I can't see any reason why you would think I am saying that. I say that objects with reflective asymmetry have chirality. The universe isn't an object with reflective asymmetry. It isn't an object. It's a collective term for the entire history of all objects.Atla wrote:Left and right as directions go on "in a straight line" indefinitely, are you saying that the universe as a whole has some kind of chirality?
Do right-handed screws objectively exist?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7094
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?
That's not what people usually mean by universe, but let's call it the "world" then. What does reflective asymmetry have to do with directions in the word? Say the direction in the world that goes left from your POV and goes on in a straight line indefinitely.Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 1:18 pmI can't see any reason why you would think I am saying that. I say that objects with reflective asymmetry have chirality. The universe isn't an object with reflective asymmetry. It isn't an object. It's a collective term for the entire history of all objects.Atla wrote:Left and right as directions go on "in a straight line" indefinitely, are you saying that the universe as a whole has some kind of chirality?
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?
Scott wrote:Assuming "objective" means observer-independent,...
I don't know you mean by "extra-mental". Is it possible to define "extra" and "mental" separately in this context, and then explain what they mean together?
Scott wrote:...then in logical contexts and in most philosophical contexts, I generally consider the phrase "objective proposition" to be redundant.
No, sorry, that's not what I meant. I mean it in the sense that the phrase "unmarried bachelor" would be redundant, assuming the word bachelor necessarily entails the quality of being unmarried.
Scott wrote:Likewise, I would generally look at the phrase "subjective proposition" as a contradiction.
It seems like you might be using the word "proposition" to just mean "sentence". Is that correct? If not, can you define what you mean by the word 'proposition'?
Scott wrote:In other words, the actual truth or falsehood of the proposition would be consistent for all observers, meaning if one observer/subject says the proposition is true and a second observer/subject says the proposition is false, one must be wrong, and the other must be right; that is, assuming they truly are both referring to the same singly proposition, meaning some kind of fallacy of equivocation is not occurring). However, to reiterate my earlier point, I think the preceding sentence is a tautology, due to my understanding the meaning of the word proposition.
Sorry for the confusion. This is the sentence I was saying is a tautology: "The actual truth or falsehood of the proposition would be consistent for all observers, meaning if one observer/subject says the proposition is true and a second observer/subject says the proposition is false, one must be wrong, and the other must be right; that is, assuming they truly are both referring to the same singly proposition, meaning some kind of fallacy of equivocation is not occurring)."
Scott wrote:..But words and sentences are equivocal and context-dependent.
I will agree to disagree on this matter.Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 11:39 am I disagree that words and sentences are equivocal and context-dependent. If they are context-dependent and the context is not specified (either explicitly or implicitly) then they are equivocal. If the context is specified then they're not equivocal. Simply stating that words are equivocal is to give up on being clearly understood.
Perhaps we can settle on agreeing to the following: Words and sentences can often be equivocal and context-dependent.
For me, it's not only often, but also generally always, and thus just a question of degree.
It reminds me something I told my family once that my daughter liked: All memories are wrong, it's just a matter of degree.
Scott wrote:Since we are talking about the objectivity of a so-called proposition itself (versus a quality like tastiness, tallness, height, fruit-ness, vegetable-ness, blueness, redness, etc.)Steve3007 wrote:(2) Does the fact that it is linguistic convention to call this screw right-handed make the proposition less objective or non-objective?
I purposely included examples of qualities that are subjective and objective, to show what they have in common, which is that they are not propositions.Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 11:39 am I disagree with you placing (for example) "tastiness" and "height" in the same category as you seem to have done here. Tastiness is subjective. Height is not subjective. It is relative. Different things. The statement "this is tasty" is subjective. The statement "I am tall" is not subjective. It's just incomplete until the question "relative to what/who?" has been answered.
"Tastiness" is not a proposition.
"Height" is not a proposition.
My point was that it's very different to ask if a concept or quality (e.g. tastiness, height, etc.) is objective/subjective/observer-dependent/etc. versus asking if a sentence or (more specifically) a proposition is.
Scott wrote:I don't know what it means for a proposition to be "more objective" than another proposition, especially since I generally consider the phrase "objective proposition" to be redundant.
I am not completely sure what scare quotes are, but I doubt I would use them if I did. I don't usually aim to scare anyone.
I am partly quoting the OP, in which the phrase "objective proposition" is used twice, but also quoting the phrase for grammatical purposes if and when I want to talk about the phrase itself versus just using the phrase myself. In analogy, if I wanted to talk about the word "bananas" I would quote the word to clarify that I am talking about the word "bananas" and not talking about actual bananas. Granted, single quotes or italics also can work for the purpose, and my grammar is not good enough to know which of the three is most appropriate in any given situation.
Regarding little Goose, I wish I could take credit for the name, but my wife had named the cat before we even met, so the credit is hers.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?
Outside the mind. "Extra" as in words like "extra-terrestrial", "extracurricular" and "extraordinary". "Mental" as in "of the mind". Objective propositions are (in my usage) propositions about more than just my mental state. They're propositions about what I propose to be things that exist outside of minds and what I therefore believe to be sensible to/verifiable by other people. "It is raining" = objective. "It is raining in my heart" = subjective (about feelings happening in my mind).Scott wrote:I don't know you mean by "extra-mental". Is it possible to define "extra" and "mental" separately in this context, and then explain what they mean together?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?
OK. So I don't think "objective proposition" (in my usage) is redundant in that sense. i.e. the word "objective" isn't a synonym (or antonym) of "proposition". "Objective" means extra-mental and "proposition" means a sentence proposing something to be true. So an objective proposition is a sentence proposing something to be true about something outside my (or anybody else's) mind. e.g. "It is raining" or "There is a window to my right".Scott wrote:No, sorry, that's not what I meant. I mean it in the sense that the phrase "unmarried bachelor" would be redundant, assuming the word bachelor necessarily entails the quality of being unmarried.
I use the word "proposition" to refer to a particular type of sentence: one that proposes something to be true. An objective proposition (in my usage) proposes something to be true about the extra-mental world, and its truth condition (the condition which must obtain in order for it to be true) is publicly accessible. E.g. for "There is a window to my right" to be true there must be a window to my right (using all words, including the names for the parts of human bodies, in their standard ways). That truth condition is publicly accessible.It seems like you might be using the word "proposition" to just mean "sentence". Is that correct? If not, can you define what you mean by the word 'proposition'?
OK. That doesn't look like a tautology to me. It seems to be a description of what it means for a proposition to be objective. i.e. that it is about things that are external to all minds and its truth condition is therefore public, not private.Sorry for the confusion. This is the sentence I was saying is a tautology: "The actual truth or falsehood of the proposition would be consistent for all observers, meaning if one observer/subject says the proposition is true and a second observer/subject says the proposition is false, one must be wrong, and the other must be right; that is, assuming they truly are both referring to the same singly proposition, meaning some kind of fallacy of equivocation is not occurring)."
Yes, I agree. And if we aren't bothered about being unequivocally understood we can leave it at that. But if we aim for unequivocal and unambiguous understanding then we can attempt to clarify the way we're using words in the current context, if it's not already obvious and/or if we're using the words in non-standard ways.I will agree to disagree on this matter.
Perhaps we can settle on agreeing to the following: Words and sentences can often be equivocal and context-dependent.
Well, if it's a question of degree, and we aim to be understood, I guess we can attempt to reduce the degree with those clarifications of the way we're using words (if non-standard). But, to me at least, that aim isn't served by just saying "Word X has 3 or 4 different meanings". I think we should say something along the lines of: "Of the 3 or 4 different meanings of word X, I'm using this one... How about you?".For me, it's not only often, but also generally always, and thus just a question of degree.
It reminds me something I told my family once that my daughter liked: All memories are wrong, it's just a matter of degree.
I agree that those words are not propositions. In English, very few single words constitute sentences, and propositions is a subset of sentences. I would class "This food is tasty" as a subjective proposition and "I am tall" as an incomplete objective proposition (unless its completion is implicit).I purposely included examples of qualities that are subjective and objective, to show what they have in common, which is that they are not propositions.
"Tastiness" is not a proposition.
"Height" is not a proposition.
I don't think it's massively different. For a given property, like height or tastiness, it's generally quite easy to form a proposition around it. In general, for property X the proposition would take a form like: "Object Y has property X.".My point was that it's very different to ask if a concept or quality (e.g. tastiness, height, etc.) is objective/subjective/observer-dependent/etc. versus asking if a sentence or (more specifically) a proposition is.
Scare quotes are quotes that people use to indicate that they're using a word in an ironic, referential, or otherwise non-standard sense. Often used to distance oneself from the word and effectively say something like "this is not the term I'd use myself" or "I don't regard this term as strictly appropriate".I am not completely sure what scare quotes are, but I doubt I would use them if I did. I don't usually aim to scare anyone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
As opposed to the use of quotes simply to indicate that we're quoting what someone else has said.
Yes, that's a use of scare-quotes.I am partly quoting the OP, in which the phrase "objective proposition" is used twice, but also quoting the phrase for grammatical purposes if and when I want to talk about the phrase itself versus just using the phrase myself. In analogy, if I wanted to talk about the word "bananas" I would quote the word to clarify that I am talking about the word "bananas" and not talking about actual bananas. Granted, single quotes or italics also can work for the purpose, and my grammar is not good enough to know which of the three is most appropriate in any given situation.
. Our cat is called Lola. A less imaginative name. If you get a pet goose you could call it Cat!Regarding little Goose, I wish I could take credit for the name, but my wife had named the cat before we even met, so the credit is hers.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8269
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?
Pattern-chaser wrote:And here you have homed in on the reason why I don't like to use the term "objective" on a philosophy forum. It carries a range of meanings, and it is never clear which of them is intended.
OK, maybe "never" is an exaggeration. And I agree that "one way to make it clear which of them is intended is to say which of them is intended". So, since you use the word here to refer to "extra-mental things", why not go directly to the source, as it were, and refer to them as extra-mental things? Then your meaning is crystal clear.Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 5th, 2021, 12:29 pm It may true that some people use the term "objective" in different ways, but I don't think it's true that it's never clear which of them is intended. One way to make it clear which of them is intended is to say which of them is intended. I use it to refer to statements about extra-mental things...
"Who cares, wins"
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?
The standard definition of "proposition" is that propositions are the meanings of declarative sentences.Scott wrote: ↑May 4th, 2021, 12:38 pm Assuming "objective" means observer-independent, then in logical contexts and in most philosophical contexts, I generally consider the phrase "objective proposition" to be redundant. Likewise, I would generally look at the phrase "subjective proposition" as a contradiction.
So is this to say that you believe that meaning is objective/observer-independent? Or are you using an alternate definition of "proposition"?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?
Because it's a bit longer and more cumbersome. But other than that, yes, whenever I want to refer to an objective proposition or objective statement I could refer to a proposition about extra-mental things. We could do that with a lot of words. We could replace them with more than one other word, as is done in dictionaries.Pattern-chaser wrote:So, since you use the word here to refer to "extra-mental things", why not go directly to the source, as it were, and refer to them as extra-mental things? Then your meaning is crystal clear.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?
As a former software engineer, I bet you'd agree with me that there are various good reasons not to replace every call/reference to a function with the inlined code for that function, even though it reduces the overhead of the function call.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8269
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?
