Message to all subjectivists!

[Ecmandu]

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.

[iambiguous]

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.

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.

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.

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?

I don't think the requirement of "all agree on as being true" is of any practical value.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I don't find the word 'intersubjective' to be useful in any way.

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?

[Ecmandu]

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.

[gib]

It's self evident that nobody wants their consent violated… a truth that's true for all POSSIBLE beings, is an eternal form, it is transcendently no longer subjective, but objective, just like triangles have three sides.

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.

The subjectivists vomit out the sentences that there are no objective truths/objective moral truths.

I don't.

What they are really doing is screaming "VIOLATE MY CONSENT PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

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

But nobody does, at least intentionally, because people at least for this contradiction, are generally nice, and so they become emboldened with their new contradiction.

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?

So basically what's occurring here is simple… subjectivists are being coddled like little babies still suckling off moms tits.

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?

They haven't reached adulthood yet.

Now that's just insulting.

The reason contradictions are so appealing is because that's how human beings send sexual signals as false evidence that they have more energy in their system then they really have… and females only accept this signal of false power for mating privileges.

Why does everything funnel down to sex with you?

These are all objective truths about "subjectivists"

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

[Aegean]

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.

[Ecmandu]

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.

[promethean75]

Why does everything funnel down to sex with you?

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.

[gib]

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).

[gib]

Why does everything funnel down to sex with you?

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.

You mean Ecmandu just needs to get laid?

[promethean75]

'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.

[phyllo]

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.

Motion is both relative and objective.

Just saying.

[Ecmandu]

'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.

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.

[gib]

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.

Motion is both relative and objective.

Just saying.

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

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.

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."

Gib, what didn't you understand about, "there's a reason people say "That's JUST subjective""

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

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.

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.

[phyllo]

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

Relative in what sense?

[gib]

Yep, and the taste of pineapple is relative and 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.

[Aegean]

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

[phyllo]

Yep, and the taste of pineapple is relative and 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.

Okay.

[Ecmandu]

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.

[gib]

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.

[Ecmandu]

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.