I know that 2+2=4. How is that subjective?What commonly passes for knowledge is intersubjective also, unless you believe personal intuition is a basis for knowledge.
Upvote
0
I know that 2+2=4. How is that subjective?What commonly passes for knowledge is intersubjective also, unless you believe personal intuition is a basis for knowledge.
I know that 2+2=4. How is that subjective?
Uh-oh.... You're one of the "everything is subjective" types, aren't you?Numbers aren't real... they are abstractions of reality and exist only as concepts.
Uh-oh.... You're one of the "everything is subjective" types, aren't you?
Math is one way we try to describe reality, so are words. If we can't say that something as simple as 2+2=4 is an objective fact, then we can't make any statements that are.No, I just don't believe mathematics represents anything but abstractions of reality.
lol, yeah. It was this very argument for God's existence that proved to me that morality is subjective (I usta think it wasn't). I realized that all they are doing is deferring to a different subject to decide what is moral or immoral, and poof!I can’t even get past the bullet points on the thumbnail. You won’t get far with me with moral arguments since I’m fully prepared to bite the “your basis for morality is ultimately arbitrary and subjective” bullet. Everyone’s is.
Math is one way we try to describe reality, so are words. If we can't say that something as simple as 2+2=4 is an objective fact, then we can't make any statements that are.
So is all of human language. Ergo, nothing we have to say is objective. Ergo, everything is subjective.Math is symbolic representation...
So is all of human language. Ergo, nothing we have to say is objective. Ergo, everything is subjective.
Numbers may not be real, but they represent things that are real. So what the numbers represent is completely objective.Numbers aren't real... they are abstractions of reality and exist only as concepts.
Numbers are representative tokens that represent things that are real. Math is a system we derived to calculate said representative tokens. Though math is socially constructed, it is based on objective facts. IOW whatever math was used to calculate, is objective.Math is symbolic representation, and like all representations, it's meaning isn't objective but socially constructed.
No, not ever facts. Remember, like you said:Language is intersubjective. The whole point is to communicate something. Not necessarily facts, though.
Numbers are representative tokens that represent things that are real. Math is a system we derived to calculate said representative tokens. Though math is socially constructed, it is based on objective facts. IOW whatever math was used to calculate, is objective.
True; it can represent things that are perceived as real, or it can represent things that actually are real.It represents things that are perceived as real in some contexts.
True; it can represent things that are perceived as real, or it can represent things that actually are real.
It is subjectively real to the person suffering; so yes.Tying this excellent point back to morality; is suffering from injustice real?
Not quite. Morality is a judgment concerning the right vs wrong of the suffering.If so, can we say morality is a representation of that reality?
Again, if that works for math it works for language. There isn't anything more special about one set of symbols and rules over the other. And if everything we use to think about anything is reduced to mere abstractions that can't touch real objectivity, then thinking is pointless.It represents things that are perceived as real in some contexts.
Again, if that works for math it works for language. There isn't anything more special about one set of symbols and rules over the other. And if everything we use to think about anything is reduced to mere abstractions that can't touch real objectivity, then thinking is pointless.
Yep. 2+2=4 is one of the things that can be proven true though, so I don't think it helps your case.Human language and thought have limitations in terms of grasping truth.
Are you familiar with Gödel’s incompleteness theorem?