I believe the concept of objectivity implied processed and a refinement of ‘subjectivity’ with due care and rationality, i.e. put through the rigor of testing for empirical evidences, possibility and rationality.
E.g. God is not-empirical-evident, is impossible and irrational. God is only useful for psychological reasons.
OK, I get your point because it can be a very loose term.
However I believe we can tighten the term ‘objectivity’ with more precise definitions.
I believe the dichotomy of the subject versus the object, thus subjective versus objective is essential. Thus the use of the term ‘objectivity’ is useful, i.e. as shared or intersubjectivity, because as I mentioned above it is processed and refined ‘subjectivity’. Therefore we cannot separate subjectivity from what is objectivity.
What the objectivists proposed as 100% pure objectivity need to be expounded and the error be exposed as incorrectly misled by psychology. What is critical is we need to explore and research into the role of psychology in compelling a person toward the ideology of theism and philosophical realism. This will then take us to explore deeper into the brain and human psychology.
If I agree with your sticking to subjectivity without the corresponding ‘objectivity’ we will not have the potential for further exploration and research.
The very serious arguments from the Philosophical Anti-Realist [Buddha, Kant et al) is reality-as-it-is does bend to our will, i.e. the collective not the individual’s Will. As part and parcel of reality-as-it-is, the subjects are co-creators of reality-as-it-is.
The Philosophical Realists’ view on objective reality [independent of the human conditions] is “I am 100% right you are wrong”, “take it or the highway”, which is similar as the theists’ view.
Note the Philosophical Realists’ view is not evident ultimately but based on a leap of faith to insist there is something like the thing-in-itself [noumenon] when there is no such thing as a thing-in-itself, thing-by-itself, things-by-themselves.
Regardless of whatever one feels, what count are the arguments, whether they are sound or not.
Note the trend of knowledge as in Physics has been moving from the focus on the objects to the subjects, note observers’ effect, QM - collapse function, etc.
Copernicus did it and Kant [mine] followed suit;
The Philosophical Realists’ position [the majority’s] is based on common sense and the default. Kant’s and others are swimming against the tide of the majority. It take a big psychological battle to break through this, but the Philosophical Realists by default just cannot do it since they are being trapped by their inherent psychological defense mechanisms.
To me, an idealistic person would be one who asserts that their ideal situation is objective truth and the realistic person would be one who asserts that ideal situations don’t exist or that situations aren’t always ideal. Like Jefferson idealistically claiming that a nation with a standing army is a danger to freedom, then later realizing without an army there can be no country.
It’s hard for me to keep it straight because I don’t associate what’s ideal with what’s mental… and I don’t associate what’s real as anything other than “mental” (subjective).
From my frame of reference, all adherents to logic should see it my way. From their frame of reference, which is from a hole in the sand, they can’t see it.
Dumb minorities vote liberal because the oppression of minorities by conservatives is not difficult to see. Any idiot can see it.
Dumb whites vote conservative because the oppression of dumb whites by conservatives is too difficult to discern and it requires the caliber of someone like Noam Chomsky to point it out, and even then, it requires fairly substantial intelligence to see it even when illustrated by Noam. So there is nothing they can conclude other than all those smart professors are idiots.
Well first, I’m not having this conversation with Kant or the Buddha, I’m having it with you…
So maybe you can present me with your thoughts instead of attempting to speak on behalf of greater minds.
You’ve not really giving me anything to work with here… you’ve just made assertions without outlining any kind of reasoning that leads you to your conclusions.
Not only that but you’ve also predefined “philosophical realism” into a neat little box with predefined flaws that you can point out independent of me.
My participation at this point seems optional…
But on the off chance that you may actually respond to ME and not some predefined tenet that you imagine I hold to, I’ll say again:
I don’t have to convince you of anything, because you’re already operating as though you agree with me… I am not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying you’re playing a language game.
You might want to frame it as “collective reality” or “relative reality” but it’s inconsequential.
Say something of consequence, commit to something that makes your faith falsifiable THEN I’ll concede that you’re not JUST playing word games.
Yeah don’t flatter yourself… ideas are not dangerous to realists, knowledge is.
When realists have knowledge, they guard it carefully. Whether it’s scientific discoveries, military intelligence, new tech designs you name it…
They’re happy for you to be ignorant, gives them an edge.
It’s the ideological religious types who NEED you to believe what they believe and insist you change your mind.
And it’s just as unpersuasive when they drone on about how defensive and closed off you are to accepting their brand of horseshit.
And what on earth does that mean? Different extant people fill in the blank here with different [conflicting] sets of political prejudices.
Then the moral objectivists among them will insist that the manner in which they construe the whole truth here is on par with the manner in which all of us can determine/demonstrate what is true in the either/or world — encompassed in the evolution of life on earth culminating [so far] in our own species biologically able to impregnate the female of the species.
