13

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). ...


10

It think there's something confused in this question. Mathematical constants like pi are exact. Pi is the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a perfect circle on a flat plane, and the fact that we cannot calculate an exact value for it does not mean that the constant itself is not exact. Planck's constant might suggest that we cannot have a ...


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 ...


5

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 ...


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 ...


5

You can address this issue through significant figures, which indicate the level of precision with which a value has been measured. If I say that I walked 2 miles, that's a rough estimate - I'd be justified in saying that if I had walked anywhere from 1.5 to 2.4 miles. If I say that I walked 2.000 miles, that is a much more precise number - I'd only be ...


5

You are correct, in that as we define the terms, a knowledge of a perfect objectivity is not possible. And to be pedantic, even what you refer to as the "electromagnetic wave" is not proven to be perfect objective knowledge. To make a colourful example, people thought Sommerfeld's adjustment of Bohr's atomic model was correct (Electrons as tiny ...


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

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

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

As Rex Kerr mentions Chalmers tends be where one should go to explore this question. Qualia - actual experiential datum is where at least one of the core difficulties within the hard problem; it isn't I think essential; after all one can close ones eyes and one is still here. Qualia is the difference between the colour red that you can see (ie experience) ...


3

Ethics is usually thought of as being subjective. It's also usually anthropocentric as it's universally assumed (at least as far as I know) that only humans can act as moral agents. Furthermore, ethics is usually anthropocentric in so far as moral theorists are usually only or mainly interested in human welfare, granting human utility a higher status than ...


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 ...


3

While this falls short of resolving the paradox, the following references may be helpful. JJ Valberg in his Dream, Death, and the Self explores similar paradoxes -- what he calls "extraphilosophical puzzles." Particularly closely related is this one [page 20]: The first [puzzle] is the "solipsistic puzzle of death": the prospect of my death looms as the ...


3

People often confuse the meaning of the word "evidence". They say an observation is "evidence for" a theory or "evidence against" a theory, as if theories are tested in isolation. Proper scientific analysis requires that there be multiple theories, and that experiments are performed to distinguish between theories. In this ...


3

Tell your friend about tetrachromacy Some humans see a 4th primary colour. More on colour here: Could color be a fundamental thing about the universe? The lack of objective truth is like the lack of a central processor for the internet - we have a host of interactions and propagations of information, and negotiate reality, including with ourselves. It's not '...


2

IQ tests measure intelligence, if we circularly redefine intelligence to mean an IQ test score or rating. Alfred Binet, the originator of IQ tests, devised them only to help show which school children needed tutoring. Other psychologists soon made the tests into a societal medusa which set intelligence in stone; low scores were employed to justify ...


2

'Reflection' in Kierkegaard is opposed to 'immediacy'. It's the state in which you form an idea about something and deal with the idea, as opposed to dealing with the thing itself. For instance, The Present Age starts with: The present age is one of understanding, of reflection, devoid of passion, an age which flies into enthusiasm for a moment only to ...


2

The team may be correct to blame Peter for the extent of the problems; however, this is unknowable from the information given. Peter could perhaps be faulted for overselling the ease of using Product A, rather than managing the expectations of his team, and preparing them to expect difficulties, and framing the problems as simply challenges the team must ...


2

Common sense is merely non-formal, intuitive logic based on everyday experience of the real world. The advantage of formal logic over common sense is that it can deal with proofs that are vastly more complex, and that it can deal with subject matters that are outside of everyday experiences, often yielding non- or even counterintuitive insights. Conversely,...


2

I think that what Hodges means is that most of the basic principles of logic are based on our (human) linguistic and thinking habits. Thus, the "ground" for some rules like : "if a and b, then a" and "if a, then a or b" can be found in the "usual" way we speak. Tarski's Truth Definitions, one of the basic discovery of modern mathematical logic, ...


2

Chalmers has a really nice overview of the critiques of the hard problem of consciousness here. Which one seems "particularly interesting" depends, I think, on how sympathetic you are to Chalmers' conception of the hard problem; it doesn't seem that he finds any of them terribly interesting (though the Dennett/Churchland approach least of all). Personally, ...


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