you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 5 months ago (-1 children)

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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow -1 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 5 months ago
    [removed by mod]
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (-1 children)

    I see, so you're only interested in asserting your own philosophical positions, not examining or defending them in any way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow -1 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 5 months ago
    [removed by mod]
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (-1 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow -1 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 5 months ago
    [removed by mod]
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (-1 children)

    Yes.

    Not trying to say that everything is subjective, but that in particular is kind of a bad example.

    I just think you're being dismissive, while setting your own ideas as being apart from philosophy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow -1 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 5 months ago
    [removed by mod]
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (-1 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow -1 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 5 months ago
    [removed by mod]
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (-1 children)

    Don't try to explain things you neither understand nor care about then.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow -1 child comments
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
  • load more comments (-2 replies)