Help me make the argument that objectivity is a prerequisite of constructive discourse, specifically regarding the definitions of words
e.g. what is a "woman".
You can just skip to the conclusion, everything prior just elaborates the same point.
ChatGPT said:
Shared Definitions Are Essential for Meaningful Dialogue
Without objective definitions, participants in a conversation may talk past each other, using the same words but meaning entirely different things.
In constructive discourse, clarity and mutual understanding depend on a shared semantic baseline.
Example: If “woman” means “adult human female” to one party, but “anyone who identifies as female” to another, their discussions about policy, rights, or identity will be incoherent unless they clarify terms.
Objectivity Provides a Stable Foundation for Debate
Objective definitions, grounded in observable or commonly accepted criteria (e.g. biology, legal status, dictionary usage), act as a neutral reference point.
This avoids circular reasoning or emotional appeals, allowing for evaluations based on logic and evidence rather than shifting personal interpretations.
Subjective Redefinitions Undermine Consistency and Trust
If definitions are entirely subjective or fluid, then no argument can be falsified or debated. Each person can retreat to “their truth,” making rational engagement impossible.
This erodes trust in discourse, as one side may feel the other is using rhetorical manipulation rather than seeking truth.
Objective Definitions Do Not Preclude Empathy or Inclusion
Arguing for objective meanings does not require denying lived experiences, rather, it insists on a distinction between descriptive language and personal identity frameworks.
For example, one can acknowledge trans identities while still maintaining that the term “woman,” in a biological or legal context, refers to a particular category.
Constructive Discourse Requires Falsifiability
In any debate, we must be able to test arguments against evidence or logic.
If the definitions themselves are unfixed or based solely on subjective self-identification, then no standard of proof or reasoning can apply.
Objectivity ensures there is a potential for persuasion, change, or synthesis, core elements of productive dialogue.
Examples From Law, Science, and Policy
Law requires objective definitions for enforceability e.g., laws about women’s shelters or sex-based protections must rely on clear criteria.
Science depends on classification to conduct research, study populations, or report data. Ambiguity disrupts analysis.
Policies meant to serve specific groups (e.g. women in sports or medicine) lose legitimacy if the category is undefinable.
Conclusion
Objectivity, especially in the definitions of words, is not about denying complexity or nuance, it’s about creating the shared ground on which nuance can be explored. Without it, discourse collapses into incoherence, tribalism, or emotivism, where persuasion is impossible and mutual understanding vanishes.
I have long been decrying subjectivism/sophism, people who assert that their personal subjective truth is somehow more true than the actual physical reality and the perfect example of that is the debate on gender.
The physical objective reality is that there are men, there a women, there's intersex people who defy easy definition by being physically/mentally malformed (the exception that proves the rule), and then there's crazy people who think they're animals or that they're attracted to pans and many other silly things.
If we cannot agree what a man or a woman is, how can we ever agree on anything?
There has to be a standard of truth, there has to be a shared objective reality.
I think this is fundamentally the problem society faces (that we are not ready for the responsibility of having the freedom to determine truth) and is the crux of the problem with the discourse on this forum.
There is the objective AND there is the subjective.
The objective is about what we have in common, and so forms the basis for mutual agreement.
The subjective is about what we differ about, and so forms the basis for mutual advantage (the win-win).
Without the former, there’s nothing we can agree on.
Without the latter, we’re all competing, fighting and waging war over the exact same resources. There’s no benefit to barter or commerce or even employment, because what the buyer wants to buy & keep for himself, is what the seller wants to buy & keep for himself and so doesn’t want to sell it.
The one thing about gender tho is that there is a wiring that exists connecting brain regions in male and female differently. Meaning the brain network operates not the same in males and females. This is in the functional network. But in order for this to be true you need to believe the physical effects the psychological. Many dishonest people don't believe chemicals effect psychology (chemicals effecting psychology to them is racist). Chemistry changes the functional wiring of males and females.
Cat behavior is instinctual but possible to know. To induce them into bio physiology will happen in the future depending on the ethics boards decisions.
