You don't go far enough. Let us avoid objects altogether!
Reality is just a game where you an I have to agree on some stuff; let's agree to disagree, and stop at that. No more of anything you can point at, only feelings and experience.

You don't go far enough. Let us avoid objects altogether!
Reality is just a game where you an I have to agree on some stuff; let's agree to disagree, and stop at that. No more of anything you can point at, only feelings and experience. — Louco

I don't quite understand your point. Are you saying that people shouldn't be treated as objects?

Not only that, but also that we should not objectify in general.

intersubjectivity — Wallows

I've heard this term before. What ever does it mean? Who coined it? Subjectivity is a synonym for esoteric or occult in my dictionary. It describes what can't be shared, transferred, or translated in the mind of an individual, what only he can be responsible for, no exchange value.

Objective standards are the bane of my existence, an insult to intelligence. A word like "intersubjective," though, seems even worse. You might say "intrasubjective" ...though that would be a tautology. There's intrapersonal intelligence and interpersonal intelligence, and often they're mutually exclusive. This new, popular term makes me think of telepathy or some kind of ESP.

Isn't the courtroom automated yet? The Internet of Things could inform the courtroom quite easily. And a social credit system, taking China's example, married to the IoT would eliminate the need for a courtroom, including the psychopathic lawyers and judges that inhabit it.

I find it odd it isn't illegal not to know a certain amount of the law that can be held against you at any given time or place. You have to know the rules of the road and pass a test on paper to get your license to drive a car. Couldn't driving, then, be analogous to living subject to a jurisprudence system? And shouldn't it be the case we are all required to know a thing or two about the road we're driving on within said system? Nay, suddenly someone is plucked from the system by lottery and expected to know how the rules are applied. It has to be fairly flippant if you ask me. This must be why those who break the law most often and in variety of ways could be lawyers. How else can you test the bounds of legality through experience? As a natural anarchist, I'd make a horrible jurist. Whatever happens is allowed by the law. It's impossible to break the law. Now, whether you or someone else likes it or not is another story.

And herein is the problem, if one demands an objective standard, or claims that they have one, where none can be achieved, then that is plain and simple totalitarianism. — Wallows

Good point.

Anyway, "intersubjectivity" is suggestive of an objective standard when to be subjective connotes being unique and not inter-anything. Intelligence often blooms by finding the intellectual laziness which invariably looms in any standardization. IQ, a test developed from scientific racism, is still a widely used and referenced standard, as though intelligence could be generalized. From this, I've thought standardizing the mind in any way is sort of totalitarian; ranking people according to the same criteria produces the same strengths and weaknesses; this kind of sameness is lameness, as though there were intersubjective IQ test takers. Our subjectivities are what make us different from one another, they're the ways in which we have a hard time communicating with each other. Yet some anticommunication (anti-standardization) and individuality/subjectivity is necessary to combat social decay, and amplify synergy between people. Standardization is like suggestion, or hypnotic induction, precludes thought, destroys the thinking animal.

When people write posts on this forum, do they:

(1) Read the post aloud to themselves prior to clicking "Post Comment"?

(2) Read the post with the realization that others don't have just the same mental content as themselves, so that they try to imagine the perspective of someone who can only figure out what they're talking about from what they write, where the other might not have the same background information?

(3) Read the post critically, with an eye on whether the sentence-to-sentence, paragraph, etc. structure all makes sense and has a flow if not some logic to it? Is superfluous, rambling content being cut? Are there adequate transitions between ideas, so that we're not abruptly jumping from one thing to another?

:lol:

You crack me the fuck up. Also a big fan of when you ask people if they are on the Autism spectrum. Lol
For myself, I do try and do those three things but have to admit im not usually giving it 100%. Could tighten up my posts, but im not overly concerned about being as concise as when im writing a paper or something.

:razz:

I really wonder, though. I read a lot of posts here, especially thread-starting posts, where I wonder how the topic creator expects us to figure out what they want to talk about or what they're asking us.

A typical approach is something like this:

"Axiomatic Theories of Truth"

"Kant distinguishes between two basic kinds of principles or rules that we can act on: what he calls material and formal principles. To act in order to satisfy some desire, as when I act on the maxim to go for coffee at a cafe is to act on a material principle. Formal causes in Aristotle are the structure which the matter realizes and in terms of which it comes to be something determinate, e.g., the shape of the president, in virtue of which this quantity of bronze is said to be a statue of a president. Trump might be sabotaging himself by tweeting his every thought, especially when he insists that those thoughts are true despite them clearly being lies.

"We could say that an axiom that we are only aware of things representationally. Whether this is true is not something for Trump to decide, but the hiatus, here, is well known: it is that already found between intuition and conceptual adequation; truth, in Plato's sense of an unmediated intuition of an Idea versus knowledge, as positing and possession of entities.

....................then 20 paragraphs later..............................

Does this suggest that we should build a border wall, or what would you say about the truth of axioms?"

Lol, right? Its the attempt at sounding smart or intellectual through framing I think, or to try and fit in. Its not even necassary, most philosophical discussions gain nothing from that kind of framing unless specifically referencing formal academia.
Also, I wager it often has something to do with the persons desire to be percieved (or not percieved) in a certain way, for example in the SJW thread when certain folks use that kinda framing to create an illusion of an unbiased stance or disguise themselves as a non-SJW type.

I had meant this thread to be as a response to the thread on Killing a Billion. Sorry for any confusion.