In how I defined ‘objective’, then it is no different as a concept than wertfreiheit, correct?
I think the way you defined it is pretty close, but I can weasel my way to make some problems with it if I want to. Maybe I don’t understand the full range of how people try to use these words, subjective and objective, but I know that there is disagreement. I think the 2nd part of thelion’s post here is more accurate.
Unless I am missing some point to it, why not change “agent” to “person” or “social scientist”? People act according to scales of values.
It would be nice is Rothbard’s Individualism and the Philosophy of the Social Sciences was online, because I don’t feel like transcribing it now.
I agreed with thelion, which is why I tried to elaborate more with my second post directed to him specifically seeing that my OP was brief. Thus being in agreement with what he is saying, and seeing no argumentative conflict with my OP, then I wanted to elaborate on why I found his “no” to be unnecessary.
Yes they do and the objectivity is that there is a real world that is, meaning, thelion’s “does not reject any particular outcomes… because he dislikes them” is a reductive-explanation of ‘does not reject any particular outcomes… because of his bias and prejudicies, etc…’ Meaning, I said what he said but in different words.
Further, if the person is not rejecting due to not injecting his biases to skew the results, then “he is only concerned with whether they are true or not”, in other words, if it is real, ie. ontologically objective.
The reason I began my OP with…
“Knowing that human action is self-evident, and presumptions laid aside that this is all underlined by individuality, etc…”
…is because being objective, in the sense I mean it, doesn’t rid biasness or prejudices, in other words, personality. Why? - because it is self-evident that any singular individual makes a choice and will act a certain way that as observers I can only deduce such acts were deliberate. If an individual partakes in the market in a voluntary exchange I can only deduce by such an act that the person has put voluntary exchange at the top of their value scale and prefer doing that than anything else. If an individual steals, then by that act I can only deduce that the act was deliberate and the individual preferred that value above all others. It’s human action. It’s not necessary to run down all the possibilities, eg. was there extortion involved, etc… Because everything I noted here is understood as what really happened. How an individual came to know that this is what really happened is of course supported by substantive argumentation. Meaning if this is not what really happened, then it wouldn’t have been what happened. But since this explanation is what happened in this possible world, then this is what really happened.
Also, I don’t think the question of ethics is what I was trying to get at in the OP in the sense that the OP was a question of definition since I don’t speak or read the language that wertfreiheit is. Basically I was trying to translate it, and thought I had done so and wanted to see if my translation was correct. I wasn’t necessarily looking for an example of wertfreiheit in action. My OP was semantic in nature.
thanks
Ok, I see; Wilderness’ definition of objective is correct in this sense. Logic itself is always objective, that’s true.
What I meant by ‘No’, was really another related question; to consider the below example:
In Blanshard’s theory of ideas, ideas are always objective.
In Economic theory, preferences are always subjective and technology is objective.
But suppose I prefer a certain good? The combination is two objective premises and a subjective premise?
The predicate is subjective, because the demand is the major premise. The predicate is also synthetic, because its true of the real world, and a priori, because the predicate was not contained entirely by definition in any one of the three separate premises.
To accept a subjective predicate as true is a subjective decision (since the premise depends on and changes with the subject), but it may be value-free because the laws of logic are objective. That is to say, another person will have a different premise in place of you own, and you have no idea what it is, only that you do not introduce your own preferences in viewing them.
What I meant was that the predicate can still be subjective, even though the rules of logic are objective.
So, generally,
Person 1: A = not B
Person 2: B = not A
Object: C = D
If value-free then AC = AD and BC = BD, however from 2’s perspective AC = (AD)B = contradiction, else 1’s perspective BC = (BD)A = contradiction.
If not value-free then 1’s perspective AC = AD and BC = AD, else 2’s perspective BC = BD and AC = BD, so from 2’s perspective AC = ((A=B)D)B = BD, else 1’s perspective BC = ((B=A)D)A = AD.
Not-value-free logic is a contradiction, because the premise A = B is implied even though such a premise was never given in our three premises.
thank you! wertfreiheit is being objective. I know it’s best to go with what I think is logically true, but this was mainly a translation, semantic issue I had due to I don’t know the language of whatever wertfreiheit is from. Also getting back to me to confirm this is nice. Some people (generalizing logically) may find the gumption to argue a point they disagree with, but to point out where there is agreement is virtuous and nothing short of being kind if not anything else. Thank you.
With the current research I’m doing this definitely helped to get some feedback because I don’t want to confuse the term. I’m very happy you replied back on this. This helped me a lot! And I think this is excellent to help establish the truth in this thread so as not to philosophically confuse what is being discussed here which may make some posts appear to be falsities being argued back and forth when in reality some posters are actually underlined in agreement. This helps the root of the discussion bear fruit out of our attempts/posts including our thought processes behind what we posted in this thread in any other endeavors any one of the posters are currently involved in outside of this thread and forum in general.
I think I follow what you’re saying here. Right, A=B would be a contradiction due to the A= not B; B= not A; and the object C=D finishes up the premises being deducted.
Yes it would. Got a scanner? [:P]
I thought it would be useful to point out what wertfreiheit does NOT mean: it does not mean “not dealing with values”, as Mises explains in his discussion of wertfrei historical studies in Theory and History (emphasis added):
"The subject of history is action and the judgments of value directing action toward definite ends. History deals with values, but it itself does not value. It looks upon events with the eyes of an unaffected observer. This is, of course, the characteristic mark of objective thought and of the scientific search for truth. Truth refers to what is or was, not to a state of affairs that is not or was not but that would suit the wishes of the truth-seeker better.
There is no need to add anything to what has been said in the first part of this essay about the futility of the search for absolute and eternal values."
right. And what you bolded also sounds like a Mises argument against the Historical School, ie. those thinking history itself is some kind of creature unhinged from human action.