Principles

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Tom is tall - subject to certain criteria. That is subjective.

Nice try. Clever even. But no. That don't fly. You have equivocated between two different senses of "subjective."

Even the truth that Tom is taller than average is subjective in the sense the truth is subject to the real world. The way we have been using "subjective" is that the truth is dependent on an agent, a person, a subject. The idea of "subject to" is far different than the idea of "subject dependent."

That being said, a truth that is subjective is 'subject to', but it's limited to cases where it's 'subject to' a subject (person).

How many would of picked up on that one! Stop making me think, damn it.

No, look the subject is the one applying the criteria. (the same thing you are saying in the second paragraph).

I can't even. An object is not tall. It needs a subject to apply a standard. An object can be 6'2" and an object can be taller that the mathematically calculated average of similar objects. But it can't be 'tall' on its own.

You cannot throw your opinions around and call them objective facts. If we can't get this part in agreement we'll never meet on the other pieces.

aa

 

[fast]

[FONT=&]

What I'm arguing against is the notion that because the why for the utterance is subjective has no bearing on the truth of the claim. It's an objective claim...

What I've arrived at are two different objective claims:

Tom is generally a liar vs Tom has at least once lied.

The trick is figuring out which one accords with "Tom is a liar." I say the first.

I would agree that it being subjective doesn't affect its truth. You go on arguing for objectivity but it's the when and why of the utterance that matters.

In your view, "generally" is worse than "once". But consider these alternate contexts:

Tom is generally a liar vs Tom tells one lie but it's a doozy that's so hurtful he's lost people's trust.

And this one:

Tom is generally a fibber of tiny lies of no consequence vs Tom has at least once lied.

In the former scenario people will regard him a liar either way.

In the latter scenario they might withhold "liar" either way.

So "generally is worse than once" is one standard among a few. You have not established a single all-encompassing rule about it because it's context-dependent. The context is the persons affected by Tom's lies -- it's "intersubjective". Which is why some independent observers can verify "yes, Mary has good reason to say Tom is a liar". But those who know Tom but emphasize his other traits over his lying will shrug and say "I like Tom, he's a nice guy". He's objectively a liar but when people choose to apply the label is subjective. Whether Tom's really a liar isn't so much the problem. It's favoring one context over alternative ones, as you're doing, that must be justified.

What's the point in looking for an objective rule to apply anyway? Does it exonerate Tom of transgressions and affirm he's a man of principles if lying is not a general trait of Tom's? His exoneration doesn't need an objective rule. The intersubjective conventions you've appealed to are enough.


[/FONT]

If (as in the latter case) people do not regard the person as a liar merely because the multitude of lies result in no harm will be a mistake of their making.

 

[fast]

As such, for me, a collection of subjectives does not necessarily cross over to being objective.

There seems to be something going on similar to an etymological fallacy. There can be arbitrariness in the beginning. There can be subjectivity in the beginning. Things can be born of the things you mention. But later, there is a change, a metamorphasis.

The beginnings no longer matter. The history is irrelevant. Now, the here and now, is different. The word "lunar" means what it means right now, and it matters not what anyone says. The truth isn't a function of subjectivity, even if it's history includes being shrouded in nothing but.

That we're speaking of a collective meaning necessarily negates subject dependency and therefore excludes the possibility of it being (being) subjective.

Saying that it's subjective because it has subjective origins is why I think the etymological fallacy is a good analogy.

 

[fast]

Tom is tall - subject to certain criteria. That is subjective.

Nice try. Clever even. But no. That don't fly. You have equivocated between two different senses of "subjective."

Even the truth that Tom is taller than average is subjective in the sense the truth is subject to the real world. The way we have been using "subjective" is that the truth is dependent on an agent, a person, a subject. The idea of "subject to" is far different than the idea of "subject dependent."

That being said, a truth that is subjective is 'subject to', but it's limited to cases where it's 'subject to' a subject (person).

How many would of picked up on that one! Stop making me think, damn it.

No, look the subject is the one applying the criteria. (the same thing you are saying in the second paragraph).

I can't even. An object is not tall. It needs a subject to apply a standard. An object can be 6'2" and an object can be taller that the mathematically calculated average of similar objects. But it can't be 'tall' on its own.