I take your points; all of them. But I think "objective" has earned special treatment. Although you are not guilty of this, many philosophers deliberately use the word to smear their meaning. They say one thing, clearly, but by implication, which gives them deniability. When challenged, they assert that they intended a different meaning of the words they used, even though we and they know this to be untrue. But we can't prove it. Deniability is the twin of alt-truth (whereby truth is created by repetition, not by being true, a la Blair, Bush, Trump, Johnson...).Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 8:00 am But then someone will ask what we mean by one or more of the words in the phrase that we used to replace the original. For example, Scott asked for the meaning of the words "extra" and "mental" in "extra-mental". So if we keep going we'll end up replacing every word with an ever expanding list of other words. That's why I think it's best to stick to "objective" and write a short note explaining the way I'm using that word if it's not clear from the context, rather than replacing every instance of the word with that note.
As a former software engineer, I bet you'd agree with me that there are various good reasons not to replace every call/reference to a function with the inlined code for that function, even though it reduces the overhead of the function call.
Objectivity refers to anything from non-mental objects to unemotional, all the way through the spectrum to correspondence with what actually is. All those meanings are related, but anyone can see that it is important to clarify which of them is intended, if communication is to occur. I have trawled through many online posts, considering this viewpoint. And I have honestly found, in ALL cases, that substituting the intended meaning for the broad and general parent term ("objective") improved clarity, or would've done so if the author had done it.
Saying what you mean, explicitly and clearly, is necessary for us to communicate successfully.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?
Yes, I think fallacies of equivocation and of ambiguity are quite common, and often lead to long arguments (here at least). I guess sometimes the equivocation or ambiguity is deliberate as you've said and sometimes it seems to be just because people don't place any particular importance on trying, at least, to use words in unambiguous ways.Pattern-chaser wrote:I take your points; all of them. But I think "objective" has earned special treatment. Although you are not guilty of this, many philosophers deliberately use the word to smear their meaning. They say one thing, clearly, but by implication, which gives them deniability. When challenged, they assert that they intended a different meaning of the words they used, even though we and they know this to be untrue. But we can't prove it. Deniability is the twin of alt-truth (whereby truth is created by repetition, not by being true, a la Blair, Bush, Trump, Johnson...).
Yes, I noticed you talking about this in another topic recently.Objectivity refers to anything from non-mental objects to unemotional, all the way through the spectrum to correspondence with what actually is. All those meanings are related, but anyone can see that it is important to clarify which of them is intended, if communication is to occur. I have trawled through many online posts, considering this viewpoint. And I have honestly found, in ALL cases, that substituting the intended meaning for the broad and general parent term ("objective") improved clarity, or would've done so if the author had done it.
True, but there's almost always a trade-off between clarity/precision/unambiguity and brevity/succinctness. I suppose it's a bit like the trade-off in software design between short, readable code and code that executes as quickly as possible.Saying what you mean, explicitly and clearly, is necessary for us to communicate successfully.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8269
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?
I once spent some MONTHS debating hard-and-absolute Objective Reality with an Objectivist. After getting past all of the misdirections, and the 'oughts' presented as 'is's, he eventually asserted that he meant unbiased - in the everyday sense, not even the rigorous/scientific sense - when he wrote "Objective". Deniability. I was not amused.Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 9:15 amPattern-chaser wrote:I take your points; all of them. But I think "objective" has earned special treatment. Although you are not guilty of this, many philosophers deliberately use the word to smear their meaning. They say one thing, clearly, but by implication, which gives them deniability. When challenged, they assert that they intended a different meaning of the words they used, even though we and they know this to be untrue. But we can't prove it. Deniability is the twin of alt-truth (whereby truth is created by repetition, not by being true, a la Blair, Bush, Trump, Johnson...).
Yes, I think fallacies of equivocation and of ambiguity are quite common, and often lead to long arguments (here at least). I guess sometimes the equivocation or ambiguity is deliberate as you've said and sometimes it seems to be just because people don't place any particular importance on trying, at least, to use words in unambiguous ways.
I always tried to achieve both, thereby making a trade-off unnecessary. I succeeded quite often, I think.
"Who cares, wins"
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?
