How can one possibly deny Subjectivism?

[Obsidius]

To be clear, this is ASSUMED subjectivism, so no positive claim of "there is no objective truth" is being made, but rather we are talking about one admitting that the only true thing is their perspective on that thing, because any other perspective is not a constituent of theirs. Subjectivism is the philosophical tenet that "our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience". Now, we're not talking extreme forms of subjectivism like Solipsism or a Matrix complex of any kind, but rather a softer permutation of the philosophy, that merely admits agnosticism to any external condition upon the universe; I simply have no idea how someone can claim any objective truth as objective. If you believe in absolutism or objectivism, please present your arguments, and how these "truths" of yours are completely free from your perspective or bias in their veracity.

 

[sprinkles]

To me, a truth that is not actionable is a worthless truth, so being conscious of a perspective alone is not sufficient.

 

[Pionart]

Once you make it true, it is no longer true
True is real, real is existence
Thing exist therefore is not other thing
Yet everything that exist is one

I agree with sprinkles
gotta know how to act

 

[Obsidius]

To me, a truth that is not actionable is a worthless truth, so being conscious of a perspective alone is not sufficient.

Well, for one it isn't worthless, but that's your opinion I guess. Also, your actions are a by-product of your perspective and psychology in general, both are subjective.

- - - Updated - - -

Once you make it true, it is no longer true
True is real, real is existence
Thing exist therefore is not other thing
Yet everything that exist is one

I agree with sprinkles
gotta know how to act

I hope this is a troll haha

 

[Pionart]

I hope this is a troll haha

I was being silly lol but there was at least supposed to be some "deep" insight to it.

Like, saying only our raw experience is unquestionable is saying that all that is true is what we ourselves are experiencing in that moment. So truth is being made synonymous with experience, and the experience only exists relative to the thing that is defined by that experience. However, once you claim that your experience is true, you are stepping outside of the experience. All truth is meaningless in a sense. However, we need to somehow have things we treat as true in order to function. Maybe our experience in the present moment is all we know, but we still have to use what we have learned in order navigate the present. We have to act as if cause and effect is real, even if it technically can never be 'known'.

It's a tricky business and I doubt I'm getting anywhere with this.

 

[sprinkles]

Well, for one it isn't worthless, but that's your opinion I guess. Also, your actions are a by-product of your perspective and psychology in general, both are subjective.

Well tell me the point of it, since you seem to know.

 

[sprinkles]

Also, your actions are a by-product of your perspective and psychology in general, both are subjective.

Additionally, my point is that people are going to act anyway whether they know this or not, and the knowledge doesn't allow us to do anything useful.

So what everything you experience is a subjective hologram or whatever. It's all you've got, so even if you know what it is, you can't do anything with that knowledge and will continue to act on subjective information (unless you decide to not act at all)

 

[Xander]

We operate on best guess, always.

Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

Those who claim certainty are similar to those who claim scientific fact. It's more a misunderstanding of the language than any ideology. Fact is just a way of saying "this is something I consider to be highly likely and I'm relying on it to happen". Other than that, certainly is for fools. Oddly, one of my first threads on INTP central all those many years ago.

 

[Obsidius]

Additionally, my point is that people are going to act anyway whether they know this or not, and the knowledge doesn't allow us to do anything useful.

So what everything you experience is a subjective hologram or whatever. It's all you've got, so even if you know what it is, you can't do anything with that knowledge and will continue to act on subjective information (unless you decide to not act at all)

No one said hologram, again we're not talking solipsism or a matrix complex, and we're not arguing the utility of the idea in question, merely the veracity, so I don't see how this is relevant.

 

[Obsidius]

I was being silly lol but there was at least supposed to be some "deep" insight to it.

Like, saying only our raw experience is unquestionable is saying that all that is true is what we ourselves are experiencing in that moment. So truth is being made synonymous with experience, and the experience only exists relative to the thing that is defined by that experience. However, once you claim that your experience is true, you are stepping outside of the experience. All truth is meaningless in a sense. However, we need to somehow have things we treat as true in order to function. Maybe our experience in the present moment is all we know, but we still have to use what we have learned in order navigate the present. We have to act as if cause and effect is real, even if it technically can never be 'known'.

It's a tricky business and I doubt I'm getting anywhere with this.

Oh, okay yeah now we start getting into epistemology, and you're right, it's very tricky, I'm still not decided upon what is and isn't truth, or if there is any... I guess what I was originally saying was that if there is truth, I doubt it'd be objective. Also, experience HAS to be true, because it is all that there is, experience is reality. Truth is defined by what is most accurate to reality, so you can see where the reasoning goes from there. Now, obviously the contention right there is going to be, well, contentious, because "experience is reality" is something that many feel to be disagreeable, and if you do as well, feel free to raise your point.

 

[Obsidius]

Well tell me the point of it, since you seem to know.

Well, no, I don't know, it's also my opinion that it is not worthless, I mean, it should be axiomatic that what we place "worth" in to begin with is very different. I value ideas in general as very valuable, even ones at variance to mine, and the ones that seem to be of pure theory rather than pragmatism. You place worth in pragmatism, I don't personally care for it all that much, that's a difference in opinion, know knowledge or persuasion is going to change that.

 

[sprinkles]

No one said hologram, again we're not talking solipsism or a matrix complex, and we're not arguing the utility of the idea in question, merely the veracity, so I don't see how this is relevant.

I said "or whatever" which means it was only an example.

