Principles

[ruby sparks]

True. Oversight. My bad

Now I'm confused. I had thought that you, fast, were holding to the view that 'subjective' relates only to one individual.

Whilst I wouldn't necessarily agree*, it was at least my impression of your view.

Now I don't understand how 'I like chocolate' can be anything other than wholly subjective.






*For example, two people saying the same thing can still be subjective.

Ok, I get it now.

So, would one person saying 'chocolate is nice' be subjective?

And if so, what about two people saying it, or a whole room full of people saying it?

You could say that there being a person, or a room full of people, saying it is an objective truth, but not that what they are saying is an objective truth, right?

- - - Updated - - -

If it's ambiguous and needs context, how can it possibly be objective? And how is Tom is a liar any different?

aa

"Sally is at the bank" is objective. Either she's there or she's not. What any one individual thinks is beside the point and alters the truth or falsity not one bit.

However, "Sally is at the bank" is also ambiguous. She might be at the bank (financial institution), or she might be at the bank (uprisen land by the river).

Both sentences are objective, but because we don't know the context of the sentence, we do not know which proposition is being expressed by it. Since context does not disambiguate which meaning was intended, the truth is not therefore subject dependent. What was meant in this case is subject dependent, not a subjective truth.

If Bob says "Sally is at the bank (financial institution)" but is instead at the grociery store, then objectively, Bob is incorrect. On the hand hand, if Bob says "Sally is at the bank (by the river)" but is instead at the grociery store, then objectively still, Bob is incorrect.

Now, if someone says "Tom is tall," we are met yet again with an ambiguous statement. Does the speaker mean "wowsers, that Tom sure looks tall to me (!)?" If so, one might argue that the statement is a subjective truth since no where within or upon the world can we go a-searchin' for validation of said truth.

Does this mean the statement "Tom is tall" is subjective? No, because it's ambiguous, and if the utterer didn't so happen to mean as exclaimed earlier but instead meant "Tom is taller than average," then although what was meant is subjective, the claim itself can be verified without appealing to the subjective opinions of any one person--the truth matters not to what anyone believes to be the case.

The statement "Tom is a liar" is ambiguous in that it either means "Tom generally lies and is therefore a liar" or "Tom has lied and is therefore a liar." Ambiguous, yes. Objective, yes. We need to know explicitly what the subject in fact wants to convey, but after that, the truth is not to be found in the subject, and that's why it's not subjective.

So where have we got to?

That 'Tom is a liar' is ambiguous?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

If it's ambiguous and needs context, how can it possibly be objective? And how is Tom is a liar any different?

aa

"Sally is at the bank" is objective. Either she's there or she's not. What any one individual thinks is beside the point and alters the truth or falsity not one bit.

Agreed. It needs no observer to apply context.

However, "Sally is at the bank" is also ambiguous. She might be at the bank (financial institution), or she might be at the bank (uprisen land by the river).

Both sentences are objective, but because we don't know the context of the sentence, we do not know which proposition is being expressed by it. Since context does not disambiguate which meaning was intended, the truth is not therefore subject dependent. What was meant in this case is subject dependent, not a subjective truth.

If Bob says "Sally is at the bank (financial institution)" but is instead at the grociery store, then objectively, Bob is incorrect. On the hand hand, if Bob says "Sally is at the bank (by the river)" but is instead at the grociery store, then objectively still, Bob is incorrect.

Completely irrelevant, but fine.

Now, if someone says "Tom is tall," we are met yet again with an ambiguous statement. Does the speaker mean "wowsers, that Tom sure looks tall to me (!)?" If so, one might argue that the statement is a subjective truth since no where within or upon the world can we go a-searchin' for validation of said truth.

Does this mean the statement "Tom is tall" is subjective? No, because it's ambiguous, and if the utterer didn't so happen to mean as exclaimed earlier but instead meant "Tom is taller than average," then although what was meant is subjective, the claim itself can be verified without appealing to the subjective opinions of any one person--the truth matters not to what anyone believes to be the case.

