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.
You seem to be condemning ‘subjectivity’ seemingly ignorant that you are a ‘subject’ in one sense.
Thus whatever condemnation you are throwing at ‘subjectivity’ they are ‘boomeranging’ back to you, i.e. the subject.
I am not clinging onto philosophical subjectivism per-se which could be some specific ideology of certain groups of philosophers, Descartes, Berkeley, etc.
Before you condemned subjectivity, you need to do a full literature review of all the existing perspectives of subjectivity.
My philosophical views are based on the point that the subject[s] is of primary consideration and reality emerges out of inter-subjectivity and dynamic interdependence with objectivity.
To begin with “you” the ‘subject’ is most real while the objects out there must be verified and confirmed by the subject and subjects collectively to be real and objective.
Thus the degrees of confidence levels of reality are the following;
- “Me” the subject = 99.9% real [the “I THINK” not the “I AM”]
- “You” and “other humans” as subjects = 90% real, only an autistic and other mad persons would have greater doubts.
- External world of objects = 80% real as confirmed by objective verification procedures based on intersubjectivity.
Since subjects and other subjects are more real than objects, I wonder why SOME subjects are condemning subjectivity [philosophical, not personal opinions].
To those who are clinging to the external world as absolute real, note Russell’s dilemma here’
Objectivity is meta-inter-subjectivity from a philosophical perspective.
‘Meta’ means it is one level above ordinary subjectivity [not personal opinions by the way].
That is like blending mathematics with poetry. It isn’t that it can’t be done. The issue is of what good it is, once it is done.
Progress. Techno science limits us. Creative science might free us.
“Progress” toward what?
“Free us” from what?
Pwendishery.
Stagnant repetitions.
JSS,
Are your thoughts your own? 
One only owns what he controls.
Does anyone truly control his own thoughts?
… I know that you certainly don’t. 
No then?
Hi Mangoose: if I say my mind works intuitively, I’d be proposing an untestable hypothesis. However, I am not alone, I find pleasing company with those who claim Quine’s definition of intentionality does not much sway from those of Kant. If the objective/subjective differentiation goes back to Saint Anselm, and progresses to Quine, another surprise awaits to postmodern who think of the philosophy of signs as fine tuning this seemingly inpenetrable digression.
Had to introduce this seeming irrelevance, but it is as far removed from the problem, then it is to digress into the realms which has landed the forum.
This is the problem surrounding the intentional use of language, where without such movement away from the ontological into the ontic, no sense could be made of the other definitions of Being, intentionality as a psychic movement-of the willful force of transformation.
That such has taken place in the modern sense by Brentano, does give it a common bond, of credibility.
Apart from that historical depth, the forum would or could laps into a dialogue such as Meno, where both affirmation of logical structure of the argument would need to correlate with it’s intuitive basis.
Don’t hold this clarification against me, even if, You were to deny it in the manner it is introduced.
If You SIGNAL that I am becoming obscure for the sake of other then learning, I would hope You would at least give some validity for the claim of an intuitive
Philosophical basis.
Will try to connect this, however seemingly convoluted, with the pre-requisited arguments which may or may not substantiate some beginning with some end in terms he progression of phenomenological basis. However, it may work without such, and may in fact, naturally connect the missing cogs, since it is the correlation’s mechanism which seems to generate these.