Okay great, I think we are getting somewhere. Although you did not answer my question about, "How can a human being take an objective stance but not be able to look from an objective viewpoint?" I see that your using objective as opposed to subject, and subjective implies a viewpoint, so would I be right in saying that you would agree if subject implies a viewpoint, then objective implies not a viewpoint or point of view but a way of seeing or looking instead? Could what you meant by 'objective stance' mean the way we look rather than what we see (the viewpoint) when we look.Noax wrote:I agree that my circular wording will not suffice as a definition, but the word objective is opposed to subjective, and subjective implies a viewpoint, and all our knowledge is confined to what can be gleaned via that viewpoint.ken wrote:Okay that is your definition, which is fine. Rather circular, and using the same word that is being defined also in the definition does not really clear things up for Me, but at least you defined and clarified something for Me when I asked a question, which is far more than I usually get in this forum, so thanks for that. But now, how does an 'objective stance' differ from any perspective but mostly from an 'objective perspective'?
How can a human being take an objective stance but not be able to look from an objective viewpoint?
If so, then if we are going to agree that ALL views, which are what has formed AFTER looking, no matter what, that they are subjective? Can we then agree that there is a way to look at things, which can be objectively?
Noax wrote:Are you thus seeking my open and honest answer to that question?... and if I ask a question, which is ANY sentence ended by a ? I write, then I am literally asking a truly open-ended question seeking a truly open and honest answer to THAT question.Noax wrote:Thought it was rhetorical
If human beings do not mean what they say (or write), then why say (or write) it?
Yes I was actually. When I said before, "... if I ask a question, which is ANY sentence ended by a ?...", then, "Yes", that is exactly what I literally mean. I literally was seeking your open and honest answer to that question, and any and all other questions I may ask.
Looks can be deceiving.Noax wrote: Looked rhetorical to me.
The trouble in expressing ideas, views, et cetera, to a wider group of readers is finding the right words and ways to express what it is that is actually being said and meant to be said. There are so many people who have their own individual views and differing ways of looking at things that confusion can too easily set in. What can be seen to be one thing to one human being can be completely different and even opposing to another human being.
Noax wrote:Agree.If you discard all beliefs and assumptions, then all biases are discarded also.
That is great that you agree with this, even though you think that a human being is incapable of complete openness. Could you agree that a human being could be completely open at all, even for just a very short while?Noax wrote:Yes, I agree with this, but only because of the 'if'. I think a human is incapable of this kind of openness.Great. So if you agree, then could your agreement then lead us towards the premise that if a human being is completely open, which is they have discarded all beliefs and assumptions, then they can actually look from a no biased viewpoint, and/or have a view without any biases at all?
If so, then this is the same sort of thing I am discussing with surreptitious57, in that surreptitious57 says that human beings are incapable of not having emotions and you say human beings are incapable of being completely open. I have never said that human beings are capable of doing either for very long nor extended periods of time. I have just been alluding to, and asking via clarifying questions, that these things are possible and human beings are in fact actually capable of doing them. Although you and surreptitious57 both are saying that these things are not possible you both are still showing signs that you are at least open to the possibility that they are possible, you more so than surreptitious.
Human beings who are at least somewhat open to new ideas, views, et cetera, is all I have really being looking for on here. Only through discussions with open and honest people is the way I can really learn how to express better.
Beliefs are not held anywhere if they are discarded completely. Depending on where the "logic" come from "logic" can be the most subjective of views, and using this most subjective of "logic" can dissolve absolutely any objectivity there is.Noax wrote: Logic is a tool to supplement the emotional part where beliefs are held and decisions are made.
And, emotions can influence thinking, but it is thoughts or thinking from which decisions are made. The emotional part is just that part made up of about 450 or so inner, or emotional, feelings. Decisions are made up solely from the mental capacity, and so come from the mental part. The mental part is just thoughts. Of course emotions influence thoughts but decisions are not made from the emotional part. A human being, for example, can feel anger or rage, but there is nothing in that emotional part from which a decision can be made, a decision about what to do next, for example, can only come from the thinking or mental part. Whether or not a human being decides to lash out with a knife, or grab a gun and shoot, or step away and take a few deep breathes, or leave the situation and go for a walk, or yell out, or any of the multitude of other choices they can choose from and do, comes from a thought within the head. A decision about what to do exactly can not come from an emotional feeling. A feeling is just that, a feeling. It is thoughts, and only thoughts, which actually controls ALL of what human beings do.
Without emotions a human being will not have an emotional bias influencing the thinking, and, without assumptions and beliefs a human being is completely open and thus will also have no biases in which to influence the choice they make.Noax wrote:We all like to think of ourselves as rational beings, but the rational seems always secondary to deeper roots that are the source of our biases.
So far. But part of that in-built survivability in human beings is to discovering, learning, and knowing Truth. Truth may just be what helps in evolving to finding better and far more peaceful and pollution-free ways for human beings to live and thus survive, which in turn could not be as detrimental to their survival as the way they are going now is.Noax wrote: We are evolved for survival, not truth. The truth is not conducive to survival.
