It would be something along the lines of a fact that doesn't depend on anyone's opinion or whether it is a commonly held opinion. — S

I think this more aptly describes the universal rather than the objective.

Thank you sir.

.

I'm happy you agree.

Just out of curiousity and ignorance on my part, if you'll breifly explain, what is the more common use of the term?

...

Where did I say that... you give me too much credit my friend, but not enough coherence in your understanding. The gaping ellipsis of your reasoning is astounding

I'm open minded and willing to consider that broader context you speak of, if you're willing to breifly explain what it is.

Ill approach it dialectically. You listened to screamo music. Perhaps it made you despair (whether physiologically or mentally) to the verge of suicide. That is the first dialectical movement into subjectivity.

You form an opinion that the music is making you sick. The music ends and the despair disappears but the opinion remains. For the subject, what is the opinion compared to the actual experience? The opinion merely functions to mediate the subjective experience and this mediation is the second dialectical movement into objectivity.

While the actual experience is eternally confined to subjective existence, the mediated (the opinion) is a form that can potentially be held in common with others as objective knowledge. The mere fact that it is possible to hold the opinion in common makes it objective.

So I will admit that the subject's existence plays an essential role in forming opinion, but I still regard opinion as a mediation into objectivity

Even if we agree, we might all be wrong. — Banno

even if what is agreed upon is wrong, the fallacy is still based in objectivity.

If everyone agreed that subjectivity is some weird metaphysical inwardness, the proposition is an artifact of objectivity that can only be related to objectively.

If a sole individual disagreed, regardless if right or wrong, he would still be relating objectively to the proposition, and his opinion would not be subjective since it holds the possibility for agreement. Only if he kept his opinion a secret and never spoke a word could it be considered subjective, and no one would ever know.

...

But now, I shall retract all that I've previously said due to the realization that there are 2 ways of regarding the object-subject relation.

Consider perhaps:

A)views the subject-object quantitatively, as occupying the extreme ends of a gradient, which in turn represents the varying degrees of subjectivity and objectivity. Truth is found in objectivity, so the less subjective one becomes, the closer he is to obtaing truth (as a linguo-histo-cultural phenomenon).

B)views the subject-object qualitatively. They are related dialectally as irreconcilable opposites. Objective truth is completely distinct and separate from subjective truth due to the qualitative difference. An individual cannot simultaneously relate to objectivivity and subjectivity since it would be like facing east and west at the same time.

Or perhaps not

What is it that is not shared? Tell me. Say it. What exactly is it that is inexpressible?

And of course you cannot. It is, after all, inexpressible. — Banno

Subjectivity is not shared. What is inexpressible (viz. rendered objectively) is actual subjective existence.

There, I said it, I referenced the inexpressible without actually expressing anything about the inexpressible.

And indeed it is a confused use of words when you misquote someone by confusing existence with experience. Perhaps you reduce those terms to the same meaning...looks like a case of engaged gears doing alot of work, but nothing's spinning.

I philosophize for a purpose: to discover the usefulness of the useless.

I'm a Nietzschean, so I don't care much about the "truth".  — yupamiralda

Yes, Neitsche's philosophic spirit is far superior to the soulless analytical garbage pervading present day philosophy. His aphoristic style is particularly intriguing since it prevents him from falling into the temptation of system building. The aphoristic style also gives him the versatility to easily attack all topics from all angles, putting perspectivism into action.

It seems simple to me. Looking at the history of philosophy, I see two options when it comes to the practice of philosophy: the speculative and analytical. The former proceeds by dialectical reasoning, the latter by way of methodological proof.

I immediately focus on one aspect, because I see it as an imperative to decent discussions of many issues... — Frank A.

Very true, we have digressed from a metaphysical question into epistemoloy.

If we consider two subjects, and they are sitting in the same room, they indeed share a common or public experience, from which we can possibly draw some objective facts. Yet the individual subjects as such are private entities - they can never be shared in common, nor can they ever express the truth of their subjective existence.

