The end of the subjectivity debate

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Serendipper » Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:59 am

Ecmandu wrote:The female "no" is a relative "no"

For example: be a man in any culture, even Islamic ones... no matter the male, if he stripped in a train station, the women (even in a safe crowded space) would be more averse than men will be, gasps, shock, actual fear.

Now if women did this... are the men scared? No!!

Not a chance!!

The difference between a culture like ours and theirs (islamists) is that our culture doesn't interpret female sexually signaling as necessary consent.

The comfort/discomfort ratios are cross cultural however... women relative to men.

I still don't see how any of that qualifies as rape, except maybe in the Islamist case, but even then it could be argued that the woman made the first offensive move by dressing like a slut.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:02 am

Serendipper wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:The female "no" is a relative "no"

For example: be a man in any culture, even Islamic ones... no matter the male, if he stripped in a train station, the women (even in a safe crowded space) would be more averse than men will be, gasps, shock, actual fear.

Now if women did this... are the men scared? No!!

Not a chance!!

The difference between a culture like ours and theirs (islamists) is that our culture doesn't interpret female sexually signaling as necessary consent.

The comfort/discomfort ratios are cross cultural however... women relative to men.

I still don't see how any of that qualifies as rape, except maybe in the Islamist case, but even then it could be argued that the woman made the first offensive move by dressing like a slut.


It qualifies as rape because it activates the "no means yes" operator.

I'm not making the normal feminist argument that all sex is rape... of which there are two luminaries for that, I'm using a different argument that makes it POSSIBLE that sex isn't rape.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9030
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:29 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:The female "no" is a relative "no"

For example: be a man in any culture, even Islamic ones... no matter the male, if he stripped in a train station, the women (even in a safe crowded space) would be more averse than men will be, gasps, shock, actual fear.

Now if women did this... are the men scared? No!!

Not a chance!!

The difference between a culture like ours and theirs (islamists) is that our culture doesn't interpret female sexually signaling as necessary consent.

The comfort/discomfort ratios are cross cultural however... women relative to men.

I still don't see how any of that qualifies as rape, except maybe in the Islamist case, but even then it could be argued that the woman made the first offensive move by dressing like a slut.


It qualifies as rape because it activates the "no means yes" operator.

I'm not making the normal feminist argument that all sex is rape... of which there are two luminaries for that, I'm using a different argument that makes it POSSIBLE that sex isn't rape.


I didn't think of it at the time, but that's another super-obvious reason MagsJ should not have censored me. It's a damn classic feminist argument from women that all sex is ONLY rape.

My argument doesn't go that far

*pff*
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9030
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Serendipper » Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:30 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:The female "no" is a relative "no"

For example: be a man in any culture, even Islamic ones... no matter the male, if he stripped in a train station, the women (even in a safe crowded space) would be more averse than men will be, gasps, shock, actual fear.

Now if women did this... are the men scared? No!!

Not a chance!!

The difference between a culture like ours and theirs (islamists) is that our culture doesn't interpret female sexually signaling as necessary consent.

The comfort/discomfort ratios are cross cultural however... women relative to men.

I still don't see how any of that qualifies as rape, except maybe in the Islamist case, but even then it could be argued that the woman made the first offensive move by dressing like a slut.


It qualifies as rape because it activates the "no means yes" operator.

I'm not making the normal feminist argument that all sex is rape... of which there are two luminaries for that, I'm using a different argument that makes it POSSIBLE that sex isn't rape.

Oh ok, so long as only some sex is rape, then I can see where you're coming from. It was the "all sex is rape" impression that I had at first that caused me problems.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:35 am

My argument is that all past and current sex is rape, not that future sex has to be rape, which, MagsJ, is a classical FEMINIST argument, from FEMALES.

*cough*
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9030
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Serendipper » Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:53 am

Ecmandu wrote:My argument is that all past and current sex is rape, not that future sex has to be rape, which, MagsJ, is a classical FEMINIST argument, from FEMALES.

