Yeah, I can understand with what you’re saying there. Still, if we see the effects of something objectively I think it is enough to say it’s there even if we can’t one hundred percent verify its existence empirically. Effects show its existence or presence objectively at the very least which is something to contend with.
Objectivity, as the most conservative definition, is when all possible subjects agree. …
Nicely put. But then we know there have been things where some people noticed effects but could not demonstrate this to others - Rogue waves, elephant ultra low frequency communication are a couple of good examples. There have been for a long time people who knew rogue waves existed and who either heard or intuited elephant communication. They were often told they were hallucinating or exaggerating because of emotional responses or romantic ideas of delusions. Scientists weighed in using the models and knowledge they had, at the time, and said the same stuff. You are deluded or exaggerating wildly (in the case of the waves). Finally science did manage to verify both phenomena.
Now those people who had those experiences, should they have said. OH, well, I can’t prove this and it doesn’t fit with the thinking of the experts society says know, so I will give up my belief?
That’s a position you are in with your beliefs about who has power, what their plans are etc.
That’s a position I am in in that area also, but further, in relation to you and others around phenomena you would say I was delusional about.
And it’s not a matter of a couple of years. The gap between rogue waves being described by people and it being finally accepted by science was hundreds and hundreds of years. See what I mean?
There is no easy way to decide if HHH or Moreno or some other person is deluded. And there is no good rule of thumb for the person who has a NON mainstream belief.
It would be nice if someone said that everything you, HHH believed was real or happening could be picked up and thrown at them. It hits them and they go ‘Shit that is real’. But life is not like that. Not all real things and phenomena can be controlled and packaged and delivered like that. And we are in the middle of the history of learning and verifying things. If someone else has different experiences from you and has thing they consider real you do not, perhaps they are delusional, perhaps they have had experiences of the real you have not had.
This does not mean you have to accept everyone’s ideas of what is real. But I do want to say that the boundary is hazy and there are real things not yet confirmed and in fact being avoided because the beleif and emotional need for them not to be real is so strong.
I mean you know with you own beliefs about conspiracies and who has power, etc., how much emotional energy is holding the mainstream views in place. The scientific community has similar amounts of energy in their models.
I mean, where is the scientific community’s outcry over psychiatry, for example? Even in science with other scientists, the mistreatment an outsider will get until he can produce overwhelming evidence - and this means that he has to get a lot of funding, funding from people with their own paradigmns and money interests.
Moreno,
Did you really just ask what gravity is made of? It isn’t ‘made’ of anything it is a reaction. When something is bigger it tugs on smaller things around it, similar to how if a ship is sinking in the ocean it will pull you under water, it’s a force, not an object…
Go jump off a diving board and witness gravity yourself, go to the edge of the atmosphere and watch Earth pull you back in.
Gravity is objective, it will effect everyone, the subjective aspect of it is that everyone may be different size so it may effect them differently.
Objectivity is when something is the case/unbiased information.
Subjectivity is when there is an opinion, idea or personal belief of which they -think- is the case. Subjectivity is subject to change.
Objectivity is not subject to change, it’s like facts vs beliefs.
Our perceving may very well be subjective, but what is already here, perceiving or not, is objective.
You must think in terms, “If humanity did not exist, would this all be here? Would the Earth be here?” Of course it would, but our perceiving it would not exist.
Existence does not rely on our perceiving, understanding, or believing. It is objective.
I just don’t understand what the big discussion is about regarding objectiveness and subjectiveness, it really is not that complicated. I guess I am both, because both objectively exist.
Perspective is what creates subjectivity.
That i always do.
No, i would not, unless you agree to my terms.
Not at all. I am not continuing that discussion either. I am merely not stopping responding to your posts which were in that regard ( about you, not subjectivity ). If you stop discussing about yourself, i would not keep discussing iamb either. The choice is yours, not mine. If you remember, i already made a kind of closing post in this thread, but you are still continuing even after that.
If you are that much interested in discussing about yourself, how could i fail you, ever!
My point however revolves around my subjective (yet legal) right not to respond unless you agree to my terms.
Iamb, You have to choose your words very carefully when i am this kind of mode. I will not allow you twist and tweak me to suit yourself.
I never claimed that you were interfering with my discussion to others. You can keep doing with my post to others whatever you want. either here or in any other thread as well. But, neither expect me to answer those your posts nor bring those points between our discussion. That is all, nothing else. What i read and what not, is not your problem but mine.
I am not refusing at all, otherwise i would have not created this thread in the first place. Secondly, if you are that much interested in one to one discussion, why are you refusing it to be purely one to one? Are you unable to handle me alone and want the help of others all the time!
