Objective/Subjective

[Lorikeet]

Objectivity = not Rand's defence of selfishness and capitalist greed.
__________________________________________________________________
Subjectivity is to objectivity what omnipotence is to strength/power and omniscient is to knowledge/understanding.
Subjectivity is how objectivity is measures, just as strength measures weakness, and gnosis measures ignorance.
One moves towards objectivity, as one cultivates strength and knowledge.
One moves towards omnipotence, as one moves towards omniscience.....wihtout ever attaining it, completing the movement.
Completion would end existence.

All vlaue-judgements are triangulations: subject, objective and effort/distance.

An ideal state imagined to be absolute - ideal.
Absolute = defined as immutable, indivisible, singular.....the psychological version would be certainty.
This would be possible if existence were completely ordered.
But it is also chaotic - Yin-Yang - making such completions improbable.

So, when we speak of objectivity we mean a state approaching indifference - godly state.
A truly omnipotent being would be indifferent.
Human judgement that is relatively uncorrupted by self-interest, emotions, needs, desires is what we refer to as more objective, just as we refer to a man's strength as being superior to another's, never claiming he is omnipotent.

The evaluating standard is a shared existence.
Application of judgement - choice, action - juxtaposing expectations with consequences, determines the accuracy of a judgement.
Objectivity multiplies success, without never making it certain, due to the effect of chaos.

--------------------------------
Emotions, desires, corrupts judgements, leading to bad choices.

[FlashDangerpants]

Say what you like about Advocate, but at least his version of that would fit into a fortune cookie with nothing of significance lost.

[Lorikeet]

Significance is about application, not the theory.
The theory is self-evident, if it is objective, or to the degree that it is so.

Now find examples of subjective emoters on this forum.

[Lorikeet]

Since all life is trapped in its own subjective interpretations of existence natural selection is what determines which interpretation is closest to the real.
Only one species can cultivate erroneous subjective perspectives as part of its control over weaker minds.
The collective is expected to absorb the negative consequences of an individual's erroneous judgements, leading to bad choices.
Those that wish to defend the notion that all subjective perspectives are equally valid are also those who insist on collectives disseminating the consequences of individual choices.

But this is unsustainable in the long run, because it atrophies brains, gradually eroding their ability to make good judgments calls.
Eventually the collective is unable to absorb the negative consequences of tis individual's bad choices.
The system implodes.
As is occurring in the states.
A "tipping point" is reached and surpassed, beginning systemic decline.

The group cannot compete with other groups when its individuals can no longer endure reality and must seek refuge in a collectively supported fantasy.
Natural selection takes over.

Some delusions have their own methods of dealing with this.
They either contradict their own principles, or they find excuses to explain why they can never abide with their own principles.
They practice the opposite of what they preach.
This is most evident in Christianity, and the notion of sinfulness, requiring constant contrition - reaffirmation of their submissiveness to the collective.
So, they may proclaim "love thy neighbour" but will slaughter all neighbours who disagree with them.
In Judaism they've solved this issue by believing in a Demiurge which is both good and evil.
For Jews the god of Abraham is their collective, and his wrath is how they justify their periodic collapse.

[Wizard22]

When most people and wannabe-thinkers use 'Objectivity' in the West, they mean it in the Secular-Abrahamic sense: the Objective is a universal, uniform, human morality. They want all humans to act and behave in a specific way. They believe, under Abrahamic premises, that if humans acted in such a uniform manner, then 'world peace', 'utopia', or 'the rapture' would occur, "Heaven on Earth". Thus 'Objectivity' is automatically converted from the Subjective intention (Utopianism, Universalism, Absolution) into a self-presumed Standard. "Everybody ought to act in this or that manner. And if they do not, then they are Wrong/Evil/Bad. They are a 'terrorist' (Secularism). Or they are an 'infidel' or 'demon' (Abrahamism)."

Thus the "Objective" is inherent in the proposed, hypothetical Objectivity: universal human behaviors, or Ethics.

Most of these types presume that World Peace is the objective, and not War. So their actual premise/value (Peace) is hidden, in an attempt to exploit and maneuver rhetorically around Subjective intentions. Obviously, one man's "Peace" is going to interfere with another's. For one man, "Peace" means that he is fed...but everybody else, not necessarily. So, through rhetoric and argument, it will be found out that the Subject is not so willing to starve himself, before all else are fed—but will capitulate at some point, sacrifice this supposed Utopianism, and feed himself before others. The hypocrisy, the contradiction, will become exposed for others to see.

The 'Objective' intention, is exposed by the Subjective hidden motive: my food, my satiation, my hunger, comes before others'.


Thus the Objective is trumped or over-ridden, exposed, by the Subjective desires.

The Goal/Ideal dissipates before the Reality (Starvation/Privation/Hunger).