*cough*

Aright I'm confused again lol, but that's ok because I'm sure you have it conceptualized somehow that makes sense to you, but I can't see it mainly because I don't want to put the effort into finding yet more ways people are exploiting each other, especially if it's that complicated to explain. I suspect KT will have lots of fun with this in the morning lol

I don't know what to say about Mags except that she doesn't talk enough for me to formulate an impression, but she seems cool from what I can tell. Are you sure you didn't go overboard?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:56 am

Serendipper wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:My argument is that all past and current sex is rape, not that future sex has to be rape, which, MagsJ, is a classical FEMINIST argument, from FEMALES.

*cough*

Aright I'm confused again lol, but that's ok because I'm sure you have it conceptualized somehow that makes sense to you, but I can't see it mainly because I don't want to put the effort into finding yet more ways people are exploiting each other, especially if it's that complicated to explain. I suspect KT will have lots of fun with this in the morning lol

I don't know what to say about Mags except that she doesn't talk enough for me to formulate an impression, but she seems cool from what I can tell. Are you sure you didn't go overboard?


Now I don't. Now that I remembered I had classic feminism as a more extreme position than my own.

She'll realize it as well.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9030
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Mad Man P » Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:08 am

Serendipper wrote:I don't understand that. If it's an opinion that "murder is only wrong sometimes, depending on the situation", then how does that make one an objectivist?


All human thoughts and beliefs are subjective... even according to objectivists.
I don't see how this is confusing...

All you're committed to believing as an objectivist, is that an objective reality exists. It's not necessary to also believe you have an unerring understanding of that reality.
In other words, objectivists CAN and DO believe they can be wrong about what's objectively real.

But then again your definitions of "subjective" and "objective" are fairly uncommon. So let's not let semantics confuse us.
I am not using YOUR definitions... I'm using those words as defined historically.

I'm not sure HOW to use your definitions...
It seems to me the only thing you would call "objective" is something "unconditionally real"...
Which would mean only the force or forces that are universal and eternal would qualify as "objective"... everything else is "subject" to certain conditions.
So anything conditional like "murder is wrong, depending on the situation" would make it "subject" to the conditions.
Even temporal things, like "on august 3rd 1992 it rained somewhere on planet earth" is subject to that specific date as well as subject to there being a planet earth etc.

am I getting this right?
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2574
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Serendipper » Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:14 pm

Mad Man P wrote:
Serendipper wrote:I don't understand that. If it's an opinion that "murder is only wrong sometimes, depending on the situation", then how does that make one an objectivist?


All human thoughts and beliefs are subjective... even according to objectivists.

Idk, you'll have to get phyllo's opinion on whether he thinks all human thoughts are subjective.

I don't see how this is confusing...

If it's an opinion that "murder is only wrong sometimes, depending on the situation", then how does that make one an objectivist?

How can I be an absolutist because I'm a relativist? Makes no sense.

All you're committed to believing as an objectivist, is that an objective reality exists. It's not necessary to also believe you have an unerring understanding of that reality.

No objectivist would merely hold that all things are relative except for the one thing that he cannot see. That's not a practical definition, although technically correct.

But then again your definitions of "subjective" and "objective" are fairly uncommon. So let's not let semantics confuse us.

Appeal to popularity. Why should mediocre intelligence dictate how words should be defined? Who cares how people prefer to colloquially define words, especially if those definitions overlap and have blurry boundaries. When I define categories, I like mutually exclusive definitions with well-defined boundaries.

For instance:

Communism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps 100% of profits
Fascism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits
Socialism - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits
Capitalism - gov controls 0% of means of production and keeps 0% of profits.

Everything is clearly defined and nothing overlaps.

But colloquially, people want capitalism to mean "gov regulates some arbitrary % of industry, subject to who you ask, and taxes only moderately, again subject to who you ask, but otherwise a free market." So that when they finish defining their word, we don't know anymore than before.

