That isn’t self-evident?
Pretty sure everyone is an objectivist unless they put a little disclaimer that they might be wrong…right?
Yes it’s hard to say it’s objectively true that there is no objective truth in order to practice the religion of no-religion.
Maybe I can steal a line of reasoning from the atheists who disavow anti-theism by asserting that atheism is not the proposition that god doesn’t exist, but simply being unconvinced that he does.
Maybe I’m more a-objectivist than anti-objectivist 
It’s more complicated than that. Scientists would say that their conclusions are open to revision - iow any theory might later fall apart - but be sure of their epistemology. In fact most are. So they are objectivists at a meta-level but not at the everyday level of any particular conclusion about mice, republicans or quarks. And they have objective beliefs about perception, knowledge, what one cannot say for certain and so on. And even if you say ‘I could be wrong’ this is also an objectivist claim, in fact based on other objectivist beliefs. You are saying that it is possible you are wrong. Perhaps it isn’t possible that you are wrong. Further whatever beliefs you have that indicate that it is possible are also beliefs you hold objectively. Ideas about perception, fallibility, etc. Some people are under the illusion that if they speak in probabilities they evade being objectivists. But this is not the case. How would they even know it is an issue of probabilities? Non-objectivists can’t even refer to their own emotional states or introspective information as ‘the case’ or ‘possibly the case’, since even their feelings, thoughts and beliefs would the be claimed to be known or, know to seem a certain way. Unless they want to claim that their feelings, thoughts and so on are not part of the universe. The use of the word ‘seem’ is another way people try to avoid being objectivists. But to say something seems a certain way, even just to them, is again an objectivist claim. Maybe it doesn’t, in fact, seem that way to you. If they want to say, but of course I know how it seems to me: well, 1) now they are making a claim without a disclaimer and 2) they would need to prove that. Either their proof works, which means they have a bunch of objective beliefs since they would need to use these in the proof, or the proof does not work and, well, then they’d be wrong. I’ve never met someone who was not an objectivist. Unless it was someone who just didn’t communicate. I think you could be a kind of hermit non-objectivist, keeping mum on just about everything, and perhaps be consistant. And that’s not even going into psychology. Like is it possible to really not have any beliefs in practice? I doubt it. I have seen any examples of one. I have seen the claim that one is not an objectivist, and making that claim, even with a disclaimer is already blowing it.
Being an a-objectivist is much safer ground, but the a-objectivist does not have the luxury the atheists have since they,the atheists get their category through a specific single type of not believing.
How would even an a-objectivist know they are not convinced? How could they be sure. Best to keep mum.
and if they say, they don’t know, but it seems like they are not convinced, how do they know it seems that way. Seeming is still part of the universe and to claim something seems X, is making a claim about reality. If you want to argue it is about internal reality or experienced reality- well how the hell do you know that some things are internal or merely experienced (a certain way) rather than something else.
Most non-objectivists are, in terms of presentation, clear about not believe in X, 100 per cent, but when it comes to their epistemology or their interpretation of the own internal states and beliefs, they are objectivists. And this isn’t even getting into the superiority they give off in relation to objectivists, which is also based on some level in some kind of objectivism. It may be possible to be a consistant a objectivist, but my guess is those guys are not getting into any discussions or debates about stuff. They just eating when hungry, tending their gardens and patting the dog out in the woods somewhere.
I think we also have to not confuse people with what they say they are. People reek their metaphysics and their epistemologies. They reek of it and they act in the world, objectively, from their metaphysics and epistemologies. They can add on disclaimers that they are sure of nothing, and still they affect others and themselves and the world with their certainties. And if they engage in philosophical discussions, well they seem to have little concern about presenting claims all over the place.
No, Turd is an objectivist in my view if, in regard to his value judgments, he makes the claim that in order to be deemed [by him] as a rational and virtuous human being others must share his own moral and political narratives.
Again, back to the objective truth embedded in the fact that you buy and sell stocks. Here one can be an objectivist in that it can, in fact, be demonstrated that you do this.
If in fact you do.
But is there an objective truth embedded in the belief [political prejudice] that one ought not to buy and sell stocks because this practice is immoral?