What you think ( in your head ) as mere expansion, looks distraction ( according to my head ) to me.
Thus, being a subjectivist, why are you trying to convince me to forget my head and acknowledge your head?
In that case, you should have not any objection with agreeing with me and accepting my conditions.
Again, i have to correct you Here. I am not asking you to stop responding to others. Do whatever you want but just do not bring those distractions between our one to one discussion. That is all.
Then, what exactly else are you arguing for? If you consider my argument ( putting a condition) reasonable, how on the earth you expect me to withdraw my condition?
Yes.
Yes, this is the assumption in my head.
Yes, again. Am i not entitled to consider my head more perfect than others heads, or at least i am right from my side and you on yours! Is it not what subjectivity is all about!
Playing innocent, good.
Iamb, i am arguing for just the opposite what you proposed here by playing devil’s advocate here. What i mean to say that if every poster will start exercising his/her subjective versions like you and me, there will be chaos at ILP for sure.
One more note to others!
Iamb, if everyone of us here at ILP is nothing but what is their heads, how are you expecting those to understand what is going in your head!
Your’s this note to others is an insult to a subjectivist like you. Not only that, it is also a defeat to your position, as you would never able to solve this issue unless you opt of objectivity. Can you!
Nothing, just only pretending to be missing to hide your inability to answer my question.
Iamb, that is not sniping. But, when you drag points from other thread to your intellectual bunker and criticize those there, that is certainly sniping, because others are in the dark about your criticism.
Iamb, no matter how many times you would try to misrepresent me to play your victim card, i am going to correct you everytime.
That does not make it right. Slavery and punishment for homosexuality were also in the practice for centuries, then why change it? Morality/rules has to respond and evolve (either rightly or wrongly) according to the circumstances.
That does not happen because you was the only poster who doing so, not all. Had all also followed you, there would certainly have been unwarranted consequences, just like you are seeing in this thread. Just imagine what would happen if each and every thread would follow the same fate!
Seeing your circular arguing, their patience runs out and they ultimately start avoiding you. But, you claim that as your victory ( no objectivist argues with me ).
See, what i meant, though i never refused to engage with you about subjectivity. It is you who is fearing me all along. Again, accept my condition and you will get it, or leave the thread, otherwise you will end up discussing about yourself only. I am not going to blink in this thread, but continue to respond your replies.
Of course,i am deciding for myself, in the same way as you do for yourself.
Note to others - it seems to me that a subjectivist like iamb expecting others to follow morality!
Iamb, I still do not condone this mode of mine. And, you will not see this again from me anywhere at ILP either. I am doing it for a specific purpose (devil’s advocacy to realize you what you have been doing all along).
I am trying to make you realize how shallow your version of subjectivity is, and what exactly happens when subjectivity without no morality whatever applies in the real life. We both know that i am wrong here in this thread, but you cannot claim i am doing something wrong.
You cries in your repeated note to others is the clear indication that your subconscious is also expecting morality, both from me and others as well. That is what you are asking others that how immoral and unfair i have been with you in this thread.
Do not worry, Iamb, i am still in full control of me. It is merely an artificially wore mode for a time being. You will realize it later too.
What is there to suspect? I have openly mentioned what i am doing so. Others are also aware what is going on here. Do not worry about them either.
By the way, what happened to my another below mentioned challenge -
Are you afraid of that one too!
with love,
sanjay
But then, what we call objectivity, from our perspective, is also potentially, even if only remotely, subject to change. So what is the difference FOR US, since we have no god’s eye view or do we?
For examples some things thought true in science have turned out not to be true and, in fact, the idea with science is that anything is potentially revisable.
Sure, if everything is material then if something is real, it is made of something material. Fair question.
So are forces material and if not then why is materialism/physicalism a monism?
This statement suggests to me you think I said gravity isn’t real. I didn’t.
That’s not subjective, the latter part of your sentence, that was you making an objective claim. But, again. I never said gravity wasn’t objective, I asked a materialist what it is made of. His answer was not the same as yours. Or, rather, his different answers. Ones that don’t fit with yours. Further gravity as force is a newtonian conception and not quite how scientists think of it now. But regardless, there is still the question of what it is made of? For example, all of my body’s reactions could be conceived of as changes in chemicals and the positions of body parts. What is the parallel with gravity?
But: Where does one draw the line between asserting what one thinks and insisting that all rational men and women are obligated to think the same? Isn’t that basically my point here? What can be defended epistemologically [relating to “the nature and scope of knowledge”] and what is more reflective of a personal opinion rooted subjectively in dasein and embedded in conflicting goods out in a world rooted in political economy.
