Objective, Subjective, Confusion, Reconciliation

[firedragon]

Hume said very little about truth.

What did he say about subjectivity? Truth is a word used by philosophers, so if you don't like that word like some other people, leave it. So tell me what Hume said.

When I say to address the OP, address the subjectivity explained in the OP as many philosophers do.

 

[gnostic]

No I did not read it. I read it now. It's a very simplistic piece. Way too simplistic. He does not address much of the discussion on it.

Some philosophers have the tendencies to over-complicate their ideas or concepts, to the points that render them incomprehensible or obscure.

Others like to put their ideas and concepts in forms of riddles. It may good in some ways, but people may lose interests if they don’t find answers.

Why do philosophies need to be over-complicated than be simplistic? What’s wrong with simplistic views that are clear and concise?

Why would you want to read philosophies that’s are hundreds or thousands of pages long, when you could explain in less than 50 or 20 or 10?

Are there purposes for making philosophies confusing and overly complex or drawn out than necessary?

 

[firedragon]

Some philosophers have the tendencies to over-complicate their ideas or concepts, to the points that render them incomprehensible or obscure.

Others like to put their ideas and concepts in forms of riddles. It may good in some ways, but people may lose interests if they don’t find answers.

Why do philosophies need to be over-complicated than be simplistic? What’s wrong with simplistic views that are clear and concise?

Why would you want to read philosophies that’s are hundreds or thousands of pages long, when you could explain in less than 50 or 20 or 10?

Are there purposes for making philosophies confusing and overly complex or drawn out than necessary?

"Simplistic" does not mean "simple". It's not about the length of someones piece or how "complicated" it is.

Read the OP and respond to what it says. Or this is just going to end up being whataboutism.

Cheers.

 

[Tiberius]

"Simplistic" does not mean "simple". It's not about the length of someones piece or how "complicated" it is.

Read the OP and respond to what it says. Or this is just going to end up being whataboutism.

Cheers.

You keep telling people to go and read your OP to understand the difference between an "opinion" and a "subjective truth."

Yet the examples of "subjective truths" you give in your OP are all just opinions. Specifically you say the following:

In studies of sociology or sociology of religion, one outcome taught as fact is that religious truths are subjective. For example, an Ethiopian Jesus is black. An American Jesus is white. Sometimes even God is white for an American, and vice versa. This is subjective truth. But that does not mean there are no objective truths. An American some time ago would have thought a mountain close by was the tallest mountain in the world. Maybe, an American who traveled the whole land at that time and explored every inch would have thought that's the whole world, and what ever the tallest mountain he found was the tallest mountain in the world. That's his truth. Subjective. Because the subjective truth of a Sherpa in the Himalaya's was his subjective truth. Today we know, the Everest is the tallest mountain in the world, and that's an objective fact. Where ever you travel in the universe, and even if you find a million taller mountains around the universe, the Everest will always be the tallest mountain on earth, and that's objectively true. It's an objective fact. The Sherpa were not necessarily "right" in finding an absolute truth about the Everest, but it's just that they have not met the Americans and both have not measured the other's mountain to exchange notes and decide which one is taller. Thus, in studies of sociological background, you don't call it an absolute truth because it's an inductive finding. That does not mean the Everest is not the tallest mountain on earth once you map it out.​

It is the OPINION of the Ethiopian man that Jesus was black. It is the OPINION of the American man that Jesus was white. It is the OPINION of that American who lived some time ago that the mountain near him was the tallest mountain in the world. They are ALL opinions.

 

[firedragon]

You keep telling people to go and read your OP to understand the difference between an "opinion" and a "subjective truth."

I didn't say that.

Yet the examples of "subjective truths" you give in your OP are all just opinions.

If you want to name them opinions, fine with me mate.

It is the OPINION of the Ethiopian man that Jesus was black.

Not at all. Not just an opinion. It's his subjective truth. If you believe only in Objective Truths, that's fine with me. I also believe in objective truths. But in psychology, and science, and philosophical thought, there is a subjective truth that cannot be just denied and put into a category of opinion. You can if you wish dismiss all of it as also opinion pieces. Up to you.

Anyway, read a book written by David Chalmers. He was an atheist. He termed a thing called "the hard problem of consciousness". Maybe take a read. You might like it.

