Thread: What causes physical attraction?

Originally Posted by Dianeva

Does objective mean that it's true independent of what anyone thinks, or that it's true for almost every person? Now that I write it out, it's obviously the latter.

Whaaat? I would say it's obviously the former o.o

I mean, most people think Hitler was a bad person. But it's still subjective. If it's possible to disagree, then it's subjective. If just 1 person disagrees, it's subjective. Hell, even if nobody disagrees, it's still subjective.
We can't have true objectivity. We can say that Hitler caused the death of many people, and that is probably true and objective. But maybe it isn't. Probably, but maybe not. Maybe he was just a scapegoat in some wicked, intricate conspiracy.
Point is, there is an objective truth somewhere: Either he did it, or he did not. However, we can never know. And that's not just for this example.

There are obviously certain characteristics (and usually those characteristics fall under the category of 'normal') that the human brain is programmed to find attractive. It applies to all humans, except for maybe some few people whose brains have developed abnormally for whatever reason.

Yeah, but normal does not equal objective. Whatever anyone likes or dislikes is subjective. I bet we can all agree that torture is not a very pleasing sensation, but it's still subjective. If someone had a brain that had developed abnormally and actually liked being tortured then lo and behold, he would have a different opinion. The fact that he can have a different opinion makes it subjective.

In fact, the first description you made of objectivity is what I think is the definition. An objective truth means something that is true regardless of what anyone thinks. The latter is just a whole shit load of people who agree on a certain subject... Hmm. I like how the last word in that sentence.. Never mind.

Originally Posted by Maeni

Whaaat? I would say it's obviously the former o.o

I agree with everything you've said and that's how I've always understood the word 'objective' too. But I have heard people use the word to mean "true for almost every person". That is literally the first time I've used it in that way myself, and usually don't like when people do. But since it seemed stormcrow was using it in that way, I thought maybe it isn't that uncommon, and that in the context (of stormcrow's comment) the latter definition would have to be applied.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I agree with everything you've said and that's how I've always understood the word 'objective' too. But I have heard people use the word to mean "true for almost every person". That is literally the first time I've used it in that way myself, and usually don't like when people do. But since it seemed stormcrow was using it in that way, I thought maybe it isn't that uncommon, and that in the context (of stormcrow's comment) the latter definition would have to be applied.

Ah, I get ya.

I had that discussion in class with my teacher as well. We were discussing the word "truth", and the discussion was quite annoying... My teacher was arguing that truth is simply what the majority of people agree is the truth, which I just think is plain wrong.

Originally Posted by Maeni

Ah, I get ya.

I had that discussion in class with my teacher as well. We were discussing the word "truth", and the discussion was quite annoying... My teacher was arguing that truth is simply what the majority of people agree is the truth, which I just think is plain wrong.

And they let such morons teach. All your teacher said was that the absolute is relative. How in the hell can anyone teach when they cannot even think?

Truth is the state of being true. Two or more things are true when by some means of measure no difference is found in the results. (i.e. same is not different)

More to the real point, there are only two primitive abstractions, neither can be defined, but can be descibed such that one is not the other, the boundary is not the difference in the boundary, the point is that which has no part, etc.

same and is not different.

Listing synonyms for the same concept, and the denial of predication are not definitions, they are, however, descriptions. Descriptions can only lead one to a source of abstraction, they cannot make the abstraction for someone. The inability to make the abstraction denotes a dysfunctional acquisition system of an organism. Plato called that mind asleep, Aristotle a veggie, Scripture the dead. Biological definition, dysfunctional, or dead. Me, those people who tend to get pissed at me the most.