the words/sentence in question, relative to what they're making the judgment with respect to--that is, a judgment about that meaning and its relationship to something else. Those are mental events, and hence on the definition of subjective as mental phenomena, we're talking about a subjective property, not an objective property. — Terrapin Station

I'm lost here because I am not sure what "the relation in question" is.

But again I will point out that the use of "subjective" to mean "mental" is fraught.

Even if we agree, we might all be wrong. — Banno

even if what is agreed upon is wrong, the fallacy is still based in objectivity.

If everyone agreed that subjectivity is some weird metaphysical inwardness, the proposition is an artifact of objectivity that can only be related to objectively.

If a sole individual disagreed, regardless if right or wrong, he would still be relating objectively to the proposition, and his opinion would not be subjective since it holds the possibility for agreement. Only if he kept his opinion a secret and never spoke a word could it be considered subjective, and no one would ever know.

...

But now, I shall retract all that I've previously said due to the realization that there are 2 ways of regarding the object-subject relation.

Consider perhaps:

A)views the subject-object quantitatively, as occupying the extreme ends of a gradient, which in turn represents the varying degrees of subjectivity and objectivity. Truth is found in objectivity, so the less subjective one becomes, the closer he is to obtaing truth (as a linguo-histo-cultural phenomenon).

B)views the subject-object qualitatively. They are related dialectally as irreconcilable opposites. Objective truth is completely distinct and separate from subjective truth due to the qualitative difference. An individual cannot simultaneously relate to objectivivity and subjectivity since it would be like facing east and west at the same time.

Or perhaps not

I insist that every sentence is authored, and every author has perspective, so every sentence must have perspective. — Hanover

Well, I've some sympathy for this, but the premise is false. There are sentences that have not been written, hence there are sentences that are not authored. A pedantic argument we might do without.

Knowledge from no perspective is incoherent. — Hanover

Yep. Because knowledge involves belief. But knowledge and truth are distinct.

I'm not sure there is much difference between your saying that all sentences come from a specific perspective, and my saying that we ought look to the use of a sentence in preference to looking at its meaning. Isn't the perspective more art less the use to which the sentence is put?

The simple test is whether we're talking about mental phenomena or not. — Terrapin Station

I think this in error.

Every proposition has a mental perspective because propositions are meanings and meaning is a mental phenomenon. — Terrapin Station

And this.

To understand why I say that truth is subjective, one needs to understand how I define the subjective/objective distinction, and then understand my analysis of truth, which is based initially on standard notions of what truth is in analytic philosophy, and then understand my more controversial ontological analysis with respect to those standard analytic philosophy notions. A lot of people on the board aren't going to bother with all of that, because unfortunately we're often just not that interested in understanding others' views as their views--or "simply for the sake of understanding their views." — Terrapin Station

My suspicion is that for you truth and belief are pretty much the same, and hence, since opinion is subjective and belief is opinion, that truth is opinion and hence truth is subjective...

But I might be wrong.

You're just using the terms in a different sense, and a sense which doesn't make much sense in a broader context, because it makes sense to say that my opinion that screamo music is awful is subjective. Yet you say that it could only be subjective if I kept it a secret and never expressed it, so that no one could know of it, which is absurd on the face of it. Your usage is idiosyncratic.

Words are used all sorts of ways, by all sorts of people. There might be an individual who uses "cat" to only refer to what most of us call "dogs," for example. Saying that the most common way to use a term is somehow "true" (or correct, etc.) by virtue of that fact is the argumentum ad populum fallacy. — Terrapin Station

Indeed. That's why I'm not saying that.

If you came across a group of folk who used "cat" to only refer to what most of us call "dogs," then you would be best sir red to use "cat" when you talk about dogs.

This is true despite most folk using "cat" to talk about cats.

An objective point of view is like a map or a schematic. The viewer seems to be stationed outside if the world that's being observed.

A subjective viewpoint has the viewer positioned centrally in the world. We all know what that's like. Stop thinking and look: that's the doorway to subjectivity.

He confuses the ad populum fallacy with the basis of general meaning.

Right. In other words, subjective statements are value statements. — Harry Hindu

Maybe. I would be a bit guarded aghast making such a broad generalisation.

Is it not a fact that Banno prefers vanilla ice to chocolate, regardless how anyone feels about that, including Banno? Is that not an attribute of Banno? — Harry Hindu

Someone else said something similar. I don't think so. I think my preference is rather central to the issue, and hence the statement is subjective.

Jack the cat has a perspective, sure. I don't see that as of much relevance.

If folk keep adding comments at a greater rate than I can reply, this will be my longest ever thread.

Is it not a fact that Banno prefers vanilla ice to chocolate, regardless how anyone feels about that, including Banno? Is that not an attribute of Banno?
— Harry Hindu

Someone else said something similar. I don't think so. I think my preference is rather central to the issue, and hence the statement is subjective. — Banno

Why not just accept that it is both subjective and objective in different senses and avoid arguing over whether it is either one or other? That seems like black-and-white thinking which will just lead to problems like talking past each other.

