Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Does subjectivity piss you off? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Oh christ it's this guy again.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by assured)
    Everything is subjective by virtue of all things being subjectively perceived.
    But isn't that "Everything is subjective" statement itself subjective? If so, the statement "Some things are objective" is a perfectly legitimate point of view.

    It's like people who say "every rule has an exception". One is better off saying "every rule has an exception, except for the ones that don't".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Raiden10)
    But isn't that "Everything is subjective" statement itself subjective? If so, the statement "Some things are objective" is a perfectly legitimate point of view.
    OK, so you dispute that all things are subject to individual perception?
    It's like people who say "every rule has an exception". One is better off saying "every rule has an exception, except for the ones that don't".
    Or they mean that life has nuances. That's not so hard to discern.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tjf8)
    Yeah to an extent, but I think people try and bring complex epistemology too much into stuff like this. Clearly, killing people is wrong. I may not be able to prove it to you – I may not even be able to prove that I exist to you –*but we both know it's true, if for no other reason than it's generally agreed that that's the case. We must make our own laws sometimes, not always rely on God to do it for us.

    Anyway, that's not really what I was getting at. I was referring to people, for example, insisting that natural selection be taught in school as an 'alternative viewpoint', etc. People too often bristle at the possibility of causing offense, and invoke freedom of speech as some sort of justification. I reserve the right to freedom of telling people like that they're idiots, and their 'opinions' are corrosive.
    I pretty much agree with this.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by assured)
    OK, so you dispute that all things are subject to individual perception?
    Too vague to accept/refute. Depends on what you mean by "subject to".

    But you didn't answer my question: "But isn't that "Everything is subjective" statement itself subjective?"




    (Original post by assured)
    Or they mean that life has nuances. That's not so hard to discern.
    The statement taken literally is wrong. That was my point.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Raiden10)
    Too vague to accept/refute. Depends on what you mean by "subject to".

    But you didn't answer my question: "But isn't that "Everything is subjective" statement itself subjective?"
    So all people don't perceive things uniquely? This is what the statement actually means, and this has been determined via neurological studies.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tjf8)
    Yeah to an extent, but I think people try and bring complex epistemology too much into stuff like this. Clearly, killing people is wrong. I may not be able to prove it to you – I may not even be able to prove that I exist to you –*but we both know it's true, if for no other reason than it's generally agreed that that's the case. We must make our own laws sometimes, not always rely on God to do it for us.
    But it's not true in the same sense that a scientific fact is true*; it's true in that we agree that killing people is wrong. It's not clear at all. The majority of people simply happen to, whether through independent thought or impression at a young age, see killing as wrong.

    I've recently become aware of a disturbing number of people who think killing is wrong, unless a person kills under certain circumstances, such as in self defense, which contradicts my beliefs. Neither viewpoint can be objectively correct.

    *and a scientific fact is only true so long as we continue to accept that our perception of the world is objective, which is useful for practical reasons.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L'Evil Fish)
    :rofl: look, this thread has been made for us :mmm:
    :awesome:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MangoFreak)
    But it's not true in the same sense that a scientific fact is true; it's true in that we agree that killing people is wrong. It's not clear at all. The majority of people simply happen to, whether through independent thought or impression at a young age, see killing as wrong.

    I've recently become aware of a disturbing number of people who think killing is wrong, unless a person kills under certain circumstances, such as in self defense, which contradicts my beliefs. Neither viewpoint can be objectively correct.
    Is that a result of our parachute conversation on the other thread?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by assured)
    So all people don't perceive things uniquely? This is what the statement actually means, and this has been determined via neurological studies.
    You'd have to be more precise than "people perceive things uniquely" to expect me to offer an opinion.

    And you still haven't answered my question.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Raiden10)
    You'd have to be more precise than "people perceive things uniquely" to expect me to offer an opinion.

    And you still haven't answered my question.
    Precise? it's basic fact you idiot.

    People look at colours differently. People perceive pain and pleasure differently. People even think and process mentally differently. If you've never realised this before, heaven help you and all people like you. I don't see why that requires further rationalisations.