You cannot throw your opinions around and call them objective facts. If we can't get this part in agreement we'll never meet on the other pieces.

aa

If someone says, "Tom is tall," I'm afraid the utterance is so ambiguous that we cannot ascertain from the utterance alone whether the claim is subjective or objective. I would maintain that the reason we don't know it's subjective is because the context fails to disambuguate. It is one or the other; we just don't know which it is. We shouldn't assume that it's subjective when an explicit clarification might reveal more definitively which it is in fact.

If there is a comparative intent, its objective, unless it elicits the unspoken "to me" qualification.

 

[ruby sparks]

As such, for me, a collection of subjectives does not necessarily cross over to being objective.

There seems to be something going on similar to an etymological fallacy. There can be arbitrariness in the beginning. There can be subjectivity in the beginning. Things can be born of the things you mention. But later, there is a change, a metamorphasis.

The beginnings no longer matter. The history is irrelevant. Now, the here and now, is different. The word "lunar" means what it means right now, and it matters not what anyone says. The truth isn't a function of subjectivity, even if it's history includes being shrouded in nothing but.

That we're speaking of a collective meaning necessarily negates subject dependency and therefore excludes the possibility of it being (being) subjective.

Saying that it's subjective because it has subjective origins is why I think the etymological fallacy is a good analogy.

I'm not at all citing etymology though.

I'm saying that a current usage is merely the expression of commonly-accepted opinions. It's akin to an argumentum ad populum.

Furthermore, dictionary definitions differ (even in one country), and can be imprecise, merely leading one on a synonym-chase.





Incidentally, I've checked a few dictionaries and 'Liar' is someone who tells lies (plural). Whereas 'murderer' is a person who commits murder (singular). Which would take us back to earlier in the thread.

 

[fast]

As such, for me, a collection of subjectives does not necessarily cross over to being objective.

There seems to be something going on similar to an etymological fallacy. There can be arbitrariness in the beginning. There can be subjectivity in the beginning. Things can be born of the things you mention. But later, there is a change, a metamorphasis.

The beginnings no longer matter. The history is irrelevant. Now, the here and now, is different. The word "lunar" means what it means right now, and it matters not what anyone says. The truth isn't a function of subjectivity, even if it's history includes being shrouded in nothing but.

That we're speaking of a collective meaning necessarily negates subject dependency and therefore excludes the possibility of it being (being) subjective.

Saying that it's subjective because it has subjective origins is why I think the etymological fallacy is a good analogy.

I'm not at all citing etymology though.

I'm saying that a current usage is merely the expression of commonly-accepted opinions. It's akin to an argumentum ad populum.

Furthermore, dictionary definitions differ (even in one country), and can be imprecise, merely leading one on a synonym-chase.





Incidentally, I've checked a few dictionaries and 'Liar' is someone who tells lies (plural). Whereas 'murderer' is a person who commits murder (singular). Which would take us back to earlier in the thread.

But meaning is not an opinion(s). It's usage. Actual usage. But not individual usage. Collective usage. A definition is an explanation of usage. A sysnthesized explanation of collective usage.

 

[ruby sparks]

But meaning is not an opinion(s). It's usage. Actual usage. But not individual usage. Collective usage. A definition is an explanation of usage. A sysnthesized explanation of collective usage.

We could argue this back and forth quite a bit longer and not necessarily see eye to eye, and I have actually lost sight of any sort of target.

 

[fast]

What's the point in looking for an objective rule to apply anyway? Does it exonerate Tom of transgressions and affirm he's a man of principles if lying is not a general trait of Tom's? His exoneration doesn't need an objective rule. The intersubjective conventions you've appealed to are enough.

People say things for a multitude of reasons, and perhaps what they say sometimes says more about them than to whom they speak of; nevertheless, if what they say comes across as an objective claim, then even if we shouldn't give the claim the time of day, if the claim can be construed as an objective claim, I'd be interested in knowing a definitive answer as to the accuracy of the claim, whether it exonerates the person or not. I'd predict it wouldn't exonerate someone of their transgressions, but at least if what I'm interested in materializes, I'd know first hand whether what was said is true, regardless of the reasons underlying the utterance of what's said.

If Tom lies and Bob calls Tom a liar and says he doesn't live by the principle to not lie, I'd like to explain the truth (whatever that might be). What I'm envisioning is saying to Tom that he does in fact generally live by the principles because not lying is very important to him and thus scarcely lies. The agonizing problem is what I think of next, and that's Bob explaining what it means to live by a principle ... that it cannot be a principle held when an exception is allowed.

