The end of the subjectivity debate

When you generalize about all of us, we other humans and you, (knowers and a known, subjects and perceptions, what all of our thoughts are like)
aren’t you talking about things that are not part of you experience? How do you know others are like you? That their experience, perception is like yours?

I understand you can explain about how you experience them, but it seems like when you universalize about experiencing you are doing precisely what you say above you cannot possibly do.

I’ve been saving this one for a while now.

Like mark twain said: “everything in moderation, including moderation”

Like I say, the set that HAS to work on itself: “everything is subjective, including subjectivity”

As has been noted in the last two replies, you’re using a universal qualifier: everything is subjective

Universal qualifiers also refer to themselves as well.

Replying to myself, and I’ve been saving this one as well.

Silluoutte stated that the beginning of this thread was “sophmorish”

Actually, because of the eminently logical “universals (by definition) always act upon themselves”

It’s perfectly rational to simply state “yeah but your argument is just subjective”

It’s not sophmorish at all, neither is it “not understanding the nuances of subjectivity”

So try having at that sillouette !! =)

Subjectivism can refute objectivism, but not without refuting itself in the process, so they’ve both been refuted.
The solution is just to go with whatever appears reasonable, intuitive/sensible, without thinking about it too much, or thinking about thinking itself.
To fully or partly dispense with epistemology.

Subjectivism works the same as false in the truth tables:

It’s true that it’s true (it’s objective that it’s objective)

It’s true that it’s false (it’s objective that it’s subjective)

It’s false that it’s true (it’s subjective that it’s objective)

It’s false that it’s false (it’s subjective that it’s subjective)

Number 1 and 4 both solve as objective.

Number 2 solves as objectivity existing so that it’s self contradictory.

Number 3 is what all the subjectivists are arguing (it’s subjective that it’s objective)

The truth table is 3 out of 4

So … 1 out of 4 is not the ONLY and NECESSARY one that’s true to the exclusion of the others …

3 out of 4 Beats 1 out of 4, by vote, objectivity wins.

You can’t make the argument that 1 of 4 of those refutes the other three.

Mad Man P: but that subjective experience is best characterised as being in contact with an objective reality.

If I put a ‘table’ in front of both of us among a crowd of 100++, yes there is an empirical table as observed.
However, within the philosophical perspective, show me the argument and justification there is a real objective ‘table’ out there.

Note Russell’s “perhaps there is no table at all”

I wonder you understand what Russell was arguing about?
Russell was doubting perhaps there is no objective table at all!

Can you counter Russell’s argument?

It seems like you assume that subjective is false. Subjective need not be false. It could even be argued that it’s a category error to put subjectivity on a true false spectrum. Qualia, for example, are neither true nor false, but one could use qualia to reach false or true conclusions. I saw a red flash so I conclude there was a cardinal that flew past. The cardinals redness is a qualia, but it is a consistant one, so the conclusion could be correct - for those who believe in objectivity. Or it could be false, perhaps I had just pressed my eyes with my hands and the redness was a phosphene. And there are other possible ways it could have been a false conclusion in part or completely due to subjective aspects.

In the above four part schema, it is not clear what ‘it’ is, also.

The point of the schema is that it wins for objectivity 3 out of 4 times. Sure, it’s subjective that it’s objective that a cardinal flew by, however it’s objective that someone thought that in the first place, if infact, someone did think that about a red flash.

Which raises another issue:

Sure interpretation MIGHT be subjective, but whether hallucinating or mistaken, whatever occurs in the sensory field is objectively the case for the subject.

This is why we keep going in circles here…

And why it’s consistently pointed out for example that people drink water (if they can) in order to not die of dehydration within a couple weeks.

There’s no room in a subjectivists stance to explain this type of behavior.

I agree that what we experience is real, these are phenomena that exist. Our experiencing exists. And this experiencing also gives us knowledge about things we are not experiencing. At least I find that model fucking useful. I haven’t read all your posts reacting to the subjectivists, but it seems to me some of them are using the term subjective to mean that what one is talking about is radically affecting by us. What are we, we are primate-like creature, with senses that work in these particular ways, with these filters and limits. We are time bound creatures and exist in specific locations. IOW we experience things unfolding through time, we experience them from a specific here and not there, and not from all angles. So everything is (partially or also) subjective. Honestly I can’t get a handle on what someone like Serendipper is saying. Sometimes he seems to be saying that our experience will always have qualities peculiar to us (our filters and vantage, including ones at a metaphysical level, like time and space restrictions) but then at other times he seems to be using it to mean we cannot know anything about anything beyond our experiences, presumably in the moment. The bedroom disappears when I walk into the living room, or perhaps, we have no idea about what happens outside our experience, in any case. I don’t think for example, Serendipper and Sillouette are saying the same things as each other when they say it’s all subjective or even if the former is consistant at all. To me the categories are not mutually exclusive. That there can be aspects of both to an event. That experience is connected to objects external to me and can give me information that is not only useful in the direction of universally but also says something about that thing. But my experiencing, description, and knowledge will be tinged by the makeup of my particular soul and body/senses.

But for Serendipper it seems to be binary, that since there are subjective aspects, it is subjective period.

Which then becomes weird because he describes what ALL OF US EXPERIENCE AND KNOW as being subjective. But then that’s him giving objective knowledge about my experience - which he cannot experience (in his model of reality), and other people are parts of external reality. But he seems very confident making objecitve-like statements about them. Or he makes a distinction between his experiencing (head not in the sand) and that of republicans (head in the sand) that seems to mean he is in better contact with external reality,w ith the objects, that he is objective while they are emotional.
ex
I feel like there is a lot of talking at cross purposed mixed in with what seem to also be some real confusions and false dichotomies. I can’t even sort exactly what they are trying to assert.

The general rule here is this : what you think / say / do is subjective [ because of free will ] but the act of thinking / saying / doing is objective

A subjectivist can only accept the former while an objectivist can only accept the latter but the subjectivist / objectivist can accept both

[ which is why subjectivism / objectivism is the natural default position ]

  1. There appears to be a table “out there”…
  2. if we act as though there is a table “out there” we won’t accidentally bump into it
  3. It comes and goes from “in here”, the table being “out there” solves the mystery of where it comes from and where it goes.
  4. the table being “out there” is congruent with everything else that happens…

The list goes on and on…

Now provide me with a good reason why we should doubt it…
I know we CAN doubt it… meaning we lack omniscience and therefore certainty…
But can you give me a good reason why we SHOULD doubt it?

doubt does indeed suggest there is no table… but why should we listen to doubt above all other voices in this case or in any case?

I think one could add in an argument from parsimony. As long as one is not arguing with a solipsist, and Prismatic is not one, then to think of a single cause of these experiences that different individuals/minds have is more parsimonious than thinking that there is nothing out there that is a table, but for some reason a variety of minds get (separate, a number of) stimulations as if there was. I think Occam’s R could come in and say, well, let’s take the simplest explanation.

This puts the onus on Prismatic to explain how actually his model has less or an equal number of entities (causes of the experiences of the different minds).

The out there is every bit as real as the in here so anything you perceive must by logical deduction exist in reality as well
A Gods Eye View would not make any distinction between you and the table for it would accept both as being equally real

Not just equally real, but exactly the same in every way … that’s why we know god isn’t possible.

Cannot be exactly the same because everything is in a constant state of change
And this change will affect individual parts of the whole in many different ways

For us, yes. Not for god as defined. God literally has no inside or outside, everything is EXACLTY the same, EVERYTHING.

There is more than one single definition of God because he can be absolutely anything that anyone imagines him to be
So a God for whom everything is exactly the same is no more plausible than one for whom nothing is exactly the same

It is a law of existence that existence = otherness.

It is the definition of omnipresence that there is no otherness, if god is exactly all of us, we would all exactly be god.

So only the first part stands: existence = otherness

God does not have to be omnipresent - that is just a characteristic he is traditionally given - it is completely arbitrary
Exactly the same as the other ones - omniscience and omnibenelovence - but God can be anything you want him to be

But yes you are absolutely correct - existence is otherness because there is no omnipresent God
The only thing that is actually omnipresent is the Universe but the Universe however is not God

Our situation is slightly more sinister than that, which I tried to allude to earlier…
We’re confronted with a reality of qualitative experience, that is to say a reality that can harm us, terribly.
Mistakes can cost us dearly… and frivolous beliefs are no more dangerous than doubts as we move through this space.

If you walked off the edge of a cliff, doubting you would fall, the price for that mistake can be as high as any…

The project is to construct a road map, a modus operandi, that lets us navigate this reality, whatever it may be, more effectively.
We cannot be parsimonious in the construction of that road map unless we know what is necessary and what is not.
So how can we know when we lack certainty?

And that’s where rationalists get stuck (sans a benevolent god). Conceptually it’s a dead end…
But the empiricists don’t give a damn about any of that… and merrily forge forward as warranted by the experiential evidence, claiming to know stuff in one moment that in the next they claim to have disproven.
Much to the chagrin of rationalists who berate them for it, all while they employ the road map the empiricists provide them.