Objectivity is never intersubjectivity. Objectivity is always objectivity. Subjectivity is always subjectivity. So, intersubjectivity is always communicating subjectivity, thus it always remains subjectivity.
Objectivity and subjectivity can never come together. They can come to a consensus, but each consensus is merely intersubjective, thus always subjective and never objective.
The object and the subject are never interchangeable in the same observed and described situation.
A linguistic example: “John sees Mary”. Grammatically: John (subject) sees (predicate) Mary (object). If you changed subject and object here, then you would have another observed and described situation: “Mary sees John” (S-P-O) or “John is seen by Mary” (O-P-S). If you want to say that both are seeing each other, then you have to say for example: “John sees Mary, and Mary sees John” (S-P-O, S-P-O [thus: two S-P-O sentences]) or “John and Mary see each other” (S-P-O) or “John is seen by Mary, and Mary is seen by John” (O-P-S, O-P-S [thus: two O-P-S sentences]) or “John and Mary are seen by each other” (O-P-S) … or similar S-P-O or O-P-S or even P-S-O or P-O-S sentences. But, regardless which of the options you choose, you will never be capable of changing subject and object in one sentence. So, object and subject are always separated from each other. Always, thus also in science and philosophy, in epistemology.
John is never Mary, and this stands for: Subject (S) is never Object (O). Whether John is subject or object and Mary object or subject depends on the situation and on the observation and/or description of this situation. And as an observer and/or describer you can choose a more objective or a more subjective observation and/or description of a situation (happening). But you will never be capable of changing the logic behind it, especially the epistemological form, namely the subject/object dualism (dichotomy).
So, you have no chance to change or overcome reality and certain forms of linguistics, logic, mathematics.
When epistemology and the subject/object dualism (dichotomy) are not “in fashion”, then this does not mean that they have vanished.
An absolute independent objectivity is something like a God. I am not a theist, so that is not applicable to me.
When have I ever claimed ‘there must be really (objectively) is no absolute independent subjectivity.’
Note my response to your latter post;
viewtopic.php?p=2688403#p2688403
Subjectivity is one person’s view.
Objectivity is many peoples’ shared-view, i.e. intersubjective consensus.
Objectivity come in degrees from very low [winner of a beauty contest] to the highest [e.g. scientific knowledge] and other Justified True Beliefs.
No, it isn’t. Try to learn the language.
Running out of arguments?
- so resorting to one-liners which Snark is also famous for.
Here is an interesting take re Objectivity;
staff.amu.edu.pl/~ewa/Harawa … ledges.pdf
Note the traditionally very crude* perspective of ‘objectivity’ in blue above. * As inherited from our beastly ancestors.
The above objectivity re situated knowledge which involves embodiment takes into account the subject which interacts with the object, thus intersubjectivity.
Philosophy without language is not possible. It is logic that connects thoughts and language. It is not possible to communicate with each other without using any logical form.
And my example “John sees Mary” includes already the otpion too that John can see Mary more objectively than subjectively or more subjectively than objectively. That is included in what I have said. So, your alleged “critique” does not change anything. Furthermore, your “critique” is nonsensical again. An object is an object, regardless whether it is more objectively or more subjectively observed or described or valued. So, you have not really understood the text of my post. Even the objective fact that a subjectivist observes, describes and values an object subjectively does not change the fact that there is an object. The object is the object, regardless what you say about it. So it is very probable that you are a solipsist. But even a solipsist is not capable of changing the fact that there are objects, that there is reality.
It is an objective fact that there are subjects. So, it is a fact that there is also intersubjectivity; and intersubjectivity itself is subjectivity; it can come to a consensus, and this consensus is an objective fact too, but consensus itself and intersubjectivity itself are not objectivity. Objectivity must idealistically fulfill the condition that something can be observed and/or described by someone who is not part of the object. The situation of intersubjectivity is a “social” situation, linguistically said: communication. This can be observed by an observer, so that this situation can be objectively described, so it can become an object, of course, but that does not mean that it has become objectivity. Intersubjectivity itself is and remains always subjectivity. The word composition already says this. And it is so too acording to epistemology, philosophy, science and everything else. Linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians have also come to the conclusion (consensus?) that this is the case. A dictionary is a linguistic thing, regardless how specialized it is. The said linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians are subjects who try to objectively observe and describe a situation, a being, a development, a phenomenon (in our example: intersubjectivity) and so on; this observation and description can nevertheless be done more objectively or more subjectively; observations and descriptions as well as values can of course themselves be observed and described too as being an intersubjective situation, development and so on, as being an object, but not as being objectivity, because subjectivity is never objectivity. If you want to observe or to describe (and at last perhaps: value) reality, you have to reduce subjectivity (and thus also you yourself as a subject) as much as possible. Objectivity has to do with reality.
So, intersubjectivity is indeed fundamental when religions and science and many other similar phenomenons become “designed” (see: consensus), but that does not mean that intersubjectivity is objectivity. Intersubjectivity is always subjectivity.
In order to know what the object reality is all about, subjectivity must be reduced as much as possible, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of that object reality, and that is not possible. And this is also the case when it comes to the subject: In order to know what the subject really (objectively) is all about, a subject must be the object of the subject, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of each object, and that is not possible. The philosophers of the past knew this, and on average they were more intelligent than the dement philosophers of the present are and much more than the very dement philosophers of the future will be, if there will be philosophers at all in the future.
You are missing the point again, and your alleged “critique” is nonsensical and based on your schizoid and delusional term “empirical possible multiple realities”.
There is only one reality.
Gyahd. Now he’s quoting feminists quoting disgruntled feminists who want to redefine the language to get rid of anything she can’t understand or manipulate (“knowledge-making”).
I bet that we can read in her/his next response something like this: Note that … Kant and Hume … were feminists.
