A challenge for all you Tate (not the gallery) fans out there!

Double-post ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

I know the theories of subjectivity. Again, they tend to be repeated ad infinitum when someone wishes to argue that 'everything is subjective'. The same sort of thinking leads people to conclude that nothing can be proved to be true, and ultimately to the theory that we could all be hooked up to some kind of apparatus somewhere and that our whole lives are not actually real. Other than for making up cliched sci-fi stories though, this thinking is useless in philosophy and everywhere else. Objectivity exists insofar as it can be recognised and utilised by anyone making an argument - everything exists within an objective realm, and all humour can be objectively explained to the extent that the mechanics of jokes are often understandable. ""Hey fatty" would appeal to those people who find fat people funny." Then following your argument, Tate appeals to people who find the working classes funny. But I don't think it's as simple as that. People would laugh at "Hey fatty", whether or not they found fat people funny, if it was made in the spirit of ganging up. The laughter enables the participants to feel superior. Often, it isn't the remark they find funny at all, or the person. They just laugh because it makes them feel good. There's a difference between humour and laughter. The second does not automatically follow the other. Things that cause people to laugh are not necessarily the things they're laughin at. Again, I would say that there's the real possibility that people laughing at Tate's character saying 'Am I bovvered?' are not laughing at Tate's skit, but at working class girls. And not because they find working class girls funny (they wouldn't laugh at them on the street) but because they're being encouraged to feel good about themselves in relation to those girls. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

"What is a “joke”? How does or can one define a “joke”?" What, so it doesn't have a dictionary definition now? No one knows what a joke is? Look, don't involve yourself in arguments if the only contribution you can make is to try to question the existence of everything that pertains to the debate. 'Oh, but whose to say what is 'good' and what isn't?' 'Ah, but aren't we all prejudiced, so who's to say who's more prejudiced than the next?' 'Ah, but what is 'history'? How do we know if it isn't all faked?' This sort of thing is utterly inane and just mires the debate in redefinitions of everything that we already understand. If you really think 'everything is subjective' then that might as well be your final word on everything. It's 'subjective' whether or not a child is a legitimate sexual partner, it's 'subjective' whether or not white races are superior. Just leave it at that and let everyone who believes in the objective continue to argue. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Oh, dear god, give the young man a handle to pull himself out of his arse, please! Give him some lightness, remove the blanket of seriousness he slaps on everything! I _beg_ you.

Jack, we'll have to agree to disagree because this is becoming tiring. If you can go away and work out a fundamental constant for 'humour' then I'll accept your argument for objectivity. So let's say that humour remains at present 99% subjective - the 1% granted to you for your efforts. Subject to change dependant upon your fundamental law for comedy. In the meantime, to help you with your law, go into google and type in 'comedy is subjective' - view results. Now type in 'comedy isn't subjective' - view results. You could even try 'is comedy subjective?' - view results. This will give you a good starter for what the majority of people think comedy/humour/jokes, or whatever you want to call them, are. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

This thread was NOT funny. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

"Give him some lightness, remove the blanket of seriousness he slaps on everything!" If we accept comedy is subjective, then we accept that Dr. Jekyl is funny. Maybe even witty. You'd really take that line with it, Yan? You think you could live with the consequences? ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

I’m guessing that this thread must be an example of what Jack means by, ‘engaging in contentious activity.’ So, as dicking about on the other thread seems to imply I’m ‘content to let awful things happen in the world most of the time,’ I thought I’d better join in. I don’t personally get the appeal of Lee Evans but when I see clips of him appearing in front of packed auditoriums, it’s obvious that other people find him hilarious. I don’t think they’re all pretending to find him funny. So, yes, of course humour is subjective. What a stupid argument. Just because there are some people who laugh at certain subject matter for dubious reasons, doesn’t mean that what appeals to you, in general, isn’t determined by your individual sense of humour. (I’m talking about comedy here, in the generally accepted sense not, say, funerals.) I don’t like Little Britain. Imo, it relies too much on gross out jokes and cruelty. Not all of it, but too much of it. It’s also very lazy. I didn’t like the Fast Show because, bar Ted and Ralph, it struck me as a series of repetitive, catchphrase-based gags. Catherine Tate’s comedy is too repetitive for me also, although I did laugh at the grandmother character. That’s because she reminded me so accurately of an elderly relative (of whom I am very fond) who can be outrageously rude at times. I find it odd that anyone would assume people found the teenagers in Catherine Tate funny due to class. (Being ‘working class’ isn’t funny in itself is it, or am I missing something?) The sketch takes the mick out of *teenagers*. It’s about their desperation to appear cool and to act, dress and speak like each other. The only sketch I’ve seen on CT that is having a dig at ‘class’ is the middle-class mother with 4x4 sketch. Anyhow, semantics and straw men were the reason I couldn’t be arsed to join in this thread earlier. A point is refuted with, ah but ‘Tate’s not comedy’ (Oh ffs. what is it then? Drama?) But ‘everything’s subjective’ sparks off an infuriating Laruen-esque: ‘Are you saying everything’s subjective, Miss. Can anything be funny then, Miss? Is paedophilia funny, Miss? Are you a paedophile then, Miss?’ As I said, I find her repetitive, so was this thread. ~ www.fabulousmother.com

