If everything is subjective then that is an objective rule, if only something is subjective then there is something objective, so we have that either way there must be something objective.
Is this true?
Must there be something objective?
Can we know what the objective thing is?
Can we get close to it, approach it or maybe align with it, even if we can’t be 100% certain of what it is?
Quantum mechanics is your answer. I don’t have time to explain the whole concept, so here’s a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc&list=FLC9oapLCWsZE&index=13
This is a great example of the subjectivity of objectivity.
Each thought you think splits itself up and creates the division of the thinker or the self and the world. Do you agree?
If not, then how can you distinguish yourself as separate from objects?
If you do agree, then how did you create the division?
Why would we say that everything is subjective?
Word games, Abstract, and nothing more. As most tautologies are, however.
The existence of anything subjective implies the objective existence of “the mind” or “the thinking subject.” You can’t have something subjective without an objectively existing subject. Everything subjective depends upon the existence of objectively existent things.
At least, that’s the way I approach it.
To answer indirectly, in parallel so to speak
science is empiricist, which means based on experience, which means it is based on adding up many subjective experiences. It hypothesizes objectivity by gathering subjectivity.
In a word: inter-subjectivity. But this makes no claim to objectivity.
Well, on my planet, when I examine the words and actions of scientists, they seem very much to be talking about objectivity. I am pretty sure scientists think that they are coming up with truths - if in the ultimate sense conjectural - that are not merely intersubjective but independent of humans. Note: I think you are correct about what their position should be, but I am quite sure it is not.
Note the way something being subjective is used as a form of dismissal. Or to put it another way: scientists are realists. In the philosphical sense. And they are talking about objects ‘out there’.
I meant that inter-subjectivity makes no claim to objectivity. Scientists, however, do so rather definitively. See: my thread on the topic.
OK, I am in full agreement.
If everything is subjective, then the person making the above statement is expressing a subjective viewpoint.
But claiming that everything is subjective is about as practical as claiming all dogs are nice. Your experiences won’t change based on what you believe about perceived objects, though your interpretations might.
We could easily say any experience is subjective because we believe it to be so, the same that I could say the dog who bit me is benevolent because I believe it to be so.
I think there is an implicit assumption - or more than one - about beliefs. I don’t think it is easy to change beliefs at least many of them. Try to change your belief that you cannot fly or that chairs are not solid. IOW I think this is primarily untested ground. Beliefs, despite positive thinking books and the way many people think about beliefs, take tremendous work even to pick at. Further I don’t think people are aware of what they believe. They have official positions, but in fact their beliefs are generally much more mixed than they like to notice.
Though if you are afraid of dogs this may very well lead to being bitten more.
Well, it’s untested because a claim of pure subjectivity isn’t falsifiable. We are aware of some of what we believe. That which we make conscious, at least. But that wasn’t the point. My point being that even if one were to believe everything were subjective, he’d still have no better choice than to act objectively. We do this even when we dream and experience some subjective mental projection of ourselves falling. If I throw a baseball at your face, your beliefs regarding the objective reality of the ball will not change the result, or likely even your natural instinct to duck.
That still doesn’t suggest all dogs are nice. Only that adopting a “nice” demeanor yourself, when you encounter a dog, is probably your best bet.
I find that the Quantum iisues point to the idea that we cannot know the objective thing, though iwith probability perhabps we can see as to what it most likely is?
I don’t know that the thought itself necessarily splits “itself” up though I can see that it can in so far as thought tend to relevate things or relate one thing to another, thoughts catagorize or divide, and thus could dvide themselves by looking at one thought with another thought, but then I don’t know that thought one can divide thought 1 rather thought 1 has to be divided by thought 2.
Recognizing that the meinds is what distinguishes I find it interestinfg to see that perhaps in reality everything is really just one grand connected entity.
Why would we have to be the one’s to create the division? Perhaps it is natural that thinking does such and such was created by the universe, the all, the ultimate, the everything, God if you will.
Not that one would. (though Some here seem to) But it is either that such is the case or not the case, but either way there is objectivity. It would seem.
Actually whenever we see something as truth it seems to be a sort of tautology, people seem to call things a 'tautology" when they want to dismiss it.
I have to ask how is this not true? How is this tautolgy a flase tautology, or rather not really true?
In fact how can we say it isn’t true without being objective?
If nothing is objective then it follows that everything must be subjective. but that would be an objective rule and thus a contradiction.
So only most or some things can be subjective, and what is not subjective is then objective, thus something objective must exist.
No philosopher ever seriously rejected objective reality. Often rejected is our ability to have knowledge, or certainty of it.
Well I would mostly agree but that supposes what one of the objective things are, or what the only one is, if there is an only one. But then one can say it is all of the mind that what is outthere is really in here, but then yes it would seem to imply that stil the imaginary is thr object, is the reality.
But then one can get really abstract and say that even then we can’t know that we really think. Sence we arrive at any proof of though by thought before proving it. WHich makes me think that we can really just see that things are likely we can’t cactully be perfectly certain of the objective rule or thing. SO then we should still be able to arrive ta what is most likely the objective rule given what is seen.