The "Objectivists" are careful about their public agreements and disagreements, because of this mechanism. They could, hypothetically, all agree that 'Objectivity' is Universal, insofar as it implies and demands Universal moral/ethical human behaviors: it's about what everybody ought to do, with regard to general parameters or conditions. Secularists attempt to do this through the State (Leftism/Liberalism). Abrahamics attempt to do this through the Church (Rightism/Conservatism).

[Wizard22]

I'll also provide an example: African food charities in the 1990s...anybody remember those?

Western Christians, mostly Evangelicals, created many US 'Charity' networks to feed Africans. These "selfless" Evangelicals took a significant cut of the money for themselves, by the way....but skip that. They did provide a lot of food handouts for Africa. What happened as a result? Did it lift Africa out of poverty? Did it create peace in Africa?

No...opposite!

It created worse famines, worse warfare, and worse chaos. Africans are severely over-populated in Africa now, as a result. They are even being shipped to European countries and America, through George-Soros and WEF initiatives. So the Western 'Objective'/'Objectivity' was once again dashed by Reality. Feeding Africans did not result in peace, but more warfare, competition, killings, and disparity. The Western Liberals, Secularists, and Christians (Evangelicals) were proved wrong.

They swept this under the rug in the 2010s. That's why most people don't hear about it or remember. But many of you will, remember the spam of commercials and charity-fraud on television.


There are many specific reasons and causes why feeding heavily r-sexually selected people, does not work, does not produce the desired outcome. But that's for another time, perhaps, for those who are more *ehem* open-minded.

[Lorikeet]

When most people and wannabe-thinkers use 'Objectivity' in the West, they mean it in the Secular-Abrahamic sense: the Objective is a universal, uniform, human morality. They want all humans to act and behave in a specific way. They believe, under Abrahamic premises, that if humans acted in such a uniform manner, then 'world peace', 'utopia', or 'the rapture' would occur, "Heaven on Earth". Thus 'Objectivity' is automatically converted from the Subjective intention (Utopianism, Universalism, Absolution) into a self-presumed Standard. "Everybody ought to act in this or that manner. And if they do not, then they are Wrong/Evil/Bad. They are a 'terrorist' (Secularism). Or they are an 'infidel' or 'demon' (Abrahamism)."

Yes...and so they assume that objectivity is the same for all, and that all want to impose their way of thinking no others.
In fact, many of us only want to not be held accountable for another's bad choices.
Why should I pay for another's bad judgment calls, reinforcing his delusion that there is no such thing as a bad choice?

Most of these types presume that World Peace is the objective, and not War. So their actual premise/value (Peace) is hidden, in an attempt to exploit and maneuver rhetorically around Subjective intentions. Obviously, one man's "Peace" is going to interfere with another's. For one man, "Peace" means that he is fed...but everybody else, not necessarily. So, through rhetoric and argument, it will be found out that the Subject is not so willing to starve himself, before all else are fed—but will capitulate at some point, sacrifice this supposed Utopianism, and feed himself before others. The hypocrisy, the contradiction, will become exposed for others to see.

For me objectivity only means that a perspective is not corrupted by self-iterests, emotions, and ego, increasing the probability that it is closest to the truth.

The 'Objective' intention, is exposed by the Subjective hidden motive: my food, my satiation, my hunger, comes before others'.

Objectivity does the opposite.
My personal feelings, desires, needs, have no impact on my judgements.

The "Objectivists" are careful about their public agreements and disagreements, because of this mechanism. They could, hypothetically, all agree that 'Objectivity' is Universal, insofar as it implies and demands Universal moral/ethical human behaviors: it's about what everybody ought to do, with regard to general parameters or conditions. Secularists attempt to do this through the State (Leftism/Liberalism). Abrahamics attempt to do this through the Church (Rightism/Conservatism).

Objectively speaking, I want all to think and act as they will, if....IF they do not demand of me to bear the consequences of their choices.

These buffoons know their judgements are bad, so they demand the collectivization of consequences.
They expect society to absorb the consequences so that they do not have to change their views on anything, nor change their lifestyles.

They also reject morality, like that woman - you know who - who basis her presumptions on the reasoning of reciprocity.
Now imagine a man who is of sound mind, doing his best to remain objective and make good choices, being told to share the consequences of another man's bad choices and his refusal to question or change his judgements.
Who is the benefactor?
The dumb-ass will live his life convinced that his judgment was as good as the other's.

[FlashDangerpants]

they assume that objectivity is the same for all

Erm...

[Wizard22]

Objectively speaking, I want all to think and act as they will, if....IF they do not demand of me to bear the consequences of their choices.

These buffoons know their judgements are bad, so they demand the collectivization of consequences.
They expect society to absorb the consequences so that they do not have to change their views on anything, nor change their lifestyles.