If folk keep adding comments at a greater rate than I can reply, this will be my longest ever thread. — Banno

You'll never catch up, like Achilles in the race with the tortoise. :grin:

No one has yet defined "meaning." — tim wood

Pointedly. I'm following the opinion that it is better to look to use than meaning.

:joke:

in the context of ethics, it is a subjective fact that you judge murder to be wrong, and "murder is wrong" is unwarranted, because moral objectivism is unwarranted. You assert that the latter is a fact, but you fail to reasonably demonstrate it as such, so your assertion can be justifiably dismissed. — S

A bit out of left field, but OK.

I also claim to prefer vanilla ice over chocolate ice. Do you expect me to provide a warrant for that, too?

Perhaps it is wrong to insist that every true statement demands justification.

A bit out of left field, but OK.

I also claim to prefer vanilla ice over chocolate ice. Do you expect me to provide a warrant for that, too?

Perhaps it is wrong to insist that every true statement demands justification. — Banno

No, I don't expect you to provide warrant for that, just as I don't expect you to provide warrant for saying that you judge murdering a child to be more wrong than swatting a fly.

But I do expect you to provide warrant for saying that "murder is wrong" is objectively true, if that's what you say or imply, and that's a reasonable expectation.

Two possibilities: Gods exist; Gods do not exist.
Two attitudes: I believe that.. ; I do not believe that...

Four possibilities:
a) I believe that gods exist
b) I believe that gods do not exist
c) I do not believe that gods exist
d) I do not believe that gods do not exist.

One cannot consistently hold (a) and (b) because they imply "I believe that gods exist and do not exist.

One can consistently hold (c) and (d), by not having a belief about gods.

One cannot consistently hold (a) and (c), since one is the negation of the other.

One can believe (b) and (d) by being agnostic.

I'm open minded and willing to consider that broader context you speak of, if you're willing to breifly explain what it is.

Ill approach it dialectically. You listened to screamo music. Perhaps it made you despair (whether physiologically or mentally) to the verge of suicide. That is the first dialectical movement into subjectivity.

You form an opinion that the music is making you sick. The music ends and the despair disappears but the opinion remains. For the subject, what is the opinion compared to the actual experience? The opinion merely functions to mediate the subjective experience and this mediation is the second dialectical movement into objectivity.

While the actual experience is eternally confined to subjective existence, the mediated (the opinion) is a form that can potentially be held in common with others as objective knowledge. The mere fact that it is possible to hold the opinion in common makes it objective.

So I will admit that the subject's existence plays an essential role in forming opinion, but I still regard opinion as a mediation into objectivity

All you have done here is to say that what is subjective is not shared, and that what is not shared is subjective.

A circle through with the beetle drops out of the discussion.

Also, the different sense added by @Terrapin Station is senseless.

The mere fact that it is possible to hold the opinion in common makes it objective. — Merkwurdichliebe

Not as per how the term is more commonly used, but yes, in some idiosyncratic sense, it can be said to be objective.

Big deal.

By "the same thing" I include any intuition or phenomena that the observer experiences as a result of their mental state. So if we look at the same sky and disagree about tomorrows weather due to having had different past experiences, we aren't looking at the same thing by my definition. — sime

That looks slightly mad.

Suppose someone says "Only the sky we share before us is objective, and our private intuitions are subjective and irrelevant". This isn't a deep epistemological statement about the world we experience, this is merely a statement about a linguistic convention that ignores the private facts of each person. — sime

...and that would be a good thing.

Where did I say that... you give me too much credit my friend, but not enough coherence in your understanding. The gaping ellipsis of your reasoning is astounding

Meaning is use. — S

Too strong. Forget meaning -- look instead at what we do with words.

Too strong. Forget meaning -- look instead at what we do with words. — Banno

"For a large class of cases--though not for all--in which we employ the word "meaning" it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language."

I'll stick with that, since I can't think of a good enough reason not to.

...

.

I'm happy you agree.

Just out of curiousity and ignorance on my part, if you'll breifly explain, what is the more common use of the term?

I can go by that interpretation. I can apply it. But, in ethics, it doesn't result in moral objectivism. — S

You seem concerned that I don't use the term "moral objectivism". IS it that you think that moral statements being subjective renders them somehow less important?

Mortal statements have a direction of fit such that we change how things are to make the statement so.

Suppose I think that one ought keep holy the Sabbath ( I don't).

If Fred comes along and says that we should open up shops on the Sabbath, I might simply say that he is wrong. That does not make my beliefs about the Sabbath any less subjective.

That is, keeping the Sabbath Holy, while not objective, can still determine my attitude towards Fred.

Yeah, that's not as clear as I would like it to be. We are in a culture that has valued objective truths because it seems easier to reach agreement on them. This has led to a devaluation of subjective truths.

Yet it is our attitude towards things that is most important.

What cannot be said is of far greater import than what can be said.

But now, I shall retract all that I've previously said due to the realization that there are 2 ways of regarding the object-subject relation. — Merkwurdichliebe

While I don't understand much of what you have said, this re-thinking deserves respect.

Yep.