Objectivity

I have no idea but appealing to popularity is meaningless. May as well ask a tree what it thinks.

So then I guess nothing contains something. Ecmandu ought to have fun with that one lol

And the north pole is not south of polaris.

Eh, sometimes that may be true, but if my enemy kills me, then clearly he’s not making me stronger.

Nietzsche was braindead the day he said that which doesn’t kill me makes me stronger. That which doesn’t kill someone leaves them half-dead.

That is problematic in so many ways.

The people around are dumb? They don’t have an understanding of life or the human experience? They don’t have anything to teach you?

That’s one way to look at it.

I see that the teacup is full.

I didn’t go that far, but truth isn’t a popularity contest.

Remember this?

Many readers of vos Savant’s column refused to believe switching is beneficial despite her explanation. After the problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine, most of them claiming vos Savant was wrong (Tierney 1991). Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still do not accept that switching is the best strategy (vos Savant 1991a). Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation demonstrating the predicted result (Vazsonyi 1999). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

10,000 people vs one genius.

I thought it was half empty.

I think the three of us have gone off on each other. To various degrees of implicit and explicit. And yes, it is what it is.

How will you recognize the truth when you see it?

I wonder if anyone here had the realization that objectivity doesn’t contradict subjectivity.

Experience is subjective, and that is objectively a fact.

The words really look fancy in contradistinction, Ill admit.

Yes, this argument has been raised by several people as we’ve been chasing it down through three current threads on the board.

The reason I don’t make this exact argument is because it triggers the truth table:

It’s objective that things are objective
It’s subjective that things are objective
It’s objective that things are subjective
It’s subjective that things are subjective

Now, this in and of itself always makes the argument that objectivity exists.

However, if you use the ONLY operator it gets more complex.

There’s no objectivist (except hypothetically: god), who claims that everything (ONLY) they believe is objective. Just some of it.

This back and forth is always about where one draws the line between “in my head” and “out in the world”. In a world sans God all claims by us are said to be subjective.

Thus there is no real distinction to be made between “Jane had an abortion” and “abortion is immortal”. Unless God or some “authority” on objectivity confirms either one, it’s all just something we believe in our head.

That way nothing can ever really be demonstrated to be true or false because we can never escape our own subjectivity.

Or one might argue that all of our claims are moot because we are just characters in a sim world. Or in a dream world. Or are just cyborgs created by the machines in a matrix.

Then, to the doubters, it is said, “prove that we’re not!”

And unless and until we can fill in the blanks between our claims and a complete understanding of existence itself, we are able to actually demonstrate…nothing?

I think therefore I am? So you say.

Thus…

Okay, but make this applicable to a particular context in which actual human behaviors can be used to illustrate your point. And if you presume a No God world absent any “authority” on objectivity how could anything at all be demonstrated?

As for this example…

…it’s over my head. In the first instance the subjects themselves seem to be making the claim to be the authorities on objectivity. It’s derived from their heart of hearts. In the second instance, who but God or an absolute authority on “personhood” can demonstrate the inherent/natural rights of the unborn?

Meanwhile in the either/or world it doesn’t take God to demonstrate that Jane did in fact have an abortion…and that Joe did in fact insist it is immoral. Unless of course Jane and Joe here do occupy a sim world/dream world reality…and are merely characters for creatures beyond our capacity to even grasp.

Or unless we live in an entirely determined universe where everything [including this exchange] is “beyond our control” as autononous creatures.

Thus…

Again, this is the part I fail to understand. You seem to make even that which we construe to be part of the “either/or world” – the evolution of life on earth, human biology, human sexuality, human pregnancies, human abortions – just more “subjective claims” because there is no God or Authority around to confirm them.

And, sure, what can I say. But what on earth does that really have to do with what we see all around us day in and day out? Sooner or later when it comes to “objective reality” we are all forced to draw the line somewhere. It just depends on how far out on the metaphysical limb you go.

As though here you are God or an equivalent Authority on what is objectively true about the nature of existence itself. You assert what I construe to be a clearly subjective frame of mind here [as a mere mortal] as though merely asserting it makes it true objectively.

But that just takes us to the part where the goals themselves are construed to be the right or the wrong thing to do.

Thus the argument in which the wall is deemed to be the right thing to pursue because the goal of keeping those south of the border out of America is deemed to be the right thing to do because the goal [for some] of making Americal great again revolves around making America whiter again.

Or maybe the goal of particular American businessmen is to bring those folks [black, brown or whatever] into the country because they are a great source of cheap labor.

Again, here there are actual facts that we seem able to establish as true for all of us objectively. Even if we don’t have a God or an Authority around to confirm it.

Indeed, that, in my view, is “logically” where thinking like yours goes: since nothing can be demonstrated to be true objectively sans God or an Authority, everything can be dumped into your own particular understanding of subjectivity.

Unless I am simply misunderstanding your point. And – objectively? – that does happen a lot here.

When we say objective we mean either inter subjective consensus or proof / disproof or both of these
We do not and cannot mean it in any mind independent entirely omniscient sense like the mind of God
Because God is non falsifiable and so his existence cannot be demonstrated not even if he actually exists
Therefore when we say objectivity we can only mean relative objectivity rather than absolute objectivity

I don’t buy that.

Existence is otherness.

If there is no otherness to and for god, then god cannot distinguish ours or gods own existence.

We can even make proof statements about god because of the objectivity we all have access to: existence is otherness …

Now, because we can prove this, we can prove that otherness also applies to god, just like any being, thus, we can prove that god cannot be omnipresent (lack of otherness/ lack of existence)

Proof statements about God may be logically true but they are not empirically true
And otherness may be existence but that doesnt mean that it must manifest as God

Nah.

In the Hebrew bible, gods name is “I am that I am”

I’m not by any stretch of the imagination going to tell you that if you and the tree are one, that you’re full of it. I believe stuff like that.

HOWEVER!

To state that you are all existence, with no difference inside or out, that you are “I am that I am”, I’m just going to call bullshit.

In one way we are all one existence because we are all part of the same Universe
But we are equally also individual / independent parts of that very same Universe

Physicists don’t use the term “universe” much more, instead, they call it the multi verse.

Particularly because of the problems I just outlined.

Our individuality is defined by our lack of omnipresence just as any being.

Do you really think you are omnipresent (thus knowing all things?

I bet you don’t even know Attila the Huns middle name, I sure don’t !

What makes you think god isn’t a “we” just like us?

Certainly not the proofs?

Perhaps the definitions? Like the definition of santa to a 3 year old?

His middle name was ‘The’.

=)

All gods are non falsifiable and immune to investigation which is why I dont believe in any of them

The best definition of God would be the Universe itself [ or Multiverse ] because nothing is
greater than it and also because it exists and such existence can actually be demonstrated
Pantheism though is false but it still makes way more sense than any of the Abrahamics do

I’m late to the party, I know… my thoughts are: I see subjective reality underpinning the objective world… an omniscient perspective on all things, if you will… the subjective feeding into the objective… the objective being the ideal.

This is such a simple phrase that still manages to describe our understanding of existence beautifully because all human
attempts at explaining the objective world are subjective - including the most rigorous ones of science and mathematics

The bigger picture… realising the objective view on matters, as a person’s view is theirs to have, but there being a ‘bigger picture’ would denote an objective view traversing/examining the subjective ones.