I think the media is largely to blame for undermining objectivity with their language, like how CNN refers to illegal invaders as migrants, and yes I'm applying the opposing bias, to highlight the degree of difference between the two positions.
Calling them migrants (grouping them with legal migrants) is as much of a stretch as calling them invaders.
This is how the USA has ended up in a low intensity civil war between the government backed by the majority of the population, and hysterical protestors who genuinely believe they're saving America from a totalitarian regime, because they're brainwashed idiots.
Google told me that local connection density is 14% higher in females. Cortical and subcortical.
I suspect this means the efficiency of local connections is higher. How this relates to behavioral differences wasn't clear. If males have greater long distance connection efficiently? But the brain in females is talking more to itself in signals density. More self awareness in some ways. Or control?
We need to agree on something to have meeting point, yes.
But much of psychology is subjective, even if objectively we share so many similarities, the experience is subjective to us all.
So for example I can go to a doctor and say I am in pain, but that doctor can say, I DONT SEE ANY PAIN you are fine.
So subjective things are often real as well, but we often take the word objective and say NO YOU CANT BE IN PAIN objectively there is nothing wrong with you,..... then lots of patients die in hospitals of various illness because doctors told them they are OK.
Regarding use of AI:
This was within the rules as stated, but it will be a problem if people continue setting up threads using AI for the bulk of their reasoning. It should be used to support our dialogue, not replace it. Cog did everything right here according to our rules, but I think I'll need to write an amendment at some point.
We as people can be objective about many things in regard to them being outside ourselves and actually existing. But we are not all the same so maybe two kids agree to share the ball but two adults cannot agree because they know different things such as one guy knows electrical engineering and the other neuroscience but they have different terminology that makes it difficult to communicate.
Within a field then people create those linguist conventions to discuss subjects others don't know about. When this is non objective might be just because we don't know. Knowing something and being unable to communicate directly doesn't make it less objective.
The subject of the matter is that no one has the exact same vocabulary or semantics. Some people know allot more that I do in areas harder to know because I don't study it. Communication then be harder as well. Disagreement is from that point of view is in the ignorance of or the perspective of different things. You can look at things in new ways but then you have to share what that is to people not seeing it your way.
I think you may have misunderstood me and that I haven't explained my position clearly.
Suppose a group of blind men are touching different parts of an elephant and speculating on what it is, they could have wildly different theories or converge on an incorrect assumption. But we can assume if they persist with their investigation long enough they'll eventually have enough data to lead them to a correct conclusion, or at very least one that closely aligns with the universal objective truth.
Thus by identifying it as an elephant they possess an objective truth, it may not be flawless (the universal objective truth) but the concept of an elephant can never be more than an approximation of an elephant, so to demand perfection is unreasonable.
This concept/definition of an elephant, flawed though it may be, is essential if we are to have a constructive conversation about elephants, for if we cannot agree what an elephant is how can we do anything but talk past each other?
The determination of the idea of an elephant is different to sharing the same terminology of an elephant.
If some of those people are English, and some are French, all else being equal they will still arrive at the same independently verifiable facts, even if they have different words for them.
You merge the concept space with the language space without acknowledging as much. What's more, this is reminiscent of patterns in our previous conversations whereby you demand restrictive definitions of words which bounds the conceptual space as well, such as equating sex and gender limiting conversations about social factors (which you seem to be touching on again in this thread). There is no objective fact of the matter, there is the language we choose in so far as it is useful, and by limiting other people's language to stuff that fits within your belief structure you scope the discussion to fit only your subjective interpretation.
"The mark of an educated mind is being able to entertain an idea without believing it" ~ Aristotle, probably
You seem to be approaching this from a good headspace. I still disagree with you but I like this version of you.
Regarding AI: I'm not so much concerned with overuse as I am with how it's used. I think it's useful in quickly verifying one's ideas, sanity checking, or appealing to in some sort of third party capacity as an arbiter. But when the argument itself is subbed out for AI content I get concerned that it will detract from real engagement.
