If I am in prison, I don’t drop it (location, location, location).
This idea that everything is about perspective, is the modern version of solipsism. It can be restated as : “only what I think about things is real”.
I am sure you can read my mind as I was thinking exactly the same thing…
I never said that everything is about perception but can you admit that very often perception is everything when it comes to thinking and how we interpret things?
Obviously, there is much more to people than meets the eye of one’s perception. But people do affect people in different ways.
"
I don’t think in this way, phyllo. We do have our own subjective thinking but I do realize at the same time that my perspective is not the only one and/or the only one which has validity.
Define “real”? 
One Liner,
Think Soap on a Rope!
You’re saying that you have your own subjective thinking and so does everyone else. That doesn’t negate or deny the idea of perspectives - it reinforces it.
There is a meaning and significance to words and actions which goes beyond subjective. It’s objective or as the moderns like to put it ‘inter-subjective’. If that is not so, then you have a version of solipsism which doesn’t deny the existence of the physical matter but it says that the non-physical is product of your own mind.
You can literally say anything about Trixie’s posts and it’s all valid because it’s your perspective.
Iambig’s dasein ideas come to mind. It’s basically what he is saying.
phyllo,
So what are you saying here, phyllo? That there is no one who has their own subjective thinking? We all at times, even the scientists, have our own subjective thinking.
That doesn’t negate or deny 
that there is [also] objective thought in the world or true physical reality.
.
Can you give me an example? Those to words “meaning” and “significant” point to the subjective - to me but that is only my perspective.
I don’t think of or take perspectivism as far as solipsism. I’m really not that much of an egoist or a nihilist.
Actually, I can also think of perspective thought as inter-subjective thought. It doesn’t really exclude except for that which is really absurd or inane and that can be seen.
No, I don’t think quite that way. Are there times when my impressions of her posts might be more valid than those of others? Sure. But that has to be based more on reason and reflection - not simply on what I alone see.
Phyllo, we all see with different eyes, because of the way in which our individual human brains have been wired, our human personal experiences, the ways in which impressions have been made on our brains as children, because of what we read, how we interpret the world, how we sensate things, et cetera.
Hopefully, I do not see all of my impressions and perspectives as valid without thought.
For example? Give me an idea?
What I don’t understand is why some people in here give him such a difficult time when he is simply trying to find his own answers, delving into something deeper than can’t be seen on the surface.
But what does dasein have to do with those who can only see their own perspective?
The other side of seeing objectively perhaps is in dismissing someone’s thinking because we do not go along with it, we can’t intuit or feel it.
That’s because people think that ‘subjective thinking’ is a same an ‘individual thinking’. IOW, they believe that when a person thinks he is engaging in subjective thinking. It’s not what ‘subjective’ means. Subjective thoughts cannot be verified externally or apart for the individual. If I think (and) say “I like ice cream” … it’s completely dependent on my thinking about ice cream - therefore subjective. If I think “my car has 4 wheels” … that thought depends on an external which can be verified by others - it’s not just in my head. - therefore not subjective.
You were taught the meanings of words by other people. There are dictionaries which explain what words mean - objectively. Communication depends on understanding the common meaning of words.
So you are saying that your impressions and perspectives are validated by your own thoughts. 
Therefore, your thoughts are creating your reality.
Your answer does not make reference to an external validation of your thoughts.
A person can justify his moral actions in any way he chooses and Iambig can’t find fault with it. “It was cloudy, therefore I killed my grandmother”. Well, why not? 
Partly because of posting style and partly because of the hypocrisy. In one sentence, he will say “I’m right from my point of view and he is right from his point of view” and in the next sentence he will say that ‘objectivists’ are dangerous and they should not be thinking as they do.
Many people have come to the conclusion that he is not interested in answers. 
Dasein creates a particular perspective for each individual.
If there are objective thoughts, then some thoughts are better than others. Some thoughts are right and other thoughts are wrong.
phyllo
But this is ALSO true. Maybe we can use the phrase though “thinking subjectively”. lol
But you’re right. As individuals, we all have different styles of thinking - some are geared more towards objectivity and some more towards subjectivity.
I took another look at that when i was all finished and then eureka, realized what you were saying.
I hadn’t grasped its full meaning the first time.
So, are you saying here that our thoughts cannot be verified or proven? What about books of knowledge?
Well, in the case of the question of god’s existence, i can see your point. That cannot be verified. There is no way to do it except of course through our own subjective thinking which can only be based on belief.
That’s based on a personal preference due to a physical experience/sensations. But you’re right.
That’s thinking "objectively.
.
I also have my own own subjective thoughts on words. 
Universally accepted meanings, yes.
Communication also depends on the meaning of words as according to others’ cultures and beliefs. But yes again you’re correct.
What I am saying is that hopefully I don’t see them as having validation without some critical and objective thinking/reflection, some openness to change my mind if I see it needs to be changed.
Hopefully my thoughts are creating what is “real” - objectively speaking.
Our thoughts ARE capable of creating what we sometimes "see’ as being real. This is why it is so important to see as objectively as we can - in other words, not from a place of what we want to see, or what we desire, or what is comfortable for us, but to truly begin to see what IS there, whether be physical or mental.
Also, our thoughts are capable of bringing physical reality into the world’s existence (revealing it) where knowledge wasn’t known before. I may not have expressed that too well.
My thinking and my words are not impeccable but underneath them that thought is there. Well, perhaps not always. 
I’m both a skeptic and an agnostic.
I do think that that’s going a tad too far, phyllo. I would have to read what this example might be referring to
to give any credence to it - or not.
I think what he is saying there is that PsOV are not necessarily right or wrong - though some may be more or less than others. They’re just opinions. Take the abortion issue for instance. They have to be delved into.
The Nature of Reality
Objectivism holds that reality is an absolute—that facts are facts, regardless of anyone’s hopes, fears, or desires. There is a world independent of our minds to which our thinking must correspond if our ideas are to be true and therefore of practical use in living our lives, pursuing our values, and protecting our rights.
Thus, Objectivism rejects the idea that reality is ultimately determined by personal opinion or social convention or “divine decree.” An individual’s ideas or beliefs do not make reality what it is, nor can they directly change anything about it; they either correspond to the facts of reality, or they do not. A person might think that the sun revolves around the earth (as some people do); that does not make it so.
theobjectivestandard.com/wh … jectivism/
Okay, I can certainly see from the objectivist point of view or reality. There is truth in that…a beautiful kind of logical. At the same time, I can also see that as another perspective or at the very least it seems to exclude the human, psychological factor.
I think we need both the objectivist and the perspectivist. They need to be harmonized - synergized. We need to think from both ends of the pole.
Thinking both subjectively and objectively, I can say that about many in this forum at times.
I’m going to have to read up a little more on that subject. It is interesting though I don’t quite grasp it.
Yes, if we strive to think objectively, according to what IS real, then some thinking may be better than other thinking, some conclusions based on reality and not just on our opinion and preference.
How did this thread morph into a subjective/objective slippery slope?
How should one interpret a Trixie thread? Is there an objective interpretation?
That’s how. 
That’s not all, how. It all starts out quite and trite, and fun, but as it wears thin, God is the guiding spirit, reducing things, to understandable levels, the slippery slope literally shoving you into that point,
(and figuratively), wherefrom only the process makes sene, deprived of all material. All and everything else becomes immaterial.
The objective/subjective dichotomy yields infinite regress or ad absurdum argument. Has anyone here ever solved that problem?
That’s the thing. The solution is only at the total or minimal point of existence, at birth and death, whereupon that absurdity will be understood for what IT is.
You need to explain that in some detail.
You mean here in this chat room?
There is no solution known to the problem of whether or not anything we see as subjective can be considered objective. As a pragmatist I claim that what we see as objective amounts to consensus of subjective agreement and that our talk of things objective amount to inter-subjective communications. We have no knowledge of “things in themselves”. This was Kant’s dilemma; he translated our observance of objects into noumena and phenomena, concluding that there is something within ourselves that aligns with the something outside ourselves. Our inter-subjective communications agree. This agreement is probably the closest we can get to objectivity.
You can, if you put the chicken before the egg. The proposition that the objective world is presented first, may get rid of the regress. The baby learns an established body of experience, man is given a set of rules by his Creator…
What rules are these? I do think our senses correctly inform us of what exists outside our brains–to some extent. Otherwise we would not survive in any given environment. There are illusions and philosophies based on illusion. How do we sort it all out?
I do believe that it was here, Ierrellus.
Up to that time it was mostly silly anyway from my perspective.
Conversations do evolve, right - some devolve. Also, your god does not travel in a straight line.
How do you know what my God does or does not do? You claim not to know Him.