Does anything exist?

[Thermal]

You misunderstand my point because you added more stuff to it than was written. That it stops at you doesn't mean you can't agree with someone else. You are fundamentally misunderstanding what "objective" and "subjective" mean.

I am not. When you say "but it stops with you", you are misunderstanding or misleading. As xjx388 noted, shared values do not "stop with you". That's kind of what "shared" means.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is why I've often said in the past that I don't have morals or values, I just have standards. Those can be perfectly objective/rational.

But the whole "You have to turn off your brain and follow your heart to tell you what is right" thing is just too ingrained in our society and our culture and our language despite it making no sense.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The problem no distinction is made between something that is "subjective" and something that is "probably wrong."

I can't tell you that you're wrong if you say pepperoni pizza is your favorite food.*

I absolutely can tell you that you are wrong if you say unicorn meat on Lembas Bread is your favorite food.

Subjectivity built on a falsehood is still wrong even if "subjective."

*Sorta. There's still context even in there but we're already pretty far away from the point here.

 

[Thermal]

This is why I've often said in the past that I don't have morals or values, I just have standards. Those can be perfectly objective/rational.

But the whole "You have to turn off your brain and follow your heart to tell you what is right" thing is just too ingrained in our society and our culture and our language despite it making no sense.

I actually took this seriously for a minute. Standards are not even a euphemism; they have nothing at all to do with values.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I actually took this seriously for a minute. Standards are not even a euphemism; they have nothing at all to do with values.

Yeah. You think standards are bad. This could not be clearer.

You just never want to be wrong. That's your only motivation. If everything is "subjective" and "a value" and "philosophy" and not... like reality you're never wrong. And that is super important to you.

 

[Thermal]

Yeah. You think standards are bad. This could not be clearer.

You just never want to be wrong. That's your only motivation. If everything is "subjective" and "a value" and "philosophy" and not... like reality you're never wrong. And that is super important to you.

A) shove your highly irrational personalization.

B) standards are excellent. Values are not remotely standards. You are trying to throw down this Mr Spock BS that no one is buying, especially when you pepper it with emotional wreck commentary.

And no, that is not personalizing. That speaks directly to your argument.

 

[JoeMorgue]

A) shove your highly irrational personalization.

B) standards are excellent. Values are not remotely standards. You are trying to throw down this Mr Spock BS that no one is buying, especially when you pepper it with emotional wreck commentary.

And no, that is not personalizing. That speaks directly to your argument.

Okay. Literally everything you post runs in opposition to this.

I'm not longer impressed by how wide the chasm between what you actually argue for and this little hissy fits about what you claim to stand for are.

I was never impressed, I'm just now even less impressed.

 

[Thermal]

Okay. Literally everything you post runs in opposition to this.

I'm not longer impressed by how wide the chasm between what you actually argue for and this little hissy fits about what you claim to stand for are.

I was never impressed, I'm just now even less impressed.

0/12ing aside, I have no idea what you are talking about. You are making a criticism out of whole cloth to make it sound like you won.

How is my pointing out that values are not interchangeable with standards info distant with anything?

Never.ind, I'm sure you have a chessboard to **** on.

 

[Belz...]

I am not. When you say "but it stops with you", you are misunderstanding or misleading.

No, I stand by that. That you are in agreement with other people in no way changes the fact that it's subjective, and therefore that it is personal.


This isn't a complicated concept.

 

[Belz...]

I actually took this seriously for a minute. Standards are not even a euphemism; they have nothing at all to do with values.

Sure they do. In fact they have everything to do with them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's a moot point because whatever you want to call it (and as always the Proudly Wrong will make sure the discussion stays at "No let's argue about what to call it") the human condition, the mental state of human beings, is perfectly objective and based on facts.

"What makes people mentally healthy" is not some esoteric question.

I've given up on pointing out that philosophy can't answer these questions any better than science can.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Sure they do. In fact they have everything to do with them.

Nonsense. If morality has any standards and isn't 100% subjective, then a certain someone might have to deal with the fact that they could possibly be wrong about something.

 

[xjx388]

You asked me to define the word. I did. Now you're asking me to give you specific examples for a specific person in a specific situation? What's even the point of this, since we were discussing axioms and you ran away from the discussion when it became inconvenient switched to discussing defining "good" for reasons unknown.

The reason I bring up defining "good" is to help you see that there is no objective "good."

If something is objective, we can think about it philosophically. If something is subjective, we can think about it scientifically.

We can, but we shouldn't. All that philosophy wasted on proving God exists, what the nature of reality is, etc is ample proof that philosophy cannot answer these questions. Luckily, most of our scientists don't waste their time trying to support subjective things.

So we're back to square one: what exactly is the point of philosophy, aside from the entertainment value? How does it work? What kind of answers does it give us, and are they reliable? Etc.

