Jaded Sage wrote:
Happiness. Isn't that what you meant? If not, what were you saying?
"So happiness is subjective"
Whenever subject and object are used you need a context. The word itself can be neither; its what you mean by it in any given circumstance.
So for example, people often say art is subjective, but they do not always add the 'appreciation of the value" of art, is what they really mean.
In the case of happiness, it is a thing experienced by many but to place a quantitative value on it could never be objective.
Jaded Sage wrote:
Happiness. Isn't that what you meant? If not, what were you saying?
"So happiness is subjective"
Whenever subject and object are used you need a context. The word itself can be neither; its what you mean by it in any given circumstance.
So for example, people often say art is subjective, but they do not always add the 'appreciation of the value" of art, is what they really mean.
In the case of happiness, it is a thing experienced by many but to place a quantitative value on it could never be objective.
Aren't you the one who brought subjectivity into the conversation? Or did I because I spoke about objectivity?
Also is quantitativeness the only form of objectivity?
Jaded Sage wrote:
Happiness. Isn't that what you meant? If not, what were you saying?
"So happiness is subjective"
Whenever subject and object are used you need a context. The word itself can be neither; its what you mean by it in any given circumstance.
So for example, people often say art is subjective, but they do not always add the 'appreciation of the value" of art, is what they really mean.
In the case of happiness, it is a thing experienced by many but to place a quantitative value on it could never be objective.
Aren't you the one who brought subjectivity into the conversation? Or did I because I spoke about objectivity?
Also is quantitativeness the only form of objectivity?
Obviously subjective and objective imply the existence of one another.
Any claim about objectivity relates to values of one kind or another.
In order to establish objective proof of something being located in a given place (or residing in a person), you have to first define that something and then describe its identifying manifestations. Unless it`s a discreet thing that comes in a single form, you would also need to establish a unit of measure to quantify it.
For example, a hat doesn`t need to be measured to qualify as a hat. Once we have defined `hat' and know what to look for, we can tell whether someone is wearing a hat or not. To tell whether they are drunk or not, we have to define drunkenness as an excess of alcohol consumption and then quantify in some units how much alcohol constitutes 'excess'.
Skip wrote:In order to establish objective proof of something being located in a given place (or residing in a person), you have to first define that something and then describe its identifying manifestations. Unless it`s a discreet thing that comes in a single form, you would also need to establish a unit of measure to quantify it.
For example, a hat doesn`t need to be measured to qualify as a hat. Once we have defined `hat' and know what to look for, we can tell whether someone is wearing a hat or not. To tell whether they are drunk or not, we have to define drunkenness as an excess of alcohol consumption and then quantify in some units how much alcohol constitutes 'excess'.
Your example is not relevant to objectivity, because a hat is not a value. In observing a hat if I were also called upon to comment on it objectively I'd be required to judge it in a non biased way. Otherwise its just a fucking hat.
Of course. All we are proving is that a hat 1. exists and 2. is worn by person A. We don't need to evaluate it or judge it in any way in order to establish those two things.
Whereas happiness, you cannot show objectively as being present in any particular person, because it is not an object. Therefore, it needs to be detected by subjective descriptions and measurements as compared to its absence or its various alternatives.
Jaded Sage wrote:How does it feel to know that your absence makes this forum a better place? I won't give up on you yet though. WHY do you say this is stupid? Is happiness stupid? Is the answer to the original question too obvious? Back up your claim. Explain yourself as you would a child—that is what they teach us to do at the university level. Why do you say this is stupid?
You constantly ask questions that you intuitivly should be able to answer youself, you are like a computer that can only understand what others programs it to understand, you lack very basic cognitive abilities.
Jaded Sage wrote:How does it feel to know that your absence makes this forum a better place? I won't give up on you yet though. WHY do you say this is stupid? Is happiness stupid? Is the answer to the original question too obvious? Back up your claim. Explain yourself as you would a child—that is what they teach us to do at the university level. Why do you say this is stupid?
You constantly ask questions that you intuitivly should be able to answer youself, you are like a computer that can only understand what others programs it to understand, you lack very basic cognitive abilities.
It's just a different style.
You say this is not philosophy. What is your definition of philosophy?
HexHammer wrote:My definition is the same as the dictionary, see you ask utterly stupid questions.
What dictionary? What does it say specifically?
See, you are sooo haplessly stupid that you can't look it up you self, you need others as an external brain, because you have a dysfunctional one you self, that's why you must rely on others to do very very basic thinking for you, because you can't do any thinking by you self.
HexHammer wrote:My definition is the same as the dictionary, see you ask utterly stupid questions.
What dictionary? What does it say specifically?
See, you are sooo haplessly stupid that you can't look it up you self, you need others as an external brain, because you have a dysfunctional one you self, that's why you must rely on others to do very very basic thinking for you, because you can't do any thinking by you self.
