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!
Because the appearance of the earth is discerned as a subject in relation to the earth as an object. It’s a subjective claim that’s popular (except with the flat-earthers).
But “murder is wrong” can’t be viewed, so it’s not subject to the subject. It just is.
And if you find some line of logic to substantiate the “murder is wrong” claim, then it instantly becomes subject to logical interpretation.
Phyllo’s question is cannily worded. To argue that he should is to contradict yourself. Why should he view it as subjective? For all we know it is working quite well for him to view it as objective, and it might well be working well for him to view your response as subjective or Iamb’s. We are not abstract beings. We are in process experiencing and interacting with the world. Must we be abstractly correct on paper - where we do not live - ? And what is that correctness anyway? Some kind of negation, perhaps. A disclaimer. Should one make disclaimers?
You can qualify everything or claim that you would if challenged or that you mean everything quasi, tentatively, as merely possible, that you are not sure of anything. And while I would tell someone they shouldn’t do that, unless I loved them, I would probably view them as having a meme disease and a dangerous one. Besides now putting themselves in a position to contradict themselves all the time, unless they head off into the woods.
To put it another way it’s a dead end in evolution. The squirrel that does this dies off.
“murder is wrong” is also based on objects/subjects - the victims and families of victims , their reactions and our biological feelings of empathy and sympathy. They have simply been abstracted out of the statement over time.
There is interpretation in every statement. One can argue about how much oblateness is required to call something oblate or how much surface roughness is acceptable for a sphere, etc. Bottom line is that it fits the definitions to a high degree.
Subjects making claims and interpretations of words are common to both subjective and objective statements.
I don’t get the significance because every ‘truth’ is a statement and it’s expressed in words which are interpreted by someone. Those statements(true or false) are descriptions of the state of the world/universe.
I’m not denying that at all.
Yeah, reality exists independently of observation but only after you observe something are you able to formulate statements about it. Those statements are objective or subjective depending on whether they apply to the specific person or to all people.
I don’t think an objectivist would say that or phrase it that way because it sounds like you can imagine something and it automatically comes into existence.
“having reality independent of the mind” and “existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality”
I think that’s essentially correct. The confusion comes into it because we are thinking and talking about it. IOW, the reality exists … and then we see it and discuss it. Thus introducing thought, observer and mind.
That’s your particular take on it but I see no reason why it has to be viewed in that way. It seems entirely possible that the sun emits light without a ‘destination’.
“if subjects are required”
If subjects are not required, then the paradox, oxymoron, problem goes away.
James said that something does not affect anything does not exist. That has no effects or does not affect something. Not that something has no affect (that is, emotion). When you get down to it, most objectivists and most subjectivists believe as James does. Any scientist only believes in things that can be observed, which means they have effects on meters and eyes. Even religious people tend to have their supernatural beings affecting things.
Well, to the extent that this…
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!!!
…is applicable to you with regard to your own value judgments then the shoe does fit.
For capitalists the word freedom revolves market exchanges. For Communists freedom revolves around a planned economy. And both sides have explanations for that.
So, what is the clear and precise philosophical meaning of the word “freedom” such that this dispute can be resolved once and for all?
I’m not saying that turd is an objectivist objectively. I’m only noting that to the extent that he fits into my own subjective understanding of the word objectivist here and now, “I” think that he is one.
I never deny that my own arguments here are in turn existential contraptions.
And the significance of that is always seen by me in a particular context. Suppose Carleas walks away from ILP and Turd becomes the new administrator. How long would I last here?
What’s crucial then is the extent to which those who are moral and political objectivists are able to acquire actual power in any given human community.
Given that in my experience many political objectivists are [psychologically] also authoritarians, it will always be their way or the highway. Only instead of predicating their power/policies on might makes right, it revolves instead around their own rendition of right makes might.
You know, like the Communists insisted.
The first thing you do of course is to steer clear entirely of the is/ought world.
