Objectivity

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Objectivity

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:35 am

surreptitious75 wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
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 ]

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

Note I denounced 'propositions not supported by empirical evidence, possibility and rationality [philosophical].

Thus rational truths or propositions must be supported by empirical evidence, possibility and rationality [philosophical].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2351
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:54 am

Serendipper wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:'Subjectivity' connotes too much personal judgment.

Unanimous subjectivity is the same as "intersubjective consensus" or shared-subjectivity?

Everyone believing the earth is round is a subjective interpretation that is unanimous, and coincidentally so.

I believe the concept of objectivity implied processed and a refinement of 'subjectivity' with due care and rationality, i.e. put through the rigor of testing for empirical evidences, possibility and rationality.
E.g. God is not-empirical-evident, is impossible and irrational. God is only useful for psychological reasons.

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].

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.

OK, I get your point because it can be a very loose term.

However I believe we can tighten the term 'objectivity' with more precise definitions.

I believe the dichotomy of the subject versus the object, thus subjective versus objective is essential. Thus the use of the term 'objectivity' is useful, i.e. as shared or intersubjectivity, because as I mentioned above it is processed and refined 'subjectivity'. Therefore we cannot separate subjectivity from what is objectivity.

What the objectivists proposed as 100% pure objectivity need to be expounded and the error be exposed as incorrectly misled by psychology. What is critical is we need to explore and research into the role of psychology in compelling a person toward the ideology of theism and philosophical realism. This will then take us to explore deeper into the brain and human psychology.

If I agree with your sticking to subjectivity without the corresponding 'objectivity' we will not have the potential for further exploration and research.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2351
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:03 am

Mad Man P wrote:
Philosophical realism is the recognition that reality does not bend to our will nor is shaped by our conceptions of it... this is self evident to any being that cannot shape it's own reality.

The very serious arguments from the Philosophical Anti-Realist [Buddha, Kant et al) is reality-as-it-is does bend to our will, i.e. the collective not the individual's Will. As part and parcel of reality-as-it-is, the subjects are co-creators of reality-as-it-is.

The Philosophical Realists' view on objective reality [independent of the human conditions] is "I am 100% right you are wrong", "take it or the highway", which is similar as the theists' view.

Note the Philosophical Realists' view is not evident ultimately but based on a leap of faith to insist there is something like the thing-in-itself [noumenon] when there is no such thing as a thing-in-itself, thing-by-itself, things-by-themselves.

Like I said earlier, this is often innocuous and done for the sake of ego... which is fine, because we all know when you get off the computer you're not going be jumping off a bridge or anything.
You're most likely not even going to propose any wild and speculative corrections to our theory of gravity.
At most you're just going to feel good about yourself for having made a point you think most people are too blind to see and pat your own back for doing so... and if that makes you happy who am I to get in your way.

Regardless of whatever one feels, what count are the arguments, whether they are sound or not.

Note the trend of knowledge as in Physics has been moving from the focus on the objects to the subjects, note observers' effect, QM - collapse function, etc.

Copernicus did it and Kant [mine] followed suit;

Kant in CPR wrote:Hitherto it has been assumed that all our Knowledge must conform to Objects.
BUT all attempts to extend our Knowledge of Objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of Concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in Failure.

We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of Metaphysics, if we suppose that Objects must conform to our [subjects'] Knowledge.
This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be Possible to have Knowledge of Objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being Given.

We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary Hypothesis. 1
Failing of satisfactory progress of explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest. [B xvii]

A similar experiment can be tried in Metaphysics, as regards the Intuition of Objects.
If Intuition must conform to the constitution of the Objects, I do not see how we could know anything of the latter [the objects] a priori
but if the Object (as Object of the Senses) must conform to the constitution of our [subjects'] Faculty of Intuition, I have no difficulty in conceiving such a possibility.
[CPR - B xvi]


The Philosophical Realists' position [the majority's] is based on common sense and the default. Kant's and others are swimming against the tide of the majority. It take a big psychological battle to break through this, but the Philosophical Realists by default just cannot do it since they are being trapped by their inherent psychological defense mechanisms.

To experience this defense mechanism first hand, try this;
Spirituality: How Long Can You Hold Your Breath?
styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif

This psychological defense mechanism is so strong and aggressive, some will even kill if that defense is threatened.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2351
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:32 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I could also ask this way : are you an idealist and not a realist? are you a pure one?

Serendipper wrote:I can't keep those terms straight because they're opposite from what intuition would suggest. Let's see... an idealistic person is a realist, right?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:No, not to me, lol.

To me, an idealistic person would be one who asserts that their ideal situation is objective truth and the realistic person would be one who asserts that ideal situations don't exist or that situations aren't always ideal. Like Jefferson idealistically claiming that a nation with a standing army is a danger to freedom, then later realizing without an army there can be no country.

Realism = objectivism = idealistic person.
Idealism = subjectivism = realistic person.

It's hard for me to keep it straight because I don't associate what's ideal with what's mental... and I don't associate what's real as anything other than "mental" (subjective).

How does this relate, for exmaple, to all the work you did on showing that Republicans were X - generally negative? Can they just say, well, that's how you experience it? One way of experiencing amongst many, and no hierarchy between these different interpretations.

Sure that's how they experience it and I know because I used to experience it since I used to be republican, and they're free to go experience it all they want, but when they shove it down my throat, then it's not an experience I want to experience and the experience that I prefer is that of fighting back against the aggression.
I'm not asking why you fight or saying you should stop. It just seemed like you were taking an objective stance. Look, here are the facts. Here's what statistics show, here's the data, you're just being emotional amydala people if you disagree and so on.

It seemed like you were saying: this is what reality out there is like. Period. I can show the objective truth on the subject.

From my frame of reference, all adherents to logic should see it my way. From their frame of reference, which is from a hole in the sand, they can't see it.

Dumb minorities vote liberal because the oppression of minorities by conservatives is not difficult to see. Any idiot can see it.

Dumb whites vote conservative because the oppression of dumb whites by conservatives is too difficult to discern and it requires the caliber of someone like Noam Chomsky to point it out, and even then, it requires fairly substantial intelligence to see it even when illustrated by Noam. So there is nothing they can conclude other than all those smart professors are idiots.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Mad Man P » Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:44 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Mad Man P wrote:
Philosophical realism is the recognition that reality does not bend to our will nor is shaped by our conceptions of it... this is self evident to any being that cannot shape it's own reality.


The very serious arguments from the Philosophical Anti-Realist [Buddha, Kant et al) is reality-as-it-is does bend to our will, i.e. the collective not the individual's Will.

As part and parcel of reality-as-it-is, the subjects are co-creators of reality-as-it-is.


Well first, I'm not having this conversation with Kant or the Buddha, I'm having it with you...
So maybe you can present me with your thoughts instead of attempting to speak on behalf of greater minds.

The Philosophical Realists' view on objective reality [independent of the human conditions] is "I am 100% right you are wrong", "take it or the highway", which is similar as the theists' view.