That’s the part where, “down here”, you refuse to go. Or so it certainly seems to me.
In other words, if this exchange prompts an exchange between you and Moreno and I interpolate there in turn then this exchange goes kaput as well?
Again, that is certainly one way in which to keep avoiding a response to the substantive arguments that I raised above. As long as it’s “legal” right? 
Sounds like more “lawyer talk” to me. Still, if this “explanation” works for you then, sure, by all means, continue to avoid responding to the points that I raised above on 4/1.
I’m sure it’s the “principle of the thing”.
As for my needing help here in order to respond to your arguments, well, I’ll leave that for others to decide for themselves.
But that misses the point I raise regarding conflicting goods. Both sides in any disagreement regarding an exchange of this sort can make reasonable arguments. But I’m not the one insisting that you must accept my argument – my terms, my rules – in order to continue the exchange.
In other words:
I’m not disagreeing with this. I am merely pointing out that the manner in which you interpret all of this subjectively resulted in the shutting down of our one to one exchange on this thread. And that, in other words, there does not appear to be an argument so epistemologically sound that all reasonable men and women are obligated to agree – necessarily – with your rationale over mine.
I have absolutely no idea how your point here is an adequate rejoinder to the point I raised.
Note to others: A little help here!
All I am doing here is asking others – and often in all sincerity – who have read both sides of the exchange to offer their own personal insights into why [perhaps] we are not able to come to an agreement [or even an understanding] regarding one or another issue. They may well be able to reconfigure our points such that a clearer understanding is the result.
As for “in our head”, once again: that revolves around making the distinction between those things that we believe [or claim to know] are true in our head and those things that we are then able to demonstrate that all reasonable men and women must in turn in believe [or claim to know] in their head.
Why? Because it can be demonstrated.
I will opt for objectivity when in fact someone’s claim is in sync with objective reality.
There are any number of things which you or I might claim to know or believe is true that can in fact be shown to be either true or not. Where I focus the beam though are on those claims of knowledge or beliefs that revolve around the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
The part that you avoid like the plague. Come on, you can’t even take your belief in God down to earth!! Instead, you construct this “intellectual scaffold” of assumptions predicated basically on the extent to which others agree with the definition and the meaning that you give you your world of words “analysis”.
Which in my frame of mind is first cousin to Satyr’s “lectures”.
Just as I am trying to make you [and others] realize this: that the manner in which you claim to capture subjectivity “epistemologically” has profound limitations applicable to the question, “how ought one to live?”. In other words, in order to be thought of as both rational and virtuous.
Out in the world of actual social, political and economic interactions.
And I have never argued for “no morality whatever” in “real life”. I have merely argued that any one particular individual’s moral narrative/agenda is rooted [largely] in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
But in order to explore this substantively we must be willing to connect the dots between 1] our philosophical assumptions and 2] actual conflicts that we have ourselves been in relating to value judgments.
Or [sans that] in an exploration of a moral/political conflagration that we are all familiar with.
Then how was it objective to begin with? Our knowing does not change what is or is not objective you see, it only benefits our own evolution.
People can think they know something and then it changes later, it simply means that it never was objective in the first place, regardless of humanities thoughts on it, it was merely an illusion of being objective from lack of understanding.
Perhaps we may never fully understand objectivity, what is or what isn’t. It doesn’t matter in a sense. (Outside of evolution at least)
You see, our believing the world was flat did not change the objective fact that it was round all along. Things do not change due to our understanding or lack of, our knowledge or perspective however, does/can change, which benefits our understanding. Which leads to new things and expansion for our species.
Once one can fully see and understand this, they will understand how small we really are and how we really aren’t the center of anything except our own man made constructs.
A rock will always be a rock (objective) but that rock being hard is bias, as not everyone will agree it is hard, some will say “well steel is harder” or “I can crush that rock” (subjective).
Exactly, this is part of my point. We cannot know now if something will turn out to have been objective or not after later information, research, change of models, etc.
IN science it is called objective when the same observations are noted by many researchers in many places. In science objectivity means that we have, as much as possible, gone beyond subjectivity. But this does not mean it is infallible.
Here you are basically repeating my point.
What this means is that right now we may categorizes set A as objective and set B as subjective, but it may turn out later that things in set A were in fact not true. From our perspective, now, we cannot be sure. This does not mean it is useless to categorize.
[/quote]
Obvoiusly, in fact this all also fits precisely with what I wrote.
Well Socrates was right with his realization.
