Hawkingfan

"American Heretic" is a screen name. Unfortunately, this guy (or gal) doesn't post around here anymore. It's a shame. I thought he/she was brilliant.

BadBadBad

I agree, it's kind of intrinsic with us humans to want to be star-belly sneetches. There's lot's of things we pick as stars. In answer to Howard's question though, the reason atheists are so fervent IMO is because of exactly the kind of snooty behavior to say the least that christians have always had not only to atheists, but other religions and to themselves as well.

The other thing I think is interesting about the book is the gullibility people have by getting sucked up into the whole star-belly thing.

A child's book is a great way to describe the whole realm of christianity.

From Dr Seuss The Sneetches:

But because they had stars, all the Star-Belly Sneetches
Would brag, "We're the best kind of Sneetch on the beaches."
With their snoots in the air they would sniff and they'd snort
"We'll have nothing to do with the Plain-Belly sort!"
And whenever they met some when they were out walking
They'd hike right on past them without even talking.

When the Star-Belly Children went out to play ball,
Could a Plain-Belly get in the game...? Not at all.
You only could play if your belly had stars
And the Plain-Belly Sneetches had none upon thars.

When the Star-Belly Sneetches had frankfurter roasts
Or picnics, or parties, or marshmallow toasts,
They never invited the Plain-Belly Sneetches.
They left them out cold, in the dark of the beaches.
They kept them away. Never let them come near.
And that's how they treated them year after year.

lpetrich

Was that just the Xtian God, or was that gods in general? Did you ever run into anyone haranguing you about whether you had made your offerings to the Sun Goddess Amaterasu or whether you have placed your faith in the wisdom and compassion of the Buddha?

On a related subject, I recall from several years back a Canadian who recalled that almost all the really hard-core fundies he had ever known were Americans.

Tyler Durden

That’s my M.O.

I disagree. Convictions are arrived at in the same way – according to an epistemological model of thinking - and they are reinforced the same way, too.

If you think a conviction may be objectively better than another, please demonstrate such claim without referring to any criteria that may already be part of a conviction itself. This means you assume a perspectiveless, view from nowhere position is possible.

Since I don’t think a perspectiveless position is possible, that there is no God’s eye view, no disinterested, transcendental position exists, therefore your bold claim that there are objectively better convictions is bullshit. You already presuppose some standard to weigh convictions and i'm willing to wager you arrived at that conviction subjectively. So you should have written "subjectively" instead of objectively - otherwise the conviction would be by definition better than another, without referencing to anybody's perspective.

The subject matter of reason is logic and facts - and i haven't seen either one yet in your posts. If you have a fact or an observation statement, and hopefully a logical form of an argument, then you can demonstrate the objectivity of convictions. However, keep in mind that the function of reason is merely the search for the unconditioned condition, the drive for the ultimate foundations of thought.

You can hearken to a standard, but that standard, in order to be objective, has to be independent of all convictions of belief under question.

I disagree. I see it’s easy to see why atheists feel so strongly, because they, too, hold a vested interest in being right. If you're an atheist, how do you propose to adopt a neutral position and judge the convictions of a broad number of people who happen to fit your definition of atheist or theists?

This bald assertion of yours rests on the assumption that atheists do not have any psychological motives that theists suffer from within their choice of metaphysical system. All men suffer from a psychological defect, which is the need for a metaphysics. And atheists are most certainly not independent of this fundamental drive of human nature.

All men are by nature, teleological beings. this means everyone is religious, whether they believe in God or not.

Nowhere357

Why do you think that a conviction must not refer to another conviction, in order for the first convicion to be considered "objective"? You seem to have defined the word in a way that means no objective concepts are possible at all. You've made the task impossible.

Another impossible idea, becuse any view is it's own perspective.

What do you think "objective" means, when used in a phrase like "objective conviction"?

Then there is no objective standard for determining length, or time, hunger, or anything else, it seems to me. You've defined the words in a way that robs them of meaning, and pre-supposes your conclusion.