I’m really struggling to understand this, feels like trying to cup water with my hands, for every bit I manage to hold the majority is slipping out of my grasp.
I merge the concept space with the language space because neither of us are speaking French, again I acknowledge that the word “elephant” does not encompass the totality of an actual elephant, indeed it cannot do so, but my assertion is that we need a functional concept/definition or else we can’t talk about elephants. Granted there needs to be room for nuance but I achieve that with clarifying terms, it’s not just an elephant it’s an African elephant, a plastic toy African elephant, a photo of a plastic toy African elephant.
I don’t need to change my understanding of an elephant to accommodate nuance.
Likewise what defines a man and a woman are the biological standard, a transwoman is a man who identifies as a woman, a physically presenting transwoman is a man who identifies as a woman and superficially appears as such. Even if we have a device that can break someone down and rebuild them different from a genetic level I would call them a post rebuild transwoman (in a debate) for the sake of specificity. Now granted at that point I’d call them a woman in general conversation because the distinction is long and by then doesn’t serve much of a point. But there is still a distinction to be made.
Rather what’s the point of separating the concept space from the language space, the entire point of language is to convey concepts, legal definitions are set by the very particular use of language, because how else can it be done?
The exclusivity of women’s spaces is a perfect example of this, a women’s bathroom is a legally protected space as per the definition of a woman, so what does separating the language from the concept achieve other than removing the meaning from the word woman? It reeks of sophistry to me.
I demand “restrictive definitions of words to bound the concept space” because I’m trying to prove something, I’m trying to bring the debate to an actual conclusion. In this case I’m trying to prove there needs to be a functional practical definition of a woman for at least legal/legislative purposes, and by doing so prove that meaningful constructive debates cannot occur unless all parties at least adhere to the pretense of a debate, that we are exchanging arguments in pursuit of a greater understanding.
I can’t debate elephants with you if we can’t share some basic foundational understanding of what an elephant is.
Now you might say I’m doing it now, that I’m restricting the definition of a woman and thereby refusing to participate in a debate regarding that very definition and I acknowledge that to be true because I don’t think there’s a good faith debate to be had. I think I’m debating what a woman is (trying to establish a definition) whereas the counter debate is solely trying to break down that definition and offering nothing worthwhile to replace it. Which again reeks of sophistry.
I'm not a fan of all the "reeks of sophistry" talk. I am presenting my views in good faith.
"Sophistry" has a distinct definition that you're not adhering to here. Likewise, "objective" has a definition that you're not honouring, conflating it with lingual correspondence. You simultaneously argue for a shared definition while insisting your opponents cater to your preferred interpretation of words.
Normally, this wouldn't be too big of an issue. If I believe you to be being good faith, I would simply take into consideration what I believe you to mean. For instance, in the past, you spoke of "primary industries" a lot, but using your own definition. I didn't take issue with this, because your definition was internally consistent. It didn't matter that your idea didn't map one to one with the general shared notion of a primary industry, because I was trying to understand what you were saying, not nitpick semantics. But now specifically, you are arguing for a concession from everyone that doesn't think like you while offering no such concession yourself. You are arguing for an "objective" perspective that maps onto your own subjective one.
Language has utility. Where there is demand, forthcoming will be the supply. You don't need "woman" to mean anything beyond sex. But psychologists and trans people do. The objective reality is that these people exist, regardless of your lack of interest or engagement with them.
What's more, you are surgical with your demand for "objectivity". If Trump tweets something outlandish, you will insist he's not serious. You're okay with "subjective" language when it suits you. You routinely insist on special definitions of words, like 'socialism/communism', the 'left', woke, etc., but this reduces clarity for any conversation in which you and your interlocuter don't share core beliefs (read, every debate you've had on INTPf).
TLDR: How you act and what you advocate for are in conflict.
Legal definition is least objective definition I think. Although legally sometimes you do have to consider medical and biological stuff. The problem is if one goes by legal definition one goes literally the most reductionist model there is.
The deception is that there's something wrong with that, my "interpretation" is what the word woman has always meant and I'm not insisting you cater to me, I'm insisting that you cater to our shared objective reality.
It's really very simple a woman is: a woman.
A woman is not a trans-woman, which itself an abbreviation of "a transvestite who identifies as a woman".
If someone identifies as a cat, that does not make them a cat, and it certainly doesn't change what a cat is.
If a man identifies as a woman, that does not make them a woman, and it certainly doesn't change what a woman is.
Now we can get into long debates over the exact definition of a cat or a woman, but that's besides the point, a man is not a cat, a man is not a woman, no amount of semantics is going to make reality change its mind.
So your fallacy is that I have to accept the your preferred interpretation of words, specifically that a man who identifies as a woman is a woman, and I do not accept that imposed premise. Because if anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman then any non-woman can choose to be a woman, and a woman can not be a woman simply because she decides so, at which point the definition has no functional value.
If I accept your premise then a "woman" is "a person who identifies as a woman" and that's it, the definition is entirely circular, it's meaningless.
I'm a figanbob, what's a figanbob? It's what I am, because I'm a figanbob.
Hado that is Sophism Par Excellence!
You are trying to trick me into accepting a false paradigm!
Let's go back to the question I asked you:
What does separating the language from the concept achieve other than removing the meaning from the word?
Nothing, it achieves nothing Hado, it achieves NOTHING other than the removal of meaning which is performed purposefully to supplant that meaning with another.
Now sure you can disregard everything I've said on the basis they're just words, that definitions are limited and we necessarily must create new ones to explore new concepts and therefore a man or a woman can be whoever identifies as such and we're just going ignore the circular argument problem because, really, isn't everything ultimately a circular argument?
Then you have abandoned reason and truth in favor of subjectivity and feels.
The physical objective reality is that there are men, there a women, there's intersex people who defy easy definition by being physically/mentally malformed (the exception that proves the rule), and then there's crazy people who think they're animals or that they're attracted to pans and many other silly things.
Is it really a good idea to start a serious discussion about objectivity and randomly switch to inflammatory language about trans people?
It detracts from the topic you wanted to discuss. I think there will never be objective consensus on the LGBT issues on this forum so we should only discuss them in dedicated threads if at all.
If I was a trans person I would not want to be called physically/mentally malformed and I would feel bad about contributing to this forum. If you wanted to be friends with a trans person you would not want to poke fun at their identity in the same casual manner that you tease people for being shit at videogames.
Why do we have to do this and scare away potentially valuable contributors or start another stupid lgbt war that has no resolution?
The physical objective reality is that there are men, there a women, there's intersex people who defy easy definition by being physically/mentally malformed (the exception that proves the rule), and then there's crazy people who think they're animals or that they're attracted to pans and many other silly things.
Is it really a good idea to start a serious discussion about objectivity and randomly switch to inflammatory language about trans people?
It detracts from the topic you wanted to discuss. I think there will never be objective consensus on the LGBT issues on this forum so we should only discuss them in dedicated threads if at all.
If I was a trans person I would not want to be called physically/mentally malformed and I would feel bad about contributing to this forum. If you wanted to be friends with a trans person you would not want to poke fun at their identity in the same casual manner that you tease people for being shit at videogames.
Why do we have to do this and scare away potentially valuable contributors or start another stupid lgbt war that has no resolution?
Based. I didn't even catch that. Cog this is your warning. Everyone is welcome here and shouldn't be pre-categorised as "malformed" or whatever else. Our discussion of these topics here is contingent on respect and good faith. This is mild but seriously I'm not having this stuff anymore you need to chill on it. You started strong but you quickly get too comfortable.
Also FYI Cog your posts are too damn long and in too many directions. I can't respond to the whole thing without myself branching off and further fracturing the conversation. If you want me to read and respond, keep it concise. I responded but feel like I missed half of what you said.
The deception is that there's something wrong with that, my "interpretation" is what the word woman has always meant and I'm not insisting you cater to me, I'm insisting that you cater to our shared objective reality.
It's really very simple a woman is: a woman.
A woman is not a trans-woman, which itself an abbreviation of "a transvestite who identifies as a woman".
