Arguing over subjectivity with friends...

[Grizwald]

So recently I was trying to introduce some philosophy to my friends but it delved into us arguing (them against me) that everything is subjective and nothing can be proven. And I was kind of stuck. For instance...

 

-Can proving something be subjective? Can one person accept a proof while another person denies it is proven... in such a case how do we know who is right?

 

-Can someone logically prove to another person that they have self-control and self-ownership? 

Now that I look back at it I kind of realize that we were arguing on whether or not you can prove the scientific method. And it also seems to be a circular argument because you have to continuously provide proof for the proof.

 

I'm not well-versed on this kind of deep philosophy, but can you prove the scientific method? Is there anywhere that the proof is enough?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Their argument is obviously self-refuting. They are just setting a standard they know cannot be reached in order to avoid the anxiety and pain that comes with truth. They will also have been brain-washed into this standard by rulers. If people think everything is subjective and no objective answers are possible then they need to turn to the king or God or the state. 

If the standard of proof for something like the scientific method is logically impossible then yes, it's not possible to prove the scientific method. 

[dsayers]

So recently I was trying to introduce some philosophy to my friends but it delved into us arguing (them against me) that everything is subjective and nothing can be proven.

 

How do they know? According to them, it cannot be proven that it cannot be proven. So maybe it can be proven.

[TheRobin]

well if they truly beliefed that everything is subjective, then they couldn't argue against anything anyone says (inlcuding your claim that it isn't subjective), as that would make as much sense as arguing your taste in music is incorrect.

 

(ofc subjectivist almost never accept that and in my experience just chant down the mantra of "you can't know for sure" and "everything is subjective" without much thought going on in between their heads, but again, just my personal experience with such people)

[Wuzzums]

Ask them to go to a bank and extract twice as much money as there is in their bank account, because hey, if everything is subjective then numbers are too.

[AdamC]

Can someone logically prove to another person that they have self-control and self-ownership?

 

No one is obliged to accept any argument as valid.

[Grizwald]

No one is obliged to accept any argument as valid.

Well then I am not obliged to accept that I am not obliged to accept any argument as valid. 

 

This is a circular argument. 

[RyanT]

Yeah I've had very similar arguments with past friends, 

 

I remember this guy I knew, a proper mystic, who said something along the lines of,

'western philosophers never sit there and wonder why the grass is green'  

 

So I explained scientists have determined different molecules absorb certain colors of light,

while reflecting others and in the case of chlorophyll, that's 'green'.

 

and he just sat there and said 'yeah...but that's just science talk'

 

At the time I just got this weird feeling, certainly didn't know what to say,

but looking back I think I realized, he was obviously getting some needs met,

by imagining the world around him,to be totally random, incomprehensible

and without any certainty. 

 

 

..which was probably a projection of his early childhood home.

 

and indeed we'd talked about that a lot and from what he said both his parents were,

'old hippies' who did drugs while he was growing up, which must have been,

absolutely terrifying and bewildering for a child.

 

[AdamC]

Well then I am not obliged to accept that I am not obliged to accept any argument as valid. 

 

This is a circular argument. 

 

Read my statement again.

[AdamC]

Well then I am not obliged to accept that I am not obliged to accept any argument as valid. 

 

This is a circular argument. 

 

On second thoughts, I think following your contention is far more interesting. Suppose what I wrote was and is intended to be understood as an argument:

 

"No one is obliged to accept any argument as valid."

 

And you reply: "Well then I am not obliged to accept that I am not obliged to accept any argument as valid."

 

Exactly! Neither of us is obliged to accept as valid any argument – including this/that one. There may very well be consequences to our not accepting even valid arguments as valid. But even if we ourselves accept them as valid, neither of us are obliged to give any indication to the other that we have accepted the argument as valid. And the consequences of not giving an indication (taken as an agreed fact of the denial or acceptance) may be that we can't continue our communication, or can't trust each other in our dealings, or one of us (likely the one in denial or just plain misunderstanding) makes some catastrophic miscalculation about physical reality. But there isn't any obligation.And this is my point to the OP. Your friend – whether he/she agrees or not – is not obliged to perform any physical gesture and/or verbal uttering to communicate to you that he/she accepts any of your arguments as a valid. You might like some kind of indication, but there is no obligation to give it. In one moment I can deny a valid argument, and in the very next I can affirm it. But at no time am not obliged to offer denials and affirmations. You might attempt to reason with me, but I am not obliged to be reasonable! In fact, your assumed obligation may be thoroughly unreasonable given that you possess particular criteria for 'reasonably' communicating acceptance of your arguments of which I am not aware.Now, perhaps I'm wrong (and being thoroughly unreasonable). Perhaps there is some kind of positive moral obligation – above our mutual preference for it – that demands we respond in some particular way to deliver each other intersubjectively ascertainable denials or affirmations of our acceptance of the validity of arguments.Would someone care to articulate this obligation?

[mjdsharks]

So recently I was trying to introduce some philosophy to my friends but it delved into us arguing (them against me) that everything is subjective and nothing can be proven.

 

I would simply as him if this is his subjective opinion or is he making an objective truth claim and move on because the argument gets circular and seems meaningless.