Exactly! What the object is depends on what the subject is.
The sun would not be a sun if not for something that is not the sun on which for the sun to shine its light. The planets summon light from the sun just like positive terminal of a battery summons electrons from the negative.
Given all we’ve agreed to thus far surely we can also agree that it is a category error to look for significance in something exterior, it’s an error akin to trying to determine what music you like by consulting the stars.
Valuations are personal, inescapably personal.
I’m trying to work out, what must you value to come to your conclusion
We’re both of us largely looking at the same picture of reality hanging on our mental wall, you look at it and say “our existence is insignificant in this image” and I cannot think of anything more significant than to fight a battle we know we’re destined to lose… which is our existence in this image.
You say we give our lives meaning in the here and now, but the here and now does not matter in the eternity before and after
I say the eternity before and after ONLY matters in the here and now and the only meaning they have, is what we give them.
You say death is an escape from our suffering and yet we agree that death is something we will never know. For our death to exist, we cannot.
I’m calling this out, because I suspect this form of thinking is an inheritance from our religious history… We were told to believe that god’s perspective is what infused the world with meaning and gave purpose to all, including us. True meaning was to be found in a god’s valuation and measured in eternity. We’ve removed god from our picture, concluded that we created god, but I suspect you have not corrected that precept, and still believe that’s where “true” meaning comes from and when you look, unsurprisingly, you find nothing.
The reason why I think that way is because I do not want to become over attached to my existence given the inevitability of death
If I can accept that I am insignificant in the grand scheme of things then it will make my passing much easier when the time comes
By learning to let go I am shaking off the mental chains that would otherwise bind me and make it harder to let go
So for me it is a practical response to something I have no control over and cannot avoid - it is a coping mechanism
And as a result of this I am no longer afraid of death and have not been for some time now
It has therefore got nothing at all to do with looking for meaning in the notion of eternity
Saying does not make it so.
The fact is the person is suffering from pain subliminally due to cognitive dissonance, i.e. how can there be something from nothing, thus the instinct to jump to the conclusion there must be something objective, i.e. 100% pure objectivity.
In this case your subconscious mind [instinct] is compelling you to be ‘pseudo omniscience’ thus your insistence there is 100% pure objectivity on top of relative intersubjective objectivity.
It is often mentioned within evolutionary psychology.
We are the evolved children of our ancestors [3 billion to 6 million years ago] who had survived by jumping to conclusion, i.e. when they heard a sound in the bushes they always jumped to the conclusion of 100% certainty ‘there must be a sable toothed tiger’ thus they ran for their life. Thus similarly your instinctual 100% certainty of 100% objectivity.
Those who had doubted and took the risk there was no sable toothed tiger had the greater chance of being eaten by the tiger thus no future progeny.
The above evolved mechanism had created generations of humans who by default [DNA wise] had inherited the instinct [subliminally] to always jump to conclusion especially on issues that are contentious and grey. Note they are jumping to conclusion subliminally thus they are not conscious they are doing it.
But note, at present [2019] there are no more sable toothed tigers and similar threats, thus as we evolved further we have to understand what is really going on with why people are so fast in jumping to conclusion and make changes for the better.
Whilst you are not doing with God, you are nevertheless doing it with objects as in Philosophical Realism.
Scientific theories are objective but they are conditioned upon the agreed Scientific Framework and System [scientific method, peer review, etc.]. Thus such objectivity is relative objectivity, not pure absolute objectivity as claimed by philosophical realists and theists.
That Catriona Gray of the Philippines won the 2018 Miss Universe is an objective fact accepted by many.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Universe_2018
but such a fact is a relative objectivity because the results of such an objectivity is relative and conditioned by the rules of the Miss Universe contest.
The principle of relative objectivity applies to all objective facts that are subjected i.e. related [i.e. relative] to specific conditions and circumstances.
In a way agree with the above but you are stuck somewhere, note:
Re ‘fear of death’ there are two levels, i.e.
Humans via DNA wise are programmed to fear death at the subconscious level else all humans would have been reckless and the human species would have been extinct. That humans are surviving at crazy numbers [7++ billion and >] at present indicate this subconscious fear of death has been very efficient [not 100%].
