CreateDebate


Debate Info

25
25
Yes, because... No, because...
Debate Score:50
Arguments:81
Total Votes:58
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, because... (24)
 
 No, because... (21)

Debate Creator

Mack(309) pic



Can things be objectively significant/important?

If you have the time it would be nice to see a definition of objective significance/importance, and an explanation as to whether or not it exists.

I think significance is the same as importance.  

The word objective gets a bit tricky here, so different interpretations are likely and welcome.  I'm curious as to how you answer the question.

Yes, because...

Side Score: 25
VS.

No, because...

Side Score: 25
2 points

Objective significance/importance is based on the fact that God created all things. Without that fact, you have no basis for anything objective and if you claim to be objective in your pursuits, you are subjected to death so your objectivity is vain and a logical fallacy.

Side: Yes, because...
1 point

You are confusing objectivity with contextlessness. Dropping all context does not make a perspective more objectively accurate, but less.

Things are objectively important too other things. They are actually, objectively, important. Oxygen is objectively important to life on earth. The objective importance of oxygen is the cause for our subjective valuation thereof.

Side: Yes, because...
1 point

You are confusing objectivity with contextlessness

You are confusing the argument he made with the argument you seem to think he made.

Side: No, because...
Amarel(2350) Clarified
1 point

You are confusing the argument he made with the argument you seem to think he made

Your input is as valuable as ever. No I'm not.

Side: Yes, because...
NowASaint(1278) Clarified
1 point

If oxygen is objectively important to life, why can't it stop you from dying? The evidence shows oxygen use leads to death, not to life. You cannot live by oxygen. You are dying with or without oxygen.

Side: Yes, because...
Amarel(2350) Clarified
1 point

Life leads to death. I focus on the former. You focus on the latter. We usually don't interact unless there is something new. You aren't saying anything new. So fuck off.

Side: Yes, because...
NicolasCage(362) Disputed
1 point

Oxygen is objectively important to life on earth.

But life isn't objectively important to someone who doesn't want to live; therefore, neither is oxygen.

If something is objectively important for one thing, that does not mean it is objectively important to all things. Food is important to me, objectively, however it's not important to a man who doesn't need to eat.

Oxygen is important to maintain life. That doesn't mean it's important to everyone and everything in the universe. Therefore, it's not objectively and universally important.

Side: No, because...
Amarel(2350) Disputed
1 point

If something is objectively important for one thing, that does not mean it is objectively important to all things

This is an incorrect approach. You are making the same mistake that many here seem to make wherein you believe that for a thing to be objectively true, you must remove all context. In fact, for a thing to be objectively true, it must be true regardless of opinion.

Oxygen is necessary for the living, and if you do not value oxygen, you will not be living. If you do not value life, you will cease to be a thing capable of valuing. You will cease to live.

Roundness is significant to circles. Gasoline is important for internal combustion engines. The fact that neither of these are significant or important for my continued existence does not mean that their importance is a matter of a circle or engines subjective opinion.

Objective in this sense does not mean "universal", it means "not subject to opinion". The necessity of oxygen to the living is not subject to opinion.

Side: Yes, because...

FOOD

Coma(unconscious) patients.

" They are given calorie-rich liquid feed through a tube in their veins "

So without these guys being conscious they need food...

Food is objectively significant/important

SECURITY

Usually reflex action is provoked during a state of unawareness/unconsciousness....

It can be applied to blinking(you can blink before you even suspect something was about to fall in your eye), fast attacking to destroy late suspectec threat(you may be wrong about it being a threat like your sister sneaking up behind you and you end up punching her tooth out with a fast turn, .....sorry sis., its a security defense mechanism thing, next time come upfront)

Without state of unconscious; reflex, it's still adviceable to blink according to health experts...

without being unconscious still and more conscious and timing, you will still defend yourself from an enemy or your life will be in danger..

Security is objectively significant/important

Even if you're not conscious, your unconsciouness will still do it for you.

...............。。。。。............................

By the way i don't know about this i am curious.;

when i used to play table tennis alot, sometimes in the middle of the game i can go absent minded for about 15secs or more and i still don't lose the ball, i can play along well in my absent mindedness and may lose the ball rather when i have gained full consciouness....

Same thing used to happen when i joined the cadet back in school, i got used to the routine though wasn't always the same(sometimes made to trick us with the left, right, turns, ordered arms, present arms etc...) i could follow commands on drills absent minded for some few seconds or even a minute or more.

