Then everything is subjective, because all data you will ever gather throughout your entire lifetime is subjective.
Thus solipsism. ALL THINGS ARE SUBJECTIVE. PERIOD.
This is a useless distinction, however. So, practically, by creating unambiguous criteria for an examination, you can then make an objective judgement so long as the criteria for said judgement are objective and observable.
The pure definition of objective is meaningless, as nothing can satisfy it. Thus, using it in anything beyond a semantic or philosophical argument is stupid, as it ends the practical debate.
I define better to include "freer." As the US is demonstrably more free as a society than Afghanistan, I can conclude objectively that the US is "better" in this regard, assuming definitions of "free" and "better."
No, you can't. Your conclusion can be reached logically, but a decision reached "objectively" using subjective data is still subjective.
Then everything is subjective, because all data you will ever gather throughout your entire lifetime is subjective.
So weak. If you want to be 100 percent solipsistic, go ahead. I'll comfort you tomorrow morning as you crouch in terror at the unexpected appearance of a yellow ball of fire in the sky.
Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
Examples of facts: The Earth is an obloid globe. The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s. The speed limit on Carol Lane is 25 mph. The cheetah is the fastest land mammal.
These are not subjective. They cannot be influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice.
Is there a mechanism by which morality can be objectively measured? Is it hard-coded into our DNA? Show me the morality gene.
Yes, and we can define a framework wherein certain cases of murder are "right." In fact, it's been done all over the place.
And when we define such a framework, we must adhere to it as though it were actually true.
And we must also recognize that the framework is not actually true, so that we can dispense with it when we desire.
There is little point in investigating what is "really" right and "really" wrong. The only useful discussion is what behaviors we want to encourage and what behaviors we want to discourage, and why.
Yes, and we can define a framework wherein certain cases of murder are "right." In fact, it's been done all over the place.
And when we define such a framework, we must adhere to it as though it were actually true.
And we must also recognize that the framework is not actually true, so that we can dispense with it when we desire.
There is little point in investigating what is "really" right and "really" wrong. The only useful discussion is what behaviors we want to encourage and what behaviors we want to discourage, and why.
Actually, I think that "I think therefore I am" is not entirely a certainty. I agree that it seems very highly plausible that my mind exists and is thinking my thoughts, but I do not see it as certain.
Also, I do not know whether an objective reality outside my own mind exists. However, I experience on a day-to-day basis things that appear to come from an objective reality, and the idea of an objective reality, with certain rules such as gravity, is a good predictor for my experiences.
Actually, I think that "I think therefore I am" is not entirely a certainty. I agree that it seems very highly plausible that my mind exists and is thinking my thoughts, but I do not see it as certain.
To be fair, cogito ergo sum is better expanded into "I am a thing that thinks; therefore, I exist." In other words, because thoughts exist, you (whatever you are) must also exist.
This says nothing about the nature or mechanism of the thoughts. It only argues that the existence of thought necessitates the existence of the thing doing the thinking.
It seems certain, but how do I know that I can trust that reasoning? For a start, I'm not 100% certain what it means to "think" and what it means to "exist", so how can I be sure of an argument that uses those words?
You're right, I don't know that you think. I know that I think.
How do I know there is an "I"?
What else does the thinking?
Now, "I" could be a simple vessel in which thoughts are contained. That's fine. The solipsist does not know what he is; he only knows that he exists, because he thinks, because something must be giving rise to those thoughts.
Why does something have to give rise to thoughts? Why can't thoughts exist on their own?
Thoughts arise and go away. This implies an origin.
However, I can accept that "I" might be nothing more than a collection of thoughts. That's fine. Still does nothing to defeat solipsism, because once again, "I" is undefined in solipsism.
Why does something have to give rise to thoughts? Why can't thoughts exist on their own?
Thoughts arise and go away. This implies an origin.
However, I can accept that "I" might be nothing more than a collection of thoughts. That's fine. Still does nothing to defeat solipsism, because once again, "I" is undefined in solipsism.
You're better off rephrasing your argument, then, especially if you're using a term that is undefined. Also, you haven't refuted this:
For a start, I'm not 100% certain what it means to "think" and what it means to "exist", so how can I be sure of an argument that uses those words?
You're better off rephrasing your argument, then, especially if you're using a term that is undefined.
Leaving "I" undefined is the entire point of solipsism.
Also, "I doubt my own existence" doesn't work. If you don't exist, then what is there to doubt? From whence does the doubt arise? The statement must be applied to a subject; if there is no subject to which the statement may be applied, the statement is nonsense.
So is solipsism, and, in general, the assertion of subjectivity.
Taking every argument to solipsism can be counterproductive, but determining whether a thing is subjective or objective is pretty much vital to any rational discussion.
Back to your problems with the Cogito:
For a start, I'm not 100% certain what it means to "think" and what it means to "exist", so how can I be sure of an argument that uses those words?
Denying that thought exists is a thought. It does not need to be understood in order to actually happen. The concept of existence is even more fundamental; the thought "what is existence" exists, or else there would be no way to address or consider it. If something were to not exist, it simply would be an absence.
You'll get a lot more mileage by attacking "I" and the implicit assumption that "I" know what it means to "think."
So what if I say "God thinks, therefore God exists"? Isn't that equally valid, then, if we leave "God" undefined?
Yes.