Or people could not categorize something as objective and admit to the fact that they do not know for sure. But that’s probably too much humility for them.
Of they could use the term objective meaning conclusions which are the results of processes that seem to generalize remove subjective factors and subjective to mean when this is not done.
Infallible not being conflated with objective.
But, before you draw such a line, do you not need to define rational people in the first place? And, how from your subjective POV, you can ever decide who is rational and who is not?
Like, in this very thread, can you decide whether you are rational or me?
Iamb, your version of subjectivity is useless as far as real on the ground life and issues are concerned. It can never address the most pertinent question - How one ought to live his real life. Yes, it is certainly good you trademark in the head only rhetoric.
Not at all. It is not me but you who is not interested in going down there, or rather you cannot go there.
Note to others - Iamb openly accepted in this thread that he cannot decide which one of us is right or rational in his approach here? Means, he cannot decide such a petty issue by his subjectivity, and yet want to talk about big and complex moral issues? It is not a joke?
Iamb, do not bring others between our discussion. I would not address any such point. Simple as that.
If you are so sure that i am running away from the discussion, why are you not forcing me by accepting my petty condition? Are your arguments so lame that they need the crutches of others all the time? If not, why is that much hesitation?
Note to others - Please decide here who is running away from discussion!
Yes, it certainly is. And why it not should be? If i am here to win an argument over you, why i am not supposed to choose my words carefully? Do you not do that all the time in your circular rhetoric? Then, why objecting others?
Again, it not me but you who is avoiding actual discussion. If you are more interested in discussion yourself, how can i help it?
Again, yes, it is “principle of the thing”. Being an objectivist, i have right to stand for my principles.
Note to others - Please decide who is more adamant here, Iamb or me? And secondly, who has the intellectual right of being adamant, an objectivist like me or a subjectivist like Iamb?
I think you forget to use your note to others here. Please do not repeat that mistake in the future. It does not suit you.
Again, you are misrepresenting both of you and me here, and trying to play a victim card.
I am certainly putting a condition for discussion, but you are also putting a condition. I am asking not to bring others but you are saying that you will do that all the time. Now, tell me, which one of us is not putting conditions here? You are also insisting me to accept your condition.
Iamb, you also stand exactly where i am. So, do not plead your innocence here.
Again, using your subjectivity, how are you going to choose rational men and women ?
Again, using your subjectivity, how you have already concluded that those imaginary rational men and women would not agree with me but you?
Iamb, why are you talking about only in our heads sort of things all the time? Let us bring down the discussion on the ground.
If that is really true, ( which i do not think it is) you should not participate at any philosophy forum. I am repeating this second time, and absolutely no hesitation in doing that again and again.
Note to others - Please decide whether Iamb is actually that much intellectually inept or merely pretending to avoid the answer!
The first question is why a subjectivist like you are asking others to decide morality, in the first place?
No, it cannot, ever. Explain how anyone else can settle this issue? How will he/she reach to an objective conclusion regarding our dispute? And, how that conclusion will not be his/her subjective opinion rooted in desein?
Iamb, do not try to hide your defeat by twisting the facts.
We are not discussing here about any objective reality but merely a such issue which resides only our heads. There is absolutely no scope of objectivity here from your subjective POV.
Not at all. And, again, if you think so, agree to my simple term, and get a chance to defeat me. Why are you losing such a golden opportunity to knock down an objectivist?
What a joke? When i invited you to have likewise discussion in BNPR, you refused to engage, and now accusing me!
And, what exactly are your I am Groot (1) and I am Groot (2)? Are those not your “intellectual scaffoldings”, which you are using at ILP since ages?
Yes, it is certainly only from your frame of mind, not anyone else.
Iamb, if you, from your subjective POV, cannot ever decide such a petty issue like how one ought to post at ILP, how on the earth you can even think of going to bigger issues like how one ought to live?
The whole grandiosity your subjectivity cannot handle a single devil’s advocate like me even on the net ( which you accepted too), and yet you think of using/applying subjectivity at actual life issues!
Here you keep shouting your note to others all the time, what will you do when you have to deal with real issues in reality? Then, to whom you would address with your this note to others? Neighbors, crowds? Would their mindsets also not be rooted in their daseins?
Good. Seeing no escape, you are slowly withdrawing from your stance. It looks to me that my efforts are not going completely in vain.
True, i do not disagree with that either. But, do you also agree that all individual narratives cannot considered at par, and some may be more closer to reality and helpful in deciding issues?
And, if you do not agree and claim that all will be on the same value, how on the earth can you ever argue that there can be even some morality, as you accepted above?
with love,
sanjay
Artimas,
That is not what objectivity means. Though, many objectivist defines objectivity that way.