That capitalism itself inherently thrives on the exploitation of human beings?
And Turd, here, earlier, was definitely an objectivist, about morals, epistemologically in general. I doubt he would disagree.
Well, that’s one thing. Taking those moral and epistemological values and defending them in regard to a particular context another thing altogether.
And in that respect my own experience with him was par for the course.
And if he does ever choose to come back, I suspect that I can demonstrate it anew.
This is some excellent out of the box thinking, KT
But all I’m saying is if we are a product of, a function of, and generated by the universe, then there is no way to discern anything objectively about the universe because we cannot step outside ourselves and the universe in order to take an objective view, and all truth is a relationship found inside the universe itself and only applicable inside the game. And what exists depends equally on what kind of you you are as it does to what kind of thing the object is. Any sort of morality, if it exists at all, equally depends on the knower as it does the known. The sun cannot give light if there is nothing to receive it. Likewise, morality can’t exist unless there are beings to interpret morality through the subjective lens bestowed upon them by the known itself.
The analogy is simulation theory and if we’re inside a video game, what evidence inside the game can be used to discern truths about the outside world? And claiming that the lack of evidence is fundamental and absolute isn’t itself discerning a truth about the outside world, but is discerning a truth about the inside world and merely recognizing that there is a place we cannot go, like north of the north pole. We don’t need to visit north of the north pole to know there is no there there.
It is objectively true that there is no objective truth because truth is defined to be relational and not something that can exist independent of anything to behold it. If there is absolute truth sitting there all by itself only viewed by the perspective of actuality, then the perspective of actuality becomes the subject helping to define the absolute which then makes the absolute no longer absolute. The absolute is an infinite regression stemming from the fact that the knower and the known are one.
And the fact that Turd ridicules the nondualists testifies that he thinks he is separate from everything, but hasn’t posited by what mechanism he thinks he can behold it. He’s a limb on a tree thinking he’s not the tree.
Matt Dillahunty has discovered the best analogy for this. If there is a jar of jelly beans, does the fact that we do not believe there is an even number of jelly beans mean that we believe there is an odd number of jelly beans? Conviction that there are either even or odd numbers of jelly beans has not manifested and that’s how we know that we don’t know.
Set up experiments. Guess the evenness of jelly beans in lots of jars and then count them. If we’re right as much as we are wrong, then it means we could not have known and what we thought we knew was merely a random guess. But if we were correct too often, then it means we must have known and mistakenly believed that we didn’t.
Lack of manifestation. 1+1 appears as a question, then 2 manifests. If 564^367.6545675 is the question, then nothing manifests. Deer in headlights. If I’m drawing a blank, it means I don’t know.
Subject is made a certain way and object is made a certain way and the interaction between them is a reality that is unique to that combination. Your world is not the same as my world because my world has you in the external world and your world has me in the external world.
Right, those who say, don’t know; those who know, don’t say. The Vanaprastha has resigned from the game and has nothing to teach.
Usually people say what they wish they were, but aren’t. Like me, hypocritus magnanimous, serendipity is how I wish I were, but am not. Sure I stumble into good fortune on occasion, but happy-go-lucky I am not. I’m trying to be humble as best I can and didn’t want a self-flattering username as if I deserve some congratulations for the ideas I fell into of no power of my own, but I realize that humility is just another way of flattering myself. There is no escape from the game, even by resigning and petting the dog, and presumably that’s why most who obtain satori then renounce it and dive into the game more than ever.
If there is no way to escape, then what does that mean?
So, in other words, you are claiming that that analogy works and that the logic of the argument holds. You making objectivist claims.
Same issue.
Same issue, thought I can’t even follow this one.
More objectivist claims.
Though in this case, those who say they don’t know for sure, are actually via this claiming to know. Those who keep mum, might actually not be sure.
For example.
OK.
I don’t know what it means, and I’m not so worried about that. I don’t see a reason to escape from certainty that I’m certain of.
Thank you.
I should have added that
some could say: well sure, I have objectivist tendencies that I can’t clear out, but my attitude toward them is not to trust them completely. But even this is problematic, since it is more claims and implicit claims, but further
the official position of non-objectivism itself contains objectivist claims.
