The big mistake is in thinking that there are any issues to resolve in the first place. — Merkwurdichliebe

Do you not think/believe that there are many self-perpetuated problems, all of which are a result of people becoming bewitched by certain language use? Frameworks are language use. Dichotomies are a part of all frameworks. Some dichotomies are used - historically - as a means for doing something that they are inherently incapable of doing. In the simplest possible terms...

Some things consist of both and/are thus neither. Some things are neither because they consist of both. Two ways of saying much the same thing.

Subject/Object is one such dichotomy.

Banno wants to continue/limit it's use, for/in/to some contexts I suppose, but I find it fatally flawed in such a way that it's use loses all explanatory value. It is inadequate for taking account of the attribution of meaning, the presupposition of correspondence to what's happened, and thought/belief formation itself.

non-mental objects. — Harry Hindu

I have no objection to eternal forms.

is not a subjective truth/fact regardless of whether you claim it and Banno believes it? — Harry Hindu

Hey!!! Leave @Banno out of it, or I'll cut you. :cool:

In this case, it is the case. In another case it may not be. Both cases may be equally sensible internally, and totally contradictory externally. But that is okay since the constant of each is independent of the other, and each uniquely contains it's own exclusive subset variables. — Merkwurdichliebe

In what other case would your proposition not be the case? It seems to me that you would simply be talking about something else entirely (a different case), and therefore making a category error or talking past each other.

Do you not think/believe that there are many self-perpetuated problems, all of which are a result of people becoming bewitched by certain language use? — creativesoul

I believe we perceive all kinds of problems, and we try to solve them. I find it difficult to believe they all have one cause ("becoming bewitched by certain language use") though.

In what other case would your proposition not be the case? It seems to me that you would simply be talking about something else entirely (a different case), and therefore making a category error or talking past each other. — Harry Hindu

Different case indeed, that is probably what it would be. But I've qualified the particular case I presented, so unless the case you are presenting is quantifiable under the constant that I specified in my particular case, it has no pertinence, and you are the one talking past me.

But don't get me wrong, you could reconceptualize the whole enterprise, and actually arrive at a conclusion that has great significance for human existence (unlike the case I presented). I would be willing to hear it out.

Do you not think/believe that there are many self-perpetuated problems, all of which are a result of people becoming bewitched by certain language use? Frameworks are language use. Dichotomies are a part of all frameworks. Some dichotomies are used - historically - as a means for doing something that they are inherently incapable of doing. — creativesoul

Indeed, I agree. I think that all philosophy operates by creating it's own problems in order to solve them; and, from a simplified perspective, it certainly can be traced to language use. But, I think the greatest problem is thinking there is a real problem to begin with. Thus, philosophers use all manner of methodology and conceptual framework (e.g. dichotomies) to battle a self created phantasm, and not being able to defeat it, they have a bigger problem. This is true up to and including modern day reductionism/analytics, which is not only guilty of perpetuating the nonexistent problem, but of compounding it, mutilating it beyond recognition, and into a greater delusion that, again, thinks something might actually be resolved. It is all a case of despair of the infinite.

Banno wants to continue/limit it's use, for/in/to some contexts I suppose, but I find it fatally flawed in such a way that it's use loses all explanatory value. It is inadequate for taking account of the attribution of meaning, the presupposition of correspondence to what's happened, and thought/belief formation itself. — creativesoul

There are two approaches as I see it. One is to limit the variables so as to reduce the problem until it diminishes to the point that it effectively disappears, implodes. The other, is to include all possible variables so as to expand into a multivariate conception of the problem (as far as possible), in order to exhaust all potential issue. I don't think either can solve anything. But, this does not mean philosophy is without value.

Not sure if my overall outlook regarding all philosophy is quite as fatalistic and/or fait accompli.

I have a hard time understanding how the same person can do both; acknowledge the inherent problems in philosophy and suggest their continued use.

Logical possibility alone does not warrant assent/belief.

...modern day reductionism/analytics, which is not only guilty of perpetuating the nonexisting problem, but of compounding it, mutilating it beyond recognition, and into a greater delusion that, again, thinks something might actually be resolved. — Merkwurdichliebe

That's a subject matter worthy of it's own thread.

I have a hard time understanding how the same person can do both; acknowledge the inherent problems in philosophy and suggest their continued use. — creativesoul

Call it a paradox. Philosophy for me is analogous to Chuang Tzu and The Useless Tree: "Useless? You should worry!"

Logical possibility alone does not warrant assent/belief. — creativesoul

I agree. But in the absence of any other criterion, this becomes the only ground to stand on.

I agree. But in the absence of any other criterion, this become the only ground to stand on. — Merkwurdichliebe

You've stated this concern on several occasions. If we arrive at the absence of any other criterion, then we've missed and/or completely overlooked everything that existed in it's entirety prior to our account of it.

