Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Jose

Can’t find a way to take a decision using just objective criteria)))

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Why don't you like them?  What is it about them that  you don't like?

The example above is better. Is a person that you don’t want to see, why? Something 100% subjective someone that you have a crush on but you are in a relationship hat you do not want to endanger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Consider how consuming peanut butter might be a value to you, but to someone else it's a threat to their life. Even when you have something that is valuable to everyone equally, it's valuable to each one in particular based on the particular relationship of that particular value to the particular person.

I’m not saying that everybody needs to have the same behavior to be Objective. Everyone will agree that “if you have a life treating alergia to a type or food you should not eat it” but no on “you should not see a person that you have a crus on”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jose said:

Yes is a fact... but that does not made it objective is a subjective fact.

Jose, I get the impression that you are only beginning to become familiar with Objectivism. It's important to make the distinction between Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and objectivity, an evaluation based on fact, evidence, or reasonable evaluation. To be objective is the contradiction of being subjective.  While I'm sure you know this, I offer these definitions as part of my answer to the seemingly difficult question: Which restaurant is better for me?

I think the term, subjective fact, is a contradiction in terms. Subjective preferences are mainly matters of personal taste and emotions. No one that I know of would argue that sharp cheddar cheese is better than Parmesan.Two people may express their personal/subjective preference for one over the other. They might argue that one belongs on a taco and the other on spaghetti, but only you, the individual, may decide what is best for you. Indeed, it is subjective. You may want more cheese, less cheese, or no cheese at all. You may be trying to lose weight, or a dozen other reason may influence your very subjective decision of eating preferences, (assuming, as earlier mentioned, that you are not choosing poison.) But this has very little, if anything, to do with Objectivism. 

Regardless as to which restaurant you choose, the choice will be a subjective choice, unless there is a danger specific to your well-being that may inhibit you from patronizing one of the two restaurants. If any danger exists, the choice is based on the objective choice that you may be harmed in some way. This would be a common sense decision, arrived at with or without ever having ever heard of Objectivism. Values are very much part of the understanding of Objectivism. One must decide for oneself the values that will fulfill one's happiness. Bon appetite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jose said:

I’m not saying that everybody needs to have the same behavior to be Objective.

Awesome. Then you should agree that a person can choose either restaurant A or restaurant B and still be objective, because in your scenario reason tells us that there is no objective difference between one or the other. Even if he chooses the restaurant that he dislikes, he's still being objective, because his negative feeling is discounted as an irrelevant fact.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Repairman said:

Regardless as to which restaurant you choose, the choice will be a subjective

So all choices are Subjective. So there is no way to make an objective desicion

Edited by Jose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

Awesome. Then you should agree that a person can choose either restaurant A or restaurant B and still be objective, because in your scenario reason tells us that there is no objective difference between one or the other. Even if he chooses the restaurant that he dislikes, he's still being objective, because his negative feeling is discounted as an irrelevant fact.

Yes but he might go to where he does not want to go. In order for going to the one he likes have to use subjectivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

It was just a minor detail that had been neglected to be mentioned in the more elaborate example.

It are against the law, or there is one but that person is working as a sign holder, pick the one you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jose said:

Yes but he might go to where he does not want to go. In order for going to the one he likes have to use subjectivity.

That doesn't matter. As your topic title makes clear, we're only interested in "making a decision using just objective criteria." The subjective criteria is irrelevant. It should have no bearing on where we decide to go for lunch.

I'm pretty sure that's checkmate. I'm not going to let you cheat and change the rules mid-game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jose,  judging by your responses to this exchange, it appears that you're somehow determined to demonstrate that objectivity can't exist. Am I wrong?

