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? 
To paraphrase Mr. Lucas Jackson, “what we have here is an inherent failure to communicate”.
I make that distinction between what many construe a definition to be and how I ascribe [existentially] a particular meaning to a particular word in a particular context, and this is the best you can come up with?
My advice: Consult with KT [or have maia consult with turd] and get back to me.
I try to give you plenty of leeway while still making some progress. To no avail.
What do you want to get out of these discussions?
The pause and reflection causes one to be in the minority in the first place. That’s why reflection is necessary to flee the center of the herd because “what most people know, ain’t worth knowing.” I think Twain said that too.
Idk but I read the most downvoted comments first, depending on the topic. New ideas are rarely popular and usually remain so until the composition of the population changes. Who said “all truths start as blasphemies”? GB Shaw?
You’re overcomplicating it. What’s true for everyone is a subjective interpretation of everyone that just coincidentally happens to coincide. What applies to everyone or if everyone happens to perceive the same thing, the fact that everyone is implicated has no significance. The number of people who see it does not define objectivity; it’s not a variable in the equation.
Yes. If god can take an objective view because he is outside the universe, then how can he take a view without connecting with the universe in some way? And whatever view he can take would be subject to that connection. Will it be in terms of EM radiation? Or some special spiritual continuum? Anyway, the objectivity is the same as omnipresence and omniscience which we disproved in other threads. The only way to take an objective view is to be everywhere and know everything.
Sure, I assert it and if you’re a subject adherent to logic then you will see it exists, and if you’re not, then I’m asserting nonsense. Every assertion has conditions it is subject to.
Idk, why does that matter? The idea is the sound travels in all directions. No need to get technical and account for standing waves and cancellation. The point is sound is issued to everyone, but does not exist to everyone.
Well, what is subjectivity a statement of? Observation, right? So what is objectivity except it also be a statement about observation, right? So what is doing the observation? It can’t be the object because that would make the object just another subject, so there is something different about the object in this juxtaposition: there is no subject and there is no observer, so objectivity is a statement about what is observed without observers.
“Application to everyone” is not a statement about observation, unless it be the assertion that observation from all possible viewpoints would have the same view, which would require omnipresence and omniscience to verify.
“What everyone sees” is a statement about observation, but what everyone sees is just a collection of subjective interpretations that may or may not coincide, and if they do, it means nothing.