3 ms·
If you're used to some system of indentation, for some definition of "used to", then it is either objectively true that you'd most likely be better off switchin
by asdflkj 16y ago
If you're used to some system of indentation, for some definition of "used to", then it is either objectively true that you'd most likely be better off switching, or it is objectively true that you most likely wouldn't be. If this truth can't be established, then it doesn't matter how important the answer is--it can't be established. Labeling it "subjective" doesn't get rid of the problem (unless, as I said before, the problem lies in acquiring a comfortable feeling of certainty).
- btilly 16y agoThe truth is that you, personally, are usually better off staying the same. But everyone is much worse off if you're allowed to go your way and someone else their different way. Therefore it is everyone's interest for someone to take that hit, and the argument is really about who is going to be forced to adapt.
- asdflkj 16y agoSo where do the supposed limitations of objectivity come in? What value can be attained by switching off objectivity in this scenario?
- btilly 16y agoPerson A will give many reasons why person B should switch to A's style, and A shouldn't switch to B's style. There seldom, if ever, any objectivity in those arguments.
- asdflkj 16y agoAnd sometimes, people beat each other with sticks to resolve a disagreement. There isn't any objectivity in those arguments either. In my mind, this, and what you said, make a case for objectivity in all discourse, not against. I really can't get any clearer than that.
- btilly 16y agoUnfortunately if A is willing to resort to subjective arguments that pretend to objectivity, and B takes the high road, by default B will wind up having to switch to A's style because that seems to be the easiest way to bring peace. Therefore there is real motivation for people to make non-objective arguments.