But you already know I'm an octopus with abnormal intelligence, I also live under a rock with no internet access, somewhere in Switzerland.

So as I see it, the usual meaning is: "frankly, nobody knows what ‘subjective’ means"

When I say that the existence of Jupiter is objective, you take me to mean that the existence of Jupiter is reproducible under fixed conditions?

Nope, doesn't seem to work. That's not what I mean at all. — S

Please explain. What do you mean?

Subjective=fallible

Very eschatological

Thanks

Well if objective just means reproducible under fixed conditions, does the opposite of that mean ‘subjective’?  — StreetlightX

No.

Yet, if we consider subjectivity to be immediacy, then it follows that it is impossible for it to be either a product or a fixed state. If subject-object are not opposites, they are at least qualitatively opposed and conceptually incompatible.

Some conditions simply cannot be fixed, as with, say, large-scale economies or large-scale societies, in which reproducibility is hard, if not impossible to come by. — StreetlightX

All that is necessary for it to be objective is the possibility.

It has connotations of ‘from a first-person POV’, and it used loosely in that manner, but it’s most useless as a philosophical term of art. Everytime someone uses the word ‘subjective’, the default assumption ought to be that they have no idea what they are talking about, unless they prove otherwise. — StreetlightX

Very good.

You could say that the first is 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 (subject of Thomas Nagel's book The View from Nowhere.)

The second is suggestive of phenomenology, which takes into account the ultimately subjective nature of existence, but tries to do so in a way which doesn't fall into mere subjectivity. — Wayfarer

Excellent distinction.

Personally, I prefer experimentinting with the phenomenological approach in order to find out how far we can fall into subjectivity. But that is nothing new, just postmodern nonsense. And since the overwhelming majority of participants on this board appear to be analytical philosophers and phenomenologists, I have taken it upon myself to challenge these positions, if as nothing more than philosophical exercise

The sooner people realize objective and subjective do not form an antithetical pair, the better. — StreetlightX

Could you please elaborate?

Yawn. Objective just means reproducible under fixed conditions. Nothing more. The blather about mind and feelings and independence and perception and reality and truth and so on is just noise. — StreetlightX

True, and I like making noise

It is especially important, therefore, to keep an eye on their use in mundane contexts. — Banno

What is the grounds for such a mandate besides personal preference concerning how philosophy should be practiced? You even wrote that belief does not necessarily equate to truth. Show me how it is that regarding words in their mundane context yields any more truth or clarity than using them in an extraordinary context.

Certain statements are labeled subjective because they set out an individuals taste or feelings. In contrast, other statements are called objective, as they do not set out an individual's taste, feelings or opinions.

So that I prefer vanilla to chocolate ice-cream is a subjective fact - or if you prefer, it is a subjective truth. It's truth is dependent on my own taste.

That this text is written in English is not dependent on my own taste or feelings. Hence it is an objective truth. — Banno

This is only one perspective on the subject-object. I don't dispute it, but I don't think it's the only perspective, nor the best, especially in regard to philosophical inquiry. I don't think you've done a sufficient job of showing that this is the superior perspective concerning subject-object.

don't allow the notions of subjectivity and objectivity to take on any more significance.

in particular, don't pretend that there are either only subjective facts, or that there are only objective facts. — Banno

Again, you havent shown why. Perhaps this reduced level of significance will lead us up and down various garden paths of an even more convoluted nature.

If you would sufficiently demonstrate the truth of your claims, I might be more willing to agree.

If some truth can be said in the first person, it's likely to be a subjective fact. — Banno

I disagree. Suppose I say: 'I am human.' The "I" represents the existing subject as an object, and "am human" is an objective property of an object.

"I" is the subject, grammatically speaking. But, espistemologically speaking, "I am human" is entirely an objective statement, regardless if it's true or false, or if a single individual spoke it. The "I" is the objectification of something that is not objective (i.e. subjectivity), mediating it into a concept instead of an immediate reality. The confusion lies the fact that, objectively speaking, communication is direct, yet subjectivity can only be indirectly communicated, so it becomes tempting to regard the concept and the reality as identical.

I will, standby...

Me too. I think everyone here would be grateful if any one were to posit something new in these forums. I'm pretty sure I'm not the man for that job.

And, I wouldn't consider myself an idealist, especially since I despise speculative system building. Maybe an existentialist or nihilist

I think, for many who consider the 'early exit', the despair and angst over the infinite possibilities of life is unbearable. It becomes so intolerable that it comes to supersede the fear of death that the non suicidal often posesses. That fear of death is based in angst and despair, but instead of toward life, its over the infinite possibility that death poses.