Then this part:
It’s not a question of the universe caring, it’s a question of what those of our own species are able to demonstrate is true objectively for all rational human beings. Something that lions and deer know practically nothing of.
Okay, that part I understand. Objectivity is defined into existence “in your head”. James Saints “definitional logic”. And if you can convince others to share in those definitions culminating in the meaning or words placed in a particular order in posts like this, then objectivity is captured. If only in a world of words.
Of course in a wholly determined universe even the human “subject” is but one more of nature’s objects. But, if one presumes some level of autonomy, then [for me] what counts is connecting the dots between what any particular subjects believe is true and what they are able to demonstrate is true. Using, for example, the scientific method and the logical rules of language
Yes, but only to the extent that any particular subject is able to demonstrate that one can approach the morality of abortion as a doctor approaches human sexuality and pregnancy given her objective understanding of the biological parameters involved.
Here, I can only imagine folks at an abortion clinic protest reacting to this. How “for all preactical purposes” might this be useful to them?
I have no idea what this has to do with the points I raise in regards to abortion out in the is/ought world. I’m not saying you are wrong, only that it is all entirely too abstract [to me] to have any real use value or exchange value in a context in which a particular abortion is actually being reacted to.
Well, I imagine that any number of subjects have beheld a woman at an abortion clinic having a procedure that ends the life of her unborn zygote/embryo/fetus.
But how does one behold conflicting narratives in regard to the morality of it?
In a determined universe, everything that we think, feel, say and do embodies the illusion of autonomy.
And, in an autonomous universe, I believe that objectivist moral narratives/political agendas reflect the illusion of an objective morality.
Only I immediately recognize my inabilty to demonstrate that this in itself is true objectively. Why? Because there may well be an existing God. Or there may well be a wholly rational Humanist assesment out there that does in fact pin down an objective argument about the morality of abortion one way or the other.
But I don’t focus as much on defining illusion. Instead, my interest is in taking any particular definitions out into the world of actual human interactions and testing them existentially.
Well, we need to name a particular context. Say, building Trump’s wall on the border with Mexico. Then we need to hear all of the conflicting arguments regarding whether [objectively] we can discern the “right thing to do here”.
With regard to actual flesh and blood human beings whose lives will either be uplifted or upended in building or not building it.
There are two types of objectivity : relative and absolute
Relative objectivity is inter subjective consensus that has the rigour of evidence or proof or logic or reason to support it [ it is
not merely popular opinion for that does not require any rigour at all ] This is the type of objectivity that you are referring to
Absolute objectivity is that which is held to be true even though it cannot be demonstrated such as for example the existence of God
Although given that belief in God is subjective then absolute objectivity must logically also be subjective. Ones position on this is dependent upon
whether you are a theist or an atheist : theists will say absolute objectivity exists because God exists while atheists will say the complete opposite
This is incidentally why you cannot find an objective answer to your abortion dilemma : anti abortionists are theists and pro abortionists are atheists
They cannot agree on the morality of abortion because they are using entirely different moral authorities namely God and human beings
The anti abortionists are citing an authority that the pro abortionists do not acknowledge so difference of opinion is therefore inevitable
Having spent the amount of time on both, I would consider myself a near expert on their knowledge. Thus my views are very similar to the Buddha’s and Kant, thus standing on shoulders of giants to support my views.
I did not make my own definition. I had actually defined Philosophical Realism based on the general accepted definition, i.e.
The last point is debatable depending on whether one is referring to classical Science or Modern or Quantum Physics.
Ideas [philosophical] i.e. ideology not dangerous?
Note Communism, Nazism, fascism and Islamic theism and others of the like.
Knowledge itself is not dangerous but only when it is abused with an ideology.
Transcendental/Philosophical Realism = objectivism = idealistic person.
An pure objectivist of Transcendental/Philosophical Realism believe in an external object that is independent of the human condition, which mean there is a reality GAP between the subject and the object connected by waves.
The waves of the external object form a mental conception and idea of the object in the mind.
In this case, the subject never interact with the supposedly real object at all.
This is the reason why the pure objectivist or philosophical realist is an idealistic person.
This weakness is exposed by Meno’s Paradox.
For example a philosophical realist believe there is a real table that is external to his human subjective conditions. But the philosophical realist never get in “touch” with the real table but only is connected via electromagnetic waves from his real table.
The question is, is there a “real” table emitting waves to his brain?
Note I had quoted Russell’s doubts, i.e. “perhaps there is no table at all”
A Philosophical Realist will often condemn his counterpart as an idealist, not being aware they are the real idealist, i.e. transcendental idealist indulging in illusions.
Transcendental Idealism = subjectivism = realistic person.
On the other hand the transcendental idealist is an empirical realist.
