Objectivity

There is no objective right and wrong or ought and should.

Existence is relationship. Reality is the relationship between subject and object.

Truth is subject to the conditions, context, framework and interpretation.

“The earth is a spheroid” depends on your definition of spheroid and your definition of what constitutes the earth: are you counting the atmosphere or just the surface and how far above sealevel, etc.

Existence isn’t a thing that can exist, but a relationship between a thing and its context. Existence has no context in which to exist.

Yes pretty much. The earth is spheroid regardless of anyone’s definitions or context; it’s defined to be and asserted by authority.

Proofs are subject to the logic. Change the logic and the proof fails.

Yes, it looks like you have it! The egg-producing animal came from an animal that didn’t produce eggs, so the animal came first and then it laid the first egg. It’s hard to imagine how that could happen, but then again, what constitutes an egg? Maybe eggs have undergone a bit of evolution as well. Are we talking the hard-shell egg capable of surviving outside the water or fish eggs laid in the water? Probably some soft-shell egg had a random mutation that permitted it to survive somewhat outside the water, maybe the pond dried up except for mud, and because it survived, it also made eggs slightly tougher than the previous generation. This process went on until one day there was no longer a need for water and the eggs could survive on dry land. So which one of those animals is considered the chicken? And that’s your ‘heap’ problem:

Yes, just like asking when the day came when we became old. Alan Watts went deeper with it and asked when a person began. When a person is dead is another tough question.

Yes I think you’re understanding it very well.

I think usually they mean “popular subjectivity”. Fact is consensus of opinion, which is popular subjectivity, and not true objectivity.

Like, everyone believes the earth is round. That’s a unanimous collection of subjective interpretations. The fact that it’s unanimous means nothing; it’s still subjective.

Check this out. It’s really cool illustration of how people think differently. If you want to save time, start at 1:45.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj4y0EUlU-Y[/youtube]

Infinite simultaneous viewpoints, I would think, are required to view something objectively. Omnipresence is required. The subject would have to be all possible subjects at once.

Yup

You could not exist without your parents
No one could exist without their parents

No life at all could exist without the formation of the Earth
Earth could not exist without the formation of the elements
The elements could not exist without the formation of atoms
Atoms could not exist without the Big Bang and expansion of spacetime

So you effectively could not exist without the formation of the Universe

Everything is therefore directly or indirectly connected to everything else as nothing can exist in total isolation

Thus also,

the universe-as-it-is cannot exist without ‘you’ and everyone else, i.e. the collective subject.

Point is the collective subject is the co-creator of reality-as-it-is.

According to Kant, there is no objective reality-by-itself [noumenon or thing-in-itself], there is only reality-by-ourselves, i.e. the collective subject.

You’re walking on the sidewalk. A brick becomes dislodged at the top of a building and falls towards you. You don’t see it falling and nobody else is looking at it.

Does it kill you when it hits you? Does it injure you?

Why or why not?

How does subjectivity work in this case? How does inter-subjectivity work? How is “subjects leading to objectivity” applicable?

Logic doesn’t change, though there are branches and modalities of logic, the proof through contradiction never changes. The different modalities all stem from proof through contradiction.

You’re also confusing two things: that exact signifiers of different linguistic tokens determine contradiction. In English, hello is the same as hola in Spanish, it’s not very hard for humans to figure out that they’re talking about the same thing, but for you it’s a catastrophic contradiction. You’re also negating categories. It’s not a contradiction for me to say that to the closest mile, the earths land circumference is x, and the earths atmosphere circumference is y.

Also, you’re nit picking on existents.

I could just as easily state that in order for a tree to exist, a tree must exist.

I’ll also add in anticipation of your next post, that there is the perceptual acuity phenomenon.

Meaning: the further away you get from an object it no longer looks like the object, or vanishes completely. The closer you get to an object, say, microscopically, it also no longer looks like the object.

In order to see an object, you must be in the perceptual acuity median.

I know for every die hard objectivist there’s an ulterior motive, objectivity “catches them!” And they don’t want accountability. To be an adult.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEunth9YCgo[/youtube]

If you think that you are only inside your skin, you define yourself as one very complicated little curlicue way out on the edge of that explosion, way out in space, and way out in time. Billions of years ago you were a Big Bang and now you’re a complicated human being, and then we cut ourselves up like this, and don’t feel that we are still the Big Bang, but you are! It depends how you define yourself. You are actually… if this is the way things started, if there was a big bang in the beginning, you’re not something that is a result of the big bang, on the end of the process, you are still the process! You are the Big Bang, the original force of the universe, coming on as whoever you are. See, when I meet you, I see not just what you define yourself as: mister so-and-so, miss or mrs so-and-so, I see every one of you as the primordial energy of the universe coming on at me in this particular way; I know I’m that too, but we’ve learned to define ourselves as separate from it.

