Okay, I'm easy: what is this well formed, compartmentalized question if distinction that cares nothing for extraneous issues but is altogether clear as my moniker thrasymachus?thrasymachus wrote
It's frustrating that you seem almost to categorically be incapable of doing something simple.
It's like if I were to ask you, "Is your user name here thrasymachus? yes/no" or "In the word 'cat,' what letter comes after 'c'?"--just to see if you can directly, straightforwardly answer a simple question, you'd start talking about epistemology, etc etc and wouldn't be able to just answer "yes" or "a."
From my perspective, if we can't simply answer "yes" to a question like "Is your user name here 'thrasymachus'?" then we certainly can't tackle anything more complex than that.
Some questions for the critics of objectivism
- thrasymachus
- Posts: 520
- Joined: March 7th, 2020, 11:21 am
Re: Some questions for the critics of objectivism
- thrasymachus
- Posts: 520
- Joined: March 7th, 2020, 11:21 am
Re: Some questions for the critics of objectivism
-
- Posts: 624
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Some questions for the critics of objectivism
Truth via mysticism?thrasymachus wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2021, 12:13 pmThen the rabbit hole is not for you. But this is where things get interesting, otherwise, philosophy is just a exercise in terminological agreement.
- thrasymachus
- Posts: 520
- Joined: March 7th, 2020, 11:21 am
Re: Some questions for the critics of objectivism
Mysticism??baker wrote
Truth via mysticism?
-
- Posts: 624
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Some questions for the critics of objectivism
You keep talking about going down the rabbit hole. This is mysticism.
A better image would be "through the looking-glass."
Still, there's something Humpty-Dumptyish about making words mean whatever one wants them to mean ...
- thrasymachus
- Posts: 520
- Joined: March 7th, 2020, 11:21 am
Re: Some questions for the critics of objectivism
I see. It's just a metaphor referring to a line of inquiry that moves familiar thinking into uncertain ground. A lawyer might do the same when referring to, say, the boundaries where explicit law ends and real ethical judgment begins, given that the law, if not simply statutory, is an open ended affair, messy and indeterminate. Inquiry in philosophical matters are like this, but it all depends on how far one is willing take issues into the assumptions at work beneath clear thinking, and this becomes especially poignant in discussions about question begging.baker wrote
You keep talking about going down the rabbit hole. This is mysticism.
A better image would be "through the looking-glass."
Still, there's something Humpty-Dumptyish about making words mean whatever one wants them to mean ...
If one never questions philosophically, the world remains foundationally very clear. Nigh tautological, and therefore a galactic bore.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Some questions for the critics of objectivism
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Some questions for the critics of objectivism
Simply making a conceptual distinction has nothing to do with being "deferential" to anything, including "the world," so why would we be talking about this?thrasymachus wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2021, 12:13 pm All words are deferential to other words, not to the "world" at all,
In simply making a distinction, we're not talking about "knowledge of the world." We're just talking about making a distinction.That stuff out there that is not language is not "known" but merely familiar. Our knowledge of the world is a kind of reified familiarity through the habits of language and reference and meaning.
Perhaps you prefer the simple answer: Our knowledge of the world is pragmatically settled, only, otherwise words just go round and round.
We need to start with some sort of agreement or mutual understanding, or we can't get anywhere. Hence trying to tackle something very, very simple.otherwise, philosophy is just a exercise in terminological agreement.
But we can't manage to do this.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Some questions for the critics of objectivism
There's no claim about anything being "well-formed." Let's just see if we can understand a distinction: the core idea is simply the notion of two different locations.thrasymachus wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2021, 12:19 pmOkay, I'm easy: what is this well formed, compartmentalized question if distinction that cares nothing for extraneous issues but is altogether clear as my moniker thrasymachus?thrasymachus wrote
It's frustrating that you seem almost to categorically be incapable of doing something simple.
It's like if I were to ask you, "Is your user name here thrasymachus? yes/no" or "In the word 'cat,' what letter comes after 'c'?"--just to see if you can directly, straightforwardly answer a simple question, you'd start talking about epistemology, etc etc and wouldn't be able to just answer "yes" or "a."
From my perspective, if we can't simply answer "yes" to a question like "Is your user name here 'thrasymachus'?" then we certainly can't tackle anything more complex than that.
-
- Posts: 624
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Some questions for the critics of objectivism
Surely for some people, but not for everyone.thrasymachus wrote: ↑January 4th, 2021, 1:05 pmI see. It's just a metaphor referring to a line of inquiry that moves familiar thinking into uncertain ground.
At some point, one gets tired of philosophical inquiries that lead nowhere and resolve nothing.A lawyer might do the same when referring to, say, the boundaries where explicit law ends and real ethical judgment begins, given that the law, if not simply statutory, is an open ended affair, messy and indeterminate. Inquiry in philosophical matters are like this, but it all depends on how far one is willing take issues into the assumptions at work beneath clear thinking, and this becomes especially poignant in discussions about question begging.
If one never questions philosophically, the world remains foundationally very clear. Nigh tautological, and therefore a galactic bore.
Being on a raft -- even though one is aware one is on a raft -- is better than being permanently stuck in quicksand.
-
- Posts: 624
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Some questions for the critics of objectivism
I've always seen the subjective-objective distinction in terms of "how one person thinks things really are" vs. "how things really are", whereby "how things really are" can be known by persons, provided they meet certain ethical and epistemic criteria.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 4th, 2021, 6:14 pmThere's no claim about anything being "well-formed." Let's just see if we can understand a distinction: the core idea is simply the notion of two different locations.
So it's not simply "inside a person" vs. "outside a person".
For example, I live in a culture where, if a person is sent to see a psychologist/psychiatrist, they are told "You need to see a psychologist/psychiatrist, who will tell you how things really are."
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Some questions for the critics of objectivism
The distinction is one of whether something is person-independent versus being person-dependent (or more specifically mind-independent versus mind-dependent). We don't have to make the distinction exactly that way of course, but that's the conventional distinction. Whatever we name that distinction, there are particular upshots to things being person/mind-dependent versus independent.baker wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 6:53 amI've always seen the subjective-objective distinction in terms of "how one person thinks things really are" vs. "how things really are", whereby "how things really are" can be known by persons, provided they meet certain ethical and epistemic criteria.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 4th, 2021, 6:14 pmThere's no claim about anything being "well-formed." Let's just see if we can understand a distinction: the core idea is simply the notion of two different locations.
So it's not simply "inside a person" vs. "outside a person".
Your last few posts are kind of suggesting that you were sent to a psychiatrist or psychologist at some point against your wishes more or less?For example, I live in a culture where, if a person is sent to see a psychologist/psychiatrist, they are told "You need to see a psychologist/psychiatrist, who will tell you how things really are."
-
- Posts: 624
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Some questions for the critics of objectivism
How can you, as a person, possibly talk about things that are mind-independent??Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 10:47 amThe distinction is one of whether something is person-independent versus being person-dependent (or more specifically mind-independent versus mind-dependent). We don't have to make the distinction exactly that way of course, but that's the conventional distinction. Whatever we name that distinction, there are particular upshots to things being person/mind-dependent versus independent.
Jesus, no. My point is that people often love to pontificate about things in ways that those in positions of power (such as psychologists) consider utterly abnormal. So we have two ideas of normalcy, existing in parallel: the official version, held by those in positions of power; and the version that people who are not in such positions of power demand to be considered normal. Who's crazy now?Your last few posts are kind of suggesting that you were sent to a psychiatrist or psychologist at some point against your wishes more or less?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Some questions for the critics of objectivism
I don't know what the mystery would be. Would you ask how a painting could possibly depict things that aren't themselves paintings? That would seem to suggest a complete failure in grasping the idea of aboutness.baker wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 10:57 amHow can you, as a person, possibly talk about things that are mind-independent??Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 10:47 amThe distinction is one of whether something is person-independent versus being person-dependent (or more specifically mind-independent versus mind-dependent). We don't have to make the distinction exactly that way of course, but that's the conventional distinction. Whatever we name that distinction, there are particular upshots to things being person/mind-dependent versus independent.
I don't know why psychologists would be people "in positions of power" (at least of any unusual degree) or why we'd be talking about normal/abnormal.Jesus, no. My point is that people often love to pontificate about things in ways that those in positions of power (such as psychologists) consider utterly abnormal. So we have two ideas of normalcy, existing in parallel: the official version, held by those in positions of power; and the version that people who are not in such positions of power demand to be considered normal. Who's crazy now?Your last few posts are kind of suggesting that you were sent to a psychiatrist or psychologist at some point against your wishes more or less?
-
- Posts: 624
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Some questions for the critics of objectivism
So you believe things exist, "out there", independently of your mind, and more importantly, you can talk about them independently of your mind?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 5th, 2021, 11:04 amI don't know what the mystery would be. Would you ask how a painting could possibly depict things that aren't themselves paintings? That would seem to suggest a complete failure in grasping the idea of aboutness.
Well, aren't you one happy tortoise!I don't know why psychologists would be people "in positions of power" (at least of any unusual degree) or why we'd be talking about normal/abnormal.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023