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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
so biggs is saying that even if we could agree on what is true, we still might only be determined to do so… and even if we did do so of our own free volition, it doesn’t matter because we’re all dead meat in the end, anyway.
this is so beautiful and honest i shall almost weep before it. i haven’t heard a philosopher tell a truth like this since i last talked to a nihilist. we need more nihilists. the fearless ones who speak the troof.
Sure. We create words like ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ because they are useful to describe stuff that we find in the world. And their continued usefulness is tested by taking them out into the world.
I don’t think the requirement of “all agree on as being true” is of any practical value.
Through lack of knowledge, deceit, misunderstanding or miscommunication, some people are always going to disagree on even the most clear truth. To say that 6x7=42 is only subjective or intersubjective, because there are some people who think that it’s 43 (or they are not sure about the result of the multiplication), seems absurd.
I would characterize subjective and objective in this way:
If you say that “you like chocolate ice cream” then I would call that a subjective truth because I have no way to show/know it to be false. It’s a truth which is purely dependent on one subject.
If you say that “chocolate ice cream is the flavor consumed the most(by volume) annually in North America”, then I would call that an objective truth. It can be confirmed to be either true or false. And the truth or falseness is independent of you and your beliefs. It’s not just something that you think or feel.
I don’t find the word ‘intersubjective’ to be useful in any way.
When we speak of strength or power, we do not mean omnipotence.
When we speak of knowledge and understanding, we do not mean omniscience.
Therefore, when we speak of objectivity we do no mean an absolute, but a degree of subjectivity that approaches the indifference of the object, in this case the world, or reality.
We can also transfer this to free-will and say that freedom is not absolute, but a degree, manifested through choice in relation to options.
We’re determined to do so because eternal forms are part of existence. Is this a bad thing? Nobody in their right mind would say that violating their consent is OK. Partly because of ignorance (they’ve had easy lives) and don’t understand what they’re saying.
Or, to think of objectivity as a degree of subjectivity approaching the objective.
Just as when we speak of power, we mean a degree of weakness approaching the ideal of omnipotence.
