The end of the subjectivity debate

Thank you sir.

You are trying to be deceptively here, most likely due to ignorance.

Ecmandu: It’s objectively stated: “on august 3rd 1992, it rained somewhere on planet earth.”

How do you know to confirm the above?
It is possible there was no rain on that day.

The above is most objective if we get a confirmation from a qualified weatherman who rely on Science and other advance knowledge.
However whatever objective facts the weatherman confirm, it is intersubjective as subjected to the Framework, System, Machinery, principles of weather forecasting.
Thus the objective conclusion of the qualified weatherman is intersubjective, i.e. ultimately subjective.

In addition, August 3rd 1992 is very subjective depending on which Nation’s or international time which can be very variable.

In addition, “raining” is also very subjective, depending on whether how we define ‘rain’ from light rain, heavy mist or thunderstorm, etc. How do you measure the limit of lightness of water falling down to be considered rain? Is it one drop of water, two drops, three or how many drops or liters of water before it is considered to be raining.

As you can see your supposedly “objective” statement is full of subjective variables which is consolidated and concluded by intersubjectively.

That is why I claim what is objective is ultimately and fundamentally subjective, i.e. intersubjective.

Your insistence to cling tenuously to objectivity alone for facts is due to a desperate internal psychology driven by an existential crisis.

Perhaps you agreed with my points and simply wanted to add some other information. But it doesn’t read like a response to my post.

Perhaps you agreed with my points and simply wanted to add some other information. But it doesn’t read like a response to my post.

I really don’t… that statement is true by definition.
If Phyllo thinks otherwise he’s using different definitions for those words OR he’s being self-contradictory.

It was an appeal to reason… you need to be aware of what words mean in order to understand what is being said, much less critique what’s being said.

I’m going to side-step the comment about mediocre intelligence… but note the irony.

Defining words is done for the purpose of clear communication… It helps when people take the time to clarify and discern how terms are defined.
But when you could just as easily express your thoughts on a matter using the established language, yet still prefer to redefine terms, it seems suspect.

Re-defining words that traditionally have a different meaning, lends itself to equivocating on those two meanings and thereby making specious arguments.
Everyone as a consequence has to remain extra vigilant to ensure you’re sticking with the new definition and not confusing it with the traditional one.

For example if you critique what it means to be an “objectivist”, as you have re-defined it, and then think that critique applies to a traditional objectivist, that would be a case of equivocation.

Likewise if you assume other people are using YOUR definitions, even though they have not agreed to do so, you won’t comprehend what they are saying and end up criticising your own misunderstanding rather than any of their arguments. That is a form of straw manning, but of course you’re not doing so intentionally… you’re just confused by semantics.

The fact that thoughts and beliefs are subjective and the opinion of objectivists regarding whether thoughts are subjective are entirely different. You said “even according to objectivists”. Well, Phyllo is an objectivist and according to him, not all thoughts are subjective. Maybe they are in fact, but not according to objectivists.

You said “fairly uncommon”. That’s an appeal to popularity and that IS your reasoning: ie that popular opinion should dictate what words mean.

Note the narcissism.

bell-curve.jpg

You are insisting that words be defined by the big hump in the middle; that science should bow and defer to the wisdom of the hump.

And that’s why I defined my terms.

Why? Words are fucked up all the time.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn9elWR13Z4[/youtube]

I’m tired of hearing “prodigal”
03:28
being used to mean “wandering”, “given to
03:30
running away”, or “leaving and returning”.
03:32
The parable in The Book of Luke tells of
03:35
a son who squanders his father’s money.
03:38
“Prodigal” means “recklessly wasteful” or
03:41
“extravagant” and if you say “popular usage
03:44
has changed that”, I say fuck popular usage.

04:21
Yeah, I know, you’ll say “well
04:24
many people are using it that way, so the
04:26
meaning is changing.”
04:27
And I say “well many people are really
04:28
fucking stupid!” Should we just adopt
04:31
all their standards?

I concur. Fuck popular usage and appealing to dummies for definitions.

Traditional objectivists are objectivists by my definition. The only problem is they label some popularly subjective claims as objective. Or they conflate objectivity with “unbiased assessment” or “standardized framework”.

Yes I will. When a cop says there are objective realities of altercations that must be discerned upon arrival, I know what he means.

Project much? You’re trying to deceive, but as you stated for me, it’s probably just ignorance.

You’re using the infinite regress of perceptual acuity defense.

I actually have a definition for rain! Lol!

It’s when the area underneath all the trees is soaked.

So here’s the deal, perceptual acuity is extremely important to objectivity !

Let’s say I put a microscope on the tree?

It won’t look even remotely like a tree!

Let’s say I stand back 40 miles, it will not only not look like a tree, I won’t be able to see it.

For ALL phenomenon, the sweet spot of perceptual acuity, the middle way, is what creates perception of objects as we name them.

For you, it’s only subjective because we’re standing on the exact atom that gives an optical illusion, where we see it perfectly as a tree still, but if we change our perspective it no longer looks like a tree either.

We have optical illusions like that as well, the one with the old hag and the young woman comes to mind.

At a certain perspective of perceptual acuity, a tree is definitely a tree, so stating the infinite regress of objects problem in that context, is a straw man.

Note: All grammatical constructions are subjective.

A noun and a verb are not subjective.

We just happen to all use them.

Nouns and verbs still exist without subjects, otherwise we ALL wouldn’t be able to perceive them.

Everyone knows nouns and verbs because they are written into the structure of existence.

Serendipper,

What’s really frustrating about this exchange, is how you’re using these terms to make your argument.

Nobody disagrees that otherness is existence.

That’s an objective truth.

But then you come along and state that NON-PERCIEVING extistents are also subjective because the fact that existence is otherness is subjective.

This is ludicrous!!

If existence is just rocks hitting each other by the wind blowing, and that’s it, there’s still otherness, BUT!! No subjects in existence. There’s still wear and tear from friction. There’s still plate tectonics etc…

What are non-perceiving existents?

We cannot comprehend abstract existence, but that is not itself an objective/abstract claim because it’s reliant on there being a knower and a known. I’m not talking about existence, but conceptions of existence. Perhaps there is an abstract existence, but it’s not anything I could possibly conceptualize, much less talk about.

You don’t have to know what it’s like to know it exists!! That’s the problem with subjectivity!

It’s the belief in the lack of object permanence. “Unless it’s me, it doesn’t exist”

This is a stage for babies, infants, it’s wholly narcissistic and not at all mature or realistic.

You have a definition for rain?

Aren’t you a subject and that what is a definition is etymological which is based on intersubjective consensus.
Note, for example one definition of ‘gay’ = homosexuality, and that is an objective definition, but surely you understand it was invented by subjects and intersubjectively agreed upon, thus subjective.
The above etymological is the same for all definitions and meanings, i.e. ultimately subjective.
You cannot separate objectivity from subjectivity.

The various perspectives to what is a “tree” is already indicative of whatever objective is subjective, i.e. subject to the various perspectives of the subjects.
That sweet spot is dependent on the human brain of the majority, thus what is objective is ultimately subjective, i.e. intersubjective.

Note if I and some others were born with atomic vision only, then those who claimed a tree has roots, trunks and green leaves, I would insist they are seeing an illusion.

To a virus, the virus will not perceive an objective tree as perceived by humans. It is the same with all other non-human entities. Thus what is objective to human beings are subjective and relative to different living perceptive entities. Thus there is no permanence but rather relative cognitions, i.e. effectively subjective.

The only permanence is “change” i.e. change is the only constant, i.e. objective, but that is only apparent. When delve deeper, the ultimate of change is still subjective.

I don’t deny relative objectivity but it is always subjected/qualified to various conditions and subjects [e.g. humans, bats, virus and other living entities], so whatever that is objective must be ultimately and fundamentally subjective to subjects.

I recognized and agree with empirical, scientific, legal, moral, sports, etc. objectivity, but such objectivity is only valid as conditioned and subjected to their defined Framework and System, rules and criteria.

Repeat, why you are so narrow and closed-minded and confined to pure objectivity only is due to a psychological compulsion via a desperate existential crisis.

The scientific framework is an empirical epistemology that attempts to account for human bias and subjectivity, It’s “arbitrary” only in the sense that it’s possible to have a different epistemology, a different framework.
Yet no “alternative” as of yet has been able to produce an account of the reality we experience with as much detail and predictive power… and yes it’s the reality we experience and therefore subjective, but that subjective experience is best characterised as being in contact with an objective reality.

It’s a psychological compulsion, in the same way it’s a psychological compulsion not to jump off a cliff…
because while pretentious thinkers can postulate it’s all relative and arbitrary… you know you’re going to fall and die if you do.

No amount of jibber-jabber about the virtues of being open-minded will help you here.
Skepticism is best used as a tool, not a rule… it allows us to compare established ideas with new ones and pick the better.
You have as of yet not produced any “better” ideas… and even if you did, it would not be best received with an open-mind, but with scrutiny and careful examination.

When you generalize about all of us, we other humans and you, (knowers and a known, subjects and perceptions, what all of our thoughts are like)
aren’t you talking about things that are not part of you experience? How do you know others are like you? That their experience, perception is like yours?

I understand you can explain about how you experience them, but it seems like when you universalize about experiencing you are doing precisely what you say above you cannot possibly do.

I’ve been saving this one for a while now.

Like mark twain said: “everything in moderation, including moderation”

Like I say, the set that HAS to work on itself: “everything is subjective, including subjectivity”

As has been noted in the last two replies, you’re using a universal qualifier: everything is subjective

Universal qualifiers also refer to themselves as well.

Replying to myself, and I’ve been saving this one as well.

Silluoutte stated that the beginning of this thread was “sophmorish”

Actually, because of the eminently logical “universals (by definition) always act upon themselves”

It’s perfectly rational to simply state “yeah but your argument is just subjective”

It’s not sophmorish at all, neither is it “not understanding the nuances of subjectivity”

So try having at that sillouette !! =)

Subjectivism can refute objectivism, but not without refuting itself in the process, so they’ve both been refuted.
The solution is just to go with whatever appears reasonable, intuitive/sensible, without thinking about it too much, or thinking about thinking itself.
To fully or partly dispense with epistemology.

Subjectivism works the same as false in the truth tables:

It’s true that it’s true (it’s objective that it’s objective)

It’s true that it’s false (it’s objective that it’s subjective)

It’s false that it’s true (it’s subjective that it’s objective)

It’s false that it’s false (it’s subjective that it’s subjective)

Number 1 and 4 both solve as objective.

Number 2 solves as objectivity existing so that it’s self contradictory.

Number 3 is what all the subjectivists are arguing (it’s subjective that it’s objective)

The truth table is 3 out of 4

So … 1 out of 4 is not the ONLY and NECESSARY one that’s true to the exclusion of the others …

3 out of 4 Beats 1 out of 4, by vote, objectivity wins.

You can’t make the argument that 1 of 4 of those refutes the other three.