My path would be that the uses given for our two key terms in the OP are fine, and that it's also OK to use those words in other ways, so long as we keep an eye on what is going on.

I thought I had shown how a few of the suggested extensions to their use led one astray, but it is apparent...  — Banno

I could do this forever. But I'm not committed to any one perspective, except for one single one, but I don't know what it is.

The point of all this shit is to keep showing more of what you mean and why it is relevant, and sometimes you need to repeat yourself in various ways in order to get your point across.

I know this forum is full of some great philosophers that I think could work through these issues and possibly discover something new, but that's a little too idealistic for me.

We also must consider whether or not, or how, subjectivity might be affected by such a horrifying phenomenon as multiple Merkwurdichliebes existing across all space and time.

The question is, what arrangement of atoms are present this instant?

No, in time the possibility is there, but this instant, I don't see it happening.

Is the universe independent of time? If not, then the universe is finite — Merkwurdichliebe

Permit me to experiment with time as concept. Time, regardless of the past and future, only operates within the present as the moment. Time as it is subjectively experienced, is something like being carried along on a continuum, of what in the moment holds infinite possibility (and epistemologically, absolute uncertainty). Yet, the moment is instantaneous. All that is real is the instant, for there is no succession of instances, it is omnipresent. No existing human has any reality beyond that instance.

Now, suppose I consider the succession of moments. This removes me from a direct relation to the instance, and into a reflection on the past, or a deliberation on the future - which in the strict sense is a historical account or speculation, respectively. Every moment, nothing exists beyond the immediate instant, and in the instant possibility is negated, and without possibility the universe is finite.

Anyway

It is possible that the finite nature of the universe is what makes it objective, and allows humanity to obtain scientific knowledge, but that's just speculation.

If the universe is infinite, that would mean there is an infinite number of 'me' out there. — JohnLocke

That would only be true if you were infinite. The universe being infinite would only mean its properties are inexhaustible.




Yes...

Is the universe independent of time? If not, then the universe is finite

Did someone get kicked in the balls?

Exactly, and your descriptions are right on

And it gives me something to chew on while I watch the telly. — Banno

Flies you mean?

(Edit: Lol)

I laughed

(But you have taught me never to embellish my jokes, its lame)

Tcha!

And, what are you here talking for if you have accepted lord wittgenstein's great decree, Don't believe too much in authority, you'll get taken.

Oh, so this is just and evangelical attempt at conversion, how lame

I don't try to reach as objective a view as possible.  — S

Then what's up with your sick desperation in trying to convince everyone.

That the process leads to muddles. Keep it simple.  — Banno

That doesn't necessarily mean that Witgensteinian philosophy (or ordinary language philosophy - OLP) will clarify things any better.
For all we know, it could confuse things more, like with Descartes and Kant. Afterall, the fact that wittgenstein is dead and we're still talking means that OLP has yet to settle any of the central philosophical questions, and it's been around nearly 80 years...at least.

But, isn't that the crux of the debate here, to argue the merits of OLP against other methods and perspectives.

And the guiding topic that we are using to test OLP against other methods and perspectives is subject-object

A man's rights movement sounds awfully feminine

I reviewed everything (goddam it was excruciating), and now I understand what Janus was saying.




And it is clear that you occupy the position described by Wayfarer:

...the assumed stance of naturalism, which assumes the perspective of the subject, attempting to arrive at as objective a view as possible, through eliminating everything other than what can be quantified

Or alternatively explaied, but identical in meaning

...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 — Merkwurdichliebe

My first impression is that you are not a philosopher, you are a commentor. My second impression: You have made little to no relevant points because you do not explain your reasoning for anything you claim, the only support you give to your claims is by saying things like: because I said so, because it's the relevant sense, because that's the way it is, etc. The frequency at which you posit your groundless statements is to such a degree, that it can be considered nothing else but an indication that you simply lack philosophical acumen.

I'm going to review everything you have said and break it down. Standby

Talk of Jupiter, for example, seems sufficient to use as an example in my argument for realism, and I've made clear what I mean by talking of the existence of Jupiter as something which is objective. — S

That's just it, you haven't made it clear, and you saying you "made it clear" doesn't mean you have done so. And that is why you find everyone challenging you here.

The problem: your definitions of subject and object are whack, lame, played-out doo doo. They have only confused things.

But your definitions are weak and shoddy, and most people here appear to find them unacceptable for an edifying philosophical discourse. So they been attempting to clean up your mess.

I haven't thought of phenomenology as starting from the premise that existence is ultimately subjective.  — frank

I think that is a very accurate statement. Afterall phenomenology is a response to the critical errors of empiricism. Phenomenology begins with the immediate, exactly where empiricism does. But instead of stopping there and getting lost in absolute doubt or solipsism, it introduces a dialectic that clarifies the subject-object distinction.

Yours is a very peculiar and self-defeating approach to the topic. You can't just waltz in and erase the ordinary meaning of terms and dictate a new approach to the issue which flies in the face of how the issue is more commonly understood. That carries a giant burden, and I wish you luck, as it seems kind of futile to take that approach. It seems like you'd just not be properly engaging with what folks like myself and Banno are wanting to discuss, but instead it seems as though you're wanting to reframe the topic in a different way, where the language has a different meaning, and we're at risk of talking past each other. — S

But folks like you and banno haven't sufficiently demonstrated that your position is superior to others, and until folks llike you do, it's fair game.

Why must 'subjective' and 'objective' mean only one thing each? Surely if we're talking about the terms in ordinary language then we would fully expect them to have a range of meanings (including, as @StreetlightX says, no coherent meaning at all) in different contexts.

If, on the other hand, we're trying to fix a meaning for the purpose of some further investigation, then we should be advancing advantages and disadvantages of each option. Certainly then, similarity to ordinary use might be one advantage, but there may be others unique to some particular enquiry which would render the same definition useless in another. [*bold added] — Isaac

This point should be emphasized.

...just rhyming

Trump has great hair

And also because fuck Kant. — StreetlightX

This is going on my list of favorite quotes

You should take my word for it, afterall, I'm a man of my word

neutrality works for me

Wisdom can be funny too

I wasn't calling you a toxic fool, you're cool to me.
I was only commenting on the necessity of toxic fools

Go ahead then, return to, "These terms really mean something completely different", and block out any criticism of that approach. — S

But you haven't made any relevant points yet. I'm willing consider your points if your will present them philosophically, and stop all the babbling

You really should learn to do that kind of thing if you don't want to spend the rest of your life as a toxic fool. — Janus

Toxic fools are necessary, I think they provide a healthy counterbalance to edifying wisdom

Just don't expect me to properly deal with any thought experiment which shows the glaring fault in my pet theory — S

Your pet theory is full of holes and leaking fallacy all over the place

Now can we get back on topic, I was digging what StreetlightX had to say.

In the context of ethics, I eschewed treating the thinking of the mob as sacrosanct, as you do, because it leads to obvious problems which you can't resolve. — S

I am opposed with you there

There it is...while we're all here philosophizing, you are just blabbing

... addendum:

And usually the one who smelt it dealt it. And I'm not so sure about the OLP claim that philosophy has historically wandered into confusion and settled nothing due to the misuse of language, im inclined to think this claim more aptly describes OLP.

OLP=ordinary language philosophy

Where is your argument for such a claim, how and why will lame-ass ordinary language philosophy prevail? it's been around about a century now and it has settled nothing

I usually find your answers weirdly mistaken. It's like you're engaged in a futile fight against common sense. You present instead some account which you seem to think is more sophisticated, but which actually causes more problems. The main problem here seems to be that you're trying to dictate language — S

This sounds like you too.