However fast you erase what you wrote on the blackboard, you’re too slow and your erasing also writes.
The problem with saying this is that it undermines itself. The conclusion is based on a whole lot of objectivist claims and it is making universalist application. It is talking about all of us. I realize this is a or seems to be a logical conclusion, but then it still is a subjective being denying the possibilily of objective knowledge and saying it knows that it applies to all beings. Best to keep mum, I think.
I guess if people are going to go down this road, however much there is something to it, I think it is better to present it not as ‘hey this is the way things are’ but more a koan to mull over. Like
is the koan and you just sit with that. Let it propel you.
But I am not saying one should do this. I think, in a sense, I have had that as a koan. Though not formally and I do not do Zen. But its been a background itch I have scratched a lot over the years.
I dunno. I can’t find a good reason to hate life. Here I am carrying objectivisms around in me. What do I want to do?
And generally it is not take up the banner of the war on objectivism, since, amongst other things, that’s just another objectivism. And it isn’t using my full abilities which is another way of saying, it’s not the life I want.
That reminds me of Kant.
Oh, jeez, you read much more carefully than me. But then perhaps I read him more before.
Yes but I don’t see it as an objective claim. What I see is popular subjectivity.
The way I see it, objective claims are not discerned through any lens. I call them “observerless observations”. If the object is discerned through the lens of a subject, then it is always subjectivity (ie only in terms of what the subject is equipped to discern; it’s subject to the subject). Therefore, objectivity could only be observerless lest it be tainted with subjectivity.
Jelly beans being odd or even is judged through my lens of who I am and in response to however the jelly beans were presented.
Whether or not I feel a conviction is viewed through my lens in response to the jelly beans.
The validity of the jelly bean analogy is determined through the deductive lens of anyone considering it.
None of that constitutes objectivity since what’s observed depends just as much on the subject as it does the object.
If I discern “odd”, then it had as much to do with me as it did the jelly beans.
If I feel conviction, then it has just as much to do with me as it did the jelly beans.
If I find the argument compelling, then it was just as much a function of me as the argument.
Logic itself is observed through deduction and manifests only to those with the faculties. A fish may do logical things, but it’s not doing logic.
But “murder is wrong” is simply posited by authority and not discerned through a lens of deduction or empiricism. How anyone sees it is independent of the truth of it. We can’t look with our eyes and see “murder is wrong”. And if we can “see” that “murder is wrong” through a process of deduction, then “murder is wrong” will always be subject to the conditions that influenced the deduction. And even if “murder is wrong” is the logical conclusion of 100% of people on earth, it still doesn’t mean it’s an objective claim, but only a popular subjective claim.
If morality were really objective, then it wouldn’t be subject to only human minds as lions would also agree that murder is wrong instead of callously killing all the cubs of the previous male. If morality isn’t subject to anything else, it’s certainly subject to a neurological capability to fabricate it, and arrogance is the incentive: the pride of integrity.
All objective claims rely on authority because by definition there cannot be any proof, since proof would be observation (and observation includes deduction). Objectivists are essentially theists, I suppose.
Another analogy is the government setting the value of money. In that case, it doesn’t depend on how anyone subjectively values money since the value is simply dictated by authority. The value of money is not discerned empirically or deductively, so it’s observerless. The gov is not discerning the value of money either, but asserting it. However, if the market sets the value of money, then it’s a collection of subjective values determining the value through market forces.
Objectivity isn’t constituted merely by the fact that it applies to everyone, but that it applies to everyone regardless what anyone thinks about it. Objectivity is the proposition that the sun would shine light even if no bodies were present to receive it, and morality would exist even if no sentient beings existed because it is a thing unto itself independent of observation.
This means that the master has observed that there is no such thing as a true state of affairs because what exists depends on who is looking.
If you are saying that something applies to everyone, or the entire world or the entire universe, then you are making an objective claim.
It’s that simple.
And who but the vast and the varied proponents of objectivism claim that?
