The Tanager wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:57 pm
Allowing freedom is my default position. So, having no good reason against allowing freedom is a reason to allow freedom. But that was not visible in my wording, so let's update the phrasing:
I like people to have the freedom to make their ice cream choices based on their own subjective experience of ice cream flavors
because I believe personal freedom to be good and I think taste is a subjective feature of reality.
And why is allowing freedom is your default position? Point being, that looks an awful lot like a (C), your subjective experience, as opposed to a (B).
And I roll a different way. This doesn't answer the question, or, at least, not helpfully. It amounts to saying that we like people to have freedom in food taste because we like people to have freedom in food taste. That's the tautology I've brought up in the past. It doesn't explain why we like people to have freedom.
Looking for reasons in preference is a fool's errand. You've already accepted that ultimately there is no reasons months ago.
Yes, but coming to the should is distinct from following through with that should.
Okay, I can agree with that.
It's a "preference" in the same way "I think the Earth is spherical" is also a "preference." I'm trying to get at the difference between one's subjective experience of something and pronouncing a judgment on someone else's actions (or pronouncing a judgment on their own subjective experience, for that matter).
Wait, are you trying to differentiate merely judging someone in your mind, and the act of making that that judgment known? If so, then sure, one is a thought the other is an action. It's the same difference between thinking ice-cream is tasty, and saying it out loud. But there is no difference between one's subjective experience of something and one's judgment on someone else's actions (minus the pronouncing.)
Simple subjectivism covers that everyone has their own answer. Obj/Non-obj is about judging those answers. One can judge the answer on X (say, the belief that the shape of the Earth is an objective fact), judge it on not-X (the belief that the shape of the Earth is a subjective fact), judge it on Y (one's own subjective experience of reality), or not judge it at all and simply share one's own subjective experience of reality. But if you don't judge the other person's answer, if you don't judge their action, then you aren't doing Obj/Non-obj.
I agree with much of that, apart from the first bit. Simple subjectivism covers what everyone's own answer are, i.e. the content of their subjective experience. That everyone has their own answer where correctness does not apply, is judging those answers.
In post 552, you said that one should use "preferred" for this concept of "should". So, are you saying that "I prefer Johnny to eat the ice cream he likes" implies "Johnny prefers to eat the ice cream he likes"?
No, I said swap it for your concept of "correct." While Johnny does prefer to eat the ice cream he likes, it's not because I prefer Johnny to eat the ice cream he likes.
One is a specific example of the other.
And why is this significant? I asked what is
so different?
That kind of confusion is why "X is Y" isn't talking about "taste is subjective". (B) is coming to the conclusion that taste is subjective, it's not claiming that "taste is subjective" is itself subjective. If you allow that, then why not then talk about why "taste is subjective is subjective" is subjective or not?
What is the confusing here? We use different kind of reasoning for different claims. "Is taste is subjective?" has an objective answer based on an objective feature of reality, we use (A) type reasoning. Given that taste is subjective, we can use (B) type reasoning to come to conclusion such as "there is no correct answers to matters of taste." This isn't claiming "taste is subjective" is itself subjective.
The way you are using (B) sounds like circular reasoning, "taste is subjective" because "taste is a subjective feature of reality."
Then you are coming to a conclusion based on analyzing yourself alone, not reality outside of yourself. You are simply sharing your subjective experience of something. You are doing simple subjectivism, not non-objectivism.
Of course, I was speaking about (C) after all. Were you expecting anything else? This is me doing something more than share my subjective experience, doing non-objectivism: judgment, whether on ice-cream or people, is a subjective feature of reality, as such has no correct answer. (B).
It is not nonsensical for things outside of your subjective experience of reality to affect your belief on something. The actual shape of the Earth affects your "preference" on what the shape of the Earth is.
But I was talking about (C). As you said, when doing simple subjectivism, it doesn't matter because I am only going on your own inexplicable feeling and ignoring reality outside of oneself.
If you were a non-objectivist about the shape of the Earth, then that would affect your "preference" on what the shape of the Earth is, as well.
This bit I deny as nonsensical. (B) does not inform the content of one's subjective experience.
Hence you are only doing simple subjectivism, not non-objectivism.
Yes, we have established that all the way back in May. This is me doing non-objectivism: Correctness does not apply, Johnny is not correct/incorrect for abusing children, nor am I correct/incorrect for judging him wrong. Facts and argument is ultimately useless. Me and Johnny are not actually disagreeing in an important sense of the word "disagree."
I'm not meaning that. The subjective experience is "Bust Nak thinks Johnny is handsome." Susan looks at Johnny and has a different subjective experience: "Susan thinks Johnny is hideous." What is your judgment of Susan's subjective experience?
"Meh." AKA my subjective experience of Susan's subjective experience.