Not me but some people can type accurately while absent minded for a few seconds and when they gain consciousness they try checking if they hadn't made a typo...

with these i have gathered from experiences of mine and others i am self permitted (hopefully others backing)to also conclude skill or talent over years, months or weeks of stimulation can eventually become objectively(consciously;mostly accepted or unconsciously) significant/important to a given field of work/talent.

Or you still disagree talent or skill is still only subjective to consciouness to achieve desired significance/importance....

Because i can argue i did better absent minded.

Side: Yes, because...
Mack(309) Clarified
1 point

"FOOD

Coma(unconscious) patients.

" They are given calorie-rich liquid feed through a tube in their veins "

So without these guys being conscious they need food...

Food is objectively significant/important"

But why is it important that they survive? For food to be objectively important (at least in the sense I was referring to) it needs to be important that they survive. It is true that it is important to people that they survive, but when I talk of objective importance, I mean something being important 'overall.' It can't just be important to somebody, because there is no reason to chose their perspective over another. If somebody doesn't think it's important that Joe survives, how can it be said that it is important that Joe survives? How can anything just be 'important' without being important to somebody, which makes its level of importance influenced by perspective, and therefore subjective?

(as or the rest of you response, I think my above response is still applicable)

Side: Yes, because...
jeffreyone(1137) Clarified
1 point

Look people don't think they have to eat or need food before they decide to go and eat.(auto reminder)

It is default. It is in the nature of every living animal existing. It is genetic , it is in DNA, it is already structured before the consciousness of anyman or animal to survive. It is a DNA programming to survive right from an 'undeveloped brain' sperm competing among other sperms to be a survivor.(Can you tell the level of consciousness of a racing sperm without a developed brain yet to start thinking normally?)

Survival is objectively important/significant but as to 'the why',we can speculate a million reasons and i would say we survive for purpose sake by design(there is a designer) you will might say i am talking religious...

Regardless, it is apparent in our coding-DNA and external characters/behaviour which is a significant factor that applies to every single soul in the human race and other types of brain possessive bodies/flesh.

And it includes eating; An animal that will protect at all cost from other predators it's offsprings at birth will also eat up it's baby if it doesn't find food to eat early. She just switches to survival mode and love for her baby, thinking etc...seize to exist...survival becomes prime before anything else. And after securing her life, she will regain consciousness and start caring for the rest of the kids.

A woman during a time of war in her country had to escape with her children through a bush path to another country and unfortunately they encountered a tiger.... she served her youngest baby to the tiger to buy her time to run. You think she didn't love her kid?

Survival mode. And after the incident or that state she has been traumatized and almost destroyed her life. She got mental issues with that and needs rehab. So incases like that, you act before thinking, because before you even came to think of it, your entire body(DNA), had already concluded on the action to be taken behind your self-consciousness right from when you were a sperm without a brain and you will just flow with it...

Programming.

Just like you are programmed to have five fingers(those are just the physical and can be seen aspect), no matter how much you try to think to change it, you will never achieve it because it programmed right from a sperm without a brain. If you are able to achieve that, then you are a super super super human.

and physical security in cases where you take action too fast for your conscious thinking and skill to have achieved at that particular moment.

Get the point??

Sometimes DNA sets it's own priorities such as security before food......

no need to elaborate

Side: Yes, because...
1 point

First, I agree that both significant and important are similar enough in usage to be contextually interchangable.

Second, I agree things can objectively be significant/important because really all you need in order to claim objectivity is some sort of standard. If you look at a set of data and apply a standard and 2 or 3 items meet the standard way better than the rest then objectively those are the most significant/important. One irony with this is the standard itself may indeed be biased. You can set a threshhold so high or so low that the lead results create a false impression. But still, until that standard gets challenged you can still in the meantime claim you objectively identified what was significant/important.

Side: Yes, because...
1 point

"Objective" according to Oxford means...

"Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual."

"Significance" according to Oxford means...

"The quality of being worthy of attention; importance."

"Important" according to Oxford means...

"Of great significance or value; likely to have a profound effect on success, survival, or well-being."

"thing" according to Oxford means...

"An object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to."

To be thorough, "object" according to Oxford means...