What would happen if neuroscience advanced to such a degree that we could measure tastes (say, some area of the brain lights up in response to what we call 'liking' vanilla). If a person sincerely thought they did not like vanilla, but these future neuroscientists had a look and confirmed they did indeed like vanilla, would their sincere statement of preference be true still. Would that make the judgment of the neuroscientists false? — Isaac

The knowledge obtained from such a test would count as an objectively verified truth about a test subject's experience of taste. Yet the measurement, in no way, gives any subjective truth concerning the test subject's subjectivity. Even if the particular test subject's actual tasting and ensuing enjoyment were directly accessible to an outside spectator, the test subject's subjectivity is immediately negated when it is appropriated subjectively by the spectator.

I still can't grasp the notion of a subjective statement, given that a statement belongs to the objective as written or spoken expression. All I have seen so far are objective statements that refer to or imply subjectivity, but are not subjective in themselves. At this point, subjective statement appears as a contradiction of terms, and like square circle, it is nonsense.

Is "yes", then we must ask what a subjective statement is. And how is subjective truth verified without negating it in objectivity?

Maybe some of these things are just what they are and can't be understood in terms of anything. Maybe we reach the end of the line. Maybe, in experiencing the flow of time, in its immediate qualities, we grasp all that there is to grasp, and trying to relate it to a river or something gets us further away from the direct experience of it and further from understanding what it is. Maybe you can't get deeper than that. — petrichor

I agree, it is immediate existence that is of primary importance. And only the subject relates directly to existence. The direct relation is negated when it is rendered objectively - as a speculative explanation of what it is to exist in subjectivity. The more proof that is collected for determining the objective truth of subjectivity, the further one is led from the truth of subjective existence, which is simply existing as subject.

I cannot possibly believe that is what you believe.

Faith and proof are opposites, hence the merit of religion is nullified when proof is necessary for apprehending truth. It is the classic battle of reason vs faith.

The atheist relies on direct proof to determine truth objectively, so the atheist belief lies primaliy in the proof (qua reason and methodology), and the truth merely becomes an incidental byproduct. It is reason and method that cause the dialectical movement from existinging subjectivity into objective understanding. Yet reason and method are infinite. So instead of stopping at faith as an existing subject with an attitude of socratic ignorance concerning objectivity, the atheist, regarding subjectivity as untrue (because unprovable), increasingly forgets what it is to exist as he gets gets lost in speculation.

Pre apprehension sounds a lot like Kierkegaard's concept of appropriation. He explains that the subject appropriates truth directly in existence.

Religion encounters difficulty when the existing subject is negated through the dialectic movement into objectivity and speculation. This is where understanding commences, where the truth of understanding is posited through speculative system. Yet all speculative knowledge is merely an approximation, so that, objectively, we are only capable of apprehending relative and contingent truth. Only the existing subject stands in relation to absolute truth (God) through the religious commitment.

Religion is a dialectical halt, stopping with the existing subject in the inwardness of faith and the passion of appropriation. This is what makes religion such a tricky category, viz. by having its reality in the inwardness of the existing subject, its direct communication is rendered impossible. Since all speculation communicates directly, every speculative system, even mighty modern science, moves in the opposite direction, towards objectivity and away from religion.

Probably explains why classic religious documents have the tendency of being vague and cryptic. Like the finger pointing at the moon, religious texts are attempting to assist the existing subject into a direct relation with the absolute and be forgotten. But the religious texts have no inherent value. The absolute does not exist imminently as religious text, so that to relate oneself to the absolute by worshiping the text is simply idolatry.

The religious person's faith depends on his letting go of objective understanding, on grasping and cultivating his socratic ignorance towards the uncertainty of objectivity. The skepticism of Socratic ignorance is the opposite of modern skepticism because it exposes the unreliability of speculation and repels objectivity.

My opinion on the OP: science is secular just like history or mathematics, but secular doesn't necessarily mean athiestic.

Jake: perhaps there is no fundamental human situation. And in meditation, when I dissolve all distinctions between self and other, what neighbor remains to be loved?