About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 1:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed understands the concept of "objectivity" as few Objectivists do, in my experience--especially those with a special interest in science.

Cal's resemblance to SOLO's former resident Popperian is strong on this particular issue.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 41

Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 11:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     Re 'subjective' vs. 'objective', please comment on what I wrote here.    (Hope I got that sucker right.)

     Jeez, if we're going to talk about brain-states re the 'Mind- Body' prob, I'd think we could at least get beyond mere neurons and talk about 'neural-networks.'

     Re the 'Mind-Body'...and physics...subject, please comment on what I said here. (See above parenthetical.)

LLAP
J:D


Post 42

Monday, January 30, 2006 - 5:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, if it's my comment you seek (I realize it may not be), in my opinion both your positions on the two issues are exactly correct.

Another illustration of objectivity as not involving other people would be a personal struggle to identify one's true emotions or motivations. Objectivity is a method of awareness, not a means or basis of proof to other minds.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 1/30, 6:31am)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 43

Monday, January 30, 2006 - 10:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, you guys may use weird definitions of objectivity, but they're not the definition I use.

Post 44

Monday, January 30, 2006 - 2:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cal:

     That's ok.

     As long as we're all on the same page of understanding that...when using the terms 'objective', 'subjective', etc... we then definitely will NOT be on the same page; ergo, any discussions would be pointless.

Rodney:

     Hey, I'll take any (well, most anyways) I can get. --- Especially ones that agree with mine  :)

LLAP
J:D


Post 45

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 1:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cal,

============
Well, you guys may use weird definitions of objectivity, but they're not the definition I use.
============

Well, by all means, Cal: Please share your definition with us -- so that we can then know what it is that you are talking about when you use the term (after all, you now know what "we" mean by the term -- it's only fair for us to know what it is that you mean by it, when you use that same term). After all, proper communication dictates that there is no other way forward in a discussion, than to properly define the terms that are used in that discussion.

Ed


Post 46

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 5:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cal, what word do you use for objectivity?

Post 47

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 8:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think the definition on http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/objective.html:
objectivity - The property of being objective. See objective.

objective - Something is objective insofar as it is independent of either a particular mind or minds altogether.

will do for me.

Post 48

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 8:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In case this was missed, please note that my question is different from Ed's.

Post 49

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 9:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, I supposed you meant in fact "what definition", as "what word" seems to me to be rather meaningless, I use of course the word "objectivity". Is this some kind of game or so?

Post 50

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 10:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am trying to establish whether you have a concept of objectivity, but call it something else.

Post 51

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 10:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cal,

I agree with your marshalled definition of objectivity. If our difference doesn't stem from definitions, it likely stems from a contradictory application on either of the 2 sides of this debate. The plot thickens ...

Ed


Post 52

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 10:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cal:

     You, ummm, 'think' that that official definition 'will do' for you, but....you're not sure? I'd think that that definition requires some 'normative' work on it.

     A quick question: if you always take 'objective' to mean 'independent of minds', then, what meaning would there be to saying that someone is 'objective'  (apart from what I already specified)? By such meaning only trees, rocks, calculators (ie: 'objects') etc are 'objective', no?

     Anyhoo, if you don't like my/our defs, ok, no prob.

LLAP
J:D


Post 53

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 11:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John:
A quick question: if you always take 'objective' to mean 'independent of minds', then, what meaning would there be to saying that someone is 'objective' (apart from what I already specified)? By such meaning only trees, rocks, calculators (ie: 'objects') etc are 'objective', no?
This is an example of equivocation. The word "objective" is of course used in more than one sense. If we say that a person is objective, the meaning of "objective" in this case is: "uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices"; in this sense it can't even be used for rocks as it describes a certain attitude, which would be meaningless for a rock. But I think this is not the meaning that is used in philosophical discussions.

Post 54

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 12:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

But I think this is not the meaning that is used in philosophical discussions.

Why not?


Post 55

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 12:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John D.

=======
 if you always take 'objective' to mean 'independent of minds'
=======

There's a subtlety here. Reread Cal's def'n. It is either independent of minds in general, or independent of any PARTICULAR mind. I wrote about this subtlety here ...

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0170.shtml#0

Ed


Post 56

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 2:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert:
Why not?
Well, I'm not a philosopher, but it doesn't seem to me to be an interesting subject for philosophical deliberations and more a subject for psychology. But if you want to discuss it in a philosophical context, you should be aware of the different meanings of the word and not use them interchangeably.

Post 57

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 3:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cal, let's try this again (if you're game) ...

=================
It may be an inescapable conclusion to that particular mind, but that doesn't make it an objective fact: other people can't deduce from that thought in that particular mind that that particular person does exist, independent evidence is needed.
=================

This conclusion -- reached by that particular mind -- is an objective conclusion. It didn't "depend" on that particular mind (ANY straight-thinking mind would have been fine here). Another way to say this is that it's "truth-value" is subject invariant. A noncontradictory integration of the relative entities (minds, bodies) and their inherent relation of dependence -- REQUIRE that that conclusion be made (otherwise, contradiction ensues).

Contradiction itself, is objective (subject invariant). It is something that always applies wherever it's found, for whoever discovers it -- it is an epistemological guardrail, so to speak. A contradiction (always & everywhere) entails either a false premise OR invalid reasoning. It's not a subjective thing, to spot a contradiction -- as it could, in principle, be pointed out to any straight-thinker (with the same epistemological results).

Ed


Post 58

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 4:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:
This conclusion -- reached by that particular mind -- is an objective conclusion. It didn't "depend" on that particular mind (ANY straight-thinking mind would have been fine here).
Yes, it does depend on that particular mind, as it is that particular mind that arrives at that conclusion. That many more minds may arrive at a similar conclusion is not relevant, as their conclusion would refer to their own existence, not to that of others.
Another way to say this is that it's "truth-value" is subject invariant.
. No it isn't, as it isn't the same truth, although it's formulated in the same way for every person.
Contradiction itself, is objective (subject invariant)
No it isn't, as only the person himself knows what he thinks, and that he thinks, and only he can conclude that there would be a contradiction. That he himself is absolutely convinced doesn't mean anything to an outsider who can't think for him, he might for example also be completely convinced that God exists and talks to him. Now we may infer from other observations that other people also exist and that they think and that they probably all will arrive at the same conclusion when they think about it, but the contradiction that is found in any particular mind is not independent of that mind, so it is a subjective conclusion. That we may find on the basis of other information that this subjective conclusion corresponds to an objective fact is not relevant.

Post 59

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 6:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cal,

Ugh! We're talking past each other (issues aren't joined here) ...

===========
Ed:
Contradiction itself, is objective (subject invariant)

Cal:
No it isn't, as only the person himself knows what he thinks, and that he thinks, and only he can conclude that there would be a contradiction. That he himself is absolutely convinced doesn't mean anything to an outsider who can't think for him ...
===========

Cal, think about a round square for a minute. Now ... do you have it pictured in your mind yet? When you've got it, just let me know (by posting back here) -- and then we'll investigate over whether or not the thing (the round square) is subjective, or objective (subject invariant) ...

;-)

Prepared to wait my whole life (if necessary) for your answer,
Ed


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.