One of those ways… Is…
Someone doesn’t know you exist!! For them, you don’t… If you’re existence is just based on subjects, then, as James said, you must argue with yourself.
It’s like the tree in the forest question.
You only do not exist for some but not for all but the reverse is also true namely that for you others do not exist either
But the objective fact of your existence is not dependent upon anyone knowing that you exist only that you actually do
That’s the idea behind subjective reality… Ecmandu doesn’t exist as far as the Korean knows, so the Korean’s reality does not include Ecmandu. Therefore, everyone has his own subjective reality.
When a tree in a forest falls down but there is no one is there to
hear it it still makes a sound due to the vibration of air particles
Then you’re an objectivist!
All facts are by default objectively true but interpretations of facts are only subjectively true. Objectivity is superior to subjectivity
since it is true whether or not anyone knows it is true or accepts it as true as it cannot be compromised by subjective interpretation
An example might suffice.
They do? Again, I’m talking about switching beliefs like: I’m going to stop believing Trump is the current US president and start believing it’s Billy Crystal.
Sounds fascinating, but we’ll leave that for another time. My response to him was that by ‘2’ he obviously really means ‘5’. I’m imagining, for example, a scenario in which one imagines two apples on the left and two more apples on the right and somehow sees that there’s 5 apples all together.
I’m not saying this is impossible, just that the way these quantities are conceived would have to be very different from anything I’m familiar with. My theory states that the rules of logical entailment (like how premises lead to conclusions in syllogisms) can be generalized to rules/laws by which all mental states give way to ensuing mental states, and that it is the quality inherent in the mental states themselves that determine what these rules are and thus what the ensuing mental states are. What this means is that it is possible, in pricinple, that some conception of 2 + 2 might lead the mind to calculate 5, but the inherent quality of that conception (i.e. the way the individual conceives 2 + 2) would have to be such that it does indeed equal (some conception of) 5. But for all intents and purposes, this way of conceiving 2 + 2 and 5, the qualities of these thoughts, seems beyond anything I can imagine.
Yes, but the scope is still different. While all forms of thinking are subjective, not all are also objective. That 2 + 2 = 4 is both objective and subjective at the same time, but that this painting is beautiful is subjective but not objective.
This is the conventional wisdom in regards to objectivity and subjectivity. I’m well familiar with it.
Are you familiar with idealism? Traditionally, it starts with the proposition that if all we know are our experiences, then all the words we use to refer to things in the outer world–“object”, “substance”, “matter”, and even “reality” itself–must actually refer to our experiences. It’s the idea that it makes no sense to suppose we could be acquainted with reality without the mediation of experience, that if we know reality at all, it must be because reality (or “realness”) comes packaged with experience, that it’s an essential part of experience.
^ This is what I’m getting at–reality is one with our experience, not outside it. Given that, you can have some experiences that also qualify as objective (the mathematical examples phyllo and I are discussing are a case in point–empirical observations and measurements are another).
I realize that from this, a whole slew of questions and paradoxes seem to surface. As I said to James, volume 2 of my book, which I’m in the process of publishing now, is devoted to sorting out the mess that typically follows from idealist principles, so I wouldn’t expect it all to make sense to the uninitiated, but this is where it begins: I assume that experience = being–I hold that constant–and ask: what else must consequently shift. My philosophical work is to show that a logically consistent system can be built through a series of such “shifts”, a system that is undeniably different from ordinary objectivism and materialism, but a system that philosophers since Berkeley could have pursued without running into trouble.
What is the right communication?
No that would be: I’m the only thing that exists.
I wouldn’t say that. There’s a ton of people in China whom I don’t know. Doesn’t mean I think China is empty.
As a subjectivist, one shouldn’t be afraid to think like an objectivist in order to resolve problems like this. Just ask: what would an objectivist say? An objectivist, presumably, would say: of course, people I don’t know exist. Then ask yourself: on an ordinary day, do I not say the same thing? How is that? ← Hold that constant. Recognize that this is your state of mind. You believe that people you don’t know do in fact exist. Then ask yourself how that makes sense given your subjectivism. ← Go to work on that.
No one can be truly objective or truly subjective for everyone is a combination of the two. So there is a false dichotomy between
them because in reality this does not exist at all. Everyone labelling themselves an objectivist will some times be subjectivist and
vice versa. Anyone labelling themselves one or the other is doing so based on what they think they are not what they actually are
Gib, to set the difficulty level of a world you wrote yourself and stepped into is the point of philosophic zombie universes.
