people created the ideas of countries, then made a list of them. USA is on that list.
People? Which people? If I get a bunch of people and declare a micronation within what the US considers it’s borders, is that objectively a country or not? Or suppose I convince a bunch of Americans that Germany isn’t really a country, does it then cease to be a country despite what the Germans themselves believe?
In any case, I would think that if something falls under the standard of, “This is true because a bunch of people say it is, even though there’s nothing physical you can point to to prove it” then it seems somewhat absurd to call that an “objective fact” What do “objective” and “subjective” even mean, then?
Apparently? You keep making philosophical assertions.
You don’t get to assert your philosophical views and then say, “I’m not interested is discussing philosophy” to avoid examination and criticism of those views.
i know that any example I could give could be argued against, and I really don’t wanna dive into that because it has no end.
like I said, the only thing anyone knows for sure is that they’re experiencing something, call it consciousness or whatever. however, that is not a great example of fact vs fiction, and this isn’t a philosophy debate sub, so I tried to keep it simple.
there are better examples, but I’m just trying to explain a simple concept, not get into the bottomless argument of philosophical truth
But you’re explaining it with such a bad example that it undermines the whole point, it’s like if you said, “Some things are just objective facts, like which poems are good.” That to me indicates that it’s not really a simple concept at all, you just don’t see the depth because you haven’t examined it. Being unwilling to examine it, framing that examination as “the bottomless argument of philosophical truth,” only reinforces that. If you’re not willing to examine the question, then don’t assert that you know the answer in the first place.
People? Which people? If I get a bunch of people and declare a micronation within what the US considers it’s borders, is that objectively a country or not? Or suppose I convince a bunch of Americans that Germany isn’t really a country, does it then cease to be a country despite what the Germans themselves believe?
In any case, I would think that if something falls under the standard of, “This is true because a bunch of people say it is, even though there’s nothing physical you can point to to prove it” then it seems somewhat absurd to call that an “objective fact” What do “objective” and “subjective” even mean, then?
I’m not interested in arguing semantics or philosophy. you can disagree with my example, I don’t care.
the point is, there are objective facts and subjective opinions.
I see, so you’re only interested in asserting your own philosophical positions, not examining or defending them in any way.
ohh sorry, is this a philosophy group?
Apparently? You keep making philosophical assertions.
You don’t get to assert your philosophical views and then say, “I’m not interested is discussing philosophy” to avoid examination and criticism of those views.
do you agree with my assertion that some things are objective facts and some are not?
Yes.
I just think you’re being dismissive, while setting your own ideas as being apart from philosophy.
i know that any example I could give could be argued against, and I really don’t wanna dive into that because it has no end.
like I said, the only thing anyone knows for sure is that they’re experiencing something, call it consciousness or whatever. however, that is not a great example of fact vs fiction, and this isn’t a philosophy debate sub, so I tried to keep it simple.
there are better examples, but I’m just trying to explain a simple concept, not get into the bottomless argument of philosophical truth
But you’re explaining it with such a bad example that it undermines the whole point, it’s like if you said, “Some things are just objective facts, like which poems are good.” That to me indicates that it’s not really a simple concept at all, you just don’t see the depth because you haven’t examined it. Being unwilling to examine it, framing that examination as “the bottomless argument of philosophical truth,” only reinforces that. If you’re not willing to examine the question, then don’t assert that you know the answer in the first place.