Philosophers think they know it all - they are never wrong.

This last part was hilarious =)

How about we just say that levels of usefullness, incluiding its total absence, are entirely subjective?

That is a nice solution, except that it makes the words "usefull" and "useless" entirely... oh gosh, useless! =)

2 Replies

@manored,

manored wrote:

This last part was hilarious =)

How about we just say that levels of usefullness, incluiding its total absence, are entirely subjective?

That is a nice solution, except that it makes the words "usefull" and "useless" entirely... oh gosh, useless! =)

How would that help? It is still true that what we think is useful depend on the circumstances. So whether we just think something is useful (subjective) or something is useful (objective) it doesn't matter since it depends on the circumstances either way.

0 Replies

@manored,

manored wrote:

This last part was hilarious =)

How about we just say that levels of usefullness, incluiding its total absence, are entirely subjective?

That is a nice solution, except that it makes the words "usefull" and "useless" entirely... oh gosh, useless! =)

I would have to describe usefulness as a value judgement, one man's trash is another man's treasure.

1 Reply

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

manored wrote:

This last part was hilarious =)

How about we just say that levels of usefullness, incluiding its total absence, are entirely subjective?

That is a nice solution, except that it makes the words "usefull" and "useless" entirely... oh gosh, useless! =)

I would have to describe usefulness as a value judgement, one man's trash is another man's treasure.

It is a value judgment. But that does not make it "subjective" (whatever that may mean) as you imply. After all, to pick up on your analogy, just because one person may believe something is trash, and a different person may believe the same thing is a treasure, does not mean that there is no fact of the matter, and that one of those persons may not be right, and the other person be wrong. What someone believes is true is subjective (in one of the meanings of that term) but that does not mean that what he believes what is true. I may believe that an oil well is treasure, and you may believe that an oil well is trash. But whether an oil well is trash or treasure will be decided not by what we believe but by the market place. In the same way, I may believe that (say) a tool is useless since I don't understand how to use that tool. But you (who understand how to use the tool) may believe the tool is useful. And, you will be right, and I will be wrong.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

wayne wrote:

manored wrote:

This last part was hilarious =)

How about we just say that levels of usefullness, incluiding its total absence, are entirely subjective?

That is a nice solution, except that it makes the words "usefull" and "useless" entirely... oh gosh, useless! =)

I would have to describe usefulness as a value judgement, one man's trash is another man's treasure.

It is a value judgment. But that does not make it "subjective" (whatever that may mean) as you imply. After all, to pick up on your analogy, just because one person may believe something is trash, and a different person may believe the same thing is a treasure, does not mean that there is no fact of the matter, and that one of those persons may not be right, and the other person be wrong. What someone believes is true is subjective (in one of the meanings of that term) but that does not mean that what he believes what is true. I may believe that an oil well is treasure, and you may believe that an oil well is trash. But whether an oil well is trash or treasure will be decided not by what we believe but by the market place. In the same way, I may believe that (say) a tool is useless since I don't understand how to use that tool. But you (who understand how to use the tool) may believe the tool is useful. And, you will be right, and I will be wrong.

Not subjective? did you invent the Useometer or something?

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

It means that academic departments can and often are fraught with anger.

I don't know about departments of philosophy, but I do know about english departments and medicine departments.

The significance to this thread is that people argue for many reasons.

Pontification happens, is routinely resented, and further engagement ensues.

You'd like me to leave this thread?

Why on earth do you want to chase me away for saying all this stuff can be dramatic?

Philosophers, I take as people who pride themselves on thinking. I listen to some.

Oh, and I lived it.

Why should anyone want you to leave this thread? But I, for one, would like you to make sense.

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

wayne wrote:

manored wrote:

This last part was hilarious =)

How about we just say that levels of usefullness, incluiding its total absence, are entirely subjective?

That is a nice solution, except that it makes the words "usefull" and "useless" entirely... oh gosh, useless! =)

I would have to describe usefulness as a value judgement, one man's trash is another man's treasure.

It is a value judgment. But that does not make it "subjective" (whatever that may mean) as you imply. After all, to pick up on your analogy, just because one person may believe something is trash, and a different person may believe the same thing is a treasure, does not mean that there is no fact of the matter, and that one of those persons may not be right, and the other person be wrong. What someone believes is true is subjective (in one of the meanings of that term) but that does not mean that what he believes what is true. I may believe that an oil well is treasure, and you may believe that an oil well is trash. But whether an oil well is trash or treasure will be decided not by what we believe but by the market place. In the same way, I may believe that (say) a tool is useless since I don't understand how to use that tool. But you (who understand how to use the tool) may believe the tool is useful. And, you will be right, and I will be wrong.