Note the Philosophical Realists' view is not evident ultimately but based on a leap of faith to insist there is something like the thing-in-itself [noumenon] when there is no such thing as a thing-in-itself, thing-by-itself, things-by-themselves.


You've not really giving me anything to work with here... you've just made assertions without outlining any kind of reasoning that leads you to your conclusions.
Not only that but you've also predefined "philosophical realism" into a neat little box with predefined flaws that you can point out independent of me.
My participation at this point seems optional...

But on the off chance that you may actually respond to ME and not some predefined tenet that you imagine I hold to, I'll say again:
I don't have to convince you of anything, because you're already operating as though you agree with me... I am not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you're playing a language game.
You might want to frame it as "collective reality" or "relative reality" but it's inconsequential.

Say something of consequence, commit to something that makes your faith falsifiable THEN I'll concede that you're not JUST playing word games.

This psychological defense mechanism is so strong and aggressive, some will even kill if that defense is threatened.


Yeah don't flatter yourself... ideas are not dangerous to realists, knowledge is.
When realists have knowledge, they guard it carefully. Whether it's scientific discoveries, military intelligence, new tech designs you name it...
They're happy for you to be ignorant, gives them an edge.

It's the ideological religious types who NEED you to believe what they believe and insist you change your mind.
And it's just as unpersuasive when they drone on about how defensive and closed off you are to accepting their brand of horseshit.
"I'm just saying that if we want to have a fruitful discussion, we all need to know what the fuck we're talking about" - Carleas

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2519
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Objectivity

Postby iambiguous » Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:00 pm

Serendipper wrote: Then ask them to prove their objective truth exists independent of all subjects. Is abortion wrong even if people do not exist? If it's objective, then yes, because abortion is always wrong, but how to prove something is wrong with no means to execute it?


Their "proof" will consist of the conclusions that they draw from the assumptions that they make about abortion.

Serendipper wrote: Right. Their proof would be subject to __________.


And what on earth does that mean? Different extant people fill in the blank here with different [conflicting] sets of political prejudices.

Then the moral objectivists among them will insist that the manner in which they construe the whole truth here is on par with the manner in which all of us can determine/demonstrate what is true in the either/or world --- encompassed in the evolution of life on earth culminating [so far] in our own species biologically able to impregnate the female of the species.

Then this part:

Thus the conclusion of the anti-abortion camp is based on the assumption that a human baby [from the point of conception for some] has the natural right to life. While the conclusion of the pro-choice camp is based on the assumption that women have the political right to abort that which many do not even construe to be a human being.

Then what?


Serendipper wrote: I don't know. Either it becomes a popularity contest or a sensibility contest or somehow one party defeats the other. Does the lion catch the deer so the lion can go on living or does the deer get away so that the deer can go on living? Why should the universe care?


It's not a question of the universe caring, it's a question of what those of our own species are able to demonstrate is true objectively for all rational human beings. Something that lions and deer know practically nothing of.

Well, demonstrate to us how you do know that there is no objective morality. My point is that the objectivists engage arguments which they insist are true because they insist in turn that the underlying assumptions/premises are true.

By definition as it were. Just like you.


Serendipper wrote: Right. It's definitional.


Okay, that part I understand. Objectivity is defined into existence "in your head". James Saints "definitional logic". And if you can convince others to share in those definitions culminating in the meaning or words placed in a particular order in posts like this, then objectivity is captured. If only in a world of words.

Serendipper wrote: We have a subject and object, so what ought subjectivity and objectivity mean? Well, subjectivity is the viewpoint of the subject. Makes sense, right? So is objectivity the viewpoint of the object? Well, that's just swapping their names, so it's still subjectivity where the object becomes the subject. So then what is objectivity? Well, if (S -> O) and (O -> S) are both subjectivity, then the only remaining option is (O) without the subject. What else could it be?


Of course in a wholly determined universe even the human "subject" is but one more of nature's objects. But, if one presumes some level of autonomy, then [for me] what counts is connecting the dots between what any particular subjects believe is true and what they are able to demonstrate is true. Using, for example, the scientific method and the logical rules of language

Serendipper wrote: So subjectivity says abortion is right or wrong depending on the context and objectivity says it's wrong regardless of any contexts.


Yes, but only to the extent that any particular subject is able to demonstrate that one can approach the morality of abortion as a doctor approaches human sexuality and pregnancy given her objective understanding of the biological parameters involved.

Serendipper wrote: My view is the contextless thing cannot exist and that's subject to the fact that I cannot conceptualize existence outside of context and those who assert the existence of the contextless are overstepping their authority in arrogance.


Here, I can only imagine folks at an abortion clinic protest reacting to this. How "for all preactical purposes" might this be useful to them?

Serendipper wrote: But the universe is probabilistic.


Again, another assertion. And then any number of determinists will assert that you were never able not to assert it.


Serendipper wrote: It's the most substantiated assertion in all of science. Either there are no local variables determining outcomes, which means events are causeless; or information can travel faster than light, which means effects can precede causes. Pick which nonsense you prefer, but there is no experimental evidence to underpin determinism, which relegates it to not only being conjecture, but also in the face of contrary evidence.


I have no idea what this has to do with the points I raise in regards to abortion out in the is/ought world. I'm not saying you are wrong, only that it is all entirely too abstract [to me] to have any real use value or exchange value in a context in which a particular abortion is actually being reacted to.

Serendipper wrote: What exists to you is subject to your ability to behold it.


Well, I imagine that any number of subjects have beheld a woman at an abortion clinic having a procedure that ends the life of her unborn zygote/embryo/fetus.

But how does one behold conflicting narratives in regard to the morality of it?

Serendipper wrote: How do you define illusion?


In a determined universe, everything that we think, feel, say and do embodies the illusion of autonomy.

And, in an autonomous universe, I believe that objectivist moral narratives/political agendas reflect the illusion of an objective morality.

Only I immediately recognize my inabilty to demonstrate that this in itself is true objectively. Why? Because there may well be an existing God. Or there may well be a wholly rational Humanist assesment out there that does in fact pin down an objective argument about the morality of abortion one way or the other.

But I don't focus as much on defining illusion. Instead, my interest is in taking any particular definitions out into the world of actual human interactions and testing them existentially.

Bring this down to earth please.


Serendipper wrote: Bring the concept of "bringing it down to earth" down to earth please ;)


Well, we need to name a particular context. Say, building Trump's wall on the border with Mexico. Then we need to hear all of the conflicting arguments regarding whether [objectively] we can discern the "right thing to do here".

