The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid.

Anyway, since I haven’t received the kind of criticism I hoped for, I had to come up with criticisms of my own thread myself.

Mainly, I am still uncertain to what extent the dots between “is” and “ought” can really be connected. I tried to use the First Foundational objective (survival) as that which would connect the dots for all living beings, but a video by TFM made me think.

TFM says in this video (youtube.com/watch?v=Fw-HZu2jqdg) that survival in the sense of what I call long-term survival (genetic propagation) is irrelevant because we don’t, really, survive to any relevant extent, as our genes become extremely diluted only after a few generations. He didn’t mention the specific numbers himself, but since parents pass on approximately 50% of genes to their child, already by the 2nd generation only half of you survives. The 3rd generation, 25%. By the tenth generation, which is only about 200-300 years, the percentage of you which survives is reduced to below 1%. And ultimately none of that matters and it will be reduced to 0% because scientists predict that just as the Big Bang happened, there will be an opposite, a Big Crunch. So whereas Big Bang was an expansion of a singularity into a universe, a big crunch would be the universe contracting back into a singularity, and erasing all life. If that doesn’t exterminate us humans, something like the explosion of the sun, or shortage of water and food, or pollution, or nuclear war or some other thing will.

So the question then becomes - Do you really have a reason to give a shit about reproducing your genes and caring about the evolutionary process, when the evolutionary process itself will eventually be extinguished when all life on earth goes extinct. It becomes more personal - what do you want? Is it worth it to give up a portion of your life to make and possibly care for offspring, or not?

Perhaps to somebody it is indeed worth it. Perhaps somebody so enjoys taking drugs that they consider the high pleasurable enough to risk their life for it. Of course, if their life is centered around that and so they don’t propagate their genes, evolution will just filter them out, because like they don’t care about evolutionary processes, evolutionary processes don’t care about them. If taking drugs is truly what they wanted and truly what made them happy, then it might have been all worth it, for them. If somebody is ugly, or stupid, or has some other deficiency which prevents them from actually accomplishing things in life, they may subconsciously realize that inebriating themselves to temporarily forget their own inferiority is the only way they can be happy, even for a little while. That inebriation can also take the form of flattering ideologies which tell them they are valuable, and beautiful, and not worse than anybody else… that they are equal to all others.

A perhaps shorter and clearer version - though some action, like drinking a beverage mixed with a deadly poison, may be in direct conflict with the first objective of survival, and thus in the long-term, with itself, since drinking such a beverage once will make it impossible for you to do it ever again since you will be dead, it is still possible that to the subject, despite of all that, IT IS STILL WORTH IT in terms of cost/benefit to drink it because the taste is just so good that it is worth dying for. It doesn’t mean the subject escaped the consequences of their actions, or the filtering (evolutionary) process of the objective world. It means that the subject accepted the consequences and costs.

The same logic applies to small poisons. Somebody may like cigarettes so much that they are willing to shorten their lifespan by smoking cigarettes for the pleasure of smoking, knowing that it will take away time of their life they could have used to do other things.

Ultimately the only judge of what we ought to do (how to accomplish happiness) are ourselves. So the only way to do it is to know ourselves - what we need and want in life. If we are unhappy it means we haven’t accomplished something which we think would make us happy, and/or we are dissatisfied with how we have previously used our time. If we haven’t done it, it is either because we couldn’t recognize what it is that would make us happy due to failing to know ourselves, or we did recognize it but didn’t have the ability to do it. Another option is that we might think something will make us happy, do it, then realize it doesn’t make us happy after all, and that we wasted our time. This is why knowing what we truly want, and what the limits of our abilities to get it are, is crucial.

Did I ever say that there is no existence beyond what humans sense? No. So why are you bringing it up?

I guess I need to make it explicit. What one senses is not necessarily everything there is to sense.

Organisms have a sensory capacity. There is only so much they can sense.

Now, since I made it clear that I never said that one’s field of view defines the totality of existence, it’s up to you show how my words appear to imply it.

What I said was this: existence is that which is sensed.

Where does that imply that what is sensed is all there is to sense?

Nowhere.

As he said, this is seems to be an issue of language use. What you said in the red, DOES say that existence is ONLY that which is sensed. Apparently you use English differently. You were correct when you said, “potential to be observed”. When you leave out that word “potential”, you directly imply that something must be observed in order for it to exist. That is just the way English works.

It comes down to this question: what is our immediate contact with existence? Is it our senses or is it our intellect?

Is existence sensory experience or is it an abstraction?

Do you really think that abstractions/intuitions are more real than facts/sensations?

In Myers-Briggs typology, I am a moderate S type whereas James is clearly an N type. This is why we think differently.

Neither. That is the whole point. It has nothing to do with us or our thoughts, period.

That is not at all “why”. That was merely an attempt to describe differences, not reasons/causes.

In the first place how did we arrive at the concept of ‘atoms’?
The existence of atoms are framed by a human-based Framework and System, i.e. the Scientific Framework and System.
Therefore the existence of atoms are grounded on the subjects collectively.

Do atoms really exist by themselves per-se?
No! atoms are merely clusters of sub-atomic particles some moving at great speed within a nucleus.
The existence of sub-atomic particles are framed by a human-based Framework and System, i.e. the Scientific Framework and System.
Therefore the existence of sub-atomic particles are grounded on the subjects collectively.

There is no way you can deny the above knowledge and its logic.

Thus no matter what the ultimate matter that is to be discovered by Science, it will be grounded on the subjects collectively, i.e. the human-based Scientific Framework and System!

Therefore there is no pre-existing objects, i.e. objects that exist as absolutely independent from the conditions of humans [subjects].

Now when objects and things emerged onto the consciousness of humans, they arise in alignment with certain pre-existing algorithms within the human brain most via Nature [DNA] and nurture [RNA].
This is why you see an apple which rots subsequently.
A bacteria or fungus do not ‘see’ such “an apple which rots subsequently” like ALL normal humans do.
Why? because a bacteria or fungus has different pre-existing inherent algorithms in their central nervous systems.
Is there something constant or permanent that all living things will cognize as the same universally? None!
Therefore whatever the reality, it is always subject[s]-interdependent.

Your urge to reify objects out there as you/&others want them to be is due to a terrible psychology and instinct within.

That is what Hume argued, i.e. the reality of cause and effect is pure psychology due to customs and habit of constant conjunction.
Hume did not understand “certain pre-existing algorithms within the human brain most via Nature [DNA] and nurture [RNA],” then.

Your thinking is too superficial and confined to conventional and one narrow perspective.
Note I mentioned emergence based on “certain pre-existing algorithms within the human brain most via Nature [DNA] and nurture [RNA],” and driven by psychology grounded on the survival instinct.

Apparently you have been brainwashed to fear evil ideological systems.
I am not into subjectivism nor any ‘ism.’
The most realistic fact is reality is grounded on the subject[s] interdependently and collectively.
All your fears of evil ideologies and ‘-isms’ including your own can be mitigated and modulated by a sound Framework and System of Morality and Ethics to ensure optimal well being for humanity. Many people focus too much on objects or subjects but forgot about Morality and Ethics.

Your sort of independent external objectivity is merely a shade nearer to the ontological objectivity of a God and from this view you lose contact and control of reality.

From the realistic of a collective-subjective reality which is driven by ‘subjects’ collectively, it open up the opportunity for subjects - in entanglement with the reality they are a part of -to control their destiny from a collective basis which is shared and gelled by Philosophy-proper. [Morality and Ethics being primary].

Philosophically the only way you can align your independent external reality is to rely on the Correspondence Theory of Truth without even knowing whether there a parallel reality on the other side.

Incorrect. They are merely named by humans. They do not physically exist because humans discovered them.

Incorrect.

Didn’t you just say that they do not exist? Yet here you describe what they are.

Equally incorrect, for the same reasons.

Naming or observing something does not constitute causing it to exist. It would be a bit difficult to observe it if it didn’t already exist.

Obviously also incorrect.

I suspect that your catch-all phrase is lacking clear definition and meaning.

I see the above views are too narrow and rigid.
It is a fact all normal humans has all the machinery and are driven to reproduce the next generations.
Thus the obvious inference is directed as preservation of the human species.
Re Hume, this inference cannot be final.
On a detailed analysis, the preservation of the species is not absolute as the human species evolved from many extinct species.

The preservation of the human species may not be true after 1 million years as human could evolve into new species after 5-10 millions year.

Nevertheless the following inferences from past reality are still useful to some degrees;

1. Within a range of 1 millions years, the purpose of normal humans is the preservation of the human specie.
2. Universally, the purpose of most living things [including human beings] is to reproduce the next generation.

For practical purposes humanity should adopt the above qualified theories to ground the various philosophical theories.
Because if we don’t then the human species could be extinct within the next 100 years or sooner given the potential WMDs we have on hand the more powerful ones in the future which an be easily available.

For example there is no such indication nor moral maxim to ensure the survival and preservation of the human species in the Quran and Muslims can kill with the slightest ambiguous conditions to defend the religion.
In addition, when Muslims die they are promised eternal life and martyrs are assured of an expeditious path to Paradise with virgins. The Quran also promote a preference for the hereafter rather than the lowly life on Earth.
Now without any maxim to ensure the preservation of the human species on Earth, a percentile of evil prone Muslims will have no hesitations to exterminate the human species when they get their had on cheap powerful WMDs because no matter what they are guaranteed eternal life in heaven.

Note ‘naming’ of things is so obvious. This is an irrelevant point.

We were discussing ‘emergence’ out of a human-based Framework and System, i.e. the Scientific Framework and System.

Things emerged out of the following;

1. A pre-existing evolved algorithm embedded in the DNA.
2. An algorithm shaped by the RNA
3. The existence of atoms and sub-atomic particles emerging human-based Framework and System, i.e. the Scientific Framework and System.
4. The existence of things emerging from various human-based Framework and System, i.e. Scientific and non-Scientific Framework and System.
5. The existence of various selves and empirical selves emerging from various human-based Framework and System, i.e. Scientific and non-Scientific Framework and System.
6. Others

Now whatever the object that emerge out of reality as external is an emergence as a resultant of the above conditions.

The discovery and naming follows from the above emergence of the object.

What you missed is ‘atoms do not exist-by-themselves-per-se.’
Atoms exist only by-their-Framework&System.
You need to understand the above two concepts which are different.
Note “exist-by-themselves” versus “exist-by-Subjective-Framework.”
I don’t think you will ever understand given the rigid straight-jacket you are wearing.

As implied above, this point is kindergarten stuff which need not be presented.
There is a deeper cognitive and reification process involved that is driven by terrible psychology as Hume alluded.

If you cannot see the 500 pound gorilla because of some psychological blinkers you will never understand [not agree with] my point.

Subatomic particles don’t have DNA.
DNA has subatomic particles.

Thus from there on down, your theory is irrelevant.

There is stuff intrinsically out there … stuff which is separate from our thoughts. Modern science say that it’s atoms but that’s a model … an approximation … of what really exists. All thoughts and all words are approximations. Nothing that you think is real. The only reality is outside of thought.

Are atoms a reasonable model of reality? Yes.
Further exploration and discovery will produce a different model - maybe a little different or very different.

A Unicorn in the Corner:

Unfortunately humanity arrived in an age where the vast majority participate in the “Big Lie”. They claim, and believe, there is a unicorn in the corner. This is a price and cost of civilization, a grandiose lie and delusion that people “pay into”, and is directly analogous to christianity and popular religions. Everybody “believes” in the unicorn although they cannot reproduce it nor provide evidence for it. To understand why and how this occurs, and so many begin “buying into” such a socially popular delusion, you first have to examine the foundation of these lies predicated on civilization. Civilization requires re-distribution of Authorities. Thus the majority of humans don’t have “their own” thoughts or beliefs about existence/objectivity/reality but instead must access existence through a proxy, an Authority, a representative of a specialization. For example, when people want to solve math equations or understand chemical reactions then they go to a mathematician and physicist. People trust on science for “facts”. People trust on religion for “morals”. Etc.

Because authority has been institutionalized (sociology), “common sense” becomes uncommon throughout humanity and civilization (autism). An average person doesn’t know anything about anything. She is ignorant and also claims innocence, blameless and stupid. In order for a person to have any respectability then that person must become “Initiated” into an established order (specialization). Like a pupil becomes a priest, a student becomes a professor, a scientist becomes an “expert”, etc. Indoctrination and sophistry results in specialized thinking that focuses on particular topics at the cost and exclusion of others. Therefore to answer a seemingly simple question, you are encouraged or forced to go to the appropriate representative authority of society and humanity, and receive direction from him. For example a person seeks out a police officer to solve a crime, a doctor to diagnose a disease, an airplane pilot to fly across the world, “god” to justify moral actions and sentiments, etc. In this way “common sense” becomes uncommon in that an average person can do very little about any single, specified topic of life, and must rely on an authority’s judgments and decrees.

The individual becomes helpless, mundane, boring, stupid, and completely “average”. This is the definition of “humanity”, completely incapable as individuals, but increasingly and exponentially collectivist and socialist.

The difference between the (subjective) ideas of the individual versus the collective society is that between mere ‘opinions’ and the established, indoctrinated ‘facts’ of representative authorities. A “scientist”, talking head politician on the television, a priest, a doctor, etc. all have more authority and therefore more access to the ‘facts’ of life (within civilization) than the common populace.

But then you go deeper into the madness. Here is an analogy. Let’s pretend for a moment that the entire human civilization is predicated on a simple proposition: There is a unicorn in the corner of this room. If this statement is true then so is human civilization, glory, and existence. And if it is false then so is humanity. So people are taught to believe in the preposition, indoctrinated over generations, not just one generation but several or dozens of hundreds. People have been believing in this lie (“truth”) for centuries and millenniums. Did you think you could just “change” it? Did you think you could just point it out, and others would agree with you? You would be naive. Because if you had the gall to point it out then others would interject and deny you, argue with you, and eventually fight you.

“How dare you question the unicorn in the corner?”
“What the fuck do you mean, you can’t see it? It’s right there! I see it! Are you calling me a liar?!”
“Wow this person is nuts, a complete whack job, cannot even see what is right in front of him…”
“Lock this lunatic up in the asylum, whacko!”

When you begin to go against the Big Lie then prepare for endless, useless, futile battles with everybody around you. Because that is the potential of this delusion. How does it perpetuate? The answer is simple. Children believe in anything, fairies, magic, demons, imps, invisible gods, etc. It’s easy to convince children of an imaginary (subjective) world in which their egos are separated and divorced from nature (hardship, reality, philosophy). And so children will most readily accept the (im)-possibility of the unicorn in the corner. “Oh yeah, I kind of see it…oh it moved! Wow I see it now, looks kind of blueish”. “No, it’s clearly purple.” “You’re right, it must be the lighting in here.”

Civilization operates on the preposition of the lie. To expose it, to refute it, to denounce it, is also to undermine the shared human lies which everybody intuitively understands are “Subjective”. Let’s imagine for a moment that a person from “outside humanity” were brought into the confines of humanity for a moment, and into the room. The outsider says to the group, “Where is this unicorn in the room? I can’t see it.” The humans say, “What…are you blind? It’s right there, pretty obvious…” The rest of the humans say to each other, “Yeah, haha, very obvious, it’s circling and neighing, everybody can see that.” The rest of the humans, “Yep, pretty obvious, lol.” The outsider is miffed and bewildered, confused. “Ummm, sorry guys, I still can’t see anything.” The humans: “Yep, you must be blind, there’s something wrong with this guy’s eyes, should have them checked out by a doctor.”

At this point, it maybe more worthwhile for the outsider to go along with the Big Lie than try to fight it. Because what does he have to gain, or to lose, from doing so? You may presume at this point that there is a great hierarchy and intelligence that goes into the Big Lie. There are some humans, at the top, who gain the most from the lie and perpetuate it. They know there is no unicorn, but, convince any doubter there is one there anyway. Any rebel or outlaw saying otherwise is shouted down quickly and ruthlessly. The kids intuit the whole ordeal as a game, at first. But later in life, as adults, they have given up on finding the truth of it. They don’t know, and frankly, don’t care whether the unicorn is there or not. But most humanity pretends and acts as if it were. And this can be dangerous.

And most obviously, this is ‘Subjective’.

So why is it not called subjectivism?

Objectivity is itself both objective and subjective, both impartial and biased. What is objective truth of our reality is biased to our reality and subjective in its preference as well as opinions thereof, said opinions being part of a subjective objective truth which any such would in itself be subjective to the overall objective subjective objective. This is being far more brief than is fair for the actual subject and that is objective, subjective and impartial biased truth that is considered opinion.

One can also use the follwoing wording: Not everything that exists is observable, but everything that is observable exists.

Most people do not think for the long term but merely for the short term.

It is more probable that the said liar in your example convinces the objective one easier than the subjective one. An objective one wants to know what the subjective one denies - objectivity -, and the liar has to refer to objectivity in order to be successful and is part of objectivity to the other two, the listeners, thus also to the subjective one who denies objectivity.

Where did I state subatomic particles has DNA?

There are two objective positions in the example. The first is the outsider who is brought into human civilization, and put in front of the unicorn, and told that it is there. The outsider does not see the unicorn that everybody points to, and claims is there. The outsider is confused and put into a precarious situation. Should the outsider continue to deny the existence of the unicorn, and risk the wrath of the human mob? Or, should he agree that the unicorn is there, but he cannot see it due to some “illness” and deficiency, or that he can in fact see it, and begin to agree with the human mob? The outsider is in a dangerous position.

The other objective position is the human priest and manipulator of nihilism who knows that the unicorn is not actually there, but convinces everybody, including the outsider, that it is there. The priest knows the lie, and benefits from the lie. He knows that god doesn’t exist, but that it is profitable for him, and a few others who “share” in the lie, to perpetuate it. The priestly class also convince themselves that it is in the “best interest” of humanity to perpetuate and participate in the lie.

The subjective positions vary. There are the children who don’t understand the lie, but treat it as a game. Children are most susceptible to games, fantasy, make believe, imagination, and whatnot. So children gladly participate in the lie, without realizing the consequences. Smarter subjectivists will grow older, and begin to doubt the lie. It begins to not make sense. But they won’t be able to rationalize the whole ruse and game. “How is it possible that everybody, my parents, my priest, my loved ones, have all lied to me???” Then there are levels of intelligence. Lower intelligent people, the stupidest ones, most rely on authorities (priest) and cannot distinguish between reality and ideals, between objectivity and subjectivity. So the stupidest ones have no real hope at all to “be objective”, and so instead, merely follow. These are the ones who are both most common, and most contributing to the Big Lie. The base, the foundation of humanity. The Human.

On this forum, ilovephilosophy.com, most thinkers here are subjectivists and represent subjectivity. You are all participating in the Big Lie, many of you, without even knowing it or being aware of it. You may have a glimmer, a shudder of doubt, once in awhile. Deja vu, now and then. But you can’t put your finger on it. If and when you ever feel suspicious enough, and intelligent enough to recognize patterns, then there maybe distinct and certain points in your lives when you understand that everybody is lying to each other, by different degrees. And those with potential, the more “objective” ones, will take it as a personal, moral responsibility, to begin to distinguish between the ‘truth’ of the world, and what is the Big Lie. Although this is rarest of all.

Also I want to note that, again, you will accuse me of subjectivity and “being another subjectivist”, like yourselves. This is the most predictable form of denial. You will think that I am “just another priest” attempting to convince you, of another form of subjectivity, or a different version. But this isn’t true, based on my motivations, which are independent and individual. I’m not here, really, to speak with subjectivists, but to re-direct my ideas toward any objectivists that may exist, past, present, or future. My message is general and expansive, not necessarily right here or now, but elsewhere.

If there is a person who is objective, or as objective as possible (since objectivity is itself objective, a goal, an ideal, a striving toward, a working for, a task, a challenge, an activity of learning, a risk), then I would like to speak to that person, and not the others here.

Neither Arminius, nor I am “subjectivist”. You might want to consider being a little less presumptuous (the seed of ALL sin).