"So, yes, of course humour is subjective. What a stupid argument. " If the second sentence reflects back on the first, then I agree. Your example just doesn't illustrate in any way that humour is subjective, just that different people find different things humorous. I tend to find that shoes that fit other people don't fit me. Oh my God! Shoes are subjective! ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Shoes? Oh for god's sake - here we go with the straw man again. ‘Your example just doesn't illustrate in any way that humour is subjective, just that different people find different things humorous.’ Object: the performance Subject: the individual viewing the performance Subject A finds the object funny according to their personal sense of humour. Subject B finds it unfunny according to their personal sense of humour. I’m sorry, Jack, but please give me a rational explanation as to why that is *not* a definition of a subjective experience. What *is* your definition of a subjective experience. Are we allowed to use that term at all? Or should we lobby to have it withdrawn from use? ~ www.fabulousmother.com

I _love_ you, 2Lou.

Save your love for your numerous lonely nights, Dr. Jackoff - one explanation coming right up. As far as the term 'subjective experience' goes, in all honesty, it's a pretty useless phrase. Everything is a subjective experience. As Yan said earlier, nothing you experience is beyond your array of senses. So 'subjective experience' is pure tautology - experience is always subjective. That doesn't mean that every point of contention is a matter of pure subjectivity though. Let's use your model to illustrate something else, 2Lou: Object: the performance of George W. Bush as president of the USA. Subject: the individual viewing the performance Subject A finds the subject to have done a great job according to their personal assessment criteria. Subject B finds the subject to be an asshole according to their personal assessment criteria. Really, all I've changed from your model is the subject. In all matters, people carry different points of view that are informed by their prior experience. But no one goes round saying that the question of whether or not Bush is a good president is subjective. Normally, when someone declares something 'subjective', whatever the technical meaning of the word, they are not simply saying that different people have different points of view - they are saying that no amount of reasoning and logic and communication can bridge the gap between two - that there is no grounds of mutual understanding possible. More importantly, they are trying to mute any argument that might take place. "Oh, it's all subjective anyway," is the clarion call of someone who can't be arsed to think, usually because the matter of debate (art, comedy, music) requires more application of intelligence than something as relatively simple as morality. In morality, for instance, killing an innocent person is never a good thing, and we at least have that as a starting point on which to build an explanation for our POV - in art, it is difficult to find a solid statement of truth to start from. In this case, Yan's appeal to the 'everything is subjective' argument was also a reprimand to me for stating my opinion. Apparently, you're not allowed to say that something is 'unfunny' because, in the subjectivist world, nothing is 'funny' or 'unfunny' - you can only report on your personal reaction to it. So, you have to caveat every opinion with "For me...." or "I find...." You're not allowed to actually *believe* what you say is true. 'Good' or 'bad' gets the same treatment as 'funny' or 'unfunny'. You're not allowed, for instance, to believe that Dan Brown is a crap writer, because that's just your experience of it, and someone who thinks that he's a good writer simply has had a different experience. You're not allowed to believe that 'Pearl Harbour' is actually a crap film, or even that Leonard Cohen is actually a good songwriter. Believing in subjectivity is believing it's all in your head. Rejecting subjectivism is something anyone with a serious interest in the arts (and let's include comedy in the arts) has to do in order to succeed. If critics didn't believe there was an objective ground, they would not write reviews. Because what would be the point telling someone about your experience when there's no way of determining whether or not they will have the same experience? Similarly, anyone who has written a good essay about literature, or any art, does so on the basis of faith in an objective reality. Hell, any artist who actually believes in what they're doing must believe, at the very least, in an objective measure of quality. I guess, being writers, most people here would agree with me on that matter (ie. that quality writing isn't just subjective). It's comedy that's the bone of contention. But if you were comedians, you'd have the same attitude to that as you would to writing. In about the only decent scene in that awful film about Charlie Chaplin starring Robert Downey Junior, Chaplin explains, with great passion and lucidity, *why* the Tramp is funny, and why having him talk would not be funny. Comedy is exactly like writing and any other art in that people cry "Subjective" simply because it is *difficult* to discuss it objectively. Not impossible, but difficult. People simply lack the tools to dissect these subjects the same way they do morality and politics. I follow the argument - I even went along with it for some time - that if something is received differently in my head to someone else's, that must just be the way things are and there's nothing you can do about it. But it's a logic that can equally be applied to any subject. If 'funny' and 'unfunny' are not things that an object can be, only things which we experience, than the same can be said of 'disgusting' and 'not disgusting'. You could argue that if someone finds homosexuality 'disgusting', that's just their business and there's nothing you can do about it. But the whole basis of progress rests on the belief that the subjective experience can be challenged - that communication allows us to actually influence each other's 'tastes' and opinions. Although we might not understand fully why people might find homosexuality 'disgusting' we can say that it's a stupid reaction and try to stop people from being that way. Similarly, if I think something is utterly unfunny - perhaps offensively unfunny - it is perfectly reasonable for me to seek to convince others that this is an objective truth. They, in return can, believing I have simply misunderstood something, seek to convince me that something is actually funny, even if that isn't my initial experience of it. I didn't find The Office funny at first. Now I do. So saying something is 'subjective' might not be, in the strictest sense, untrue. It is simply a pointless thing to say because everything is subjective - objectivity is just a projected mutual understanding. What the person is really saying when they argue subjectvitiy is, 'I don't think it is possible to ever reach the bottom of this, or agree, or understand it as anything other than raw experience.' In other words, subjectivism is simple defeatism, and lack of faith in people's ability to change each other through interaction. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

***Insert short putdown from Dr. Jekyl, the Gary Barlow of forum wisecracks, here***

Hm, yes. I might be reading you wrong, but isn't this is a similar reaction to what you get from prissy poets as soon as they encounter any form of analysis? "Oh, you beast. You have ruined its beauty with your mean academic autopsy. Poetry is not supposed to be cut open and examined - it's a living thing!" Or, to put it in the words of the current Literary Director of Arts Council, England, "Poetry cannot be defined - it is indescribable as the blood that runs in our veins." Mm. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Gary Barlow is the sexiest of the Take That lineup, _especially_ in hot pants. _I_ don't wear them anymore. _You_, Jacky petal, are still an overly grim, up-yer-own-arse wotsit. Do you ever get laid? Or does it require in-depth analysis before you get your tadger out?

Yeah, the thing is, however hard you try, I'm not going to be ashamed of the fact that I'm prepared to engage in tenacious and thorough debate wherever there are contentious viewpoints. Even if I don't change my mind, and am just reexamining, rethinking and reaffirming a point of view I already hold, it's always good brain exercise. And, weirdly (or not) I can spend all that time writing a post and still have time to come up with better putdowns than "Do you ever get laid?" Weren't you the one who announced Brighteyes as my 'lover' on the other forum anyway? ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

JC - Interesting viewpoint. I'm curious though, if I rejected subjectivity then what is it that makes me an individual? If I accept, like Plato and pals, that there is an objective truth and objective ethics and so on then how can one account for personal taste at all? A lack of willingness to see the truth? If it is only a matter of me needing to see what's funny, then surely I'd agree with everyone on eveything -- if only people would tell me what part of the 'all that is funny [or whatever]' the comdey appeals to. Yet it doesn't seem to happen. Am I reading the wrong newspapers or summat? Oh, minor point, but it occurs to me that If subjectivism is saying 'it's all in your head' then you wouldn't need to preface anything with 'I think' or 'I feel that...' because it would be implicit, no? Objectvity can take us so far and no further. Critical reasoning is an extremely useful tool, but in the hierarchy of being of living, of waking from day to day or reading a book or *feeling* anything, it is below the Truth that every individual creates for themselves, within themselves, based on - yep - their perception of the world. And I would suggest this doesn't cloud their objectivity, rather, it benchmarks it. Hope NaNo's giong well. I'm up to about 27k or so and starting to struggle (getting a nosebleed with a wordcount so high!) Enzo.. Read my rubbish novel as it happens! http://somesolitude.wordpress.com/

Poor peps, your thread has been completely usurped by the Platonian brigade! Are you bovvered?

NaNo's the reason why I'm here so much at the moment! You're steaming ahead - I'm just hanging around at the right sort of wordcount at the mo. Every day I just about get there and then decide I need to not overstretch myself. I do think subjectivity exists - you just can't declare a matter or subject as 'subjective'. Our experience of it is made of up a subjective and an objective part. Like I say, the subjectivist (and I'm using the term to describe someone whose opinion on a thing is that it is 'subjective') is not just saying that there is a subjective element to the thing discussed - they are denying that there is an objective element. Yan objected to my opinions on the basis that I was using objective criteria to discuss a subjective matter. Part of the discourse over artforms is what exactly constitutes the objective element. It's easy to understand what is objective and subjective about experiencing, say, a sound, but it's far, far more complicated when you're talking about art because it's hard to demonstrate, scientifically, the existence of art. There's no way to prove art exists using scientific equipment, and yet it exists. If you say it exists purely in people's heads, then you're accepting that anything anyone thinks is art is art, that they can never be wrong, and yet art has continuously been approached as something that has an objective definition. We feel within our rights to point out that Dan Brown is an awful writer and that this is objective truth. As another example, what about 'guilty pleasures' in music? This is music that the listener often accepts is bad, but that still gives them some degree of pleasure. There's clearly the understanding here that the quality of music can be objective as well as subjective, and that the two can conflict. "If it is only a matter of me needing to see what's funny, then surely I'd agree with everyone on eveything..." Well, no. Of course not. They have to convince you. The objective element of art isn't something you simply point out to people - it's a massively slippery set of conditions that's been tussled over for centuries. Where does subjectivity end and objectivity begin? That's not something you can answer easily, but it's a total copout - not a solution - to say that all we have is subjectivity. "Oh, minor point, but it occurs to me that If subjectivism is saying 'it's all in your head' then you wouldn't need to preface anything with 'I think' or 'I feel that...' because it would be implicit, no?" Well, you can be subjectivist about one thing and not another. Not many people are subjectivist about everything - Yan and the others clearly think that comedy is subjective, while morality isn't. So the subjectivisit needs the caveats to distinguish between when you are stating an opinion (on an issue that isn't subjective - merely controversial) and when you are reporting an experience. I would argue that 'I think' and 'I feel that', in all cases, are fairly redundant, except as a way of softening the opinion you're putting forward, being diplomatic. Anyone writing a serious paper on a subject would not use such terms, because they're purely conversational. I've never read a review where the reviewer says, "I feel this is bad." They say it's bad. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'Yan and the others clearly think that comedy is subjective, while morality isn't.' I don't recall claiming that atall. You're putting words in my comments. Nature is indifferent. But morality may have an objectivity if you consider morality from the perspective of self preservation (do unto others, etc.) This would have a natural benefit. But to give morality any firm objectivity then your're appealing to a transcendental agent who pre-determines morality and the argument breaks down because that is a purely subjective opinion. Newton's laws don't differ from continent to continent like morals do, in that case you have a distinction and a clear idea of what is truly objective. 'We feel within our rights to point out that Dan Brown is an awful writer and that this is objective truth.' You have every 'right' to voice this opinion, but it is subjective. AGHHHHHH!!!!!! To claim it is an objective truth is a subjective opinion. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

I've only pushed ahead because I know I'll be missing a few days. It's my birthday on Friday and I'm not going to be writing that day or Saturday. The quality goes from bad to worse, though... On this objective element thing, I have a couple of questions. 1. Is it objective because it is true, in and of itself, without 'eyes to see it' as it were? 2. How can I learn or 'be closer to' the objective element of art? 3. Morality is subjective. It happens that we agree to a standard for the sake of organising boundaries within society, but just because the law says it's bad, doesn't make it bad. Homosexuality was 'objectively' bad once, in the eyes of the law, the church, and almost all non-homosexuals. They'd say it was objectively bad. But many of us now say it isn't. So it turns out, it was subjective all along. Sorry, that's more of a comment than a question. 4. Who has been most successful, in any artistic media, at captuiring that objective element? You asked: "Where does subjectivity end and objectivity begin?" If that is a valid question, if indeed there is indeed some kind of ratio, lets put aside defining it for a moment and give specific examples. If something is almost completely objetcively 'beautiful' or 'good' on this scale, then it is a thing that almost everyone will agree is beautiful, no? NOTE: Writing at work. Had to be quick. Please forgive spelling and other errors. Enzo.. Read my rubbish novel as it happens! http://somesolitude.wordpress.com/

"You have every 'right' to voice this opinion, but it is subjective. AGHHHHHH!!!!!! To claim it is an objective truth is a subjective opinion." I don't even know what you mean by 'subjective' anymore, yan, because you're trying to use it in so many different ways. When you say someone's opinion is 'subjective' you're saying that it is biased - that there is an ulterior motive guiding it - not that it 'refers to the specific discerning interpretations of any aspect of experiences' (Wiki's definition of subjectivity in philosophy which you quoted me earlier). Even if my opinion were subjective in this way, that *still* doesn't make the quality of Dan Brown's writing subjective and it doesn't make comedy subjective. Just because two people have different opinions on something doesn't make the thing they have opinions about subjective. Subjectivity implies that all points of view are equally valid because it is entirely related to their private experience of the thing rather than any constant truth. Do you not understand the implications of this? If you say something is subjective, you are saying it is a matter of private experience only and that no one's opinion on it constitutes anything more than a data report on the contents of their heads. You are saying that two people can debate the quality of Dan Brown's writing to kingdom come, and neither one will ever be any more right than the other. You are saying that as long as there is one fan of Gery Halliwell, she is as talented, in the realm of objective reality, as Bob Dylan. I am trying to appeal to your common sense here, but I suspect that you will simply agree that these situations are the case. Understand that as someone who believes in good and bad art, I will never come round to your point of view. Enzo: "1. Is it objective because it is true, in and of itself, without 'eyes to see it' as it were?" Well, according to Wiki, what is objective is the part of the experience that is 'available to everyone' and the example is a wavelength of a specific beam of light. What is subjective is the part that is only available to the person experiencing it. I think that broadly fits with your definition, yes. "2. How can I learn or 'be closer to' the objective element of art?" Quote from Kurt Vonnegut, quoting someone else: "How do you know if a painting is good? You look at thousands of paintings and then you know." So, yes, you can. But it takes a lot of effort. I feel pretty sure, for instance, that having spent a few years now writing and reading poetry, I am far closer to its objective quality. I also know that something I would judge as being of excellent quality can still leave me cold, so I'm not belittling the subjective experience. "3. Morality is subjective." Nope, don't accept this. If you say morality is subjective, then you're saying it's as true that homosexuality is wrong as it is that it is right. In fact, you are arguing that nothing is 'wrong' or 'right' - it only seems that way. You're also denying moral progress - if morality is subjective then people are no better now than they ever were, criminals are no worse than anyone else and no one becomes a better person. It's simply a jumble of subjective criteria with no rhyme or reason. It's a great way to baffle the Daily Mail, but as with art, all moral striving depends upon people's belief in the objectivity of morality - that things do not simply 'seem' right or wrong, depending on who you are - they *are* right or wrong, The church and the people might have once proclaimed that 'objectively', homosexuality is wrong, but *they* were wrong. "4. If something is almost completely objetcively 'beautiful' or 'good' on this scale, then it is a thing that almost everyone will agree is beautiful, no?" Here's a fun point: I would say that beauty *is* almost entirely subjective. In the eye of the beholder. I think it does really only describe an experience, and I don't think any artist has really succeeded in creating or capturing 'beauty'. It's not something an object really possesses, but a kind of awe. But the experience of beauty is a tricky one that I think is often used to describe an *appreciation* of something well constructed. So when a lot of critics agree that a piece of art is beautiful (not really a word they often use when trying to be objective) they are likely indicating their subjective reaction to an objective reality - the skilful way in which something is rendered. Someone like me would probably look at the same piece and recognise the same objective elements of a piece that cause people to find it beautiful, but it would instead merely make me feel admiration. Someone not very taken with art would not notice the at all, but that does mean that the degree of skill involved is subjective. But 'good', as in 'good art'. Well. 'Good art' can be achieved in a number of ways and can, I think, be demonstrated to be good. Taking photography as a blunt example, people who don't know anything about photography might look at photos of flowers and think they're crap and that anyone could do it. The subjectivist says that their opinion of the photograph is of equal value to that of someone who maybe knows a lot more, and recognises the skill or talent which was required of the photographer in order to take that shot. The second observer is clearly and demonstratably better suited to judge the picture, but if you think art is subjective, then there is no 'judgement', and there is no 'skill', there is only the different experiences, both neither right nor wrong. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Oo, as an additional, I should point out that I don't like any Beatles songs, but am still hard-pressed to argue that they were a bad band. I might even have to admit, when pushed, that they're better than some of the bands I actually like. From the subjectivist's point of view, this is impossible - the Beatles are good if I like them, bad if I don't. And yet, there it is. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

ffs

ffs yourself. Go back to your shitheap. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Goodness, a little touchy today, are we JC?

"The subjectivist says that their opinion of the photograph is of equal value to that of someone who maybe knows a lot more, and recognises the skill or talent which was required of the photographer in order to take that shot. " I disagree. I would not say my opinion is of equal value to someone who knows more about it than I. I would say that my opinion is worth everything to me. I would say that my opinion is probably worth less to a third party than the expert. If I talked with the expert: I would listen, I would perhaps be swayed by their explination, or perhaps not. When the conversation began, was happening and had finished, my opinion would still be the only one with value for me--but, and I want to emphasise this--CAN and IS be swayed by others precisely because it is not locked in time and 'objectivity' rather it is as fluid as it can be.Mine is always the one of value because it is adaptable to the views of people I take seriously, where appropriate. "...but if you think art is subjective, then there is no 'judgement', and there is no 'skill', there is only the different experiences, both neither right nor wrong." Yes there is judgement. Of course there is - my own! There is skill, for instance, someone could say "What's great about that picture is x, y and z" and I could say, "Do you know, I've never noticed that before!" and agree. There is right and wrong, but it exists only for the individual, in their own mind. But what is IN their mind is influenced by others. I really see all that as self-evident. Enzo.. Read my rubbish novel as it happens! http://somesolitude.wordpress.com/

I *like* debating things that are important. I like debating them to death. Know why? Because I don't think I'm right about everything, and debate gives me the opportunity and an impetus to go over things thoroughly and really test my assumptions, my reasons for believing what I do, and my ability to articulate those beliefs. I get sick of people who are uncomfortable with any kind of complex or long debate weighing in with pithy comments. If you're too lazy to consider a subject in any depth, by all means stick with your long-dead joke or talk about hot taps or something, but don't 'ffs' me for still having some time and energy left in my life, amid NaNoWriMo, a job, farting about and everything else, for big philosophical issues. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

I don't have any trouble at all with complex or long debates about philosophy, Jack, and I find your thoughts on the matter interesting. That doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to say 'ffs' when I feel the debate has dwindled to hair-splittings, now, does it? No need to be such a grouch.