Cheers.

 

[gnostic]

"Simplistic" does not mean "simple". It's not about the length of someones piece or how "complicated" it is.

Read the OP and respond to what it says. Or this is just going to end up being whataboutism.

You keep saying that, firedragon, to read your OP, and I have read your OP from the beginning.

My first reply was about Everest, which you have brought up several times (including at the OP). You had assumed there was only one way to measure its height, but as you know there are more than one way it can be measured.

Factual information (also called "data") are evidence that can be observed and measured, understanding the physical properties, etc, these information are objective, because they are independent of human's opinions, preferences, biases, belief, etc, which are subjective.

But some of your claims (at the OP), I would have to disagree.

Like...

Philosophers predominantly have favoured objective truth's although there were philosophers who proposed relative truths like Protagoras. Yet, generally philosophers believe that "What is true is true for all of us, full stop, whether or not we are aware of it". Even atheists.

I definitely have to disagree philosophers "predominantly have favoured objective truth's".

Most of the philosophies have nothing to do with being "logical" or "scientific" or even being "objective". I would say there are more philosophies that are "subjective" than they are "objective" philosophies.

Plus, you speak of philosophy as if they have all the answers. I don't think so. Philosophers are humans, therefore they can make mistakes, and they can be biased.

And you brought up some examples, but each ones were examples of opinions. Whether those opinions are true or not, your examples were lacking in details, so we don't know if they were true or not.

 

[firedragon]

You keep saying that, firedragon, to read your OP, and I have read your OP from the beginning.

My first reply was about Everest, which you have brought up several times (including at the OP). You had assumed there was only one way to measure its height, but as you know there are more than one way it can be measured.

So what you are saying is that Everest being the tallest mountain on earth is subjective? Is not what you are saying?

Most of the philosophies have nothing to do with being "logical" or "scientific" or even being "objective". I would say there are more philosophies that are "subjective" than they are "objective" philosophies.

What do you mean "Objective Philosophies"? Please quote some literature on this.

Plus, you speak of philosophy as if they have all the answers.

Nah. Absolutely wrong.

And you brought up some examples, but each ones were examples of opinions.

So what you are saying is that an American thinking an American mountain is the tallest when nothing else was discovered yet is just making an opinion right? Is he making an opinion while not knowing the objective truth or does he know the objective truth that the Everest is the tallest mountain but still he is making an opinion?

Are you only making an opinion that since there are different ways to measure the height of a mountain etc etc etc that you have been claiming?

Do you think this American will make the same opinion once he is told there is a world outside and he explores, climbs Everest and discovers it's taller? That means he is either delusional or lying.

So what is your "opinion"?

 

[Tiberius]

I didn't say that.

Then what is it that you expect them to get from reading the OP?

If you want to name them opinions, fine with me mate.

You haven't provided anything to show they aren't opinions.

Not at all. Not just an opinion. It's his subjective truth. If you believe only in Objective Truths, that's fine with me. I also believe in objective truths. But in psychology, and science, and philosophical thought, there is a subjective truth that cannot be just denied and put into a category of opinion. You can if you wish dismiss all of it as also opinion pieces. Up to you.

Anyway, read a book written by David Chalmers. He was an atheist. He termed a thing called "the hard problem of consciousness". Maybe take a read. You might like it.

Cheers.

We keep dancing around the same thing here.

Tell me some method by which I can tell the difference between a "subjective truth" and an "opinion."

 

[Tiberius]

So what you are saying is that Everest being the tallest mountain on earth is subjective? Is not what you are saying?

Well, depending on how you measure it, the tallest mountain is either Everest, Mauna Kea, or Chimborazo.

Everest is the highest point above sea level. Mauna Kea is the tallest in terms of base to height (it's just that most of it is underwater). And the summit of Chimborazo is the point on the Earth's surface that is farthest away from the core of the Earth.

So what you are saying is that an American thinking an American mountain is the tallest when nothing else was discovered yet is just making an opinion right? Is he making an opinion while not knowing the objective truth or does he know the objective truth that the Everest is the tallest mountain but still he is making an opinion?

He is making an opinion while not knowing the objective truth.

Are you only making an opinion that since there are different ways to measure the height of a mountain etc etc etc that you have been claiming?

