A dog unwittingly chasing his own tail.
Your are merely reinforcing and protecting your own stupidity [philosophical].
Give me your arguments.
When faced with a higher presentation of reality your brain intercepts a cognitive dissonance shivers and pains, that is why you are so defensive. This is what happens with most SOME theists and SOME [especially some Muslims] will kill to defend their faith.
The subject-object dualism is not solvable at the conventional level but can be done at a higher philosophical level.
What is objectivity is inter-subjectivity.
At one higher philosophical level, what is object is subject-interdependent, there is no ‘object’ that can exists in-itself or by-itself as object-in-itself. Note thing-in-itself, i.e. das Ding an sich.
And what do the terms “absolute” and “independent” mean? You never ever define your terms. For a very good reason.
These terms simply indicate that things exist even when we do not perceive them. This means that if we decided to perceive them at any moment during which we were not perceiving them that we would perceive them.
Your examples do not demonstrate anything other than the fact that ugly faces look better when flipped vertically. This has everything to do with the way brains process information and nothing to do with external reality.
The word “independent” means that a property of a thing is not dependent on another property.
When we say that the existence of an object is dependent on whether there is a subject perceiving it or not, this means that the property of the object named “existence” dependents on the property of the subject named “perceiving this object”.
It implies some sort of relationship between the two variables. If X then Y otherwise Z.
In the above case, the relationship often takes the form of “if object is being perceived by another object it exists otherwise it does not”.
If there is no such a relationship, then we say that the existence of an object is independent from whether it is being perceived or not.
And this – the fact that things exist whether we observe them or not – is rather easy to demonstrate in practice.
For example, if you stare at an object for a period of time, and if the object never ceases to exist during that time, then you will have evidence that the object will, with absolute certainty, continue to exist every successive moment.
On the other hand, if you think that not perceiving the object might have an effect on whether it exists or not, you can do an experiment where you would not look at it for some time after which you would look at it to see if it still exists.
But what do you really mean when you say that the object is independent from the subject?
What kind of relationship, what pair of variables, are you referring to?
In the absence of clearly specified relationship, you can pick any pair of variables.
Perhaps you are saying that the state of an object (e.g. its color) is independent from the observing subject’s preferred state.
This means that the state of an object is not determined by what the observing subject desires.
This is not a necessary connection. The state of an object may or may not be determined by the observing subject’s desire.
For example, if you paint your wall in red, it’s your desire that determined its color.
On the other hand, when you observe the wall that you have painted in red, then your observation is determined by the wall that has been previously determined by your desire. But your observation is NOT directly determined by your desire.
Your argument is – or appears to be because I don’t know what relationship you’re talking about because you did not specify it – that a state of an object is NECESSARILY dependent on the observing subject’s desire.
This means that whenever you perceive an object (e.g. an apple) its state (e.g. its red color) is determined by your desire.
This can easily be proven false.
Conduct a simple experiment where you would observe a red apple with a desire to observe a green apple. No matter how hard you desire, the apple will never become what you want it to become.
The only possible way out is to make a claim that there are unconscious desires that determine reality each time we observe it. The problem is, these unconscious desires are imaginary. They have never been observed.
Whichever way you look at it, you are wrong.
I will task you to specify the kind of subject-object relation that you speak of.
I have a suspicion that your words are meaningless, having no reference to anything real.
This is the reason you are hiding behind the authority of one hundred books. You simply have no idea what you’re talking about.
It’s ironic that you’re quoting Wittgenstein.
Again: it’s not an assumption, it is a fact. Take yourself, for example. You “exist” in the sense that you can be perceived. You exist “there” in the sense that you cannot be perceived using any approach. You exist “out” there in the sense that you cannot be perceived by looking inside any brain. These are facts, not assumptions.
What you’re doing here is you are stripping the phrase off its meaning and then claiming that the proposition that objects “exist out there” is an assumption when in reality it is not even meaningful since you undefined the phrase “exist out there”.
You have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about.
By the way, I was expecting that you would be willing to defend Meno’s Paradox (or rather, sophistry.)
What is the external object supposed to be absolutely independent of? Is it perception by a subject? If it is then that in and of itself does
not make it any less absolute or independent. Because it is still an absolute independent object both during and after perception. Only a
physical interaction between itself and the subject would change this
Absolute in the philosophical perspective is a very common term.
The father of the absolutely absolute is The Absolute [with capital A], i.e. GOD.
‘Absolute’ and ‘independent’ in this context of the OP meant totally unconditional, i.e. not-relative, i.e. exists by-itself independently of human conditions.
AutSider in his later post had implied his ‘Objectivism’ is headed in the direction of;
-in [=mine]
You do not have the competence to reflect on its deeper philosophical implications in relation to the OP.
With your narrow and shallow views and childish retorts that is no way you will ever understand [not necessary agree] with my views.
I will not waste my time to explain in views when I have to cut through a 100 miles of thick jungles within your mind.
Absolute independence of an object as claimed by realist is like the following;
An object-as-it-is will exists even if the human species is extinct.
The moon pre-existed before human beings and likely to do so if humans are extinct.
So in general, all objects exist independent of the human conditions.
I belong to the anti-realist camp [one of the groups] and believe things are not absolutely independent of the human conditions but rather things are interdependent with the human conditions.
The terms ‘absolutely’ and ‘independent’ is critical to differentiate the views of the Realists and the anti-Realist.
You are an impostor who does not even know what the word “definition” means. You cannot answer a single question I asked. The only thing you can do is to pretend by arranging words in such a manner such that it appears you have answered my questions.
The only person you can fool, however, is yourself. After all, fooling yourself is your no. 1 priority.
Who cares whether the word “absolute” is common or uncommon? Noone apart from you, because you have the need to preserve the belief that your words have a hidden meaning. By appealing to authority, you feel better about your meaningless words.
Again, I ask: what does the word “exist” mean?
To exist means to have the potential to be perceived.
We can speak of potential only from inference. We make some observations then we infer about the potential of an object to be perceived.
This is how we know that if human species go extinct that the moon will still be there, because we know, from our past observations, that if human species were to appear again, that humans would be able to perceive the moon.
That’s what it means that the moon “exists out there”.
Your supposedly more realistic definition of the phrase “exists out there” is non-existent. It means nothing.
You’ve been asked to define it. But you still haven’t.
This too is what I think is meant by absolute independent object
It means to have affect, which means the potential to be indirectly perceived.
Now, you just need to explain what the following mean:
- absolute dependent object
- relative independent object
- relative dependent object
To exist means to occupy a point in spacetime. No potential or actual perception is therefore
required. Most of space has never been perceived. And in all probability never shall be either
absolutely dependent upon another object
something cannot be relative and independent
an object partially dependent upon another object
Explanations which use the same words as in the original phrases. 
You can know that something exists without knowing the point it occupies in spacetime and whether it occupies a point at all.
For example, pick any feeling you want and tell me the point it occupies in spacetime. You can’t, right? But you know the feeling is real.
Moreover, feelings do not have properties of a three-dimensional object. Their associated neurochemical processes do, but feelings in themselves do not. They exist within some sort of space, that is true, but that’s not the kind of space we normally refer to when we speak of space.
Actually, it’s rather easy to identify the location of our feelings within the three-dimensional space. Feelings are always associated with a part of our body. A headache is in the head, a back pain is in the back, etc.
It appears I am wrong.
Nonetheless, I think that, when defining existence, having the potential to be perceived is more concrete of a definition than having a place within spacetime.
Aren’t you sort of defining existence after the fact of perception?
Starting at particular point in time, and forgetting what was before that?
Of-course, you did say, that anything that exists simply has the potential to perceived, which could mean that, it doesn’t matter whether or not any organism can or can’t perceive it, it would still have that possibility (of being perceived) underlying it, which is fine, that makes sense.
However, as we already know there are parameters to perception, and so, we cannot be sure that, if one were to possess the ultimate perception, whether that would necessarily be able to encompass or perceive everything that exists, it may very well be that certain phenomena is totally outside the scope of perception (of idealized perception, ‘ultimate perception’), and this is actually quite probable, based on the nature of perception, and, at that stage, the definition would collapse, or have to deny this or that thing which is beyond it.
Of-course, I can re-define ultimate perception, and say, it can perceive absolutely everything, and indeed, it would have to, for things, or everything that exists, to exist, based on your definition, but I simply cannot know this, and if it truly is the case, then I would be wrong and you would be right.
Basically, perception itself may not have the potential to perceive certain things, and if the ultimate perception still cannot perceive some-thing, then what is the point of saying, it has the potential of being perceived, and moreover, that it is that, that defines its existence?
Does that make sense? Your definition of existence is dependent on an ability, where in reality, things exist independent of that ability.
On the other hand, If we imagine a situation where we remove every entity that is capable of perceiving, then there would be no such thing as ‘perceiving potential’, and despite of this, things will still exist, and so, I believe it would be better to find a definition that is independent of that ability (i.e. to perceive).
My apologies if I am cutting in, or if I am out of context.