The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid.

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Arminius » Wed Oct 26, 2016 6:18 pm

Both subjectivity and objectivity have to be learned.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5059
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby _A_ » Wed Oct 26, 2016 6:20 pm

Arminius wrote:Both subjectivity and objectivity have to be learned.

Go ahead and explain yourself in detail.

How are they both "learned". How does an infant know the difference, or learn the difference?
_A_
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby _A_ » Wed Oct 26, 2016 6:55 pm

Let's go a little bit further, for those that can handle it.

What the infant, child, teenager, and modern adult know of "Objectivity" is usually just another layer of subjectivism. This is how the infant learns to "trust" your mother and father. You believed in the thoughts, beliefs, and ideas of your parents, as an infant. And then in school, you learned and trusted in the ideas of your teacher. And then you trusted in your priest. And then your president. And then whatever else or whomever else convinced you throughout your life. But these are merely authorities and representatives. The average modern, human, goes from one authority to the next, another level and another (per)version of subjectivity.

Most humans stop after a certain point and become accustomed and comfortable with a certain "level of authority". "That's enough knowledge, wisdom, information, and intelligence for me," the average person tells herself. This amount of knowing, or ignorance, is "good enough". But nowhere along the way does the human escape from 'subjectivity'. Because the new authority, the new priest, is not offering any "real objectivity" but merely another form of subjectivity.

This is why subjectivists always accuse one another of subjectivity. And this makes the majority of posts on this forum, from week to week, and year to year. You see it all the time. I can pick a majority of threads on this forum, and it's one subjectivist squabbling with another subjectivist, about their respective subjectivity, and "how to interpret the unicorn in the corner". That's all this junk and garbage is.


At no point, do the subjectivists ever step "outside" the box, or even broach the walls. Subjectivity is not interested in a doorway, to step outside the room, and leave the humans and unicorn in the corner behind. Instead humanity is firmly focused on the unicorn in the corner. Inward, solipsistic, subjective, "open to opinion and debate".

"Objectivity" begins when an individual truly questions, "is there a unicorn in the corner, or isn't there???" What do your senses say? Is it there? Can you see it? Can you feel it? This is actually a difficult question, meanwhile, a human will continue to claim and insist, "YES I DO SEE IT!" and "YES I CAN FEEL IT!" Subjectivity is difficult to confront and argue with, rationally and reasonably, when it is locked inside such a delusion.

You cannot talk a psychotic out of her psychosis. It's not a matter of "reasoning" with such madmen.

This is why the 'priestly' class of humans feel so motivated, and justified, to redirect the mass of humanity, to their own benefits and personal whims. If humans are firmly entrenched with the idea of the unicorn, and "make it real" with their minds, then why not use and abuse such humans? Why not treat them as cattle? Why not "dehumanize" humanity, when, such a phenomenon and society is not really 'human' in the first place? Or, isn't it obvious by now, that belief and faith in the unicorn in the corner, makes any given person "human" in the first place?

Isn't humanity that shared delusion? To believe in the unicorn in the corner is. to. be. human.
_A_
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:36 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Arminius » Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:12 pm

First of all I do not have to explain myself. :)

---------------------------------------------------------

Nobody comes into life as a subjectivist or an objectivist. In order to become one of the both or no one of the both subjectivity and objectivity must be learned. This process begins in the womb.

What do the words "subject" and "object" mean originally? From here you have to begin with your research. The next thing is the development of the human object of your research. Then ask yourself: "How does a human being come into life and learn, especially learn the difference between subject and object?" Look at the test with the mirror. As a very little child one learns to recognize oneself in a mirror.

So if we want to continue our converastion here, then we have to define the words "subject" and "object", because it is possible that you have other definitions than I have.

In order to know what a "subject" is, one must at least have a self-concept; and in order to know what an "object" is, one must be capable of distinguishing between the own self and the rest (which is outside of the own self).