With regard to actual flesh and blood human beings whose lives will either be uplifted or upended in building or not building it.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30189
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Objectivity

Postby surreptitious75 » Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:46 pm

iambiguous wrote:
its a question of what those of our own species are able to demonstrate is true objectively for all rational human beings

There are two types of objectivity : relative and absolute

Relative objectivity is inter subjective consensus that has the rigour of evidence or proof or logic or reason to support it [ it is
not merely popular opinion for that does not require any rigour at all ] This is the type of objectivity that you are referring to

Absolute objectivity is that which is held to be true even though it cannot be demonstrated such as for example the existence of God
Although given that belief in God is subjective then absolute objectivity must logically also be subjective. Ones position on this is dependent upon
whether you are a theist or an atheist : theists will say absolute objectivity exists because God exists while atheists will say the complete opposite

This is incidentally why you cannot find an objective answer to your abortion dilemma : anti abortionists are theists and pro abortionists are atheists
They cannot agree on the morality of abortion because they are using entirely different moral authorities namely God and human beings
The anti abortionists are citing an authority that the pro abortionists do not acknowledge so difference of opinion is therefore inevitable
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:29 am

Mad Man P wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
Mad Man P wrote:
Philosophical realism is the recognition that reality does not bend to our will nor is shaped by our conceptions of it... this is self evident to any being that cannot shape it's own reality.


The very serious arguments from the Philosophical Anti-Realist [Buddha, Kant et al) is reality-as-it-is does bend to our will, i.e. the collective not the individual's Will.

As part and parcel of reality-as-it-is, the subjects are co-creators of reality-as-it-is.


Well first, I'm not having this conversation with Kant or the Buddha, I'm having it with you...
So maybe you can present me with your thoughts instead of attempting to speak on behalf of greater minds.

Having spent the amount of time on both, I would consider myself a near expert on their knowledge. Thus my views are very similar to the Buddha's and Kant, thus standing on shoulders of giants to support my views.

The Philosophical Realists' view on objective reality [independent of the human conditions] is "I am 100% right you are wrong", "take it or the highway", which is similar as the theists' view.


Note the Philosophical Realists' view is not evident ultimately but based on a leap of faith to insist there is something like the thing-in-itself [noumenon] when there is no such thing as a thing-in-itself, thing-by-itself, things-by-themselves.


You've not really giving me anything to work with here... you've just made assertions without outlining any kind of reasoning that leads you to your conclusions.
Not only that but you've also predefined "philosophical realism" into a neat little box with predefined flaws that you can point out independent of me.
My participation at this point seems optional...

But on the off chance that you may actually respond to ME and not some predefined tenet that you imagine I hold to, I'll say again:
I don't have to convince you of anything, because you're already operating as though you agree with me... I am not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you're playing a language game.
You might want to frame it as "collective reality" or "relative reality" but it's inconsequential.

Say something of consequence, commit to something that makes your faith falsifiable THEN I'll concede that you're not JUST playing word games.

I did not make my own definition. I had actually defined Philosophical Realism based on the general accepted definition, i.e.

In metaphysics, realism [Philosophical] about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Realism can be applied to many philosophically interesting objects and phenomena: other minds, the past or the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the physical world, and thought.

Realism can also be a view about the nature of reality in general, where it claims that the world exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (like some forms of skepticism and solipsism, which question our ability to assert the world is independent of our mind). Philosophers who profess realism often claim that truth consists in a correspondence between cognitive representations and reality.[1]

Realists tend to believe that whatever we believe now is only an approximation of reality but that the accuracy and fullness of understanding can be improved.[2] In some contexts, realism is contrasted with idealism.

Today it is more usually contrasted with anti-realism, for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism


The last point is debatable depending on whether one is referring to classical Science or Modern or Quantum Physics.

This psychological defense mechanism is so strong and aggressive, some will even kill if that defense is threatened.


Yeah don't flatter yourself... ideas are not dangerous to realists, knowledge is.
When realists have knowledge, they guard it carefully. Whether it's scientific discoveries, military intelligence, new tech designs you name it...
They're happy for you to be ignorant, gives them an edge.

It's the ideological religious types who NEED you to believe what they believe and insist you change your mind.
And it's just as unpersuasive when they drone on about how defensive and closed off you are to accepting their brand of horseshit.

Ideas [philosophical] i.e. ideology not dangerous?
Note Communism, Nazism, fascism and Islamic theism and others of the like.

Knowledge itself is not dangerous but only when it is abused with an ideology.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2351
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:49 am

Serendipper wrote:
Realism = objectivism = idealistic person.
Idealism = subjectivism = realistic person.


To put into Kant's Perspective;

    Transcendental/Philosophical Realism = objectivism = idealistic person.

    Transcendental Idealism = subjectivism = realistic person.

It is not easy to explain, I will try;

Transcendental/Philosophical Realism = objectivism = idealistic person.
An pure objectivist of Transcendental/Philosophical Realism believe in an external object that is independent of the human condition, which mean there is a reality GAP between the subject and the object connected by waves.
The waves of the external object form a mental conception and idea of the object in the mind.
In this case, the subject never interact with the supposedly real object at all.
This is the reason why the pure objectivist or philosophical realist is an idealistic person.
This weakness is exposed by Meno's Paradox.

For example a philosophical realist believe there is a real table that is external to his human subjective conditions. But the philosophical realist never get in "touch" with the real table but only is connected via electromagnetic waves from his real table.
The question is, is there a "real" table emitting waves to his brain?

Note I had quoted Russell's doubts, i.e. "perhaps there is no table at all"

A Philosophical Realist will often condemn his counterpart as an idealist, not being aware they are the real idealist, i.e. transcendental idealist indulging in illusions.

Transcendental Idealism = subjectivism = realistic person.
On the other hand the transcendental idealist is an empirical realist.
To the empirical realist the object co-exists with the subject, there is no object that is external to the human conditions, i.e. no reality-GAP at all.
Thus the transcendental idealist or empirical realist which is intersubjective is realistic, i.e. what is cognized and emerged is what you get.

Common sense indicate there is some sort of externalness, i.e. a distance between the subject and the object [Sun 93 million miles away], but this distance is still subjective.

The term "idealist" is a derogatory term thrown at those who oppose their Philosophical Realism views.
They so called and condemned 'idealists' [not theistic idealists like Berkerley] are actually empirical realists, thus very realistic.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2351
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:50 am

Serendipper wrote:To me, an idealistic person would be one who asserts that their ideal situation is objective truth and the realistic person would be one who asserts that ideal situations don't exist or that situations aren't always ideal. Like Jefferson idealistically claiming that a nation with a standing army is a danger to freedom, then later realizing without an army there can be no country.

Realism = objectivism = idealistic person.
Idealism = subjectivism = realistic person.
Didn't I include a definition of idealism? In philosophy it has a different meaning.

It's hard for me to keep it straight because I don't associate what's ideal with what's mental... and I don't associate what's real as anything other than "mental" (subjective).
Now that's idealism. You're an idealist.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/ (this is just one take on idealism)


From my frame of reference, all adherents to logic should see it my way. From their frame of reference, which is from a hole in the sand, they can't see it.
You are prioritizing your view over theirs. That's not an accusation, but you are claiming, with the word 'logic' that you are more objective.

Dumb minorities vote liberal because the oppression of minorities by conservatives is not difficult to see. Any idiot can see it.

Dumb whites vote conservative because the oppression of dumb whites by conservatives is too difficult to discern and it requires the caliber of someone like Noam Chomsky to point it out, and even then, it requires fairly substantial intelligence to see it even when illustrated by Noam. So there is nothing they can conclude other than all those smart professors are idiots.
I cannot see how claims to objectivity are not part of the foundation for this attitude.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Mad Man P » Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:29 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:Ideas [philosophical] i.e. ideology not dangerous?
Note Communism, Nazism, fascism and Islamic theism and others of the like.

