Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Leontiskos]

"Essences" are subjective...

You'll have to first give your (stipulative) definitions of 'objective' and 'subjective' if I am going to know what you are talking about, and if we are ever going to stop going in circles.

I'm not going to argue more and more things every post where we keep adding things that we keep arguing about. So let's try to settle one thing at a time.

As far as I'm concerned you can just address Searle.

[Terrapin Station]

You'll have to first give your (stipulative) definitions of 'objective' and 'subjective' if I am going to know what you are talking about, and if we are ever going to stop going in circles.

Personally, I don't care if we're using those particular terms or not, the upshots of whatever terms we use are the same.

But sure, I use:

"Subjective" as "person-dependent" or more specifically "mind-dependent," and specifically with a connotation that it's a phenomenon that only occurs in or "of" persons/minds (so in other words, while in a sense we could say for example that a pair of shoes are mind-dependent, they're not mind-dependent in the sense that they only occur in or "of" minds, so I do not consider shoes (a la the objects you put on your feet, that you store in a shoe box, etc.) to be subjective),

and

"Objective" as the complement--so things that are person or mind-independent, or things that do not only occur in or of persons/minds.

In short, I use "subjective" and "objective" ultimately as locational terms. They tell you where something is found or where it occurs.

As far as I'm concerned you can just address Searle.

Sure. Again, I would, but only if we go systematically through it and you respond to each thing.

[Leontiskos]

You'll have to first give your (stipulative) definitions of 'objective' and 'subjective' if I am going to know what you are talking about, and if we are ever going to stop going in circles.

Personally, I don't care if we're using those particular terms or not, the upshots of whatever terms we use are the same.

But sure, I use:

"Subjective" as "person-dependent" or more specifically "mind-dependent," and specifically with a connotation that it's a phenomenon that only occurs in or "of" persons/minds (so in other words, while in a sense we could say for example that a pair of shoes are mind-dependent, they're not mind-dependent in the sense that they only occur in or "of" minds, so I do not consider shoes (a la the objects you put on your feet, that you store in a shoe box, etc.) to be subjective),

and

"Objective" as the complement--so things that are person or mind-independent, or things that do not only occur in or of persons/minds.

In short, I use "subjective" and "objective" ultimately as locational terms. They tell you where something is found or where it occurs.

Then I have a few questions:

1. What parts of persons/minds are subjective? Apparently my shoes are not subjective. Are my feet? My heart? My brain? Does locational refer to physical location, and if so, what is the physical boundary of the subjective?

2. What sorts of things can be called subjective or objective? Propositions? Thoughts? Judgments? Emotions? What sorts of things are neither subjective nor objective?

Are you just calling subjective anything that a physicalist would think takes place in the brain?

As far as I'm concerned you can just address Searle.

Sure. Again, I would, but only if we go systematically through it and you respond to each thing.

Like I said, I will engage two critiques of Searle's paper. That is, you can give two separate reasons why you believe the paper fails.
Take it or leave it.

[Atla]

Look up "promise" in any dictionary, we all know what it means. This isn't about definitions, but about the is-ought issue which you haven't yet touch upon.

Now that I think about it, this conversation already occurred in this thread. GE Moore and Peter Hunter had it back on page 113. Here is a link.

G E Moore? Blimey. He's slumming it.

Like half of the posters on philosophy forums don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of objectivity (the relevant meaning of objectivity in such discussions), do you know why this could be the case? I'm just scratching my head here, isn't the concept of objectivity already part of modern thinking?

[Belindi]

Leontiskos wrote:

The fact that language depends on stipulative symbols and phonemes doesn't mean that objectivity doesn't exist. That idea is based on a lousy theory of language. Propositions are not made true or false by way of material symbols. They are made true or false by the meaning of the symbols.

(My underline)

But meanings originate with speech communities. Even the most outlandish poet , or the most mysterious cryptographer , have learned their language within an environment, a social environment.

Speech communities are societies, but not aggregates, of individuals.

[Terrapin Station]

1. What parts of persons/minds are subjective?

The entirety, as explained above.

Apparently my shoes are not subjective.

As explained above, because shoes are not part of your mind or body. Shoes are objects that you put on your feet. (I suddenly feel like I'm teaching a kindergarten class.) What I was pointing out was that there is a sense in which "shoes are mind-dependent" is the case, because shoes don't exist unless we first think of them/invent them, so there's a causal dependency there, but that's not what "mind-dependent" in "subjective" is saying; it's not about causal dependency but rather an ontological identity relationship.