At the basic level, objectivity starts from a very simple premise that all POVs cannot be at the same distance from the ultimate reality. Objectivity is not about claiming that any particular POV is absolutely perfect. It merely says that any particular one seems to be the closest to the reality for now, but still not final and open to amend/change, if any more realistic comes in the future. Objectivity is basically about the keeping the intent of improvement alive, rather than results per se.
In the same way, subjectivity starts from another simple premise that every POV must be at some distance from the ultimate reality. Subjectivity is not about arguing that every POV is placed at the same distance as others. The claim is merely that no POV is exactly where the object is. Thus, there will be some calibration errors in every observation/judgement. Some subjectivists tweak this, and start presenting it if subjectivity argues that nothing can be decided ever. That kills the intent and thus scope of improvement forever.
Take you above mentioned example of rock. Everyone would be agree that the rock is hard (objectivity), but they would disagree about the degree of its hardness (subjectivity). Now, there are two ways forward.
One way is to try and test by stroking the rock with steel and see what breaks first, and thus conclude the next level of reality. Suppose, an iron bar is able to make dents in the rock. It means, one thing is objectively settled now that iron is more harder than the rock. But, it is still undecided whether iron is the hardest thing around. Something even more harder thing may come up in the future.
That is precisely the point where both of (some) objectivists and subjectivists make a mistake. Some subjectivist starts claiming that nothing harder than iron can come ever. This is final, period. In the same way, some subjectivist also start claiming at the very point that no one can ever know what is the hardest thing, period.
But, both approaches are at fault there. Objectivists certainly got one tiny step right, but closed the door for further improvement. The situation of subjectivists is even worse, as they claim that there is absolutely no way of knowing the hardness, thus it would be okay to consider wood also as hard as rock.
Objectivity is the intent of improvement which uses small one subjective/relative step at a time to get closer to the ultimate reality. It does not matter whether that step enables objectivity to reach at its destination or not, because every such step would make the reality closer by a notch, and would also an improvement from the very last position.
with love,
sanjay
He will simply say that it is not demonstrated, by using the tools of philosophy, who is rational or who is right.
Or rather to use his nuanced approach … it has not be demonstrated which does not mean that it can’t be demonstrated.
Of course he can personally always say who is rational or right. What he decides is completely based on his own chronology.
I agree, and that was pretty much what I was trying to say just in your words instead of mine. 
though sometimes (rarely) they do get an objective thing correct the first time without relying on subjectivity, but that is rare.
Perhaps it is not possible for us to know everything that is objective.
I don’t see why there is an argument though between the two, when both sides do exist and can benefit our understanding/evolution, they do everyday i’d say.
I do not get it. How it answers my note to others?
with love,
sanjay
Okay.
In the most of the cases, objectivity has to rely and go through subjectivity enumerable times. Having said that, every step/test discovers a new objectivity all the time, though it may be defined in subjective terms.
Again, in your analogy of the determining the hardness above, though we perhaps will never able to know what exactly is the hardest material, but still we can know for sure what the relative hardness of the different materials. Like we can objectively know that the rock is harder than the wood but iron is even harder than the rock.
That is how objectivity takes one small step at a time using subjectivity.
May be. But, still small objective discoveries within the broad framework of subjectivity can easily serve the purpose in the majority of the cases, though maybe not in all. For that, the quest for finding objectivity should continue,as every step with enrich us with one more small objectivity, which is certainly a better position than the very last one.
The argument is not between objectivity and subjectivity per se, but between the ego of those who wrongly consider themselves true and only objectivist and subjectivist. It is mere a clash of ego or showing intellectual superiority over the others, nothing else. People use to plead themselves more than their pet ideology.
Yes, that is precisely i am making them realize, though indirectly.
with love,
sanjay
He decides right and wrong based on his personal feelings. It’s the same way he decides whether he likes ice cream or steak sandwiches. His chronology comes into it in this way : When he was growing up, he had never had a steak sandwich. Then he moved to the big city and he lived near a restaurant which made steak sandwiches and he enjoyed eating them.
As a result he now supports the eating of steak sandwiches. Steak sandwiches are good.
(If he had lived near a restaurant which made terrible steak sandwiches, then he might say that steak sandwiches are bad.)
That’s dasein.
He can discuss big, complex issues because he is simply stating his opinions. There is no problem discussing things subjectively. It’s possible to talk endlessly about ice cream, coffee, steak sandwiches - what’s good, what’s bad, where it’s better …
That’s a tough one to answer. 