The above view is too narrow and shallow.James S Saint wrote:Prismatic567 wrote:It is not "subjectivity" but inter-subjectivity = objectivity.
So you don't know what "objective" means either. I'm wondering if there are actually any words that you can get right.
That is my point why I say the above views are very narrow and shallow.Merriam-Webster wrote:ojective
1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy
b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind objective reality
… our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world. —Marvin Reznikoff
— compare subjective 3a
c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual objective arthritis — compare subjective 4c
d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena objective awareness objective data
2 : relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs The pronoun her is in the objective case in the sentence "I saw her."
3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations objective art an objective history of the war an objective judgment
b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum Each question on the objective test requires the selection of the correct answer from among several choices.
"Objective reality" means a reality that is independent of any opinions, whether one person or all people together.
Whatever is defined in a Dictionary is merely for the layperson's [not for the philosophical minded] use. We are in a philosophical discussion, so the term 'objective' has to be from the philosophical perspective.
Note there are two main meanings to 'objective';
1. Objective as linked with objects within reality
2. Objective as linked to personal subjective opinions - neutrality
In philosophy the more relevant meaning of 'objective' is that of 1 above, i.e. linked with objects within reality and not 2.
Wiki wrote:A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without partiality or external influence. This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.
So what is applicable as in the Meriam Webster for our purpose are the following;
Objective:
1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy
b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind: objective reality
… our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world.
This is similar to the one related to Philosophy as in Wiki [or any other philosophical sources], i.e.
Wiki wrote:Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources.
Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject.
Now note this;
All scientific knowledge are objective.
Scientific objectivity is a characteristic of scientific claims, methods and results. It expresses the idea that the claims, methods and results of science are not, or should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered as an ideal for scientific inquiry, as a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and as the basis of the authority of science in society.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/
Now you tell me, how is scientific objectivity obtained without the intersubjective involvements of human scientists within the underlying processes and requirement of a human constructed Scientific Framework and System to arrive at objective scientific knowledge?
From the above it is obvious objectivity of scientific knowledge is grounded upon an underlying intersubjectivity of subjects. Such an intersubjective process is not seen consciousness but require philosophical reflection to understand it.
The same principles of the intersubjective grounds of scientific objectivity is applicable to all other philosophical objectivity.
Only a mind with narrow philosophical views will give such an 'answer.'Prismatic567 wrote:Note I raised the thread re Bitcoins, i.e. the objectivity of Bitcoins is based on the intersubjective consensus of those who participate and believe in the value of Bitcoin.
Irrelevant.
Yes, each individual will have a subjective opinion then a subjective belief and when all these are processed intersubjectively with consensus via a justifiable basis [e.g. Scientific] then they become objective knowledge which is independent of the individuals opinion and beliefs.Prismatic567 wrote:Which "Reality-as-it-is" are You personally co-creating?
It is not a question of "You personally co-creating?"
I can't stop you and other from co-creating reality-is and create my own personal one.
Me, you and others are co-creators of reality [is] on a dynamic basis.
Your claim is that people participating in sharing their individual subjective opinions constitutes an actual reality. But each individual person must have their own opinion before it can be shared with anyone else. And what about having two groups of people who collectively disagree? Where is the reality in that scenario?
No, your views above are the dumb ones.Prismatic567 wrote:Note it is 'reality-is' not THE ONE REALITY you have been claiming.
Sorry, but that is just dumb. If there are more than one realities, then what does "reality-is" mean? If there is only one "reality-is", then why isn't that one, "The One Reality"?
Reality-is is Reality-is.
Phyllo [not sure if he understand the main point of this] made this relevant point.
viewtopic.php?p=2689465#p2689465
phyllo wrote:The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
https://www.taoism.net/ttc/chapters/chap01.htm
As with the above, when you speak of Reality-is is ONE, then that is not 'Reality-is.'
When you insist Reality-is is ONE, then you are giving a personal subjective opinion which cannot be 'objective.' There could be a majority that agree with you, so there is a big consensus, but to be objective you have to prove and ensure the theory is testable, reproducible, rational and justifiable. But you cannot do that with 'Reality-is is ONE'.
Prove why I am blind.Prismatic567 wrote:Therefore when you insist 'Reality is One', then that is subjected to your personal Framework and System or one that is shared with others.
No. It certainly is not. The fact that there is but one reality is independent of what I think makes up that reality.
Gyahd, your blind.
In fact your view is blind, narrow and shallow.
Your 'what I think makes up that reality' is merely your personal opinion, thus cannot be objective.
Don't you see, it is fact you are making that subjective opinion?
As I had stated, your 'Reality-is is ONE' is merely a personal opinion, shared by your likes but it is not proven nor justified to be objective.