No I do not, I reject your sophist paradigm, normal women are not the exception to transvestites, rather transvestites are the exception to normal women, so when I refer to women I am referring to that which is the norm for a woman.
Google AI Overview said:
Searched: when was cisgender invented
The term "cisgender" was coined in 1994 by Dana Defosse, a researcher at the University of Minnesota, in a Usenet post to the transgender community. It was used to refer to people whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth, distinguishing them from transgender individuals.
The term "cisgender" was invented, recently, to purposefully change language to push a false reality, to trick people into thinking transvestites are normal, which they are not.
Now I'm not saying they're bad or that they shouldn't exist or that I can't work alongside them or tolerate them, if the person next to me at work wants to be a cat I don't give a damn if it doesn't affect me, my issue purely categorical, my issue isn't with people being trans it's with the blatant and ever increasing sophistry!
I want to be a robot, transvestites aren't anything special to me.
No. When a man decides that they identify as a woman and make the required effort to present themselves as a woman and fit the cultural norm of being a woman, or are in the transition to fitting that cultural norm then they are a woman.
I have a friend who was cisgender male, but has very recently come out as a woman. They are in the process of removing facial hair, taking hormones and are picking out feminine clothes. So far they go to the male toilet, but they will be going to female toilets at some point. It makes perfect sense and is a very civilized and considerate way to act as a transgender person.
I also know of a bad looking cisgender woman, who had police called on her when being in a women's toilet because she was misidentified as male. This was a very uncivilized way of harassing that woman based on perception.
Oh FFS, freak would be derogatory, born wrong would be derogatory, you know what it's called when someone has cleft lip? A malformation of the nasal passage and/or palate, because it did not take form correctly.
Don't police me on using clinically accurate language.
First day back and I have to talk to you this many times? Nope. It was weeks last time. This time it's months. Next time years.
I'm not negotiating on this. I'm out of breath with the number of times I've said we're going to be respectful when approaching these topics. Every single time it devolves into stupid shit followed by me getting lectured for moderating. No more.
If people want to talk about sensitive topics, that's doable, but your stupid culture war bullshit has scared away posters far more productive than you and now threatens to do so again. Don't come here and pretend to care about logic and reason when your criticisms map one-to-one with the acceptable targets your politics condemn. That's sophistry.
This is not a culture war battleground. If we discuss these topics, it's with curiosity and the intent to understand one another. There were points in this discussion worth making (I think the point about circularity is reasonable albeit reductive), but you leave all notion of rational argument behind when you conduct yourself this way.
No I do not, I reject your sophist paradigm, normal women are not the exception to transvestites, rather transvestites are the exception to normal women, so when I refer to women I am referring to that which is the norm for a woman.
Then you are rejecting constructive discussion. You insist on others accepting your subjective definition. Look I can continue the discussion if you use the correct term, but I will not ignore it when you try to exclude transgender women from the definition.
You are very clearly trying to bend others to accept your way of speaking and your approach to the subject even before it begins.
The term "cisgender" was coined in 1994 by Dana Defosse, a researcher at the University of Minnesota, in a Usenet post to the transgender community. It was used to refer to people whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth, distinguishing them from transgender individuals.
The term "cisgender" was invented, recently, to purposefully change language to push a false reality, to trick people into thinking transvestites are normal, which they are not.
This is a very fallacious way of saying that if something is recent then it must be wrong because we surely cannot improve or learn new things and should stick to the ways of cavemen.
It is also clearly a misuse of the term "sophistry". I did not try to use a false argument to deceive you. I am arguing for a commonly accepted definition.
It does not matter if you and the 5 buddies next to you agree on your version of woman. For the purposes of the discussion here it is imperative that we all agree on the definition to proceed. I reject your definition on grounds that it excludes transgender women.
Not only that. Your way of handling the subject and making an exclusive definition is inflammatory. How do you expect to discuss this issue with many disagreeing viewpoints and people of all walks of life if you are inflammatory.
