For me objectivism certainly exists but I believe it is reduced to physicality or physical material forms of a empirical nature.
Those are the only objective things we can observe.
Subjectivism on the other hand I reduce to all mental and thought abstractions of human beings. For me this is the seperation and cut off point for subjectivism versus objectivism. There is simply no way any kind of human created mental or thought abstraction can be objective. Here in this thread I guess I’m posing the question as to where the objectivist world ends and the subjectivist one begins.
I appreciate thoughts and commentary from everybody here.
I would argue mathematics while certainly useful is another human creation and its imperfection especially in terms of its limitations is well written about concerning paradoxes in physics.
Nonetheless it is the measurement of natural and celestial bodies that coincides with the materialism I was speaking about concerning objectivity.
Something that perfect cannot possibly be a human creation apart from the symbols themselves
So the limitations are not with mathematics but with the human inability to comprehend it fully
The problem of subject and object is not really solvable. Obviously it is an everlasting dualism. Many philosophers have tried to solve it and have failed, and many philosophers will try to solve it and will fail.
We do not know whether it would be better for the humans to be capable of solving that problem or not. I rather give the advise to live with dualisms. Many people are not even capable of living with dualisms.
Deduction perains to that which is true if the axioms are correct. In math since you get to make up little abstract worlds where we take the axioms as true then valid deduction from there will, within the system, lead to conclusions that are true, there. But they may have no meaning beyond that made up realm. IOW the deductions may be true in that symbolic realm but have no objective truth for us or about the real world. I think it is off to refer to math as objective in total. To me the term objective means that conclusions are accurate about the universe. I am not sure I would call them subjective m. More like, at the very least consistant imaginary abstractions. Later we may find that the specific math does apply to the world, like say, non Euclidian geometry did, and then it moves into an objective system.
Then a lot of math is derived empirically and objective or may be right off the bat.
Or living with something unsettled. Something that oscillates between what at least seem like different ontologies. Sometimes one is dualist, sometimes one is monist. One could do this for pragmatic reasons. If this seems to generate useful heuristics, being flexible. One could do it with a sense that one’s organism inevitably seems to do this. One could do it supported by a skepticism that when the mind force fits into one ontology it can be complete or accurate. It seems to me most people do this in practice, but when putting forward their philosophical positions, the deny one part of their own reactions/assessments. Perhaps a little internal fascism (or internal state socialism for righties) with its need for conformity internally is as problematic as an external facism.
Yeah, I can see that. Of course then you have the all encompassing crowd that views subjectivism and objectivism as false dualities where everything is interconnected. I forget what they refer to themselves as in label or name description.
When I speak of mental states or thoughts being purely subjective I am speaking in terms of culture, social interaction, ideology, beliefs, and all things that stem from the mental human expirience. None of these things are objective and the constant failures throughout history by those who have tried to impose them as such has been met with grand disappointment.
When speaking about objectivism revolving around physical forms or celestial bodies I mean things like gravity. Gravity is an objective reality thereby cannot be reduced subjectively.
So, what we have here is a distinguishment between that which is subjective and that which is objective.
Understanding this distinguishment we can therefore conclude that where objectivism ends subjectivism begins. The disagreement of course is where one begins and the other ends on one another. The seperation point.