"A material thing that can be seen and touched."

~~~~~

I would say that it is objectively important that one have a device capable of using the internet in order to use this website. That might seem a bit too relative though... So lets try another definition of "thing".

If we were use this definition of "thing" (once again, Oxford)...

"An abstract entity, quality, or concept."

An "entity" according to Oxford is defined as "existence; being".

"Abstract" according to Oxford is....

"(of a word, especially a noun) denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object."

If we were to take the word "state", Oxford defines that as...

"The particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time."

So now we have, "the particular condition that existence is in at a specific time" as our "thing".

The way things are right now? It is "The Supreme Being" that allows it to be. Without Supreme Being, there could not be a particular condition that existence is in at a specific time.

Supreme is defined by Oxford as...

"(of authority or an office, or someone holding it) superior to all others.""

Being is defined by Oxford as...

"Existence"

So without existence of superior authority to all others, there could be no thing. All things are dependent on this one thing.

So in other words, God is objectively significant and important, as God is defined by Oxford as being "The Supreme Being".

So as odd as it sounds, you could call "God" a "thing", as technically, God can be considered an abstract entity. God can be considered a "state of existence"(abstract entity) as God is the supreme state of existence. Such an existence cannot be contingent on the mind for existence, as then the existence would not be supreme(depending on the mind to exist).

So yeah, God is objective, significant, important, and can be said to be a "thing" that all "things" are contingent on.

Side: Yes, because...
1 point

One might say that significance is something which is determined by individuals opinion. This is true in a sense, because people can perceive different things as significant in a manner determined by their perspective (subjectively). There are issues with this interpretation, however. First, significance is whether something matters, so if there were something that mattered regardless of interpretation or perception it could be said to be objectively significant. It just so happens that such a thing exists: conscious experience. Regardless of one's acknowledgement or however they may distort their perception, one's own conscious experience has a significance that cannot be changed. It simply isn't possible to reinterpret one's own suffering as insignificant. Since conscious experience's significance is "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased" (one definition of objective)(Source 1), it makes sense to call the significance of conscious experience objective.

It clearly matters whether we are experiencing suffering or pleasure and therefore our conscious experience is of significance. The same applies for the experiences of other entities and as such we can see that it isn't that a singular entity's conscious experience is significant it's that the experience of all conscious entities is significant. There is a significant difference between experiencing suffering and experiencing pleasure and since this significance is unaffected by idiosyncrasies such as prejudice, interpretations and feelings, it is of objective significance. The same cannot be said for any other phenomenon: the only manner in which other phenomena can have actual significance is indirectly through an effect on consciousness. Without consciousness or the potential for consciousness there wouldn't be a singular event in the universe that had any significance whatsoever, because the only thing that factually matters is conscious experience.

Sources:

(1) http://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective

Side: Yes, because...
1 point

Hello Mack:

The word "objective" is itself, objective.. From MY perspective, is my next step objectively significant?? Nahh.. But, to the bug I'm about to step on, it's QUITE significant..

Perspective is EVERYTHING. And, a bugs perspective is no less objectively important than yours..

excon

Side: Yes, because...
2 points

I think that objective significance requires that things remain important even if you take the perspective away from conscious entities. This requirement is of course not satisfied, and therefore nothing is objectively significant - nothing can simply be said to be important, it must be important to somebody, which makes it dependent on consciousness for it's existence and therefore not truly objective in the sense that I interpret the question.

Side: No, because...
2 points

I agree with your assessment of the term objective significance .

Recently in a rather long exchange with Winston we argued about the significance / importance of events on conscious entities , we give events importance and significance by our conscious attention to them , we deem them important or unimportant so the term objective significance to me makes no sense

Side: No, because...
Amarel(2350) Clarified
1 point

If you fail to consciously deem oxygen as important, you will still die.

Side: Yes, because...
1 point

Recently in a rather long exchange with Winston we argued about the significance / importance of events on conscious entities

Translation: Winston and I are both pseudo-intellectual troglodytes who enjoy pretending to be intelligent because it enables us to justify our spectacularly warped, Brobdingnagian sized egos to each other. It works like jerking each other off, only without the guilt afterwards.

Side: Yes, because...
Mack(309) Clarified
1 point

Agreed, that exchange with Winston prompted this debate, I thought it would be nice to hear what others would say.

Side: Yes, because...
2 points

Even something such as water is not important or significant to someone who does not want to live.

I believe politics is significant and important, but some people I know couldn't care less about it.

Things are significant and important based on a person's own experiences and beliefs. There's no objective truths to it.

Side: No, because...
1 point

The word "significance" according to Oxford dictionary is:

"The quality of being worthy of attention; importance" or "The meaning to be found in words or events."

and the word "objective":

"(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

So, you see, meanings and what is deemed worthy of attention depend wholly on the perspective of the individual. In other words, IT IS influenced by personal feelings or opinions. Therefore, the two words "objective" and "significance/importance" are contradictory in nature and for that reason you can't have objective significance or importance.

PS: I found it needless to mention the definition of the word "Importance" since it is synonym with the word "significance".

Sources:

Definition of objective: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/objective.

Definition of significance: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/significance.

Side: No, because...