Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by ForrestDean, Feb 17, 2019.
wait, am I the screwy person that you guys are referring to?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
there is 1 sentence I know of which entirely messes up the idea of objectivity, and that is the sentence "this sentence is wrong".
if the sentence this sentence is wrong, is wrong, it is right that it is wrong, so is simultaneously right and wrong.
and vice versa, if the sentence, "this sentence is wrong" is right, it is also wrong that it is right.
and if a statement such as this sentence is wrong, for instance, is not wrong it is right, and if it not right it is wrong, so it can't be neither right nor wrong, it must be both, for if it is 1 it is also the other, and it must be 1 of these options, right or wrong,which means it must be both of these options.
furthermore this sentence can be applied to virtually any statement, by using the format:
the sentence_______is wrong, and putting any sentence into the gap.
thereby providing evidence to suggest that every concept that can be represented using words is simultaneously right and wrong,
which messes with the idea of objectivity because objectivity requires the premise that facts are either definitely true, or definitely false, not both, or either, or something nebulous like that.
one might say that I am just playing with semantics, but so what? semantics is just the use of symbols which represent concepts, just like math is, which everyone seems to trust.
all of the concepts which are represented using words exist, because otherwise there wouldn't be anything to represent, and all of the representations of concepts by words are valid, because you do not change a concept by giving it a title with no initial meaning.
You are probably a sociopath/psychopath due to lack of empathy as you suggest. For those who aren't it's probably not true that what others think is irrelevant.
Where this concept (moral relativism) is more on point IMO in today's world (for example) is in the realm of foreign relations. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
What we don't like to see from China, Iran, or Russia we do to them and they therefore view us differently than we view ourselves and of course we view them differently than they view themselves.
I'll cut you a bit of slack because you're 16 and haven't yet reached the age where you don't know everything any more. Knowing how old you are does put things into perspective for me. It's good to see that you're grappling with some of the big questions, but I think you've got some more learning to do. I'm considerably older than you are, and I don't pretend to have all the answers when it comes to morality. However, I have worked out that nihilism and claiming that good and bad are arbitrary aren't really defensible positions, despite the fact that some people still try to defend them.
I have addressed your "existence is the same as experience" claim in a different thread. Sorry, but it doesn't make much sense.
If we follow your reasoning through to its logical conclusion, though, there's no reason you shouldn't hurt people who are kind to you, never mind the ones who hurt you. If morality is all subjective as you claim, then whatever you do is right for you and who's to say that any cruelty you inflict on anybody else is wrong? But the same argument must also apply to everybody else. Thus, any cruelty done to you is right for the person inflicting that cruelty and you're in no position to complain about it on the grounds that it's wrong to hurt you, or something like that. This is according to the moral belief system that you say you hold, recall, not the one that I hold to.
See, usually when people say they want revenge, they say they want revenge because somebody did something wrong in regards to them. That is, morally wrong. But here you are saying that all morality is subjective, and in doing so you waive the right to complain about anybody else's actions on moral grounds. According to you're argument, what's right for them is right, full stop - even if you'd personally prefer that they act differently. You leave yourself with nothing better than a personal preference as to how people should treat one another. Notions of justice necessarily vanish, along with rights.
I don't think 16 is too young to be diagnosed.
On the other hand, I think that probably you're not a sociopath or a psychopath. Probably you're just experimenting with youthful rebellion against what you perceive as restrictions on your freedom. But I could be wrong.
I hope that's not the only reason. I hope you have some empathy for other people. If not, then maybe you really are a sociopath. Can you imagine what it would be like to have somebody murder you? Can you imagine what it would be like for your family if you were murdered?
Most of what you say sounds pretty normal for a teenager.
It's one of the classic paradoxes.
No. That removes the paradox. If we write "The sentence 'The banana is blue' is wrong" there's no problem with that, no paradox.
It's the self-referential nature of "This sentence is false" that creates the paradox. Here's another one, similar:
In a certain town, there is a barber. The barber shaves every man in the town who does not shave himself. Question: who shaves the barber?
Again, the paradox comes because of the circularity - applying the "rule" to the barber himself, in this case. This is often called a vicious circle.
Not exactly. Objectivity only requires that rational people will agree with one another as to the state of affairs. You're thinking of something that is more like the law of the excluded middle, where something is either true or false, never uncertain, undetermined or true-in-part.
??? I think he is referring to the idea of there being an objective reality, something that is true for everything, everyone, irrespective of perspective and/or bias etc. This requires something more than just the agreement of rational people. Rational people believe and agree on many things that are not objectively true, especially where there is a lack of knowledge.
Aircraft would have been deemed impossible by rational people, yet the impossibility of aircraft is not an objective fact, nor has ever been. Rational people would have held the impossibility to be fact due to their lack of knowledge of physics, for example.
Rational people retain an inherent base of “knowledge” from which to work and extrapolate. If that is inadequate then no matter how rational they are, the best they can reach is a shared subjective viewpoint that lacks the more obvious bias and subjectivity of less rational people. The better that base of knowledge becomes, though, the closer we can get to understanding objective reality. But objectivity in this sense (of rational people agreeing) is not quite the same as the notion of their being an objective reality.
First, in the passage that you are responding to I was responding to JamesR who in turn was responding to my earlier remark that I took dialetheism seriously. (A dialetheia is a proposition that is both true and false.) James asked me for examples and I responded by suggesting that quantum mechanics (think wave-particle duality, the two-slit experiment, and all the probability stuff) and fallibilism (in which beliefs, no matter how tightly we embrace them, might nevertheless be mistaken) might be understood in terms of dialetheias. Many more examples could be provided, see the SEP article below.
I wasn't talking about objectivity at that point, though an argument might perhaps be made that dialetheias are incompatible with objectivity. (I don't think that I'd agree with that.)
But second, I do agree with you that the 'liar's paradox' is a textbook case of a dialetheia.
I don't think that I want to agree with that.
('Paris is the capital of France' is F) would be T if Paris isn't the capital of France and F if it is. So it doesn't seem to share the peculiarities of the liar paradox. It doesn't seem to strike a blow against objective reality since there is still a truthmaker (Paris either being or not being the capital of France) upon which the truth or falsity of the whole thing depends.
I'm inclined to think that states of affairs in the objective world simply are. Truth and falsity are properties of propositions. They don't apply to the world so much as to what we think and say about the world.
But what if T and F only apply to ideas, beliefs and propositions that make some assertion about the world (which simply is)? If we agree that our hypothetical cognizer (a human, animal, AI or space alien) might always be mistaken, if some possibility of error (however small) always remains, that doesn't really attack the idea of objective states of affairs that are the same for everyone and everything. It just attacks the idea that any of us can have entirely infallible knowledge of those states of affairs. Whatever we believe has some simultaneous probability (however large) of being T and some residual probability (however small) of being F.
No,no,no,no! You're philosophizing and that's a wonderful thing to see. (It's one of the deeper things in life and sadly, many people fail to appreciate it.) You are poking into some of the more profound questions where epistemology, ontology and logic come together.
I distinguish between ideas (and I class words with ideas, even if the relationship is obscure) and the objective world. Like I told JamesR, I'm very much an ontological realist. I think that reality exists regardless of what is believed about it. Science certainly assumes that. Our task is to learn more about reality and to make our beliefs have as high a probability of being T as we can achieve.
All of our ideas, even seemingly ridiculous ones like pink unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster, exist as ideas. The problem then is whether those ideas, and the words in which they are expressed, correspond to anything in reality. Do the words and ideas succeed in referring to anything in the wider universe outside our own heads? The atheists would include 'God' in this 'concept with no objective referrant' category I guess (despite their loud insistence that they are doing nothing of the kind).