To the empirical realist the object co-exists with the subject, there is no object that is external to the human conditions, i.e. no reality-GAP at all.
Thus the transcendental idealist or empirical realist which is intersubjective is realistic, i.e. what is cognized and emerged is what you get.
Common sense indicate there is some sort of externalness, i.e. a distance between the subject and the object [Sun 93 million miles away], but this distance is still subjective.
The term “idealist” is a derogatory term thrown at those who oppose their Philosophical Realism views.
They so called and condemned ‘idealists’ [not theistic idealists like Berkerley] are actually empirical realists, thus very realistic.
Ideas are not dangerous…
YOU might be dangerous, if you were armed with knowledge… but not your ideas.
You idealist types often ARE dangerous because you desperately need to get everyone else to agree with you.
It’s almost as if you believe your fantasy world stops being real if you can’t get the “collective” to agree…
I know, that’s why I can’t keep it straight until I go through the effort of figuring it all out again.
I’m an idealist except that I don’t define “mental” as most people would. You know that.
I’m simply saying that plugging concepts into logical equations spits out certain conclusions subject to the logic and the variables.
Does it REALLY matter if anyone is exploited? No. But if nothing matters, then it doesn’t matter if I fight back.
For the attitude of the dummy it is because he cannot see and is drawing conclusions from darkness, then holding them on faith. Noam has authored over 100 books, holds 40 honorary degrees, and has been lecturing on politics and economics for longer than most people have been alive, yet he’s casually dismissed as an idiot by people who are themselves idiots if their standardized test results and grades are any guide. They are making an objective claim. I am making a subjective claim that’s subject to logic and reason, but they are making an objective claim that’s subject to nothing.
Whether it is ‘realism’ or ‘idealism’ we need to put them into their proper contexts.
There are those who jumped to claim they are Philosophical Realists with the ideology of Realism but the philosophical argument is they are not realistic.
Philosophical Realists insist they can point to a real table, but as Russell stated, under strong philosophical rigor, perhaps there is no really-real table at all as proposed by the so claimed Realists.
It is argued the Philosophical Realists are actually empirical idealists and transcendental realists.
The typical so condemned ‘idealist’ is actually an empirical realist and a transcendental idealist as I had explained from the Kantian perspective.
I’m not saying ‘those guys are fine’ I’m just trying to understand your position. IOW if I probe you in your debate on the right, I am not saying the Right is right. I mean, you both could be nuts, for exmaple. I don’t think your nuts, but often on the internet if you probe or criticize one side of a debate or one part of someone’s argument, it is taken to mean one agrees with the other team. Both teams could be nuts. The other team could be nuts about most thigns, but not this one thing. It could have been worded weird. Their might be a third team that’s great. I am sure there are other possiblities.
I still find it strange that you think you are making subjective claims only.
Even the head in the sand metaphor strongly implies that your head is not in the sand. So you can look at the objects. They have their head in the sand, so they are making stuff up. IOW objects can be percieved. They are out there. You are triangulating them and have a better chance of knowing their nature, becaues your head is not under the earth. You have a direct line of sight.
The Right…my thoughts on the right are so weird to most people I haven’t even brought them up: I think they are a reflection of our denials. Feelings and thoughts we did not want to look up because we were afraid they meant we are bad, seeped out of us and lo…there they are fixed and as bad as we feared, but only because we denied them. IOW they are not as real.
I’m the one defending myself from your attacks in defense of your own enemies lol
The Left is Freddy Krueger and the Right is Dunning-Kruger.
Subject to logic like 2+2.
It’s not in the sand because I don’t put it there. That doesn’t mean I’m correct, but I’m not running away to preserve my preconceived notions that must be defended at all costs because it’s my religion.
I am here ready to defend my position, but where are those on the right?
First of all, they’re narcissists, so they can’t see because they have a huge mirror in front of their heads. Many of them could see if they could get past the fact that they already know everything.
You’ll have to elaborate because I’m not seeing what you meant to convey. Biggie would say bring it down to earth lol
This is not a war. This is a discussion forum, supposedly philosophy based. You say above that it doesn’t matter if people are exploited. I don’t understand then why you have enemies. You were responding, I thought, to questions and critiques about what your wrote. Your arguments for example.
Is this the old thing where you have to pick one of only two teams, never point out problems with your own team is saying, always attack other teams?
that’s been working real well for humanity so far. And all the underlying assumptions reek of Christian memes.
And seriously… enemies, but it doesn’t matter if anyone is exploited. It’s like hysterical indifference.
Again, the idea is that the head in the sand has it’s vision blocked. It cannot see whether something is coming or not, from where, what it is. The metaphor is about not being able to perceive objects. It assumes objectiv.ity. Not infallibility, but objectivity.
You keep criticizing them for not being as objective as you.