It amounts to seeing the line in the sand, and studying the sides.

Is this similar to the physical defect of needing to breath?

Again, you've redefined a word and rendered it meaningless. That we relate to purpose in nature, does not mean we have faithful devotion to a deity.

Tyler Durden

Nowhere, thanks for that entertaining aside. It’ll keep me busy till Howard gets in his shot.

Non sequitur. How does that follow? An objective conviction is not an objective concept. In the context Howard used, conviction is another word for a belief, an opinion, a presupposition, a judgment, a passion. A concept is something more fundamental and philosophical, however a collection of conceptions may be contained within a conviction.
I’ve declared the project of an “objectively better conviction” impossible because convictions are passions and passions are developed subjectively, always within the bounds of a single perspective. The attempt to transcend a subjective concept with a claim to objectivity involves the jettisoning of subjective components. In his attempt to arrive at an “objective conception” of a conviction Howard only ended up with a phony objectification of an aspect of reality – his perspective.
Then you haven’t done your homework – Thomas Nagel has expounded on the possibility of a View From Nowhere.
Whether it is a legitimate concept in metaphysics is another question.
The term “objective” is a method of understanding the world as it is in itself. So, the pastiche “objective conviction” is meaningless.
Nope. That’s another misreading. There is an objective standard for determining all of these red herrings – it’s called social consensus, or more precisely, intersubjectivity. You’re confusing objective concepts of measurements with subjective convictions.

• The concept of X is not a conviction in itself because it is only a placeholder.
• For example, the conception of a number is not a conviction, but social knowledge.
• The conviction that I have in the uniform nature of reality encompasses a multitude of presupposed conceptions.

A criterion that determines objectivity depends on the degree it marginalizes subjectivity. In order to locate a legitimate standard that judges conviction, that standard cannot be presupposed by either conviction. Then the problem becomes of deciding on what is the correct criterion is supposed to be.
In the pursuit of detachment from our initial viewpoint, we also have to note the limits of objectivity. If it is nothing more than a human faculty, and man is a finite creature, then the proper use of objectivity recognizes its limitations. We should be resigned to accept that the moderate results are the best we can do, and give up on certainty.
Yes, and I already proposed the correct use of reason (the application of a logical argument or the citation of authorized facts from observational statements), which you failed to include in your post. I have seen neither so far.
No, that’s a physiological necessity, a facticity of existence, a physical limitation. Different thing. The psychological inclination for metaphysics is the byproduct of the search for a center, the need for a foundation, or grounding of beliefs or knowledge.
True, which is why you misread me again. Teleology implies religious behavior or beliefs, as in subjectivity, not necessarily in theism.

In your next response I hope you will read a bit more carefully and not rush to half-baked conclusions and be so eager to invent strawmen.

Nowhere357

You are amusing, also.

First, use standard definitions.

Yes it is.

Okay. All of those things are concepts. "A strongly held belief" is what I figured it meant.

And that conviction is a concept.

Like every other possible thing we're aware of. Every possible thing we are aware of is developed subjectively, and always in the bounds of a single perspective. So your definition is not useful.

You need to show WHY your conclusion follows - as stated, it certainly does not seem obvious.

And you've defined the terms to ensure that you reach your goal.

Why is that, exactly? All concepts are subjective. Concepts which refer to the material world are objective concepts. So there are objective concepts, but they are subjective, like all concepts. It's should be easy to see that the words lend themselves to confusion and logical misinterpretation.

A "subjective concept" would be one which does not refer to physical reality. The number system is a subjective concept. An "objective concept" refers to the physical world. The law of gravity is an objective concept. Both subjective concepts and objective concepts are subjectively held.

Of course it's from his perspective. Now why does that preclude objectivity of conviction?

I'd rather hear your take on it. How can a given view not have a perspective?

There's the problem. you are using the words wrong, so your argument is invalid and your conclusion unsound.

