-->
@ebuc
It's easier to say "epistemology" than the "study of knowledge."
Are you familiar with the theory of hypersphere universe and what do you think?
Solipsism
Posts
Total:
103
-->
@3RU7AL
Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
I see how you distinguish reason from beliefs, but in my framework I see them as the same. I acknowledge that some beliefs are founded with reason and others are not, but I believe it's reasonable to assume anything someone holds to be true is a belief even if it has reasoning. What do you think?
-->
@3RU7AL
non-illusionthe "opposite" of "imaginary"
How do we determine or experience the "opposite" of "imaginary"?
there must be a "real existence" of a "thing" (depending on your personally preferred definition of "real" and "existence" and "thing" and or "phenomena")
Given the context, wouldn't the preferred definition necessarily delineate that which is absent of illusion?
but there is MOST CERTAINLY NOT (necessarily) a "correct view" (of any particular "phenomena")and i know this by pure logic
Indeed, objectivity is irrational.
-->
@Athias
Can you elaborate on why you believe "objectivity is irrational," and what this implies?
"Objective reality": refers to the theoretical world that exists independently of personal opinions or beliefs. It's the reality shared by all individuals. In contrast, "subjective reality" is influenced by personal opinions, emotions, and perceptions, varying from person to person. It's the individual's unique interpretation of the objective reality.
"Irrational": refers to thoughts, beliefs, or actions that don't follow logical reasoning or are not based on evidence and sound judgment. It contrasts with "rational" thinking, which involves logical and reasoned decision-making guided by evidence and coherent thought processes.
I would agree that it is irrational to believe that the objective realm exists with certainty, but not to acknowledge its theoretical existence, along with its practical implications.
-->
@Critical-Tim
Can you elaborate on why you believe "objectivity is irrational," and what this implies?"Objective reality": refers to the theoretical world that exists independently of personal opinions or beliefs. It's the reality shared by all individuals. In contrast, "subjective reality" is influenced by personal opinions, emotions, and perceptions, varying from person to person. It's the individual's unique interpretation of the objective reality."Irrational": refers to thoughts, beliefs, or actions that don't follow logical reasoning or are not based on evidence and sound judgment. It contrasts with "rational" thinking, which involves logical and reasoned decision-making guided by evidence and coherent thought processes.I would agree that it is irrational to believe that the objective realm exists with certainty, but not to acknowledge its theoretical existence, along with its practical implications.
"Objective information" would be incoherent since it would necessitate accumulation and processing information independent of any one individual's being the subject. There's no conceivable method or means to control for information which is independent of a subject's bias. Consensus is no less subject to bias than individual discretion.
-->
@Athias
"Objective information" would be incoherent since it would necessitate accumulation and processing information independent of any one individual's being the subject. There's no conceivable method or means to control for information which is independent of a subject's bias. Consensus is no less subject to bias than individual discretion.
Yes, I agree that there cannot be such a thing as objective information. This is because information must be observed and empirically verified, which is against the nature of objectivity. I also agree that all information that is gathered must be subjective, as it must be perceived in order to be considered verifed, and I agree that consensus is not a bases for objectivity, but a collective subjectivity.
-->
@Critical-Tim
Yes, I agree that there cannot be such a thing as objective information. This is because information must be observed and empirically verified, which is against the nature of objectivity. I also agree that all information that is gathered must be subjective, as it must be perceived in order to be considered verifed, and I agree that consensus is not a bases for objectivity, but a collective subjectivity.
Then the theory of objectivity is no more than a mere assumption that is predicated on that which can't be rationalized.
-->
@Athias
The theory of objectivity gives us the perspective that others may not see the world through our lens and may still be correct, creating a more accepting mentality of others' views. If we were to believe objectivity is irrational and the only reality is subjectivity, then there would be no reason to understand the perspectives of others. I believe that reality must be understood through an intersubjective lens, as to understand how others will act, being they are a part of our reality.
-->
@Athias
Perhaps the theory of objectivity is consistency through all subjective perspectives and is not independent from them at all. This would make it an intersubjective encompassing concept rather than an irrational theory, and it would have utility.
-->
@Critical-Tim
The theory of objectivity gives us the perspective that others may not see the world through our lens and may still be correct, creating a more accepting mentality of others' views. If we were to believe objectivity is irrational and the only reality is subjectivity, then there would be no reason to understand the perspectives of others. I believe that reality must be understood through an intersubjective lens, as to understand how others will act, being they are a part of our reality.
A theory of objectivity isn't necessary for that; maintaining logical consistency suffices.
-->
@Athias
Perhaps that is meant to be the meaning of the word, so rather than saying the "underlying consistency of intersubjectivity," we can just say "objectivity."
-->
@Critical-Tim
Perhaps that is meant to be the meaning of the word, so rather than saying the "underlying consistency of intersubjectivity," we can just say "objectivity."
A lexical dispute doesn't change the point. I go only by that which the terms delineate. Underlying consistency of intersubjectivity may be a mouthful, but it is far more effective at communicating your point than "objectivity" is, even if it's simpler to state.
-->
@Athias
I only believe it's more effective if you have to take the time to explain what objectivity means. For instance, if we were to refer to underlying consistency of intersubjectivity 100 times within a debate it would be fewer words to initially state objectivity is underlying consistency of intersubjectivity before the debate, saving about 3 words 100 times which is much more efficient than consistently repeating the phrase throughout the debate, but in general, it would be simpler as you said to just state the phrase.