One particularly surreal aspect of this is that even though there have been hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of at times completely contradictory moral and political and theological and philosophical narratives, it never stops the next generation of objectivists from insisting that you either become “one of us”* or you are WRONG!!!
*if you embody the right gender or race or sexual orientation
When did I insist that??
The word ‘objective’ is created to communicate some particular idea. If it does not communicate that idea, then there is something wrong with the definition of the word. If nothing is ‘objective’ then there is no reason for the word to even exist. And as a consequence there is no reason for its ‘opposite’ to exist - therefore, the word ‘subjective’ need not exist.
Whenever a claim is being made, a subject is making it. That’s true for both subjective and objective claims. Therefore, the mere involvement of a “subject” can’t be what differentiates ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’.
If this is a part of the definition of ‘objective’ then obviously you’re not going find anything ‘objective’. The phrase contradicts itself right from the start.
I wasn’t attributing it to you, but to objectivists in general.
Here is the dictionary definition of objective:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
And this from SEP regarding the word “object”
plato.stanford.edu/entries/object/
Now, imagine if everytime we used the word “objective” or “subjective” or “object” or “subject” here we had to square our point with these two sources.
Then we would move on to the word “communicate” and “idea” and “exist”.
Come on, my point is this…
We think we know this or that about something in our head. We claim to believe this or that is true or false about it.
Here about Turd.
But what are we in fact able to demonstrate that all reasonable men and women are obligated to know or to believe about Turd.
Was he in fact an objectivist or are we really only discussing the manner in which we have come existentially to understand the meaning of that word here and now “in our head”?
Can we square our point with the dictionary, with the SEP? Can the dictionary and the SEP be utilized to pin down what is in fact true and false about Turd. About his own particular moral and political narrative? About ours?
Okay, but what claim is being made about what person or thing in what context?
You make the claim, you choose the context.
I’m an objectivist. So you were applying it to me. 
All thoughts and words are “in our head”. Unless you mean to say something more specific and important, then it does not require repeating.
You’re not going to be able to demonstrate anything unless you are clear and precise about the meaning of the words being used. To cast doubt on the meaning of words and the usefulness of words is counterproductive.
What exactly are you trying to convey by saying that Turd is or is not an objectivist? What’s the significance of that label in this particular case? Is it important to “pin it down”?
"The Earth is an oblate spheroid. "
Why should I consider that to be a subjective claim?
That’s a manner-of-speaking way of using the word. The truth may apply objectively to everyone in the universe, but any interpretation of that truth is subjective.
Subjectivity:
Subject ----> Object
Anything discerned about the object by the subject is subjective. What’s real is only in terms of what can be discerned, so reality is just as much dependent upon the subject as the object.
Objectivity:
(((Object)))
There is no subject. It just is. Reality exists independent of observation and the subject plays no part in defining what’s real.
It’s that simple.
Remember James saying that which has no affect does not exist? That’s subjectivity. An objectivist would posit that something exists regardless if it has affect (ie no subject required).
My definition is accurate, but the implication is ridiculous, and that’s the point I wanted to convey: if objectivity exists, it’s not anything we could know.
The dictionary definition of objective:
: relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy
: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
adjective
-being the object or goal of one’s efforts or actions.
-not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.
-intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
-being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
-of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality. dictionary.com/browse/objective
The object exists independent of an observer. And the incidental existence of any observer is inconsequential to reality.
Objectivity posits that the sun could be the only thing in existence since subjects aren’t required for it to manifest, but light can’t exist until its destination has been found, and heat is just IR light, so it’s clear as day that the sun wouldn’t be a sun at all without other things in the universe. We could say the planets “summon the light” from the sun. Our eyes solicit light from the world like one pole of a battery pulls current from the other.
The nucleus of an atom couldn’t be a nucleus without the existence of the electron, so the electron calls into existence the nucleus as a nucleus in order to make an atom.
I don’t know what objective reality means; it’s like an oxymoron. But it presents a paradox because if subjects are required to manifest existence and if everything that exists can be regarded as a totality of everything, then what subject is observing that? Evidently, when James posited affectance, he claimed the universe doesn’t exist since it has no affect on anything lol. Oops!