You weren't arguing utility, but I have been since my first post and you still haven't managed to tell me why it's important.

Veracity is a foregone conclusion as far as I'm concerned so it's not really worth it to discuss. And I've seen this topic done probably hundreds of times anyway.

 

[Obsidius]

I said "or whatever" which means it was only an example.

You weren't arguing utility, but I have been since my first post and you still haven't managed to tell me why it's important.

Veracity is a foregone conclusion as far as I'm concerned so it's not really worth it to discuss. And I've seen this topic done probably hundreds of times anyway.

Well, then it is basically just derailing. The purpose of the thread was to talk about the veracity of objectivism, absolutism or subjectivism in any context, not the utility of any of them. But if you want to argue utility, you can start your own thread.

 

[sprinkles]

Well, then it is basically just derailing. The purpose of the thread was to talk about the veracity of objectivism, absolutism or subjectivism in any context, not the utility of any of them. But if you want to argue utility, you can start your own thread.

There's hardly any room to discuss veracity, especially in the context which you've put it.
As you said, how can anyone possibly deny it? You're essentially asking someone to do what you think is impossible already.

 

[violet_crown]

We operate on best guess, always.



Those who claim certainty are similar to those who claim scientific fact. It's more a misunderstanding of the language than any ideology. Fact is just a way of saying "this is something I consider to be highly likely and I'm relying on it to happen". Other than that, certainly is for fools. Oddly, one of my first threads on INTP central all those many years ago.

So all that bitching about the dearth of compelling intellectual discourse, and the first thread that seems to meet your criteria for subjects worthy of your time is someone fresh out of Philo 101 asking, "Can we really even opinion?"

Noted.

 

[Pionart]

Oh, okay yeah now we start getting into epistemology, and you're right, it's very tricky, I'm still not decided upon what is and isn't truth, or if there is any... I guess what I was originally saying was that if there is truth, I doubt it'd be objective. Also, experience HAS to be true, because it is all that there is, experience is reality. Truth is defined by what is most accurate to reality, so you can see where the reasoning goes from there. Now, obviously the contention right there is going to be, well, contentious, because "experience is reality" is something that many feel to be disagreeable, and if you do as well, feel free to raise your point.

Well, to me, objective has a particular meaning... it is something that links subjects together. So, if something can come into both yours and my experience, it is an object.

Consider the colour red. I can see red, you can see red. Red is objective. Red is real, red is true. But, does red have any experience? Well, red is the experience. But wait. Do I have any experience? No, I am the experience.

So we haven't found anything which exists outside of experience, or isn't itself experience. However there's something not quite right about the fact that your mind is not really experienced by me, yet still exists beyond my experience of it. What existence does your mind have to me? I cannot experience it but it is there... hidden. Existence is relative, but surely existence is also absolute? Surely your mind exists whether I know it or not?

The truth is hidden from our experience, for there is a world that we do not know. There are things that are hidden to me, you, and all people and all of the entire universe. Yet it exists. Other dimensions unexplored, where all we know breaks down, where all law and truth is ripped apart in a screaming vortex. Clouds of aether expanding beyond the reaches of space and time, with a million different colours, and a harmony that cannot be dreamt.

 

[sprinkles]

Well, to me, objective has a particular meaning... it is something that links subjects together. So, if something can come into both yours and my experience, it is an object.

Consider the colour red. I can see red, you can see red. Red is objective. Red is real, red is true. But, does red have any experience? Well, red is the experience. But wait. Do I have any experience? No, I am the experience.

So we haven't found anything which exists outside of experience, or isn't itself experience. However there's something not quite right about the fact that your mind is not really experienced by me, yet still exists beyond my experience of it. What existence does your mind have to me? I cannot experience it but it is there... hidden. Existence is relative, but surely existence is also absolute? Surely your mind exists whether I know it or not?

The truth is hidden from our experience, for there is a world that we do not know. There are things that are hidden to me, you, and all people and all of the entire universe. Yet it exists. Other dimensions unexplored, where all we know breaks down, where all law and truth is ripped apart in a screaming vortex. Clouds of aether expanding beyond the reaches of space and time, with a million different colours, and a harmony that cannot be dreamt.

There may (or may not) be things that exist but we as humans cannot be truly objective about the perception of things because perception is necessarily subjective always.

Things can seem really very real and solid and we feel we can make predictions upon certain things but in the truest and most literal sense of objective, we are not it. For us we have approximation through subjective experience, and when we say we're trying to be objective about something it is really just a useful fiction that only means we're attempting to be as empirical as we can.

 

[Pionart]

There may (or may not) be things that exist but we as humans cannot be truly objective about the perception of things because perception is necessarily subjective always.

Things can seem really very real and solid and we feel we can make predictions upon certain things but in the truest and most literal sense of objective, we are not it. For us we have approximation through subjective experience, and when we say we're trying to be objective about something it is really just a useful fiction that only means we're attempting to be as empirical as we can.

We as humans... and what of other beings? What would it take to be objective?

 

[Bush]

Subjectivism's just not true in my experience.

To me, a truth that is not actionable is a worthless truth, so being conscious of a perspective alone is not sufficient.

This. I tend to view truth is a tool; a means to an end.

 

[sprinkles]

We as humans... and what of other beings? What would it take to be objective?

It would take perfect knowledge without perspectives. It would take knowing perfect and exact truths from every possible angle with zero distortion or personal interpretation.