Subjective vs Objective Theory of Value

[A is A]

After this last post it is evident the problem is not the language, he averts his consciousness from the concept.

Non sequitor.

"Subjective, subjective." See, I can have it in my consciousness.

If you wanted to discuss the Austrian usage, then you should have mentioned that. That is a delimited usage that still requires much clarification and justification. If we are talking about Austrian economics, then I have no problem with the term, as long as it is defined as the Austrians do and the term is not used outside that context. But you were not restricting yourself to that context. Also, there are many free market economists who disagree with that usage. Reismann's massive book, Capitalism, does not use the term. So, it is not necessary for free market economics, either.

Edited February 10, 2010 by A is A

[A is A]

Well if we cannot rely on emotions being true and reliable reporters about external reality, then knowing they have some cause is pretty useless for deciding what action to take. If the emotion itself is a problem or just a curious contradiction to what you otherwise think, then you ought think about the cause. Generally, you just try not to let the emotion distract from what is to be done.

---------------

If this is what you really hold about emotions, then I'd suggest more study of psychology. You seem to imply that emotions are things that distract, hinder, prevent, or negatively influence action. Well, that is not always the case, and for a rational person, rarely the case. Please tell me how you select a career if you don't enjoy what you are doing? What level or reasoning would make you become a chemist if you hated doing it or found it boring? If it doesn't make you feel happy, would you keep doing it because it is the "rational" thing to do? Please tell me anything in life that does not have emotions that accompany a particular action required to achieve one's values? When you go to a restaurant, do you say to yourself "this food looks repulsive but I'm going to eat it anyway since it has the proper nutrition"? And you say it "is pretty useless for deciding what action to take?" I beg to differ. There may be times when it is necessary to do something and one doesn't feel like doing it. Equally, there are times when one feels like doing something that one knows one shouldn't. Just as equally, there are times when one feels like doing something that one knows should be done, and one does it. But without reason and thinking about it, one's emotions may be providing information about a subconscious evaluation that is pertinent to the action that is required to be taken. So, far from being a distraction, emotions are facts about one's subconscious premises that need to be examined. In other words, emotions do tell you something about external reality: they tell you what your automatized evaluation of the facts are.

I enjoy the give-and-take of this forum, and no amount of rational argument will make me continue if I get bored with the subject.

[Grames]

In other words, emotions do tell you something about external reality: they tell you what your automatized evaluation of the facts are.

How can you possibly construe elements of your own consciousness as belonging to external reality? External to what? This is just absurd.

[A is A]

How can you possibly construe elements of your own consciousness as belonging to external reality? External to what? This is just absurd.

Huh???

The concept "table" inside my head refers to the objects that are tables in external reality. If I have a concept of "square" in my mind, the shape is from the objects I have perceived in external reality that are square. Read ITOE.

Edited February 10, 2010 by A is A

[Grames]

Huh???

The concept "table" inside my head refers to the objects that are tables in external reality. If I have a concept of "square" in my mind, the shape is from the objects I have perceived in external reality that are square.

The subject (there's that word again) under discussion is emotions, but you switched to examples that are first level concepts.

The referent of a simple concept is external to consciousness, but the concept itself is still inside your consciousness and part of it. Consciousness is constituted out of these contents, as well as its powers to perceive and remember, to calculate and to emote.

The pleasure you find in your favorite food, the satisfaction in practicing your career, these emotions are not things that even exist in external reality outside of consciousness. Nor are they abstractions about the concrete things that exist, those are concepts. Emotions are entirely internal, and they only signify thoughts you already have. Emotions inform you directly about your own consciousness, but only indirectly about external reality via some intermediary, automatized thought and evaluation.

Only perception gives any information about reality apart from consciousness. Emoting is not perceiving, the difference is that of output and input.

[A is A]

The subject (there's that word again) under discussion is emotions, but you switched to examples that are first level concepts.

The referent of a simple concept is external to consciousness, but the concept itself is still inside your consciousness and part of it. Consciousness is constituted out of these contents, as well as its powers to perceive and remember, to calculate and to emote.

The pleasure you find in your favorite food, the satisfaction in practicing your career, these emotions are not things that even exist in external reality outside of consciousness. Nor are they abstractions about the concrete things that exist, those are concepts. Emotions are entirely internal, and they only signify thoughts you already have. Emotions inform you directly about your own consciousness, but only indirectly about external reality via some intermediary, automatized thought and evaluation.