Instead, your example revolves around the either/or world.
Let’s define the meaning of the words “oblate spheroid”: simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblate_spheroid
Now, is this understanding of it true for all rational men and women? Any particular man or woman [as subjects] may argue either yes or no. But: Is it able to be demonstrated that in fact the earth is an oblate speroid – given the intertwining of these words [in the English language] and the world we live in.
And who argues that the earth ought not to have been an oblate spheroid? That nature fucked up in making it one.
This is an example of my frustration.
You tell me to pick something/anything and then when I do you suggest that I picked the wrong thing. 
Why did I pick it?
Because Serendipper says that it’s subjective and ‘usually’ you say that it’s objective. So what happens?
You waffle around with this :
Why don’t you just say that it’s one of those objective facts that we can know?
Instead of committing yourself to a point of view which you claim to have, you get caught up in uncertainty, “unknown unknowns” and “the intertwining of words” to the extend that you can’t say anything consistent.
Once we settle either/or claims then we could move on to is/ought claims. But we can’t even settle either/or.
Here is another frustration.
I said that this does not apply to me, specifically that I don’t say “either become “one of us” or you are WRONG!!!”
Instead of saying that either you don’t know if this applies to me, or you were wrong or you state reasons why you think that it does apply to me … you simply suggest that it applies to me in some vague, unclear way which I have to determine for myself.
Please, just own the statements that you make.
Right.
There are implications of the word ‘freedom’ which the capitalist and communist agree on and implications which they do not agree on. That needs to be explored before it’s possible to move on.
I don’t even know what you are trying to say by calling him an objectivist.
So it’s this - You say that he is an authoritarian.
Well from my experience, the subjectivists and relativists are just as authoritarian. They are not forthright about it. See how quickly they accuse you of racism, antisemitism, misogyny, homophobia, bigotry, etc. Prepare to be punished.
Suppose that I become administrator. I would kick out the nutters but I would not kick you out. (I have openly said so.)
What does that say?
It says that objectivism is not the issue. The particular values of the person in power are the issue. You were banned by Postmodernbeatnik in the other forum.
Even that is not crucial.
Over and over and over and over and over again in our exchanges, I make it crystal clear that my main interest in differentiating the objective truth from subjective opinion revolves around the existential relationship [out in a particular context] between identity, value judgments and political economy.
The is/ought world. Where here is someone able to make that crucial distinction between what they believe is true in their head and what they are in turn able to demonstrate is true objectively for all rational men and women.
We can call it the “Communism Syndrome”.
But you were responding to my post not his. I readily acknowledge that anything I have to say about objective and subjective reality is embedded in the gap between what I think I know about this here and now and all that would need to be known about the very nature of existence itself in order to know.
Instead, whether in relationship to the either/or or the is/ought world what counts is the extent to which we at least make an attempt to close the gap between what we think is true and what we are able to demonstrate is true for all of us.
In the either/or world however there are lots and lots and lots of things we seem able to accomplish in the pursuit of this.
We’re all entangled in that conundrum.
Because even in the either/or world what we think we know is still embedded in all of the “unknown unknowns” that scientists and philosophers continue to grapple with.
There is being consistent in a world of Humean correlation and being consistent in a world where a definitive cause and effect relationship has been established.
Yeah, that’s my point. But the thing about the is/ought world is that it is here where the overwhelming preponderance of human conflict – of human pain and suffering – unfolds day after day after day.
And my point is that the objectivists are neck and neck with the nihilists in sustaining those conflicts. The former by insisting that human interactions must revolve around being “one of us”, the latter by anchoring moral and political values in one or another rendition of “show me the money”.
Okay, then you are not an objectivist as “I” understand it. But, for all practical purposes, out in the world of conflicting goods, what kind of objectivist are you?
If, with respect to Communism or abortion, you believe in objective morality, others are either going to share your own point of view or they are not. And if they don’t how can they not be construed by you as being wrong about issues such as this.
That’s what I’ve always been trying to figure out about you. With respect to God and your own philosophical take on human ethics what does it mean to believe in objective morality out in a particular context?
Unbelievable! Over and again I insist that we bring these arguments “out into the world” of human interactions. Like we did with Communism and abortion on other threads. Now, given how I understand the meaning of objectivism, how are your views in or out of sync with that. And what is your objective take on them? It would seem to be either “one of us” vs. “one of them” or “I’m right from my side, you’re right from yours”.
In other words, from my point of view, I will own up to my statements when I agree with you that I am not owning up to them.
Really, I get that part. Do you?
Over and over, you think that everything centers around you and your interests. You never seem to grasp that others have a different interests. Which is really ironic.
Why?
I can respond in any way that I want. But I’m supposed to respond in the way that you want. Narcissist?
IOW, you don’t actually think that some things can be known, that some things can be objective. So just say so. That’s the part that pisses me off. If you don’t think that anything can be objectively known then just say that.
You never just say that and move on.
The kind that says there are right and wrong answers to some questions.
They are wrong because of the process of evaluation, not because they disagree with me.
if you want to get technical about it, then yes, we disagree about the process of evaluation.
Are you going to say that any process of evaluation is valid?
Bullshit. You just made a statement about objectivists and as a result about me. But you won’t won’t admit that you’re saying anything specific about me. Everything is passive aggressive and backhanded.
More bullshit.
Let’s bring something like this…
…down to earth
Here we have someone talking about someone else. Real people. A social interaction. Concrete, specific.
Change the word objectivist to ‘cunt’ or ‘criminal’ or ‘bad guy’ and the above reads even more obviously like someone who likes to call someone names, and then not take responsibility for it.
The above ‘explanation’ means that he meant nothing. And what it does is he never has to take responsibility for his social acts.
He gets to participate in the world like an objectivist, labeling, being divisive, judging, being binary, calling out people. But it doesn’t mean anything if this is pointed out. Because in his own mind he is not an objectivist. (and yes, snore, he admits that he has objectivist reactions)
I’ll take an objectivist over this any time. At least some objectivists have the ability to say ‘Yes, I judged him.’ ‘Yes, I called him X.’ ‘I think he is X and that being X is bad. I said it and I meant it and I believe it’’
Honest.
Well, if you want to liken calling someone an objectivist to those things, that’s your privilege.
But I acknowledge that objectivism is an existential contraption that makes sense to me here and now. There are those however who do insist that their own moral narrative does in fact reflect the most rational and virtuous assessment of any particular political conflict. Is that a bad thing? No, not objectively. And they may well be right. I merely point out how some in power insist that others must share their own moral agenda or be deemed wrong. And then once deemed to be “one of them” there’s no telling what the consequences might be.
Right?
That’s your rendition of me. I insist that my arguments here are in fact construed by me to be existential contraptions subject to change given new experiences, relationships and access to new information and knowledge. But I don’t really mean that. I’m actually just one more rendition of my own accusations against others. After all, you know me better than I know myself.
Okay, if you prefer living among those who do insist that you must embrace their own value judgments or [necessarily] be wrong, be my guest.
What I advocate are political interactions predicated on moderation, negotiation and compromise. Democracy and the rule of law. At least to the extent – for all practical purposes – that this is possible.
Having the ability to say that “I judged someone” is something that is applicable to all manner of objectivists…from the Communists and the fascists to the Christian evangelicals and the Islamic jihadists.
In my view, moral judgments are embedded existentially in dasein and in conflicting goods. Individuals interacting in particular historical and cultural and experiential contexts.
So, sure, prefer objectivists if you must but be prepared to deal with the consequences when you become “one of them” to their own “one of us”.
In places like Know Thyself you might get tossed into their dungeon. But imagine objectivists of their ilk having access to real power. But at least they will have openly and honestly judged you before lowering the boom.