In science, a principle is held quite strictly, like a law that cannot be a surviving law in the face of exceptions.

 

[Juma]

I'm not at all citing etymology though.

I'm saying that a current usage is merely the expression of commonly-accepted opinions. It's akin to an argumentum ad populum.

Furthermore, dictionary definitions differ (even in one country), and can be imprecise, merely leading one on a synonym-chase.





Incidentally, I've checked a few dictionaries and 'Liar' is someone who tells lies (plural). Whereas 'murderer' is a person who commits murder (singular). Which would take us back to earlier in the thread.

But meaning is not an opinion(s). It's usage. Actual usage. But not individual usage. Collective usage. A definition is an explanation of usage. A sysnthesized explanation of collective usage.

expected intended usage. Not actual usage. The meaning of something is what I intended that the receiver expects.

You draw an A because you expects me to se an intention in those lines.

 

[fast]

I'm not at all citing etymology though.

I'm saying that a current usage is merely the expression of commonly-accepted opinions. It's akin to an argumentum ad populum.

Furthermore, dictionary definitions differ (even in one country), and can be imprecise, merely leading one on a synonym-chase.





Incidentally, I've checked a few dictionaries and 'Liar' is someone who tells lies (plural). Whereas 'murderer' is a person who commits murder (singular). Which would take us back to earlier in the thread.

But meaning is not an opinion(s). It's usage. Actual usage. But not individual usage. Collective usage. A definition is an explanation of usage. A sysnthesized explanation of collective usage.

expected intended usage. Not actual usage. The meaning of something is what I intended that the receiver expects.

You draw an A because you expects me to se an intention in those lines.

What a person means vs what is said means.

This is a common issue in language. People don't always match up what they want to express with what's expressed. Taking what's in our minds (the thoughts we want to express) and producing an expression that matches up is not as precise an endeavor as we'd sometimes like. Experience helps us to decipher what thought was intended to be expressed. Meanwhile, however, once we have explicit clarity on what exactly is expressed, there can still be a deviation between that and the thoughts that were attempted to be conveyed. The meaning of what's expressed is (I still maintain) a function of collective usage, which has no bearing on the intended thoughts that were trying to be expressed.

Not all past scholarly work agree with that, but be that as it may, the distinction, though subtle, is something I believe to be of importance.

 

[humbleman]

I only asked a rhetorical question.

"Bob thinks Andy is 9 feet tall" has a truth value independent of "Andy is 9 feet tall."

If bob says "I think Andy is 9 feet tall", the truth of that statement depends not on the height of Andy but rather on what Bob thinks. If Bob says "Andy is 9 feet tall," then the truth value of that statement has nothing to do with what Bob thinks but instead the height of Andy.

Very well put. I agree.

If people in a culture in fact collectively consider a 14yo an adult, we have to ask ourselves, "does that make it so?" If it does, we have a baseline for an objective (not absolute) truth. So, if someone in that culture says a 13yo is an adult, we can objectively demonstrate that false by showing the deviation from the actual objective truth.

If, on the other hand, it doesn't make it so, then the objective truth will be ascertained not when they're considered an adult but rather when they're an adult. For instance, suppose the culture is an anomaly and the rest of the world uses scientific reasoning to reach a consensus that reaching the age of 18 is an adult and is codified in law that way. In that case, considerations become moot and the objective truth will be in relation to what's codified.

People are too quick to claim subjectivity, and when relativity and absolutism gets thrown into mix, they're all too quick to claim subjectivism.

Lets see it with objectivity itself.

Biologically, a female is "adult" when reaches the capability of procreating, this is to say, the young "woman" is having her menstruation, then biologically she is an adult.

If there is a world consensus about the age when women become adults in base of biological findings, then the average age is 13 to 14 years of age, which was the average age that was used as consensus by the ancient cultures. It was not a "cultural thing alone" but based on their understanding of biology applied to humans.

There is no other "scientific method" to declare a person as adult as average age, like behavior, intelligence, intellect, knowledge, etc. The evidence is that there are many adults who are "dumb" so those requisites won't apply.

Women who won't menstruate at all or having their periods when they are seventeen years old are so few that the rule of 13-14 years of age will easily become the rule without much opposition.

From here, culture of the society will have influence. By means of "convenience" for allowing young women to finish basic education, then the age of adulthood can be delayed up to 18 years of age. But, this is a cultural thing, not a scientific based decision.

