Is there anything wrong with that statement ?:o

" Things only have meaning as far as we define them, and the way we define them (such as through scientific models and theories) cannot be objective or "truthful."

What exactly are you expecting to be wrong with it?

At first glance I would say that the statement is saying that at one side, everything has a meaning only as far as we have defined it, but on the other side, it implies a universal meaning for "objective" and "truthful".

Is there anything wrong with that statement ?:o

" Things only have meaning as far as we define them, and the way we define them (such as through scientific models and theories) cannot be objective or "truthful."

Substitute "meaning" for "meaning for humans".

...cannot be objective or "truthful."
...cannot be absolutely verified as objective or...

That is true. Things only have meaning in relation to other things, which are symbols we defined. There is no such thing as absolute truth.

It was just an answer to a question I put on another forum,that question being
"What is color "
I suggested if color was a property that physical objects have,and not a property that physical objects are just perceived to have, and as color seems to be a structured property with a set of rules governing how we view color could that be seen as color being objective? :confused:

I suggested if color was a property that physical objects have,and not a property that physical objects are just perceived to have, and as color seems to be a structured property with a set of rules governing how we view color could that be seen as color being objective? :confused:

That's objective?
Are the rules objective?

well that's what i asked,!!!!

What's this obsession people are having with objective/subjective truths—and truth in quotation marks too?

Isn't my truth not necessarily your truth?

I can also sometimes recognize your truth; meaning that there is a kinship of experience involved.

And then there are individuals who write about truth—as in philosophy or literature—whose descriptions have the effect on us of seeing ideas being observed; of experiencing phenomena being pulled out of the dark; of beholding substance and form where previously a vague realization was trying to coalesce.

Is one then not viewing objectively subjective material? and then incorporating that material into one's person, subjectively?

Inotherwords, reaction is subjective—while that which precedes reaction is an objective faculty: observation.

Is there anything wrong with that statement ?:o

" Things only have meaning as far as we define them, and the way we define them (such as through scientific models and theories) cannot be objective or "truthful."

its the basis of empiricism, or contemporary scientific inquiry, according to Karl Popper

At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.

Oh. So it has nothing to do with philosophy; human nature, experience, sorting one's self out.

Oh. So it has nothing to do with philosophy; human nature, experience, sorting one's self out.


interestingly enough, the scientific models and theories we have for these things you suggest are

non existent
highly speculative
within the folds of "soft science"


in other words outside of the purview of empiricism
;)

That is true. Things only have meaning in relation to other things, which are symbols we defined. There is no such thing as absolute truth.

I would disagree. I would say that there are logical truths which are absolute. Such as A is A. Or A cannot be Not A.

the law of non contradiction is absolute.

The meanings of the words "not" and "is" are convention, but the concepts they illustrate are absolute, and no matter how you define the world or assign meanings, A must be A and it cannot be its negation at the same time.

before you call me some stubborn empiricist or something, let me say of course absolute truth falls apart in more complex examples, but i do believe that there is an extremely basic and fundamental foundation of absolute truth which governs reality.

I agree.

Question: if nothing can ever be considered absolute (more or less) truth, how can this question itself have an answer? And just as importantly, if you COULD logically deduce an answer, what value would it have?

Question: if nothing can ever be considered absolute (more or less) truth, how can this question itself have an answer? And just as importantly, if you COULD logically deduce an answer, what value would it have?
the only absolute of empiricism 9and even rationalism) is that it can't be absolute

in other words if you hold that the only means of discerning truth lies in these two fields, there is an unlimited scope for discussion with no resolution (just examine the history of science and philosophy)

the only absolute of empiricism 9and even rationalism) is that it can't be absolute

in other words if you hold that the only means of discerning truth lies in these two fields, there is an unlimited scope for discussion with no resolution (just examine the history of science and philosophy)

Yes, I agree. And you've also gone a step further in pointing out my real reason for even bothering to post in this thread. 99.99% of philosophy is a pure waste of time and effort because it can never reach any kind of practical/useful conclusion. All the time and mental energies wasted on it would have been MUCH better applied to some other endeavor - such as working on curing cancer or just polishing your shoes.

Granted, it CAN be fun to delve into such thoughts when forced to be idle (and we all do it from time to time) such as while sitting in a doctor or dentist's waiting room. But to do so as much as SOME people do should just about be considered a crime - a criminal waste of time.

Yes, I agree. And you've also gone a step further in pointing out my real reason for even bothering to post in this thread. 99.99% of philosophy is a pure waste of time and effort because it can never reach any kind of practical/useful conclusion.
and you think empiricism brings in higher odds?

All the time and mental energies wasted on it would have been MUCH better applied to some other endeavor - such as working on curing cancer or just polishing your shoes.
why do you want to cure cancer and polish your shoes (actually there are probably studies done that link shoe polish to cancer)
IOW even if you make some sort of empirical advancement, you are still left with the answer of WHY? - Empiricism can only answer HOW (or rather attempt to answer HOW)

Granted, it CAN be fun to delve into such thoughts when forced to be idle (and we all do it from time to time) such as while sitting in a doctor or dentist's waiting room. But to do so as much as SOME people do should just about be considered a crime - a criminal waste of time.
If you don't know "why" something should be done, the depth of your "how" becomes meager

and you think empiricism brings in higher odds?

why do you want to cure cancer and polish your shoes (actually there are probably studies done that link shoe polish to cancer)
IOW even if you make some sort of empirical advancement, you are still left with the answer of WHY? - Empiricism can only answer HOW (or rather attempt to answer HOW)


If you don't know "why" something should be done, the depth of your "how" becomes meager

It really doesn't matter. I have to admit that the only reason I came into this thread is that things have slowed and there wasn't really anything interesting in the New Posts list.

So I had my say about the value (actually, lack thereof) of this sort of discussion. With that, I'll leave everyone to their fruitless, endless debates.;)

It really doesn't matter. I have to admit that the only reason I came into this thread is that things have slowed and there wasn't really anything interesting in the New Posts list.

So I had my say about the value (actually, lack thereof) of this sort of discussion. With that, I'll leave everyone to their fruitless, endless debates.;)

and, ironically, that, in a nutshell, is your philosophy .....

and, ironically, that, in a nutshell, is your philosophy .....

Or, more accurately - perspective.

Or, more accurately - perspective.

walks like a chicken , sounds like a chicken etc etc

walks like a chicken , sounds like a chicken etc etc

An important distinction, though. Lokk up the definition of philosophy and perspective and compare them. You'll see what I mean, they're quite different.;)

An important distinction, though. Lokk up the definition of philosophy and perspective and compare them. You'll see what I mean, they're quite different.;)
you can talk of perspective without drawing on something philosophical?

The moment you start making statements of value or truth (or their opposites) is the moment you are stepping into the arena of philosophy whether you like it or not

Well here is another statement to look over I know I seem to be using all of you intelligent
folks here on this forum but your opinions are worth a lot to my general progress in philosophy .
" (since we seem to be working under the premise that there is a blanket ban on all abortions) is it the fault of someone to seek abortion as a way to save their own lives"

I found it to be contradictory assuming all abortions were illegal were would the woman seek an Abortion if she sought an illegal one then it may endanger her life more than the medical reason for wanting one.
How would she know if the problem was to do with her pregnancy ?
Would it not be medical advice she seeks as apposed to an abortion?
What do you wise people think about the statement?