“2+2 != 4” is an incoherent statement. When we say “2+2” we just mean “4.”
It all goes back to experience and what is communicable. I can imagine 2 apples, and then imagine 2 more coming into view, and I can see that there are now 4 apples on my visual field. And I can communicate this so that you experience essentially the same thing (hopefully I just did).
Now we can of course define the symbols “2,” “+,” “=,” and “4” in any way we please, but if we are trying to define them in such a way that we can use these symbols to help us usefully organize information about the world, then it will be pretty hard to see how saying “2+2” could ever not refer to quantitatively the same experience as saying “4.” If we’re talking about apples, then my seeing 2 apples on the left side of my visual field and two apples on the right is never going to result in me counting up those apples, “1, 2, 3. OK, I’m seeing 3 apples.” No, I’m always going to be seeing 4 apples.
Math isn’t useful because it tells us something about the world per se; it’s useful because it allows us to organize and reshuffle information about the world into a more easily usable form.
Ha, you guys still misunderstand it. Let’s say I have a plate of food. It is the object of my perception. I may perceive that the food is delicious (my conscious thoughts), but the food still objectively and with certainty exists. Similarly, AJ’s fallacious words are the object of perception on my computer screen; they objectively exist. I may subjectively think “AJ is not comprehending my point at all,” but AJ’s words are still objective.
By “[plate of food] exists” you mean, for example, that you could reach forward, grasp, move your hand up to your mouth, then start chewing and it would give you real (not just imaginary) pleasure, right?
None of that is beyond your perception. None of that is distinct from your perception.
It is in fact an object, or specifically the object of my perception. I know for a fact that it would still exist if I and everyone else were to die at the same moment. It would still be an object that exists.
To argue your case, you have to deny what the word objective actually means. (Or say that it’s definition is meaningless).
Also, let’s say person X is eating lunch in England. I may not perceive it, but it is an the object of reality. And if I perceive it, that object of reality becomes the object of perception. (On which I may have many subjective thoughts, such that their meal looks delicious).
Bingo! Objective is a meaningless word when speaking carefully. It can be useful when you simply want to imply that “other people agree with me” or that “there is no spin in this news story” or whatever, but it has no place in a careful analsyis (unless someone comes up with a useful definition I’ve never seen).
I’m sure that my food wouldn’t exist if I was dead and incapable of perceiving it, and that some Englishman somewhere isn’t eating his lunch, despite my inability to perceive it at the present moment.
These things objectively exist, and this cannot be denied. To say otherwise is base existentialism.
You mean you can imagine some Englishman eating his lunch now. If you are dead you apparently won’t be able to imagine anything. Again, none of this goes beyond your perceptions.
It would still exist whether I perceive or no. It’s regardless of my perception. Even if I’m not contemplating some Englishman eating his lunch (my perception), he’s still eating his lunch. Fact.
You might say, “The Sun exists whether I can see it now or not.” But what do you mean by “exist”? I contend it simply means that it matters for you - it is something you can use to make better decisions. If you believed that the Sun stopped existing, even though it’s nighttime and you can’t currently check with your own eyes, you might - for instance - do something really fun and risky because you believe you’ll be dead soon.
So it seems what you really mean by objective in this case is useful. May as well just say the Sun usefully exists, not objectively exists.
Well, that’s not how I am defining “exist.” Exist means, according to the Oxford English dictionary, “to have place in the domain of reality, have objective being.” That’s what it means, and that’s what I meant.
How can I be sure what you mean by objective, meaningless, or word, or anyone else be sure what you mean, unless it is already taken for granted that the concepts which these words denote are mutually understood/intersubjective/agent neutral/objective?
The fact is, it is not a meaningless word. It is a fundamental concept presupposed language.
If I’m in a really long and realistic dream, and I see a plate of food but I think I’m going to die (in the dream) before I can eat it, I can at least take comfort that my in-dream friend the Englishman will be able to enjoy it. That is what you mean by “exist,” from what I gather. All this is fully within the realm of perception.
Intersubjective - exactly. Intersubjective is different than objective. Intersubjective just means someone else agrees with you, or shares the same experience as you. If we define “objective” in that way, I’d be fine with it, but here it seems that people want to define it a different way.
That is what you mean by “exist,” from what I gather.
That’s not what I mean though. I’m saying England, the Englishman, and his lunch exist independent of my thinking of them. It’s a process objectively taking place outside of my mind (in other words objective reality), regardless of whether I perceive them. Unless you want to deny that England objectively exists outside of my perception. Is England suddenly gone when I’m not thinking of it? Is the Englishman not eating his lunch simply due to my lack of consideration of his activities? Until I brought this up, are you denying that he and his lunch existed? Because I think they existed independently and before I even started thinking/talking about this.
That’s a useless definition. I can’t even find it in the OED, the definitive and objective source (which I subjectively prefer) of proper English langauge.
The OED is just a catalog of how people usually use words. But usually people do not need to speak with the level of clarity that this discussion requires. Just as in all fields, when we look deeper we need to define our terms more precisely than everyday speech.
Now when you say “England suddenly gone” because I stopped imagining it, no - by my definition above it is not “gone” because it still has the capacity to affect my actions. For example, I could go visit my ex in England and expect to at least find a place to land the plane.
The point is, all this can be framed in terms of human action and perception/sensation. “England exists” only means anything to me (i.e., only matters to me) because of what it means for my actions, or phrased more familiarly, what I can anticipate.
“England exists” only means anything to me (i.e., only matters to me) because of what it means for my actions, or phrased more familiarly, what I can anticipate.
For the purpose of discussion, why should it matter only if it affects you? It matters in the abstract sense that there is an objective reality, which humans can meaningfully and subjectively analyse. What you deny is the abstract objectivity of all things. Your doctrine of existentialism is only meaningful to me because it objectively exists, and therefore I have the capacity to comprehend it abstractly.