The truth is objective

[Angelo Cannata]

It is a mistake to equate subjective experience with subjectivity.

Can you explain the difference and, what is more important, how this has any relevance about the objections that you have got against your OP?

[bahman]

It is a mistake to equate subjective experience with subjectivity.

Can you explain the difference and, what is more important, how this has any relevance about the objections that you have got against your OP?

I already define subjectivity. We could have a subjective experience about a subjective or objective thing.

[Angelo Cannata]

It is a mistake to equate subjective experience with subjectivity.

Can you explain the difference and, what is more important, how this has any relevance about the objections that you have got against your OP?

I already define subjectivity. We could have a subjective experience about a subjective or objective thing.

So?

I notice another contradiction in your messages: you said you are tired of certain discussions; you give short answers without clarifying your words and, even when asked, it's like you try to limit the number of your words, as if you had to pay for each single word you write.

At the end, the fact is that you didn't answer my question and you can't expect me having to ask for clarification every time you go with your non-answers.

You said two times that there is a difference between subjectivity and subjective experience, but every time you didn't make any attempt to explain it.

I called this "contradiction" because a forum is supposed to be a place to make discussions, not to avoid or close them.

This behaviour actually is consistent with the metaphysical mentality of realism and objectivism, so that it's not so much you, but your philosophy driving you to this behaviour: metaphysics, realism, objectivity, means conclusion, things that are definitive, perspective-free, discussion-free, criticism-free, certainty, truth, power.

This way, it's a fact that metaphysics is not just about theory: it has causes and consequences that are psychological, social, political, historical, anthropological.

All of this isn't so much in favour of metaphysics: usually metaphysicians don't like so much to take into consideration all things involved in their ideas; on the contrary, they like to close and avoid questions and discussions by saying things like "that's it" or "believe or not".

[bahman]

Can you explain the difference and, what is more important, how this has any relevance about the objections that you have got against your OP?

I already define subjectivity. We could have a subjective experience about a subjective or objective thing.

So?

I notice another contradiction in your messages: you said you are tired of certain discussions; you give short answers without clarifying your words and, even when asked, it's like you try to limit the number of your words, as if you had to pay for each single word you write.

At the end, the fact is that you didn't answer my question and you can't expect me having to ask for clarification every time you go with your non-answers.

You said two times that there is a difference between subjectivity and subjective experience, but every time you didn't make any attempt to explain it.

I called this "contradiction" because a forum is supposed to be a place to make discussions, not to avoid or close them.

This behaviour actually is consistent with the metaphysical mentality of realism and objectivism, so that it's not so much you, but your philosophy driving you to this behaviour: metaphysics, realism, objectivity, means conclusion, things that are definitive, perspective-free, discussion-free, criticism-free, certainty, truth, power.

This way, it's a fact that metaphysics is not just about theory: it has causes and consequences that are psychological, social, political, historical, anthropological.

All of this isn't so much in favour of metaphysics: usually metaphysicians don't like so much to take into consideration all things involved in their ideas; on the contrary, they like to close and avoid questions and discussions by saying things like "that's it" or "believe or not".

Don't you know what is subjective experience?

[LuckyR]

It is statistically true that the most popular ice cream flavor (over a certain time period, in a certain location) is vanilla.

Objective?

That is a tricky question. That is a fact. All facts are objective.

True, but laypersons (and, unfortunately some even in this space) take another, erroneous step and feel that the above equates to vanilla's status being objectively superior. Or not acknowledging that tomorrow it's place could be taken over by chocolate.

[bahman]

It is statistically true that the most popular ice cream flavor (over a certain time period, in a certain location) is vanilla.

Objective?

That is a tricky question. That is a fact. All facts are objective.

True, but laypersons (and, unfortunately some even in this space) take another, erroneous step and feel that the above equates to vanilla's status being objectively superior. Or not acknowledging that tomorrow it's place could be taken over by chocolate.

Ok, I am glad that I answered the question properly. And I agree with what you said.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, there is no contradiction.


The mistake you make is that you equate subjective experience with subjectivity.

Subjectivity is: the quality, state, or nature of being subjective.

and subjective encompasses experience;

Subjective is:
- characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind,
-relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
-modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
-arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli
-arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes
- peculiar to a particular individual.

There is no mistake in equating 'subjective experience' with 'subjectivity'.

Knowledge per se cannot be from merely the first-person's experience, i.e. a subject.
Rather, knowledge [objective knowledge] is conditioned upon a specific human-based Framework and System [FSK] with the consensus of a collective-of-subjects, thus inter-subjective.

Objectivity is only opposite of subjectivity with reference to a first-person's experiences.
However, objectivity is intersubjectivity and cannot be independent of subjectivity in terms of a collective-of-subjective interactions.

It is a mistake to equate subjective experience with subjectivity.

Despite my detailed reconciliation between subjective experience and subjectivity, Why do you think it is a mistake?

Here are the perspectives where subjective experience and subjectivity can be linked and relevant to my point;

Intertwined nature: Subjective experiences are the building blocks of subjectivity. Each unique perception, emotion, and interpretation we have forms part of our overall subjective world. Therefore, equating them can be seen as highlighting this close connection.

