There is no such thing as unbiased reasoning. Everyone is biased.
There is no such thing as objective evaluation. All you can do is collect more opinions. And “fact” is consensus of opinion.
What do you say Iambig, is Serendipper an objectivist?
Think like him or you are wrong!!! That meets your definition of objectivist.
But he keeps saying that everything is subjective and opinion. 
Why do you tell me this?
You must think that it’s true for me as well as for you.
If it’s true for me, then it must be true for everyone. (Why would I be an exception?). And therefore it must be objective truth.
If it’s not true for me then there is no reason to write it.
The diagrams a few posts back are a dead giveway. They are objectivist and they are based on objectivist conclusions many layers down. But not objectivist in iambs sense, since he always distinguished between is and ought.
The object/subject juxtaposition deals with observation and not application. Even in subjectivity, the object is assumed to be applicable to all who have mechanism to perceive it. For example sound is perceptible to everyone with functioning ears; it’s not like there are those with ears who cannot hear because the speaker was targeting only certain subjects, but the speaker delivers to all who have capability. So it’s not a matter of who it applies to, but who has means to discern. The reality of the object is subject to the subject.
The quantity of people that a claim applies is not the test for objectivity. I said a few posts back that even if everyone on earth agrees on a fact, that it is still subjective. It’s not objective, but popular subjectivity.
“Murder is wrong” is an objective claim not because it applies to everyone, but because there is no path to see it: no deductive argument supporting it and we cannot see it lying around to verify it empirically. It’s just pulled from someone’s ass, asserted to be true, and what anyone thinks about it is irrelevant. It’s not subject to anything, but just is (by authority).
“The earth is a spheroid” is a subjective claim because it’s subject to the definition of spheroid and subject to the judgment that the earth fits the definition. It’s not asserted to be true regardless what anyone thinks about it.
I’m not asserting my position to be true regardless what anyone thinks about it, but supplying deductive reasoning as a lens so that everyone capable of logic can see it.
“Murder is wrong” is just sitting there in the middle of nothingness, having no affect on anything, having no path to interact with it, to see it. It doesn’t exist. And if you assert it to exist, then you’re making an observerless observation.
On the other hand, if “murder is wrong” because it’s bad for society (or whatever) then it’s subject to the definition of “bad” and subject to the judgment that murder fits the definition.
Objectivity and subjectivity are not dealing with the quantities of people that things apply to, but are concerned about how things are discerned (observed). They are statements about observation (interaction) and not application.
Words get muddled in their meaning through time. Another example is agnosticism, which is a statement about knowledge whereas atheism is a statement about belief, but the original meaning of agnosticism has been muddled. It’s similar with objectivity. It’s convenient to use the word in an alternate sense, but then confusion arises when two meanings are conflated.
An objectivist is essentially someone who posits things to exist without deductive or empirical evidence (ie god, morality, gender stereotypes like: men should work and women cook n clean, etc). If the objectivist tries to back his claims with rationale, then he’s no longer an objectivist since he’s subjugated his position to rational interpretation.
This is an objectivist:
You’re only confused because you’re trying to see it. Stop trying to see it and just believe it exists. That’s objectivity.
Why am I telling you this? Because I like solving puzzles and I’m expecting you to hand me another puzzle by either finding something wrong with my reasoning or by accepting my reasoning and then offering me a new puzzle as a consequence of the accepted reasoning.
You’re free to make up whatever definition for ‘objectivity’ that you want.
But then you have the problem that “positing things to exist without evidence” is not considered ‘objective’ or ‘objectivity’ by anyone except you.
You’re not even talking about the same issues as other people.
Again, my own understanding of objectivism here is an existential contraption. It revolves around human interactions in the is/ought world.
If Serendipper believes that his own moral and political values reflect the optimal or the only rational manner in which to resolve conflicting goods [as the Turds of the world do], then, yes, “I” construe him to be an objectivist.
Here however we would need to take his arguments “down to earth”. Situate them in a context most here will be familiar with.
I don’t have an exact definition. I grapple with its meaning existentially. And right and wrong here [re conflicting goods] are rooted in particular subjective points of view — the embodiment of dasein.
Unless of course I’m wrong. And I don’t say that facetiously.
And then intertwined in political economy where what counts is not what you think is the right thing to do, but which set of behaviors are able to be enforced.
There are many things about his argument I don’t fully grasp. But only to the extent that he illustrates his text “out in the world” are they ever likely to become clearer. To me, for example.
First and foremost, the diagrams above and this entire exchange seem to be inherently subsumed in that fundamental gap between whatever they and we think is true objectively about all of this and all that would need to be known about existence itself in order to know what is true objectively.