Yes the noumenon is absurd like a dot with no page.

Well, logic stems from duality: true, not-true. So, we could say positive and negative. The negative is negative because the positive is positive. But what happens with trichromatic quarks? Now we have a logic based on 3 charges where red is not-green and not-blue. Can you imagine a battery with 3 terminals required to make it operate?

Or how about numerical bases? Does 11+11 = 22 or 6?

No it’s more like smiling to a human is considered friendly, but to an ape it’s considered aggression (showing teeth - weapons). It’s the same “word”, but construed differently… subject to the subject.

If the surface of the atmosphere were considered the surface of the earth, which is what the surface of jupiter is considered, then its shape would be different from the shape of the heavier rock ball underneath. And then there is the problem of defining the edge of the atmosphere. So the shape of the earth is subject to the definitions you create.

earthshape.jpg

I don’t understand your objection.

I don’t understand the point you’re making here either.

Ok, but look what you’re doing!!

You’re making more categories to argue against the objective truth of categories…

Also, I think if I remember correctly, space has one atom for every square meter. So the line can be drawn there.

The point is: we have objective ways of determining and measuring. We use them constantly.

Now, I’ll certainly be one to say that we haven’t solved ALL things objectively, however, for a great many things, we have. For these great many things, it’s very easy for us to state, “your opinion doesn’t matter, it was already solved”. For example: how we’ve solved the game of tic-tac-toe, or checkers… the best you can do is draw against a perfect player. It’s solved. Over. Done. Known. It’s no longer a matter of skill or opinion.

Well that just argues for what surreptitious said:

Therefore for something to be truly objective [ in the purest sense ] it must be beyond ALL imagination and knowledge
For once something is known or imagined that is the point at which it becomes subjective and so is no longer objective

Objectivity is absurd and absurdities cannot be imagined.

What is space? Space cannot exist without something occupying it.

No, objectivity is not beyond imagination and knowledge, it is what’s true regardless of anyone’s opinion of the matter.

When I state, in order for a tree to exist, a tree must exist. That is not beyond imagination or knowledge, it also doesn’t afford opinion, it’s an objective fact.
Your opinion doesn’t matter here.

It’s your opinion that a tree exists. What is a tree but an arbitrary dissection of what there is? I can hand you a tree and when I do, it will contain dirt in a pot, so are dirt and pots part of trees? How about the atmosphere around the tree? Is that part of the tree too? The tree surely couldn’t exist without those things, so they must be part of it. And to have those things requires a planet, so the planet is part of the tree too. As is the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe; all of it is the tree. But it’s YOUR opinion that the tree is merely the woody bits and leaves. I disagree.

What constitutes a tree and whether or not it exists is subject to opinion.

Logic governs our language, so that we remain intelligible to each other. Ecmandu’s statement is true by definition, and Serendipper is pointing out that our definitions are subjective.

The only objectively “true” thing about logic is that we would become unintelligible without it.

There is an objective reality, but we are the ones who break it down into categories so as to apprehend it. That process isn’t entirely subjective however, as it is utility driven.
The moment you have an objective, a goal, the most efficient path to that goal is no longer subject to opinion.

Evolution has made us value predictive power, the ability to assesses action-consequence so as to maneuver the terrain more effectively, but we can adopt new goals ad-hoc, like winning a debate, in which case we can categorize the world in absurde ways and claim it to be just as valid as any other.

But when you have to dig you make a distinction between a tree and the dirt as they would not behave the same when struck by a shovel.

You expect me to believe that you’re typing this post even though everything is 100% interdependent, at 100%, that makes everything exactly the same, which solves as nothing at all.

I’ve stated many times that the universe has to be fragmented to allow discernment of other.

there has to be some degree of objective reality - meaning existing independently of experience - or else you get fucked up by this little dilemma:

two berkeleyeans meet in a bar. one of them drops dead. how does the other berkeleyean and the bar he’s in continue to exist if each of them is/was just an ‘idea’ of the other, now dead berkeleyean?

and don’t say because god continues to perceive them, because that creates a whole nuther set of problems. you don’t wanna go there, believe me.

It’s easy to argue a compatiblist view on both objectivity and subjectivity, and freewill and determinism.

The extremes always solve as zero.

As soon as serendipper understands that through more discourse, we’ll have generated a good thread.