Knowledge itself is not dangerous but only when it is abused with an ideology.


Ideas are not dangerous..
YOU might be dangerous, if you were armed with knowledge... but not your ideas.

You idealist types often ARE dangerous because you desperately need to get everyone else to agree with you.
It's almost as if you believe your fantasy world stops being real if you can't get the "collective" to agree... ;)

Whereas for realists that's not really a concern...

This has been a truly tiresome conversation...
Last edited by Mad Man P on Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I'm just saying that if we want to have a fruitful discussion, we all need to know what the fuck we're talking about" - Carleas

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2519
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:39 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:To me, an idealistic person would be one who asserts that their ideal situation is objective truth and the realistic person would be one who asserts that ideal situations don't exist or that situations aren't always ideal. Like Jefferson idealistically claiming that a nation with a standing army is a danger to freedom, then later realizing without an army there can be no country.

Realism = objectivism = idealistic person.
Idealism = subjectivism = realistic person.
Didn't I include a definition of idealism? In philosophy it has a different meaning.

I know, that's why I can't keep it straight until I go through the effort of figuring it all out again.

It's hard for me to keep it straight because I don't associate what's ideal with what's mental... and I don't associate what's real as anything other than "mental" (subjective).
Now that's idealism. You're an idealist.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/ (this is just one take on idealism)

I'm an idealist except that I don't define "mental" as most people would. You know that.

From my frame of reference, all adherents to logic should see it my way. From their frame of reference, which is from a hole in the sand, they can't see it.
You are prioritizing your view over theirs. That's not an accusation, but you are claiming, with the word 'logic' that you are more objective.

I'm simply saying that plugging concepts into logical equations spits out certain conclusions subject to the logic and the variables.

Does it REALLY matter if anyone is exploited? No. But if nothing matters, then it doesn't matter if I fight back.

Dumb minorities vote liberal because the oppression of minorities by conservatives is not difficult to see. Any idiot can see it.

Dumb whites vote conservative because the oppression of dumb whites by conservatives is too difficult to discern and it requires the caliber of someone like Noam Chomsky to point it out, and even then, it requires fairly substantial intelligence to see it even when illustrated by Noam. So there is nothing they can conclude other than all those smart professors are idiots.
I cannot see how claims to objectivity are not part of the foundation for this attitude.

For the attitude of the dummy it is because he cannot see and is drawing conclusions from darkness, then holding them on faith. Noam has authored over 100 books, holds 40 honorary degrees, and has been lecturing on politics and economics for longer than most people have been alive, yet he's casually dismissed as an idiot by people who are themselves idiots if their standardized test results and grades are any guide. They are making an objective claim. I am making a subjective claim that's subject to logic and reason, but they are making an objective claim that's subject to nothing.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:55 am

Mad Man P wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Ideas [philosophical] i.e. ideology not dangerous?
Note Communism, Nazism, fascism and Islamic theism and others of the like.

Knowledge itself is not dangerous but only when it is abused with an ideology.


Ideas are not dangerous..
YOU might be dangerous, if you were armed with knowledge... but not your ideas.

You idealist types often ARE dangerous because you desperately need to get everyone else to agree with you.
It's almost as if you believe your fantasy world stops being real if you can't get the "collective" to agree... ;)

Whereas for realists that's not really a concern...

This has been a truly tiresome conversation...

Whether agree or disagree, the currency is sound arguments.
If you have sound counter arguments then I can either counter or agree.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2351
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:05 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
It's hard for me to keep it straight because I don't associate what's ideal with what's mental... and I don't associate what's real as anything other than "mental" (subjective).
Now that's idealism. You're an idealist.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/ (this is just one take on idealism)

Whether it is 'realism' or 'idealism' we need to put them into their proper contexts.

There are those who jumped to claim they are Philosophical Realists with the ideology of Realism but the philosophical argument is they are not realistic.
Philosophical Realists insist they can point to a real table, but as Russell stated, under strong philosophical rigor, perhaps there is no really-real table at all as proposed by the so claimed Realists.

It is argued the Philosophical Realists are actually empirical idealists and transcendental realists.

The typical so condemned 'idealist' is actually an empirical realist and a transcendental idealist as I had explained from the Kantian perspective.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2351
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:28 am

Serendipper wrote:I'm simply saying that plugging concepts into logical equations spits out certain conclusions subject to the logic and the variables.

Does it REALLY matter if anyone is exploited? No. But if nothing matters, then it doesn't matter if I fight back.
It doesn't matter if anyone is exploited?

Who are you? (today)

For the attitude of the dummy it is because he cannot see and is drawing conclusions from darkness, then holding them on faith. Noam has authored over 100 books, holds 40 honorary degrees, and has been lecturing on politics and economics for longer than most people have been alive, yet he's casually dismissed as an idiot by people who are themselves idiots if their standardized test results and grades are any guide. They are making an objective claim. I am making a subjective claim that's subject to logic and reason, but they are making an objective claim that's subject to nothing.
I'm not saying 'those guys are fine' I'm just trying to understand your position. IOW if I probe you in your debate on the right, I am not saying the Right is right. I mean, you both could be nuts, for exmaple. I don't think your nuts, but often on the internet if you probe or criticize one side of a debate or one part of someone's argument, it is taken to mean one agrees with the other team. Both teams could be nuts. The other team could be nuts about most thigns, but not this one thing. It could have been worded weird. Their might be a third team that's great. I am sure there are other possiblities.

I still find it strange that you think you are making subjective claims only.

Even the head in the sand metaphor strongly implies that your head is not in the sand. So you can look at the objects. They have their head in the sand, so they are making stuff up. IOW objects can be percieved. They are out there. You are triangulating them and have a better chance of knowing their nature, becaues your head is not under the earth. You have a direct line of sight.

The Right...my thoughts on the right are so weird to most people I haven't even brought them up: I think they are a reflection of our denials. Feelings and thoughts we did not want to look up because we were afraid they meant we are bad, seeped out of us and lo....there they are fixed and as bad as we feared, but only because we denied them. IOW they are not as real.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:18 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:I'm simply saying that plugging concepts into logical equations spits out certain conclusions subject to the logic and the variables.

Does it REALLY matter if anyone is exploited? No. But if nothing matters, then it doesn't matter if I fight back.
It doesn't matter if anyone is exploited?

Who are you? (today)

I'm the one defending myself from your attacks in defense of your own enemies lol

For the attitude of the dummy it is because he cannot see and is drawing conclusions from darkness, then holding them on faith. Noam has authored over 100 books, holds 40 honorary degrees, and has been lecturing on politics and economics for longer than most people have been alive, yet he's casually dismissed as an idiot by people who are themselves idiots if their standardized test results and grades are any guide. They are making an objective claim. I am making a subjective claim that's subject to logic and reason, but they are making an objective claim that's subject to nothing.
I'm not saying 'those guys are fine' I'm just trying to understand your position. IOW if I probe you in your debate on the right, I am not saying the Right is right. I mean, you both could be nuts, for exmaple. I don't think your nuts, but often on the internet if you probe or criticize one side of a debate or one part of someone's argument, it is taken to mean one agrees with the other team. Both teams could be nuts. The other team could be nuts about most thigns, but not this one thing. It could have been worded weird. Their might be a third team that's great. I am sure there are other possiblities.

