Idk, you’ll have to get phyllo’s opinion on whether he thinks all human thoughts are subjective.
I don’t see how this is confusing…
If it’s an opinion that “murder is only wrong sometimes, depending on the situation”, then how does that make one an objectivist?
How can I be an absolutist because I’m a relativist? Makes no sense.
All you’re committed to believing as an objectivist, is that an objective reality exists. It’s not necessary to also believe you have an unerring understanding of that reality.
No objectivist would merely hold that all things are relative except for the one thing that he cannot see. That’s not a practical definition, although technically correct.
But then again your definitions of “subjective” and “objective” are fairly uncommon. So let’s not let semantics confuse us.
Appeal to popularity. Why should mediocre intelligence dictate how words should be defined? Who cares how people prefer to colloquially define words, especially if those definitions overlap and have blurry boundaries. When I define categories, I like mutually exclusive definitions with well-defined boundaries.
For instance:
Communism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps 100% of profits
Fascism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits
Socialism - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits
Capitalism - gov controls 0% of means of production and keeps 0% of profits.
Everything is clearly defined and nothing overlaps.
But colloquially, people want capitalism to mean “gov regulates some arbitrary % of industry, subject to who you ask, and taxes only moderately, again subject to who you ask, but otherwise a free market.” So that when they finish defining their word, we don’t know anymore than before.
Or how to define perception, awareness, consciousness.
Perception - interception of information
Awareness - perception of perception - the interception of information that information has been intercepted.
Consciousness - perception of awareness.
I don’t care how words are defined, so long as they are mutually exclusive with definite boundaries. I don’t want “awareness” to be another flavor of “consciousness” or have “capitalism” conflated with “socialism” because it just leads to confusion.
I am not using YOUR definitions… I’m using those words as defined historically.
Historically defined = arbitrarily defined.
I’m not sure HOW to use your definitions…
It seems to me the only thing you would call “objective” is something “unconditionally real”…
Which would mean only the force or forces that are universal and eternal would qualify as “objective”… everything else is “subject” to certain conditions.
So anything conditional like “murder is wrong, depending on the situation” would make it “subject” to the conditions.
Even temporal things, like “on august 3rd 1992 it rained somewhere on planet earth” is subject to that specific date as well as subject to there being a planet earth etc.am I getting this right?
Yes you have it. Woot!