The objective part is a truth, from here, not because a "lie" but because convenience, the age of adulthood in a young woman can be established at 18 years of age.

The ones who consider their daughters as adults at 14 years of age are as correct than the ones who consider their daughters as adults at 18 years of age.

One is not calling the another "a liar", even when the objective part is the same in both cases, but in one of the sides what is considered is not the objective scientific truth but the convenience of the social status and opportunity for better education which are more important for them.

So, demonstration for the age when a young woman becomes an adult will support the early age of 14 years old, and no reason to declare that such a culture is an anomaly.

Laws are made for safety, order and also for convenience for progress. Over passing the truth obtained by scientific findings avoiding their validity in order to create some laws is really not creating a lie, but is in many cases the reaching for the best or what is the most convenient.

However, these same laws can't by any means impose themselves over the ones who prefer the following of scientific truths.

This is why there is so many controversies with several laws, because they are not founded properly over the objective but following convenience.

And, a bigger problem is when new laws contradict the established ones.

Check the case of a backer with his religion on his side by Constitutional right against a non Constitutional ever mentioned stipulation but a law generated by convenience, which is the marriage between members of the same sex.

Who is lying? Who is telling the truth? Actually both were made because convenience.

Whoever wins won't be the end of the story but the increase of the controversy. The only way to make peace is nullifying one of them, or the Constitutional right or the new law, otherwise more similar cases will appear.

Lets go then to applications.

Principles. Politicians must avoid creating laws against the already established principles.

Lies. When one says a lie, must be sure never to be caught, otherwise...

This topic... is going nowhere.

 

[fast]

It might be easy for me to say there can be conflicting objective truths but no conflicting absolute truths, but although easy to say, it wouldn't be true. To make this easy, let's say a particular culture considers a female to be an adult at exactly 14 years of age while a completely different culture considers a female to be an adult at exactly 18 years of age. That's not to say those ages are arbitrary, as there are reasons behind the considerations. Now, that it's the case one is considered an adult in one culture and not in another just goes to show that the truth isn't absolute, not unobjective. A truth that stands the test of time and culture would (in this case) be an absolute truth.

What makes something objective isn't that it must be true in all times and places. It's not that the objective truths conflict. It's just a multitude of objective truths. It's objectively true that a 15yo is an adult in one culture, and it's objectively true that a 15yo is not an adult in another culture. The qualification "in a particular culture" becomes important when distinguishing between varying objective truths.

So then, why aren't these truths that do not stand the test of time and place regarded as subjective? It's because within each culture, the test never relies on any one single individual. Never do we ever have to approach someone for what he or she thinks. The truth is independent of individual thought.

Let's take the culture that regards a female as being an adult at exactly 14 years of age as an example. The claim, "she is an adult" would be shorthand for "she is collectively considered as an adult in our culture." It's objectively verifiable. Simply compare the age of the girl with the established collective consideration. If someone says it's subjective because it's not the case in all cultures are confusing subjectivity with absolutism. It's only when the truth depends on individuals does the truth become subjective.

Even a subjective truth can be objectively verifiable. "I like chocolate." Simply ascertain whether a) the person likes it or b) the person doesn't like it. We can check. Might not know if they're lying or mistaken, but the approach we take can be structured and methodical. Why then is it still a subjective truth? Because the truth is subject dependent. An individual's position becomes paramount to the answer. Such is not the case with collectively derived truths. An individuals perspective of what a lie is is not subject dependent but rather dependent on the collective view.

 

[The AntiChris]

Even a subjective truth can be objectively verifiable. "I like chocolate."

This is objective. It's an objective claim about the mental/physical state of the speaker.

 

[fast]

Even a subjective truth can be objectively verifiable. "I like chocolate."

This is objective. It's an objective claim about the mental/physical state of the speaker.

True. Oversight. My bad

 

[ruby sparks]

Even a subjective truth can be objectively verifiable. "I like chocolate."

This is objective. It's an objective claim about the mental/physical state of the speaker.

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.

 

[fast]

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.

You can say (say, that is) you like chocolate, but the objective truth of the matter depends not on what you say. It squarely depends on whether you do (in fact) like chocolate.

You can say (again, say) that a dog's tail is a leg, but the truth (the objective truth) of that does not in any way depend on what you say or how YOU define the word "leg."

 

[Underseer]

Here's the problem with what you are doing.

