The kind that says there are right and wrong answers to some questions.
They are wrong because of the process of evaluation, not because they disagree with me.
if you want to get technical about it, then yes, we disagree about the process of evaluation.
Are you going to say that any process of evaluation is valid?
Bullshit. You just made a statement about objectivists and as a result about me. But you won’t won’t admit that you’re saying anything specific about me. Everything is passive aggressive and backhanded.
Here we have someone talking about someone else. Real people. A social interaction. Concrete, specific.
Change the word objectivist to ‘cunt’ or ‘criminal’ or ‘bad guy’ and the above reads even more obviously like someone who likes to call someone names, and then not take responsibility for it.
The above ‘explanation’ means that he meant nothing. And what it does is he never has to take responsibility for his social acts.
He gets to participate in the world like an objectivist, labeling, being divisive, judging, being binary, calling out people. But it doesn’t mean anything if this is pointed out. Because in his own mind he is not an objectivist. (and yes, snore, he admits that he has objectivist reactions)
I’ll take an objectivist over this any time. At least some objectivists have the ability to say ‘Yes, I judged him.’ ‘Yes, I called him X.’ ‘I think he is X and that being X is bad. I said it and I meant it and I believe it’’
Well, if you want to liken calling someone an objectivist to those things, that’s your privilege.
But I acknowledge that objectivism is an existential contraption that makes sense to me here and now. There are those however who do insist that their own moral narrative does in fact reflect the most rational and virtuous assessment of any particular political conflict. Is that a bad thing? No, not objectively. And they may well be right. I merely point out how some in power insist that others must share their own moral agenda or be deemed wrong. And then once deemed to be “one of them” there’s no telling what the consequences might be.
Right?
That’s your rendition of me. I insist that my arguments here are in fact construed by me to be existential contraptions subject to change given new experiences, relationships and access to new information and knowledge. But I don’t really mean that. I’m actually just one more rendition of my own accusations against others. After all, you know me better than I know myself.
Okay, if you prefer living among those who do insist that you must embrace their own value judgments or [necessarily] be wrong, be my guest.
What I advocate are political interactions predicated on moderation, negotiation and compromise. Democracy and the rule of law. At least to the extent – for all practical purposes – that this is possible.
Having the ability to say that “I judged someone” is something that is applicable to all manner of objectivists…from the Communists and the fascists to the Christian evangelicals and the Islamic jihadists.
In my view, moral judgments are embedded existentially in dasein and in conflicting goods. Individuals interacting in particular historical and cultural and experiential contexts.
So, sure, prefer objectivists if you must but be prepared to deal with the consequences when you become “one of them” to their own “one of us”.
In places like Know Thyself you might get tossed into their dungeon. But imagine objectivists of their ilk having access to real power. But at least they will have openly and honestly judged you before lowering the boom.
If you attach some reasoning to it, then it becomes subject to that reasoning and is no longer objective.
IOW, if you say murder is wrong because of this line of thought ________, then someone could say, “Well, that doesn’t apply to me because _____, ____, and _____, so murder is ok for me.”
But if you say murder is wrong, period. Then there’s nothing anyone can do about it. It doesn’t depend on how anyone looks at it. It just is.
“Truth” was a poor choice of word on my part and I knew that, but I should have said “The actuality may apply objectively to everyone in the universe, but any interpretation of that actuality is subjective.”
The true actuality of an object applies equally to all subjects, but the reality of any object can only manifest subjectively.
Reality can’t exist independent of observation or else we could have positive with no negative. Positive is only positive because the negative is negative. Without the negative, the positive cannot exist. Reality can only happen in a duality.
It just means the object’s capability to transmit and the subject’s capability to receive work together to define reality.
As far as we can tell, dark matter only interacts via gravity and without that lone interaction, it would not exist. Things that have no affect, do not exist.
The subject doesn’t have to be conscious to be an observer. The confusing comes with using the word “observation” since it really means “interaction”. “Observation” makes it seem like a conscious being is necessary to manifest objects.
In some way our telescopes must have existed 13 billion years ago for the light to be emitted from a galaxy 13 billion lightyears away to hit those telescopes today. Time doesn’t apply to light, so there really is no issue; the whole event was instant.
If the sun were the only thing in the universe, in what way could it be said to exist? It would give off no light, no heat, it would have no gravity, nor have any properties whatsoever because there is nothing interacting with it. Things are said to exist in terms of their interactions with other things and that idea was principle to James’ theory of things being nonexistent because they have no affect on anything.
If it were, then you wouldn’t question it lol. But you do and that proves it’s subjective.
The Monty Hall Problem:
Many readers of vos Savant’s column refused to believe switching is beneficial despite her explanation. After the problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine, most of them claiming vos Savant was wrong (Tierney 1991). Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still do not accept that switching is the best strategy (vos Savant 1991a). Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation demonstrating the predicted result (Vazsonyi 1999). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
You can pound your reasoning into someone’s head all you want, but if it doesn’t click, it doesn’t click. It takes a subject with clicking capability to perceive the reasoning as reasonable.
So, like I was saying, as soon as you attach reasoning to any claim in order to support it, the truth of that claim immediately becomes subject to that reasoning.
Odd. That’s poor language use. In any case, I had discussions with him about his position and he mean that it must affect something. Has effects, that is. He did not mean that it had emotions. The rest of what I wrote still stands.
The first question, why would I be compelled…? could only get tentative answers: ‘well, you might feel compelled if you…’
The second can be easily answered, yes.
But I still keep all my quibbles on the table. In the end, regardless of your answers, it might very seem better or even be better for him to continue being an objectivist in some ways and view that claim as he views it.
It doesn’t prove anything. It again shows that you and I have very different ideas about what the words ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ mean and what they are used for.
In this particular case, if there is no “objective reasoning” then there seems to be no distinction between “biased reasoning” and “unbiased reasoning” - reasoning which is tainted in some way. Phrases like “objective evaluation” and “objective approach”, etc are used to try to convey those sorts of distinctions.
Okay, any number of folks have been exploring it now for decades. And how much further have they moved on in encompassing that precise existential understanding of freedom?
How instead are the narratives not largely still the embodiment of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
And yet even though both sides are still grappling with all of the issues embedded in being “free” here, you seem to be rather adamant that Communism is a really, really bad thing.
Sure. If I suggest that it ought to be explored, then you respond that it’s been talked about a lot without progress.
If I suggest that dasein, free will, determinism, or nihilism have been talked about enough in this forum, then you respond with “what else is there to do but talk about it”.
Yeah. I got that from these interactions.
Is it a really, really good thing? How would you decide?
I’ve assigned some level of value to the various factors that can be used to evaluate a society. I measured and weighed and I came to a conclusion.
It seems that often when Serendipper was writing about ‘subjects’, he was referring to inanimate objects.