...modern day reductionism/analytics, which is not only guilty of perpetuating the nonexisting problem, but of compounding it, mutilating it beyond recognition, and into a greater delusion that, again, thinks something might actually be resolved.
— Merkwurdichliebe

That's a subject matter worthy of it's own thread. — creativesoul

I hate the prospect of starting a thread, but I might have to do it if nobody else does.

Maybe later? After we conclude the origen thread?

Resting a minute while hoping that the others will catch up.

in the absence of any other criterion, this become the only ground to stand on.
— Merkwurdichliebe

You've stated this concern on several occasions. If we arrive at the absence of any other criterion, then we've missed and/or completely overlooked everything that existed in it's entirety prior to our account of it. — creativesoul

I agree with what you say here. It is just a round-about technique I use to arrive at an agreement. I believe the absence of any other criterion is only due to our/my failure to establish one. And clearly, this is the case with what I said above.

Agreed. I predict that thread will stir up a major shit-storm. It will probably require all my attention.

In what other case would your proposition not be the case? It seems to me that you would simply be talking about something else entirely (a different case), and therefore making a category error or talking past each other. — Harry Hindu

Different case indeed, that is probably what it would be. But I've qualified the particular case I presented, so unless the case you are presenting is quantifiable under the constant that I specified in my particular case, it has no pertinence, and you are the one talking past me. — Merkwurdichliebe

So were you talking past Banno here:

So that I prefer vanilla to chocolate ice-cream is a subjective fact - or if you prefer, it is a subjective truth. It's truth is dependent on my own taste. — Banno

The proposition "I prefer vanilla to chocolate ice-cream", is not a subjective truth/fact. — Merkwurdichliebe

If we were talking past each other, then how can we say that we are disagreeing? A disagreement is about the same thing - just different explanations about the same thing. Whether we are actually representing the actual state of affairs with our use of language is a separate issue from whether or not we're talking about the same thing. We could all be be wrong, despite our conflicting explanations - which is what a disagreement is.

The OP is only describing one half of subjectivity/objectivity. Namely, the epistemological half. There's also the ontological half.

You should worry!" — Merkwurdichliebe

Perhaps we should. The tree is a marker, a shade, a topic of conversation, a good example of what it is to be useless.

Say that it is useless, and by that very fact it has a use.

Perhaps much the same goes for your comments on the subjective.

Perhaps we should. The tree is a marker, a shade, a topic of conversation, a good example of what it is to be useless.

Say that it is useless, and by that very fact it has a use. — Banno

I think this is the gyst of what he meant.

Perhaps much the same goes for your comments on the subjective. — Banno

I'm pretty sure you mean this as an insult, but I take It as a compliment. So thank you. :victory:

At the risk of antagonizing most of the contributors above, I would say any 'bunch of words we care to utter or write', including this one, has one function only...to attempt to facilitate the choice of future action, including the next 'bunch of words'. From that pov, dichotomies like 'subjective-objective', 'truth-belief' have import only in their promoting 'what, if at all, happens next'. The only context that matters is this one, and unless these discussions impinge on our praxis of living, we are indulging in little more than a type of social dancing with a bit of jockeying about 'who leads'.

What would you say makes it the case that something is important or that something matters?

For example, what would make it the case that only facilitating the choice of future action, including the next bunch of words is important or matters, versus something else being important or mattering?

I just did ! The fact that you responded means it matters to you.
Obviously other 'events' matter, for example had either of us been called away these actions would not have taken place.
(The printing of Jabberwocky, above, had no meaning for me... it was a like a bit of weird jiving in the corner).

At the risk of antagonizing most of the contributors above, I would say any 'bunch of words we care to utter or write', including this one, has one function only...to attempt to facilitate the choice of future action, including the next 'bunch of words'. From that pov, dichotomies like 'subjective-objective', 'truth-belief' have import only in their promoting 'what, if at all, happens next'. The only context that matters is this one, and unless these discussions impinge on our praxis of living, we are indulging in little more than a type of social dancing with a bit of jockeying about 'who leads'. — fresco

I agree that there is much to be gained by considering philosophical disputes to be cultural conflicts, in which the role of the philosopher is that of a propagandist or social influencer. But personally I don't see this position as being necessarily negative or critical about the role or status of philosophy.

I can agree that 'philosophy' can be useful in assisting ethical decisions, but is pretty vacuous elsewhere.

I just did ! — fresco

No, you didn't.

What I'm looking for is something like this:

"What makes it the case that only facilitating the choice of future action, including the next bunch of words is important or matters, contra anything else being important or mattering is . . . . " and then you fill in the blank.

You didn't supply that, so you didn't supply what I'm asking for.

There is no thing else, other than that which informs potential action.
( We've been round that thinging on the existence thread)

There is no thing else, other than that which informs potential action. — fresco

If that were the case, then why would we point out that that's the only important thing? What are you making a distinction with respect to re the word "only"?

Aside from that, the question remains: if there is only x, what makes it the case that x is important or matters?

Because 'thinghood' can be assigned to irrelevancies by parties to an exchange in their attempts to 'lead' the dancing.