The Left is Freddy Krueger and the Right is Dunning-Kruger.

I still find it strange that you think you are making subjective claims only.

Subject to logic like 2+2.

Even the head in the sand metaphor strongly implies that your head is not in the sand.

It's not in the sand because I don't put it there. That doesn't mean I'm correct, but I'm not running away to preserve my preconceived notions that must be defended at all costs because it's my religion.

I am here ready to defend my position, but where are those on the right?

trump supporters.jpg
trump supporters.jpg (59.53 KiB) Viewed 5690 times


So you can look at the objects. They have their head in the sand, so they are making stuff up. IOW objects can be percieved. They are out there. You are triangulating them and have a better chance of knowing their nature, becaues your head is not under the earth. You have a direct line of sight.

First of all, they're narcissists, so they can't see because they have a huge mirror in front of their heads. Many of them could see if they could get past the fact that they already know everything.

The Right...my thoughts on the right are so weird to most people I haven't even brought them up: I think they are a reflection of our denials. Feelings and thoughts we did not want to look up because we were afraid they meant we are bad, seeped out of us and lo....there they are fixed and as bad as we feared, but only because we denied them. IOW they are not as real.

You'll have to elaborate because I'm not seeing what you meant to convey. Biggie would say bring it down to earth lol
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:03 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Does it REALLY matter if anyone is exploited? No.
It doesn't matter if anyone is exploited?

Who are you? (today)[/quote]
I'm the one defending myself from your attacks in defense of your own enemies lol
This is not a war. This is a discussion forum, supposedly philosophy based. You say above that it doesn't matter if people are exploited. I don't understand then why you have enemies. You were responding, I thought, to questions and critiques about what your wrote. Your arguments for example.

Is this the old thing where you have to pick one of only two teams, never point out problems with your own team is saying, always attack other teams?

that's been working real well for humanity so far. And all the underlying assumptions reek of Christian memes.

And seriously... enemies, but it doesn't matter if anyone is exploited. It's like hysterical indifference.


Even the head in the sand metaphor strongly implies that your head is not in the sand.

It's not in the sand because I don't put it there. That doesn't mean I'm correct, but I'm not running away to preserve my preconceived notions that must be defended at all costs because it's my religion.
Again, the idea is that the head in the sand has it's vision blocked. It cannot see whether something is coming or not, from where, what it is. The metaphor is about not being able to perceive objects. It assumes objectiv.ity. Not infallibility, but objectivity.

You keep criticizing them for not being as objective as you.


First of all, they're narcissists, so they can't see because they have a huge mirror in front of their heads. Many of them could see if they could get past the fact that they already know everything.
And again, you can see, you don't have ia mirror in front of your head, they can't they do. They can't perceive objects. Their ideas about reality are clouded by the fact that they are not looking at it. Again objectivity is assumed.


You'll have to elaborate because I'm not seeing what you meant to convey. Biggie would say bring it down to earth lol
[/quote]It's ok, it's too much of a stretch.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:34 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
I'm the one defending myself from your attacks in defense of your own enemies lol
This is not a war. This is a discussion forum, supposedly philosophy based.

Still though, people attack arguments and defend arguments. You're now attacking my assertion that discussion is analogous to war and I'm now defending it.

You say above that it doesn't matter if people are exploited.

Yes because after the game, the king and pawn go in the same box. Whatever happens in this universe doesn't matter.

I don't understand then why you have enemies.

Because the game is still going on.

Is this the old thing where you have to pick one of only two teams, never point out problems with your own team is saying, always attack other teams?

No, we could have a free-for-all where it's everyone against everyone else, but I just figured it would be more in your best interest to ally ourselves against realworld enemies rather than bicker among ourselves in defense of online enemies.

that's been working real well for humanity so far. And all the underlying assumptions reek of Christian memes.

I'm crusading against the crusaders, but at least I'm aware of it.

And seriously... enemies, but it doesn't matter if anyone is exploited. It's like hysterical indifference.

I think it matters, which is why I'm crusading, but I also know nothing matters in the end.

Even the head in the sand metaphor strongly implies that your head is not in the sand.

It's not in the sand because I don't put it there. That doesn't mean I'm correct, but I'm not running away to preserve my preconceived notions that must be defended at all costs because it's my religion.
Again, the idea is that the head in the sand has it's vision blocked. It cannot see whether something is coming or not, from where, what it is. The metaphor is about not being able to perceive objects. It assumes objectiv.ity. Not infallibility, but objectivity.

You keep criticizing them for not being as objective as you.

No you have it backwards: they are asserting what they cannot see; I am asserting what I can see. "See" = "follows from logic".

"Thinking is no more and no less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear sounds, so thinking perceives ideas." - Goethe

You see?

"That which enters the mind through reason can be corrected. That which is admitted through faith, hardly ever." - Santiago Ramón y Cajal

Ideas that entered the mind through reason are subject to the reasoning and change with it.

"When the facts change, I change my mind." - John Maynard Keynes

But that which enters the mind through faith can never change until the faith is lost. If the idea is subject to anything, it is their faith; however, faith isn't given as a basis for the claim, but the basis is: it just is. It has nothing to do with reason, nothing to do with vision or sense, and nothing to do with anything; it just is.

First of all, they're narcissists, so they can't see because they have a huge mirror in front of their heads. Many of them could see if they could get past the fact that they already know everything.
And again, you can see, you don't have ia mirror in front of your head, they can't they do. They can't perceive objects. Their ideas about reality are clouded by the fact that they are not looking at it. Again objectivity is assumed.

No it's subject to reason.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:35 am

iambiguous wrote:
Serendipper wrote: Then ask them to prove their objective truth exists independent of all subjects. Is abortion wrong even if people do not exist? If it's objective, then yes, because abortion is always wrong, but how to prove something is wrong with no means to execute it?


Their "proof" will consist of the conclusions that they draw from the assumptions that they make about abortion.

Serendipper wrote: Right. Their proof would be subject to __________.


And what on earth does that mean? Different extant people fill in the blank here with different [conflicting] sets of political prejudices.

What do you mean "what does that mean"? If their proof is subject to some argument or line of reason, then it's subjective. Objective claims are not subject to anything.

Then the moral objectivists among them will insist that the manner in which they construe the whole truth here is on par with the manner in which all of us can determine/demonstrate what is true in the either/or world --- encompassed in the evolution of life on earth culminating [so far] in our own species biologically able to impregnate the female of the species.

Well if the claim is an artifact of evolution, then it's subject to evolution and subjective. Objective claims will be supported by god or some authority.