Emphasis on individual perspective: Both terms focus on the individual's point of view and personal interpretation of the world. Subjectivity emphasizes this individuality, while a subjective experience is a concrete example of it.

Shared understanding: Equating the terms could simplify communication and facilitate mutual understanding. If everyone agrees that the two concepts are essentially the same, it avoids potential confusion and unnecessary distinctions.

[Scientific Intersubjectivity]:Scientific truths which are objective arise from the subjectivity [i.e. intersubjective consensus upon a collective of first-person subjective experiences.]
Thus truth [e.g. scientific & others] is objective as conditioned upon a specific human-based FSK which is grounded on subjectivity [intersubjectivity and intersubjective consensus upon a collective of first-person subjective experiences.

Why you are disputing my point is because you are grasping to a sense of objectivity that is grounded on an illusion.

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. FSK sense of Objectivity
2. P-Realist, mind-independence sense of Objectivity

Yours is that of 2. P-Realist, mind-independence sense of Objectivity, which is grounded on an illusion.

[FlashDangerpants]

It is statistically true that the most popular ice cream flavor (over a certain time period, in a certain location) is vanilla.

Objective?

It's an objective fact that Vanilla is the best selling ice cream in some location. What makes it objective is that you find out whether it is true or not by looking to a property of the external world (Sales figures) rather than a property of human psychology (feelings, prefernces or desires for instance).

If by popular we simply mean that more people choose this flavour than the others in that shop; and assuming that vanilla isn't the best seller just because it is cheapest, or because one family of fatties eats every scoop while the other customers all prefer sensible quantities of mint-choc-chip; then we can tentatively allow that as an objective claim so long as it is only taken to support inferences that are true or untrue in virtue of some external world property (sales figures adjusted by data about customers making the choices for instance).

VA's major issue is that he has wasted the last decade of his life trying to make the leap from best selling flavour, to most popular flavour, to "goodest flavour" reduce to a simple step. As far as he's concerned, if vanilla sells most, you can move seamlessly from that empirical datum to some FSK thing where it is normatively best. He attempts to make this move by downgrading objectivity to have nothing to do with the means of verification, nor with laguage games about how we build such verification requirements into our constructed shared reality or any of that shit.

He thinks that through sleight of hand he can remove the difference of type between that which is observably large and that which is aesthetically desirable.

He will go way beyond ice cream flavours if you push him. He has gone on record to claim that Miss World competitions directly measure beauty, to the extent that they are authorative and scientific investigations thereof. He doens't like being told that Pornhub has enormously more data than Miss World and should therefore be classified as a scientific tool.

[LuckyR]

It is statistically true that the most popular ice cream flavor (over a certain time period, in a certain location) is vanilla.

Objective?

It's an objective fact that Vanilla is the best selling ice cream in some location. What makes it objective is that you find out whether it is true or not by looking to a property of the external world (Sales figures) rather than a property of human psychology (feelings, prefernces or desires for instance).

If by popular we simply mean that more people choose this flavour than the others in that shop; and assuming that vanilla isn't the best seller just because it is cheapest, or because one family of fatties eats every scoop while the other customers all prefer sensible quantities of mint-choc-chip; then we can tentatively allow that as an objective claim so long as it is only taken to support inferences that are true or untrue in virtue of some external world property (sales figures adjusted by data about customers making the choices for instance).

VA's major issue is that he has wasted the last decade of his life trying to make the leap from best selling flavour, to most popular flavour, to "goodest flavour" reduce to a simple step. As far as he's concerned, if vanilla sells most, you can move seamlessly from that empirical datum to some FSK thing where it is normatively best. He attempts to make this move by downgrading objectivity to have nothing to do with the means of verification, nor with laguage games about how we build such verification requirements into our constructed shared reality or any of that shit.

He thinks that through sleight of hand he can remove the difference of type between that which is observably large and that which is aesthetically desirable.

He will go way beyond ice cream flavours if you push him. He has gone on record to claim that Miss World competitions directly measure beauty, to the extent that they are authorative and scientific investigations thereof. He doens't like being told that Pornhub has enormously more data than Miss World and should therefore be classified as a scientific tool.

To my mind, the problem you describe is one of laziness in not taking the time and effort to add the "qualifiers" that delineate the boundaries of objectivity of inherently subjective comments (such as Miss World is beautiful). Their absence leads to erroneous generalities being drawn.

[bahman]

Subjectivity is: the quality, state, or nature of being subjective.

and subjective encompasses experience;

Subjective is:
- characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind,
-relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
-modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
-arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli
-arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes
- peculiar to a particular individual.

There is no mistake in equating 'subjective experience' with 'subjectivity'.

Knowledge per se cannot be from merely the first-person's experience, i.e. a subject.
Rather, knowledge [objective knowledge] is conditioned upon a specific human-based Framework and System [FSK] with the consensus of a collective-of-subjects, thus inter-subjective.