2 hours ago, Jose said:

So all choices are Subjective. So there is no way to make an objective desicion

I can't help noticing that you spell, "Subjective," as if it were related somehow to a specific religion or philosophical school of thought. And yet, in the following sentence, the word, "objective," is not capitalized, suggesting that we're not discussing Objectivism as all. But to address your reply to my comment: No, there is no objectivity necessary when making a subjective decision. Is going a restaurant an objective choice? Yes, if you wish it to be. However, wishing is a subjective practice. You may choose to overwhelm yourself with internal conflict over where to conduct your dining.  But, anyone who complicates their life with such indecision is loosing the opportunity to live freely. You are a slave to indecision. You are not pursuing Objectivist standards. If you wish to make an objective decision, make clear your criterion with regard to your intended end result before deciding o your conclusion.

I clearly did not say that "all choices are subjective." You took that portion of words out of context from the entire statement. Was that intentional? Are we discussing Objectivism, or are you merely trolling?

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

That doesn't matter. As your topic title makes clear, we're only interested in "making a decision using just objective criteria." The subjective criteria is irrelevant. It should have no bearing on where we decide to go for lunch.

I'm pretty sure that's checkmate. I'm not going to let you cheat and change the rules mid-game.

The problem is that Rand’s philosophy is based on reaching decision just Objective criteria, and my understanding of Subjective is not Objective (I try to get a definition of Objective so we talk about the same thing without success). If it is easier to you read not Objective where it said Subjective.

Edited by Jose
Fix typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Repairman said:

Jose,  judging by your responses to this exchange, it appears that you're somehow determined to demonstrate that objectivity can't exist. Am I wrong?

My question is that there is at least one scenario were Subjective (defined as non-objective) could exist.

1 hour ago, Repairman said:

can't help noticing that you spell, "Subjective," as if it were related somehow to a specific religion or philosophical school of thought. And yet, in the following sentence, the word, "objective," is not capitalized, suggesting that we're not discussing Objectivism as all. But to address your reply to my comment: No, there is no objectivity necessary when making a subjective decision. Is going a restaurant an objective choice? Yes, if you wish it to be. However, wishing is a subjective practice. You may choose to overwhelm yourself with internal conflict over where to conduct your dining.  But, anyone who complicates their life with such indecision is loosing the opportunity to live freely. You are a slave to indecision. You are not pursuing Objectivist standards. If you wish to make an objective decision, make clear your criterion with regard to your intended end result before deciding o your conclusion.

The capitalization is due to autocorrection, don’t read to much to it.

 

1 hour ago, Repairman said:

clearly did not say that "all choices are subjective." You took that portion of words out of context from the entire statement. Was that intentional? Are we discussing Objectivism, or are you merely trolling?

But what you said is contrary to Rand’s thesis that we could use just Objective criteria to make decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Jose said:

But what you said is contrary to Rand’s thesis that we could use just Objective criteria to make decisions.

Can you provide evidence that proves of this statement?

Edited by Repairman
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Jose said:

But what you said is contrary to Rand’s thesis that we could use just Objective criteria to make decisions.

This coming from someone who wants objective defined, presumably to make an effort to not understand it as well. 

You are certainly welcome to prove me wrong. It may be instructive for someone who wants to go through that exercise. 

Repairman made a rather generous response in the long paragraph you cited and brushed aside with "don't read too much to [sic] it."

 

A coworker who introduced me to The Ayn Rand Lexicon (he had it sitting atop his drafting board) once express that there is value to be had in all experience. My Sensei in a martial art echoed something similar. You can even learn something from the wino sleeping/living on the park bench: he can serve as an example of how not to be.

As for a definition of "objective" there are plenty of online dictionaries to avail yourself to for a starting point

 

(Singling out Repairman is not intended to diminish the efforts put forth by StrictlyLogical, 2046, MisterSwig, softwareNerd, or DougMorris.)

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From page 117 of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Chapter 4—Objectivity, Leonard Piekoff wrote:

Thus we reach Ayn Rand's view of objectivity, which is a derivative of her theory of concepts. Here, in my own words, is her definition. To be "objective" in one's conceptual activities is volitionally to adhere to reality by following certain rules of method, a method based on facts and appropriate to man's form of cognition.