It's like you've never met a pretty transgender person in your life. Transgender women can take better care of themselves and look prettier and more feminine than cisgender women. Some may have also gone through surgery and are functionally not that different from cisgender women aside from not being able to conceive.
@Hadoblado
It's just pissing me off because Cog has a brain and can say interesting things, but he is using his brain for culture war.
If he really wants a bunch of people to agree with him then he should go to the anti-trans forums and live in an echochamber, but he shouldn't be pissed that not every place accepts his crude assholish way of handling sensitive issues.
Personally I hate losing Cog as a poster, but the least he can do is self-regulate to never talk about gender, or talk with less edge, there are other places of the internet for that.
You're fine. This is just the most recent in a very long list of warnings where I swear to Cog he needs to stop or I'll do something and then never do. But I've been engaged philosophically recently and have come to the realisation that my failure to actually address the issues here is a form of cowardice that is costing us collectively. Now I'm aware of it I won't abide it.
This wasn't a particularly egregious act on Cog's part. He's done far worse and gotten away with it. But for him to continue to participate here I need to see evidence he can change, and him regressing so far so quickly (his first day unbanned) is strong evidence in the other direction.
He was actually a mod here once and I believe he's the longest running member and our most prolific. Culture war shit got in his brain and stayed there and he's been itching for liberal tears ever since.
This was a two month ban but in my mind he's already perma'd because despite me giving chances back he's showing himself incapable of listening to them. Hopefully things work out in his new job and maybe he comes back with fresh eyes.
I don't see anything about how wanting objectivity precludes cog from having an operational definition.
What exactly was it he said that tells us he excluded female psychology from being part of a woman? That he only said physical appearance was part of being a woman, I didn't see him say that.
If I were to guess then the operational definition needs to be objective which I don't see anyone agreeing to. Being male or female automatically includes physical appearance and psychology. I didn't see anything in the discussion opposing that? Just lots of accusations that don't fit with what anyone did.
If anyone knows why we categorize specific differences as male or female, physically or psychologically I would like to know.
We've also reached a point in society where men don't need to be men, and women don't need to be women. We've evolved well past the "need" for social gender norms.
I'm not a fully transitioned person (I identify as nonbinary) but my interests, style, way of talking, etc. align almost-fully with the opposite gender I was born as. I still live and completely function in society the same as any of you cis people. In fact, it makes nearly no difference on my day to day whatsoever.
Like, who gives a shit? Why do you care so much? At this point gender is more of a personality trait than a societal tool
Oh btw that message was directed at cog but it doesn't seem like he's here anymore (reading the previous replies)
Also it's absolutely wild he's being this offensive and non-communicative when he wears a photo from The Amazing Digital Circus, a show that has a predominantly female and trans fan base.
Not really a show you as a male should be watching, is it cog? But you like it anyways? Interesting
My perspective is that there is always a "correct answer" to any inquiry. Why? Because the truth is objective, not subjective. We may not actually know for sure what the correct answer is, but that in no way means that there is not an objectively correct answer.
For example, consider that you are going to have some ice cream. One person wants chocolate, another vanilla. It's subjective, right? Wrong. For any given situation, there is a correct choice.
This whole idea of "preference" masking objective reality has no basis. It is putting the cart before the horse.
Because if there is a "true for you but not for me" type of thing in the universe, then no one actually knows anything about anything. Everything would just be a matter of opinion. And sorry, but 2+2 is always going to equal 4.
So, the brass tax, so to speak, is that for ANY inquiry, there is a correct answer. This includes how people identify themselves. Maybe it is "wrong" for some people to struggle so much with Neuroticism? Maybe that would mean people need to overcome a lot of barriers to getting to the point where they don't struggle with bad emotions all the time? But maybe it would be good for them to embark on that challenge.
I don't believe in perfection. I believe in making progress throughout life. You're either growing or you're dying, there ain't no third direction.
For example, consider that you are going to have some ice cream. One person wants chocolate, another vanilla. It's subjective, right? Wrong. For any given situation, there is a correct choice.
