Message to all subjectivists!

Science, mathematics and semiotics are all the children of logic.

Logic can most certainly detect things that are true for all POSSIBLE beings, thus entering a realm of the transcendent, the objective.

Any possible being born into existence, where there were no beings before, ever, will INSTANTLY be beholden to the law that they don’t want their consent violated. This law precedes life (assuming anything precedes life), the reason this is true, is because this truth is transcendent. No being has a choice in the matter.

Okay, so when contentions pop up regarding these distinctions, let’s take them out into the world and in regard to a context in which conflicts arise, let’s flesh out our meaning.

Huh? Take any issue in which disagreements thrive. Conflicting goods, for example. All we can do [for all practical purposes] is to note those things that are true for all of us. In regard to abortion, there are biological facts embedded in sets of circumstances that all can agree on. We can grapple with compromises in regard to when the unborn becomes a “human being”. Given the biological facts that we are certain of in regard to human life from conception to birth.

Clearly, all we can do there is our best. At least sans a demonstration that an actual omniscient/omnipotent God does in fact exist. If the evidence is overwhelming, indisputable that Jane was impregnated as a result of being raped by John, but some insist that she is not even pregnant at all, sure, you can claim this is all “subjective”.

See how far that get’s out in, for example, the real world.

Unless, of course, you’ve witnessed someone who has claimed this eating ice cream hundreds of times and in every instance she ate only vanilla ice cream. Things that individual subjects claim either can or cannot be verified. But what if someone claims that she eats chocolate ice cream because all rational men and women are obligated to only eat chocolate ice cream. Or what if someone poisoned the ice cream of another and they died. She had her reasons. How is it determined that in fact this behavior is necessarily immoral?

Yes, there are any number of things that can be said about chocolate ice cream that are either true or false. And I suspect that these things are embedded in the either/or world.

Really? What on earth are historical and cultural value judgments if not the embodiment of many different subjects coming together to concoct one or another consensus regarding one or another set of behaviors?

Iambiguous,

I already gave the prochoice and anti abortion proof on these boards, it’s like nothing sinks into your brain EVER!!

The proof is for pro choice:

If you want to treat fetuses as consensual adults, then do so!! Ask actual adults whether they’d have wanted to be aborted or not, whether they’d consent to their abortions. You’ll find that a certain percentage love their mothers and fathers enough that if the mother and father could go back and time and abort them, that they’d accept this.

Then I went into further proof mode by stating: who do we want here on earth? People who don’t give a shit about anyone else’s consent and want to be born no matter what (the anti-abortionists) or people who respect the people who are already here (the pro-choicers)?

The proof makes it obvious, even though pro choices may be aborted, they are the only ones that humans really want to be born on planet earth. NOBODY really wants an anti-abortionist to be born on earth!! They’re greedy, narcissistic, parent hating, soul sucking slime!!

Iambiguous… you’re not the sharpest knife in the drawer by far… you are mostly an “in one ear out the other” poster. You don’t actually engage in debate. I’m sure on some level that you believe your posts have EVER been a debate, but reality check, none of them have been.

You’d think that with every poster on ILP (with the exception of – well I can’t even say it) telling you that you never debate, that you’d understand “hmm… there might be something to that”

Look at me for example: people have at times stated that I don’t debate cough who’s name defends you and I cannot speak cough, but if you really ask people on these boards whether I debate, they’ll definitely agree that I do.

So we are two different types of posters here ambiguous. actually you are a different type of poster from almost everyone on this board… one of the non debaters cough like your defender cough

Everyone knows on this board that your defender is not a debater as well.

Common misconception about the subjective/objective distinction. The taste of pineapple is subjective. If we had different taste buds, it would taste different. Yet you could say all people taste pineapple the same way. It’s still subjective.

I don’t.

You mean like: there are no moral truths so it wouldn’t be immoral to violate my (lack of) consent?

Again, what do you mean? Is it: I don’t want to violate your consent (because I’m nice) so instead I’ll agree with your subjectivism. ← Are we really limited to those two options?

Hold on now. So you’re saying there are the subjectivists, and then there are those who believe the subjectivists. Doesn’t that mean that there are just subjectivists?

Now that’s just insulting.

Why does everything funnel down to sex with you?

All I got out of this is that subjectivists deceive people by sending out false sex signals.

The subjective is a relationship with the objective world.
The chemical composition of a fruit is objective reality. How it affects the organism is its subjective relationship with it. It may be beneficial and taste good; it may be toxic and taste bad.

The subjective is an interpretation of a shared objective reality.
The objective reality is not static but dynamic - fluctuating - meaning that the subject is contant revalidating and adjusting tis relationship to it, but the fluctuations are not so great as to make reality incomprehensible - patterns can be identified, by the subject, to help it predict, foresee and adapt.

We call such patterns Laws of Nature.
On a smaller scale we call them matter/energy, perceived as appearance. Therefore how something appears is not only not superficial but it is essential.
Organic life has evolved simplifying/generalizing methods of processing reality sensually.
Color, form, taste, shape, texture, smell, sound, may be subjective interpretations of the world but they are essential. Their quality - accuracy - determining the survival of the individual.

Gib,

I know you’re nice. My message was more directed at iambiguous who always calls us “kids”

It’s also about the fact that almost my whole life has been a supernatural life. I’m actually trying to help you. When you send out the message that ethics is only and always subjective, you become a target BY YOUR OWN WORDS. You’re not setting a boundary, and this is not only unhealthy… it’s like sending a spotlight to the spirit world “please, please violate my consent”. It’s literally one of the dumbest things you can do. There’s a good reason why people don’t say”it’s JUST objective”, but they do say, “it’s JUST subjective” because subjective is meaningless.

I don’t want you to experience what I have. So I offer you my best advice.

Because a frustrated libido is an incredible force and can cause all kinds of emotional and intellectual disturbances… some materializing into complex forms of delusion. The greater the intelligence of the sufferer, the more sophisticated the delusion becomes… sometimes involving elaborate philosophical schemes which work to justify the suffering intellectually. In classical psychology this is an example of the defense mechanism called ‘rationalization’. One convinces oneself that they purposely abstain from the thing they have failed at attaining so that they can make themselves believe they have chosen to endure such suffering.

Remember when Pee-wee Herman fell off his bike, jumped up and said ‘i meant to do that?’ same kinda thing here.

Ecmandu,

There’s several ways to interpret that. First, what is the violation based on? Is it based on the fact that, by the subjectivist’s own words, his morality is only subjective (relative) and therefore it is okay to violate it according to a different morality?

If that’s what you mean, a couple things:

1. the subjectivist doesn’t have to suspend his own morality just because, relative to another person, a different morality holds.

2. Given that the subjectivist still defends his own morality (based on 1), the scenario becomes no different than two objectivists simply disagreeing about morality.

Second, what do we mean by subjective exactly? Do we mean, not real? Or do we mean, relative? There’s a difference. Motion is said to be relative according to Einsteinian physics, but no one says that motion isn’t real.

If subjective meant not real, you’d have a point. But if it means relative, that just means my right to defend my morality is conditional on it being my morality (which it always is).

You mean Ecmandu just needs to get laid?

'fraid so. but not only that, the fate of the whole universe hangs in the balance. so if I were you, I’d try to hook em up with one of your lady friends.

Motion is both relative and objective.

Just saying.

Ahh… c’mon guys, really?

I’m the only human being on this planet who knows how to have consensual sex, and it’s almost impossible for me. Once I accepted this, my libido obeyed me. “nope, that would be a rape, nope that would be a rape too etc…” You guys are projecting YOUR own stuff onto me.

Gib, what didn’t you understand about, “there’s a reason people say “That’s JUST subjective”” Because without objectivity, your subjectivity is meaningless. All you are saying for yourself is, “That’s just my opinion”. There are a great many things that aren’t just opinion for sentient life, even morally." There are objective moral facts.

Yep, and the taste of pineapple is relative and subjective.

If every slightest sexual move without formal consent counts as rape, then rape loses its meaning. It becomes no big deal. A guy could say “Yeah, I raped my girlfriend over and over and over last night, but she said it was no biggie. She kinda liked it, in fact.”

It means it isn’t real, which is the counter-example to subjectivism as relativism.

I don’t think of objectivity as incompatible with subjectivity. For me, it isn’t a question of either subjectivity or objectivity, but of which is more fundamental. I believe the world is fundamentally subjective, but it contains objectivity within it. So you could say 4 + 4 = 8 objectively, but that’s still “according to my thoughts” which is subjective.

Relative in what sense?

Relative to the being tasting it. It might taste sweet to you but bitter to a creature with different taste buds.

When the objective is abandoned as ‘illusory’ all becomes an inter-subjective collective solipsism.
Truth is evaluated numerically, by the amont of subjectivities it can integrate, i.e., coerce and convince, into its framework.
Philosophy becomes politics and marketing.
Language becomes vague, permitting the maximum amount of interpretations and relationships. Obscurantism reigns, converting occultism as a form of an admission of ignorance - mystification - to a method of seducing and psychologically manipulating subjects, implying some kind of secret power, or extraordinary benefit reserved only to those who abandon their reason and adopt emotional criteria; using trigger words to imply rather than clarify, philosophy becomes religious. Nol longer revealing but selectively and strategically concealing.
The most effective lies are those that selectively apply hyperbole, inflating and deflating according to the image, the effect it wants to produce.

Inter-Subjectivity becomes an unwritten agreement to abandon reality - empiricism - and to embrace ideology - emotion in as collective effort to manufacture the desired alternate reality.
A kind of mass madness, mostly emerging ni times of turmoil and degradation, such as when empires begin to collapse.
Superstition is its identifier. A return to previously effective methods of dealing with existential anxieties - every age having tis own superstitions, attracting and manipulating its own feeble, desperate masses

Okay.

Gib,

The rape thing is not meaningless because there are very broad actual ways to have yes means yes relationships that are sexual. I’ve outlined some of them in threads you probably didn’t read.

People are so fucking shocked that I say there has been no consensual sex in earth yet, that they can’t read what I’m actually saying about it.

Perhaps an example would suffice (or a link to one of your posts).

All I’m saying is that if kissing a girl without first asking “Can I kiss you?” counts as rape, then rape is not such a big deal. Most girls probably like it.

Oh my goodness! You’re starting at square zero, not even square one of my posting history on this topic.

I’m trying to think how to handle this.