Objectivity means always proceeding on the assumption that things can be solved. It doesn't mean that you already know how to solve it. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that. — Pfhorrest

I think you have to keep repeating it because folk cannot understand what it says, because it is itself a contradiction.

if you have to assume it, then it isn't objective.

in philosophy, for most folk, objective literally means not inside your head.

your assumption cannot be objectively true precisely because it only exists inside your head. any thing that exists only inside your head is subjective. any statement you make about a thing that exists only inside your head, is subjective.

any assumptions you make, are, by definition, subjective.

which means that your whole philosophy appears to be based on the precarious notion that objectivity means be subjective. and I think that's why folk are having some difficulty understanding you.


Kaarlo Tuomi

Opinions of any sort are inside your head, so by your reasoning anyone who is of the opinions that objectivism is true (i.e. anyone who thinks objectivism is true) is necessarily contradicting themselves.

Which is nonsense, because your reasoning here is nonsense. Thinking something, even assuming something, doesn't make that thing subjective, especially when the thing being thought or assumed is "there is an objective answer to everything".

In any case, this is another non-sequitur just like Amen's. The point of the quoted bit is that there being a solution in principle is not the same thing as you having the solution in practice. Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it's not knowable.

Thinking something, even assuming something, doesn't make that thing subjective, — Pfhorrest

have a nice life.

No, that would mean something is unanswered rather than unanswerable. It is impossible, based on the system people currently use to describe the universe we live in, to know if something is unanswerable.

:up: :100:

I think this belongs in a different forum, just not philosophy.

The paradoxical loop you are accepting is that one can know that something is unanswerable. But wouldn't you need some form of access to an answer to know that it is not possible? The lack of an answer does not necessitate that it does not exist. It just means it doesn't exist as far as one currently knows. That's probably the best you could do. But I wouldn't know because I would need to know of the best before I know if something is the best. We can talk likelihood all day though.

I don't think you misunderstood anything it's just called reading some dude's opinion and finding it to not make much sense. lol.

Let's try to answer the premise though. Let's name some unquestionable answers and unanswerable questions, if you may. Some I would say are...

What happens if your heart stops? Your body dies.
What happens when an ignitable substance is introduced to a flame or spark? It ignites.

Etc...

Compared to unanswerable questions.

Is there life after death in a realm that is undetectable to us here and now?
What is the item in a box that someone placed there that we cannot see or open?

Unanswered vs. unanswerable is something to factor in.

Unanswered vs. unanswerable is something to factor in. — Outlander

That is THE big thing to factor in, and the problem that gave rise to this whole thread. Not having an answer yet isn't the same thing as there being no answer at all.

Those two questions you gave at the end are answerable in principle. If something weird happens when you die, you'll find out when you die. If there's something inside a box, then there is some way in principle to tell what, even if in practice it's really hard.

I'm not sure if the other two questions (the heart and the ignition ones) were meant to be "unquestionable", but those are totally questionable. You don't have to take anybody's word on it. You can doubt all you want and go check for yourself. I agree that those are the correct answers, and anyone who checks them will find that they are correct, but that's different from them being unquestionable, i.e. you just have to take someone's word for them without question.


Would it clear everything up for everyone if I said instead that I am "opposed to not questioning answers and to not answering questions", rather than that I "reject unquestionable answers and unanswerable questions"? I mean the former -- don't take any answer as unquestionable, try to question them all; don't take any question as unanswerble, try to answer them all.