The myth of subjectivity: Austrian concepts are flawed because the concept of subjectivity is logically incoherent

[Econophysics]

Now how can your thoughts be subjective if by definition they exist and you can detect, change and modify them? To say your thoughts are not objectively real is a contradiction because they exist or else you couldn’t interpret, detect, and modify them.

Because if we say our thoughts are not objectively existing, we’d really be saying they don’t exist, and if we say we can detect, see and change our thoughts, well we can’t do that if they are not real.

It seems to be that there are only levels of existing real statements that map to or don’t map to reality, and that their are complementary truths (i.e. I like apples, you like oranges) and non-complementary truths (I fell off the cliff, you deny I fell off the cliff). i.e. there is no such thing as a subjective statement, because by definition an existing statement is objectively real. i.e. it exists and all statements are derived from previous objective existence.

I exist (yes I do), my thoughts are formed by my mind that exists (yes), therefore my thoughts exist (yes), therefore my thoughts are objectively existing (yes) and their content exists because I can detect, modify and change my thoughts and their contents (yes), therefore subjectivity is incoherent (yes) because the subjectivity is the antonym of objectivity (yes) and no two opposite attributes can share the same existence (yes).

Subjectivity is the antonym of objective, and objective is the synonym for reality. In case any readers don’t know what an antonym is here’s the definition:

Antonym:

• Any of a pair of terms designating opposite concepts.

Below is Page 25 from ECONOMICS FOR REAL people and I quote

For economics, the value of the particular ends we might
choose is subjective. No one else can tell me whether an hour
spent weight lifting is more or less valuable to me than one
spent writing. Nor is there any possible way to objectively
measure the difference in my valuation of these activities.

Page 25… For economics, the value of the particular ends we might
choose is subjective.

False because what you choose exists, and existence is truth by definition. Therefore what you choose is a truth statement you created that is contextually bound to you (what is true for you is not true for me), i.e. It is true I like video games, it is true you like flowers, therefore there are complenetary truths and non-complementary truths. Therefore we are creators of our own truths. End of story, because if we think of a concept, say I think of a monster I want to create for a video game, that monster must by definition exist and the only way it could exist, if it is existence is a form of truth. If existence is not a form of truth, then we have serious problems.

[Brainpolice]

I think you’ve created a gigantic straw man which raises certain questions that have nothing to do with Austrian economics in and of itself. You’re talking fundamental epistemology and metaphysics.

[banned]

@Econophysics

Now how can your thoughts be subjective if by definition they exist and you can detect, change and modify them? To say your thoughts are not objectively real is a contradiction because they exist or else you couldn’t interpret, detect, and modify them.

That’s not what is meant by “subjective”.

Thoughts are subjective because the content of them originates from the perspective of one individual. Interpretation is a subjective matter. My interpretation of available facts does not make that interpretation objectively true. The act of interpretation is true, but the content is only true to me.

EDIT: And I think you’re trying to argue that the existance of interpretation makes that interpretation objective, but that’s not the case. You’re only demonstrating that the interpretation exists and not that it is objective in nature.

[Jon_Irenicus]

He’s a troll with a chip on his shoulder. Ignore him. This post highlights his utter ignorance of the term “subjective” as is used in these cases (that is to say. mind-dependent, not non-existent.)

-Jon

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

I’ve found that there are many threads to which I would like add something to, but what I would say would simply be “me too”, in essence.

This would be one of those threads.

[bigwig]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no one has argued non-exsistence in a long time. Ayn Rand is dated that way.

Saying the word ‘objective’/‘exsistence’ a bunch of times does not make an argument.

[Bostwick]

@Econophysics

Page 25… For economics, the value of the particular ends we might
choose is subjective.

False because what you choose exists, and existence is truth by definition

You have trouble with reading comprehension.

The amount of a value an object holds is subjective.

Some people buy tuna sandwiches, but if I were offered one for free I would likely turn it down. How do we explain this? The sandwich is the same in both cases, it is the personal valuations that differ.

Value is not an objective property, it is agent relative.

[Anonymous_Coward]

@Econophysics

Subjectivity is the antonym of objective, and objective is the synonym for reality.

Um, yeah, subjective value…

Unless you are arguing that objects posess an inherent value.

[JCFolsom]

“Sushi is good.”

This is a simple statement, to which you might agree. I know others who disagree. It is true, for me, subjectively. It would be a lie if stated by others. It contains a value judgement that is not subject to empirical verification. If I said it was salty, or the rice is sticky, well, you can test those things, too some degree. But to say it’s good, to call it delicious or tasty, well, the only test for that is to taste it yourself, and even if you disagree, it doesn’t make my statement untrue for me. Subjective, see? Probably not.

[Mlee]

With no offense intended, you seem to have conflated two concepts that aren’t meant to be conflated. Objectivity means based on something “provable” such as: E=mc2. The equation can be tested, and it can be proven. However, the Austrian concept of Subjective value deals with individual preference. For example, I personally don’t like Jazz music, hence, I would not spend money on Jazz music. However, there are many more people who also like Jazz music, and they would buy it. Jazz music cannot be both “good” and “bad” at the same time, hence the value that I place apon it is subjective, or dependant and applicable to me and me alone.

Not sure if “The Sky is Blue” is a better example for a reality.

[Donny_with_an_A]

The distinction can be understood like this:

Consider two statements, “Blue is a prettier color than red,” and “I think that blue is a prettier color than red.” The former makes the claim that blue’s “prettyness” exceeds red’s, as a matter of objective fact. The latter makes a claim about the state of an individual’s subjective opinions, as a matter of objective fact. The claim of a pure subjective value theory is that the former statement cannot be sustained as a metaphysical truth, as there is nothing that is “prettyness” which can be objectively measured, allowing us to determine how pretty a thing is and compare its prettyness to that of other things. The idea, then, is that the former statement can only be coherent so far as it is understood as shorthand for the latter statement. The word “subjective” is used because the value can only be understood in a biographical sense: the valuation is a fact about the valuer (the “subject”), and not the valued object.

It should be pointed out that the subjectivity of value is not a distinctly Austrian idea. I’m not currently aware of any serious thinker that does not accept some form of a subjective theory of value (though many, including myself, are not pure subjectivists, accepting that there may be an objective component of valuation). Attacking the subjective theory of value on its fundamental level would commit you to the position that every philosopher and economist in the field of value theory is wrong. I can pretty much promise you that that isn’t the case. But if it is, then congratulations: you’ve uncovered a really simple way to win the Nobel Prize.

[macsnafu]

@Econophysics

Now how can your thoughts be subjective if by definition they exist and you can detect, change and modify them? To say your thoughts are not objectively real is a contradiction because they exist or else you couldn’t interpret, detect, and modify them.

Not to beat this to death, but…

It is not our thoughts themselves that are subjective, but the contents of the thoughts that are subjective. When you prefer chocolate ice cream to other flavors, you are having an objective thought, but the preference for chocolate ice cream is subjective, because not all other people prefer chocolate.

Otherwise, you would be saying that:

Thought 1 = preference for chocolate ice cream

Thought 2 - preference for strawberry ice cream

Thoughts 1 and 2 are both objective thoughts

Thus, both chocolate and strawberry ice cream are the favorite preference.

See the flaw? No person can say that both flavors are their favorite (A = A, not A and B), and there is no interpersonal objective relationship between one person preferring chocolate while another person prefers strawberry. Yes, subjective statements are true, but it’s rather trivial, unless you have some reason for believing that someone is deliberately lying about their preferences or values.