OK, I'm sorry, AG - I thought the Beatles example was a decent point, an example of an awareness of subjectivity and objectivity in music, and I thought the 'ffs' was a general reaction to my carrying on. That and the comment on the other thread narked me off. Enzo: "I disagree. I would not say my opinion is of equal value to someone who knows more about it than I." But I don't think you're really a subjectivist, or if you are, you're not following the logic of that view. If you're proposing that something is subjective, then it follows that, however important your opinion may be to you personally, you're placing an equal value on it to anyone else's. I don't really mean 'value' here as in how greatly that opinion figures in your life - of course your own opinion is going to be the one you pay most attention to - it's your filter for taking on boad other's opinions. What I mean by 'value' is more a sort of argumentative weight, related to the likelihood that there's is closer to an objective truth. (If I argue with an expert on something, I might try my best, but I am likely going to accept that his views are more informed than mine, and he is more likely, from the offset, to prove me wrong than I am him). If you don't believe in an objective truth, then, of course, no one's opinion is closer to it. "Yes there is judgement. Of course there is - my own!" But it isn't your judgement, so to speak. Judgement implies that you have weighed alternatives and decided on the one which is more correct. If you don't believe anyone is more correct than anyone else, then what you think of as judgement is more a case of choosing what suits you best. "There is right and wrong, but it exists only for the individual, in their own mind." That's not right and wrong though. The concepts can't exist as things that are relative only to individuals, otherwise we would have to accept that what is 'wrong' to us could be 'right' for others, and thus not wrong in any true way. Sexism is 'wrong' for us, but if it's 'right' for millions of Saudis, and it takes place in their country, well - their experience is as valid as ours, so why should we impose our idea that it's 'wrong' on them? ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

I think some of this comes down to using the same words to describe different things. I would say my 'subjectivism' is simply the rejection of objective truth; that is to say: 'truth for all.' To me, what you describe as subjectivism here: "however important your opinion may be to you personally, you're placing an equal value on it to anyone else's" is not the same as what I'm trying to describe. In fact, you're describing something that resembles an 'objective subjectivism', in that your taking the value of one subjective outlook and applying the same value to all. That step - of standardisation, if you like - is an objectifying process. What I'm saying is: There is only my subjectivism. Turning to right and wrong, I would say that I act according to what I think is right, for the most part. I judge myself against what I think is right and feel guilty when I've done bad, and pleased with myself when I've done good. Society seems to react similarly on many issues, which is good for me, although not coincidental, obviously- I have been naturalised into the society in which I live. When you say that my right and wrong is not "right or wrong in any true way", I disagree, for the reasons above. If you mean not right and wrong in any *objective* way, then yes, you are correct. My values are not objective, because, again, my position is one that rejects objectivity. My values are my own - as influenced by...well, everything I've experienced and considered. So back to the expert. Lets say in the broadest sense, he is telling me something I don't know. What I do is either reject it, incorporate it into my current world view, or accept it completely and reject my own previous views. I'm finding this interesting, but AG has a point about semantics and I hope I haven't got caught up in that kind of thing is this post. I don't feel that I'm hair-splitting, but I may well be. I'm not the best at expressing myself without having the person in front of me. Sorry about that. Enzo.. Read my rubbish novel as it happens! http://somesolitude.wordpress.com/

Hmm. There is a degree of semantic misadventure here, certainly. I may need to refer back to one of my friends, who has argued this subject much more vigorously and thoroughly than I have in the past (sometimes against me), but I think I'm right in saying that the subjective/objective dichotomy is a useless in analysing things if we regard commonality of human experience as being entirely in the realm of subjectivity. In other words, if you regard truth itself as subjective, then there is no objectivity, and the terms are meaningless. Yan's argument seems to run along the lines that objectivity is only that which can be proved by scientific apparatus, but it's *us* who set up the conditions for scientific apparatus, based on our experience and understanding of how things work, so it again becomes part of an entire subjective realm. I could similarly build a computer program that told you whether or not something was art based on a series of criteria that you would enter, but the program requires a human's understanding of what art is for that machine to prove or disprove anything. If you're going to have subjective/objective - and you need to have it for subjectivity to have any meaning - then the objective has to stand for truth, and the subjective has to be relegated to experience that cannot be relied upon for any kind of judgement. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