I've given differing examples of how we can measure the height of a mountain.

Do you think this American will make the same opinion once he is told there is a world outside and he explores, climbs Everest and discovers it's taller? That means he is either delusional or lying.

Yeah, he gives up his opinion.

 

[Augustus]

Read the OP and respond to what it says

The problem is the OP is unclear and riddled with errors, so it doesn't effectively communicate what you are trying to say.

You present some subjective truths as objective truths (colour of an orange for example) and expect people to understand terms you refuse to clearly define and can't even use correctly yourself.

You don't identify that scientific minded atheists do think there is an objective truth, even if they place limits on our ability to know this objective truth with absolute certainty via scientific and sensory information, which leads to people thinking you are misrepresenting the views of the "mostly atheists" you are discussing.

Then when people don't reply in precisely the manner you wanted, point out errors or ambiguities, or ask for clarification, you resort to your usual schtick of spending twice as much time and effort being churlish and insulting as it would have taken to simply clarify your poorly articulated position and engage in good-faith discussion

 

[firedragon]

Then what is it that you expect them to get from reading the OP?

The OP is not about telling you the difference between opinion and subjectivity. I never told anyone anything of the sort.

You haven't provided anything to show they aren't opinions.

Check the OP. It has examples of subjectivity. If you work hard you can claim they are opinions if you want. Upto you.

We keep dancing around the same thing here.

Tell me some method by which I can tell the difference between a "subjective truth" and an "opinion."

Read the book I gave you without being outright needing to insult as your argument.

 

[firedragon]

riddled with errors

Please point out the specific error with references and proper argumentation.

 

[firedragon]

Everest is the highest point above sea level.

Okay. Is that an objective truth? You just defined it.

He is making an opinion while not knowing the objective truth.

That's called a subjective truth. One day he might learn he was wrong.

A taste of orange as an experience or/and satisfaction is not just someones opinion. It's his subjective truth. A mother's smell is a babe's longing. That's subjective to that baby. Another mothers baby will like his or her mother. That's a subjective truth.

Read about subjectivity in the philosophy of mind or the study of consciousness.

I've given differing examples of how we can measure the height of a mountain.

What ever mountain you find is the tallest or shortest after extensive research and you establish as fact, you will know. You missed the whole point.

Yeah, he gives up his opinion.

Nope. That's a paradigm shifts.

 

[Augustus]

Please point out the specific error with references and proper argumentation.

As usual, you ask people to explain something they have already explained. Unsurprisingly, you ignored it.

How we perceive colour is subjective (hence colourblindness), although based on the objective light refracting properties of things.

Can reread my 1st post for other examples.

 

[firedragon]

As usual, you ask people to explain something they have already explained. Unsurprisingly, you ignored it.

I am not gonna engage with random comments. Only specific information, with exactly where in the OP I said what, and proper references and argumentation. Then it's a learning curve.

 

[firedragon]

How we perceive colour is subjective (hence colourblindness), although based on the objective light refracting properties of things.

So you are saying there is only objective truths? Correct?

 

[Augustus]

So you are saying there is only objective truths? Correct?

No, I'm saying how we perceive colour would be a 'subjective truth'.

 

[firedragon]

No, I'm saying how we perceive colour would be a 'subjective truth'.

Yes. It's subjective truth. I agree.

Sometimes we have associations to colour which are true to us which is subjective. For another person, it maybe different. Well, I am referring two different people. As in maybe the aborigines of Australia and a lost tribe in India.

 

[Augustus]

Yes. It's subjective truth. I agree.

Sometimes we have associations to colour which are true to us which is subjective. For another person, it maybe different. Well, I am referring two different people. As in maybe the aborigines of Australia and a lost tribe in India.

I was meaning in the most basic sense, whether an apple is visually green and an orange is orange. To some people they may be the same colour.

Another example would be that we can only (subjectively) see that square A is darker than square B, even if we know that objectively they are exactly the same colour.

 

[firedragon]

I was meaning in the most basic sense, whether an apple is visually green and an orange is orange. To some people they may be the same colour.

You mean if they are colour blind or due to their ancestral development of some sort?

That could be.

Another example would be that we can only (subjectively) see that square A is darker than square B, even if we know that objectively they are exactly the same colour.

Could be.