I asked for details of the conversation.
Ok. You wanna go there.
Jesus is my servant. I laid out this Dharma 11 years ago:
If you make suicide and homicide as easy as you can possibly make it, then whatever survives represents INHERENT PURPOSE TO LIVE. THATS OBJECTIVE ETHICS!!
Jesus was furious at me! He sent me to hell.
How about that story?
Oh, I want to go there and further.
There ya go.
Fascinating.
A good story…no details.
The conversation…word for word.
His logos.
The conversation was tailor made. It would mean nothing to YOU!
We’re all friends again… which is the end of the story. You have to understand, I’m the most powerful being that’s been on earth… like I stated, I’m kinda a big deal. Spirits rejoiced that I took a body again. I’ve done the Jesus thing before. I’ve done the God thing before. I’ve done the Buddha thing before. Now I am what I am. I’ve been a silent witness to spirits for eons. when I took a body and started speaking for myself, the spirit world was very excited. They wanted to know what I had to say. Absence makes the heart grow fonder I suppose.
Permit me to be honest, for a moment.
what you say may sound insane and like you are totally bonkers…but trust me, you are among your own here.
I mean, who can I mention first?
barbarisnhorde/Fixed…a.k.a. flatterer
Shall I mention Pezer….
Brian is normal in this crowd. Can you imagine? Common sense kind of guy.
Shall I mention iambiguous?
Shall I mention Joker, and his Armageddon glee?
What about shit-Stain…where is that braggart, whore fucker?
I haven’t seen so much desperate need, declaring itself genius, self-flattering, world changing, inheritors of greatness, mediocrity congregated in one cesspool.
There are so many crazies here it gives me vertigo.
I have to focus at one crazy at a time.
I’m like a psychotherapist in an insane asylum. Who do I study first?
I have to pace myself.
Until they get rid of me.
Then the crazies can calm down and return to their institutionalized regimentation.
If they do not get rid of me, then I will become tired. It’s determined…inevitable. It cannot be any other way.
Will to Power!!!
Let the prose…begin.
That’s fine by me that you refuse to accept the NARRATIVE STRUCTURE of my life.
Just look at the logical arguments.
I expect no more than this… (actually less) from humans… that they see truth when it hits them like a sledge hammer!
Nobody wants their consent violated. That’s being hit by truth with a sledge hammer.
What are you babbling about?
You are insulting yourself who is a ‘subject’.
We are all subjects, thus fundamentally subjectivists. This is a fact.
Yes, there is objectivity, but that is intersubjectivity, i.e. intersubjective consensus.
There are no ontological universal objective moral truths out there independent of the subjects.
However it is possible for subjects to establish “universal objective moral truths” from reasoning and use them as guide for ethics and everyday life to optimize the well beings of the individual[s], groups and therefrom humanity.
Thus these “universal objective moral truths” are intersubjective.
Objective triangle??
Since objective = intersubjectivity, therefore an objective triangle is an intersubjective triangle. The essence is subjectivity.
There is a triangle when you focus on this image;
Here is a clearer one;
illusionsindex.org/i/kanizs … -pic-1-mod
but it is only an intersubjective triangle just like any other triangles.
According to Brian…he’s part of a universal plan….it could not have been any other way. There’s nobody to blame…but the almighty god, or universe.
May it shine upon us with kindness.
The mind of god is in the stars. The Semitic blood calls.
There is no free-will…we are all god’s reflections.
Let us stoically endure our fate and not complain…even when being raped.
Unless we blame the paulice and the judges that do not allow us to be un-free, or our parents who made us so.
If objective is the same as intersubjective, then we don’t need both words. We can get rid of the word ‘intersubjective’.
So now we are left with ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’.
Dictionary cleaned up. Work done.
It’s Miller time.
I get on ambiguous about this type of argument. With ambiguous, he states that he has a fractured “I” because of dreams, and I tell him that we have a word for those that doesn’t fracture us… we call them “dreams” for a reason.
So here you are putting up an optical illusion. We call them optical illusions for a reason. That’s all they are. It’s no mystery that we can look up at the stars and write triangles to fill the entire night sky.
I actually don’t even need to describe a triangle as having three sides, I can just state that they have three POINTS… and then your optical illusions argument fades away.
Phyllo is correct in his last post. Intersubjective reveals a platonic (eternal) form. It transcends subjectivity. When the words refer to the same thing, why not keep it simple?
I’ll explain more about existence to you.
Silent witnesses build really good karma. They cannot be tracked precisely because they are silent. Theses are the spirits that watch your whole life story and don’t say a word. The thing about this that builds such good karma, is that they are something called “memory keepers”. When death comes along and crashes the system, (erasing your memories) memory keepers hold and return you to structural integrity.
All these jobs I’ve described, I’ve had before. I’ve also been death before. I know how these jobs work.
I’ll show you one of the easter eggs… This world was re-created… I have all the memories of the prior world.
People will tell be BULLSHIT!! PROVE IT!!!
Ok, but you’re not gonna like it.
Washington DC license plates now read “Taxation without representation”
It should read, 'No taxation without representation"!!!
Look it up.
Yes, I’m a big deal. There is a lot I’m not ready to share with you yet.
no it doesn’t, and no we shouldn’t. first off, nothing reveals ‘platonic forms’ because there’s no such thing. and second, intersubjective does not equal objective. intersubjective would involve many, but not all, subjects. if it involved all possibe subjects, it would be objective.
so if many people believed something, and some people didn’t, you’d have an intersubjective belief in truth that is in some dispute by some people. if you have an objective belief in truth, you have a belief that isn’t in dispute any anyone. but believing in something doesn’t make it ‘true’, and ‘objective truth’ isn’t a property of a thing, but a property of a statement. so to say ‘this statement is objectively true’ would mean ‘everyone able to comprehend it wouldn’t say it was false.’
but philosophical phrases like ‘the objective world’ and ‘morality is objective’ are superfluous uses of language that set up confusions waiting to happen. if one is refering to the ‘world’, one needn’t say ‘objective’, because in doing so, one is saying the world can have a quality that a statement can have; trueness or falseness. but the world isn’t true or false because it isn’t a statement. same thing goes for morality. it isn’t true or false either. statements about it might be, though.
and here’s where a neat little confusion occurs resulting from the family resemblance of words. you see philosophers sometimes mean by ‘objective’ the word ‘real’. now, what was originally just a word that meant ‘true or false for anyone who comprehends statement x’ can also mean ‘a real world as opposed to a false one.’ but what is a false world? i know what a false statement is, but a false world? then follows the phrase ‘objective reality’, which is the reality of the real world, not the false world. but where is the false world i can point to and say ‘this is what the real world isn’t’? this is a non-problem, but philosophers think there’s something mysterious going on here. see what’s happening? a series of linguistic confusions are developing out of a peculiar use of philosophical language. and this is everywhere. eve-ry-where, bro.
It is true for every POSSIBLE being that nobody wants their consent violated. It’s objective. The reason people disagree with this is not because it isn’t true, but because they think that they can get away with a contradiction (not actually be sent to hell even though they invite it!), so females will be drawn to them as having EXTRA FALSE ENERGY, and all the men trying to get laid by displaying EXTRA FALSE ENERGY!!! That’s billions of people that you’re trying to get along with… strength in numbers, right? You’re a coward. My words will be the sweet nectar of this species eventually… and then you will realize that you have no numbers.
You are correct that intersubjective truths don’t NECESSARILY imply everybody, but that’s how the term is being used by everyone else in this thread… so you just argued a straw man.
Objective is anything that is entirely free from subjective interpretation
Intersubjective is subjective consensus that is considered to be objective
These definitions actually contradict each other and so obviously they cannot be the same
No degree of intersubjectivity no matter how rigorous it actually is can be truly objective
Intersubjectivity is part of the scientific method but science is inductive not deductive so it does not actually deal in objectivity
So you (and somebody else?) have an intersubjective belief that that there are no platonic forms and Ecmandu(and somebody else?) has an intersubjective belief that there are platonic forms.
What happens next?
How many subjects?
What is that “property of a statement”? What’s the difference between true statement and false statement?
From my frame of mind, exchanges of this sort – intellectual contraptions in conflict – can only be taken out into the world we live and interact in and, in a particular context, words like “subjective”, “intersubjective” and “objective” are broached, discussed and assessed in regard to actual things and to the actual relationships between them.
What can we all agree on as being true? What is true for some but not for all? What is true only for one but not for anyone else?
Then assuming we have some capacity to draw conclusions here autonomously, and acknowledging that any conclusions we derive from particular sets of premises are embedded in the gap between what we think we know and all that can be known going back to a complete understanding of existence itself, we do the best we can to create and then sustain the least dysfunctional community.
Based on one or another practical combination of might makes right, right makes might and democracy and the rule of law.
Hope that helped.
Iambiguous,
You’re softening. I’m impressed. Less arrogance.
my team presents the onus probandi and stands at the ready to attack the argumentum ad ignorantiam that always follows. nuthin to it but to do it.
more than one, less than all.
why are you asking these wonderful questions now when i’m totally burned out? where were you like five months ago when i had my second wind? listen, you’re gonna have to get with faust on that one. he’s around here somewhere. but he probably won’t bother with it either.
because that single question opens a can of worms too big to be handled by a single mortal man. whole schools have been built around a variety of answers to that one seemingly simple question. and let me tell you; it ain’t simple.