However this inherent subconscious fear of death is suppressed in way at the conscious level because to be conscious of death at all times would be paralyzing. However the fear of death is triggered at various times in various circumstances and suppressed most of the times in normal people.
Those humans who has extreme faults in their natural suppression of the subconscious fear of death to the extent they become very conscious of it most times, are actually suffering from a psychiatric problem, i.e. Thanatophobia - Death_anxiety_(psychology).
The existing crisis is the suppressing of the subconscious fear of death is efficient but not 100% efficient thus there are leakage at the subconscious level which trigger subliminal defense mechanisms which compel a person to act in a certain way which they are not conscious of its root cause.
The resultant of the minor leakages of the suppression of the subconscious fear of death compels the affected persons toward pure objective reality [objectivists] or an illusory God to alleviate the leaked subliminal death anxieties.
In other cases [not philosophical or theological] those who suffer from such mild leakages would turn to drugs and various activities to deflect the existential pains.
Serrendipper [apparently], I and others of the likes, are turning to effective spiritual strategies to manage and modulate the leakages re the suppression of the subconscious fear of death.
Perhaps your suppressive neurons [inhibitors] are working fine naturally at your present age and circumstances.
But note neurons atrophize naturally with age and if these inhibitors wear off due to stress, various conditions and naturally with age, the suppression of the unconscious fear of death may weaken and thus enable the death anxiety to pulsate stronger that will drive the person to strive for whatever necessary defense mechanisms.
The above events often happen under heavy stress condition like fox holes and various situations for soldiers in war.
Older People Hold Stronger Belief in God
livescience.com/19971-belie … m-age.html
This is the case where the inhibitors atrophize naturally with age thus cannot suppress the subconscious inherent impulse re fear of death.
This was what happened to the one time world’s most notable atheist, Anthony Flew, who turned deist during the later part of his life.
This is inaccurate both scientifically and psychologically… our autonomic responses do not form erroneous “conceptions” that guide our behavior they motivate us emotionally… you feel fear, uneasy, or terrified, say.
It’s when we try to explain ourselves after the fact, that we confabulate. In conversation with others or in preparation for it we feel pressure to explain our behavior so as to seem comprehensible and safe to them (aka sane).
If someone asks you why you ran away from a rustling bush and you say “I was terrified” they might ask why… and that’s when you’re going to say “I think I saw a lion hiding in there” or something sane sounding.
The conceptual errors occurs in social space… granted we predominantly live in a social space, but that is to say the mechanism to confabulate is younger than our language… while our conceptualization of physical space is ancient.
All of this still qualifies by what you would call “relative objectivity” because you’re talking about epistemology… but you’re trying to criticise an ontology.
The ontological alternative is that, the things we believe exist are what exist and things we don’t believe exist, don’t exist… the moment you reject that self-evident falsehood you’re left with at least a part of our reality that is truly independent of us and our whimsical conceptions of it… and even if we try to model our conceptions accordingly the horror is we can never be certain that we’ve got it right.
All of this, at bottom, is a utility driven project… we want to understand the reality we’re in, so that we can better navigate it, precisely because it will not bend to our will and in fact will hurt or kill us if we don’t navigate it well.
But the people who try to smuggle in wishful thinking through the door of “uncertainty” are the ones to watch… that’s a different project altogether.
Often it’s innocuous, and done in service of their ego. The pretension that their own understanding is on par if not superior to that of scientists or other more diligent students whom they like to imagine as deluded.
But sometimes it’s more nefarious than that… and it’s to demonize and belittle others as liars or deceivers.
That was a surprisingly honest answer…
I’ve enjoyed our conversation, but I’m afraid we simply agree about too much to have cause to continue 
Inaccurate??? where is your more precise arguments and references?
Cannon-Bard??
Understanding the Cannon-Bard Theory of Emotion
verywellmind.com/what-is-th … ry-2794965
Damasio???
You missed my critical points, i.e.
Re ‘fear of death’ there are two levels, i.e.
Your “you feel fear, uneasy, or terrified,” is relevant to the conscious level i.e. triggered by the emotions.
But there is one group of impulses [subliminal] that are triggered from very deep in the pyche that bypass the conscious emotions and rational thinking. They manifest as Angst and anxieties & pains which are difficult to pin point.
Note such impulses had evolved over 3 billion to 3 million years along the vein “the sable-tooth tiger in the bush” trigger [this is only one example], but there are a lot of other nuance elements to it.
It is critical we understand what these hidden impulses are so that we can consciously manage and modulate them.
If I asked you why you are so impulsive and spontaneous towards 100% objectivity you would not be able to give a correct answers, thus likely confabulate. It is the same with asking a theist why s/he believe in a God [illusory].
When we are able to identify the root causes resulting in an impulsive 100% objectivity or absolute pure objectivity, i.e. a God, then we would be able to manage and modulate it to deal with their negative consequences [especially from theism].
Ontology?
The essence [ouisa] of an ultimate ontological thing is an illusion.
(Banking on the authority of Kant - one of the greatest philosopher of all times, and the Buddha)
The ousia in the secular is the pure 100% objectivity while in theology is that of the absolute objective God.
Those are assertions you made on a topic with which I am not sufficiently familiar, there’s nothing to argue…
I was responding to your claims about the impulsive confabulation of concepts being a, billions of years old, biological imperative.
I could not answer that question at all, 100% objectivity is a semantically null term to me and consequently I’m fairly certain I don’t know what it is you’re talking about.
We’re clearly not using the same language, you and I… we should probably get that sorted first.
Well there are almost certainly “objective” facts about myself that I remain ignorant of and yes it would be just as helpful to know myself as it would be to know the world for the purposes of more effective navigation.
I can infer that you think 100% objectivity somehow relates to a god with a capital G… and that you think this is an impulse to be guarded against.
Could this be an impulse I’ve failed to guard against? Can I even answer that question without confabulating?
Is that question a form of gaslighting? perhaps it’s an easy way to dismiss anything I might have to say on the topic?
But you’re right, I can’t be certain of anything… how do we proceed from here when our impulses can’t be trusted?
Perhaps if we had a skeptical disposition and formed a perspective that was derived from first principles that we thought intellectually defensible?
But what if we made an error somewhere along the line? What if there’s an impulsive leap of faith somewhere in our thinking…
Maybe if we engaged with other critical thinking people who were intelligent perhaps someone could come along, discover and point our errors out to us…
Of course anyone can be critical… but it seems far too few can make a point and even fewer can learn from them.
I would characterize “facts” as “popular subjectivity” or even “unanimous subjectivity” since accepted facts are not objective.
On the other hand, definitions are objective, relative to the universe or context in which the definition applies, since they’re asserted into existence by authority and aren’t dependent upon anything except the contextual framework (ie the universe of science). For instance in cryptology I could specify x=p as objectively true within that particular contextual universe (ie key) for decoding my messages, and in that way the objective truth is only relative to the particular context and not overarching reality itself. But on the other hand, if no key accompanies the message and instead it is discerned that x=p, then it’s subjective truth because one could never be sure that the first sensible message discovered was the one meant to be transmitted, and in that case the truth is subject to interpretation instead of definitional.
So back when pretty much everyone was a theist, God was a popular subjectivity. Is water being made up of hydrogen and oxygen atoms in the same category? is there a difference? or that elephants communicate via infrasound? or other kinds of natural science facts?
Not sure of your latter point.
My point is all humans has inherited a ‘jumping to conclusion’ algorithm from our ancestors since 3 billion to 6 million years ago.
This is the algorithm which at the extreme, subliminal compels the majority of people into taking that big leap of faith i.e. God-of-the-Gap exists. It is the same in a lesser degree where objectivists insist there are things which are totally independent of the human conditions, i.e. the Philosophical Realists.
100% objectivity means there are objects which exists independent of the human conditions as with the Philosophical Realists.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
100% objectivity means the claim the moon and Sun will still exists if there are no human beings. This issue is very contentious because the counter argument is against common sense.
Those who counter 100% objectivity are the Philosophical Anti-Realists, btw not Berkeley’s subjective realism but rather Kant’s Empirical Realism.
Yes, it is related to God and as mentioned above, also claimed by the Philosophical Realists. Not really guarded against but it need to be understood [not necessary agree yet] and dealt with accordingly and optimally.
You had not understood the concept of 100% objective and its limitation as Philosophical Realists or [I am not sure] a theist.
When there is uncertainty i.e. no 100% certainty, we need to suspend judgment until there are solid evidence or proof.
