Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange
7

The simple answer is: a) You can't and b) It doesn't matter if we are. I think, therefore I am. Note that this statement doesn't include you, or him over there, it's a statement about me. Beyond that it doesn't matter whether it's all an illusion, a simulation, or the matrix. The simple fact is that this is who I am, whatever the "truth" behind it is, ...


7

So even if a person felt (subjective) what he was doing was right, that wouldn't, by societal standards(objective), be considered right. That's not what those terms — subjective and objective — mean. Subjective does not necessarily mean related to feeling; it simply means that it varies from person to person (subiectum is Latin for the agent in a sentence). ...


6

Solipsism Philosophy's name for the idea you are describing is solipsism. The Wikipedia article defines solipsism as "the epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside one's own specific mind is unjustified". The IEP article, Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds, adequately summarizes the cases for and against solipsism. ...


5

The problem is that 'intelligence' is pretty much a recognise-it-when-you-see-it kind of attribute; as you say, there are plenty of indicators of intelligence that are highly culture-specific, and even fairly culture-neutral tests are very succeptible to scores increasing with practice. So in one sense IQ tests (which are very varied, and range from tests ...


5

Your question is vague, only insofar as contemporary explanations of philosophy tend not to be concerned with priority of ideas (as in who came up with what first, though there are exceptions and the inverse is a valid method of teaching philosophy). Rather, philosophical concepts tend to be taught as related to those who formulated them the best, where the ...


5

Warning: Not a Kierkegaard expert. Here's a commentary of the passage you quoted: If Kierkegaard is correct, rather than being ourselves, we tend to conform to an image or idea associated with being a certain type of person. That's what Kierkegaard means by belonging to an "abstraction" (an image or idea) created by "reflection" (self conscious thinking)...


5

Here is one concept of objectivity, taken from SEP. Let's take objective properties to be qualities of an object that exist independently of a perception of that object; for example, the primality of the number 7, or the atomic mass of hydrogen. The intuition being that these facts would remain even if there was no one around to perceive them. In The ...


4

To say that beauty can be objective is to suggest that it can exist as part of something intrinsically. That is, such an object would be beautiful by its very nature; the nature of it's beauty would have to be a quantifiable feature of the object. Yet finding such a feature is seemingly impossible. From this it seems beauty can only be subjective. Stated ...


4

What you're asking is a question about Metaethics. See this SEP article. The position you're taking is some form of non-factivism or anti-realism. As stated, your view is ambiguous over VERY many possibilities. Here is the entry on Moral Anti-Realism. As you're reading through that article you can look at some of the related entries like Moral Relativism. ...


4

You're just making a simple but intuitively appealing error in conflating a posteriori and a priori probabilities. I have a handful of dice next to my desk. Look, I just rolled 1,1,1,3,3,4,5,5,6! The chance of this is 0.15%. Amazing! Except...anything I would have rolled would be amazing. Likewise, the exact number of air molecules that enter your ...


4

If the team were making a claim that Peter could've chosen better, and expect Peter to prove otherwise, they would be committing the Burden of Proof fallacy. Per the rules of critical thinking and in the legal system, the burden of proving a claim, lies with the claimant. So if someone were claiming Peter could've chosen better, the onus is on them to prove ...


4

A fallacy is a structural flaw in an argument. An argument based on a fallacy is a bad argument --in a technical sense-- regardless of the details of the argument. In this case, it's not clear that the team is committing a fallacy at all. In fact, in the case that there were more than two alternatives, and Peter illegitimately reduced them to two, then he ...


4

You state: it seems like Bob's attitudinal state is just another feature of the outside world. I am not sure this is true, but it is going to hinge sharply on what we mean by world. There's a really helpful feature of the Japanese language that actually helps with understanding whether this is subjective or objective, namely, that there's a different ...


4

If I dare flip that on its head, "formal" proofs are not entirely as objective as one thinks, they're just objective enough that very very few people in the world have the mathematical background to identify the holes (unless you choose to define the word "objective" around them, of course). Tarski was one such individual. He tackled issues such as ...