Not subjective? did you invent the Useometer or something?

I don't need a meter of any kind to know that hammers are useful for pounding nails into wood, but that a banana is not. Why would anyone need a meter to know that?

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

wayne wrote:

manored wrote:

This last part was hilarious =)

How about we just say that levels of usefullness, incluiding its total absence, are entirely subjective?

That is a nice solution, except that it makes the words "usefull" and "useless" entirely... oh gosh, useless! =)

I would have to describe usefulness as a value judgement, one man's trash is another man's treasure.

It is a value judgment. But that does not make it "subjective" (whatever that may mean) as you imply. After all, to pick up on your analogy, just because one person may believe something is trash, and a different person may believe the same thing is a treasure, does not mean that there is no fact of the matter, and that one of those persons may not be right, and the other person be wrong. What someone believes is true is subjective (in one of the meanings of that term) but that does not mean that what he believes what is true. I may believe that an oil well is treasure, and you may believe that an oil well is trash. But whether an oil well is trash or treasure will be decided not by what we believe but by the market place. In the same way, I may believe that (say) a tool is useless since I don't understand how to use that tool. But you (who understand how to use the tool) may believe the tool is useful. And, you will be right, and I will be wrong.

Not subjective? did you invent the Useometer or something?

I don't need a meter of any kind to know that hammers are useful for pounding nails into wood, but that a banana is not. Why would anyone need a meter to know that?

Welcome to another episode of Kenethamy King of the Inept Analog.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

wayne wrote:

manored wrote:

This last part was hilarious =)

How about we just say that levels of usefullness, incluiding its total absence, are entirely subjective?

That is a nice solution, except that it makes the words "usefull" and "useless" entirely... oh gosh, useless! =)

I would have to describe usefulness as a value judgement, one man's trash is another man's treasure.

It is a value judgment. But that does not make it "subjective" (whatever that may mean) as you imply. After all, to pick up on your analogy, just because one person may believe something is trash, and a different person may believe the same thing is a treasure, does not mean that there is no fact of the matter, and that one of those persons may not be right, and the other person be wrong. What someone believes is true is subjective (in one of the meanings of that term) but that does not mean that what he believes what is true. I may believe that an oil well is treasure, and you may believe that an oil well is trash. But whether an oil well is trash or treasure will be decided not by what we believe but by the market place. In the same way, I may believe that (say) a tool is useless since I don't understand how to use that tool. But you (who understand how to use the tool) may believe the tool is useful. And, you will be right, and I will be wrong.

Not subjective? did you invent the Useometer or something?

I don't need a meter of any kind to know that hammers are useful for pounding nails into wood, but that a banana is not. Why would anyone need a meter to know that?

Welcome to another episode of Kenethamy King of the Inept Analog.

Eh. Can you explain what is inept about it (I assume you mean "analogy" not "analog"). It seems to me right on the button. Or don't you think that it is objectively true that hammers are more useful for banging in nails than are ripe bananas? Most people would. In fact, any sane person would. Saying that a judgment of utility is a value judgment may be true, for all I know. But if it is, then some value judgments are objectively true. Unless you think (and here comes another what you call "analog") that watches that keep the correct time are not more useful than watches that are always slow or fast. "This is a very useful watch. It doesn't keep time very well. But it is useful, all the same".

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

wayne wrote:

manored wrote:

This last part was hilarious =)

How about we just say that levels of usefullness, incluiding its total absence, are entirely subjective?

That is a nice solution, except that it makes the words "usefull" and "useless" entirely... oh gosh, useless! =)

I would have to describe usefulness as a value judgement, one man's trash is another man's treasure.

It is a value judgment. But that does not make it "subjective" (whatever that may mean) as you imply. After all, to pick up on your analogy, just because one person may believe something is trash, and a different person may believe the same thing is a treasure, does not mean that there is no fact of the matter, and that one of those persons may not be right, and the other person be wrong. What someone believes is true is subjective (in one of the meanings of that term) but that does not mean that what he believes what is true. I may believe that an oil well is treasure, and you may believe that an oil well is trash. But whether an oil well is trash or treasure will be decided not by what we believe but by the market place. In the same way, I may believe that (say) a tool is useless since I don't understand how to use that tool. But you (who understand how to use the tool) may believe the tool is useful. And, you will be right, and I will be wrong.

Not subjective? did you invent the Useometer or something?

I don't need a meter of any kind to know that hammers are useful for pounding nails into wood, but that a banana is not. Why would anyone need a meter to know that?

