The Foundation of Objectivism - why Objectivism is valid.

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.

Go ahead and explain yourself in detail.

How are they both “learned”. How does an infant know the difference, or learn the difference?

Let’s go a little bit further, for those that can handle it.

What the infant, child, teenager, and modern adult know of “Objectivity” is usually just another layer of subjectivism. This is how the infant learns to “trust” your mother and father. You believed in the thoughts, beliefs, and ideas of your parents, as an infant. And then in school, you learned and trusted in the ideas of your teacher. And then you trusted in your priest. And then your president. And then whatever else or whomever else convinced you throughout your life. But these are merely authorities and representatives. The average modern, human, goes from one authority to the next, another level and another (per)version of subjectivity.

Most humans stop after a certain point and become accustomed and comfortable with a certain “level of authority”. “That’s enough knowledge, wisdom, information, and intelligence for me,” the average person tells herself. This amount of knowing, or ignorance, is “good enough”. But nowhere along the way does the human escape from ‘subjectivity’. Because the new authority, the new priest, is not offering any “real objectivity” but merely another form of subjectivity.

This is why subjectivists always accuse one another of subjectivity. And this makes the majority of posts on this forum, from week to week, and year to year. You see it all the time. I can pick a majority of threads on this forum, and it’s one subjectivist squabbling with another subjectivist, about their respective subjectivity, and “how to interpret the unicorn in the corner”. That’s all this junk and garbage is.

At no point, do the subjectivists ever step “outside” the box, or even broach the walls. Subjectivity is not interested in a doorway, to step outside the room, and leave the humans and unicorn in the corner behind. Instead humanity is firmly focused on the unicorn in the corner. Inward, solipsistic, subjective, “open to opinion and debate”.

“Objectivity” begins when an individual truly questions, “is there a unicorn in the corner, or isn’t there???” What do your senses say? Is it there? Can you see it? Can you feel it? This is actually a difficult question, meanwhile, a human will continue to claim and insist, “YES I DO SEE IT!” and “YES I CAN FEEL IT!” Subjectivity is difficult to confront and argue with, rationally and reasonably, when it is locked inside such a delusion.

You cannot talk a psychotic out of her psychosis. It’s not a matter of “reasoning” with such madmen.

This is why the ‘priestly’ class of humans feel so motivated, and justified, to redirect the mass of humanity, to their own benefits and personal whims. If humans are firmly entrenched with the idea of the unicorn, and “make it real” with their minds, then why not use and abuse such humans? Why not treat them as cattle? Why not “dehumanize” humanity, when, such a phenomenon and society is not really ‘human’ in the first place? Or, isn’t it obvious by now, that belief and faith in the unicorn in the corner, makes any given person “human” in the first place?

Isn’t humanity that shared delusion? To believe in the unicorn in the corner is. to. be. human.

First of all I do not have to explain myself.

Nobody comes into life as a subjectivist or an objectivist. In order to become one of the both or no one of the both subjectivity and objectivity must be learned. This process begins in the womb.

What do the words “subject” and “object” mean originally? From here you have to begin with your research. The next thing is the development of the human object of your research. Then ask yourself: “How does a human being come into life and learn, especially learn the difference between subject and object?” Look at the test with the mirror. As a very little child one learns to recognize oneself in a mirror.

So if we want to continue our converastion here, then we have to define the words “subject” and “object”, because it is possible that you have other definitions than I have.

In order to know what a “subject” is, one must at least have a self-concept; and in order to know what an “object” is, one must be capable of distinguishing between the own self and the rest (which is outside of the own self).

Tactility already exists when the human embryo is 2 months old, taste already exists when the human fetus is 3 months old, smell already exists when the human fetus is 5 months old, hearing already exists when the human fetus is 6 months old, seeing already exists when the human fetus is 9 months old.

The sense of balance needs more time and starts when the human embryo is 2 months old.

But do you think that the embryo or the fetus is capable of distinguishing between the own self and the rest (which is outside of the own self)?

Objectivism is a dead end in its short sightedness, while subjectivism is too much of a distraction for most. What is needed is a new word that represents the teeter-totter between the two. Over at KTS in the thread, The Nature Of Consciousness, I wrote that no angle is perfection. What is the correct way to blend objectivism and subjectivism?

Subjectivism is the child of Objectivism.

I know that JSS, but the blending needs to happen no matter the parent position.