How can one possibly deny Subjectivism?

[jixmixfix]

Actually no one knows if gravity exists because know one knows what existence is.

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

That doesn't make any sense.

You're assumption is that your experience is existence but there is not veracity in that claim that can be confirmed. There is no definition of existence which isn't circular and doesn't break itself. Just look at it in big picture terms instead of getting lost in a mire of miopia...

What is existence? Do you know? No you don't...you define existence as your experience but does our experience indicate existence? That's an unprovable thing if you define existence as that which is real. But what is real? The tangible corporal moving body beneath our feet? Is that real? Relative to what? Relative to us the earth is a longer lasting system before it crumbles and folds into oblivion, so then we are still stuck in subjectivity...defining that which is real which is felt or touched is as ludacriss as saying reality is pigeon farts.

It's meaningless really. Meaning has to come from within. We will never know what is real or what exists...just what works and you define what works as what is real which is circular...do you see? We feel there is something which exists and we define it according to our subjective objective measurements but we are still being superstitious as we can never achieve a definition of something we can only feel the presence of but which occupies a space beyond our perceptions.

 

[Blank]

It is not pointless, because people fail to realise their subjectivity, or the subjective nature of the Universe. They hold fast to this notion that there are these fundamental absolutes throughout reality, which needs challenging.

Can you challenge it though? You yourself just admitted that might makes right and that subjectivism can have no claim on authority. Am I mistaken?

Do people have views? Sure. Can they challenge the establishment with their own views? If they have the power to do so, yeah, sure. But this doesn't really lend any credence to the veracity of subjectivism, does it?

 

[jixmixfix]

You're assumption is that your experience is existence but there is not veracity in that claim that can be confirmed. There is no definition of existence which isn't circular and doesn't break itself. Just look at it in big picture terms instead of getting lost in a mire of miopia...

What is existence? Do you know? No you don't...you define existence as your experience but does our experience indicate existence? That's an unprovable thing if you define existence as that which is real. But what is real? The tangible corporal moving body beneath our feet? Is that real? Relative to what? Relative to us the earth is a longer lasting system before it crumbles and folds into oblivion, so then we are still stuck in subjectivity...defining that which is real which is felt or touched is as ludacriss as saying reality is pigeon farts.

It's meaningless really. Meaning has to come from within. We will never know what is real or what exists...just what works and you define what works as what is real which is circular...do you see? We feel there is something which exists and we define it according to our subjective objective measurements but we are still being superstitious as we can never achieve a definition of something we can only feel the presence of but which occupies a space beyond our perceptions.

Yes Existence is the reality that exists around us and within us, it is our thoughts and how they connect with the outside world. We know things exist because we experience them we know they exist outside of ourselves our brain is merely a filter trying to make sense of it all our brain will never tell us the bigger picture it will only give us a piece.

 

[Obsidius]

Can you challenge it though? You yourself just admitted that might makes right and that subjectivism can have no claim on authority. Am I mistaken?

Do people have views? Sure. Can they challenge the establishment with their own views? If they have the power to do so, yeah, sure. But this doesn't really lend any credence to the veracity of subjectivism, does it?

For starters, I never said "might makes right", in fact, all I said was that authority CAN institute what they will, doesn't make it right to us that have to follow it. I can still disagree with the "might's" policies, but I still need to follow it in order to avoid its wrath. Also, the veracity of subjectivism was argued before hand, this argument was challenging your suggested implications, which weren't relevant and I highlighted this before I have the response.

 

[sprinkles]

Well this is going as well as I figured it would.
[MENTION=23832]Obsidius[/MENTION] I wasn't trying to shut you down with my arguments, it's just that I predicted every response that has happened so far so to me it feels futile. The proof is here - everything has gone exactly as I expected.

But maybe there is still value in you or others exploring the idea? I don't know. I guess I'll take my leave. Just wanted to note that the very reason I'm not enthusiastic about topics like these has come to pass in a meta-illustration of what I see as pointlessness.

Edit:
And the reason I predicted this is through lots of experience trying the same thing you are.

 

[Obsidius]

Well this is going as well as I figured it would.
[MENTION=23832]Obsidius[/MENTION] I wasn't trying to shut you down with my arguments, it's just that I predicted every response that has happened so far so to me it feels futile. The proof is here - everything has gone exactly as I expected.

But maybe there is still value in you or others exploring the idea? I don't know. I guess I'll take my leave. Just wanted to note that the very reason I'm not enthusiastic about topics like these has come to pass in a meta-illustration of what I see as pointlessness.

Edit:
And the reason I predicted this is through lots of experience trying the same thing you are.

