User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 58

  1. #31
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Theory: Objectivism vs. Relativism

    Gads, what a scary, rigid dichotomy to be forced to consider a choice between.

  2. #32
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heart View Post
    Theory: Objectivism vs. Relativism

    Gads, what a scary, rigid dichotomy to be forced to consider a choice between.
    Well this is the summary of the conclusion we have finally tentatively agreed upon.

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...47-post25.html
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  3. #33
    Rats off to ya! Mort Belfry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    I admit having come late to this thread, but to throw my oar in I'll say that I value Objectivism over Relativism.

    That isn't to say that I practise it exclusively but I don't think anybody does. Like most I believe in an objective reality, but I believe we are so far away from it in our tiny miniscule perceptions. Every so often somebody will come along and chip away a chunk of objectivism, like Albert Einstein and his ironically titled, Theory of Relativity, but these people are few and far between.

    I always try to be objective as possible, but I only have the same brand of brain as every other schmoe on this hurtling rock. The same brain that has evolved over time to meet standards of relativism to survive. Objectivism doesn't help you survive. In fact people that have put objectivism over relativism have been put in danger over the centuries. For example, Galileo.

    I'm proud to say I don't have a social conscious, but even to assert that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm spreading objectivism. I could just be being destructively anti-relativism of which I know I have at times been guilty.

    I can't see any holes in your conclusion, Kiddo, but staring into the wide encapsulating eyes of your avatar often leaves me without rebuttal.
    Why do we always come here?

    I guess we'll never know.

    It's like a kind of torture,
    To have to watch this show.

  4. #34
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mort Belfry View Post
    I admit having come late to this thread, but to throw my oar in I'll say that I value Objectivism over Relativism.

    That isn't to say that I practise it exclusively but I don't think anybody does. Like most I believe in an objective reality, but I believe we are so far away from it in our tiny miniscule perceptions. Every so often somebody will come along and chip away a chunk of objectivism, like Albert Einstein and his ironically titled, Theory of Relativity, but these people are few and far between.

    I always try to be objective as possible, but I only have the same brand of brain as every other schmoe on this hurtling rock. The same brain that has evolved over time to meet standards of relativism to survive. Objectivism doesn't help you survive. In fact people that have put objectivism over relativism have been put in danger over the centuries. For example, Galileo.

    I'm proud to say I don't have a social conscious, but even to assert that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm spreading objectivism. I could just be being destructively anti-relativism of which I know I have at times been guilty.

    I can't see any holes in your conclusion, Kiddo, but staring into the wide encapsulating eyes of your avatar often leaves me without rebuttal.
    Actually it could be argued that Galileo was also a relativist. He went against what was considered the objective truth of the time, the church. It's easy to assume that he is an objectivist because he tried to understand the universe as it is, but it's far more obvious that he was a balance of the two. Somebody who would challenge the universal truth of the time, while looking for new universal truths about the nature of the universe.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    Zzzz
    Posts
    2,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kido
    6. Every individual experiences the relative reality differently
    I hate to jump in so late too but here's a tiny spin on it. So, I agree it's both objectivism and relativism. I believe in the collective consciousness stated as by Jung.

    Specific and similiar experiences have been documented whether in writing or on tablets reaching thousands of years ago all over the world. Certain 'figures' or archetypes which seem similiar but with a different spin. Why? Well, an Indian who had mostly cows around them will find cows more sacred than an Kenyan who sees leopards all the time and then considers that sacred or an Native American who thinks the 'beaver spirit' animal is sacred. So, use that for religion. Similiarites in holy texts (they pretty much stole/adopted at a later point but not in the beginning...I digress...) but different 'beings' who are important to the society at hand.

    Incubus/Succubus/Old Hag myths which is really something now known as Sleep Paralysis. They had different names throughout all of human history but they described the exact same 'sensations'/hallucinatory visions both auditory/visual. It's been in literature from as far as ancient China and Greece to later eras with Romeo and Juliet to Moby Dick and so on to this day. They called it 'demons' 'devils' because it was perceived as real fear/threat to them, especially as they were afraid of darkness. (a lot of dichotimies can be explained that way. dark vs light = evil vs good.). Today, we're not really afraid of the dark b/c of artificial light.