To arrive at any conclusion, it is important the First Premise is evident and/or rational, the all the premises that follow to the conclusion must be sound. This will avoid any impulsive lead of faith leading to non-sequitor.
Philosophically, the top tier greatest philosophers [Eastern + Plato, Hume, Kant] with corrections has shown us the way based on critical thinking.
What we need to more advance knowledge of our self in terms of the neurosciences [everything we need to know about the brain and how it works], genomics and others.
‘Subjectivity’ connotes too much personal judgment.
Unanimous subjectivity is the same as “intersubjective consensus” or shared-subjectivity?
For me objectivity [relative] = intersubjective consensus with empirical evidence and rationality, notable scientific theories and others.
This will exclude propositions that are popular and agreeable within a large group of subjects, such as God which is not supported by empirical evidence and rationality [philosophical].
‘Objective’ is a popular useful term, so why ignore it?
Point is we must differentiate relative objective [evidenced and rational] from absolute objectivity [illusory God, thing-in-itself].
Death itself does not bother me but dying a slow painful one would which hopefully I will not experience
I can therefore easily separate these two differences because I realise they are not actually the same
I think that my lack of fear in death will prevent me from suddenly turning to God in old age
To me death is simply a transition from consciousness to non consciousness and nothing else
The distinction is an important one as argumentum ad populum is often used to justify Gods existence
But the truth of a proposition is not determined by how popular it is as that is a false dichotomy
Even where a proposition is both true and popular the two are incidental rather than conditional
Yep, God was an object coincidentally held to exist by many subjects.
I’m wondering why water is made of hydrogen and oxygen and, of course, it has to do with how each element is constructed and how those constructions interrelate which spawns an unrelenting series of questions into the nature of reality which reminded me of this Feynman video on “Why”.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA[/youtube]
Somewhere around 3:33
“Why is ice slippery?” and then you’re involved with something because there aren’t many things as slippery as ice. It’s very hard to get greasy stuff, but that’s sort of wet and slimy, but a solid that’s so slippery??? Because it is in the case of ice that when you stand on it, momentarily the pressure melts the ice a little bit, so you got a sort of instantaneous “water surface” on which you’re slipping. Why on ice and not on other things? Because ice expands when it… water expands when it freezes, so the pressure tries to undo the expansion and melts it, but other substances contract when they’re freezing, and when you push em they’re just as satisfied to be solid. Why does water expand when it freezes and other substances don’t when they freeze? All right, I’m not answering your question, but I’m telling you how difficult the “why” question is; you have to know what it is that you’re permitted to understand and allow to be understood and known, and what it is you’re not.
Every question will have a contextual framework specifying what can be known and considered true, and it’s through that subjective lens that questions are answered and things are understood.
But subjectivity is a personal judgment, though it’s not relegated to being merely an opinion.
Everyone believing the earth is round is a subjective interpretation that is unanimous, and coincidentally so.
The problem with objectivity is that people think it’s a consensus of opinion: if everyone believes the earth is round then it’s an objective fact, but it’s not. We use that language and everyone understands what we mean, but it’s technically incorrect.
I can come up with my own answer. But I am trying to get a sense in which you create a hierarchy of subjective truths, since no truths are objective in your world. I don’t necessarily disagree, but if it is all subjective, is it all just phenomenology? Do we just have popular vs. less popular and different cliques of knowledge? It seems to me you are also eliminating the usefulness of the term ‘knowledge’. we would just have beliefs. which I also think is ok, since for many philosophers knowledge is really jtb justified true beliefs.
All truths are subject to a context and there is no such thing as a truth outside of a context in which to understand it as a truth. If there is a hierarchy, then it’s infinite because we can never come to a point where we could understand a truth as a truth without dependencies. Maybe we could infer absolute truth exists, but it could never be anything to be understood since such truth would be void of a context. Is it objectively true that an eye cannot look at itself? Well no because we have to build a framework of rules wherein it’s defined that an eye cannot look at itself, so the prohibition is dependent and subject to the framework constructed in order to understand the problem. But outside that framework, is it objectively true that an eye cannot look at itself? There is no way to know because what is an eye outside of the framework of the universe? What does it mean to look if there is no spacetime? It’s like being inside a simulation trying to understand what’s outside the simulation by only using information contained within the simulation which is inherently subject to the simulation software.