Objectivity is only opposite of subjectivity with reference to a first-person's experiences.
However, objectivity is intersubjectivity and cannot be independent of subjectivity in terms of a collective-of-subjective interactions.

It is a mistake to equate subjective experience with subjectivity.

Despite my detailed reconciliation between subjective experience and subjectivity, Why do you think it is a mistake?

Here are the perspectives where subjective experience and subjectivity can be linked and relevant to my point;

Intertwined nature: Subjective experiences are the building blocks of subjectivity. Each unique perception, emotion, and interpretation we have forms part of our overall subjective world. Therefore, equating them can be seen as highlighting this close connection.

We need subjective experience to have a subjective opinion about something. They are different.

[Veritas Aequitas]

.........
He will go way beyond ice cream flavours if you push him. He has gone on record to claim that Miss World competitions directly measure beauty, to the extent that they are authorative and scientific investigations thereof. He doens't like being told that Pornhub has enormously more data than Miss World and should therefore be classified as a scientific tool.

To my mind, the problem you describe is one of laziness in not taking the time and effort to add the "qualifiers" that delineate the boundaries of objectivity of inherently subjective comments (such as Miss World is beautiful). Their absence leads to erroneous generalities being drawn.

Don't simply trust FDP the serial liar.
It is a lie 'deliberately' based on some childish 'hate' he had on me.
I have NEVER claimed, the
"Miss World competitions directly measure beauty, to the extent that they are authoritative and scientific investigations thereof."

My claim is as always, the Miss World competition measures beauty objectively in one sense [perspective] as qualified to the rules of the "Miss-World-FSK" constituted by the Miss-World Organization, https://www.missworld.com/

What is scientific authority is conditioned upon the scientific-FSK which has nothing authoritative to do with the "Miss-World-FSK" except they are both FSK.

My point is 'beauty' can be objectified as long as it is imperatively qualified upon a specific human-based FSK.
As such, that 'So and So' is 'Miss Word Year 202?', i.e. the most beautify women in the year 202? [objectively] must be qualified to the conditions of the "Miss-World-FSK". It cannot be an unqualified statement.

FSK-ed Objectivity comes in degrees within a continuum with the scientific FSK as the standard at present, and so is given 100/100 index.
Off hand, because beauty competitions are very subjective, the FSK and so the degrees of objectivity would be likely at the lower end of the continuum, something like 20/100.

[Iwannaplato]

The truth is the set of statements each is true. Therefore, the truth is objective.

So, because the statements are true, they are objective?

Are true and objective synonyms?

I'm wondering, I guess, what is being countered or gained by this argument. Is there a way to apply it?

[bahman]

The truth is the set of statements each is true. Therefore, the truth is objective.

So, because the statements are true, they are objective?

Not all statements are true.

Are true and objective synonyms?

No. It was better to say the truth is the set of statements each is objectivily true.

I'm wondering, I guess, what is being countered or gained by this argument. Is there a way to apply it?

It means that it does not depend on people's opinions or beliefs.

[FlashDangerpants]

.........
He will go way beyond ice cream flavours if you push him. He has gone on record to claim that Miss World competitions directly measure beauty, to the extent that they are authorative and scientific investigations thereof. He doens't like being told that Pornhub has enormously more data than Miss World and should therefore be classified as a scientific tool.

To my mind, the problem you describe is one of laziness in not taking the time and effort to add the "qualifiers" that delineate the boundaries of objectivity of inherently subjective comments (such as Miss World is beautiful). Their absence leads to erroneous generalities being drawn.

Don't simply trust FDP the serial liar.
It is a lie 'deliberately' based on some childish 'hate' he had on me.
I have NEVER claimed, the
"Miss World competitions directly measure beauty, to the extent that they are authoritative and scientific investigations thereof."

My claim is as always, the Miss World competition measures beauty objectively in one sense [perspective] as qualified to the rules of the "Miss-World-FSK" constituted by the Miss-World Organization, https://www.missworld.com/

What is scientific authority is conditioned upon the scientific-FSK which has nothing authoritative to do with the "Miss-World-FSK" except they are both FSK.

My point is 'beauty' can be objectified as long as it is imperatively qualified upon a specific human-based FSK.
As such, that 'So and So' is 'Miss Word Year 202?', i.e. the most beautify women in the year 202? [objectively] must be qualified to the conditions of the "Miss-World-FSK". It cannot be an unqualified statement.

FSK-ed Objectivity comes in degrees within a continuum with the scientific FSK as the standard at present, and so is given 100/100 index.
Off hand, because beauty competitions are very subjective, the FSK and so the degrees of objectivity would be likely at the lower end of the continuum, something like 20/100.

You are making my point for me. What were you trying to do, surely something else?

[FlashDangerpants]

To my mind, the problem you describe is one of laziness in not taking the time and effort to add the "qualifiers" that delineate the boundaries of objectivity of inherently subjective comments (such as Miss World is beautiful). Their absence leads to erroneous generalities being drawn.

I'm afraid it's not like that. VA deliberately takes the time and effort to obscure such "qualifiers" and call people who draw his attention to them gnats.


If he had a big dick, Erroneous Generalities would be his porn name.