User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 57

  1. #31
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

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

  2. #32
    Junior Member spy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    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. #33
    Senior Member NewEra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    I
    Posts
    3,104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    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. #34
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    Ehm...

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

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

  5. #35
    @.~*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 TheChosenOne View Post
    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.
    "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

  6. #36
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spy View Post
    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
    This is an elegant reply.

    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. #37
    deleted
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    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. #38
    Senior Member Desperado44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    471

    Default

    Pick up the book The Art of Possibility by Benjamin Zander
    I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel. --- Maya Angelou

  9. #39
    Senior Member Uytuun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    nnnn
    Posts
    1,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spy View Post
    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. #40
    deleted
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uytuun View Post
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-21-2013, 09:37 PM
  2. Replies: 96
    Last Post: 10-23-2012, 09:41 AM
  3. Replies: 69
    Last Post: 05-22-2012, 05:01 PM
  4. Just realized my Se is real weak.
    By Illmatic in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-18-2011, 02:43 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