Thus the conclusion of the anti-abortion camp is based on the assumption that a human baby [from the point of conception for some] has the natural right to life. While the conclusion of the pro-choice camp is based on the assumption that women have the political right to abort that which many do not even construe to be a human being.

Then what?


Serendipper wrote: I don't know. Either it becomes a popularity contest or a sensibility contest or somehow one party defeats the other. Does the lion catch the deer so the lion can go on living or does the deer get away so that the deer can go on living? Why should the universe care?


It's not a question of the universe caring, it's a question of what those of our own species are able to demonstrate is true objectively for all rational human beings. Something that lions and deer know practically nothing of.

Objective claims can't be demonstrated because then the claim would be subject to the demonstration.

Well, demonstrate to us how you do know that there is no objective morality. My point is that the objectivists engage arguments which they insist are true because they insist in turn that the underlying assumptions/premises are true.

By definition as it were. Just like you.


Serendipper wrote: Right. It's definitional.


Okay, that part I understand. Objectivity is defined into existence "in your head". James Saints "definitional logic". And if you can convince others to share in those definitions culminating in the meaning or words placed in a particular order in posts like this, then objectivity is captured. If only in a world of words.

Um, I guess.

If you posit some logic and say "here is a logic and here is why I think we should use it" then the logic is subject to the reason for using it; if the reasoning changes, then so will the applicability of the logic.

But if you assert some logic as fundamentally true without any associated reasoning for how you arrived at that conclusion, then the logic isn't subject to anything; it just is.

You see the difference?

If someone says abortion is wrong, then you ask why, and they say "it just is" and "you know in your heart that it just is", then it's an objective claim because it doesn't depend of anything that could change the fact that abortion is wrong.

On the other hand if someone says abortion is wrong because, idk, it's a person with rights, then the assertion hinges on the personhood and having rights, and is subjective for that reason, even though "having rights" may itself be an objective assertion that's ultimately unjustifiable.

Serendipper wrote: We have a subject and object, so what ought subjectivity and objectivity mean? Well, subjectivity is the viewpoint of the subject. Makes sense, right? So is objectivity the viewpoint of the object? Well, that's just swapping their names, so it's still subjectivity where the object becomes the subject. So then what is objectivity? Well, if (S -> O) and (O -> S) are both subjectivity, then the only remaining option is (O) without the subject. What else could it be?


Of course in a wholly determined universe even the human "subject" is but one more of nature's objects. But, if one presumes some level of autonomy, then [for me] what counts is connecting the dots between what any particular subjects believe is true and what they are able to demonstrate is true. Using, for example, the scientific method and the logical rules of language

Yes, the subject and object are both objects and both the same object.

reality.jpg
reality.jpg (21.2 KiB) Viewed 4249 times


Serendipper wrote: So subjectivity says abortion is right or wrong depending on the context and objectivity says it's wrong regardless of any contexts.


Yes, but only to the extent that any particular subject is able to demonstrate that one can approach the morality of abortion as a doctor approaches human sexuality and pregnancy given her objective understanding of the biological parameters involved.

There is no objective understanding. If it could be understood, it would be subjective.

Serendipper wrote: My view is the contextless thing cannot exist and that's subject to the fact that I cannot conceptualize existence outside of context and those who assert the existence of the contextless are overstepping their authority in arrogance.


Here, I can only imagine folks at an abortion clinic protest reacting to this. How "for all preactical purposes" might this be useful to them?

Which group?

Serendipper wrote: But the universe is probabilistic.


Again, another assertion. And then any number of determinists will assert that you were never able not to assert it.


Serendipper wrote: It's the most substantiated assertion in all of science. Either there are no local variables determining outcomes, which means events are causeless; or information can travel faster than light, which means effects can precede causes. Pick which nonsense you prefer, but there is no experimental evidence to underpin determinism, which relegates it to not only being conjecture, but also in the face of contrary evidence.


I have no idea what this has to do with the points I raise in regards to abortion out in the is/ought world. I'm not saying you are wrong, only that it is all entirely too abstract [to me] to have any real use value or exchange value in a context in which a particular abortion is actually being reacted to.

I really have to press this issue because you're all over the site carrying on about a determined universe while all the evidence indicates that it's not so. The universe isn't determined or even determinable; it's probabilistic.

Serendipper wrote: What exists to you is subject to your ability to behold it.


Well, I imagine that any number of subjects have beheld a woman at an abortion clinic having a procedure that ends the life of her unborn zygote/embryo/fetus.

But how does one behold conflicting narratives in regard to the morality of it?

I don't know, but you can't behold objectivity lest it be subject to the means you use to behold it.

Serendipper wrote: How do you define illusion?


In a determined universe, everything that we think, feel, say and do embodies the illusion of autonomy.

And, in an autonomous universe, I believe that objectivist moral narratives/political agendas reflect the illusion of an objective morality.

Only I immediately recognize my inabilty to demonstrate that this in itself is true objectively. Why? Because there may well be an existing God. Or there may well be a wholly rational Humanist assesment out there that does in fact pin down an objective argument about the morality of abortion one way or the other.

But I don't focus as much on defining illusion. Instead, my interest is in taking any particular definitions out into the world of actual human interactions and testing them existentially.

So to have an illusion then requires objective truth?

Bring this down to earth please.


Serendipper wrote: Bring the concept of "bringing it down to earth" down to earth please ;)


Well, we need to name a particular context. Say, building Trump's wall on the border with Mexico. Then we need to hear all of the conflicting arguments regarding whether [objectively] we can discern the "right thing to do here".

With regard to actual flesh and blood human beings whose lives will either be uplifted or upended in building or not building it.

There is no right thing to do, but there are right things to do in relation to certain goals.

The wall is a waste of time, but it's not a waste of time from an objective standpoint because there is nothing that isn't a waste of time in that case.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:21 am

Serendipper wrote:This is not a war. This is a discussion forum, supposedly philosophy based.

Still though, people attack arguments and defend arguments. You're now attacking my assertion that discussion is analogous to war and I'm now defending it.[/quote]Man, you are shifting the debate around all the time these days. Does this mean we are enemies? which was the word that set this off the most. Do you mean that people should not question arguments of people on their own team? Are there only two teams? Do you actually think you are defeating enemies in a way that will actually help people?


Yes because after the game, the king and pawn go in the same box. Whatever happens in this universe doesn't matter.


I don't understand then why you have enemies.

Because the game is still going on.
1) Why consider your chess opponent an enemy? In chess there are clearly two teams, that's it. In life it is more complicated. If you are part of a team of players, does this mean you never want it pointed out when you may be choosing a wrong line of attack or defense?

Is this the old thing where you have to pick one of only two teams, never point out problems with your own team is saying, always attack other teams?

No, we could have a free-for-all where it's everyone against everyone else, but I just figured it would be more in your best interest to ally ourselves against realworld enemies rather than bicker among ourselves in defense of online enemies.
How republican sounding!

that's been working real well for humanity so far. And all the underlying assumptions reek of Christian memes.

I'm crusading against the crusaders, but at least I'm aware of it.
You're crusading against anyone who doesn't align perfectly with you as far as I can tell.