Right, and after all this experience you still haven't offered a refutation? Or admitting the veracity of what anyone has said? But that's fine, you're playing the same card a lot of people do at the end of an argument, the whole "just as I predicted, you've blah blah blahed", but all good, glad you were involved anyway

 

[sprinkles]

Right, and after all this experience you still haven't offered a refutation? Or admitting the veracity of what anyone has said? But that's fine, you're playing the same card a lot of people do at the end of an argument, the whole "just as I predicted, you've blah blah blahed", but all good, glad you were involved anyway

1. I did imply that I think it's true.
2. How can I really speak to veracity if I can't actually be objective?

Edit:
And 3. Why would I refute something that I have no wish to refute.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=23832]Obsidius[/MENTION]

Also I did offer at least two refutations in this thread. You even thanked one of them.

Sure they weren't said to people directly but they refute the ideas in question and would be what I would say if I were to refute some people individually. I'm not going to repeat the same thing for five people, if they want to be refuted, they can reference it.

 

[Blank]

Okay, straight off, subjectivism does not say all moral values are equal, in fact, quite the opposite, whatever moral values are most agreeable to the subject are the better ones, because the values are subject to the perceiver. Okay, again, the key cornerstone of this discussion was to argue the veracity of subjectivism, and if you agree with its truth value personally, not the implications

I understand what subjectivism is. My point is that when examining the "veracity of subjectivism," one also needs to look at its implications. If value is subject to the perceiver and there is no just way to mitigate conflicting values between perceivers, then subjectivism should be rejected. Might, I argue, is an illegitimate way to mitigate conflicting values as it usurps the validity of another perceiver's beliefs. If some values are given more credence than others, it defeats the point that subjectivism is subjective in that individuals' beliefs are given the same weight as others' beliefs.

Sure, this isn't really denying your idea of subjectivism which I equated to the idea that people make their own observations. My point is the way you've framed the argument (and I feel like the argument for subjectivism in its entirety) is a non sequitir. If experience is entirely subjective, then how can you compensate for the differences between two experiences? You can't. This, I feel, invalidates subjectivism.

Also: The ironic thing about subjectivism is that it replaces one objective point of view with its own objectivity. That aside, you can't have a subject without an object. You can't have the concept of "I" without the concept of "not I."

 

[Obsidius]

I understand what subjectivism is. My point is that when examining the "veracity of subjectivism," one also needs to look at its implications. If value is subject to the perceiver and there is no just way to mitigate conflicting values between perceivers, then subjectivism should be rejected. Might, I argue, is an illegitimate way to mitigate conflicting values as it usurps the validity of another perceiver's beliefs. If some values are given more credence than others, it defeats the point that subjectivism is subjective in that individuals' beliefs are given the same weight as others' beliefs.

Sure, this isn't really denying your idea of subjectivism which I equated to the idea that people make their own observations. My point is the way you've framed the argument (and I feel like the argument for subjectivism in its entirety) is a non sequitir. If experience is entirely subjective, then how can you compensate for the differences between two experiences? You can't. This, I feel, invalidates subjectivism.

Also: The ironic thing about subjectivism is that it replaces one objective point of view with its own objectivity. That aside, you can't have a subject without an object. You can't have the concept of "I" without the concept of "not I."

Okay, I think the problem is that originally I was talking about epistemological subjectivism instead of ethical subjectivism, I don't agree with ethical subjectivism but I agree with near universal epistemological subjectivism, and they're obviously implying different things. I believe that all my knowledge is gathered and understood subjectively, and that I am aware of no objectivity, but I can also adopt an ethical system such as Utilitarianism, Christianity (although a lot of it is contradicted by epistemological subjectivism), as long as I reform those models to allow for a Universe without objectivity. And I have no idea where you get this idea that under subjectivism all views are equal... In fact, under subjectivism they can't be, subjectivism, like I said, is basically all preference, which is not equal at all.

By definition, experience is subjective, that's an axiom, there's no way around it and no way to really invalidate it.

Also, subjectivists assume consistency, for example; that we all view the same website, just differently, so we ASSUME relative experience, but admit that it is not certain. I think I already addressed this, so the concept of "Not I" exists, but is not completely certain.

 

[SiegfriedSchtauffen]

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.

Denying subjectivism requires lack of knowledge.

The reality is that everything is only a best assumption because noone sees the whole picture even in extremely narrowed-down scopes. Even the smallest scope contains an infinite number of related factors. There are many people who don't know how large is the set of things they actually don't know (even within a narrowed-down scope) and these people are willing to promote their best assumption into an objective truth.