The Tanager wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:17 pm
I like to believe things that make sense to me. I can't imagine believing something that doesn't make sense. Understand everything about it, no, but it's got to not be against sense.
Not making sense is not the same thing as against sense. Recall the conversation we have where you tried to explain why you like certain piece of music, re: rhythm, melody and lyrics? You acknowledged that I can keep pushing you to explain further and further, eventually you would be stuck with "I just like it, it's how I roll, taste is in the eye of the beholder." That is believing something that doesn't make sense, you don't need to imagine it, as you've already experienced it.
I don't think you have been appealing to pure taste in this thread. You have said you are against people teaching flat earth theory, at least in part, because it goes against objective truth. That's going beyond pure taste.
I said I am against people teaching flat earth theory, because
I don't like it when people goes against objective truth. That's pure taste in the sense that there is no new information, I am saying the same thing twice, "I don't like it because I don't like it" that you argued for before.
That Earth shape is grounded to an objective feature of reality is involved ("like-plus") in the same way the rhythm is involved in music preference ("like" plus rhythm.) The liking part is the same, the thing being liked is different.
Do you agree that music taste is pure taste? I supposed you can argue whether music taste is really pure taste or not, suffice to say, I treat allowing flat Earth the same way I treat music taste, the same way I treat ice-cream taste.
If you are here saying that your views on religious beliefs, however, are purely on taste, then that just doesn't make sense. Why are religious beliefs pure taste, but people teaching flat earth theory not?
Both are pure taste. (Or at least as much taste as each other.)
If you are now clarifying that even that is just pure taste for you and has nothing to do with the Earth's shape being an objective reality, then you aren't addressing the issue objectivism/subjectivism addresses at all; you are simply sharing your views, i.e., simple subjectivism.
I can affirming I am definitely doing simple subjectivism but why not both? From what you said last week, I was under the impression that "I like the objective truth" is a "like-plus" which is objectivism/subjectivism proper?