The podcast explores the concept of objectivity, discussing beliefs, aesthetics, ethics, and cultural variations. It delves into the challenges of determining objective truth in science and the objectivity of film judgments. The hosts also touch on topics like trolling behavior, the nature of preference, and diverse themes such as Kant's philosophy, lying, and reflective equilibrium.
Read more
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
Objectivity exists on a spectrum, with some judgments being highly subjective and others being highly objective.
Objectivity in judgments can be determined by the presence of clear criteria and standards that can be universally applied.
The degree of agreement and expertise in a particular judgment can contribute to its objectivity, but context and social implications also play a role in determining objectivity.
Deep dives
Spectrum of Objectivity
There is a spectrum of objectivity, with some judgments being more objective and others being more subjective. On one end of the spectrum are judgments that are purely subjective, such as personal taste preferences. These judgments are highly individual and not open to objective evaluation. On the other end of the spectrum are judgments that are highly objective, such as logical and mathematical truths. These judgments are based on clear criteria and are widely accepted as true. In the middle of the spectrum are judgments that fall somewhere between being purely subjective and purely objective, such as aesthetic judgments and moral judgments. While there may be some degree of subjectivity in these judgments, there are also certain standards and criteria that can be applied to evaluate them. Overall, the spectrum of objectivity highlights the varying degrees to which judgments can be objective or subjective.
Criteria for Objectivity
Objectivity in judgments can be determined by the presence of clear criteria and standards that can be universally applied. For example, in the realm of aesthetics, judgments about the quality of a movie or a painting can be made based on a set of criteria, such as technical skill, creativity, and impact. While there may be room for disagreement, there are certain standards that can be used to evaluate these judgments. Similarly, in moral judgments, criteria such as harm, fairness, and empathy can be used as objective measures to assess the rightness or wrongness of an action. While moral judgments may still be subject to debate and diverse perspectives, having identifiable criteria allows for a more objective evaluation.
Agreement and Expertise
The degree of agreement and expertise in a particular judgment can also contribute to its objectivity. In domains where there is widespread agreement and consensus among experts, such as logical and mathematical truths, judgments are considered highly objective. However, in areas where there is more room for debate and disagreement, such as aesthetic judgments or ethical judgments, objectivity may be less straightforward. Still, having expertise and familiarity with the relevant domain can allow for a more informed and objective evaluation of judgments within that domain.
The Importance of Context
It is important to recognize that judgments of objectivity or subjectivity can vary depending on the specific context. What may be considered subjective in one domain, such as personal taste, may be considered more objective in another domain, such as scientific or logical reasoning. Additionally, the consequences and social implications of certain judgments can influence the level of objectivity attributed to them. For example, moral judgments may carry more weight due to their impact on social coordination and the well-being of individuals and communities. Overall, understanding the context and criteria for objectivity in different domains can help navigate and evaluate various judgments and perspectives.
Different views on truth conditions
In the podcast, the speaker discusses the concept of truth conditions and how there seems to be some agreement on the criteria required to determine if something is true. The speaker also mentions that this agreement is based on core intuitions and how individuals feel a certain level of certainty in their beliefs. However, the speaker also acknowledges that this feeling of certainty does not necessarily mean that these beliefs are tracking something objective.
The subjective nature of morality
The podcast explores the subjective nature of morality and how individuals tend to treat moral claims differently compared to conventional claims. It is mentioned that there may not be a strong distinction between moral claims and conventional claims in certain cultures, and that the moral judgment of certain actions is influenced by the values and beliefs within a specific cultural context. The importance of understanding the function and goal of moral judgments in different contexts is emphasized, and the speaker suggests that the objectivity of morality may be more of a pragmatic claim rather than a universal reality.
Dave and Tamler try to figure out what we talk about when we talk about objectivity. In past episodes we’ve claimed that logic and science (when it isn't fraudulent) are objective. Tamler has claimed repeatedly that "Louie" is an objectively better TV show than "Jessie." Dave is constantly claiming that Kant is objectively the best philosopher. But to be honest, we say these things without being exactly sure what we’re saying. Today we try to be sure--only to get more confused.
Plus, we get into a big fight over trigger warnings, the Kipnis affair at Northwestern, and other related issues. (The infamous Episode 45 was an ecstasy-fueled love fest in comparison.) However, we have spared our listeners the drama, and have only included a few lowlights. If you listen closely, you can even hear Tamler apologize.