Only perception gives any information about reality apart from consciousness. Emoting is not perceiving, the difference is that of output and input.

Interesting principle: "reality apart from consciousness." What aspect of consciousness is not part of reality? "Only perception gives information about reality?" Hmmm. If I hadn't read that with my own eyes, I would find it hard to believe. When did you perceive electrons, atoms, the Milky Way, George Washington giving his farewell speech to Congress, Romeo and Juliet committing suicide, man evolving from previously existing species, evolution itself? Let's take an example. I see tables, chairs, sofas in a room and formulate the concept "furniture". After 10 years, things start to wear out in my house, and I decide I need to buy some new furniture, and I go to a furniture store, and I select sofas, tables and chairs. The furniture, which has no external reality apart from my mind, miraculously appears in my house when delivered.

Undoubtedly, concepts are "in here" and do not exist independently of consciousness, but not part of or in reality?

So "emotions inform you ... only indirectly about external reality." That's an improvement from "knowing they have some cause is pretty useless for deciding what action to take."

Your subjective theory amounts to "what happens in consciousness, stays in consciousness." Objectivity does not subscribe to that. Objectivity consists of conforming the contents of one's mind to reality, of insuring that the abstractions in one's mind refer to reality by the proper use of a method (logic: non-contradiction). If a concept (or any knowledge) has an objective referent in reality and the rules of logic were followed when the concept or knowledge was formed, then there is no objective justification for holding it as subjective just because the knowledge is "in here." Subjective, in any objective meaning of the term, implies that the laws of logic were not followed. Any other distinction is unjustified.

Edited February 10, 2010 by A is A

[Grames]

Interesting principle: "reality apart from consciousness." What aspect of consciousness is not part of reality?

You inverted the order without justification, and that is a problem because of the set-subset relation of existence and consciousness. The point is not that consciousness is outside of reality, but that the vast majority of reality is outside of consciousness. As an existent, consciousness is finite. Consciousness has limitations on its ability to perceive, remember, and the number of units it can deal with at once. For a volitional conceptual consciousness even the concepts comprehended have dubious correspondence with what actually exists unless a proper method is used.

"Only perception gives information about reality?" Hmmm. If I hadn't read that with my own eyes, I would find it hard to believe. When did you perceive electrons, atoms, the Milky Way, George Washington giving his farewell speech to Congress, Romeo and Juliet committing suicide, man evolving from previously existing species, evolution itself?

All of those abstractions are derivative of "the evidence of the senses". The point you attempt to make in this quote is not even consistent with the first quote. If some other means than perception gave information about reality it would necessarily be creating reality actively, because by definition all of the metaphysically passive means of detecting what exists fall under the concept of perception. A metaphysically active consciousness could well create its own private realm not part of reality, but you already doubt that is possible.

It is important to understand that logic does not create new information, it draws out explicitly what is already there in the premises implicitly. The only sense in which consciousness is active is epistemological.

Undoubtedly, concepts are "in here" and do not exist independently of consciousness, but not part of or in reality?

It is trivial to postulate referents that do not exist. An invalid concept is not of reality, that is what makes it invalid. If you try to read that statement as an insistence that some part of the brain flies off to another dimension when it makes a mistake, then you are failing to note the boundary between epistemology and metaphysics. But even valid concepts are entirely epistemological; to hold that a concept has some corresponding metaphysical essence is the problem with the "problem of universals" which Rand solved. (or rejected, depending upon perspective). If you equate reality with metaphysics, then equate consciousness with epistemology.

So "emotions inform you ... only indirectly about external reality." That's an improvement from "knowing they have some cause is pretty useless for deciding what action to take."

No its not, because the indirectness is fatal to any utility. Emotions are fast because they are automatic, but you really don't know if an emotional evaluation is consistent with a rational evaluation until you take the time to figure out the rational evaluation.

Subjective, in any objective meaning of the term, implies that the laws of logic were not followed. Any other distinction is unjustified.

Bullshit, but we've been over this and you are impenetrable. But even on your own terms, please describe how an emotion can be objective in the sense of following the laws of logic when what an emotion does is omit deliberative method entirely in favor of speed of response?

(Let me give you a hint: use an analogy to a lookup table. )