# Thread: I just realized that everything is subjective... what a mess.

1. Originally Posted by ygolo
Anyway. I guess we're off-topic a bit.
Yes, we are. The differing math models aren't what we mean by 'subjectivity.'

2. Originally Posted by Athenian200
I was just thinking about how many people believe that it is possible to know something in a objective manner. However, this is not true, not even of perceptions. Everything we can know or express to ourselves inherently has a subjective element, because it is processed through subjective filters.

An example many people use to show that we can have objective knowledge is the mathematical notion that 2+2=4. However, this formulation is in fact subjective in several ways. First, it assumes that the person is using decimal, standard mathematical notation, and agrees on the meaning of each number. For instance, just by switching to quaternary, I could make 2+2=10. Now the person might argue that this is actually the same answer because you can acheive the same result with physical objects. But this is also subjective, because you would first have to agree on what should be defined as an object. With what we consider to be two books, we have to agree that it is the set of pages, ink, ideas, atoms, etc, that we have somehow defined as a book, separately from it's surrounding environment. Also, the idea of counting does not change anything about the books, it simply is part of how we define our perception of them. The idea that the two books are independent entities is part of a limitation in how human beings process reality. Truthfully, we cannot say that anything exists outside of our perception of it. Everything that we can communicate is based on a shared set of assumptions and rules for processing things that we somehow accrue over the course of our lives. Even this communication is entirely subjective, based on my perception of reality, language, and logic.

Even if we assumed that things that we perceive exist outside our perception, we still must acknowledge that we only comprehend something by superimposing a subjective impression onto it, and examining that. For instance, if our understanding is correct, what we call "red" exists in nature, but only as a material that reflects light particles within a certain band of the electromagnetic spectrum. To a being that perceived the electromagnetic spectrum differently, we would be able to explain "red" to them, but they might not understand what that particular perception really means to us, because what "red" means to us has more to do with the subjective impression it makes on us, rather than how light particles respond to it.

So how can anything truly be objective? It can't. Why do some people claim that they can say something objectively, when all knowledge is subjective?

What does this mean?

it is a pleasure to post my first reply in a topic such that topic

your general idea is talking about " there is no true "

you believe in this sentence , so it is a true for you

but we must apply our rule on it , that is " there is no true " to prove it

so , we must prove that , this sentence contains error

by applying our rule on our truth , we Conclude that

there is a true

on the worst conditions to prove your rule

3. Originally Posted by Athenian200
I was just thinking about how many people believe that it is possible to know something in a objective manner. However, this is not true, not even of perceptions. Everything we can know or express to ourselves inherently has a subjective element, because it is processed through subjective filters.

An example many people use to show that we can have objective knowledge is the mathematical notion that 2+2=4. However, this formulation is in fact subjective in several ways. First, it assumes that the person is using decimal, standard mathematical notation, and agrees on the meaning of each number. For instance, just by switching to quaternary, I could make 2+2=10. Now the person might argue that this is actually the same answer because you can acheive the same result with physical objects. But this is also subjective, because you would first have to agree on what should be defined as an object. With what we consider to be two books, we have to agree that it is the set of pages, ink, ideas, atoms, etc, that we have somehow defined as a book, separately from it's surrounding environment. Also, the idea of counting does not change anything about the books, it simply is part of how we define our perception of them. The idea that the two books are independent entities is part of a limitation in how human beings process reality. Truthfully, we cannot say that anything exists outside of our perception of it. Everything that we can communicate is based on a shared set of assumptions and rules for processing things that we somehow accrue over the course of our lives. Even this communication is entirely subjective, based on my perception of reality, language, and logic.

Even if we assumed that things that we perceive exist outside our perception, we still must acknowledge that we only comprehend something by superimposing a subjective impression onto it, and examining that. For instance, if our understanding is correct, what we call "red" exists in nature, but only as a material that reflects light particles within a certain band of the electromagnetic spectrum. To a being that perceived the electromagnetic spectrum differently, we would be able to explain "red" to them, but they might not understand what that particular perception really means to us, because what "red" means to us has more to do with the subjective impression it makes on us, rather than how light particles respond to it.

So how can anything truly be objective? It can't. Why do some people claim that they can say something objectively, when all knowledge is subjective?

What does this mean?
The 2+2 example you gave is not a good one, because obviously it depends what type of calculation you're performing it in. Not everything is subjective, there are many objective things, for example - humans are mammals. Mammals have certain characteristics, and animals are grouped into different categories, mammals being one of them.

Now of course there are some things which are subjective, but saying that everything is subjective is just not right.

4. Ehm...

If everything is subjective, so is our understanding towards it.

The way I see it..
Everything is relative. We are subjective.

5. Originally Posted by TheChosenOne
The 2+2 example you gave is not a good one, because obviously it depends what type of calculation you're performing it in. Not everything is subjective, there are many objective things, for example - humans are mammals. Mammals have certain characteristics, and animals are grouped into different categories, mammals being one of them.
Well, actually, the categories are subjective -- they just happen to subjectively group together objective/observable details.

6. Originally Posted by spy
it is a pleasure to post my first reply in a topic such that topic

your general idea is talking about " there is no true "

you believe in this sentence , so it is a true for you

but we must apply our rule on it , that is " there is no true " to prove it

so , we must prove that , this sentence contains error

by applying our rule on our truth , we Conclude that

there is a true

on the worst conditions to prove your rule

All I can add is that the statement, "everything is subjective", has a political dimension.

In that the statement underlies relativism.

And in particular the statement underlies cultural relativism.

And cultural relativism leads us to, "moral equivalence".

And the moral equivalence argument was used against us in the Cold War, and is being used against us today in the global Jihad.

It's interesting that the statement, "everything is subjective", appeals to Western narcissists, and is used but not believed, by a political religion..

7. You're correct when you say everything in subjective, but wrong when you say there is no objective.

See, we create the objective. The objective IS subjective. When given a simple set of commonalities we are able to create the objective through pure relativity. I read everything you said, but that is all I can say right now. I'll have to explore this thought.

I can share with you this one belief. We can not truly know anything. Or maybe its just me.

8. Pick up the book The Art of Possibility by Benjamin Zander

9. Originally Posted by spy
it is a pleasure to post my first reply in a topic such that topic

your general idea is talking about " there is no true "

you believe in this sentence , so it is a true for you

but we must apply our rule on it , that is " there is no true " to prove it

so , we must prove that , this sentence contains error

by applying our rule on our truth , we Conclude that

there is a true

on the worst conditions to prove your rule
And your truth is that there is no truth.

There is only contradiction. Contra - dicere...an everlasting dialogue of irony and inconsistency that spirals upward level after level after level. This is where I am at right now. The absoluteness of the relative. The only logical principle that I can see is the absence thereof, the contradiction.

10. Originally Posted by Uytuun
And your truth is that there is no truth.

There is only contradiction. Contra - dicere...an everlasting dialogue of irony and inconsistency that spirals upward level after level after level. This is where I am stuck at right now.
It is simple, like four words: I have no words.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•