The irony being that we don’t even know 1] whether it is all further subsumed in a wholly determined universe or 2] whether, if not, the human brain is even capable of knowing this.
Indeed, the brains of aliens on other planets may be considerably more advanced than our own. What’s their take on it?
In fact, imagine if the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs [allowing for the speedier evolution of mammals] had plunged into earth tens of thousands of years previously. We may well be that much more evolved than we are now.
In the interim there appear to be things that are true for all of us. Those things and those relationships that encompass the either/or world. Taking into account Hume’s distinction between correlation and cause and effect. And taking into account all of those “metaphysical” contraptions like sim worlds, dreams, solipsism and matrixes.
And then the part where one by one we topple over into oblivion.
Whatever that means.
And how could you possibly know that? An “observerless observation”? See what an objectivist you are?
And even if you were correct, calling me a pioneer isn’t such an insult. If everyone agreed with me, then perhaps I’d worry lol
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect” Mark Twain
Their take would be subject to their understanding.
As an aside, the dinosaurs were already dead when the asteroid hit. My opinion is they slowly died as conditions changed (O2 density and heat) which no longer favored them.
What’s true for all of us is coincidentally true for all of us; not that things that are true for all of us has more meaning or importance than things that are only true for some of us. The fact that something is true for all of us means nothing.
The speaker gives sound to anyone who can hear it. The speaker does not decide to give sound to only some people while not others. If people can hear the sound, then they hear the sound. All things are issued to all, but not all can perceive. So whether something is true for all of us is just pure coincidence and means nothing. Popular subjectivity doesn’t make it less subjective.
You give it.
And then you take it away.
Why?
Why not just stick with it?
Whenever you find yourself alone or on the side of a small minority, it’s also time to pause and reflect.
And in that situation it would be good if there was easy access to what the majority does not believe and their arguments for that minority position. And then should you want to change anything, it will help if this information was not so marginalized that the people you discuss this with think it must be utterly mad.
Some words have multi meanings that are closely related, and in this case ‘affect’ does… to have an impact on, and to elicit a response, ergo to affect.
Do excuse my pedantry… I couldn’t help it.
Okay, but like us what they understand to be true in their brain/mind is one thing, demonstrating why all other brains/minds are obligated to believe it in turn another thing altogether.
I would assume that to be the case for all conscious entities.
What is the technology that we use to exchange these posts but an example of something – physical relationships – that is true for all of us? The laws of matter, mathematical proofs, phenomenal interactions.
Sure, in a No God world, “I” would appear to exist in an essentially meaningless universe that ends in oblivion. But, existentially, meaning abounds. At least in particular contexts understood from particular points of view.
But we have no way in which to demonstrate that this is in fact true objectively for all of us. You merely assert it to be so — as though the assertion itself is all that is necessary.
What speaker in what set of circumstances regarding what sounds relating to what human interactions?
We think about the distinction between objective and subjective here in different ways. I need an actual context.
“I”, “you” give meaning to things like this as existential contraptions in the is/ought world.
Note to others…
What on earth am I giving and taking away here? Ask him. Maybe he can explain it better to you. With me he seems to be entangled in one or another measure of hostility.
I think that [increasingly] he knows what is at stake here regarding his own sense of identity.
After all, I’ve been there myself. Unfortunately, I still am.
This is typical of the sort of “witty”, “pithy” thing that folks will say to impart some general wisdom about the human condition.
But: the majority or minority point of view regarding what human interactions in what set of circumstances?
That’s the part where [in my view] “I” comes in.
You gave a defintion of ‘objectivist’ … it’s right here : “If Serendipper believes that his own moral and political values reflect the optimal or the only rational manner in which to resolve conflicting goods [as the Turds of the world do], then, yes, “I” construe him to be an objectivist.”
Then, literally 3 sentences later, you change your mind … here : “I don’t have an exact definition.”
It’s not like I’m asking for a set of stone tablets from God. I’m not asking for the one optimum, perfect definition which all rational men and women are obligated to accept … forever and always.
All I’m asking for is your definition which can be used during the discussion in this thread. Use another definition on another thread if you want.
It’s not for nothing that lots of folks construe a definition as that which tells us what something is — what it is definitely.
But I’m not saying that he is by definition an objectivist. I’m noting instead that given the manner in which existentially “I” have come to understand the meaning of this word, “I” believe “in my head” “here and now” that he is one.
Does that distinction register at all with you?
What about others here? Am I making, say, one or another “category mistake”? 
But I don’t have a one-size-fits-all-of-us definition of an objectivist. And James S. Saint is no longer around here to give you one.
I just wrote that I don’t expect a “carved in stone”, “perfect” or “optimum” definition. I wrote that I just want your definition to be used in this thread.
And you ask me if I “register” the distinction? 