You separate behavioral signatures from consciousness signatures, and modulate the behavioral signature to your desire.
Oh, no wonder Trixie thinks you’re a genius.
I want Trixie to have her dream, while not hurting her or anyone else, same for all beings.
The reality of non-philosophic zombie universes is that no matter what you do, you’re going to hurt good people and you’ll always be hurting.
Now people like to avoid this.
Trixie doesn’t, and neither do I …
I’d characterize most the rest of the boards as assholes and bitches; blind; mean spirited.
Trixie would as well.
It’s not just a matter of not having enough goodness to realize all of this (which they don’t) it’s when they’re told it, they just shut down.
People like James, Uccisore and Carleas just shut down. They’d rather hurt people to be happy in existence and pretend like it’s normal or not happening, or even desirable.
No experience of the fantastical… Goggles with blinders on; no will, no moral outrage, no unflappable passion… just a giving up; a hopelessness.
They’re passionate about the wrong things… Having had Dreams crushed! So they obsess about politics or theories of what existence means, not realizing this is going to keep hurting until they understand that this universe is our collective imaginations… They need that childlike spirit back, instead of giving in to this delusion.
That’s my rant.
I think that the Hollywood Undead said it best:
Well done.
Honestly, I’m just tired of shallow people.
I can make this point about houses and partners, and for example, people will say inane things like “well we both consent to be together”. Blah, blah…
So did Bonny and Clyde!!!
“Yeah but they were criminals, not us”
Yes you are!!!
The issue with God here is one of blatant practicality.
A philosophic zombie universe for every combination of being is superior on all levels.
Making non philosophic zombie universes for every being is criminally insane!!
Eccy,
When you think about normal people, you obviously hold them in some kind of contempt. Do you think people by and large are evil? And what constitutes an evil person to you? Do you think if a person like James or Uccisor were to see a child being molested, they would derive some kind of pleasure out of it?
What really gets to me is understanding a generalization on my part.
The generalization is:
You’re not even a good enough person to see that when you have something someone else wants, that this is the biggest problem in existence??
Then there’s an additional step… Even if I hadn’t figured it out, if someone had sat down with me at basically any age and explained it to me…
My pupils would have dilated at exposure to this profound truth: I would never have ignored it: an additional layer of good
Then there’s the even more additional step of living to die if necessary to solve the problem, because it’s the only thing in all existence worth dying for …
And then I see people demeaning and teasing me…
And I see that they derive pleasure from cutting at the only good in existence …
And thus, I call it evil
I think most people aren’t convinced that having something that someone else wants is the biggest problem in existence.
And even if they are, I don’t think they’re convinced that demeaning and teasing you fights against that principle.
There’s also survival instinct–when it takes over, all considerations of moral good fly out the window. I mean, imagine a war over land. Your principle, when applied to this situation, would probably be something like: we should strive to build enough land for all. So some might strive towards this–some on both sides of the war–but there’s others who won’t. Those others are hell bent on attacking you, killing you, in order to get your land. So what do you to when they come crashing through your door? At that point, I should hope a survival instinct kicks in and you defend yourself–most likely kill them first. ← You get dragged into war whether you had the intention or not. Many anticipate this outcome and decide: better go to war from the beginning so as to minimize the chances of that happening. Or: sure, some of us can stay back and try to make the world a better place, build more land, but if no one chooses war, then some on the enemy’s side will, and they’ll kill us all.
^ In the end, I think there’s very few people who actually want war, just a hell of lot who think (with good reason) that it’s necessary.
There is much goodness in this world, but all the bullshit can sure give one a headache.
Everyone is deserving if they want redemption. This Earth Realm is one corrupt Muther though. However what lies below is way worse and what rises above is way better. It’s all about who you believe in, if you don’t believe in yourself, how will you ever rise? If you don’t believe in yourself, how will you ever believe in anything at all?
And the judging, the scrambling for superiority, that is a damn shame. Wasted energy IMO.
Ego will get you every time, that ego is bad, bad juju.
How do you overcome the ego, Wendy? The ego is just the self. How do you believe in yourself and yet rise above yourself?
We are fit for self-preservation–every fiber in our being screams out to live–to keep the ego going. Even our attempts to rise above it are a surreptitious trick to serve it.
For me, I believe in myself enough to take a leap of faith so I can believe in another.
pilgrim_tom’s good on ego checks. And honesty keeps egos in check.