Agapooka wrote:Thriller wrote:But both of those are subjective, except that in the one you labelled "objective", you are referring to people who believe that their subjective reality is an accurate representation of objective reality.
yes i know that's the point, subjective is read as a statement about my believe while the objective refers to the beliefs of other's.
But in glad you pointed out that are both really subjective because in the end it all coming from me the observer. I was really trying to lead you to this to make my final point concerning objective and subjective understanding. Objectivity is impossible because human knowledge is always derived from personal perspective. The only way to broaden our understanding and limit the observer effect is by adding more subjective observation and analysis from different observers. This process of adding additional viewpoints is an attempt at objectivity but ultimately will never reach it's goal because we will never have the ability to account for every point of reference.
This why i said your argument wasn't based in reality. Wasn't a personal attack, it's just the way it is.
Agapooka wrote:You mean, according to our current understanding and in our current state of existence, we are uncapable of what some might argue to be ideal levels of objectivity.See, it's possible to be objective if you use specific language.
Essentially, being objective is not necessarily knowing everything, although one needs to know everything to be objective about everything. Simply stating that "my understanding, which is supported by the observations allowed by my perception, is that statement A is true..." instead of "statement A is true" is making an objective statement about one's inherently subjective conclusion.
You've mentioned before that my writing can look like poetry for lawyers. This is because I value wording more than other aspects of debate. I haven't used this against anyone, because it oft seems to be perceived as "grasping at straws", but if I interpreted every sentence in this thread strictly from the wording and punctuation, many would not make sense. It is a lawyer's game to play with the technical meaning of a sentence as opposed to the intended meaning. This is, of course, not a problem if the intended meaning and the actual (technical) meanings are the same.
Perhaps I should start arguing with what people are actually saying, instead of tickling their fancy by assuming that their statements even mean anything, syntactically speaking.
On this note, watch this.
Now who's going in circles. I hate lawyers. Your specific language is taking the meaning of words like objectivity out of context. we were talking about objectively from a philosophical perspective which means "not distorted by personal feelings or bias" which I gave a logical argument to show that the the qualifier for that to be true is impossible to be met. Your semantics can't save you from making well reasoned arguments just because you don't understand my reasoning.
"my understanding, which is supported by the observations allowed by my perception, is that statement A is true" making an objective statement about one's inherently subjective conclusion.
Your right, if your definition for objectivity is based upon the limited model i presented.... it's making a subjective observation of how that person was able to acquire that understanding. All knowledge is gathered from a subjective perspective.....
The reality, is your definitions of proof and objectivity hold weight in a world outside the realm of our understanding. The ideas that exist in that world cannot be known, since knowledge relies on the connections made by human perspective, reasoning outside our perspective is speculation. The definitions can never be qualified as true or even understood, since they exist in an environment outside of the scope our current ability of interaction with the physical world.
logically then they do not exist, except in some noumenon realm. Unicorns, farry's, the man in the moon.... all fake. Just like your ideas about what constitutes objectivity and proof. The way you understand these words is wrong because it not in context with the reality. Since you don't get their meaning no amount of semantics in the world will save you because any argument you make will be wrong. that is what I'm trying to get across. But to do it really effectively would take probably about 3000 words and I'm way to lazy.
SO give me a break and drop it.... because i am now. I have studied these ideas at the highest lvl of current philosophical thought at the time, it was hard, sometimes boring, and a little agitating. There is so much more here to expand on that i simply don't have the inclination anymore since i only did it in the first place to become a better person and develop a more evolved thought process. It was work in every sense of the word and i don't come here to do work.
It will end with me showing you that the path of acquiring knowledge is achieved first through our perception using the senses and then that knowledge is modified through our speculation(noumenon) and then tested in reality for its truth. That truth then become knowledge.... and so on. The most important thing is the "test" begins and ends in reality. Your definitions are stuck on the second step.
Is this more clear?
Just stop using infinities for proof please. It is a value so large and complex we cannot yet comprehend it's subtleties.
Almost provoked a response from me!