(Leonard Piekoff's wording of Ayn Rand's definition of objective.)

You're welcome, by the way.

('76 Lectures on Objectivism, presented by Leonard Piekoff)

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

This coming from someone who wants objective defined, presumably to make an effort to not understand it as well. 

 

If we are talking about something that we do not agree on the definition is to start with one if I do not understanding is your work to reexplaining it to me. My definition of Objectivity is 1 1 of https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective and Subjective all that is not Objective

2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

As for a definition of "objective" there are plenty of online dictionaries to avail yourself to for a starting point

And I use it and it prove my point.

2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Repairman made a rather generous response in the long paragraph you cited and brushed aside with "don't read too much to [sic] it."

And I did not understand it or do not address my question.

Edited by Jose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Repairman said:

Can you provide evidence that proves of this statement?

Yes.

1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

Thus we reach Ayn Rand's view of objectivity, which is a derivative of her theory of concepts. Here, in my own words, is her definition. To be "objective" in one's conceptual activities is volitionally to adhere to reality by following certain rules of method, a method based on facts and appropriate to man's form of cognition.

Done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

From page 117 of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Chapter 4—Objectivity, Leonard Piekoff wrote:

Thus we reach Ayn Rand's view of objectivity, which is a derivative of her theory of concepts. Here, in my own words, is her definition. To be "objective" in one's conceptual activities is volitionally to adhere to reality by following certain rules of method, a method based on facts and appropriate to man's form of cognition.

(Leonard Piekoff's wording of Ayn Rand's definition of objective.)

You're welcome, by the way.

('76 Lectures on Objectivism, presented by Leonard Piekoff)

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jose, if anyone here does not understand or addresses your questions or responses in terms you understand, you have a comprehension problem, not anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jose said:

But what you said is contrary to Rand’s thesis that we could use just Objective criteria to make decisions.

Jose, you are misinformed. Objectivism is not a decision-making process. It is a philosophy. You appear to understand only that Objectivism is some sort of algorithmic solution to every decision. It is not. In your reply, you made no argument. You merely used other people's quotes as a substitute for an argument. You have no argument. You are evading the accusation of trolling. The use of an objective criteria might serve to solve a mathematical problem in binary code, as for some form of artificial intelligence, but I have to assume that you are human. Therefore, subjectivity will inevitably enter your decision-making process at some moment in your life. Ayn Rand did not intend for anyone to spend hours of their life painfully trying to decide where to eat. There is nothing contradictory in my statement; neither is there any contradiction to Objectivism. If you were to do some research for yourself, you would find that your premises of Ayn Rand's thesis are wrong.

So, are you trolling? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Repairman said:

Jose, if anyone here does not understand or addresses your questions or responses in terms you understand, you have a comprehension problem, not anyone else.

Good that you are not a teacher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Repairman said:

Jose, you are misinformed. Objectivism is not a decision-making process. It is a philosophy. You appear to understand only that Objectivism is some sort of algorithmic solution to every decision. It is not. In your reply, you made no argument. You merely used other people's quotes as a substitute for an argument. You have no argument. You are evading the accusation of trolling. The use of an objective criteria might serve to solve a mathematical problem in binary code, as for some form of artificial intelligence, but I have to assume that you are human. Therefore, subjectivity will inevitably enter your decision-making process at some moment in your life. Ayn Rand did not intend for anyone to spend hours of their life painfully trying to decide where to eat. There is nothing contradictory in my statement; neither is there any contradiction to Objectivism. If you were to do some research for yourself, you would find that your premises of Ayn Rand's thesis are wrong.

 

I never claim that it was a desiring making criaturita, it’s a way of life and decision making is part of life.

 

1 hour ago, Repairman said:

So, are you trolling

No, you? I just want to understand the philosophy better. As far as I understand it being Objective is a fundamental part of Rand’s philosophy, what are the limits of her claim? Given that my understanding is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...