Or how to define perception, awareness, consciousness.

Perception - interception of information
Awareness - perception of perception - the interception of information that information has been intercepted.
Consciousness - perception of awareness.

I don't care how words are defined, so long as they are mutually exclusive with definite boundaries. I don't want "awareness" to be another flavor of "consciousness" or have "capitalism" conflated with "socialism" because it just leads to confusion.

I am not using YOUR definitions... I'm using those words as defined historically.

Historically defined = arbitrarily defined.

I'm not sure HOW to use your definitions...
It seems to me the only thing you would call "objective" is something "unconditionally real"...
Which would mean only the force or forces that are universal and eternal would qualify as "objective"... everything else is "subject" to certain conditions.
So anything conditional like "murder is wrong, depending on the situation" would make it "subject" to the conditions.
Even temporal things, like "on august 3rd 1992 it rained somewhere on planet earth" is subject to that specific date as well as subject to there being a planet earth etc.

am I getting this right?

Yes you have it. Woot! :banana-dance:
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Ecmandu » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:59 pm

And so we see how silly absolute subjectivists are.

It's objectively stated: "on august 3rd 1992, it rained somewhere on planet earth."

It's subjectively stated: " on august 3rd 1992, I rained somewhere on planet earth"

Serendipper doesn't believe in the objective "it", only the subjective "I"

This is why I pointed out earlier that subjectivists suffer from a narcissistic lack of object permenance.

They have the minds of an infant, as adults, which is quite sad.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9030
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:32 am

Idk, you'll have to get phyllo's opinion on whether he thinks all human thoughts are subjective.
If all thoughts were subjective, then it would be impossible to make objective statements. ( Since statements are thoughts expressed.)

Clearly, objectivists think that objective statements can be made.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11356
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:49 am

Ecmandu wrote:And so we see how silly absolute subjectivists are.

It's objectively stated: "on august 3rd 1992, it rained somewhere on planet earth."

It's subjectively stated: " on august 3rd 1992, I rained somewhere on planet earth"

Serendipper doesn't believe in the objective "it", only the subjective "I"

No, you still haven't understood that subjects can be inanimate. The negative is subject to the positive object and vice versa. Earth is subject to the sun and calls light from it the same way a positive terminal of a battery calls electrons from the negative. None of these things exist without their polar opposite. You can't have an electron without a positron; it doesn't make sense.

This is why I pointed out earlier that subjectivists suffer from a narcissistic lack of object permenance.

You have it backwards: the permanent object is an artifact of the objectivist.

They have the minds of an infant, as adults, which is quite sad.

That would be the objectivists, theists, religious, republicans, conservatives, dogmatists, narcissists, etc. And yes, it is sad.

journal.pone.0052970.g001.jpg
journal.pone.0052970.g001.jpg (71.54 KiB) Viewed 5343 times
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:50 am

phyllo wrote:
Idk, you'll have to get phyllo's opinion on whether he thinks all human thoughts are subjective.
If all thoughts were subjective, then it would be impossible to make objective statements. ( Since statements are thoughts expressed.)

Clearly, objectivists think that objective statements can be made.

Thank you sir.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:54 am

Ecmandu wrote:And so we see how silly absolute subjectivists are.

It's objectively stated: "on august 3rd 1992, it rained somewhere on planet earth."

It's subjectively stated: " on august 3rd 1992, I rained somewhere on planet earth"

Serendipper doesn't believe in the objective "it", only the subjective "I"

This is why I pointed out earlier that subjectivists suffer from a narcissistic lack of object permenance.

They have the minds of an infant, as adults, which is quite sad.

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.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2673
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:37 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:@ Karpel

Everyone is killing and torturing everyone, especially the really smart intuitives, who can easily abstract this behavior to the future and present as an immediate threat.
Agreed.

