Looking four lost Turd

Here is another frustration.

I said that this does not apply to me, specifically that I don’t say “either become “one of us” or you are WRONG!!!”

Instead of saying that either you don’t know if this applies to me, or you were wrong or you state reasons why you think that it does apply to me … you simply suggest that it applies to me in some vague, unclear way which I have to determine for myself.

Please, just own the statements that you make.

Right.

There are implications of the word ‘freedom’ which the capitalist and communist agree on and implications which they do not agree on. That needs to be explored before it’s possible to move on.

I don’t even know what you are trying to say by calling him an objectivist.

So it’s this - You say that he is an authoritarian.
Well from my experience, the subjectivists and relativists are just as authoritarian. They are not forthright about it. See how quickly they accuse you of racism, antisemitism, misogyny, homophobia, bigotry, etc. Prepare to be punished.

Suppose that I become administrator. I would kick out the nutters but I would not kick you out. (I have openly said so.)

What does that say?

It says that objectivism is not the issue. The particular values of the person in power are the issue. You were banned by Postmodernbeatnik in the other forum.

Even that is not crucial.

Over and over and over and over and over again in our exchanges, I make it crystal clear that my main interest in differentiating the objective truth from subjective opinion revolves around the existential relationship [out in a particular context] between identity, value judgments and political economy.

The is/ought world. Where here is someone able to make that crucial distinction between what they believe is true in their head and what they are in turn able to demonstrate is true objectively for all rational men and women.

We can call it the “Communism Syndrome”.

But you were responding to my post not his. I readily acknowledge that anything I have to say about objective and subjective reality is embedded in the gap between what I think I know about this here and now and all that would need to be known about the very nature of existence itself in order to know.

Instead, whether in relationship to the either/or or the is/ought world what counts is the extent to which we at least make an attempt to close the gap between what we think is true and what we are able to demonstrate is true for all of us.

In the either/or world however there are lots and lots and lots of things we seem able to accomplish in the pursuit of this.

We’re all entangled in that conundrum.

Because even in the either/or world what we think we know is still embedded in all of the “unknown unknowns” that scientists and philosophers continue to grapple with.

There is being consistent in a world of Humean correlation and being consistent in a world where a definitive cause and effect relationship has been established.

Yeah, that’s my point. But the thing about the is/ought world is that it is here where the overwhelming preponderance of human conflict – of human pain and suffering – unfolds day after day after day.

And my point is that the objectivists are neck and neck with the nihilists in sustaining those conflicts. The former by insisting that human interactions must revolve around being “one of us”, the latter by anchoring moral and political values in one or another rendition of “show me the money”.

Okay, then you are not an objectivist as “I” understand it. But, for all practical purposes, out in the world of conflicting goods, what kind of objectivist are you?

If, with respect to Communism or abortion, you believe in objective morality, others are either going to share your own point of view or they are not. And if they don’t how can they not be construed by you as being wrong about issues such as this.

That’s what I’ve always been trying to figure out about you. With respect to God and your own philosophical take on human ethics what does it mean to believe in objective morality out in a particular context?

Unbelievable! Over and again I insist that we bring these arguments “out into the world” of human interactions. Like we did with Communism and abortion on other threads. Now, given how I understand the meaning of objectivism, how are your views in or out of sync with that. And what is your objective take on them? It would seem to be either “one of us” vs. “one of them” or “I’m right from my side, you’re right from yours”.

In other words, from my point of view, I will own up to my statements when I agree with you that I am not owning up to them.

Really, I get that part. Do you?

Over and over, you think that everything centers around you and your interests. You never seem to grasp that others have a different interests. Which is really ironic.

Why?

I can respond in any way that I want. But I’m supposed to respond in the way that you want. Narcissist?

IOW, you don’t actually think that some things can be known, that some things can be objective. So just say so. That’s the part that pisses me off. If you don’t think that anything can be objectively known then just say that.

You never just say that and move on.

The kind that says there are right and wrong answers to some questions.

They are wrong because of the process of evaluation, not because they disagree with me.
if you want to get technical about it, then yes, we disagree about the process of evaluation.

Are you going to say that any process of evaluation is valid?

Bullshit. You just made a statement about objectivists and as a result about me. But you won’t won’t admit that you’re saying anything specific about me. Everything is passive aggressive and backhanded.

More bullshit.

Let’s bring something like this…

…down to earth

Here we have someone talking about someone else. Real people. A social interaction. Concrete, specific.

Change the word objectivist to ‘cunt’ or ‘criminal’ or ‘bad guy’ and the above reads even more obviously like someone who likes to call someone names, and then not take responsibility for it.

The above ‘explanation’ means that he meant nothing. And what it does is he never has to take responsibility for his social acts.

He gets to participate in the world like an objectivist, labeling, being divisive, judging, being binary, calling out people. But it doesn’t mean anything if this is pointed out. Because in his own mind he is not an objectivist. (and yes, snore, he admits that he has objectivist reactions)

I’ll take an objectivist over this any time. At least some objectivists have the ability to say ‘Yes, I judged him.’ ‘Yes, I called him X.’ ‘I think he is X and that being X is bad. I said it and I meant it and I believe it’’

Honest.

Well, if you want to liken calling someone an objectivist to those things, that’s your privilege.

But I acknowledge that objectivism is an existential contraption that makes sense to me here and now. There are those however who do insist that their own moral narrative does in fact reflect the most rational and virtuous assessment of any particular political conflict. Is that a bad thing? No, not objectively. And they may well be right. I merely point out how some in power insist that others must share their own moral agenda or be deemed wrong. And then once deemed to be “one of them” there’s no telling what the consequences might be.

Right?

That’s your rendition of me. I insist that my arguments here are in fact construed by me to be existential contraptions subject to change given new experiences, relationships and access to new information and knowledge. But I don’t really mean that. I’m actually just one more rendition of my own accusations against others. After all, you know me better than I know myself.

Okay, if you prefer living among those who do insist that you must embrace their own value judgments or [necessarily] be wrong, be my guest.

What I advocate are political interactions predicated on moderation, negotiation and compromise. Democracy and the rule of law. At least to the extent – for all practical purposes – that this is possible.

Having the ability to say that “I judged someone” is something that is applicable to all manner of objectivists…from the Communists and the fascists to the Christian evangelicals and the Islamic jihadists.

In my view, moral judgments are embedded existentially in dasein and in conflicting goods. Individuals interacting in particular historical and cultural and experiential contexts.

So, sure, prefer objectivists if you must but be prepared to deal with the consequences when you become “one of them” to their own “one of us”.

In places like Know Thyself you might get tossed into their dungeon. But imagine objectivists of their ilk having access to real power. But at least they will have openly and honestly judged you before lowering the boom.

You may be right, but I read it as “would”.

“Why would I be compelled to believe that is subjective?”

or

“How could I consider that to be a subjective claim.”

But should? You probably have a point there. I read between the lines.

If you attach some reasoning to it, then it becomes subject to that reasoning and is no longer objective.

IOW, if you say murder is wrong because of this line of thought ________, then someone could say, “Well, that doesn’t apply to me because _____, ____, and _____, so murder is ok for me.”

But if you say murder is wrong, period. Then there’s nothing anyone can do about it. It doesn’t depend on how anyone looks at it. It just is.

Reasoning can’t be objective?

Oh my. :open_mouth:

“Truth” was a poor choice of word on my part and I knew that, but I should have said “The actuality may apply objectively to everyone in the universe, but any interpretation of that actuality is subjective.”

The true actuality of an object applies equally to all subjects, but the reality of any object can only manifest subjectively.

Reality can’t exist independent of observation or else we could have positive with no negative. Positive is only positive because the negative is negative. Without the negative, the positive cannot exist. Reality can only happen in a duality.

It just means the object’s capability to transmit and the subject’s capability to receive work together to define reality.

As far as we can tell, dark matter only interacts via gravity and without that lone interaction, it would not exist. Things that have no affect, do not exist.

The subject doesn’t have to be conscious to be an observer. The confusing comes with using the word “observation” since it really means “interaction”. “Observation” makes it seem like a conscious being is necessary to manifest objects.

A destination is required before a photon can be emitted physics.stackexchange.com/quest … a-receiver

In some way our telescopes must have existed 13 billion years ago for the light to be emitted from a galaxy 13 billion lightyears away to hit those telescopes today. Time doesn’t apply to light, so there really is no issue; the whole event was instant.

If the sun were the only thing in the universe, in what way could it be said to exist? It would give off no light, no heat, it would have no gravity, nor have any properties whatsoever because there is nothing interacting with it. Things are said to exist in terms of their interactions with other things and that idea was principle to James’ theory of things being nonexistent because they have no affect on anything.

He said “I would recommend that “existence” is well defined as “that which has affect”. That which has no affect whatsoever does not exist. And “to affect” means to cause or be responsible for change.” viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193641&p=2687573&hilit=no+affect+affect+exist#p2687573

If it were, then you wouldn’t question it lol. But you do and that proves it’s subjective.

The Monty Hall Problem:

Many readers of vos Savant’s column refused to believe switching is beneficial despite her explanation. After the problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine, most of them claiming vos Savant was wrong (Tierney 1991). Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still do not accept that switching is the best strategy (vos Savant 1991a). Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation demonstrating the predicted result (Vazsonyi 1999). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

You can pound your reasoning into someone’s head all you want, but if it doesn’t click, it doesn’t click. It takes a subject with clicking capability to perceive the reasoning as reasonable.

So, like I was saying, as soon as you attach reasoning to any claim in order to support it, the truth of that claim immediately becomes subject to that reasoning.

Thank you to all of you. I needed that.

Odd. That’s poor language use. In any case, I had discussions with him about his position and he mean that it must affect something. Has effects, that is. He did not mean that it had emotions. The rest of what I wrote still stands.

The first question, why would I be compelled…? could only get tentative answers: ‘well, you might feel compelled if you…’

The second can be easily answered, yes.

But I still keep all my quibbles on the table. In the end, regardless of your answers, it might very seem better or even be better for him to continue being an objectivist in some ways and view that claim as he views it.

James got confused about the proper use and meaning of ‘affect’ and ‘effect’.

It doesn’t prove anything. It again shows that you and I have very different ideas about what the words ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ mean and what they are used for.

In this particular case, if there is no “objective reasoning” then there seems to be no distinction between “biased reasoning” and “unbiased reasoning” - reasoning which is tainted in some way. Phrases like “objective evaluation” and “objective approach”, etc are used to try to convey those sorts of distinctions.