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.
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.
I like this post.
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.
It is better to think of subjectivity and objectivity as points on a spectrum rather than as two binaries
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.
But without well established definitions and boundaries, some people start calling “objective facts”, “subjective opinions”. And vice versa.
That’s becoming the dominant nature of discussions.
Even though nobody wants their consent violated, people will always opt for challenges… they just want it on their own terms. They STILL don’t want their consent violated!! This IS BINARY. Every being born, from the moment they start to exist, are subjects to this eternal form… the only reason it happens to every being is because it’s a transcendent truth (eternal and unchanging)
In which case, we determine degree of objectivity either through application, and how our expectations match the consequences; or by comparing perspectives to a shared reality.
Like comparing two maps to a geography.
Nope, nothing to do with being soft or hard. Nothing to do with being humble or arrogant.
It’s all about taking what you think is true as a “subject” out into a particular world and, in particular contexts, interacting with others. In other words, figuring out ways that, for all practical purposes, allow you to live together with the least dysfunction.
Well, given the extent to which you are able to convince yourselves that some things seem true for all and some things do not. Then it all comes down to real world interactions embedded in the actual enforcement of behaviors legally and politically re might makes right, right makes might and/or moderation, negotiation and compromise superstructures.
In what I presume to be a No God world. And given the manner in which I have come to understand and intertwine all this [as an existential contraption] in my signature threads.
But Iambiguous! You already know for a fact that our limitations cause consent violations here BY NECESSITY!!
Let’s say that billions of people want to be your friend… and shake your hand with billions of different bodies… we know scientifically that the most friends a person can have is 150. That’s zero sum. 150 compared to billions. That’s going to violate the consent of billions of people!
Once you truly understand this truth, you’ll be furious about this aspect of the zero sum nature of reality, and then you’ll be on my mission – trying to eradicate this.
You haven’t joined me yet, because you’re still not sympathetic to the REAL PROBLEM WERE FACING HERE!!! You’re just churning out FAKE PROBLEMS
In regards to abortion, euthanasia or any moral dilemma…there is no absolute final answer.
It’s a triangulation.
Subject the circumstances and the goal.
What is the objective?
This determines if a choice is good or bad, productive or destructive.
But that’s the start.
The objective has to be realistic, not based on fantasies with no precedent. It has to be realistic - realizable.
The Spartans killed the cripples infants because of their objective - strong, healthy warriors. It was moral if by moral we understand good for the group.
Everything that’s happened in your entire life has been unprecedented – this is true for all of us. What’s wrong with the unprecedented?
I’m not too fond of quitters.
Get help.