    So, it's changed now. With the advent of horror movies and 'alien' movies, now people describe the same Sleep Paralysis symptoms except now they say it's "aliens" abducting them etc. Archetypes/fears change over time as we adopt new fears or suspicions.

    Now that we have access to more 'knowledge' and have become more objective we are less affected by it but by no means can they stop perceiving relatively. It's just new objective information perceived them. A math prof might have dreams now of numbers instead of a lepprechaun etc

    So our collective experiences evolve over time continously and we adapt and adopt them. Hope I made some semblance of sense as I rushed this. I went way more in depth on another thread.

  6. #36
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeliriousDisposition View Post
    So our collective experiences evolve over time continously and we adapt and adopt them. Hope I made some semblance of sense as I rushed this...
    Sure... and it is the same thing that Sagan suggested in "The Demon-Haunted World." So it's not like you are alone on this.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    Zzzz
    Posts
    2,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Sure... and it is the same thing that Sagan suggested in "The Demon-Haunted World." So it's not like you are alone on this.
    Thanks, I'd never heard of him but I'm interested in his work now! lol Though, I'm saddened he passed away as research on Sleep Paralysis is a mostly new one by scientific standards (10-15-20 years, I think) but it's come to a point where info is accessible to the public. Especially online, though not all info is valid...

    One researcher is a prof at my former university who has been undertaking a study on Sleep Paralysis for which I participated about 2-3 years from age 15. I know from intense personal experience how SP can induce people to believe in w/e they see. I've seen 'demons' to 'goblins' to 'handsome men' to "aliens", had prodding to poking to fucking to 'pulling me out' and taking me away to 'places'. Not all was horrific, some were unspeakably beautiful and led to other insightful experiences.

    It's one of the reasons I believe in the 'collective conciousness' as when an SP sufferer 'awakens' (during REM dubbed REM HHE/Hypnagogic + Hypnopompic Experiences) the person is 100% conscious. All from vivid visual/auditory/sensate hallucinations to simply lying in bed with eyes open and without incident.

    There is far too much information on such occurances to write off or as to absolutely define with confidence what humans experience or understand just yet. We'll keep evolving and adopting and adapting so long as we sustain reign on this planet (unless wiped out..). We are at a point where knowledge + science coupled with openmindness can explore and recover the roots of ancient understandings on topics such as religion. Explain why it is not only unnecessary but completely destructive and catastrophic to our society in this new era.

    Objectivism will offer concrete explanations or theories and relativitism will distort them if not handled delicately and led astray by The Great Mob Mentality--- of whichever group deigns to speak the loudest yet again.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Rohsiph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    lego
    Posts
    100

    Default

    I challenge

    5. The only reality that has meaning to humans is the relative one, since if we did not exist, there would be no one to percieve the objective one. Whereas the relative reality would cease to exist with us.
    on the basis that speculative inquiry, particularly following philosophical principles, into the nature of objective reality is a meaningful pursuit for humans.

    Granted, such inquiry will be made largely through the relative perceptions & individual experience-influenced mental faculties of philosophers, I assert that it is wrong to say "the only reality that has meaning to humans is the relative one."

    I see relativism-enabling philosophies to be extremely limiting--in and of how they necessarily run away from pursuing the critical "Truth" that is at the heart of what "Philosophy" necessarily tries to discover.

    That said, relativistic measures outside of philosophy are both useful and necessary. In the day-to-day, we live with individual values fed by opinions and subjective perceptions of the things we come into contact with (both internally and externally). This is to say I don't mean to discredit all relativity, and in fact have a great appreciation for what is necessarily relative in human existence, but that I have trouble understanding how one can find strength in applying relativism to, particularly, epistemology, and also, although less so, to metaphysics.

  9. #39
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rohsiph View Post
    I challenge



    on the basis that speculative inquiry, particularly following philosophical principles, into the nature of objective reality is a meaningful pursuit for humans.