And again, you can see, you don’t have ia mirror in front of your head, they can’t they do. They can’t perceive objects. Their ideas about reality are clouded by the fact that they are not looking at it. Again objectivity is assumed.
Still though, people attack arguments and defend arguments. You’re now attacking my assertion that discussion is analogous to war and I’m now defending it.
Yes because after the game, the king and pawn go in the same box. Whatever happens in this universe doesn’t matter.
Because the game is still going on.
No, we could have a free-for-all where it’s everyone against everyone else, but I just figured it would be more in your best interest to ally ourselves against realworld enemies rather than bicker among ourselves in defense of online enemies.
I’m crusading against the crusaders, but at least I’m aware of it.
I think it matters, which is why I’m crusading, but I also know nothing matters in the end.
No you have it backwards: they are asserting what they cannot see; I am asserting what I can see. “See” = “follows from logic”.
“Thinking is no more and no less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear sounds, so thinking perceives ideas.” - Goethe
You see?
“That which enters the mind through reason can be corrected. That which is admitted through faith, hardly ever.” - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Ideas that entered the mind through reason are subject to the reasoning and change with it.
“When the facts change, I change my mind.” - John Maynard Keynes
But that which enters the mind through faith can never change until the faith is lost. If the idea is subject to anything, it is their faith; however, faith isn’t given as a basis for the claim, but the basis is: it just is. It has nothing to do with reason, nothing to do with vision or sense, and nothing to do with anything; it just is.
What do you mean “what does that mean”? If their proof is subject to some argument or line of reason, then it’s subjective. Objective claims are not subject to anything.
Well if the claim is an artifact of evolution, then it’s subject to evolution and subjective. Objective claims will be supported by god or some authority.
Objective claims can’t be demonstrated because then the claim would be subject to the demonstration.
Um, I guess.
If you posit some logic and say “here is a logic and here is why I think we should use it” then the logic is subject to the reason for using it; if the reasoning changes, then so will the applicability of the logic.
But if you assert some logic as fundamentally true without any associated reasoning for how you arrived at that conclusion, then the logic isn’t subject to anything; it just is.
You see the difference?
If someone says abortion is wrong, then you ask why, and they say “it just is” and “you know in your heart that it just is”, then it’s an objective claim because it doesn’t depend of anything that could change the fact that abortion is wrong.
On the other hand if someone says abortion is wrong because, idk, it’s a person with rights, then the assertion hinges on the personhood and having rights, and is subjective for that reason, even though “having rights” may itself be an objective assertion that’s ultimately unjustifiable.
Yes, the subject and object are both objects and both the same object.
There is no objective understanding. If it could be understood, it would be subjective.
Which group?
I really have to press this issue because you’re all over the site carrying on about a determined universe while all the evidence indicates that it’s not so. The universe isn’t determined or even determinable; it’s probabilistic.
I don’t know, but you can’t behold objectivity lest it be subject to the means you use to behold it.
So to have an illusion then requires objective truth?
There is no right thing to do, but there are right things to do in relation to certain goals.
The wall is a waste of time, but it’s not a waste of time from an objective standpoint because there is nothing that isn’t a waste of time in that case.
Still though, people attack arguments and defend arguments. You’re now attacking my assertion that discussion is analogous to war and I’m now defending it.
[/quote]
Man, you are shifting the debate around all the time these days. Does this mean we are enemies? which was the word that set this off the most. Do you mean that people should not question arguments of people on their own team? Are there only two teams? Do you actually think you are defeating enemies in a way that will actually help people?
Why consider your chess opponent an enemy? In chess there are clearly two teams, that’s it. In life it is more complicated. If you are part of a team of players, does this mean you never want it pointed out when you may be choosing a wrong line of attack or defense?
How republican sounding!
You’re crusading against anyone who doesn’t align perfectly with you as far as I can tell.
How impervious a position. If you are going to defend your arguments with oxymorons, why bother defending them? Why treat my criticisms as a betrayal - one could for example, treat them as a way to make your arguments stronger - when you could simply ignore them?
That is exactly what I said. I am talking to you not them. Whatever idiocy they are saying has nothing to do with what you are sayhing and if it makes sense or not. Your defense of your argument is that whatever they are doing is wrong or wronger.
"
More of the same, moving away from perception to reason. More claims to a better objectivity, which does not mean that your position does not have subjective elements.
As if that was mutually exclusive and somehow explained away my point.
This is a waste of my time. These last posts are a sign of reason? Nah.
enjoy your binary game, your us vs. them. This kind of approach has worked so well in the past, it will surely work again. At least you can find very strong agreement from conservatives, who love to see the world in us/them simple binary terms. And who also resort to quasi-mystical oxymorons when cornered not making sense.
People often think they teach content, but they teach form much more than they realize.
I think you said something about summer break. Maybe we’ll bump into each other again after. I think you need one.