I'm trying to help you understand.

I think you'll find we agree more than you know

"The subject" - the individual? Merkwurdichliebe? — Banno

who? Me

"objective understanding" - so now we add objective understanding to the objective world, without setting out what we are doing. — Banno

I understand what I have set out to do. I don't apologize for my intentions being hidden.

Besides, it would be lame philosophy to precede everything we said with a preface that sets out what we are doing. It's probably why ordinary language philosophy looks like a dog chasing his tail and getting nowhere.

"actual existence" - as opposed to existence per se? — Banno

Yes, existence as a concept, like when its talked about.

"the essence of subjectivity" - what subjectivity is in every possible world? What else? — Banno

No subjectivity occupies every world. But every subject is, in essence, a complete world in itself

"making it something objective" - we can make the subjective, objective? — Banno

No, and any objective relation to subjectivity is indirect.

I didn't mean to imply you misread the post, I merely meant to urge you to appropriate the reigned in language directly in your existence as a subject

Actually that is reigned in language. Read it again

We definitely depend on statements that attempt to mediate the subject into objective understanding. But this mediation is indirectly related to the subject's actual existence. So with the mediation we lose the essence of subjectivity by making it something objective.

Lol

the nominalism vs. "realism" (realism on universals/types in other words) debate. I'm a nominalist. Maybe you're a realist (on universals) . . . and that would be a worthwhile thing for us to talk about in a different thread — Terrapin Station

Good idea.

Banno's sense, otherwise you're just talking past him.  — S

Banno, what is the sense you are getting at?

I felt like writing something similar, but I didn't care enough to make the effort. I would think something so obvious would be recognized by anyone with 2 shits for brains, but go figure.

Anyway, excellent point.

And hello

"No one" is the name of my cat. I was saying that she remembers you. — S

I'm content with that, afterall, I love pussy

No one remembers you — S

I assume you are one of these no one's you speak for.

All I can say is: what do I care if a bunch of nobodies remember me

Im curious and wanted to take a head count. Who on this forum used the old philosophy forums (that was a great site), and who were you. I already recognize some of you if name changed.

I was geebus.

So back to the topic at hand.

Let's recapitulate, what have we figured out so far..


ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

I agree

But this era is only a drop in the ocean - we shouldn’t be expecting to fix everything before we die, but to contribute as much as we can to the gradual advance in awareness and compassionate action on a global/universal scale, ensuring that subsequent generations are more woke than our own and have the courage (and support) to do something about it. — Possibility

That's some youthful idealism. I don't think the race has what it takes to change course. The best course of action is to fortify yourself inwardly, then you can begin viewing the world as the tragic comedy it is.

Just curious what an example would be of a historical era where you'd say that the above wasn't the case. — Terrapin Station

1984 was a good year

There is no requirement on this forum to do philosophy well. And how can you do philosophy well without taking the proper digressions.

...

Also, the justice system is has scientific precision in determining the morality of a society. That's pretty objective

Well, I'm not so naive — S

.


Then its possible you don't mind the murder and rape of babies, but for the dominant majority of people living in the western world, they would object simply because they have inherited the judeo-Christian ethic, wittingly or not...Very objective

I agree that morality is not the sort of thing that can be objective. Those who think that it is objective are moral objectivists, and I am not a moral objectivist. — S

What about the judeo-Christian ethic that pervades the western world, that seems like an objective morality to me.

It's a minefield. Needs to be kept simple and we need to take small steps. — Banno

No way, let's blow up the MF and see what's leftover.

Or maybe a wikilink

I find the terms moral objectivism and moral subjectivism to be nonsense...unless you can define them for my edification. I would be eternally grateful.

S & Banno:

It is my opinion moral objectivism and moral subjectivism are misleading terms...

I prefer moral relativism and absolute morality. But I don't expect anyone to adopt my definitions, I'm not a nazi of lexicon like S.

You instigator.. :up:

The universal:

The universal would be something along the lines of true in all cases or believed by all — S

And this also holds true for:

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

And, concerning Jupiter:
suppose I see Jupiter in a picture and identify it as jupiter. Then, at a later time I observed Jupiter through a telescope, and identify it as Jupiter. That us the universal, for although I perceive particulars with no necessary causal or logical relation, I understand them to be identical.

I feel it is important for us to clarify these terms, but I may be mistaken

Btw, I thought I'd add:

I'm definitely not a Hegelian, but he says thought is what produces the universal, and that thought belongs to subjectivity.

So then, is the universal subjective? Whatcha think. Consider the epistemological question of identity, and please spare us the lame "family resemblance" spiel.