Are my feet? My heart? My brain?

Your feet, heart and brain are obviously part of your body, kindergarten class, right? So if we're using "subjective" to pick out an ontological identity relationship with persons, period (and not just mental phenomena), then your feet, heart and brain are subjective.

Does locational refer to physical location,

Yes. Offhand I can't think of what other sort of location you'd have in mind. Even if you're thinking of something like a "logical" location, whatever that would amount to, exactly, I don't see how it wouldn't amount to a physical location. What sort of relational properties could "location" pick out that wouldn't amount to a physical relationship?

and if so, what is the physical boundary of the subjective?

Bodies, or if we're just using it for mental phenomena, the subset of brain phenomena that are mental phenomena.

2. What sorts of things can be called subjective or objective?

Everything that's a body or brain-functioning-as-mind phenomenon. (Again, depending on how wide or narrowly we're using the term; there are two different senses with different scopes.)

Propositions? Thoughts? Judgments? Emotions?

On my view, certainly all of those things are subjective. Again, any personal (wide-scope) or mental (narrow-scope) phenomena are subjective.

What sorts of things are neither subjective nor objective?

Null set. The terms exhaust all phenomena.

Are you just calling subjective anything that a physicalist would think takes place in the brain?

All mental phenomena are brain phenomena. I don't know what "just calling" amounts to here, but okay.

Like I said, I will engage two critiques of Searle's paper. That is, you can give two separate reasons why you believe the paper fails.
Take it or leave it.

I'd go point by point, one at a time, to make sure that you'll respond to the points while not ignoring anything.

[Leontiskos]

1. What parts of persons/minds are subjective?

The entirety, as explained above.

So "Tom Brady has a toenail" is a subjective statement. Grand.

(I suddenly feel like I'm teaching a kindergarten class.)

Kiddo, you need to return to preschool and see if you can make it into kindergarten.

and if so, what is the physical boundary of the subjective?

Bodies, or if we're just using it for mental phenomena, the subset of brain phenomena that are mental phenomena.

2. What sorts of things can be called subjective or objective?

Everything that's a body or brain-functioning-as-mind phenomenon. (Again, depending on how wide or narrowly we're using the term; there are two different senses with different scopes.)

Propositions? Thoughts? Judgments? Emotions?

On my view, certainly all of those things are subjective. Again, any personal (wide-scope) or mental (narrow-scope) phenomena are subjective.

What sorts of things are neither subjective nor objective?

Null set. The terms exhaust all phenomena.

Okay.

Like I said, I will engage two critiques of Searle's paper. That is, you can give two separate reasons why you believe the paper fails.
Take it or leave it.

I'd go point by point, one at a time, to make sure that you'll respond to the points while not ignoring anything.

Then you chose "leave it." My kindergarten class has limits.

[Leontiskos]

Leontiskos wrote:

The fact that language depends on stipulative symbols and phonemes doesn't mean that objectivity doesn't exist. That idea is based on a lousy theory of language. Propositions are not made true or false by way of material symbols. They are made true or false by the meaning of the symbols.

(My underline)

But meanings originate with speech communities. Even the most outlandish poet , or the most mysterious cryptographer , have learned their language within an environment, a social environment.

Speech communities are societies, but not aggregates, of individuals.

The meaning of terms obtains in light of a speech community, but the truth of propositions obtains in light of objective relations between the terms. For example, "One plus one equals two." The meaning of each of those words is found in the speech community, but the truth of the proposition doesn't come from the speech community. The proposition is true in any speech community, regardless of the language they use to express it.

[Belindi]

Leontiskos wrote:

The fact that language depends on stipulative symbols and phonemes doesn't mean that objectivity doesn't exist. That idea is based on a lousy theory of language. Propositions are not made true or false by way of material symbols. They are made true or false by the meaning of the symbols.

(My underline)

But meanings originate with speech communities. Even the most outlandish poet , or the most mysterious cryptographer , have learned their language within an environment, a social environment.

Speech communities are societies, but not aggregates, of individuals.

The meaning of terms obtains in light of a speech community, but the truth of propositions obtains in light of objective relations between the terms. For example, "One plus one equals two." The meaning of each of those words is found in the speech community, but the truth of the proposition doesn't come from the speech community. The proposition is true in any speech community, regardless of the language they use to express it.

Formal logic is abstracted from social life for the purpose of clarifying relations between meaningful concepts.

[Terrapin Station]

1. What parts of persons/minds are subjective?

The entirety, as explained above.

So "Tom Brady has a toenail" is a subjective statement. Grand.

(I suddenly feel like I'm teaching a kindergarten class.)

Kiddo, you need to return to preschool and see if you can make it into kindergarten.

and if so, what is the physical boundary of the subjective?

Bodies, or if we're just using it for mental phenomena, the subset of brain phenomena that are mental phenomena.

2. What sorts of things can be called subjective or objective?

Everything that's a body or brain-functioning-as-mind phenomenon. (Again, depending on how wide or narrowly we're using the term; there are two different senses with different scopes.)

Propositions? Thoughts? Judgments? Emotions?

On my view, certainly all of those things are subjective. Again, any personal (wide-scope) or mental (narrow-scope) phenomena are subjective.

What sorts of things are neither subjective nor objective?

Null set. The terms exhaust all phenomena.

Okay.

Like I said, I will engage two critiques of Searle's paper. That is, you can give two separate reasons why you believe the paper fails.
Take it or leave it.

I'd go point by point, one at a time, to make sure that you'll respond to the points while not ignoring anything.

Then you chose "leave it." My kindergarten class has limits.

That was some argument.

I have children who are probably older than you, by the way.

[Leontiskos]

The meaning of terms obtains in light of a speech community, but the truth of propositions obtains in light of objective relations between the terms. For example, "One plus one equals two." The meaning of each of those words is found in the speech community, but the truth of the proposition doesn't come from the speech community. The proposition is true in any speech community, regardless of the language they use to express it.

Formal logic is abstracted from social life for the purpose of clarifying relations between meaningful concepts.

Sure, but I would also say that discussions about 'truth' are very much part of social life, even if those discussions are not logically formalized.

• Sue: "I heard the White Sox made it to the World Series."
• Bob: "Is that true!?"

[Leontiskos]

That was some argument.

I have children who are probably older than you, by the way.

One of the first things that children learn is that words have a shared meaning. Thus they learn to inquire about the meaning of words. The words "objective" and "subjective" have various meanings. Regarding the word "objective," Merriam-Webster gives seven different meanings, SEP gives four, and IEP gives a few different options. There are also different historical and etymological accounts of the word (Stanford, Etymonline).

What is interesting (although not surprising) is that your understanding of these words is entirely novel and unshared. There is no precedent for the bizarre way that you use these words. This means that when you use such words in a sentence you aren't actually communicating in any meaningful sense. The disambiguation was of course helpful given the fact that your usage has nothing in common with any speech community, and because you have written entire posts that are nothing more than appeals to the meaning of objectivity and subjectivity (link).

In any case, you are failing to observe the basic rule that any child learning language comprehends: words, by definition, have a shared meaning. There's no point in redefining "objective" and "subjective" in a way that no one else understands.

[Terrapin Station]

One of the first things that children learn is that words have a shared meaning.

Is that correct, though? In the face of a challenge to it (including a challenge that definitions and meanings are not the same things), how do we establish that it's the case?

[Terrapin Station]

Re subjective and objective, by the way, again, I said I don't care what terms we use. What matters are the upshots of the ontological facts, whatever we name those facts.

[Belindi]

The meaning of terms obtains in light of a speech community, but the truth of propositions obtains in light of objective relations between the terms. For example, "One plus one equals two." The meaning of each of those words is found in the speech community, but the truth of the proposition doesn't come from the speech community. The proposition is true in any speech community, regardless of the language they use to express it.

Formal logic is abstracted from social life for the purpose of clarifying relations between meaningful concepts.

Sure, but I would also say that discussions about 'truth' are very much part of social life, even if those discussions are not logically formalized.

• Sue: "I heard the White Sox made it to the World Series."
• Bob: "Is that true!?"

I think one has to include the social context of any utterance. What was Sue's and Bob's relationship if any? I can think of a dozen social scenarios in which that exchange might have occurred from two strangers who are bored with each other and making dutiful small talk , to Bob who knows Sue to be a compulsive liar. As a matter of fact that verbal exchange could be the opening sequence of an almost infinite number of stories.

And, yes, that exchange could also be about the theme of "What is truth". That theme is customarily filed under 'Metaphysics' which is itself a study embedded in human social life.

There is no proposition that does not originate in the human.