The truest instinct is that it's ok to murder or torture anyone, because, everyone is destroying the species and they need to learn viscerally, what they are doing.
Half agree. That is a (I will call it) yang instinct. There is an even deeper (I will call it) Yin instinct to move away, avoid, run from other people and to protect oneself from immediate threats. And we know deep down that in most situations, attacking increases immediate threats. People who tend towards rage and agressive action will think at the deepest level they have to attack, now.

However, as that level of abstraction settles in, obviously, killing or torturing 1 or 10 or 1000 people isn't going to effect change where the species is a torturing homicide machine. So they just don't attack anyone, to not contradict themselves.
and out of self-care. The threats are not just down the road. And attacking people instantly increases the danger and many of us get that in our deepest levels. For me it would only be in situations where I sense an immediate physical threat that I will gap into violence.


When dealing with psychology, you have to understand that most people are just trying to get their bearings on wisdom nobody is taught, the mere fact that it's not being taught is enough to set someone off, as being in an immediate threat situation.

For example, someone like Jeffrey dahmer intuited that young black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime. They were directly affecting his life, well being and survival.

So he hunted them.

He would eat them to cleanse their sins, making them part of his "sinless" body.

It really doesn't take much for pathologies to grow in environments in this world. All you have to do is control data set exposure, and the ever present silence, and you'll end up with people who absorb all of the suicidality and/or homicidality in the species.

Meaning: the species is killing itself and everyon is murdering everyone, and all they do is double talk about ho much life means to them.

This is enough to drive anyone crazy, that the insane ones are causing the most damage (the happy bliss of double speak aggressive ignorance)

In terms of judgement, you have to look at what the person actually knows to truly make a harsh judgement.

I could convict anyone on earth as criminally insane right now.

I wouldn't bother, because the judges and jury are criminally insane, but I know how to prove it.

Just a few more thoughts along these lines.
Perhaps you agreed with my points and simply wanted to add some other information. But it doesn't read like a response to my post.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2513
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:37 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:@ Karpel

Everyone is killing and torturing everyone, especially the really smart intuitives, who can easily abstract this behavior to the future and present as an immediate threat.
Agreed.

The truest instinct is that it's ok to murder or torture anyone, because, everyone is destroying the species and they need to learn viscerally, what they are doing.
Half agree. That is a (I will call it) yang instinct. There is an even deeper (I will call it) Yin instinct to move away, avoid, run from other people and to protect oneself from immediate threats. And we know deep down that in most situations, attacking increases immediate threats. People who tend towards rage and agressive action will think at the deepest level they have to attack, now.

However, as that level of abstraction settles in, obviously, killing or torturing 1 or 10 or 1000 people isn't going to effect change where the species is a torturing homicide machine. So they just don't attack anyone, to not contradict themselves.
and out of self-care. The threats are not just down the road. And attacking people instantly increases the danger and many of us get that in our deepest levels. For me it would only be in situations where I sense an immediate physical threat that I will gap into violence.


When dealing with psychology, you have to understand that most people are just trying to get their bearings on wisdom nobody is taught, the mere fact that it's not being taught is enough to set someone off, as being in an immediate threat situation.

For example, someone like Jeffrey dahmer intuited that young black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime. They were directly affecting his life, well being and survival.

So he hunted them.

He would eat them to cleanse their sins, making them part of his "sinless" body.

It really doesn't take much for pathologies to grow in environments in this world. All you have to do is control data set exposure, and the ever present silence, and you'll end up with people who absorb all of the suicidality and/or homicidality in the species.

Meaning: the species is killing itself and everyon is murdering everyone, and all they do is double talk about ho much life means to them.

This is enough to drive anyone crazy, that the insane ones are causing the most damage (the happy bliss of double speak aggressive ignorance)

In terms of judgement, you have to look at what the person actually knows to truly make a harsh judgement.

I could convict anyone on earth as criminally insane right now.

I wouldn't bother, because the judges and jury are criminally insane, but I know how to prove it.