And seriously... enemies, but it doesn't matter if anyone is exploited. It's like hysterical indifference.

I think it matters, which is why I'm crusading, but I also know nothing matters in the end.
How impervious a position. If you are going to defend your arguments with oxymorons, why bother defending them? Why treat my criticisms as a betrayal - one could for example, treat them as a way to make your arguments stronger - when you could simply ignore them?

Even the head in the sand metaphor strongly implies that your head is not in the sand.

It's not in the sand because I don't put it there. That doesn't mean I'm correct, but I'm not running away to preserve my preconceived notions that must be defended at all costs because it's my religion.
Again, the idea is that the head in the sand has it's vision blocked. It cannot see whether something is coming or not, from where, what it is. The metaphor is about not being able to perceive objects. It assumes objectiv.ity. Not infallibility, but objectivity.

You keep criticizing them for not being as objective as you.

No you have it backwards: they are asserting what they cannot see; I am asserting what I can see. "See" = "follows from logic".
That is exactly what I said. I am talking to you not them. Whatever idiocy they are saying has nothing to do with what you are sayhing and if it makes sense or not. Your defense of your argument is that whatever they are doing is wrong or wronger.

"
Thinking is no more and no less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear sounds, so thinking perceives ideas." - Goethe

You see?

"That which enters the mind through reason can be corrected. That which is admitted through faith, hardly ever." - Santiago Ramón y Cajal

Ideas that entered the mind through reason are subject to the reasoning and change with it.

"When the facts change, I change my mind." - John Maynard Keynes

But that which enters the mind through faith can never change until the faith is lost. If the idea is subject to anything, it is their faith; however, faith isn't given as a basis for the claim, but the basis is: it just is. It has nothing to do with reason, nothing to do with vision or sense, and nothing to do with anything; it just is.
More of the same, moving away from perception to reason. More claims to a better objectivity, which does not mean that your position does not have subjective elements.

First of all, they're narcissists, so they can't see because they have a huge mirror in front of their heads. Many of them could see if they could get past the fact that they already know everything.
And again, you can see, you don't have ia mirror in front of your head, they can't they do. They can't perceive objects. Their ideas about reality are clouded by the fact that they are not looking at it. Again objectivity is assumed.

No it's subject to reason.
As if that was mutually exclusive and somehow explained away my point.

This is a waste of my time. These last posts are a sign of reason? Nah.

enjoy your binary game, your us vs. them. This kind of approach has worked so well in the past, it will surely work again. At least you can find very strong agreement from conservatives, who love to see the world in us/them simple binary terms. And who also resort to quasi-mystical oxymorons when cornered not making sense.

People often think they teach content, but they teach form much more than they realize.

I think you said something about summer break. Maybe we'll bump into each other again after. I think you need one.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Mad Man P » Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:37 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Whether agree or disagree, the currency is sound arguments.
If you have sound counter arguments then I can either counter or agree.


Assertions don't require refutation.
"I'm just saying that if we want to have a fruitful discussion, we all need to know what the fuck we're talking about" - Carleas

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2519
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:33 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Still though, people attack arguments and defend arguments. You're now attacking my assertion that discussion is analogous to war and I'm now defending it.
Man, you are shifting the debate around all the time these days. Does this mean we are enemies?

When people play a game, are they enemies?

Do you mean that people should not question arguments of people on their own team?

Idk. My buddies came over the other day praising Trump and calling AOC names, even suggesting she's gonna euthanize us, but I didn't say anything in the interest of preserving the allegiance. One guy said all those woodstock people, the stoners, are the professors of today. I said, "Those people on the old films from woodstock are the professors today?!?" He said yep. I have a lot of trouble imagining Noam Chomsky tripping on shrooms while jamming to Hendrix, but I kept quiet. I don't know how much longer I can put up with guys who otherwise couldn't stand a liar, running about being a cockholster for the biggest liar humanity has ever known.

Are there only two teams?

Idk. There are republicans who wear the republican label and then there are republicans who wear the democrat label.

Do you actually think you are defeating enemies in a way that will actually help people?

Idk. All I know is I'm doing what I do.

I wonder how many people view this site and how many of them are in the US. Probably not many. But if I can touch the right person who can go wide with it...

Yes because after the game, the king and pawn go in the same box. Whatever happens in this universe doesn't matter.


I don't understand then why you have enemies.

Because the game is still going on.
1) Why consider your chess opponent an enemy? In chess there are clearly two teams, that's it. In life it is more complicated.

In chess, my opponent usually doesn't look for a place to hide then tiptoe out while my back is turned to beat his chest.

If you are part of a team of players, does this mean you never want it pointed out when you may be choosing a wrong line of attack or defense?

No I always want feedback, but I don't want to go to war with my allies. There is no sense bickering over climate change, gun rights, or Mueller reports being red herrings when there are more important things to get accomplished.

Is this the old thing where you have to pick one of only two teams, never point out problems with your own team is saying, always attack other teams?

No, we could have a free-for-all where it's everyone against everyone else, but I just figured it would be more in your best interest to ally ourselves against realworld enemies rather than bicker among ourselves in defense of online enemies.
How republican sounding!

Is it? I suppose supporting gun rights is republican sounding too? You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything.

that's been working real well for humanity so far. And all the underlying assumptions reek of Christian memes.

I'm crusading against the crusaders, but at least I'm aware of it.
You're crusading against anyone who doesn't align perfectly with you as far as I can tell.

Pretty much this whole post has been illustrative of my setting differences aside for a common cause.

And seriously... enemies, but it doesn't matter if anyone is exploited. It's like hysterical indifference.

I think it matters, which is why I'm crusading, but I also know nothing matters in the end.
How impervious a position. If you are going to defend your arguments with oxymorons, why bother defending them? Why treat my criticisms as a betrayal - one could for example, treat them as a way to make your arguments stronger - when you could simply ignore them?

What oxymoron? Maybe it does matter in the end if I'm reincarnated, then maybe I want to come back to a world that I influenced in a way that I will enjoy, but even then once the universe is over, I can't see a way for any of this to have been recorded, so none of it matters except in the here and now.

Even the head in the sand metaphor strongly implies that your head is not in the sand.

It's not in the sand because I don't put it there. That doesn't mean I'm correct, but I'm not running away to preserve my preconceived notions that must be defended at all costs because it's my religion.
Again, the idea is that the head in the sand has it's vision blocked. It cannot see whether something is coming or not, from where, what it is. The metaphor is about not being able to perceive objects. It assumes objectiv.ity. Not infallibility, but objectivity. You keep criticizing them for not being as objective as you.

How am I being objective? I don't see it.

No you have it backwards: they are asserting what they cannot see; I am asserting what I can see. "See" = "follows from logic".
That is exactly what I said. I am talking to you not them. Whatever idiocy they are saying has nothing to do with what you are sayhing and if it makes sense or not. Your defense of your argument is that whatever they are doing is wrong or wronger.

Idk what you're on about, but as long as I'm reciting what I see, then what I'm saying is subject to what I see. What others are doing is not reciting what they see, but what they cannot see; and that is objectivity.

Thinking is no more and no less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear sounds, so thinking perceives ideas." - Goethe

You see?

"That which enters the mind through reason can be corrected. That which is admitted through faith, hardly ever." - Santiago Ramón y Cajal

Ideas that entered the mind through reason are subject to the reasoning and change with it.

"When the facts change, I change my mind." - John Maynard Keynes

But that which enters the mind through faith can never change until the faith is lost. If the idea is subject to anything, it is their faith; however, faith isn't given as a basis for the claim, but the basis is: it just is. It has nothing to do with reason, nothing to do with vision or sense, and nothing to do with anything; it just is.
More of the same, moving away from perception to reason. More claims to a better objectivity, which does not mean that your position does not have subjective elements.

My position is entirely subjective.

First of all, they're narcissists, so they can't see because they have a huge mirror in front of their heads. Many of them could see if they could get past the fact that they already know everything.
And again, you can see, you don't have ia mirror in front of your head, they can't they do. They can't perceive objects. Their ideas about reality are clouded by the fact that they are not looking at it. Again objectivity is assumed.

No it's subject to reason.
As if that was mutually exclusive and somehow explained away my point.

Idk what your point is except to be contrary to whatever I say.

This is a waste of my time. These last posts are a sign of reason? Nah.

Well then pat yourself on the back for being too smart to talk to the likes of me.

enjoy your binary game, your us vs. them. This kind of approach has worked so well in the past, it will surely work again. At least you can find very strong agreement from conservatives, who love to see the world in us/them simple binary terms. And who also resort to quasi-mystical oxymorons when cornered not making sense.

People often think they teach content, but they teach form much more than they realize.

I think you said something about summer break. Maybe we'll bump into each other again after. I think you need one.

You're the one who needs a break. Every time something doesn't go your way on here you pitch a fit and leave the conversation hanging.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:34 pm

Idk what you're on about, but as long as I'm reciting what I see, then what I'm saying is subject to what I see. What others are doing is not reciting what they see, but what they cannot see; and that is objectivity.
This is the reason why you two are not getting anywhere. This is not what is considered objectivity by objectivists or even by most people who are talking about objectivity. In fact, I would say that it's exactly the other way around.

Objectivity is describing what one 'sees'. And recognizing that it is not dependent on your particular mind. Anyone who is placed in your position would 'see' the same things. Another mind would 'see' just as your mind 'sees'. Therefore, the experience is "mind independent".

Subjectivity describes what one 'feels'. It can't be traced just to external objects because mind plays such a large role in producing the feeling. It's unique to a particular mind. Another person placed in your position could feel something else. Therefore, the experience is "mind dependent".

What one sees and feels become thoughts and the thoughts are expressed as objective and subjective statements.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11100
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:36 pm

phyllo wrote:
Idk what you're on about, but as long as I'm reciting what I see, then what I'm saying is subject to what I see. What others are doing is not reciting what they see, but what they cannot see; and that is objectivity.
This is the reason why you two are not getting anywhere.

No he does that all the time. I tell him that I appreciate having him around and I walk on eggshells, but still it blows up at the end then he leaves. The topic doesn't matter.

This is not what is considered objectivity by objectivists or even by most people who are talking about objectivity.

Yes I know.

Objectivity is describing what one 'sees'. And recognizing that it is not dependent on your particular mind.

But how could anyone recognize that? You see? You cannot see what other people would see, but you think because you see it, that other people will see it also and proclaim it objective for that reason while all along what is seen is subject to the neurological wiring necessary to see it. So by proclaiming it objective, you're describing what you have not seen because you have not verified that everyone else in the universe, regardless of neurology, would see it the same way.

I thought I posted that Feynman video in this thread where he gave a good example of how people think differently by using visual vs speech centers of the brain to count. So what one person understands may not convert into someone else's framework. The mathematician was flabbergasted that Feynman could read and count and Feynman was surprised that the mathematician could talk and count.

Anyone who is placed in your position would 'see' the same things. Another mind would 'see' just as your mind 'sees'. Therefore, the experience is "mind independent".

That is what I'm calling "popular subjectivity".

“Nothing ever becomes real till experienced – even a proverb is no proverb until your life has illustrated it” ― John Keats

Subjectivity describes what one 'feels'. It can't be traced just to external objects because mind plays such a large role in producing the feeling. It's unique to a particular mind. Another person placed in your position could feel something else. Therefore, the experience is "mind dependent".

I agree. "mind dependent" = "subject to the mind"

What one sees and feels become thoughts and the thoughts are expressed as objective and subjective statements.

I'm not sure it's even about feelings. For instance:

"God exists. I haven't seen God and I can't prove God exists, so I didn't arrive at the conclusion that God exists by reason, but nonetheless, God exists." <-- Is that statement stemming from feelings?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:06 pm

No he does that all the time. I tell him that I appreciate having him around and I walk on eggshells, but still it blows up at the end then he leaves. The topic doesn't matter.
It's more than that. Take this exchange as an example:
KT : And again, you can see, you don't have ia mirror in front of your head, they can't they do. They can't perceive objects. Their ideas about reality are clouded by the fact that they are not looking at it. Again objectivity is assumed.

S : No it's subject to reason.
KT : As if that was mutually exclusive and somehow explained away my point.

S : Idk what your point is except to be contrary to whatever I say.
You think that any time that someone is reasoning then he is being subjective. Therefore you think "subject to reason" as being an adequate and sufficient response to KT's point.

KT thinks that objectivity does not exclude reasoning. Therefore he thinks "subject to reason" as an inadequate response.

Then you don't see why he is frustrated and annoyed.

The same thing happened in the "heads in the sand" analogy. You two looked at it from entirely different perspectives and could not understand what the other was talking about. (He thinks looking around and "seeing" is objective and you think looking around and "seeing" is subjective.)
But how could anyone recognize that? You see? You cannot see what other people would see, but you think because you see it, that other people will see it also and proclaim it objective for that reason while all along what is seen is subject to the neurological wiring necessary to see it. So by proclaiming it objective, you're describing what you have not seen because you have not verified that everyone else in the universe, regardless of neurology, would see it the same way.
You don't have the same "wiring" as almost every other human on this planet? That's odd. How can you understand anything about anyone? How can you communicate? How can you function in the world? How can you use common objects and tools?

It doesn't even stop at humans. Animals and plants find the same objects in their way. A mice experience walls. Bugs experience tables. Plants turn towards the sun.

They are reacting to an external reality.
That is what I'm calling "popular subjectivity".
Indeed.
I'm not sure it's even about feelings. For instance:

"God exists. I haven't seen God and I can't prove God exists, so I didn't arrive at the conclusion that God exists by reason, but nonetheless, God exists." <-- Is that statement stemming from feelings?
"Feelings" was the word I chose because gives a indication of the personal nature of the process. (A process inaccessible to other people, as opposed to reasoning which could be repeated by others. )

So in the case of your example, yes, it's a feeling that God exists.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11100
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Artimas