Thank you, Ignorant for an interesting topic that has nothing to do with Trump. Now on with the show…
Personally, I think you’re investing too much in definitions. The first question is whether the veracity of a proposition about any given state of affairs does or does not depend upon knowledge of that state of affairs. If I say the ice cream is cold, my knowledge of its temperature does not affect whether that proposition is true or false (a fact). If I say that I enjoy eating ice cream, the truth or falsity of that proposition depends on knowledge to which I have privileged access (an opinion). Likewise if I say that an arch transfers a uniformly distributed load to two point loads that is true regardless of what I think, as opposed to when I say that a particular kind of arch is more pleasing to the eye.
The second question is whether any given proposition describes something independent of knowledge (an object) or describes the state of the knower (subjective). So in the previous example, a pint of ice cream can exist even if I don’t know about it. But what is the ontological status of an arch? Is an arch just a personal/cultural description of an accidental arrangement of stones or does the form and function of that arrangement confer something essential that makes it a kind of object (I think it does)?
I don’t think conscious volition plays any role in determining whether something is objective/subjective or fact/opinion.
Personally, I think you’re investing too much in definitions. The first question is whether the veracity of a proposition about any given state of affairs does or does not depend upon knowledge of that state of affairs. If I say the ice cream is cold, my knowledge of its temperature does not affect whether that proposition is true or false (a fact). If I say that I enjoy eating ice cream, the truth or falsity of that proposition depends on knowledge to which I have privileged access (an opinion). Likewise if I say that an arch transfers a uniformly distributed load to two point loads that is true regardless of what I think, as opposed to when I say that a particular kind of arch is more pleasing to the eye.
The second question is whether any given proposition describes something independent of knowledge (an object) or describes the state of the knower (subjective). So in the previous example, a pint of ice cream can exist even if I don’t know about it. But what is the ontological status of an arch? Is an arch just a personal/cultural description of an accidental arrangement of stones or does the form and function of that arrangement confer something essential that makes it a kind of object (I think it does)?
(November 12, 2016 at 7:32 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: My major question has to do with the role of the subconscious in all this. Many times theists will throw around the word subjective to imply mere changeable whim. But the evolved structures of our mind are not changeable by whim
I don’t think conscious volition plays any role in determining whether something is objective/subjective or fact/opinion.