Just a few more thoughts along these lines.
Perhaps you agreed with my points and simply wanted to add some other information. But it doesn't read like a response to my post.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2513
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Mad Man P » Tue Apr 02, 2019 7:50 am

Serendipper wrote:
Mad Man P wrote:All human thoughts and beliefs are subjective... even according to objectivists.

Idk, you'll have to get phyllo's opinion on whether he thinks all human thoughts are subjective.


I really don't... that statement is true by definition.
If Phyllo thinks otherwise he's using different definitions for those words OR he's being self-contradictory.

But then again your definitions of "subjective" and "objective" are fairly uncommon. So let's not let semantics confuse us.

Appeal to popularity.


It was an appeal to reason... you need to be aware of what words mean in order to understand what is being said, much less critique what's being said.

Why should mediocre intelligence dictate how words should be defined? Who cares how people prefer to colloquially define words, especially if those definitions overlap and have blurry boundaries. When I define categories, I like mutually exclusive definitions with well-defined boundaries.


I'm going to side-step the comment about mediocre intelligence... but note the irony.

Defining words is done for the purpose of clear communication... It helps when people take the time to clarify and discern how terms are defined.
But when you could just as easily express your thoughts on a matter using the established language, yet still prefer to redefine terms, it seems suspect.

Re-defining words that traditionally have a different meaning, lends itself to equivocating on those two meanings and thereby making specious arguments.
Everyone as a consequence has to remain extra vigilant to ensure you're sticking with the new definition and not confusing it with the traditional one.

For example if you critique what it means to be an "objectivist", as you have re-defined it, and then think that critique applies to a traditional objectivist, that would be a case of equivocation.

Likewise if you assume other people are using YOUR definitions, even though they have not agreed to do so, you won't comprehend what they are saying and end up criticising your own misunderstanding rather than any of their arguments. That is a form of straw manning, but of course you're not doing so intentionally... you're just confused by semantics.
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2574
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:32 pm

Mad Man P wrote:
Serendipper wrote:
Mad Man P wrote:All human thoughts and beliefs are subjective... even according to objectivists.

Idk, you'll have to get phyllo's opinion on whether he thinks all human thoughts are subjective.


I really don't... that statement is true by definition.
If Phyllo thinks otherwise he's using different definitions for those words OR he's being self-contradictory.

The fact that thoughts and beliefs are subjective and the opinion of objectivists regarding whether thoughts are subjective are entirely different. You said "even according to objectivists". Well, Phyllo is an objectivist and according to him, not all thoughts are subjective. Maybe they are in fact, but not according to objectivists.

But then again your definitions of "subjective" and "objective" are fairly uncommon. So let's not let semantics confuse us.

Appeal to popularity.


It was an appeal to reason... you need to be aware of what words mean in order to understand what is being said, much less critique what's being said.

You said "fairly uncommon". That's an appeal to popularity and that IS your reasoning: ie that popular opinion should dictate what words mean.

Why should mediocre intelligence dictate how words should be defined? Who cares how people prefer to colloquially define words, especially if those definitions overlap and have blurry boundaries. When I define categories, I like mutually exclusive definitions with well-defined boundaries.


I'm going to side-step the comment about mediocre intelligence... but note the irony.

Note the narcissism.

bell-curve.jpg
bell-curve.jpg (19.48 KiB) Viewed 4930 times


You are insisting that words be defined by the big hump in the middle; that science should bow and defer to the wisdom of the hump.

Defining words is done for the purpose of clear communication...

And that's why I defined my terms.

But when you could just as easily express your thoughts on a matter using the established language, yet still prefer to redefine terms, it seems suspect.

Why? Words are fucked up all the time.



I'm tired of hearing "prodigal"
03:28
being used to mean "wandering", "given to
03:30
running away", or "leaving and returning".
03:32
The parable in The Book of Luke tells of
03:35
a son who squanders his father's money.
03:38
"Prodigal" means "recklessly wasteful" or
03:41
"extravagant" and if you say "popular usage
03:44
has changed that", I say fuck popular usage.