Now, what constitutes "god" changes the validity of that argument completely. But as long as the term is undefined, it doesn't matter. You really only need a placeholder.
This is probably the primary weakness in the Cogito. Descartes would have been more correct to say "There is thinking." He then assumes that he (or I) is the thing doing the thinking. Technically, the Cogito can only prove that thought exists, and that something gives rise to those thoughts. That thing is completely unknowable.
But that's even more skeptical than the Cogito, and thus only further reinforces the non-existence of morality. So your argument isn't gaining anyone any ground here.
Change "God" to "wkylxic" then. You can't actually mean something when you use a term that is undefined - it's just nonsense. You have improved things with your further argument, though.
This is probably the primary weakness in the Cogito. Descartes would have been more correct to say "There is thinking." He then assumes that he (or I) is the thing doing the thinking. Technically, the Cogito can only prove that thought exists, and that something gives rise to those thoughts. That thing is completely unknowable.
There, that's an improvement. However, why do thoughts imply that something gives rise to the thoughts?
But that's even more skeptical than the Cogito, and thus only further reinforces the non-existence of morality. So your argument isn't gaining anyone any ground here.
Hey, I'm not arguing Cogito to prove that morality exists, I'm arguing Cogito because I don't think I should assign complete certainty to it, and because it's fun.
However, why do thoughts imply that something gives rise to the thoughts?
Because thoughts arise. They do not always exist. So even if they arise spontaneously, they must arise by a process of some kind, even if that process is completely unknowable.
Change "God" to "wkylxic" then. You can't actually mean something when you use a term that is undefined - it's just nonsense.
Except that it's really not. The problem really isn't the concept of "I" or of "existence;" rather, the problem is in implicitly connecting "I" with "thinking thing." The problem is that Descartes has defined "I" too much by attributing thought to it.
Because thoughts arise. They do not always exist. So even if they arise spontaneously, they must arise by a process of some kind, even if that process is completely unknowable.
How do you know that thoughts do not always exist?
How do you know that thoughts do not always exist?
Because they go away. A thought begins and ends. Or rather, a thought enters my perception and then leaves it. It might exist outside of my perception, but that involves me assuming things that I cannot possibly know.
Thus, I know that there are thoughts, and I know that those thoughts enter and leave my perception. What is the mechanism by which they enter and leave my perception?
I will further refine the cogito:
I perceive the existence of thinking. Therefore, I must exist.
Comments
Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
Examples of facts: The Earth is an obloid globe. The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s. The speed limit on Carol Lane is 25 mph. The cheetah is the fastest land mammal.
These are not subjective. They cannot be influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice.
Is there a mechanism by which morality can be objectively measured? Is it hard-coded into our DNA? Show me the morality gene.
And when we define such a framework, we must adhere to it as though it were actually true.
And we must also recognize that the framework is not actually true, so that we can dispense with it when we desire.
There is little point in investigating what is "really" right and "really" wrong. The only useful discussion is what behaviors we want to encourage and what behaviors we want to discourage, and why.
Also, I do not know whether an objective reality outside my own mind exists. However, I experience on a day-to-day basis things that appear to come from an objective reality, and the idea of an objective reality, with certain rules such as gravity, is a good predictor for my experiences.
This says nothing about the nature or mechanism of the thoughts. It only argues that the existence of thought necessitates the existence of the thing doing the thinking.
What is uncertain about that?
For a start, I'm not 100% certain what it means to "think" and what it means to "exist", so how can I be sure of an argument that uses those words?
You think, right? Where do those thoughts come from if not from you?
Also, the very claim that "I think" presupposes an "I". How do I know there is an "I"?
Now, "I" could be a simple vessel in which thoughts are contained. That's fine. The solipsist does not know what he is; he only knows that he exists, because he thinks, because something must be giving rise to those thoughts.
However, I can accept that "I" might be nothing more than a collection of thoughts. That's fine. Still does nothing to defeat solipsism, because once again, "I" is undefined in solipsism.
Also, you haven't refuted this:
Also, "I doubt my own existence" doesn't work. If you don't exist, then what is there to doubt? From whence does the doubt arise? The statement must be applied to a subject; if there is no subject to which the statement may be applied, the statement is nonsense.
So doubting your existence proves you exist.
Back to your problems with the Cogito: Denying that thought exists is a thought. It does not need to be understood in order to actually happen. The concept of existence is even more fundamental; the thought "what is existence" exists, or else there would be no way to address or consider it. If something were to not exist, it simply would be an absence.
You'll get a lot more mileage by attacking "I" and the implicit assumption that "I" know what it means to "think."
Now, what constitutes "god" changes the validity of that argument completely. But as long as the term is undefined, it doesn't matter. You really only need a placeholder.
This is probably the primary weakness in the Cogito. Descartes would have been more correct to say "There is thinking." He then assumes that he (or I) is the thing doing the thinking. Technically, the Cogito can only prove that thought exists, and that something gives rise to those thoughts. That thing is completely unknowable.
But that's even more skeptical than the Cogito, and thus only further reinforces the non-existence of morality. So your argument isn't gaining anyone any ground here.
Thus, I know that there are thoughts, and I know that those thoughts enter and leave my perception. What is the mechanism by which they enter and leave my perception?
I will further refine the cogito:
I perceive the existence of thinking.
Therefore, I must exist.
Refute that.