May I loudly insist that the atheist would simply not believe that 'God is a concept with an objective referrant' is a true proposition (if that can indeed be considered "simple")? The agnostic atheist might conclude that 'God is a concept with no known/knowable objective referrant'.
Ah, the wonderful nuances of such words! Makes life so much easier for those that want to discuss them! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I believe in reality outside of my own head, if I didn't I would be a solipsist, but I do not believe in reality outside of experience in general.
and science indicates that reality is or at least pertains to experience because particles appear where one looks for them.
if you are consider it a compliment
for conversation purposes...
can the process of objectivity remain constant when it is not being carried out as a function of the 3rd person ?
e.g ... an objective self analysis of the perception of understanding ...
assumed meaning/implied meaning
verbal , non verbal, behavioural ...
can one suggest the implied or accepted meaning become a process of language which is in turn beholden to the same model of logic ?
(this is getting into philosophy which is not my area of reading)
proof of god
proof of others believing in something that is then faked to be scientific proof by exploiting a corrupt model of power & authority as a means to factualisation of beliefs(do as i say not as i do, because i said so).
unicorns have more widespread current evidence than god.
null sum evidential mathematics of reason
what percentage of those whom believe god is real, believe unicorns are not real ?
yea, sorry my mistake, I make those unfortunately for me.
I meant this rule can be applied to any statement which can be represented using words with this format:
the sentence the sentence ___________________ is wrong
because this format entails self reference.
including the words the sentence as the subject of wrongness makes a sentence of this variety self referential in the same manner that the sentence "this sentence is wrong" is.
if the sentence: the sentence "the sentence the banana is blue is wrong" is wrong, then this sentence is self referential and is wrong about itself being wrong and is therefore right that it is wrong because it is wrong, and so is both right and wrong.
and if the sentence: the sentence the sentence the banana is blue is wrong is right, then this sentence is self referential and it is right that the sentence is wrong and it is therefore wrong, as well as right about being wrong.
saying the sentence:
"the sentence the banana is blue is wrong" is the same as saying this sentence is wrong about the sentence in question because the sentence itself becomes the subject of wrongness.
I tried to abbreviate this, but I suppose I got confused while translating.
I do take it as a compliment, I revel in my aberrance.
just me is not a sociopath.
Every teenager and young man, at some point, thought it was "cool" to think of themselves as some form of aberrance.
You'll grow out of it, jm.
I didn't suggest that, someone else did.
but I don't mind if I am.
I literally never claimed to be a sociopath, look at the messages, it was in someone else's, I think it was James R who suggested it, he asked me if I was or not and I said I don't know because I don't.
If by cut me a bit of slack you mean be civil and polite that is expected in society anyway.
and I don't think I know everything, just everything that I am arguing about.
right sure, usually that's what people mean when they say they want revenge, but its not what I mean, I just want to hurt the person who hurt me for the fun of it.
and there can be subjective reasons to hurt and not to hurt people even if there are no objective reasons to speak of.
also, even if there was an objective perception independent reason to do or not to do something, what makes that reason any more legitimate than a subjective reason?
and I don't complain about anything done to me on the grounds that it is wrong, I complain about it on the grounds that it is not really allowed.
and rights and restrictions and that sort of thing can and must be fabricated and imposed by law in order for society to function properly.
I have no one to rebel against luckily for me, my parents are very lenient and I don't really have anyone else who is in a position of authority over me, I already did all of my rebelling a long time ago.
though, my freedom is restricted by many, many things which are not people, like for instance, I can't jump up and touch the moon, I can't walk on water, I can't fly, or get everything right all the time, and none of those restrictions of my freedom are caused by people, probably, so those are the restrictions to my freedom I have to rebel against, the ones that are not imposed by people, and I plan to do so by means of science and philosophy.
I don't think I am a sociopath or psychopath either.
Separate names with a comma.