If you are aware of your biases, then why can you not discard them?Noax wrote: I have seemingly identified enough of my own biases to see where the path leads. I cannot discard those biases, but at least I'm aware of them.
I am not sure how Truth could kill any race.Noax wrote: So I have a closer awareness of what I feel is truth, but cannot embrace it.
This might be the solution to the Fermi paradox. Truth eventually kills any sufficiently advanced race.
I have never heard of fermi paradox before but on quick inspection my first thoughts are:
Earth could have already been visited by extraterrestrials.
Who says human beings are not a result of extraterrestrials visiting earth, thus human beings are themselves the evidence that extraterrestrials have already visited?
The assumption that the universe had a beginning might be limiting the actual probability of the vastness of the actual area to cover when traversing to happen upon one planet called earth.
Why is it generally accepted and thought of that ufo's are aliens coming from other planets anyway?
Ufo's could just be human beings themselves travelling back in time.
But 12+17 equaling 29 is not an objective fact to Me. That human beings have agreed upon a symbol that looks like 1 to denote one thing, and that a symbol that looks like 2, which denotes two things, when put together creates the symbol 12, which means twelve things and that that number when added together with an agreed upon symbol and number 17 equals the symbol 29 and that that is an agreed upon and accepted twenty nine things, is an objective fact to Me. Yes this would probably not have got to this stage without any points of views being put forward to be discussed so in that sense this would never have been known without subjectivity (viewpoints), but to Me as long as human beings were being completely open, so that things could be found, discovered, and learned, then that is objectivity. To Me, it is only from the truly uneducated Mind, found within all human babies that this type of complete openness is what has allowed human beings to have evolved into such educated people.Noax wrote:There are agreed upon facts? Especially facts not known by subjective means? Sure, 12+17=29 seems to be something on the nature of an objective fact, but even that one would never have been known without subjectivity. It certainly does not come intuitively to uneducated minds.To give an example let us say if a view, which is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts, and which is in fact agreed upon and accepted as Truth not just by every human being but also by absolutely every thing, then COULD that view that is accepted as True Fact by Everything actually have come from an objective viewpoint, and, BE an objective view?
To Me, very young human beings intuitively know that it is wrong to hurt, harm, and damage each other. But to the elderly and educated, they will quite happily imagine, invent, create, and sell some thing, for greed, no matter if it does hurt, harm, and damage other human beings, and even themselves. Although these two examples may not be objective facts. It is these types of examples I think, which are Truths or objective facts.
But is being completely open not where all human beings start at? Being totally open at zero, on one's first day, is to start at zero and from where ALL progress is actually made, right?Noax wrote:I think I have to disagree. Being totally open is to start at zero, from where no progress can be made.If the way to obtain those, accepted by every thing as absolutely, True Facts comes from being truly and completely open, which comes from have absolutely no beliefs nor assumptions and which rids one's own self of ALL biases, then just maybe that is the way to be able to gain a view from Everything's perspective. If you could Instead of just looking at things from a truly open viewpoint instead of from your own personal perspective, then could that be the way which allows you and all human beings to be able to see from a truly objective viewpoint, which then obviously also allows a truly objective view to be formed?
To Me, all human beings start without personal, individual biases. To Me all human beings start intuitively knowing and are biased for the survival of the species, but they do not know that they are there.Noax wrote:So gain knowledge, get the biases, but work through them. You can only rid yourself of a bias if you know you have them. Not so simple to just start without them if you don't know they're there.
Knowledge is gained no matter what, so there is no choice there, in the early years. Personal biases get instilled along the way. Once you know how you obtained your own personal biases you can then start to separate those biases from what is actually needed for survival, then I found it was very easy to rid those personal biases, which allowed Truth to flourish.
For example one of my own personal bias was for eating cow, lamb, and pork. Then I asked the question, why do I think this is all right behavior when it is totally unacceptable to others?
Unlike what most people do and what I had always done up to that time with questions like this, that is dismiss the question and not answer it, but this time I actually did answer it. "Because of the way I was brought up", I said.
Then the most basic of realizations hit me. I was only doing and thinking what I was raised to do and think. So, if I was only doing what I was doing because of my up bringing, then so is every other person. No exceptions. We all do what we do because of our past experiences.
But what is all right behavior? I asked. Obviously there is no way of knowing what meat is all right to eat because there is so many differing cultures and societies. But what I do know, and which is proven by any and every living vegetarian, is we do not need meat to live. We can survive without eating meat. From that I concluded that what is all right behavior is what is right by all. What is agreed to be right by all is not one's own personal biased viewpoint, which has obviously come from one's own experiences, but what is collectively known to be right. This I was discovering provides a far more objective view of Life, then my own subjective view every had or could. My own personal view, which was obtained by what i had experienced and been subjected to, was just that - a personal view. A far more realistic view could and would obviously be formed by a far more greater viewpoint or perspective. A far greater audience and obviously see far greater and more. Therefore, I was seeing that an ultimate or absolute Truth could only be seen from the perspective of everyone as One.