The 'to me' part is always there. That's why it is subjective. If I meant Tom is taller than average, then I should say that to make it objective. Just saying Tom is tall is subjective. You need the context from the subject in order to determine if you agree with it (or if it is an objective fact).

The statement "Tom is a liar" is ambiguous in that it either means "Tom generally lies and is therefore a liar" or "Tom has lied and is therefore a liar." Ambiguous, yes. Objective, yes. We need to know explicitly what the subject in fact wants to convey, but after that, the truth is not to be found in the subject, and that's why it's not subjective.

You just literally defined it as subjective. I consider Tom to be a liar because he generally does it, and you consider Tom to be a liar because he did it once. There is no objectivity in those perspectives, even if only one of them is objectively true.

aa

 

[fast]

When Ann says, "chocolate is nice," at first glance, one might think she is making a statement (an objective statement) about the world, but it won't be long in our search of the world to see that a kind of categorical mistake has been made until we see that she was actually speaking in shorthand and had all intentions of conveying "I find chocolate to be nice" or "to me, chocolate is nice." Once we fully grasp that the answer is not out and about amongst the world but rather confined to the mind of a single subject, we can most readily be confident that the truth is a subjective truth.

Oh my goodness, but what if Bob says it too! No no, still subjective. They aren't even the same, as one is "I, Ann, find chocolate nice," and the other is "I, Bob, find chocolate nice."

A collection is not the same a collective.

Ten people might as a collection of people (or small group) call a leg a tail, but the meaning of "leg" depends on how it's collectively used, not as a collection of people use it. As a population, largest possible collection of people, we might not all use it the same way, as mistaken uses and stipulative uses abound, but synthesized from the population is how it's collectively used by fluent speakers.

There is an ambiguity not mentioned yet and I think it's worth mentioning. We can take a systematic methodical objective approach to figuring something out as opposed to taking stabs at figuring something out in an arbitrarily haphazardly shoot from the hip kind of way. (Objective vs arbitrary)

Two different mechanics are digging in separate buckets of loose sockets looking for the right size. One mechanic just grabs a hand full and tries them, haphazardly trying them one at a time. The other mechanic systematically eliminates those too large and too small after each try by mentally notating the sizes tried.

Oh, and yes, that's where we've gotten to: Tom is a liar is ambiguous.

 

[ruby sparks]

When Ann says, "chocolate is nice," at first glance, one might think she is making a statement (an objective statement) about the world, but it won't be long in our search of the world to see that a kind of categorical mistake has been made until we see that she was actually speaking in shorthand and had all intentions of conveying "I find chocolate to be nice" or "to me, chocolate is nice." Once we fully grasp that the answer is not out and about amongst the world but rather confined to the mind of a single subject, we can most readily be confident that the truth is a subjective truth.

Oh my goodness, but what if Bob says it too! No no, still subjective. They aren't even the same, as one is "I, Ann, find chocolate nice," and the other is "I, Bob, find chocolate nice."

Ok now I'm Really confused. A few pages back, 'I like chocolate' was objective, but 'chocolate is nice' or 'to me, chocolate is nice' are subjective?

The distinction that I see is that all of them are arguably objective statements about the person making them but they are all subjective regarding chocolate.

Oh, and yes, that's where we've gotten to: Tom is a liar is ambiguous.

Good. Where to next?

 

[fast]

Why completely irrelevant? It goes to the heart of the matter.

Context is crucial for grasping the proposition; otherwise, we're left with barron sentences and a whole lot of guess work.

If we're having a conversation about who should try out for the basketball team, and someone says Tom is tall, then depending on who said it, the proposition could be objective and not worthy of a "to me" tag on. He doesn't just seem tall to me but don't take my word for it, measure him and tell us exactly how many inches taller he is than the so-called unspoken minimum we want players trying out to be. Context brings implicit sentences to life.