They also reject morality, like that woman - you know who - who basis her presumptions on the reasoning of reciprocity.
Now imagine a man who is of sound mind, doing his best to remain objective and make good choices, being told to share the consequences of another man's bad choices and his refusal to question or change his judgements.
Who is the benefactor?
The dumb-ass will live his life convinced that his judgment was as good as the other's.

I think most people want their (subjective) "Objectives" to be universal, and apply to all others, but this is obvious problematic for the reasons above. Rarely or never do people agree on 'all' things. The best that humans, or any organisms do, is agree on most things. Thus, when most values are shared between organisms, then the highest levels of cooperation, instead of competition, are achieved. These values are organic and biological, insofar as they are genetically heritable, and 'nurtured' to greater sophistication: Specialization.

Your primary objective seems to be, correct me if I'm wrong, "Truth at All Costs". So your objective will run most oppositional against those who Lie at All Costs or Self-Deceive at All Costs. Hence you will stand oppositional to most human societies and cooperation which sacrifice Truth for hidden motives and agendas. This is inherent within all social groupings, as there are at least some levels of Exclusivity which reject all others. A group that announces to the world, its exclusivity, will likely be destroyed in Western Civilization today, where the prevailing All-Inclusivity sentiment dominates the vast majority.

Liberalism, in particular, are 'educated'/propagated/indoctrinated, to aggressively attack and oppose 'Exclusivity', save for a "Chosen One's" group. This group is allowed to be 'Exclusive' while all others, are not.

Yes, the woman you mention is relentless in her 'fractured' mindset, a bi-product of Western Civilization's grinding-down process. It breaks the weaker/weakest minds into Schizophrenias and many other forms of mental illness and physical maladies. Autism, for example, in some cases, is a specific anti-social resistance against this Westernization process, a vain attempt by young boys, almost always of single-mothers, who regress physical and mental development, in order to avoid the Western 'socialization' (buck-breaking, feminizing, emasculating, domesticating) process.


Hippies like seeds, who I invited to the thread, seem clueless that many other humans do not share "World Peace" as any type of Universal Objective...but the opposite in fact. A good warrior, soldier, masculine-man, does not necessarily value Peace, but instead valuing War, makes him a far more effective, successful, and enterprising soldier. He likely survives, because he values War, over Peace. If all soldiers valued 'World Peace', then they would likely surrender, cower, or retreat, at the earliest sign of battle or defeat.

Thus, no single (Subjective) value, can actually be Universal.


The Hellenic Pantheon was symbolic of this multiplicity of pagan values, which was later over-ruled by Christianity's Monotheistic "Peace Offering", in order to pacify, domesticate, and integrate the majority of Rome's slaves, conquered tribes, and rebellious senators.

[FlashDangerpants]

There are many specific reasons and causes why feeding heavily r-sexually selected people, does not work, does not produce the desired outcome. But that's for another time, perhaps, for those who are more *ehem* open-minded.

"r-sexually"?

[Wizard22]

There are many specific reasons and causes why feeding heavily r-sexually selected people, does not work, does not produce the desired outcome. But that's for another time, perhaps, for those who are more *ehem* open-minded.

"r-sexually"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

[Age]

So, "lorikeet" and "wizard22" use two completely opposing definitions for the 'objective' word here, and then try to 'argue' and fight for their own personal definition, opinion, view, and judgement here.

Hopefully, people are starting to fully see and understand why it took human beings, back then when this was being written, so very, very long to come to comprehend and understand the actual Fact and Truth of things, like for example, how the Mind and the brain actual work, for one.

[Lorikeet]

Whatever different definitions are being used there is only one shared stadard....objective reality.
All subjective perspectives are measured against objective reality - which is not static but dynamic and fluctuating, but, nevertheless, remains consistent for an incredible length of time - relative to human lifespans and the length of time civilizations have existed on this fine earth.

Objectivity refers to a fluctuating cosmos, and subjectivity to man's continuous attempts to remain true to it.
So, objectivity can only be a measure of degree, not an absolute state.

[Lorikeet]

Objective = point of reference, focusing a subject's aggregate energies - determining its movement.
The movement is what defines the subject; its objectives shape it over time.

The objective can be within reality - attainable - or outside reality - unreal - and therefore unattainable.
This, too, defined the subject.

When we say objectivity, we mean a movement towards the real, will-less, as Schopenhauer described it, with no self-interest, no emotion, no motive other than to see, to know, to understand.
Here the objective defining the subject is clarity - an alignment with the cosmos.
Not expected to be entirely positive, because the cosmos is not friendly towards life, nor does it care for human objectives and desires.
Aligning with what has no motive, no care, no interests, no ends, means one must become like it, for as long as you can endure it.