Welcome to another episode of Kenethamy King of the Inept Analog.

Eh. Can you explain what is inept about it (I assume you mean "analogy" not "analog"). It seems to me right on the button. Or don't you think that it is objectively true that hammers are more useful for banging in nails than are ripe bananas? Most people would. In fact, any sane person would. Saying that a judgment of utility is a value judgment may be true, for all I know. But if it is, then some value judgments are objectively true. Unless you think (and here comes another what you call "analog") that watches that keep the correct time are not more useful than watches that are always slow or fast. "This is a very useful watch. It doesn't keep time very well. But it is useful, all the same".

You would assume wrong as usual
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/analogue
an·a·logue also an·a·log (n-lôg, -lg)
n.
1. Something that bears an analogy to something else: Surimi is marketed as an analogue of crabmeat.
2. Something analogous to something else.

You talking about your banana hammer as equal to something that measures something.
Problem 1) There was no analogous no equation with you knowing something and you measuring something. You knowing something would be subjective. You Measuring something would be objective. So after arguing for objectivity you you claim to know something that can only be subjective.

Problem 2) You have a knack for the ad absurdum. Swinging your verbal banana hammer around the forum is absurd, for someone who prides himself in logic maybe you would notice that people who actually use it for more than a rhetorical persuasion device shy away from the absurd analogs simply because they tend to be used by the less logically reputable rhetoriticians (politicians, ad companies, marketers, people backed into a corner who have no idea what they are talking about but refuse to "stop beating the dead horse', Fox News) in our society and they tend to make very inaccurate direct analogs i.e. your bananahammer analog.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

You talking about your banana hammer as equal to something that measures something.

[/quote]

I certainly was not doing that. I drawing the analogy between using a hammer to bang in nails, and using a banana to bang in nails, and I was pointing out that there is no sane person who would think that a banana was as useful as a hammer for banging in nails. And I concluded that it was an objective fact that a hammer is more useful for banging in nails than a (ripe ) banana. Don't you believe that? So you have the analogy I was making all cockeyed.

Next: I don't know whether a judgment about utility (that means usefulness) is a value judgment (you seem to know about such things, but I don't claim to know whether it is a value judgment or not). But I will present this argument.

Since, as I have shown with my analogy between a hammer and a banana (not between a hammer and a measuring instrument) (and also my analogy between a watch that keeps good time, and a watch that does not keep good time) judgments about utility can be objective judgments.
It then follows (are you keeping up?) that some value judgments are objective judgments.

More formally:
1. All judgments about utility are value judgments (that's what you maintain)
2. But some judgments about utility are objective judgments. (My examples of the hammer vs the banana, and the two watches)

Therefore, 3. Some value judgments are objective judgments. QED.

If you disagree with the conclusion of the above argument, then you must either think that the argument is invalid, or that one (or more) of the premises is false.
The argument is obviously valid.

Therefore, if you reject the conclusion, you must reject either 1. or 2. above. But 1. is what you maintain is true, and 2. has been shown true by my two examples of judgments of utility that are objective judgments. So, on what grounds do you reject the conclusion?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Then my appologies about what you weren't doing

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

I don't need a meter of any kind to know that hammers are useful for pounding nails into wood, but that a banana is not. Why would anyone need a meter to know that?

What if the hammer is too heavy to be lifted? I dont think "A hammer is more usefull than a banana at pounding nails into wood" is universally applicable, nor any such statement.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

Then my appologies about what you weren't doing

How about your apologies for thinking I was doing what I was not doing, and not having a clue about what was doing. Aren't you concerned about you inability to follow a simple argument?

1 Reply

@manored,

manored wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

I don't need a meter of any kind to know that hammers are useful for pounding nails into wood, but that a banana is not. Why would anyone need a meter to know that?

What if the hammer is too heavy to be lifted? I dont think "A hammer is more usefull than a banana at pounding nails into wood" is universally applicable, nor any such statement.

The average hammer is more useful for pounding in nails than the average banana (or even the unaverage banana). And a watch that keeps time is more useful than a watch that doesn't keep time. What is subjective about either statement? They are just obviously (objectively) true. (Can you imagine any banana being useful for pounding nails? What is the point of arguing just for the sake of argument, and disputing what you know to be true just for the sake of disputation)?

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

GoshisDead wrote:

Then my appologies about what you weren't doing

How about your apologies for thinking I was doing what I was not doing, and not having a clue about what was doing. Aren't you concerned about you inability to follow a simple argument?

We'll see about that when you finally put together a coherent argument, and/or a comprehensible analogy.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

wayne wrote:

manored wrote:

This last part was hilarious =)

How about we just say that levels of usefullness, incluiding its total absence, are entirely subjective?