Well yeah, using your incorrect definitions. As I've said, you've defined these terms in such a way that your conclusion is pre-supposed.

And why is this not good enough for convictions, btw?

No, you've defined these terms in such a way that your conclusion is pre-supposed.

I understand that convictions involve a mental awareness of feeling or emotions. That does not preclude objectivity. Consider the concept of "being in love" for example. Subjectively held, contains emotional component, refers both to the physical hormones coursing through the bady, and the physical manifestation of the object of that love. An objective conviction! The awareness of being in love is not made up fantasy, and it is not mere opinion. It is a fact.

It would help if you used standard definitions.

Oh, I thought you said the psychological inclination for metaphysics was a defect. That's not what you've described here.

It can, but it's not a necessary implication, so your conclusion is unsound.

This is an interesting subject, but it's highly confusing due to the shades of meanings of the words objective and subjective. It's easy to switch between these meanings within a logic chain, which is what you have been doing, I think. It would be helpful if we could agree on how the words are to be used.

I'll highlight the definitions which I've been trying to use:
________________________________________________

Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: tel·e·o·log·i·cal
Function: adjective
: exhibiting or relating to design or purpose especially in nature
- tel·e·o·log·i·cal·ly /-ji-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Main Entry: 1sub·jec·tive
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subject : as a obsolete : of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness b : being or relating to a grammatical subject; especially : NOMINATIVE
2 : of or relating to the essential being of that which has substance, qualities, attributes, or relations
3 a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : PHENOMENAL -- compare OBJECTIVE 1b b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4 a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : PERSONAL <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations> c : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes <a subjective symptom of disease> -- compare OBJECTIVE 1c
5 : lacking in reality or substance : ILLUSORY
- sub·jec·tive·ly adverb
- sub·jec·tive·ness noun
- sub·jec·tiv·i·ty /-"jek-'ti-v&-tE/ noun

Main Entry: 1ob·jec·tive
Function: adjective
1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence -- used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries... are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world -- Marvin Reznikoff> -- compare SUBJECTIVE 3a c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual -- compare SUBJECTIVE 4c d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects , conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>
2 : relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs
3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum
synonym see MATERIAL, FAIR
- ob·jec·tive·ly adverb
- ob·jec·tive·ness noun
- ob·jec·tiv·i·ty /"äb-"jek-'ti-v&-tE, &b-/ noun

Tyler Durden

Why thanks. However, I see your reading capability hasn’t improved in the slightest overnight.
Wrong. Standard definitions are way too hazy and imprecise for philosophical discussions. The lexicographer does not distinguish between the usage of the philosopher or the fool. If I were to use imprecise definitions, then we end up with bad phrasing, such as “objective convictions.”
What do you know, your first unsupported assertion of the day. You’re just conflating the two in order to disagree. All convictions are value judgments, which by definition has difficulties in getting beyond the subjective. There are concepts that are not convictions: for example, the Kantian forms of intuition are not convictions – they’re presuppositions we inexorably make in the attempt to render the data we receive from the world comprehensible, because the mind/brain is active, and already transforms the collection of sensations to an intelligible experience. Convictions are actively imposed by the subject, and may be revised by the subject. However, the forms of intuition are not.

Then how the hell do you think it is possible to reduce convictions to its constituents, which are individual concepts? If you’re going on your “just say so,” you’re demonstrated the limit of your argumentation and I’m wasting my time here.
Nope. Another unimpressive unsupported assertion. Learn how to argue instead of just saying you disagree. Where’s the reasoning behind this, beyond your “say so” ?
Passions are not everything. They’re what motivate us to certain actions, unlike facts or the rules of logic, but they are not the fundamental aspects of philosophy. Most convictions operate at the level of day to day life. We may develop non-subjective concepts intersubjectively.
Wrong. Language is not developed subjectively it is a social activity which requires more than a single member to function, in order for words to gain objective meaning. I trust you are familiar with the No Private Language Argument.

