fast
Contributor
But for different reasons.I see, and I think that's where we disagree. To me "tom is a liar" is subjective, as is any label that I apply. Tom is tall, Tom is skinny, Tom is a murderer (in that he routinely kills spiders), Tom is a liar. That tom has lied at least once in the past is objective. But where I consider him to be a liar you may not.
In point of fact, that I apply that label 'liar' to Tom after hearing him lie once says more about me than it does Tom.
aa
Tom is tall isn't subjective. It's relative.
Let's say Tom is 6'2". That is tall (objectively so) compared to average height. We can objectively compare the two and come to a definitive answer. Lisa says he's short compared to most people on the basketball team. So, is he tall or short? Well, compared to what? Once we know what's missing in the question, we can answer the question that is objective, not subjective. I don't think the statement is subjective. It's not like preferred ice cream flavors. "Tom is tall to me" is just an objective statement in desguise. Maybe Margarie is unusually short and doesn't see many tall people and says "he's tall to me." That might be subjective.
Is the truth subject dependent? If so, that's one thing. If not, that's something else entirely.
Tom is taller than Joe to me doesn't make sense, and whatever is missing (relatively) doesn't make it therefore subjective, just unexplicitly relative.
This is a distinction without a difference. If 'Tom is tall' is unexplicitly relative then so is 'Tom is a liar'.
One cannot obtain the objective truth of either statement without further context.
aa
First, we have to make the left vs right distinction. Subjective versus objective
If the truth is subject-dependent, then it's subjective. If not, it's objective.
The "to me" qualification makes the truth of the claim subjective.
For example, "to me, chocolate tastes better than vanilla." The truth requires comparing the taste that person has for chocolate with the taste that person has with vanilla. The truth requires the subject. No subject, no truth. It's subject dependent.
Now, on the objective front, consider the following:
"tom is tall." That's not a subjective claim. Height can be measured without the subject who uttered the claim. It's relative, but it's not subjective. We cannot ascertain the objective truth until we know what height he's compared to, but the problem of ascertaining the objective truth does not make the truth subjective.
"Tom is a liar." We can determine whether one has lied without the person who makes the claim that he has lied. The problem of determining whether he is a liar, moreover, does not require the subjects reasons for thinking what he or she does; rather, we just need the claim to be explicit so we know just what was actually meant: a) generally, he lies or b) he has lied at least once. So, the only dependency we have on determining the truth of the claim is in actually disambiguating the claim. Once we know what was meant, we can objectively find an answer without dependence on the subject.