The end of the subjectivity debate

And according to you, existence is pure imagination.

Nah.
The above is common sense but not philosophically true.

The point is the object and subject co-exists and co-create reality that enable reality-as-it-is to emerge spontaneously.
Here is on example of spontaneous emergence - Einstein Mask in 3D;
youtube.com/watch?v=ORoTCBrCKIQ

To insist the common sense perspective is the truth or absolute truth is purely due to one’s psychology.
Note Hume’s explanation that the common sense of causation, i.e. cause and effect [that one marble caused the other to move] is due to psychological based on habits, customs and constant conjunctions.

You’re still not understanding that I don’t consider subjects to necessarily have minds (nor that “mind” is anything specific to animals). The dead bodies are still subjects, the atoms are subjects, the opposite sides of the closet are subject to each other.

An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively ‘ruling out’ all but one possibility), can actually change the measured result. A particularly famous example is the 1998 Weizmann experiment.[1] Despite the “observer” in this experiment being an electronic detector—possibly due to the assumption that the word “observer” implies a person—its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[2] The need for the “observer” to be conscious has been rejected by mainstream science as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process,[3][4][5] apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics

And I can simply say, “that’s just subjective”, using your own logic.

What about Descartes demon?

A being more powerful than all of us who just controls matter to make you believe (and countless others) what they believe?

In a subjective universe, Descartes demon can easily describe the subjectivity of your proof for your belief here. That doesn’t rule out objectivity.

Right it’s subject to the logic.

That would be the Brahman in Hinduism: the player of all the parts.

I’m not ruling out objectivity except in terms of logic as I understand it.

Hey Ecmandu

The Sky is red, all squares are circles and my pet elephant wrote this message!
Do you think you can prove me wrong?
Well you can’t…

Let me show you how this sausage is made:
I’ve defined red to mean blue, circle to mean any object subject with 4 corners and I call myself “my pet elephant”

You can’t win a language game… it produces only losers.

Language is like a finger pointing at the moon.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM4n1Jntqw0[/youtube]

Nah, that’s just like solving a crypto quiz in th paper.
Once the substitution is known, it’s still easy to communicate. That’s why on this board, we make people define their terms in really technical arguments. Instead of assuming we’re all using the same definitions.

“So you’re linguistic token for blue is red, ok, let’s assume that and go from there”

I wish that were true.
Enjoy your game.

Much more devastating than that problem is this problem:

“Well, I guess we just agree to disagree”

This is what subjectivists are doing:

Well it’s only subjective that everyone on earth needs to drink water when they’re thirsty, to survive a maximum of two weeks.

If everyone NEEDS to do it, it’s not subjective, but rather, objective!

“Well, I don’t need to drink water to not die of dehydration” (as they’re drinking water in front of you)

“It’s just subjective that you think you’re seeing me drink water right now, I’m really not”

So… there’s a meta analysis of this:

Men need to conspicuously consume rationality to appear fit sexually to a female.

Females don’t have a motive for self contradiction, they are evil just for evils own sake. You probably could assign a motive, that females don’t want to be caught for being so evil, so they gravitate to self contradiction (subjectivity) for that reason.

The short of it is, this behavior can all be explained on a meta level, objectively.

What if you’re stuck in a conversation with a someone too prideful or stubborn to ever admit to any fault… or an idiot?

You have to educate everyone on what it means to assert dominance so that self contradictory people feel self conscious. This era is the renaissance of self contradiction because of the feminist movement.

That’s why we have to go through these inane discussions, because self contradiction, cannibalizing rationality is the ornate mating behavior in this species.

They’re not debating to get to the truth, they’re debating to get laid. Higher stakes for most men.

I want to back up a bit, that may have been unclear.

I’m not against women’s liberation. However, in stating that, as we moved forward with womens liberation, the biggest problem with women was never voiced, (while we’ve all been told the problems with men) and because of this, we have effectively destroyed the earth.

Women look specifically for self refutation as a sign that a male is more fit.

Had we addressed that globally, we wouldn’t be in this shitstorm right now.

Female sexuality fractures community. Community is dependent upon non contradiction.

That’s what I meant to say …

Now, in saying that, males are responsible for their acting out just as females are for only picking those males.

If you know about afterlives as I do, and you look deeply into this problem, you realize that almost everyone dropped the ball here, so, it’s prudent if you care about others, to develop systems that bypass the sin here… I.e. Hyperdimensional mirror realities

Btw, I would NOT claim to be a subjectivist inclined to subjectivism.

Note;

There is no Yin without Yang within reality-as-it-is.
Just the same as there is no subjectivity without objectivity and vice-versa.
Thus I am not a pure subjectivist but rather a subjectivist-objectivist in complementariness.

The glue that reconcile the two dichotomy subjectivist versus objectivist is Critical Philosophy.

Kant was once a hardcore rationalist [reason prevails over all] until he encountered Hume as a hard core empiricist [experience prevails over all] which then awoke him from his dogmatic slumber stuck to reason alone.
After his 10 years of dogmatic slumber Kant awoke to reconcile the dichotomy with Critical Philosophy and reconciled the “is” and “ought”.

It took Kant [one of the greatest W philosophers of all times] 10 years and I took 3+ years full time to understand Kant. Most are stuck in the default of objectivity prevails and it is not easy to get out of the default [due to initial].

Note Kant [para rearranged, edited],

It takes a lot of hard work to free oneself from the illusion because the default is so instinctual and ingrained via 3 billion to 6 million of evolutionary solidification.

In any initiation attempt, one will be blasted with initial, cognitive dissonance, activated defense mechanism and pains and thus one will normally fall back to where one is comfortable.

This is the correct postion to hold rather than simply claiming one to the total exclusion of the other one
As everyone is a subjectivist / objectivist regardless of how they personally choose to describe themselves

Bingo

The subjectivists prefer to describe things from a first person perspective and the objectivists describe it from a 3rd person perspective.
But they are describing the same damned things… and then arguing about who can describe it better.

It can be pretty fun to watch though :stuck_out_tongue:

The subjectivist says murder is often wrong, subject to specifics of situations.
The objectivist says murder is always wrong, subject to nothing; it just is.

How is that a 3rd person perspective?

Moral relativity and moral absolute is not the same damn thing anymore than Newtonian Physics and Relativity is the same damn thing.

Murder in self defense in any country on earth is legal.

Nobody really believe in “turn the other cheek”

“Oh, you really want to fuck me in the ass, with an aids dick? Ok, I’ll turn the other cheek”

Nobody believes that shit.

They are just expressing their personal opinion…

Those opinion are NOT logically NECESSARY as a consequence of being an objectivist or subjectivist.

You are no less an objectivist if you said “murder is only wrong sometimes, depending on the situation”
You are no less a subjectivist if you said “Murder is always wrong, when subject to my judgement”