Which of her/his “empirical possible multiple realities” is the feministic one?
It is obvious, language is a critical necessity for communications.
But philosophically one need to understand the limitations of language. You don’t seem to get this point. I suggest you brush up on the Philosophy of Linguistic [as wide as possible] and note Wittgenstein’s Language Games. Note Chomsky versus others.
Show me how can you nail or ground the real reality of an object. e.g. What is a really real apple?
My point is,
your “It is an objective fact that there are subjects” is based on intersubjectivity.
I understand your claim of your philosophical perspective re objectivity of object. But your philosophical views are not tenable.
As I have requested, demonstrate to me ‘what is the really real apple on the table’?
Note, I have countered there is a more realistic view of what is objectivity, i.e. it is intersubjectivity. Note this is very serious issue within the philosophical community. You need to understand the stance of both sides before you make your own stance.
From the above note this higlighted;
Intersubjectivity is postulated as playing a role in establishing the truth of propositions, and constituting the so-called objectivity of objects.
And note Russell’s point;
There is no real absolute objective table but rather an intersubjective based objective table depending on the Framework and System [Leibniz, Berkeley, Science, etc.] relied upon.
Subconsciously your know you cannot defend your position, that is why you are resorting to derogatory remarks rather than presenting credible arguments. I expect James and yourself will continue to condemn me ad hominem because both of you has run out of credible arguments. I suggest you read and reflect wider and deeper on the whole range of philosophy [relevant to this forum].
Language is a critical necessity as a tool of philosophy, but it is a very blunt tool and a philosopher must be mindful of its limitations.
Read up,
Problems in philosophy of language
3.1 Vagueness
3.2 Problem of universals and composition
3.3 Nature of language
3.4 Formal versus informal approaches
3.5 Translation and interpretation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph … f_language
Yeah, trying to speak philosophically to you is a “problem”.
Whilst I backed up my point with supporting i.e.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosoph … f_language
all you did is throwing tantrums. :-"
Out of curiosity, could you tell us your original language and/or country?
I prefer not to reveal, what matter to me is the contents to be discussed.
Yeah, I’d probably be embarrassed about it too…
… if I were you.
Nah, it more like care on the potential of theists killing non-theists when the theists’ God and religion are criticized. The evidence of such is so glaring.
I know that you do not know how important language is. So I am writing this not for you but for readers. There is an interdependence between linguistics and philosophy, science and almost everything else. This is because of the fact that language is the most striking feature, the main feature of humans. And it is not difficult but often very effective to linguistically analyze the speech of philosophers or scientists or everyone else.
I have already done this several times! So read my posts!
And you want to be taken seriously? Really? Thus: Objectively?
Show me how you can “nail or grund the real reality of a” subject …!
It is absolutely obvious that you are not able to understand what “subject” and “object” and their “dualism” mean. They are concepts of epistemology, so they are related to philosophy and science as well - and very much. An object is everything that is not a subject, and a subject is everything that is not an object. It is a dualism and similar to the yin/yang dualism. But this is again something that you do not understand. You want to eleminate yang - hoping that yin can exist without yang as a yin/yang principle. That is more than ridiculous.
A solipsist is someone who says that the subject, thus the subjective I with its consciousness contents, is the only being. I am pretty sure that your answer is exact this or a very similar statement. So you are a solipsist. But a solipsist is not able to explain what “subject” and “object” and their “dualism” mean. And if you are a subjectivist, then it is difficult but not impossible to do this. But if you are nonetheless not able to change the perspective and become an objectivist for a moment, then you are an extreme subjectivist, thus a solipsist, and a solipsist is not able to explain what “subject” and “object” and their “dualism” mean.
Your “intersubjectivity” has nothing to do with objectivity. I will say this again and again, regardless how often you are trolling against it. The goal of the extreme subjectivists and thus solipsists is to eleminate the object and thus objectivity too. This means that they try to eliminate the whole epistemology. Subject and object are part of the same phenomenon. If this pheomenon lacks one of the two, then it is kaput. One can try to circumvent the subject/object dualism, for example by concepts like Husserl’s “Intersubjektivität” or Heidegger’s “In-der-Welt-sein” or Luhmann’s “Kommunikation”, but “circumventing” does not mean "replacing"or “overcoming” the older concept (subject/object dualism). So if you and the other solipsists were successful, then epistemology would lack an important concept, then philosophy and science would have lost.
So you and the other solipsists should be absolutely silent when it comes to philosophy and science. (“Worüber man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.” - Ludwig Wittgenstein [“Whereof one can not speak, thereof one must be silent.”])
Your point is that you are not capable of understanding what “subject” and “object” and their “dualism” mean.
Your philosophical views are not tenable, especially your schizoid and delusional term “empirical possible multiple realities”.
But that is not objectivity but merely intersubjectivity.
Try to learn words before becoming the lackey of philosophers you do not understand.
You really do not know what you are talking about.
And you want to tell us something about “both sides”? You? A solipsist! 
Also, you have no other one who agrees with you (so: where is your “intersubjectivity” here?). You - the solipsist - will never become an intersubjectivist, since you will remain such a stubborn and ignorant solipsist.
You have no arguments - as everyone knows here and as I have said many times already. How often do I have to repeat this? No one of those who have posted here agrees with you. You are a solipsist.
You have used ad hominems. So stop whining here.
And stop preaching. You are preaching and preaching and preaching and ignoring everything else. Your stubborn and naive belief in your false gods gives evidence that you are by far more religious than the average human.
Language is, by no accident, a reflection of thought, so obviously anything having to do with thought is going to be strongly related to language. If the thoughts get twisted, the language gets twisted, and vsvrsa. Untwist the language, and you untwist the thoughts.
And yes Prism, philosophy actually does have something to do with thoughts.