That is a nice solution, except that it makes the words "usefull" and "useless" entirely... oh gosh, useless! =)

I would have to describe usefulness as a value judgement, one man's trash is another man's treasure.

It is a value judgment. But that does not make it "subjective" (whatever that may mean) as you imply. After all, to pick up on your analogy, just because one person may believe something is trash, and a different person may believe the same thing is a treasure, does not mean that there is no fact of the matter, and that one of those persons may not be right, and the other person be wrong. What someone believes is true is subjective (in one of the meanings of that term) but that does not mean that what he believes what is true. I may believe that an oil well is treasure, and you may believe that an oil well is trash. But whether an oil well is trash or treasure will be decided not by what we believe but by the market place. In the same way, I may believe that (say) a tool is useless since I don't understand how to use that tool. But you (who understand how to use the tool) may believe the tool is useful. And, you will be right, and I will be wrong.

I'm not sure if you are saying that the quality of usefulness is objective or not.
I see no reason not to think that both observers can be right.
Usefulness is imparted to the tool by the observer. The marketplace is a group of observers which imparts the value to the oil well.
I can't say as far as subjective is concerned but I would venture to say that usefulness is relative to the observer.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

manored wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

I don't need a meter of any kind to know that hammers are useful for pounding nails into wood, but that a banana is not. Why would anyone need a meter to know that?

What if the hammer is too heavy to be lifted? I dont think "A hammer is more usefull than a banana at pounding nails into wood" is universally applicable, nor any such statement.

The average hammer is more useful for pounding in nails than the average banana (or even the unaverage banana). And a watch that keeps time is more useful than a watch that doesn't keep time. What is subjective about either statement? They are just obviously (objectively) true. (Can you imagine any banana being useful for pounding nails? What is the point of arguing just for the sake of argument, and disputing what you know to be true just for the sake of disputation)?

I'm not sure what it is, but when you place adverbs with usefulness it creates some sort of error, or illusion. May be it's the assumption of usefulness implied in the statement. If usefulness is a value judgement, which I think it is, any statement assuming usefulness is subjective, is it not?
I find a watch that runs slow to be more useful. Handy excuse for tardiness.

1 Reply

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

manored wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

I don't need a meter of any kind to know that hammers are useful for pounding nails into wood, but that a banana is not. Why would anyone need a meter to know that?

What if the hammer is too heavy to be lifted? I dont think "A hammer is more usefull than a banana at pounding nails into wood" is universally applicable, nor any such statement.

The average hammer is more useful for pounding in nails than the average banana (or even the unaverage banana). And a watch that keeps time is more useful than a watch that doesn't keep time. What is subjective about either statement? They are just obviously (objectively) true. (Can you imagine any banana being useful for pounding nails? What is the point of arguing just for the sake of argument, and disputing what you know to be true just for the sake of disputation)?

I'm not sure what it is, but when you place adverbs with usefulness it creates some sort of error, or illusion. May be it's the assumption of usefulness implied in the statement. If usefulness is a value judgement, which I think it is, any statement assuming usefulness is subjective, is it not?
I find a watch that runs slow to be more useful. Handy excuse for tardiness.

It is because he uses a comparative with no direct measurement (more useful), which may be 'true' per the average use of a hammer but it is by no means objective. the very use of the modifier belies any chance of objectivity by placing it directly in the realm of personal opinion with the word more. Flesh out the sentence and it becomes (My assumption of the average use of a hammer in most situations in which a hammer is used means that it is in my opinion a hammer more useful to complete task for which a hammer is commonly used than a banana is).

This sentence is necessarily true given that it is his subjective opinion, insofar as it is true that it is his opinion. It being also generally true cannot make it an objective statement as he has no way to credibly objectify it in the context of his analogy, as analogies being extended metaphors are in essence language devices used to explain something in an empathetic way by relating seemingly unrelated concepts. This is the reason one does not see analogies in most scientific journals that aren't also accompanied with hard measurable data. Although the analogy may represent the data, the data never represents the analogy as the analogy is a rhetorical device subjective to the creativity of the speaker.

Basically he is trying to claim that his opinion embodies objectivity. and that it can be found in a metaphor of his creation.

Now if he actually had a meter of some kind he may be able to claim some sort of real objectivity. Until then he is relating his subjective opinion. Hammer a nail with a banana while Benny Hill music is playing and all of the sudden an actual hammer doesn't seem so useful.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

I knew something was wrong, just couldn't get my finger on it.

1 Reply

Philosophers think they know it all - they are never wrong.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know