    And to assert that everything is subjective is a fact. Some may interpret that as a paradoxical statement, let them for all I care.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L'Evil Fish)
    Is that a result of our parachute conversation on the other thread?
    Not really, although that was contributory. I've seen a few threads on TSR about support for the death penalty, which I expected to be negged to oblivion, and yet there was more support for it than I expected :dontknow:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by forfrosne)
    I'm sorry but I can't agree, I don't feel that "clearly" is enough to cement it as fact. For one thing, the existence of psychopaths/sociopaths pokes holes in the theory that killing people is wrong. They do not feel that it is and their morals are no less valid than ours, their brains are just different. If you're a non-realist then the idea of society reaching consensus on moral values is plausible, but I'm not a non realist and i don't believe that because many people agree on an interpretation of a subjective thing that their interpretation is the right one. While I agree that we are better off deciding on the morals we want our society to hold up as goals than turning to religion for the answers, your use of 'laws' is ambiguous. If you're referring to legal laws then this is not informed by morality in the first place, it's informed by the idea of justice which is not the same thing. If you're talking about moral laws then I'd have to ask you if you really believe such things can exist.
    I'm not dealing in fact. I'm dealing in agreement and probability and estimation and reasoned discussion. If we take the example of killing people, would you agree that a law of justice created by humans that states "people will be punished if they kill other people" is fair? Would you agree that this, while we can't prove that that is the 'correct' way of doing things, seems to be a reasonable enough idea to be going along with? While I agree that a general consensus doesn't necessarily produce 'right' answers, I think that it's the best we've got and the most fair way of organising our society. And do you not believe that justice systems are based on reality?

    Oh, no, I completely agree with this part. It's always infuriating when somebody says something utterly stupid like "homosexuality is evil" and then when hit with arguments against them they just whip out the "freedom of speech subjectivity my opinion maaan" It is infuriating, but part of living in a democracy means accepting that they can have their own opinions on things. You can believe that some viewpoints are corrosive, I do too, but, in a somewhat pedantic way, I'm mainly trying to point out the difference between my thinking that a viewpoint being corrosive and their viewpoint actually being ​corrosive.
    Yes, I agree that everyone should have opinions. I would stand in the street and campaign for the rights of someone to stand in the street and campaign for twisted and bigoted views. But it's when those things have a negative opinion on someone (greater than offense, which means almost nothing), then they have to be dealt with. The inclusion of intelligent design in school curricula, for example, is damaging and deceptive, and goes beyond freedom of speech.

    (Original post by Raiden10)
    I pretty much agree with this.
    Thanks!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by assured)
    Precise? it's basic fact you idiot.

    People look at colours differently. People perceive pain and pleasure differently. People even think and process mentally differently. If you've never realised this before, heaven help you and all people like you. I don't see why that requires further rationalisations.

    And to assert that everything is subjective is a fact. Some may interpret that as a paradoxical statement, let them for all I care.
    Yes, precise. You said "people perceive things uniquely". This could mean something like "people perceive all things uniquely/differently", or it could mean "people perceive some things uniquely". So the original statement is not precise, and saying it is doesn't make it so.

    You don't see why that requires further rationalisation or explanation because you are not self-critical.

    "Everything is subjective, and that's a fact". Suppose that's objectively true. Then it's also wrong. It contradicts itself.

    The statement "some things are objective and some things are subjective" doesn't have this problem.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by assured)
    Everything is subjective, granted.

    But it seems due to this everybody thinks all must acknowledge, heed, or care about their opinions.

    Is subjectivity to some extent overrated?
    Are you saying that people should not share their opinions with others?

    If people want to listen to someone's opinion they will. If they don't, they won't ask someone for their opinion or will simply just ignore them. People don't just go round expressing their opinions to everyone about everything they have an opinion on and expect them to listen to them.

    I don't get what you're getting at?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tjf8)
    If we take the example of killing people, would you agree that a law of justice created by humans that states "people will be punished if they kill other people" is fair? Would you agree that this, while we can't prove that that is the 'correct' way of doing things, seems to be a reasonable enough idea to be going along with? While I agree that a general consensus doesn't necessarily produce 'right' answers, I think that it's the best we've got and the most fair way of organising our society. And do you not believe that justice systems are based on reality?
    Yes but I don't think this is a successful argument for the idea of objective reality.

    When our law system says "If you kill a person you shall be punished," the person who wrote that law is not claiming "I have understood the reality of morality and now understand that killing is objectively immoral." What society has done in that case has decided that for people's wellbeing we must have laws that protect others from being killed, because as a society we want to live in a place where people do not kill others because we see that as wrong. We could be wrong about that, it could be morally okay to kill people, but whether or not it is or is not is irrelevant, the point is the conclusions that we have collectively come to.

    I agree it's the best we've got and is a fair way of organising our society, I just don't agree with you when you say that this means that morals are objective.