JC- Yep, thought about it and agree with your conclusion as applied to what I'm expressing: the terms subjective / objective are rendered meaningless altogether. I could probably go on for even longer about this, but I've probably gone on long enough. For today, I'm aiming for 3,000 words of nanoing to get to 30k...so I'd best get on with it! Enzo.. Read my rubbish novel as it happens! http://somesolitude.wordpress.com/

'Yan's argument seems to run along the lines that objectivity is only that which can be proved by scientific apparatus, but it's *us* who set up the conditions for scientific apparatus, based on our experience and understanding of how things work, so it again becomes part of an entire subjective realm' Well if you follow quantum mechanics then that is precisely why we're experiencing an emergent paradigm shift as we speak. But we ventured down the rabbit hole objectively. We would never have discovered the veil over reality had we not. We're now venturing into the holographic principle and still using objectivity to speculate. We're now aware, through applying strictly objective procedures that the imperfect, forever evolving, human state cannot possibly tear open the veil - we're too restricted by our 'imperfections' during any one given increment. But it doesn't reduce reality to pure subjectivity. Even if we discover that base reality is nothing more than infinite potential energy dependant on actualisation by a conscious agent it has still been discovered objectively and can be validated. 'Everything is subjective' as an objective truth is self-refuting. same as: The statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

"If all people accepted the possibility that, regarding their opinions, they may be wrong... would we not be one step closer to peace?" People can accept the possibility that they might be wrong without having to reject the idea of objective truth, Peps. I don't think going round believing that everything is ultimately subjective and not worth debating is going to help. "We're now aware, through applying strictly objective procedures that the imperfect, forever evolving, human state cannot possibly tear open the veil..." So basically, we're stuck in one big illusion? That doesn't really help when it comes to using subjective/objective as useful terms in anything outside of quantum physics. If anything can be said to be subjective, then it's a useless statement to say that comedy is subjective because it doesn't tell us how that comedy is different to anything else. We might as well say comedy is a thing. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

If all people accepted the fact that, regardless of their opinions, that I am right ... then we would pretty damn close to peace

If only Jesus had been so eloquent. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

But what about "everything is subjective" as a subjective perception? All perception is subjective. Sensory input is not. You require sensory input to make a subjective perception. Sensory input has to be processed in order for perceptions to be formed. We all (plants and animals) suck in the energy around us and form a model for a universe. We use electromagnetic radiation to navigate, bats use FM and ultrasound waves (most do) to navigate and your electric fish in muddy water uses electricity. As I said previously, "everything is subjective" would have to be objectively confirmed. The subjectivity of jokes could be confirmed objectively by getting 120 people of same background, etc. and measure (hypothetically) their dopamine levels in response to the same joke. If you accept, without question, that everything is subjective then you're venturing into pathological science and risk deluding yourself. Joining up the dots to reach a predetermined conclusion. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

"The subjectivity of jokes could be confirmed objectively by getting 120 people of same background, etc. and measure (hypothetically) their dopamine levels in response to the same joke." Only if you believe that truth and knowledge are things that are only for science to decide, which is a very narrow view, convenient for scientists but disrespectful of centuries of moral progress and debate. 'Truth' is an objective thing. If you believe people can have different subjective truths, then that's the same as not believing in truth. The whole concept stems from the idea that it is something that is the same for everyone, or else we would not impose it or speak of it as something that we all have to recognise. If you believe in any kind of truth in relation to morality or art, then you believe in an objective dimension to them. And yet morality and art are not things that exist without people - they cannot be measured with scientific apparatus. There is no equivalent of mitoclorians or dopamine levels that tell us how moral someone is. Ergo, objectivity is not the same as 'that which exists without us'. It is not something that science alone proves or disproves, and not simply 'the sensory input'. That's the whole point in philosophy. People don't debate philosophy for kicks - they do it because they want to move towards an understanding of what is true. Humour has an objective dimension. We can argue about whether or not something is 'funny'. We can argue that people who laugh at it are wrong to do so, just as we can argue that people who find homosexuality disgusting are wrong to do so. We can't say "You don't find homosexuality disgusting" but you can say "Homosexuality isn't disgusting" as a statement of fact. It's exactly the same with funny/unfunny. So no, yan, the subjectivity of jokes cannot be confirmed. Your experiement would only prove that there people experience a subjective reaction to them - it would not disprove the objective element. Sorry. "If… Statement A = “everything is ultimately subjective” &… Statement B = “everything is not worth debating” Then… A does not imply B…" Yes, it does, Peps. If you say something is subjective, you're saying it can be different for everyone - that there is no truth, only different people's experiences. There is absolutely no worth in debating whose subjective experience is more 'correct' because we have no way of comparing them. I think there's a 'beetle in a box' philosophical model that relates to this. It's clunky, but it might help you get your head round what I'm saying. Imagine a room full of people who have each possess a beetle in an opaque box. You can only look at your own beetle - not anyone else's. Now, without the aid of rulers, how do they decide who's beetle is biggest? This represents subjectivity. Objectivity is when the beetles are in the room for everyone to see. Looking at them, they can decide collectively which beetle is biggest. In other words, there is only a point in debating what is available to everyone, and what is available to everyone is objectivity, is truth. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'Only if you believe that truth and knowledge are things that are only for science to decide, which is a very narrow view, convenient for scientists but disrespectful of centuries of moral progress and debate.' It is moral progress and debate which led to science. 'Truth' is an objective thing. Science never holds anything to be 'true' . It's a golden rule. A theory can either be strengthened or weakened...but never 'true' 'If you believe in any kind of truth in relation to morality or art, then you believe in an objective dimension to them.' I believe in an objective dimension which could prove the subjectivity of art and morality but not an objective dimension for art or morality itself. 'Humour has an objective dimension. We can argue about whether or not something is 'funny'. We can argue that people who laugh at it are wrong to do so, just as we can argue that people who find homosexuality disgusting are wrong to do so. We can't say "You don't find homosexuality disgusting" but you can say "Homosexuality isn't disgusting" as a statement of fact. It's exactly the same with funny/unfunny.' We can argue but that doesn't manifest an objective dimension. 'So no, yan, the subjectivity of jokes cannot be confirmed.' This has never been tested so your claim is subjective and open to further investigation. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

