# Subjectivism Versus Objectivism.

Math can’t be a human construction?

I was trying to argue that math is a human construction. Anyways, back to the original subject of the thread.

the first sentence you have above is filled with abstractions so we can assume that it, in fact the whole idea of the OP, is subjective.

It was a serious question being posed. I was trying to articulate what I think in terms where objectivism ends and subjectivism begins.

It was an abstraction based upon physical materialism of the world therefore not subjective.

You can’t deduce physical material forms into a subjective categorization. It doesn’t work that way.

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.

Mathematics is an abstract discipline, yes, and it is - of course - logical. And logic is in your mind, your subjective mind.

If you say that something is objective, then you refer to the world, thus to something outside your subjective mind.

Mathematics is an axiomatically deductive system of logic and deduction pertains to that which is definitely true

And anything that is definitely true such as mathematics is objective too as it cannot be subjectively interpreted

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.

So again:

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.

Monists? No, that doesn’t sound correct either.

Well, which is it? Is mathematics a subjective imaginary construct or is it objectively certifiable?

How does something that started out subjective in origin overtime moves into a objective system?

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.

I fear that Iambiguous has now reincarnated as The Joker. Of course this is an improvement because you, in fact, are a nihilist, where he was not.

And you managed to use, basically, his rhetoric without using the word dasein. This is also an improvement.

Joker, and all nihilists, are sadly mistaken. They see a shitty world, and think that there is no equation which would make all sentient beings happy.

I, Trixie, am a grand entertainer. I know what makes people happy, I know what makes them tick.

I could make a youtopia for all these faggots, I know the equation, there is an equation for eternal happiness, so amoral nihilists are dead wrong.

For example, me wanting to exile bad females into Earth 2 is actually not part of the equation of happiness, but if I wanted to, I could modify it and be nice to them and follow the equation of eternal happiness, I just am choosing not to.

When you find a happy pill to cure nihilism along with a utopia to house all the nihilists you let me know.

Oh, really? I always thought of him as an existentialist kind of nihilist. Certainly more tame than me of course.

You didn’t think he was a nihilist originally?

Well, I always aspire to be creative and inventive.

Also, the discussion is subjectivism versus objectivism.

Its simply a train of thought.

Nihilism is utter feminity. There are two types of feminity - chaos feminity and void feminity.

Chaos has some elements of order in it. Just as feminine persons have a semblance of rationality. For instance, Farcturus descended posts occasionally rational truths. But you don’t ever see her replying to forum philosophers like Amorphos, she is stuck in Edward Allen Poe land, mentally masturbating over having sex with her own wolves.

You are stuck in nihilistic void because you want to be. Spend some time doing art or something creativity, giving meaning to your life. Mix it up - write books, do art, do all kinds of invention things.

Even when I am angry and hateful, I can still be happy about it, because it is chaos feminity not void feminity. Theres no pill to fix that - you’re just feeding void bound thoughts.