My answer would depend on what you mean by the word meaning.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 7:30 amThe standard definition of "proposition" is that propositions are the meanings of declarative sentences.Scott wrote: ↑May 4th, 2021, 12:38 pm Assuming "objective" means observer-independent, then in logical contexts and in most philosophical contexts, I generally consider the phrase "objective proposition" to be redundant. Likewise, I would generally look at the phrase "subjective proposition" as a contradiction.
So is this to say that you believe that meaning is objective/observer-independent?
I am also not sure what you mean by "standard definition" exactly, but I am not suggesting that what a word typically means "in logical contexts and most philosophical contexts" would be remotely the same as its standard definition.
However, the following section on Wikipedia might better explain the context within which I would usually interpret the term on a philosophy forum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositi ... t_in_logic
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?
Scott wrote:No, sorry, that's not what I meant. I mean it in the sense that the phrase "unmarried bachelor" would be redundant, assuming the word bachelor necessarily entails the quality of being unmarried.
Synonymousness is not what I meant by redundancy either. For instance, the phrases being a bachelor and being unmarried are not synonymous phrases, but being an unmarried bachelor is a redundant phrase.
While I meant the term without connotation, it might also be helpful to note that, in my own regional anecdotal experience, the word redundancy usually seems to have a positive connotation, which is both in my experience as a native speaker in my area of the USA and in my experience as a computer programmer. If I remember correctly, in certain business contexts, perhaps especially outside the USA, the term may be used in relation to firing a person from a paying job, which is presumably not a positive connotation. In contrast, I usually think of redundancy more in the sense of a helpful fail-safe, not in the sense of uselessness.
Scott wrote:It seems like you might be using the word "proposition" to just mean "sentence". Is that correct? If not, can you define what you mean by the word 'proposition'?
Depending on what you mean by "something" that may be roughly how I interpret the word proposition in this kind of context.
I think it is important whether it is a something (singular) or somethings (plural).
In logical contexts, I understand a proposition to be the singular (not plural) objective meaning--if any--of a sentence, such that a proposition follows rules of logic such that it is either true or false, and nothing in between at all.
For example, as I typically interpret the term in philosophical or logical contexts, the following would not be a proposition: "This sentence is false."
Likewise, the following would not be a proposition: "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."
Scott wrote:Sorry for the confusion. This is the sentence I was saying is a tautology: "The actual truth or falsehood of the proposition would be consistent for all observers, meaning if one observer/subject says the proposition is true and a second observer/subject says the proposition is false, one must be wrong, and the other must be right; that is, assuming they truly are both referring to the same singly proposition, meaning some kind of fallacy of equivocation is not occurring)."
Fair enough, then I think that confirms that you and I use the word proposition very differently.
Scott wrote:For me, it's not only often, but also generally always, and thus just a question of degree.
It reminds me something I told my family once that my daughter liked: All memories are wrong, it's just a matter of degree.
Yes, I agree.Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 5:04 am Well, if it's a question of degree, and we aim to be understood, I guess we can attempt to reduce the degree with those clarifications of the way we're using words (if non-standard). But, to me at least, that aim isn't served by just saying "Word X has 3 or 4 different meanings". I think we should say something along the lines of: "Of the 3 or 4 different meanings of word X, I'm using this one... How about you?".
I purposely included examples of qualities that are subjective and objective, to show what they have in common, which is that they are not propositions.
"Tastiness" is not a proposition.
"Height" is not a proposition.
As I use the terms, I would classify the sentence "This food is tasty" as a subjective and very equivocal sentence, not a proposition. Subjectivity is one thing, of many, that can make a sentence equivocal. But I respect that I use the term proposition differently than you, and that neither usage is necessarily right or wrong. I am also more than open to the idea that my usage is more idiosyncratic, but I think what matters to you or I is simply that we understand each other.Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 5:04 am I agree that those words are not propositions. In English, very few single words constitute sentences, and propositions is a subset of sentences. I would class "This food is tasty" as a subjective proposition and "I am tall" as an incomplete objective proposition (unless its completion is implicit).
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
2023/2024 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