In order to be consistent, you have to come up with a standard and rigorously apply it in every case. Someone has to lie X times in Y years for you to call them a liar. But you're not going to do that if you're like most people. You're not going to write it down and carefully make your calculations before making a judgment. Instead, you're going to go by your gut, and here's where that ends.

For anyone in group 1, you will call them a liar if they tell X₁ lies per day, but for people in group 2, you will call them a liar if they tell X₂ lies per day.

Study after study shows that we all do this. We have one standard for group 1, and another standard for group 2. If we come from a racist culture, then we apply harsher standards to people in certain minority groups and more lenient standards to people in the privileged group and/or the majority group.

Just "winging it" and going by your "gut" when it comes to standards is opening yourself up to unintentional bigotry.

 

[fast]

Here's the problem with what you are doing.

In order to be consistent, you have to come up with a standard and rigorously apply it in every case. Someone has to lie X times in Y years for you to call them a liar. But you're not going to do that if you're like most people. You're not going to write it down and carefully make your calculations before making a judgment. Instead, you're going to go by your gut, and here's where that ends.

For anyone in group 1, you will call them a liar if they tell X₁ lies per day, but for people in group 2, you will call them a liar if they tell X₂ lies per day.

Study after study shows that we all do this. We have one standard for group 1, and another standard for group 2. If we come from a racist culture, then we apply harsher standards to people in certain minority groups and more lenient standards to people in the privileged group and/or the majority group.

Just "winging it" and going by your "gut" when it comes to standards is opening yourself up to unintentional bigotry.

I don't think counting is necessary. When I compare "liar" to "carpenter," the hidden ambiguity is in "tells" within "a person that tells lies," and in "makes" within "a person that makes wooden objects or structures."

I think the ambiguity I see that might be overlooked is there can be a sense that there's an unspoken generality. It's no wonder how sources link the term "liar" to reputation. If it's a common or pervasive trait, the person is a liar, and a person who simply makes a wooden object or structure isn't necessarily someone who does so generally or pervasively.

If someone's lies so often that one would say "now there goes a person that lies," there's little doubt the term "liar" applies.

A mother might exaggerate about her young one and regard his playing with linken logs as "our little carpenter," but because of the generality we intuitively associate with the term "carpenter" we would not truly regard the toddler as genuinely being a carpenter.

Still, there's emotions involved, so when A asks B about C, B might say (merely because of an isolated lie), "oh, he's a liar" not necessarily to communicate a generality but rather a one-off lie.

That being said, there does seem to be an ambiguity that can be objectively verified. If one says, "he has no principles," we can isolate the possible meanings "this person generally does not uphold a particular principle" vs "this person has violated a particular principle." Each has its truth value, so while the person may be correct about the latter, the truth of the former is independent of his opinion.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

No, look the subject is the one applying the criteria. (the same thing you are saying in the second paragraph).

I can't even. An object is not tall. It needs a subject to apply a standard. An object can be 6'2" and an object can be taller that the mathematically calculated average of similar objects. But it can't be 'tall' on its own.

You cannot throw your opinions around and call them objective facts. If we can't get this part in agreement we'll never meet on the other pieces.

aa

If someone says, "Tom is tall," I'm afraid the utterance is so ambiguous that we cannot ascertain from the utterance alone whether the claim is subjective or objective. I would maintain that the reason we don't know it's subjective is because the context fails to disambuguate. It is one or the other; we just don't know which it is. We shouldn't assume that it's subjective when an explicit clarification might reveal more definitively which it is in fact.

If there is a comparative intent, its objective, unless it elicits the unspoken "to me" qualification.

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

aa

 

[fast]

No, look the subject is the one applying the criteria. (the same thing you are saying in the second paragraph).

I can't even. An object is not tall. It needs a subject to apply a standard. An object can be 6'2" and an object can be taller that the mathematically calculated average of similar objects. But it can't be 'tall' on its own.

You cannot throw your opinions around and call them objective facts. If we can't get this part in agreement we'll never meet on the other pieces.

aa

If someone says, "Tom is tall," I'm afraid the utterance is so ambiguous that we cannot ascertain from the utterance alone whether the claim is subjective or objective. I would maintain that the reason we don't know it's subjective is because the context fails to disambuguate. It is one or the other; we just don't know which it is. We shouldn't assume that it's subjective when an explicit clarification might reveal more definitively which it is in fact.

If there is a comparative intent, its objective, unless it elicits the unspoken "to me" qualification.

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.