Asked and answered. Repeatedly. Examples given. But I'll recap: It works by applying structured thinking to subjective problems and questions. It gives us answers that we put to practical use every day of our lives. Those answers, if they are the product of rational, logical and consistent thinking, are pretty reliable. Reliable enough, anyway, to help you decide which charities to donate to (or not to donate at all), create governments, laws, a justice system, etc. They aren't universally reliable and they aren't permanent answers because the nature of the underlying problem is subjective -subject to the values, morals, worldview, etc of the people who are doing the answering.

 

[Thermal]

Nonsense. If morality has any standards and isn't 100% subjective, then a certain someone might have to deal with the fact that they could possibly be wrong about something.

I've admitted I was wrong on many an issue. Unlike a certain someone *coquettish eyelash flutter* who has been literally dying on a hill for dozens of pages insisting that philosophy doesn't exist.

Seriously man, you're putting up a "prove to me water is wet" pose.

 

[Thermal]

"What makes people mentally healthy" is not some esoteric question.

No, but why and to what degree we should give a **** about the mental health of others is a basic value/philosophical question.

Now you can say "proudly wrong" and your other substance-free demonizing that you think makes you sound like you are in the right.

 

[Belz...]

The reason I bring up defining "good" is to help you see that there is no objective "good."

And what possibly made you think I needed help with this obvious fact? Again you must think I'm saying something I'm not, possibly because you're trying to think ahead of the conversation. Don't.

We can, but we shouldn't.

Nonsense. Applying a more rational analysis and methodology to subjective things is bound to give us better results rather than worse ones, and it has.

All that philosophy wasted on proving God exists, what the nature of reality is, etc is ample proof that philosophy cannot answer these questions.

Again it depends what you mean by "answer". If you're looking for definitive answers that are not just subjective or arbitrary, you're right. In fact it cannot give any of those. But it's got its uses; you just have to know what philosophy is and what it's used for.

Asked and answered. Repeatedly.

All answers given so far are either vague to the point of uselessness, or non-sequiturs where important steps are missing. And when I try to prod one of you to get more information out, the topic magically changes. In The Man's case he switches to personalisation and word games, and in yours it's the gish gallop. There's no way to have a discussion because it's defined that way.

It works by applying structured thinking to subjective problems and questions.

But without the ability to check whether the answers are "better" (by any objective metric you want to apply) than the alternatives -- say, religion -- you have no way to know whether it's more useful than those alternatives. You simply insist that it is, but have no way to demonstrate it. How is it better? Does it give more accurate answers? If so you'd be able to know with the proper methodology (i.e. science). Have you checked? Is it rather that it creates greater agreement? I think religion's got you beat on that one. If not those, then what?

 

[xjx388]

I'm so done with "subjective." Whatever meaning it might have once had, it's become yet another functional way for people to say "I want to be wrong, without calling it wrong."

It's not about "wrong."

Yes, many people are objectively wrong about a lot of things. We see this every day: The science behind covid and climate change are two big things people are "proudly wrong," about. I agree with you there.

But it's not "right," or "wrong" to say something like, "The government should not mandate vaccines," if someone values personal freedom over government interference with that freedom. We may disagree with them, sure, but that doesn't make them wrong.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The reason I bring up defining "good" is to help you see that there is no objective "good."

Okay. Let's run with that.

Maybe "good" just isn't a meaningful word then.

If we have these terms that we are defining as unanswerable/undefinable/something similar what good do they do?

Maybe if we spend centuries trying to define/prove something and get nowhere, maybe that's evidence that the question is just bad, or at the very least inefficient.

How can we reduce harm, how do we reduce suffering, those questions DO have answers so maybe we should focus on them more instead of an endless game of "define this LOL WAIT I'M DEFINING IT AS UNDEFINABLE AREN'T I CLEVER!"

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes, many people are objectively wrong about a lot of things. We see this every day: The science behind covid and climate change are two big things people are "proudly wrong," about. I agree with you there.

The distinction between "The science behind X is settled" but then entertaining "Okay not prove to me that facts matter/exist" philosophising and "The science isn't settled" isn't one I accept.

Facts aren't facts if they aren't the lowest level of intellectual bedrock.

 

[xjx388]

And what possibly made you think I needed help with this obvious fact? Again you must think I'm saying something I'm not, possibly because you're trying to think ahead of the conversation. Don't.

If you know that there is no such thing as objective "good," why do you say things like the following?

But without the ability to check whether the answers are "better" (by any objective metric you want to apply) than the alternatives -- say, religion -- you have no way to know whether it's more useful than those alternatives.

"Better" can't have an objective metric; it can only have subjective metrics. We have to agree on the metrics. We might have different goals and value different things.

Sure, you can say that statistically, a lockdown reduces Covid spread, for example. But other people can say that statistically, a lockdown results in lower GDP or whatever. Whether or not you advocate for a lockdown will depend on what you prioritize and what your goals are.