    Granted, such inquiry will be made largely through the relative perceptions & individual experience-influenced mental faculties of philosophers, I assert that it is wrong to say "the only reality that has meaning to humans is the relative one."

    I see relativism-enabling philosophies to be extremely limiting--in and of how they necessarily run away from pursuing the critical "Truth" that is at the heart of what "Philosophy" necessarily tries to discover.

    That said, relativistic measures outside of philosophy are both useful and necessary. In the day-to-day, we live with individual values fed by opinions and subjective perceptions of the things we come into contact with (both internally and externally). This is to say I don't mean to discredit all relativity, and in fact have a great appreciation for what is necessarily relative in human existence, but that I have trouble understanding how one can find strength in applying relativism to, particularly, epistemology, and also, although less so, to metaphysics.
    We can only percieve the objective universe through relative means. It isn't just "largely based" but completely. There are no perceptions we can make outside of our relatively defined objective measures or our relative perceptions. Our entire conception of reality is in our heads, as a result of relative perceptions of the universe that come from relative sensory experiences. We have no picture of objective reality outside of our relative reality.

    Now why do I attribute having "no picture" as being meaningless. What does color mean to a person who was born blind? What does sound mean to a person who was born completely deaf? They have never experienced these relative sensory experiences, therefore they have no perception of them. They are meaningless concepts to them, because they don't exist within their relative reality.

    And that is largely what I meant by saying that objective reality is meaningless to us. We can't percieve the objective reality, only the relative one. Understanding our relative reality is extremely important, because it is based on objective realty, but objective reality exists completely outside our conception and therefore has no meaning for us.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  10. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rohsiph View Post
    [...] I have trouble understanding how one can find strength in applying relativism to, particularly, epistemology, and also, although less so, to metaphysics.
    If we define "true knowledge" as those things we believe that are objectively true, then true knowledge is both true and a belief we hold. Hopefully, you see that as a tautology.

    What do we know to be true knowledge?

    We can claim that logic and mathematics fit this category, but we know that such systems are always founded on some axioms or postulates that have to be accepted without proof.

    It is certainly true that there are more things that are true than can be proven. However, the more I study the foundations of logic and mathematics, the more it seems true that the intuitionists were right.

    Granted, the mental constructs can be (and often are) targeted towards understanding the "deep nature of existence," but the success largely depends on proper choice of axioms to model reality.

    What about science?
    First off, almost every scientist knows that scientific laws cannot be "proven," or "justified," but only have mounting evidence in its favor.

    What about the "existence" of scientific phenomenon? It is true that DNA exists, we've seen examples of it in high power microscopes. It is true that atoms exist, we've seen them with Atomic Force Microscopy).

    So this is only a short hop from the existence of more easily accessible reality.

    What about the existence of things in easily accessible reality? The chair I am siting on, the keyboard, I am typing on, etc.

    To me these are the existence of these things are what I have the most confidence in being actually true. I don't believe they go away when I stop perceiving them.

    Still, I have yet to see an argument asserting the existence of the material world that doesn't beg the question. To some people, these things are actually illusions. Some people claim to be nihilists, and such arguments fail, for who they claim to be. (There is a case to be made for the idealist view point, in that most objects are actually composed of smaller objects (and space) and that the object itself is not that object without a perceiver. Would a chair be a chair to a gaseous entity that only interacts by absorbing and decomposing matter? For some idealists, at the base of these decompositions rests "mind" only, but that is another long discussion)

    Consider a statement of the form:
    "It is true that my belief, A, is objectively true."

    Has anyone ever proved such a statement true?

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

Similar Threads

  1. Elfboy's theory on the Light Worker, the Dark Worker and Objectivism
    By Elfboy in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: 03-28-2013, 02:29 PM
  2. altruism vs objectivism and type
    By INTP in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-25-2012, 02:46 AM
  3. [NT] Theory vs application, overcoming analysis paralysis?
    By ObliviousExistence in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-29-2010, 03:31 PM
  4. Hyperfocus and the hunter vs. farmer theory.
    By ajblaise in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-27-2009, 11:06 AM
  5. Type Theory vs. Temperament Theory
    By proteanmix in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-19-2007, 10:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO