Ecmandu wrote:Prismatic567 wrote:You are trying to be deceptively here, most likely due to ignorance.
Ecmandu: It's objectively stated: "on august 3rd 1992, it rained somewhere on planet earth."
How do you know to confirm the above?
It is possible there was no rain on that day.
The above is most objective if we get a confirmation from a qualified weatherman who rely on Science and other advance knowledge.
However whatever objective facts the weatherman confirm, it is intersubjective as subjected to the Framework, System, Machinery, principles of weather forecasting.
Thus the objective conclusion of the qualified weatherman is intersubjective, i.e. ultimately subjective.
In addition, August 3rd 1992 is very subjective depending on which Nation's or international time which can be very variable.
In addition, "raining" is also very subjective, depending on whether how we define 'rain' from light rain, heavy mist or thunderstorm, etc. How do you measure the limit of lightness of water falling down to be considered rain? Is it one drop of water, two drops, three or how many drops or liters of water before it is considered to be raining.
As you can see your supposedly "objective" statement is full of subjective variables which is consolidated and concluded by intersubjectively.
That is why I claim what is objective is ultimately and fundamentally subjective, i.e. intersubjective.
Your insistence to cling tenuously to objectivity alone for facts is due to a desperate internal psychology driven by an existential crisis.
Project much? You're trying to deceive, but as you stated for me, it's probably just ignorance.
You're using the infinite regress of perceptual acuity defense.
I actually have a definition for rain! Lol!
It's when the area underneath all the trees is soaked.
You have a definition for rain?
Aren't you a subject and that what is a definition is etymological which is based on intersubjective consensus.
Note, for example one definition of 'gay' = homosexuality, and that is an objective definition, but surely you understand it was invented by subjects and intersubjectively agreed upon, thus subjective.
The above etymological is the same for all definitions and meanings, i.e. ultimately subjective.
You cannot separate objectivity from subjectivity.
So here's the deal, perceptual acuity is extremely important to objectivity !
Let's say I put a microscope on the tree?
It won't look even remotely like a tree!
Let's say I stand back 40 miles, it will not only not look like a tree, I won't be able to see it.
For ALL phenomenon, the sweet spot of perceptual acuity, the middle way, is what creates perception of objects as we name them.
The various perspectives to what is a "tree" is already indicative of whatever objective is subjective, i.e. subject to the various perspectives of the subjects.
That sweet spot is dependent on the human brain of the majority, thus what is objective is ultimately subjective, i.e. intersubjective.
For you, it's only subjective because we're standing on the exact atom that gives an optical illusion, where we see it perfectly as a tree still, but if we change our perspective it no longer looks like a tree either.
We have optical illusions like that as well, the one with the old hag and the young woman comes to mind.
At a certain perspective of perceptual acuity, a tree is definitely a tree, so stating the infinite regress of objects problem in that context, is a straw man.
Note if I and some others were born with atomic vision only, then those who claimed a tree has roots, trunks and green leaves, I would insist they are seeing an illusion.
To a virus, the virus will not perceive an objective tree as perceived by humans. It is the same with all other non-human entities. Thus what is objective to human beings are subjective and relative to different living perceptive entities. Thus there is no permanence but rather relative cognitions, i.e. effectively subjective.
The only permanence is "change" i.e. change is the only constant, i.e. objective, but that is only apparent. When delve deeper, the ultimate of change is still subjective.
I don't deny relative objectivity but it is always subjected/qualified to various conditions and subjects [e.g. humans, bats, virus and other living entities], so whatever that is objective must be ultimately and fundamentally subjective to subjects.
I recognized and agree with empirical, scientific, legal, moral, sports, etc. objectivity, but such objectivity is only valid as conditioned and subjected to their defined Framework and System, rules and criteria.
Repeat, why you are so narrow and closed-minded and confined to pure objectivity only is due to a psychological compulsion via a desperate existential crisis.