The 4yo quip, "boy, you be tall" is subjective if exclaimed out of astonishment. There's little doubt that the "to me" qualification belongs. When the 12yo says, "Lilly is short," that's objective as can be if it's said with objective eyes--said with the intonation that it's clearly so and for all the world to see. And there (the object of her statement) she stood 3'1" barely over half the height of her peers.

"Compared to the rest of us" was silent but there, hidden away only to be spotted by the context observers. To the 4yo, we say how cute and to the 12yo, we say how true. The first was a truth from within, but for the espousal of the latter, it was a declaration not just as she would see things but others around her as well.

 

[fast]

Good. Where to next?

Away from the chocolate.

 

[The AntiChris]

When Ann says, "chocolate is nice," at first glance, one might think she is making a statement (an objective statement) about the world, but it won't be long in our search of the world to see that a kind of categorical mistake has been made until we see that she was actually speaking in shorthand and had all intentions of conveying "I find chocolate to be nice" or "to me, chocolate is nice." Once we fully grasp that the answer is not out and about amongst the world but rather confined to the mind of a single subject, we can most readily be confident that the truth is a subjective truth.

Oh my goodness, but what if Bob says it too! No no, still subjective. They aren't even the same, as one is "I, Ann, find chocolate nice," and the other is "I, Bob, find chocolate nice."

Ok now I'm Really confused. A few pages back, 'I like chocolate' was objective, but 'chocolate is nice' or 'to me, chocolate is nice' are subjective?

Yes, it's becoming confused.

"I like chocolate" is exactly equivalent to "chocolate is nice to me". They're both objective claims about the mental/physical state of the speaker.

"Chocolate is nice". is a subjective claim about chocolate.

 

[fast]

When Ann says, "chocolate is nice," at first glance, one might think she is making a statement (an objective statement) about the world, but it won't be long in our search of the world to see that a kind of categorical mistake has been made until we see that she was actually speaking in shorthand and had all intentions of conveying "I find chocolate to be nice" or "to me, chocolate is nice." Once we fully grasp that the answer is not out and about amongst the world but rather confined to the mind of a single subject, we can most readily be confident that the truth is a subjective truth.

Oh my goodness, but what if Bob says it too! No no, still subjective. They aren't even the same, as one is "I, Ann, find chocolate nice," and the other is "I, Bob, find chocolate nice."

Ok now I'm Really confused. A few pages back, 'I like chocolate' was objective, but 'chocolate is nice' or 'to me, chocolate is nice' are subjective?

Yes, it's becoming confused.

"I like chocolate" is exactly equivalent to "chocolate is nice to me". They're both objective claims about the mental/physical state of the speaker.

"Chocolate is nice". is a subjective claim about chocolate.

When little Annie says "chocolate is nice," let's consider the speaker for a moment. She is saying that it's nice, not saying what Alice is saying when she says chocolate is nice. Alice means to convey that it's nice to her. Yes, Ann finds it nice to her too, but what's in mind when she says it? What's in mind is that it's objectively true, so no wonder she finds it nice. According to Annie, if you don't believe it, try it for yourself and you'll see, so you try it and low and behold, it's nice to you.

The teacher steps in and says, but just because it's nice to you and Annie doesn't make it so that it's nice to everyone, as evidenced by the fact Greg doesn't find it nice. The claim is not the same as the truth.

Annie made an objective claim, evidenced by the fact it was not about any one single individual but as if a fact about the world.

When you say chocolate is nice is a subjective claim about chocolate, I recognize that the truth is subject dependent, but the status of the claim is still dependent on what was meant when uttered. Annie meant to say it unlike Alice. What makes it nice? There is no fact out there lurking for us to find. It's not true that everyone will find chocolate to be nice. It's individual specific and thus subjectively true only by those that hold chocolate is nice to them.

 

[The AntiChris]

Yes, it's becoming confused.

"I like chocolate" is exactly equivalent to "chocolate is nice to me". They're both objective claims about the mental/physical state of the speaker.

"Chocolate is nice". is a subjective claim about chocolate.

When little Annie says "chocolate is nice," let's consider the speaker for a moment. She is saying that it's nice, not saying what Alice is saying when she says chocolate is nice. Alice means to convey that it's nice to her. Yes, Ann finds it nice to her too, but what's in mind when she says it? What's in mind is that it's objectively true, so no wonder she finds it nice. According to Annie, if you don't believe it, try it for yourself and you'll see, so you try it and low and behold, it's nice to you.

The teacher steps in and says, but just because it's nice to you and Annie doesn't make it so that it's nice to everyone, as evidenced by the fact Greg doesn't find it nice. The claim is not the same as the truth.

Annie made an objective claim, evidenced by the fact it was not about any one single individual but as if a fact about the world.

When you say chocolate is nice is a subjective claim about chocolate, I recognize that the truth is subject dependent, but the status of the claim is still dependent on what was meant when uttered. Annie meant to say it unlike Alice. What makes it nice? There is no fact out there lurking for us to find. It's not true that everyone will find chocolate to be nice. It's individual specific and thus subjectively true only by those that hold chocolate is nice to them.

I'm sorry. I'm afraid I didn't follow that at all.

 

[fast]

Yes, it's becoming confused.

"I like chocolate" is exactly equivalent to "chocolate is nice to me". They're both objective claims about the mental/physical state of the speaker.

"Chocolate is nice". is a subjective claim about chocolate.

When little Annie says "chocolate is nice," let's consider the speaker for a moment. She is saying that it's nice, not saying what Alice is saying when she says chocolate is nice. Alice means to convey that it's nice to her. Yes, Ann finds it nice to her too, but what's in mind when she says it? What's in mind is that it's objectively true, so no wonder she finds it nice. According to Annie, if you don't believe it, try it for yourself and you'll see, so you try it and low and behold, it's nice to you.

The teacher steps in and says, but just because it's nice to you and Annie doesn't make it so that it's nice to everyone, as evidenced by the fact Greg doesn't find it nice. The claim is not the same as the truth.

Annie made an objective claim, evidenced by the fact it was not about any one single individual but as if a fact about the world.

When you say chocolate is nice is a subjective claim about chocolate, I recognize that the truth is subject dependent, but the status of the claim is still dependent on what was meant when uttered. Annie meant to say it unlike Alice. What makes it nice? There is no fact out there lurking for us to find. It's not true that everyone will find chocolate to be nice. It's individual specific and thus subjectively true only by those that hold chocolate is nice to them.

I'm sorry. I'm afraid I didn't follow that at all.

I'm making a distinction between a claim and truth.

Truth (and let's just take a simplistic objective truth for example) is when there is a match up between two things. When there is a proposition expressed by a sentence is one of those things. An actual state of affairs is the second thing.

When we utter the sentence, "the cat is on the mat" and it expresses the proposition, "the cat is on the mat," and when such expressed proposition is the intentional expression of a claim, we are dealing with just the first thing, the claim.

Now, never mind the claim for a moment. Suppose the facts of the matter, the actual state of our worldly affairs is that the cat is on the mat. That is a fact.

The truth is when there is a match up, correspondence, or alignment between the two. Since the claim and the facts mesh, there is in fact an expressed truth.

Now, knowledge is independent of the truth. That being said, if you hear a claim (again, we'll stick with a common objective claim), it's possible to acknowledge that the claim has been made without knowing whether the claim is true. For instance, "the dog is outside." Even if that is an objective truth, you don't know the truth value. If it's false, it's objectively the case, but it's not an objective truth. It's objectivity false.

This isn't earth shattering. Many people make claims, some of which are true and some of which are false.