"Science never holds anything to be 'true' . It's a golden rule. A theory can either be strengthened or weakened...but never 'true'" And yet we believe truth to exist, and we pursue it. If science never holds anything to be "true" then that simply takes science out of the the game when we discuss objective truth. "I believe in an objective dimension which could prove the subjectivity of art and morality but not an objective dimension for art or morality itself." Then you don't believe in morality. Morality depends on the existence of right and wrong, truth and objectivity. Right and wrong cannot exist as subjectives. If something is right for one person, but wrong for another, then it cannot be said to be either right or wrong. Again, refer to the beetle in the box model. If people can only be aware of the size of their own beetle, they have no way of comparing it to the size of other beetles. To put it another way, the very definition of morality is as something that transcends subjective beliefs. To believe in morals is to believe that some things are simply right, others wrong - not that how right or wrong they are depends on the observer. I don't know how I can put this more plainly. 'Morality is subjective' is an absolute contradiction in terms. "We can argue but that doesn't manifest an objective dimension." We're arguing *about* the objective dimension - we're arguing as to what that objective dimension is. If we're arguing about it, we already assume its existence, otherwise we are again comparing beetles when neither of us can see the other's, and there is nothing to debate. "This has never been tested so your claim is subjective and open to further investigation." A 'claim' cannot be subjective at all. If I make a statement I hold to be true, it can be wrong, but it cannot be subjective. When I say "the subjectivity of jokes cannot be confirmed" I am in no way reporting on a personal experience - I am stating that an objective reality exists. You seriously need to revise your definitions. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'And yet we believe truth to exist, and we pursue it. If science never holds anything to be "true" then that simply takes science out of the the game when we discuss objective truth' We're not discussing 'objective truth', we're discussing objectivity and subjectivity. We're dealing with probabilties. It appears to be the case that comedy is subjective. 'Then you don't believe in morality. Morality depends on the existence of right and wrong, truth and objectivity. Right and wrong cannot exist as subjectives. If something is right for one person, but wrong for another, then it cannot be said to be either right or wrong. Again, refer to the beetle in the box model. If people can only be aware of the size of their own beetle, they have no way of comparing it to the size of other beetles.' Morality depends on the existence of right and wrong relative to a species...it has no objective reality. A vampire bat sometimes gives up its blood to its familiar nest mate because they strike a deal to ensure their mutual survival in times of scarcity. It's not a conscious decision discussed and agreed over a beer, it's a deal struck over time and is selected by nature due to its survival value. You could class morality as the same, but without the 'human' bells and whistles. In that sense morality could serve as a selected as favourable because it protects all concerned. Morality in itself (what's right and wrong) when applied as a transcendental, pre-determined concept is contrived nonsense. You could agree on formulas for humour that become dependant on cultural/political/intellectual variables. You could agree on a formula for children (slapstick) and one for adults (satire, for example) but when all is said and done, at the end of the day, wat it all comes down to is the final appeal to a person's sense of humour - which cannot be formulated. Again, it depends on the subject. Hyper-reality is a fluffy place...for fluffy bunnies p.s. - I'm bowing out now - gonna browse for porn ;) There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett