The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid.

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).

@ A

I am not a subjectivist. I can guarantee you.

It is just true that it is easier for a liar to conivince an objectivist than a subjectivist. You have to be intelligent enough if you want to resist a lie. Children, for example, can be convinced so easily just because they want to become great objectivists - at least normally. They want to know everything about reality. And if they have a teacher who is a liar, then they believe in his lies - at least normally. A dictatorship, regardless whether it is called a “democracy” or not, works in the same way.

You have totally misunderstood me and reacted too spontaneously, too impulsively, too presumptuously, too unintelligently.

Yes. If he had read only some of our posts and given up his presumptuousness, then he would or at least should have known it.

Infantilism is a universal pathological condition. All evolved organisms, especially humans, begin life and conscious experience from the purely subjective position. The world “revolves around the infant”. And so infants never believe that they revolve around the world. Infants are cared for and protected by a mother or guardian. Without this protection (Nurturing) then the infant would shortly die. Therefore all life forms arise from a consciously subjective position. Objectivity comes later, with age, and maturity. It’s about receiving, versus giving. It’s about consuming, versus producing. Infants receive and consume. They do not give and produce. Therefore giving and production is rarer in nature, and comes with maturity and age.

Objectivity is a function of age, pathologically. An infant can never “be mature” nor “act mature”. An infant cannot comprehend existence, as preceding the emergence of its consciousness. Because cognitive development, itself, is objective. It precedes the development of consciousness. Consciousness requires a brain, a mind, a physical body.

The mind-body division, duality, represents the dichotomy created and recreated between subjectivity (mind) and objectivity (body). What the subjectivists and majority of this forum should read, absorb, learn, and accept, is that life is bodily first and mentally second. Consciousness is rarer in life forms. The most common life forms on earth are not humans, not mammals, not even insects, but instead vegetation, plants, trees, algae, bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc. Plantlife is not “conscious” in the way a mammal and human is. Simple life forms can be broken down and understood chemically. A tree can be completely understood, relative to a human, based on the chemical and physical processes of that tree (photosynthesis, soil composition, nature of the seed, ecology, relationships between oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen, etc). Evolved animals are more complex. Intelligence and consciousness is even more so.

Objectivity is, itself, a “goal” as that is synonymous with the term “Objective”. When a human becomes “objective” what is meant is that the human must choose, or be forced, to hinder his/her own subjectivity. You must let go, or destroy, those childish and infantile reflexes, to consider, think, and act as-if the infant is the center of its own cosmos and “reality”. Instead the rarer position, representing human intelligence and wisdom, is one that begins to place the human as inferior to world and existence. Existence is ‘greater’ and ‘superior’ than the human. This requires humility and humiliation, that comes with age.

Death is the ultimate humiliation. Nobody can escape the humiliation of death, spilling your blood out, feeling your life leave your body, weak, stupid, foolish. How many humans give their pitiful lives up in vain or from ignorance? Didn’t look both ways before crossing the street? Boom! Your car is flattened by a semi truck. Your “reality” is destroyed, instantly, by an objective world, a world beyond subjectivity. A world that an infant cannot but grasp at.

Subjectivists, due to their poor intelligence and retarded, slower evolution, are always “catching up” to the curve and apex of human potential. Those who are greater, superior, and powerful intellects, will leave other humans behind. Objectivity is itself an objective, to want to learn about the universe and existence, is the rarest of all living traits. And this is the philosophical disposition, to want to learn even when “learning” and understanding the objective world, reality, and existence, is painful. When a truth is unflattering, humiliating, and embarrassing. You were wrong. Not just once, but a thousand times, and a million times. The unicorn is not there. It was not there. It was never there. You were pretending it was there. You partook in the grand lie of society. You participated in the act, the play, the game. You were infantile, yourself, predictably as all otheres were, are, and will continue to be. You cannot escape these social contrivances as long as there are such divisions (of intelligene) in humanity, animals, and all life forms.

A primary difference between humans and nearer mammals is one of Sophistication (of subjective delusions). Humanity takes deception to a profound level, and the power of a lie doesn’t only push over single lives, but multiple lifetimes and generations. A lie of not just a few seconds, or a few monthers, or years, or a lifetime, but centuries and millenniums. Humans have the ability to lie, or fall into falsehoods, for thousands of years.

You don’t believe me??? How long did humanity believe in magic, and sorcery, and superstition, and that the sun revolves around the earth? How do you know any grand truths, except by accepting and trusting an authority, that you intuit is greater than yourself? How do you become your own authority? How do you discriminate and differentiate the truths from the falsehood? How do you, and humanity, navigate the Big Lie?

It’s disappointing. All my words, wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, “progression”, learning, and understanding in life is a complete waste of time. I speak a language, these english words, and on this forum, and with person after person after person, none of whom listen or relate with me. Am I so different from humanity, that none else feels or values as I do? Is there none others so concerned about the Objective? Do I have no allies in this lifetime? Do I have no assistance nor cooperation? And I do not. Nobody does listen, grounded in their own “realities” and subjectivity, delusions, prisons, mental cages, fantasies, utopias. It’s easy to peer into the mind of an infant, a subjectivist, when and while it makes no effort whatsoever, to approach its own limits of knowledge and ignorance.

The line is black and white, and clear as ever, about what a human can know versus what you cannot know within your lifetime. And as long as humans continue sophistry and ignorance, instead of philosophy and gnosis, knowing about existence, comparing that subjectivity and objectivity, learning the difference, then it will always be easy to see through the minds of humans. It’s easy when a human is stupid, ignorant, and clings to such ignorance. It’s easy for an infant to cling to its solipsism and fantasy worlds. It is not easy, however, to confront reality, the world beyond humanity, and existence.

Objectivity is rare, and rarest of all. Subjectivity is common and easy. It’s too easy to delude and lie to yourselves.

My mind will dance around everybody as long as nobody else takes up the challenge. And maybe nobody will. Maybe the pull of subjectivity is too strong, and it must be returned to, too often. Again it is easy to be subjective and merely opine about existence, then it is to accept the challenge of objectivity and pursue, and attain facts about life. What is science? It is a beginning to philosophy. Prove that there is a unicorn in the room. What constitutes evidence for it? Mere visions? A sighting? A testimony? Trust and faith, alone? What does it look like? Draw it out.

Define your God. Let’s all see what you’re hiding inside. Let’s see your subjectivity, your solipsism, your delusions, your lies, in the open. As if they weren’t easy to see from the beginning.

“Science” today is not science. Today “Science” has been stolen by the subjectivists. Instead of trusting your senses, and not thinking twice about the unicorn in the corner, instead humanity took and uses science, a stolen weapon, to “prove” the existence of the unicorn. And so science is directed inward toward the subject, instead of outward toward the object. Instead of using science to understand humanity, the room, and what (probably) exists outside the room, humanity is obsessed with the unicorn in the corner. And so today modern, liberal, and “christian” science all revolve around the unicorn.

The subjectivists here only see science as useful when it pertains to proving the existence of the unicorn, making the unicorn evident, and convincing anybody who doesn’t believe in it, about the “fact” of the unicorn.

The unicorn in the corner is a fact, is it not? Yet it is, and you will agree with me. “We all know” the unicorn is there. We can see it, can we not?

Both subjectivity and objectivity have to be learned.