Now, as we discuss what is an objective truth vs what a subjective truth is, let us not conflate those with subjective claims and objective claims.

I'm not saying I haven't goofed somewhere in the thread. Probably have knowing me.

Chocolate is nice.

The subject is chocolate. That isn't what makes the truth subjective. What makes it subjective (the truth of the claim, not the claim itself) is that it's truth is subject dependent. When we look to see if the claim is true, we see that it's not the same for everyone. It's people specific.

Now let's turn our attention not to the truth of the claim but the claim itself.

Notice how it's worded. If we didn't know the truth was subject dependent and thus a subjective truth, we might be inclined to think it was intended as an objective claim, where the search for the truth without subjective concerns was possible.

The claim is explicit when the proposition is explicit. The intentions of the speaker is not explicit given the sentence. Truth isn't a function of when the sentence meshes with the facts. Truth is dependent on the match up of the proposition and the facts. That's why we need more insight from the speaker, to know exactly what explicit proposition would be expressed had a correspondingly clear sentence had been used.

 

[ruby sparks]

Chocolate is nice.

How do I know you're not just saying that?

You could, for all I know, be a liar.

 

[The AntiChris]

I'm sorry. I'm afraid I didn't follow that at all.

I'm making a distinction between a claim and truth.

A proposition like "Chocolate is nice" is not  truth-apt.

You could argue that "Chocolate is nice" is true from one person's perspective but false from another's but this would mean that "Chocolate is nice" is both true and false. This is why "Chocolate is nice" is considered to be a subjective opinion and not truth-apt.

I don't know if this answers your post but I'm still struggling to see the point you're attempting to make.

 

[ruby sparks]

....I'm still struggling to see the point you're attempting to make.

Me too.

Though I'm enjoying the discussion nonetheless.

Have we moved quite a bit away from the OP?

 

[fast]

I'm sorry. I'm afraid I didn't follow that at all.

I'm making a distinction between a claim and truth.

A proposition like "Chocolate is nice" is not  truth-apt.

You could argue that "Chocolate is nice" is true from one person's perspective but false from another's but this would mean that "Chocolate is nice" is both true and false. This is why "Chocolate is nice" is considered to be a subjective opinion and not truth-apt.

I don't know if this answers your post but I'm still struggling to see the point you're attempting to make.

Oh, but it is. The proposition is truth apt. In fact, you agree that it is. It is, after all, a subjective truth.

There is debate over wherever a sentence is the kind of thing that can be true. I fall on the side that many often are. A proposition is true or false, but that, of course, isn't to say a sentence is, but by proxy, I hold that any sentence that expresses a proposition is either true or false by virtue of the fact it's proposition does. Plainly, i'm saying certain sentences are true. For instance, the sentence "some cats have four legs" is true when the proposition expressed by the sentence is true.

This happens to be a piviotal point where the distinction between "not true" and "false" can be brought to light. The sentence "blossom delivers red" is not true, but it would be an error to regard the sentence as false since the sentence fails to express a proposition. Propositions are true or false. There is an equivalence between not true and false just as there is an equivalence between not false and true when it comes to propositions; however, where no proposition is expressed, there is no truth or falsity, yet it's nevertheless true that a sentence can be regarded as not true and/or not false. To explain differently, a sentence is always not true or not false just as a proposition is always not true or not false, but unlike a sentence, a proposition is always true or false. The sentence "blossom delivers red" is not true, nor is it false, as it fails to express a propositon.

The sentence "chocolate is nice" has the structural feel of a sentence that expresses a proposition. I think it does. It's an attempt to make an objective claim, except by those that don't intend to. When the child says, "but teacher, it's a fact; chocolate is nice," the teacher retorts, "but it's only subjectively true." Saying that it's subjective is more than meets the eye. It's not just an assertion but a denial that it's objective. Thus, the intended espousal that the statement is objective is denied by the teacher. The teacher isn't denying that it's truth apt, like a question or declarative sentence that fails to express a proposition.

When those that utter the sentence "chocolate is nice" but have no intention of espousing an objective truth, the truth (truth, that is) is subject dependent, but notice that the underlying statement, "to me, chocolate is nice" is an objective statement, but (but, mind you) the truth (the truth, that is) is squarely subject dependent, as it's not true if the subject doesn't find chocolate nice.

 

[fast]

....I'm still struggling to see the point you're attempting to make.

Me too.

Though I'm enjoying the discussion nonetheless.

Have we moved quite a bit away from the OP?

We're circling it like a buzzard in search of a meal.

If a question is asked, things can get complicated. While there might be some if's, but's, and and's, there's gonna be some that say, "yes, but" while others come down on the side of "no, but." I grasp the but's, but yes versus no is not six or half a dozen. When a person is accused of being unprincipled, the correct answer oughtn't be subjugated to how it might speak more to who utters it than who it's uttered about.

I've had long discussions regarding what I mean by "answer." I'm not one of those that dismiss an answer simply because it's not what I want to hear. Ambiguity abound, I acknowledge the sense where "our records indicate you owe no balance" stands good as an answer to the question, "do I have a balance?," but when I don't give a shit what your records indicate, your answer will be relegated to that of a mere response leaving the possibility of it having no bearing to my question, as there might be a truth to the fact that I may owe money that simply just doesn't show up in your records yet, like in that little black bin on your desk holding papers to be imput (input?) into your database yearning to become apart of your near future records.

 

[The AntiChris]

Oh, but it is. The proposition is truth apt. In fact, you agree that it is. It is, after all, a subjective truth.

I haven't used the phrase "subjective truth" on this thread.

You need to decide whether or not "chocolate is nice" expresses a proposition about the objective qualities of chocolate. If you take this view, then the proposition is truth-apt but it's always false (chocolate has no objective quality of 'niceness').

On the other hand "chocolate is nice" can be taken as a non-declarative speech act which simply expresses the speaker's appreciation of this particular foodstuff. It's not an utterance which can be truth-apt.

I doubt many people sincerely intend the first sense above.

 

[fast]

There are so darn many facets to this that keeping our eye on the ball is difficult at best. One more detour:

It's been said in the past, and I do hold what's been said as true that words denote meaning. My original quip was, "how talented!"

The distinction eluded to is between that which we do versus things that do. I would regard the assertion that some sentences express propositions as a secondary truth whereas a more primary truth is that we use sentences to express propositions.

You speak about what I need to decide. The sentence isn't but three words long. It has a subject, a verb, and a predicate. If I take out the human element of intentions and the inner goings on of the mind of a person who should utter such a thing and have no extraneous context to form the intended communication, sure I could fallback and rely on my very own personal experience and try and glean some insight as a fellow human speaker knowledgeable of the common likes if not love of chocolate shared by many an individual.

I suppose you mean to ask me if the sentence expresses a proposition. How talented it must be! There does seem to be something expressed: that something is nice whereas that something is chocolate. What about chocolate? That it's nice. What's nice? Chocolate. Without being privy to the held intentions of the utterer, it's hard to see the transformation that allows the speaker to use a sentence to give wholesome life to a proposition.

As you, yourself, have been kind enough to acknowledge, there can be different intentions held by the speaker of such a sentence. In absence of knowledge of those intentions and with personal restraint from injecting personal bias, I wouldn't go as far as saying the sentence speaks to objective qualities specifically.

It does have an air about it, however; that chocolate is spoken of as indeed being something that is in fact nice (period). In absence of a "to me" qualification and deliberately refusing to inject it, I'd characterize the sentence as being objective, as an assertion that the truth of the matter is external. If that's what the speaker had in mind, that chocolate is nice, period, I'd simply regard the speaker as mistaken.

More to say if need be

 

[fromderinside]

What's love got to do with it?