Fallacy of Subjectivity

2,500 years and certain people don’t want to transcend beyond the myopia of Greek philosophy, its been romanticized, overly romanticized. Give them credit for getting the ball rolling. A monumentous achievement and monumentous credit indeed.

Something like that. Exactly. Bin Laden differentiated right from wrong behavior because he was firmly convinced in the existence of God. And God [the one in his head] becomes the omniscient/omnipotent font for determining [absolutely, objectively] which behaviors are either right or wrong.

Nietzsche on the other hand didn’t have a God, the God, my God to fall back on. He had to speculate about things like taxing the rich or what to do about the poor from the perspective of a mere mortal.

But then out in the world that we live in mere mortals have conflicting and contradictory assessments of things like the role of government or the meaning of equality.

But then the objectivists [though still mere mortals] are able to “think through” these things [philosophically or otherwise] and come to embody one or another existential rendition of this:

1] I am rational [about taxing the rich]
2] I am rational [about taxing the rich] because I have access to the political ideal
3] I have access to the political ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world [of the world objectively]
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world [of the world objectively] because I am rational

Nietzsche merely speculated that in the absence of God, mere mortals, exercising their will to power, should sort things out in terms of the best of us imposing their will on the least of us.

So it is part “might makes right” and part “right makes might”.

The important point still is that from the perspective of the objectivists these things can be rationally differentiated. Why? Because they have themselves already figured it all out.

You know, if only “in their head”.

It’s just that historically there have been those objectivists who insisted on taking the ideas out of their heads. Folks like, say, the fascists or the communists or the capitalist imperialists or those embracing one or another denominational God.

So, will someone like Donald Trump lead the next objectivist charge? Or is he just one more pretender to the throne? Another moral nihilist rooted in the grand tradition of the global economy: Show me the money!

The facts of the matter is that Middle Class has to pay the most taxes, and Rich and Poor get the most amount of welfare, but Rich get much more Welfare than poor, which is utterly backwards.

So when someone says Rich must pay more taxes than poor, it means the Middle Class should not have to pay as much taxes, so it is good for the Middle Class. And also, people hate Rich people, because they were born with money they don’t deserve, and many of them are part of a Conspiracy Against Earth and plot on ways to lower the quality of human life, and are responsible for shitty TV shows like MTV, lack of freedoms, poisoned food, and crappy music like Justin Bieber.

This [in me own humble opinion] is rather typical of Turd’s contribution to a thread of this sort.

He makes it rather clear who the true scholar is among us. He speaks didactically [pedantically?] of a “Eudamonist position” in relation to “the evolution of the Platonic Academy after Sulla sacked it”.

He notes that, “[i]ts not my job to enlighten anyone, several of you are at the point of no return, where you just gotta fucking go back and read these texts, and have a educated position, instead of playing ‘professor says’ through second hand sources.”

Which seems to imply that the truth regarding subjectivity can be found only in a library. After all, “[e]ven Stirner read these classics.”

Get “your read on” he suggests.

Okay, suppose we read everything that he has read. Suppose we too become true scholars. How will that get us any closer than he has come to addressing the existential relationship that Zinnati broaches between subjectively and objectivity as it relates to taxing the rich or responding to the needs of the poor?

Is he suggesting that if we really understood Plato and Aristotle these things would be, what, self-evident…axiomatic?

Wow iambig, that post of yours was actually not an utter bore to read. Im proud of you

Thanks.

Well, coming from one of the Kids anyway.

Oh, yeah, Turd has “foed” me. So he may not be gathering my insights here. I’d appreciate it if someone would include them in one of their own posts.

He’ll thank me later.

I shall.

I appreciate that the response to Turd was outrage at the idea that somebody who wants to make pronouncements on philosophy should be expected to actually fucking read some philosophy.

You don’t need no books, you gots bluster and Youtube!

But seriously, he’s right. You guys look dumb arguing about something you obviously haven’t actually studied. I’m not as up on the Greeks and can’t speak to it, but I can speak to the same phenomenon when you guys discuss epistemology.

You skipped a couple of paragraphs, but thanks. Unless of course Turd has you on ignore too.

Yes, this is a legitimate point.

As long as one is willing to acknowledge in turn that there may well be limitations imposed on philosophy [on language, on logic] as it pertains to what can be known [epistemologically] about the moral parameters of taxing the rich or attending to the poor.

In other words, lots of folks clearly embrace political prejudices that they insist instead reflect the only rational manner in which to address issues such as this.

They really do believe if that you spend years and years reading books on philosophy [and the books of those who made significant contributions] you can know for certain what one is obligated to think about the role of government or the nature or equality or justice or freedom.

Or at the very least the only way in which a true intellectual is obligated to think about them.

In other words, if you think about them exactly like they do. And in exactly the same manner that they do. Then you become “one of us”.

If only there was some way to take these ideas out of their heads and try them out in the real world. Maybe they could try different taxation schemes and studying the results. Or even better, by studythe results of other societies which have already tried different schemes.

Oh, right … that’s why you can’t do it. Any objectivist who takes some idea “out of his head” and tries it in the real world is ‘bad’. He is imposing his objectivist ideas on other people.

Well, all those ‘bad’ objectivists got some kind of results - why not study the historical results?

Let me guess - those results are only valid for that time and place and it’s impossible to learn anything from them.

Have all subjectivists been taken the bait, or anyone still left?

With love,
Sanjay

What would a statement that is less subjective or more subjective look like? IOW, in what way does your statement differ from a statement which is less (or more) subjective?

How are you measuring the subjectivity of your statements?

If there are degrees to subjectivity then what is it that makes up the whole? Objectivity?

A glass which is half full is also half empty. A statement which is half subjective is … what? Half objective?

There must be statements which have so little subjectivity that they can be considered entirely objective.

I’ve studied here and there, just like most of us probably have. To what extent, to what reason is fine. I mean, I can respond to every post and say, read this this and this, you moron. But that doesn’t even show I even read them, or understand what it even means. Even reading philosophy doesn’t grant one understanding of how to apply it in situations, arguments. This is a place to discuss philosophy and essentially show understanding of philosophy. I would hope mods would be keen to promote that, as opposed to holding a sign up the says visit your local library’s philosophy section. Then there’s not much of a use to have a forum to begin with. I see no reason why someone must read philosophy to provide a philosophically valid sentiment or statement. Yes it can get repetitive, or yes it can be wrong, but if so, explain how then if you have an explanation that you got from some other notable philosopher, you can reference that notable philosopher as well. Seems reasonable and the way to go.

NeoPlatonism is merely the coveted institutional philosophy of authoritarians the more I read into it.

It would appear all modern governments are based off of it especially their perceptions concerning human beings and those they rule.

That’s the mind of the subjectivist … two people make different statements and that’s as far as it goes. No way to decide between the two statements.

The objectivists would explore :
What makes someone’s understanding better than another’s understanding?
How would one test understanding of objectivity?
How would one measure understanding?

Yes that’s a great question, it’s more less intuitive for me. Mapping out the degrees of subjectivity would be challenging wouldn’t it? Something else to ponder about…

Non linear logic… Intuition. Based on… reason, experience. Now this type of response of mine, is something that everyone and their brother can easily attack and pile up on here.

It’s a collaboration of your experience, intelligence, reasoning and logic. How to map it out though? A daunting task.

Actually if you read what I was saying the fact that there exists objectivists that cannot come to terms in agreement of what objectivism is only illustrates intersubjectivity.

“Slavery is necessary because there is no practical alternative.”

How convenient. :-"