Lmao what ?? Sometimes I feel like having chocolate ice cream, sometimes I feel like having vanilla ice cream. How is there a correct choice LMAO it's ice cream
What do you mean by this? I assume you mean that trans people are neurotic, but like, would you call people with ADHD or autism "wrong"? Would you call someone wheelchair bound "wrong"?
For example, consider that you are going to have some ice cream. One person wants chocolate, another vanilla. It's subjective, right? Wrong. For any given situation, there is a correct choice.
Lmao what ?? Sometimes I feel like having chocolate ice cream, sometimes I feel like having vanilla ice cream. How is there a correct choice LMAO it's ice cream
For example, consider that you are going to have some ice cream. One person wants chocolate, another vanilla. It's subjective, right? Wrong. For any given situation, there is a correct choice.
Okay, genuinely I want to know more. It could help me understand you a lot better.
So there's an objective truth outside of our perception of it? (this I agree with).
And this objective truth extends to everything? For every question, there is an objective answer? This includes what others would consider "subjective" preferences, like chocolate vs. vanilla?
So if I choose chocolate over vanilla because I don't like vanilla, you're saying I could be objectively incorrect but will never know it? My "subjective" experience of preference is potentially objectively wrong?
Or am I misrepresenting you? The meme was a bit of fun but I'm real on this. I want to understand.
@Chibi alright, I understand it comes across as wild but it's also kind of interesting right? Try to bring it back to the substantive.
So if I choose chocolate over vanilla because I don't like vanilla, you're saying I could be objectively incorrect but will never know it? My "subjective" experience of preference is potentially objectively wrong?
Yes, but more than that, for every response to anything, there is a correct emotion. So, there is a correct emotion at the time of choosing chocolate or vanilla. It may be that there is a correct option every time between chocolate and vanilla ice cream, but that's not the argument I am making. I'm saying that for every subjective experience, there is a correct way to interpret it and feel it, and as a result, there is a correct behavior that corresponds to this feeling or experience.
We should all be able to agree that laughing at a dead guy at his funeral is inappropriate (I hope so, at least). So, if that emotion is inappropriate, we would say it is a wrong emotion. Etc.
Im also very interested in what he has to say. I think people's preferences, and every day choices, have nothing to do with an objective truth. Sure, math is objective, 2+2 is objective, but a person's mind is so much more than just objective math. You can't simply categorize an individual down to objective truths (kind of ironic to say considering this is a Myers Briggs forum), a person is a wholly unique individual and nobody is born with a concrete set of principles they have to abide by.
for every subjective experience, there is a correct way to interpret it and feel it, and as a result, there is a correct behavior that corresponds to this feeling or experience.
I don't believe in this at all. People are inherently flawed, and even more complicated questions than ice cream don't have direct answers. If you try to pin an objective truth for every choice somebody makes, you strip away their humanity. That's something for programmed robots, not people. For example:
What if he was a clown and got joy when people laughed, and requested people are merry and happy at his funeral? I think choosing whether to laugh or not wouldn't have an objective truth behind it.
Or what if he was the type of person to choose chocolate ice cream, when he really wanted vanilla?
So if I choose chocolate over vanilla because I don't like vanilla, you're saying I could be objectively incorrect but will never know it? My "subjective" experience of preference is potentially objectively wrong?
Yes, but more than that, for every response to anything, there is a correct emotion. So, there is a correct emotion at the time of choosing chocolate or vanilla. It may be that there is a correct option every time between chocolate and vanilla ice cream, but that's not the argument I am making. I'm saying that for every subjective experience, there is a correct way to interpret it and feel it, and as a result, there is a correct behavior that corresponds to this feeling or experience.
We should all be able to agree that laughing at a dead guy at his funeral is inappropriate (I hope so, at least). So, if that emotion is inappropriate, we would say it is a wrong emotion. Etc.
Okay, I don't want to take the conversation there, but just to clarify this is based on divine command theory? So what is objective is determined by God's approval etc.?
So "objectively correct" corresponds to God's will?
Or am I putting words in your mouth? I'm not looking to discuss God further here, just want to know if I'm interpreting correctly.