That’s the only way you can make any legitimate philosophical argument – the definition of the terms is everything. So complaining that the definitions are consistent won’t help your case. Like the wise Chinese sage once said, “He who defines the terms wins the argument.”
Uh-huh. While I disagree, you contradicted yourself within the next sentence.
The inherent incoherence astounds me. This doesn’t make sense in the slightest. If all concepts are subjective, then by definition there are no objective concepts. Perhaps you don’t think objectivity is the antonym of subjectivity, like a good postmodernist?
Here’s your argument:

• Premise 1: All concepts are subjective.
• Premise 2: Some concepts that refer to the material world are objective.
• Conclusion: Therefore, objective concepts are also subjective.

Tell me why it isn’t self-contradictory.
It’s easier to charge “confusion and logical misinterpretation” than demonstrate how, but obviously you have done a better job at confusion and misinterpretation.
Do you mean subjective concepts refer to a non-physical reality? Non-material, supernatural reality? At the most subjective concepts like convictions or wishes are limited to a single perspective, which entails an environment. A perspective entails a backdrop it observes, an external world which is often taken to be physical reality. A physical reality is the given background of a perspective, and helps shapes or influence the convictions held by that perspective.
Wrong. The number system is a logical abstraction we all have agreed on within our participation, and isn’t limited to the subjective whims of anybody. Mathematics is a priori, or at least synthetic a priori, and isn’t contingent upon the subjectivity of an individual. There are forms of mathematics better suited to different perspectives, but they are a priori concepts, independent of experience, not a posteriori knowledge like all subjective beliefs are.
Probably the only thing you wrote I am in agreement on.
Nah. A subjective concept is derived from the passions of the beholder, and is contingent upon a perspective, while objective concepts do not depend on the beholder to uphold. It doesn’t matter how many people refuse to believe in the regularity of nature, such as the laws of physics, because these concepts are not dependent on the beholders, but on non-subjective components.
Because an objective concept should be demonstrable independently of one’s emotions, passions, desires, preferences, and etcetera. An objective concept may be tested independently of the beholder’s beliefs.
Voila.
Where am I using which words wrong? You disagree with the term “objective” as a method of understanding the world in itself? Why? I very much doubt you will find many people in the phil department who would object to that definition. Another sterling winner from the house of Nowhere.
Pissing in the well move. I’m using precise, philosophical definitions that aren’t found in your generic Merriam Webster’s. And the conclusion isn’t presupposed – rather the terminology reinforces the argument. So your complaint that it is consistent shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Since a conviction depends on the private subject, an objective standard is independent of the subject’s beliefs. An objective standard relies only on agreement between people in order to be used.
Again, asserted without explaining the presupposition. I don’t presuppose anything except for a few basic assumptions that you’re human, that the regularity of nature will continue to hold, etcetera.

Being in love is a subjective concept, granted, but when you take an objective view of the besotted person, you’re no longer talking about his or her subjective beliefs. There is a difference between an objective and a subjective viewpoint. That there are physical hormones within the body is observed by any other beholder, whereas the feeling of being in love is limited to the besotted person him or herself. Again you’re mixing them two without realizing that you’re taking a step back and detaching yourself from the level of subjective awareness (the besotted fool) to another, more theoretical viewpoint. Objectivity and subjectivity aren’t merely flip sides of the proverbial coin, but rather two extremes on a spectrum.
I think not. Standard definitions are hazy and imprecise. I am better off using technical ones developed by the philosophers.

The inclination remains a defect, because the search for a center generates bad philosophy.
Religious behavior isn’t limited to those recognized by officially organized institutions. Coming to the secular web and interacting with the regulars or learning from the experts is a religious activity. We posit purpose in our activities.

I haven’t switched a definition, and you haven’t even showed where. You have decided to take a poorly conceived position that conflates objectivity with subjectivity, along with a few questionable ontological affirmations of the physical world, and neglected to note the distinction between an objective view and a subjective view of the same thing.