Tactility already exists when the human embryo is 2 months old, taste already exists when the human fetus is 3 months old, smell already exists when the human fetus is 5 months old, hearing already exists when the human fetus is 6 months old, seeing already exists when the human fetus is 9 months old.

The sense of balance needs more time and starts when the human embryo is 2 months old.

But do you think that the embryo or the fetus is capable of distinguishing between the own self and the rest (which is outside of the own self)?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5059
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby WendyDarling » Thu Oct 27, 2016 4:56 am

Objectivism is a dead end in its short sightedness, while subjectivism is too much of a distraction for most. What is needed is a new word that represents the teeter-totter between the two. Over at KTS in the thread, The Nature Of Consciousness, I wrote that no angle is perfection. What is the correct way to blend objectivism and subjectivism?
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!


Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 4104
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby James S Saint » Thu Oct 27, 2016 5:31 am

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:What is the correct way to blend objectivism and subjectivism?

Subjectivism is the child of Objectivism.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24660
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby WendyDarling » Thu Oct 27, 2016 5:38 am

I know that JSS, but the blending needs to happen no matter the parent position.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!


Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 4104
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:25 am

_A_ wrote:Subjectivity is difficult to confront and argue with, rationally and reasonably, when it is locked inside such a delusion.
You seem to be condemning 'subjectivity' seemingly ignorant that you are a 'subject' in one sense.
Thus whatever condemnation you are throwing at 'subjectivity' they are 'boomeranging' back to you, i.e. the subject.

I am not clinging onto philosophical subjectivism per-se which could be some specific ideology of certain groups of philosophers, Descartes, Berkeley, etc.
Before you condemned subjectivity, you need to do a full literature review of all the existing perspectives of subjectivity.

My philosophical views are based on the point that the subject[s] is of primary consideration and reality emerges out of inter-subjectivity and dynamic interdependence with objectivity.

To begin with "you" the 'subject' is most real while the objects out there must be verified and confirmed by the subject and subjects collectively to be real and objective.

Thus the degrees of confidence levels of reality are the following;

1. "Me" the subject = 99.9% real [the "I THINK" not the "I AM"]
2. "You" and "other humans" as subjects = 90% real, only an autistic and other mad persons would have greater doubts.
3. External world of objects = 80% real as confirmed by objective verification procedures based on intersubjectivity.

Since subjects and other subjects are more real than objects, I wonder why SOME subjects are condemning subjectivity [philosophical, not personal opinions].

To those who are clinging to the external world as absolute real, note Russell's dilemma here'
Bertrand Russell wrote:Now obviously this point in which the philosophers are agreed -- the view that there is a real table, whatever its nature may be is vitally important, and it will be worth while to consider what reasons there are for accepting this view before we go on to the further question as to the nature of the real table. Our next chapter, therefore, will be concerned with the reasons for supposing that there is a real table at all.

Before we go farther it will be well to consider for a moment what it is that we have discovered so far. It has appeared that, if we take any common object of the sort that is supposed to be known by the senses, what the senses immediately tell us is not the truth about the object as it is apart from us, but only the truth about certain sense-data which, so far as we can see, depend upon the relations between us and the object. Thus what we directly see and feel is merely 'appearance', which we believe to be a sign of some 'reality' behind. But if the reality is not what appears, have we any means of knowing whether there is any reality at all? And if so, have we any means of finding out what it is like?

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life.
Last edited by Prismatic567 on Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:36 am, edited 2 times in total.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Thinker
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:28 am

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:What is the correct way to blend objectivism and subjectivism?
Objectivity is meta-inter-subjectivity from a philosophical perspective.

'Meta' means it is one level above ordinary subjectivity [not personal opinions by the way].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Thinker
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby James S Saint » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:42 am

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:I know that JSS, but the blending needs to happen no matter the parent position.

That is like blending mathematics with poetry. It isn't that it can't be done. The issue is of what good it is, once it is done.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24660
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby WendyDarling » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:58 am

Progress. Techno science limits us. Creative science might free us.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!


Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 4104
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby James S Saint » Thu Oct 27, 2016 5:44 pm

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:Progress. Techno science limits us. Creative science might free us.

"Progress" toward what?
"Free us" from what?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24660
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby WendyDarling » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:16 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Maniacal Mongoose wrote:Progress. Techno science limits us. Creative science might free us.

"Progress" toward what?
"Free us" from what?


Pwendishery.
Stagnant repetitions.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!


Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 4104
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby WendyDarling » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:17 pm

JSS,

Are your thoughts your own? :mrgreen:
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!


Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 4104
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby James S Saint » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:40 pm

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:JSS,

Are your thoughts your own? :mrgreen:

One only owns what he controls.

Does anyone truly control his own thoughts?
.. I know that you certainly don't. :lol:
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24660
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby WendyDarling » Thu Oct 27, 2016 11:12 pm

No then?
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!


Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 4104
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Meno_ » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:37 am

Hi Mangoose: if I say my mind works intuitively, I'd be proposing an untestable hypothesis. However, I am not alone, I find pleasing company with those who claim Quine's definition of intentionality does not much sway from those of Kant. If the objective/subjective differentiation goes back to Saint Anselm, and progresses to Quine, another surprise awaits to postmodern who think of the philosophy of signs as fine tuning this seemingly inpenetrable digression.

Had to introduce this seeming irrelevance, but it is as far removed from the problem, then it is to digress into the realms which has landed the forum.

This is the problem surrounding the intentional use of language, where without such movement away from the ontological into the ontic, no sense could be made of the other definitions of Being, intentionality as a psychic movement-of the willful force of transformation.

That such has taken place in the modern sense by Brentano, does give it a common bond, of credibility.

Apart from that historical depth, the forum would or could laps into a dialogue such as Meno, where both affirmation of logical structure of the argument would need to correlate with it's intuitive basis.

Don't hold this clarification against me, even if, You were to deny it in the manner it is introduced.

If You SIGNAL that I am becoming obscure for the sake of other then learning, I would hope You would at least give some validity for the claim of an intuitive
Philosophical basis.

Will try to connect this, however seemingly convoluted, with the pre-requisited arguments which may or may not substantiate some beginning with some end in terms he progression of phenomenological basis. However, it may work without such, and may in fact, naturally connect the missing cogs, since it is the correlation's mechanism which seems to generate these.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby WendyDarling » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:43 am

I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!


Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 4104
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Meno_ » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:44 am

Outsider: Natural selection is the sublimation toward this hidden intentional act to forcefully avoid the pitfalls that would prevent a correlation between the intentional acts and their lack, , in which case the future of this relationship would/could land an existence fall into the absolute and irrevocable nihilism, that some find it inescapable.

Sartre, 'No Exit'.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Meno_ » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:45 am

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:Perceptual intelligence.


http://sicksadworld.forumotion.com/t199-identifying-reality
A
project.


Granted, but with limitations into the development of basic metaphoric representations.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Meno_ » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:49 am

And this is what an irrevocable nihilism can regress into.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby WendyDarling » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:51 am

jerkey wrote
And this is what an irrevocable nihilism can regress into.




Metaphors, why? Substance only, screw style when it comes to the finished product.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!


Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 4104
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Meno_ » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:57 am

Metaphors as substantive, lacking in lower order beings with no intention or object to further development.

Substance without style lacks this development, the
objective intentionality without the subjective signaling remains unavailable and intuitive understanding is reduced to mumbo jumbo
mysticism.
Last edited by Meno_ on Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby WendyDarling » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:00 am

Word play is discrete? Thanks for the heads up towards Brentano. :D

You can't remain on the fence forever...or can you? :evilfun:
Last edited by WendyDarling on Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!


Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 4104
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid

Postby Meno_ » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:04 am

Maniacal Mongoose wrote:Word play is discrete? Thanks for the heads up towards Brentano. :D


Indiscrete, according to those who are unable, or unwilling to connect the project from the projection.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2026
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users