    (Original post by tjf8)
    Yes, I agree that everyone should have opinions. I would stand in the street and campaign for the rights of someone to stand in the street and campaign for twisted and bigoted views. But it's when those things have a negative opinion on someone (greater than offense, which means almost nothing), then they have to be dealt with. The inclusion of intelligent design in school curricula, for example, is damaging and deceptive, and goes beyond freedom of speech.
    Bigoted views do not harm people, it's what people do with those views that harms people. People who believe in intelligent design do not harm people, it's when people who believe in intelligent design try and get it into the school curriculum that people are 'harmed.'

    So what you're really saying is that you're okay with bigoted opinions until people act upon them, which is reasonable, but I feel your post strays dangerously close to suggesting that you are against people disagreeing with you on issues. It's very easy to call someone a bigot for holding a different view, and if we make it a criteria for the silencing of their freedom of speech we travel down a worrying road.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Raiden10)
    Yes, precise. You said "people perceive things uniquely". This could mean something like "people perceive all things uniquely/differently", or it could mean "people perceive some things uniquely". So the original statement is not precise, and saying it is doesn't make it so.
    This is immaterial to the phrase's meaning. Look, the English language is not logical, get with it.
    You don't see why that requires further rationalisation or explanation because you are not self-critical.
    Er.... it's self-evident. Person A can run 100 metres in 9.5 seconds. Person B can run it in 15 second. Person C likes spicy food, Person D detests it since it gives him or her gas. Next you'll be saying crap like "how do you know that bipedal locomotion is as is?"
    "Everything is subjective, and that's a fact". Suppose that's objectively true. Then it's also wrong. It contradicts itself.
    Life has contradictions. don't be dim and accept there are no nuances in life.
    The statement "some things are objective and some things are subjective" doesn't have this problem.
    lol.. simple simon?

    Also, objective items have subjective perceptions. True objectivity doesn't really exist.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MangoFreak)
    Not really, although that was contributory. I've seen a few threads on TSR about support for the death penalty, which I expected to be negged to oblivion, and yet there was more support for it than I expected :dontknow:
    Scary world.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hustler-1337)
    Are you saying that people should not share their opinions with others?
    Subjectivity is part of the human condition. how can it not be?

    But there is a difference between that, and the ideal that people always seem to interject their beliefs/conceptions when it's not warranted, acceptable, wise or valid to do so.

    If people want to listen to someone's opinion they will. If they don't, they won't ask someone for their opinion or will simply just ignore them. People don't just go round expressing their opinions to everyone about everything they have an opinion on and expect them to listen to them.

    I don't get what you're getting at?

    Well many people in modern society seemingly get "offended" if others don't share their beliefs/attitudes. This is why subjectivity is overrated, since subjective beliefs are twisted into quasi-objective bases.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by forfrosne)
    Yes but I don't think this is a successful argument for the idea of objective reality.

    When our law system says "If you kill a person you shall be punished," the person who wrote that law is not claiming "I have understood the reality of morality and now understand that killing is objectively immoral." What society has done in that case has decided that for people's wellbeing we must have laws that protect others from being killed, because as a society we want to live in a place where people do not kill others because we see that as wrong. We could be wrong about that, it could be morally okay to kill people, but whether or not it is or is not is irrelevant, the point is the conclusions that we have collectively come to.

    I agree it's the best we've got and is a fair way of organising our society, I just don't agree with you when you say that this means that morals are objective.
    What?! When did I say this? I agree with everything you said in that paragraph. If I implied that I'm sorry but that really is the opposite of of the point I was making :laugh:

    Bigoted views do not harm people, it's what people do with those views that harms people. People who believe in intelligent design do not harm people, it's when people who believe in intelligent design try and get it into the school curriculum that people are 'harmed.'

    So what you're really saying is that you're okay with bigoted opinions until people act upon them, which is reasonable, but I feel your post strays dangerously close to suggesting that you are against people disagreeing with you on issues. It's very easy to call someone a bigot for holding a different view, and if we make it a criteria for the silencing of their freedom of speech we travel down a worrying road.
    Ah, I agree with you again. I don't mean to suggest that I want to censor people's opinions. I feel we may be arguing at cross-purposes here... I should probably separate my point out:

    I think people too often pay attention to someone who has a ridiculous opinion because they believe that 'all opinions are valid'. People, in my opinion, aren't quick enough to criticise someone who suggests nonsense because they worry about offending that person or they worry (unnecessarily) about inhibiting speech.
    But I also defend the right of that ridiculous person to have his ridiculous opinion – as long as he doesn't use it to harm other people in a way that is more significant than just offending them.

    In essence: people can say whatever they want; but if you hear someone saying something that doesn't make sense, don't be hesitant to point out their stupidity. Don't censor them but don't pay attention either. Hope that makes more sense.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.