I agree, but discussing which generic definitions from the dictionary is the wrong step to take, because they do not distinguish between the precise ones developed by philosophers and the generic hazy ones by the layman. Why don’t you look up those words in a philosophical dictionary, say, “The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy” for example? For my studies i use Macmillian's Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Here is my definition of objectivity and subjectivity:

When a judgment or point of view is rooted within one’s individual’s particular perspective of the world, we call that judgment ‘subjective.’ That is to signal the judgment is partial, probably does not take account of all the facts, and fails to rise above the personal viewpoint. When a judgment takes in account all the relevant data, disregards personal prejudice, and finds agreement with other competent and informed people, we say a judgment is objective. A judgment that is impartial, well grounded in facts, and rises above the personal. The subjective is thus what pertains to the individual, as in convictions, whereas the objective is what stands outside or independently of the individual.

Jamie_L

There's something about people believing things that seem to be false that gets under my craw. I'm not sure exactly why. A lot of the reasons given apply, but I think there's also some fundamentally ingrained sense of annoyance buried in my brain-wiring.

If someone was going around claiming that my car was red (it's green), telling me my car was red, and not listening to reason, that would bug me. My car's not red!

If someone goes around spouting on and on about alien abductions, government cover-ups, insisting that I am the deluded one for not realizing that the government is using weather-control satellites to subjegate the midwest, it's going to bug me.

If someone is going to look at obvious cold/warm reading and profess: "This guy talks to the dead. It's real. I've seen him do X, Y, and Z. How could it be faked? You're just a silly skeptic, what do you know?" It's going to irk me.

If someone is going to say that my wife did horrible things to her, treated her terribly, and is an awful person (all of them not true), then it's going to bug me. Even if I don't like that person, never spend time with that person, and have no reason to have that person in my life. It's still going to bother me.

And that last example brings up a second point: many of the god-beliefs do go on and on about how my stance is a strike against me. Makes me a bad person. Even if they would have no impact on my life (which, in fact, the do), it would still bug the crap out of me that they think I'm a bad person based on a notion that, to me, seems false.

Jamie

Nowhere357

Sure, we can use more precise definitions. From a dictionary of philosophy:

subjective - Something is subjective insofar as it is dependent on either a particular mind or minds in general.
objective - Something is objective insofar as it is independent of either a particular mind or minds altogether.

Now, before we look at ideas like "objective convictions" or "subjective convictions", let's look at just the words "objective" and "subjective".
Things made of matter are objective. They are not held in the mind, they are physical.
Things held in the mind are subjective. All ideas, beliefs, convictions, etc, are held in the mind, and are therefore subjective.

Now consider the idea or concept of "judgement". Because it is held in the mind, it is of course subjective. However, we can subdivide "judgement" into different categories. If the judgement refers to physical reality, we call it an "objective judgement". If the judgement does not refer to physical reality, and is based only on opinion or feeling, we call it a "subjective judgement".

Thus, for instance, the judgement that the moon has no atmosphere may count as an objective judgment, whereas my judgement that vanilla is the best ice cream flavor is subjective. And we see that although all judgements are subjective (since they are held in the mind), some judgements are known as "subjective judgements" while others are known as "objective judgements".

A concept is held in the mind, is apprehended by reason or imagination. A concept can involve other concepts. It seems to me that a judgement is a type of concept. I fail to see your point.

A conviction is held in the mind, apprehended by reason or imagination. Therefore it is a type of concept. Where exactly is this wrong?

Your claim is that "the project of an “objectively better conviction” is impossible because convictions are passions and passions are developed subjectively, always within the bounds of a single perspective."

Here's what I said: "Every possible thing we are aware of is developed subjectively, and always in the bounds of a single perspective." So the fact that passions are developed subjectively does not support your conclusion.