4

Capitalism for Marx I go along with David Miller's working definition of what capitalism meant for Marx : Capitalism - This is understood in Marx's nineteenth- century sense, as an economic system based on the free market in which a minority of individuals own the means of production and hire wage- laborers, the state being confined to the ...


3

They are different concepts. Plato in the Theaetetus interprets Protagoras’ doctrine. Plato attributes the doctrine called subjective relativism to Protagoras, that what anyone believes is true for that person, ‘true’ is replaced by ‘true for’. On that interpretation, the way things seem to an individual is the way they are in fact for that individual. ...


3

There are a related set of problems involving the Anthropic Principle: The anthropic principle is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. So, roughly, if you didn't exist and someone else did, it would be that other person marveling at the unlikelihood of ...


3

It's both subjective, and objective. Many things have this nature. Beauty is objective, because there are things which are considered beautiful by millions of people (like Hollywood hot superstars). But it's also subjective, because there are many people around the world who think that these hot superstars are not beautiful. There is no break in ...


3

For a general overview of this very interesting subtopic in philsophy of mind: What is it like to be a bat? by Thomas Nagel Could love be like a heatwave? by Janet Levin Knowing one's own mind by Donald Davidson Individualism and self-knowledge by Tyler Burge Anti-individualism and privileged access by Michael McKinsey For further reading, you might ...


3

I believe this comes under the general heading of "philosophy of mind." The first two contemporary philosophers I can think of who write, specifically, about the nature of subjectivity: Thomas Nagel, author of the essay, What is it like to be a bat? Thomas Metzinger, author of The Ego Tunnel.


3

I think that there is a sense in which a B theorist will likely agree that tensed expressions (is / was / will / etc) are primitive and unanalysable. A B theorist will typically not hold that tensed expressions are elimimable from ordinary language, that they can be actually dispensed with. I will quote hereafter from an online article by D.H. Mellor from ...


3

This is a very tricky issue. As you say, the words are often used sloppily or in differing ways. You're right to say that all objective facts are subjective, and one strategy to allow for this is to use the word 'inter-subjective'. People sometimes use 'objective fact' to mean a fact that is inter-subjective, verified by a shared subjective experience. It is ...


3

I've heard that conservative political columnist and intellectual Ben Shapiro is currently writing a book about how he hypothesizes that the stem of the recent political shift to tribalism and identity politics is rooted in modern philosophy -- off the backs of people like Hume and people that say that "God does not exist" and back the is-ought ...


3

Objective is verifiable against a standard/definition From Wikipedia: Objective (philosophy) Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, objective means being independent of the perceptions thus objectivity means the property of being independent from the perceptions, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state ...


3

Well, "incoherent" isn't set terminology. I'll go over which concepts are used to evaluate arguments and how they might relate to arguments being called "incoherent". If we want to formally reject an argument, we'll reconstruct it into propositional logic and examine for validity and soundness. Such an argument might look like this: P1) If it rains then ...


3

My childhood tutor in philosophy suggested that objectivity and subjectivity are a single spectrum. An attribute of the attributes that we assign objects. Its value on this spectrum might be estimated by how much we expect the attribute to vary from perspective to perspective. Unfortunately, the assignment of objectivity/subjectivity of an attribute is ...


2

Depending on what one means by "subjectivity", the answer is "pretty much all of them." The question is so broad as to make an intelligent answer difficult. That being said: if we want to point out a few of the more radical views, Nietzsche's dictum that there are no facts, only interpretations is certainly a noteworthy milestone, as is Wittgenstein's ...


2

The break may lie in the perspective of the being which is trying to decide the nature of beauty. Let's call this being "the decider". If we restrict the question to beauty which humans find in each other, consider the following experiment and two perspectives of the decider: 1) The decider asks all humans to pick a beautiful person in their life. The ...


2

It's always subjective, I'm afraid. When you speak of things that are "objectively true" you're talking about 2+2=4 and A==A, and not about anything which it is possible to have an opinion about. Many people would argue that objectivity is impossible for subjective creatures like humans (though phenomenologists would argue the exact opposite: that everyone'...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible