Stuartp523 wrote:Obe, Moreno and von Rivers despite the differences of opinions you have I think you all seem to be claiming that objectivity exists through two or more subjects being in agreement. That goes back to my original question:
Just to be clear, I sometimes try to work from what I consider to be Von River's position, making arguments and clarifications, as if it was the case.
I think his position is immediately confusing when it is saying that morality is objective or seems to say this. What he is referring to as morality, which it will serve as a guide to actions, is not really what most people mean by morality, which includes things like being good, even if one is not performing an action. He is expanding prudence, or effectiveness, to include what has been covered in morality, so that morality can be worked out by things like scientific empiricism, for example.
IOW he is coupling say, Goodness, with organism homeostasis. Which really means, to me, that it is a small 'g', rather than the big G.
He may not agree with all this, but I find it interesting, and think this is a defensible position which I play around within, sometimes with a little mocking, but mostly not.
Stuartp523 wrote:...have you ever thought about a subject, concept, idea, etc. so long that it lost all meaning? And, whether or not you did, would you argue that the meaninglessness this over thinking gives to ideas, etc. is just a psychological illusion or could you think of some other argument?...
Sure.
To expand on the question within the context of agreement, I only need to change the wording somewhat:
Have you ever discussed with someone a subject, concept, idea, etc. and felt you both came to an agreement then found out in practice you both never agreed on anything? And, whether or not you did, would you argue that the meaninglessness the application of practice to discussion may show is just a psychological illusion or could you think of some other argument?
Yes, to the first part. Communication is fallible. I think people tend to be naively optimistic about the application of abstract ideas and how well people's ideas actually match, despite the same language. Also I think there are very entangled issues when one tries to separate out abstraction from application, and often people convince themselves they believe certain things, but once application comes into play, they clearly do not believe them, despite continued insistence they do.
There are ego beliefs. Which are similar to ego ideas about oneself, but include beliefs about 'external things' and beliefs about what one's beliefs are.
Then there is in the unconscious, which has a mass of beliefs people are often completely unaware, but in fact may be clearer guidelines for others to who the person is and what they are going to do or how it will feel to be around them.
I don't think two people ever agree on anything to a greater extent than to end the discussion amicably or for within the context of the agreement, notwithstanding unexpected events (which may be about as likely to happen as not), to not step on each other’s toes.
I don't think people change each other's minds that much, but I do think people can, in fact, agree, and sometimes even if their words are not aligned. They may not even realize they agree.
This illusion of objectivity within one's ideas, or within an "agreement with others" I would say just comes down to not "pushing the issues far enough". I've always pushed the issues, but it took me over twenty years of such an inner search for truth, or coherency, of any idea, and an outer search for consistency among any two people to be able to confidentially say that objectivity has no meaning.
WEll, agreement and objectivity are not the same thing. But in practical terms it would be a problem if no one really agreed. AS far as I can tell, however, there are groups out there, and they share beliefs in common, and if their beliefs take over a physical area - a corporation, a school, a family, a gathering, etc. - one can make direct predictions about what it will be like and what changes will take place there. Good predictions. And that these shifts matter. At least to me.
This kind of search is not recommended, it may have a "good" effect on those around you, being that it might make you less hypocritical (that is it
might), but it is of no use to one's self.[/quote]