Yes, passions motivate us. The rest of this statement is too unfocused to respond to.

Of course language is developed subjectively, and that does not contradict that language is social. Everything in our minds is subjective, by definition. And language is in our minds. This does not preclude that language has an objective basis.

No. But there's not much reason to learn to talk if there's no-one to listen, I would think.

I agree. Although I point out we are not in a phd-only forum, so until precise definitions are given, it seems reasonable to expect people to use standard definitions.

They will, if the consistent definitions are not useful.

And I defined the terms first, I think. You used implied definitions, which presupposed your conclusion.

Your position seems to be that "convictions must be objective, to be valid (or to be better then other convictions.) But all convictions are subjective. Therefore, no convictions are valid."

First, it has not been shown that convictions must be objective to be valid.
Second, it has not been shown that convictions cannot be objective.

Being in love is a subjective awareness, and the objective view must include this fact!

Okay.

Both true.

But the theoretical viewpoint must include the fact of the subjective awareness!

How does this support your argument? None of your comments on "being in love" seem to support your view. Whether being in love is an idea, a concept, a belief, a conviction, a judgement, a feeling - no matter what we call it, we are aware of it subjectively, and it has an objective basis.

Again, perhaps the need to breath is a physical defect, but I see no use in defining it that way. Maybe you should support your statement.

Do you have some special definition for "religious" which supports this? It doesn't seem to follow from the standard definition. Unless you think football fans are religious because they watch football a lot.

Okay, look at your paraphrase of this part of my argument:

You switch right there at number two. Recall the definitions and explanations at the top of this post. Here is how I would restate:

Premise 1: All concepts are subjective (because they are held in the mind).
Premise 2: Concepts that refer to the material world are called "objective concepts".
Conclusion: Therefore, "objective concepts" are also subjective (because they are held in the mind).

You are too intelligent and too knowledgable about philosophy to fail to grasp this point.

You tell me how it is contradictory. I admit that it can seem that way when we switch definitions in the middle of a chain.

"Both subjective concepts and objective concepts are subjectively held."

Here you switch again. ALL concepts are held in the mind, and so are subjective. My statement was correct.

More about your defintions for subjective concepts and objective concepts later.

If my view is incorrect, I wish to understand why, so I can repair it. How about you?

Non-physical, yes. Supernatural, no. Why bring mythology into this? If spirits exist (for example) then they are natural.

Why does "single perspective" entail "environment"? Also, EVERYTHING we are aware of is limited to our single perspective. This does not preclude that this perspective can take other perspectives into account. Once it has done so, however, it is percieved always and only as that perspective. None of us occupy more than one mind, afaik.

Okay. And this supports your position how, exactly?

Yes, I agree. But are logical abstractions subjective concepts, or objective concepts?

"An "objective concept" refers to the physical world. The law of gravity is an objective concept. "

Good. So if convictions (beliefs, morals, whatever) can be shown to refer to the physical world, we then have objective convictions. Keep that in mind.

I agree.

No I haven't. We've been stuck on your misuse of the words, as evidenced by the false charge of contradiction. Perhaps once you understand your error there, you would be able to explain my errors, but not before.

I agree, although again I note that the generic definitions are default. It is counter to communication to assume lay people use technical definitions, don't you agree?

Both links want my money, and they can't have it. Free, on-line sources are more useful.

Here you switch again, as what you provide are definitions for "objective judgement" and "subjective judgement". Anyway:

But earlier you said: "A subjective concept is derived from the passions of the beholder, and is contingent upon a perspective".

Unless "individual particular perspective" is the same as "the passions of the beholder", which I think they are not, then you seem to be contradicting yourself.

This description, except for the last line, seems to define a method for determining the validity of a judgement. The last line alone seems to try and define "objective judgement".

So it looks like you define objective judgement as valid, and subjective judgement as invalid, presupposing your conclusion that subjective judgements are bullshit.

Ironic comment, since the assertion was in reply to your assertion.