2 hours ago, Jose said:
You do not like the chairs of the restaurant … yes is arbitrary but that is the whole point it is any subjective criteria.
Why don’t you like them? What is it about them that you don’t like?
It can be a subjective reaction on Mr. Smith’s part to dislike spinach, and at the same time an objective fact that he dislikes it.
2 hours ago, Jose said:
5 hours ago, MisterSwig said:
you don’t understand that values are relational to the valuer.
Any pointer to start understanding this.
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.
5 hours ago, Jose said:
You do not like the chairs of the restaurant … yes is arbitrary but that is the whole point it is any subjective criteria.
As stated, this has already moved toward being completely arbitrary, to being a potentially objective. “Objective” here means that one considers the the facts about the restaurant and about yourself. For instance, maybe the chairs are average size, but you’re a big person and the other restaurant has oversized chairs.
And, that’s not to say you will always know your reasons… perhaps the chairs are upholstered in yellow, and you just hate the look. Yes, one can spend the time introspecting where your tastes come from, and whether they make sense…but, given that you have those taste, the decision to avoid the yellow chairs is still objective. Objective does not mean right/correct… because one could be using incorrect facts about either the object or the subject… It just means considering both those aspects.
1 Like
5 hours ago, Jose said:
Yes is a fact… but that does not made it objective is a subjective fact
Yes … you get the point … and the subjective fact is that this person do not want to see someone hanging out outside one of the restaurants.
The “No Loitering” signs were not noticeable?
21 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:
The “No Loitering” signs were not noticeable?
Why is that important?
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.
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”.
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.
10 hours ago, Jose said:
Why is that important?
It was just a minor detail that had been neglected to be mentioned in the more elaborate example.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
1 Like
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.
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.
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?
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.)