04:21
Yeah, I know, you'll say "well
04:24
many people are using it that way, so the
04:26
meaning is changing."
04:27
And I say "well many people are really
04:28
fucking stupid!" Should we just adopt
04:31
all their standards?

I concur. Fuck popular usage and appealing to dummies for definitions.

For example if you critique what it means to be an "objectivist", as you have re-defined it, and then think that critique applies to a traditional objectivist, that would be a case of equivocation.

Traditional objectivists are objectivists by my definition. The only problem is they label some popularly subjective claims as objective. Or they conflate objectivity with "unbiased assessment" or "standardized framework".

Likewise if you assume other people are using YOUR definitions, even though they have not agreed to do so, you won't comprehend what they are saying

Yes I will. When a cop says there are objective realities of altercations that must be discerned upon arrival, I know what he means.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:43 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:And so we see how silly absolute subjectivists are.

It's objectively stated: "on august 3rd 1992, it rained somewhere on planet earth."

It's subjectively stated: " on august 3rd 1992, I rained somewhere on planet earth"

Serendipper doesn't believe in the objective "it", only the subjective "I"

This is why I pointed out earlier that subjectivists suffer from a narcissistic lack of object permenance.

They have the minds of an infant, as adults, which is quite sad.

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.

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.

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.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9030
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Jakob » Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:56 pm

Note: All grammatical constructions are subjective.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7140
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:22 pm

Jakob wrote:Note: All grammatical constructions are subjective.


A noun and a verb are not subjective.

We just happen to all use them.

Nouns and verbs still exist without subjects, otherwise we ALL wouldn't be able to perceive them.

Everyone knows nouns and verbs because they are written into the structure of existence.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9030
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:44 pm

Serendipper,

What's really frustrating about this exchange, is how you're using these terms to make your argument.

Nobody disagrees that otherness is existence.

That's an objective truth.

But then you come along and state that NON-PERCIEVING extistents are also subjective because the fact that existence is otherness is subjective.

This is ludicrous!!

If existence is just rocks hitting each other by the wind blowing, and that's it, there's still otherness, BUT!! No subjects in existence. There's still wear and tear from friction. There's still plate tectonics etc...
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9030
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:27 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Serendipper,

What's really frustrating about this exchange, is how you're using these terms to make your argument.

Nobody disagrees that otherness is existence.

That's an objective truth.

But then you come along and state that NON-PERCIEVING extistents are also subjective because the fact that existence is otherness is subjective.

What are non-perceiving existents?

We cannot comprehend abstract existence, but that is not itself an objective/abstract claim because it's reliant on there being a knower and a known. I'm not talking about existence, but conceptions of existence. Perhaps there is an abstract existence, but it's not anything I could possibly conceptualize, much less talk about.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:20 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Serendipper,

What's really frustrating about this exchange, is how you're using these terms to make your argument.

Nobody disagrees that otherness is existence.

That's an objective truth.

But then you come along and state that NON-PERCIEVING extistents are also subjective because the fact that existence is otherness is subjective.

What are non-perceiving existents?

We cannot comprehend abstract existence, but that is not itself an objective/abstract claim because it's reliant on there being a knower and a known. I'm not talking about existence, but conceptions of existence. Perhaps there is an abstract existence, but it's not anything I could possibly conceptualize, much less talk about.


You don't have to know what it's like to know it exists!! That's the problem with subjectivity!

It's the belief in the lack of object permanence. "Unless it's me, it doesn't exist"

This is a stage for babies, infants, it's wholly narcissistic and not at all mature or realistic.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9030
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: The end of the subjectivity debate

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Apr 03, 2019 7:41 am

Ecmandu wrote:
everyone is constantly attacking everyone on this earth

I have never physically wounded a person in my life
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users