My point is that if someone chose not to laugh, it wouldn't be a wrong choice. Some people might just want to grieve. Also, that's a terribly strict example. Of course there are moral truths that are universally accepted, like, choosing not commit genocide.
But it gets complicated depending on the question asked. If someone asked you to take their puppy because they can't afford it anymore, it would be "objectively" morally correct to take care of their puppy. But what if you can't really afford it yourself at the moment? What if your partner is allergic to dogs? What then?
There isn't always a right answer.
(also @Hadoblado I am thinking the same, and I am trying to keep my points philosophical and avoid another God argument)
So if I choose chocolate over vanilla because I don't like vanilla, you're saying I could be objectively incorrect but will never know it? My "subjective" experience of preference is potentially objectively wrong?
Yes, but more than that, for every response to anything, there is a correct emotion. So, there is a correct emotion at the time of choosing chocolate or vanilla. It may be that there is a correct option every time between chocolate and vanilla ice cream, but that's not the argument I am making. I'm saying that for every subjective experience, there is a correct way to interpret it and feel it, and as a result, there is a correct behavior that corresponds to this feeling or experience.
We should all be able to agree that laughing at a dead guy at his funeral is inappropriate (I hope so, at least). So, if that emotion is inappropriate, we would say it is a wrong emotion. Etc.
Okay, I don't want to take the conversation there, but just to clarify this is based on divine command theory? So what is objective is determined by God's approval etc.?
So "objectively correct" corresponds to God's will?
Or am I putting words in your mouth? I'm not looking to discuss God further here, just want to know if I'm interpreting correctly.
I didn't mention God for a reason. My view holds even if I am wrong about God's existence because things are either true or false. There is no yellow light for human behavior IMO. Think of how a computer works. It works through 1s and 0s. On and off. Binary. So if reality itself is either on or off, then it is always on and never off because negatives don't exist in reality. But why should we think that, because we have consciousness, this somehow erases whether things are either true or false? It doesn't. It makes things messier, but it does not make things gray. People who really are always trying to do the right thing know exactly how horrible they are as a person because they see how many bad choices they make all the time, which do not measure up to their choices being "perfect." That is why I said perfection does not exist in this world.
In other words, it may be impossible for us to know what the right answer to something is due to the complexity of the situation. That in no way means what we do doesn't matter. In fact, in times of high complexity, our choices matter the most.
Reality is not binary 1s and 0s though... That sounds like something a chronically online person would say.
This goes all the way back to Taoist philosophy. You heard of yin and yang, right? There is darkness and light in the world. There is right and wrong.
But there is yin in yang, and yang in yin. That's why the symbol isn't just 2 halves of white and black. White and black are circling each other, and within the black space there is the white circle, and vice versa.
So it follows that there is, for example, an objectively best colour?
You believe this colour is determined by God, but you might be wrong. You're not claiming you yourself know the best colour, only that there is one. If you are wrong on God, you still believe there is an objectively best colour, it's just that the determinant of that objectively correct answer is no longer clear. But there IS an answer even if you don't know either the answer or the determinant of the answer?
Reality is not binary 1s and 0s though... That sounds like something a chronically online person would say.
This goes all the way back to Taoist philosophy. You heard of yin and yang, right? There is darkness and light in the world. There is right and wrong.
But there is yin in yang, and yang in yin. That's why the symbol isn't just 2 halves of white and black. White and black are circling each other, and within the black space there is the white circle, and vice versa. View attachment 8859
So it follows that there is, for example, an objectively best colour?
You believe this colour is determined by God, but you might be wrong. You're not claiming you yourself know the best colour, only that there is one. If you are wrong on God, you still believe there is an objectively best colour, it's just that the determinant of that objectively correct answer is no longer clear. But there IS an answer even if you don't know either the answer or the determinant of the answer?
Do you also consider there to be poorly formulated inquiries? So you have the room to reject the question if there isn't a reasonable answer, or is there always an objectively correct answer?
This site uses cookies to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. We have no personalisation nor analytics --- especially no Google.