This is why philosophy is a human art-form.
Philosophy is the pursuit of clarity. Objectivity. Distinguishing the useful from the useless; the attainable from the unattainable; the truth from within the lies.
Philosophers must become monsters to those who cannot pursue nor endure objective reality; those who cannot endure their friend's faults, and must idealize him - forgetting he has faults, purifying him in their minds.
Philosophers must speak of what most cannot endure.... perhaps housed within allegories.
How can one befriend what has no care, no will, no consciousness?
The enduring must all be on the side of the subject.

Not all can become philosophers, yet all can claim the title.
For most philosopher means, someone who has found plausible solutions to their existential problems.
They associate a philosopher as some kind of priest, full of soothing words, delivering helpful advice.

[Lorikeet]

Objective is for a subject an orienting projection.
It can be anything. It can be attainable or unattainable; existing within space/time causality, or in some imagined "outside" realm - an occult plain of existence theoretically underlying what is experienced.
Metaphysics is where nihilism thrives, because physics contradict it.

If we properly define existence as a state of dynamic interactivity (causality), then what is "outside" existence is non-existent.
Nihilism locates its objective in the non-existent., expressing a defensive reaction towards the existent.

Objectives can, therefore, be attainable - within existence - or unattainable - without existence.
This is possible due to the brain's ability to process and interpret stimuli and to synthesize them, once they've been converted into representations.
In the case of nihilism and its multifarious versions (spiritual & secular) the mind inverts its representations of experienced reality to fabricate alternative realities, expressing the minds psychological dissatisfactions, and anxieties, relative to what exists.
Nihilistic objectives remain forever theoretical, idealistic, pure abstractions with no external referents. Their utility is only as a psychological salve, protecting the ego from the implications of its own interactive existence.
Conversely, realistic objectives are falsifiable, verifiable, attainable, and so continuously revised - they are useful.

How does the subject evaluate an objective?
By comparing tis expectations from the consequences of its attainment. This is how it evaluates its own judgements, and subsequent choices.
Unattainable objectives remain forever pure, because they are unattainable and so no comparison can ever be performed. This is how it remains unchallenged, allowing the subject to never doubt its own judgements.

Even the concept of nihilism has been integrated into a conventional nihilistic paradigm.
For instance, conventional definitions of 'god, and of 'meaning' and of 'morality' have been defined in ways that make them impossible to exist, allowing some to altogether deny their existence.
The only thing they deny is how nihilists have defined these concepts.

Gods, properly defined, exist.
Morality, properly defined, exists.
The cosmos is full of meaning if we define meaning properly.

By "properly" I do not mean my preferences, but I mean by using the word to connect noumenon, the idea, with phenomenon, the real.
'Free-will' can also be proven to exist, if we define 'will' and 'free' by referring to actions, not to texts or in ideas existing only in minds; actions that remain independent from all subjective preferences and interpretations.
Freedom is not an absolute concept. There is no state of existing without needs, desires, without impulses and compulsions. without dependence.
Free, in this case, refers to Will, as its qualifier.
A will is always relatively free, not absolutely so.
Freedom is determined by a will's power, measured by the quantity and quality of options available and accessible, to the will - expressed as choice.
We are will - every act we perform is a willful act.
Free does not mean free form need, or desire.... free from motive. Free simply refers to the options available and attainable by a will, determined by tis strength, its power.
Power being measured by overcoming resistance.

Similarly, meaning has been rendered meaningless by nihilists - defined as purpose.
Since the cosmos has no beginning and no end, it has no purpose, no intent. It just is.
What we refer to as a beginning and end are cycles, relative to our short ephemeral lifespans.
Meaning simply refers to how phenomena inter-relate - it refers to relationships.
For example, the meaning of a word is determined by the relationship of a subject with an object/objective.

____________________________________________________________________________
Why is nihilism so seductive...so popular, especially in this Americanised day and age?
There are many reasons, but at its core the reason is that nihilism offers a semiotic wall between subject and objective reality, protecting the ego (awaking self-awarness) to a developing third-person perspective. Exposing it to a new source of anxiety and suffering.
Objectivity is the threat to a subjective mind, because objectivity reveals relationships, comparisons, between subjects.
A subject wants to immerse itself in its own subjectivity - feeling independent, liberated, saved, from an uncaring world it cannot endure.
So, it demands inter-subjective supportive systems - collectives.
All those who deny objective reality are staunch collectivists. Even amorlists, and anarchists, demand collective cooperation based on ethical grounds.
What they rebel against is established hierarchies, including natural order, expressing a dissatisfaction with the sum of all past nurturing that manifested their nature.
Denial of free-will is also based on this need to excuse oneself by including all in a world where nobody has agency, and everything is inevitable - fatalism - absolving the individual from all responsibility in what has been determined.