Philosopher19 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 6:22 pm
Age wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 12:03 am
Do other people's awareness distinguish between objective truths and subjective truths?
Depends on what they have awareness of. But by my definition of the word "people", they do.
So, if there are two or more people with differing perspectives and views of what 'objective truths' are, and, what 'subjective truths' are, exactly, then which one of you people should I listen to and follow? Or, what is 'it', exactly, that I should base my decision on to listen to and follow?
Philosopher19 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 6:22 pm
My definition of the word people encompasses 'is sufficiently self-aware to distinguish between the objective and subjective' much like my definition of a perfect Euclid triangle encompasses the definition 'angles add up to 180 degrees'.
So, what you are essentially saying and meaning here is that I and others should listen to you and follow you because you "philosopher19" have the best and/or most accurate views and definitions here, right?
Philosopher19 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 6:22 pm
If they have awareness of objective truths and subjective truths, they have awareness of the difference between the two truths. As for how much or how well or how precise they are focused on this awareness or not, that's a different matter.
Do you have awareness of 'objective truths' and 'subjective truths'?
If yes, then you have awareness of the difference between the truths.
So, if yes to my clarifying question here posed and asked to you, then why do you not just express what those two truths are, exactly, while also expressing what the difference between the two is, exactly?
If you did, then you human beings could just stop squabbling and bickering over this very one issue here, which you have been for thousands and thousands of years hitherto when this is being written, correct?
For surely you are very focused and very well precisely focused on 'this awareness' and understanding of, and between, the two right?
Philosopher19 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 6:22 pm
Also, do you also believe subjective truths such as soccer is fun or vanilla ice cream is better are true, as well, because Existence is the way it is and we have awareness of this?
Regarding things like triangles are triangular, I would have said that is a clear case of 'Existence is the way It is'. Regarding something like x likes football while y loves tennis but hates football, I would have said there is an element of 'the subject is the way that it is' or perhaps 'the subject is the way that it is in relation to q in Existence' or even perhaps 'the subject is the way that it is in relation to Existence'. But having said all that, it is still the case that all subjects are members of Existence just as all triangles are members of Existence. Perhaps it should instead be said 'triangle are the way that they are because that is just the way that they are', and 'subject x is the way that he is because that is just the way that he is', and 'Existence is the way that It is because that is just the way that It is'.
Okay.
Philosopher19 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 6:22 pm
Or perhaps you could say: As for what makes x the way that it is, 'it's angles add up to 180 degrees' or in the case of a subject/person 'it did x at time t, it does x if y, it likes p instead of q, and it's name is w'.
Are you getting at any actual 'thing' here?
If yes, then what is 'that', exactly?
Philosopher19 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 6:22 pm
It is contradictory to deny that to one soccer is fun or vanilla ice cream is better, so you must 'now' see them as objective truths, right, well if we follow 'your logic' here anyway, correct?
Yes. If it is truly the case that subject x likes y, then it is objectively true that subject x likes y.
Okay. So, 'now', 'objective truths' can also be just what people, subjectively like, right?
If yes, then 'objective truths' are also just what is 'relative' to 'a person', or 'an observer', correct?
Philosopher19 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 6:22 pm
Liking y is subjective to x and all who like y. Triangles being triangular is not subjective to anyone. It is simply the case that triangles are triangular.
you seem to keep forgetting this only occurs if what is what you, subjectively and/or relatively, call 'a triangle' is called 'a triangle' to others. Otherwise, if not, then triangles necessarily being triangle is neither objective nor subjective to some people.
What these adult human beings, back when this was being written , continually seemed to forget, or had not yet come to realize and/nor understand is what actually makes, creates, or forms 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' themselves.
Philosopher19 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 6:22 pm
As for who has awareness of this, you could say that is subjective to all who have awareness of this.
Now 'this' I probably would most likely say.
Philosopher19 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 6:22 pm
But this does not not make triangles being triangular subjective (as in it is not a subject's awareness of this that makes this a truth.
What makes triangles, triangular may well not be a subjects 'awareness', itself, but rather a subject's views, or perspectives if one likes.
So, like absolutely absolutely every word, and definition, throughout all of human history, and throughout all of human future, it is 'an observer's' subject view what makes up and creates 'subjective truths'.
And, how, exactly, 'objective Truths' are made, created, and found is another just as extremely simple and easy way also, indeed.
It is the way that Existence/Truth is that makes this a truth, just as it it is the way that Existence/Truth is that makes 'subject x likes y' a truth.
Philosopher19 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 6:22 pm
If you just provide your own definition of the 'objective' or 'objectivity' word here, then perhaps your own person view of 'objectivity' might be better explained here, as well.
Regarding my 'own person view', I wrote the post in the link provided.
If you do not want to repeat your own personal view here, or do not want to provide a link here, then okay.
Philosopher19 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 6:22 pm
But perhaps this reply suffices in conveying my own person view of 'objectivity'.
This reply here of yours is just more or less repeating the exact same thing/s you have said previously about 'objectivity'.