Count me out. If you can't understand that someting that happens entirely in your brain is not wholly subjective, further discussion will serve no useful purpose.
We have talked about this topic previously, so I would just like to respond to you and then call it a day. We see cause and effect all round us, so why should our thought and actions be free? I have given examples to show that, if our actions are not subject to causality, they must, of necessity, be chaotic in the sense that a particular train of thought could lead to various outcomes, You believe you choose one. Why ? Saying that a determinist could not be objective about anything, suggests that you can. How can you demonstrate this ? Finally, you say " no amountof rational work will ever prove anything." This applies to your argument also. so why are you bothering to discuss frre will with a determinist ?
I know nothing will ever prove anything.. Btw.. I do have a problem with the word 'controlled' you chose to use there.
Sorry, but that doesn't answer the question posed by your previous statements about "subjective objectivity", or whatever it was. But then you really can't give any answer can you? This is because your statement was meaningless after all. You can't answer this: So where's the explanation for: "a non-objective subjective term"? Because you made it up.
I don't understand what you mean with this, for starters. What is: "something that happens entirely in your brain", exactly? How did this occur to you? Is it any different from something that happens "not entirely" in your brain? You seem to have quite a knack for making things up as you go.
Matched only by your total inability to follow an argument. Go look up subjective and objective and work it out for yourself if you can.
This thread has gotten far off topic as of late (sadly), but a critical point has arisen that has forced me back into it. Myles, I think you're doing yourself a disservice by dismissing Vkothii's point here (if I can assume to understand his point...). Surely you understand that to appeal to some sort of dictionary is fallacious?? To wit: ad verecundiam Regardless, when it comes to granting 'life' some sort of teleological element, it is abundantly clear that the subjective/objective distinction is of serious significance. It could be argued that valuation (of any sort) is ultimately entirely subjectively determined. Conversely, it could be argued that this ability of any token individual to determine value is exactly the means by which valuation is thereby rendered empty (and thus, devalued). For myself, I would argue that the subjective/objective distinction is an entirely artificial dichotomy. There is nothing but the subjective, when one speaks of value. But that would be another discussion....
And trying to employ a subjective vs objective argument, discussing the subject of life and purpose or adaptability, as some kind of proof of one or another "theory of purpose", looks decidedly silly. If you can't see that phrases like: "completely subjective", or: "no objective application", are completely nonsensical (that means, they don't make any sense).
Indeed. Even given the 'common' understandings of the terms "subjective" and "objective", you do seem to be unnecessarily complicating things Myles. Quite reminiscent of Socratic obfuscation and equivocation actually..... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I have read them of course. Else I wouldn't have waded back into this foray.
Looks like nobody replied to this post of yours - I would argue that "Life has purpose" (or "Life has no purpose") is a statement of how its maker explains that things happen in that which he calls "life". Yes, I am aware that a statement like "Life has purpose" (or "Life has no purpose") is formally not an explanation - but my point is that it is being used like one, as if it were an explanation. It can be noticed that when people speak about "the purpose of life" and state what it is, or what it is not, or that there is no purpose, they usually attempt to explain what happens in life. The mere act of explaining or attempting to explain is a purposeful activity, however elaborate or shabby this explanation or attempt at it might be. Those who claim there is no purpose in life, run into a metacommunicative contradiction with themselves once they state that there is "no purpose in life" and support this with this or that reasoning. On the other hand, those who claim there is purpose in life, run into a metacommunicative contradiction with themselves too, because their explanation is at the same time also an ethical standard, an instruction even. Which leads me to wonder whether it is ever possible to solely explain something, without this explanation already being imbued with some particular ethical standard, or at least guided by a particular intention. Is it possible to act unintentionally? And if it is, wouldn't we later on explain our unintentional actions with some intention?
If I remember my Plato, Glaucon was the one who only understood what Plato was saying after it had been carefully explained to him. Plato led him up the garden path. Just a thought. Don't infer that I'm a Platonist. My contention is that a dream has no objective content, unless I can be told otherwise. The whole question of subjectivity/objectivity is up for debate but ,for my part, I cannot see how the world can be understood objectively.
I agree that "completely" is superfluous. It ws used to emphasize that a dream has no objective content, If you believe otherwise, please explain your position, as you were the one who brought up the questio, not I. I gave up at the point where you insisted that every event is purposeful. You make no allowance for accidents.
I don't know that it can be said dreams are devoid of content. So is the content "objective"? I would say it's subjective, but then subjectivity requires objects. Can you see a problem with "no objective content"? I can: there is no "content" that cannot be objective. Do you mean a "mistake"? Or do you mean an event beyond your control? Who makes a mistake? A mistake is intentional, it gets labeled as a "wrong" move after it's been done. If you didn't intentionally make mistakes, you wouldn't have learned anything. Since you have (presumably) learned a lot of things, you must have had to make a lot of intentional errors to do so.
Let's agree to differ about the subjective/objective business because we are poles apart. I said accident because that is what I mean. Let's re-visit an example I gave you earlier. I climb a ladder to clean my windows. That event has a purpose I fall off the ladder. That event has no purpose , no intentionality.We call that an accident. I jump off the ladder. That event has a purpose because I decided to jump.If I intended to break one leg but ended up breaking two, that would be a mistake It follows that I do not believe that every event has a purpose, which brings us back to mutation. It has no purpose; it just happens
Actually, Glaucon was the constant skeptic in discussion with Socrates (as is often the fora for Platonic dialogues..). Regardless, I make no assumption regarding your ontological preferences. I would agree with you, with one important caveat: if the teller of the dream does indeed tell of it, it is thereby made objective. In and of itself however, a dream is wholly subjective. Interesting stuff to be sure, but I still fail to see what this angle has to do with the question of the 'purpose of life'.... Do you mean to say how the world can 'be understood objectively" or 'be objectively'? The latter entails the common conception that there is an ontologically objective reality. The former implies an objectively constructed epistemology. I would argue for the former.
Let's agree to disagree about Glaucons role. As I see him, Plato uses him to ask questions to which Plato always has an answer. If you regard him as a sceptic, so be it. I see him as a pawn.He never gets nto a debate. He confines himself to saying, " I do not understand" or " you will have to explain that to me ".He then readily accepts Plato's answer. The point I made about the dream is that it is subjective. Caveat : If you say wholly subjective , expect to be asked what wholly means, as I was when I said "completely" for emphasis. See above. I believe there is an objective ontological reality which can only be known subjectively. I do not know what it feels like to be a stone. Dr Johnson knew what it felt like to kick one, after which he said " I refute it thus. " He had missed the point. As to the relevance of all this in the context of this thread, it has none. I did not bring it up; I merely responded to an earlier post.
