Subjectivity is one of the greatest ideological ills of today

Don't you see how dangerous your mindset is? People use subjectivity as an excuse to ignore reason and evidence and to make up their own truths in order to live in their own bubbles, being immune to all forms of criticism. Not only it represents the destruction of humanity's intellectual progress by concluding that there is no such thing as progress, but it is also tremendously impractical as it denies the existence of an external world governed by rules that are relatively independent from us and in which other people live.

That is good, thought

Whatever you say

> mfw i realized that our society's ill is the lack of passionate search for subjective truth which leads to ideological frenzy and hedonistic meaninglessness
> mfw i realized that our generation is to be sacrificed on the altar of world-history as a grand experiment in social engineering, doomed to contribute nothing of cultural value except endless reinterpretations and critiques of our shared past

You're making some large assumptions there. Why do you believe there's an external world independent of an observer

Check out the balls on this guy

Embarrassing. Nice subjective interpretation of subjectivity, kid...

Why do you believe i possess balls? Thats just subjective. But i would like to hear why someone believes in the external world

For the same reason you and I exist whether we observe each other or not, the existence of an external world is the most basic, instinctive and self-evident truth, and by refusing it you are refusing all forms of knowledge and rendering any type of discussion that's based on empirical data impossible, which is dangerous to humanity's integrity

A better question is why you *don't* accept the notion of an external world, seeing as everything points out to its existence

PLEASE BE TROLLING
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Muh danger muh danger
>accept the external world’s existence on its own terms
Are you willing to question this “self-evident truth” and others like it, regardless of their utility, in the pursuit of truth? Or must we, as you say, avoid these dangerous ideas...

Do or don't you guys know, or not know that, knowledge might or might not be obtainable?

The pursuit of truth is fine, question things all you want, but you gotta learn to keep some things to theory and only theory as not everything has a practical application

Truth can only be obtained subjectively, that is to say, in the very depths of our minds. We cannot learn objectively, for the objects around us point in no clear direction, unless they are ordered by intelligence, which we can only obtain by subjectivity. It is a lack of subjectivity, not its overabundance that leads to the relativism you despise.

>humanity's intellectual progress by concluding that there is no such thing as progress.

Wew, lad.

If you're talking about products and shit sure, I mostly agree.

But art is 100% unequivocally subjective.

So true. Joyce and Yost being prime examples of subjective mastery.

>t. sam harris

we're all reflections of each other m8, but reflections aren't all the same b/c optics hence it's better to believe in an external world.

jesus fuck, are there really adults who didn't grow out of hard determinism in HS?

OP here. Surprised that the thread survived.

I believe that it is a very dishonest outlook and term most people fall to, lack of explanation in what they find to be beautiful or moral. As if excusing the pursuit of true form, or objectiveness of form within itself, by saying it doesn't matter if his perspective will view it differently. People still have a strong predisposition to move, think and act in a certain way, constricted by their biological self so to say.

The depth can only be so deep, and having a bottom means you take a set of predetermined finite objective items to produce predetermined objective results. Even without depth at all, we come to this conclusion, that subjectivity can be objectively explained as distinct points in their circumstsnces viewing one and the same.

The self evident truth is always present, it's you as an identity as such that operate with what appears to you as such in the empirical world in relation to the beyond lived in(seen only in the assumption of identity that operates).

reddit

I don't think its self evident at all when you really get into it. We are in complete unity with the process of everything. Assuming an external world is making an assumption of an internal world within the special little snowflakes that is humanity. There is no internal and external

You cannot deny the totallity the duality corresponds with either.

subjectivity is the opiate of the masses

Oh yes I see what you mean, care to elaborate my dear fellow?

Could you explain?

...

Welcome to the new Dark Age

Says you.

That's solipsism niggi. Not "subjectivity". From your previous post and the one i'm responding to it's clear that you don't have a clue about what "subjectivity" is.
You might be talking about subjectivism. As in everything is subjective, my brain makes it all up, so i dictate its value.
Subjectivity its just the quality of being made to be a subject, a subject of reason...law...rights... You get it?
Read a bit more before doing retarded and unfounded claims, ok?
>Don't you see how dangerous your mindset is? (...)moral rant.
>intellectual progress
>rules that are relatively independent
hmm... What's intellectual progress? what's progress actually? Acummulation of knowledge for the sake of it? Is knowledge acummulated in order to dominate (insert any beautiful cute living and breathing thing here) progress? Did you know that science also forgets a lot of knowledge? we know more than in the past? yeah, sure. Is that progress? as in progress understood as something that's inherently good?
Rules relatively indepent from what? you should beter say that they have some autonomy because nothing is indepent of nothing, if interactions stop, there's nothing you can see or analyse.
Please inform yourself a little bit more before doing retarded claims.

I'm not on either side, but some things are just axioms, are they not? You can question an axiom, but it will get you nowhere

This is a falsely well-reasoned argument from the kind of lunatic who goes PROVE IT, CAN YOU BACK THAT UP? SHOW ME THE PROOF. anytime they hear something (whether it's an opinion or fact) they don't like. They take refuge in a perverted an incorrectly construed form of the scientific method as a defense against things they don't want to hear. This is the exact kind of "reasoning" you get from flat earthers. You're an idiot.

It's not self evident to me and I've always found it confusing that others think so

>constricted by their biological self
I really hope that's just rethorical.
>The self evident truth is always present
Empirism is rotten "epistemologically" in it's roots. You're not a separate autonomous entity as in Descartes "brain in a jar". You can just be relatively certain that an external reality exists, so the cannonical truth is just a esentialism devoid of any value. Once you accept that, you can see that things act upon certain other things and that's the only reality of which you can be relatively certain. But knowledge is ALWAYS a construct (doesn't mean that's false or true). A synthesis of the things that act in our reality. A synthesis we "invent".

>knowledge is ALWAYS a construct (doesn't mean that's false or true)
The statement "this chessboard exists outside of me" is a statement that assumes the existence of a chessboard in an assumed external world, which is either true or false. Whether or not we can be aware the truthfulness of this statement is another topic, but regardless, this statement is the synthesis that our senses allowed. However, depending on the truthfulness of the statement, our synthesis can be either right or wrong, which means that knowledge can, indeed, be either true or false, as long as you define "knowledge" as "information we possess" without making a distinction if this information is true, false or incomplete. So we have the knowledge (information) that a chessboard exists, but it may or may not exist, which means this information (knowledge) could be true or false.

If you meant a different thing by "knowledge is a construct", you'll have to elaborate more on that.

*tips*

When you say that something is true you're suggesting some kind of platonic truth that stands by its own absolute truthfulness.
First "discoveries" or "facts" or "truth" is much more that the thing itself. Something only gets that status after it has gathered many alliances, convinced many and stablished as uncontroversial. There isn't a truth if we don't make it up, there isn't a fact if we don't invent it. and i'm not talking only about human beings, i'm talking about all the things, human and nonhuman.
When we know what we know, we are only aware of that and nothing more, but of course, every science in order to not fall into absolutism, must be relativist, so we say, -we can tell from the information we have that x thing is objectively this, but we might be wrong, further analysis will tell-. Every provisional truth is the truth, there isn't an absolute truth as we, as a part of the reality we're studying, are always bound to our interpretation of what reality is, we might dominate it or be dominated, but that doesn't make it more or less true.
Even with the best means of analysis we can't be certain about the absolute existence of the chessboard outside of us, as we are bound to our existence as part of the reality we're studying.
I'm not native speaker, i hope you can understand.

>You can just be relatively certain that an external reality exists, so the cannonical truth is just a esentialism devoid of any value.
You introduce values or "inth" powers of truth, assuming that external reality does exist and it's there that things assume their true value. You can see the truth that appears as truth within its moment but of different circumstance but not of different value.
>But knowledge is ALWAYS a construct (doesn't mean that's false or true). A synthesis of the things that act in our reality. A synthesis we "invent".
You assume reality to be seperate of identity and conflate the closeness of reflection to the truth, or oneness to self, of the construct that appears.

By value i mean "the ultimate reading of what reality really is". Esentialisms as true or false, as big and small... are always absolutist and contribute to stagnation as they never account for the always changing and renegotiating state of things.
Identity is a cathegory we actually need to analyse reality, the assumption of the "semper idem" is wrong as we can see that identity as i said before is never the same, it always changes depending of the different "networks" in which the things are immersed.

most likely thing is that our generation is hardly worse or better than any before us, we like to believe we're in an extraordinary time period, but that's our egos wishing

Yeah everyone should just think the same thing

>By value i mean "the ultimate reading of what reality really is".
Saying that we live in necessarily fake reality as soon as we question its integrity? Even if it was a reflection of the "truly true," why distinct the reflection as a fake?
>are always absolutist and contribute to stagnation as they never account for the always changing and renegotiating state of things.
As long as you continue to accept them as such in the living present
>Identity is a cathegory we actually need to analyse reality, the assumption of the "semper idem" is wrong as we can see that identity as i said before is never the same, it always changes depending of the different "networks" in which the things are immersed.
Never said it wasn't changing, but that assuming an identity to be knowledge by which we act, so we wouldn't now go even further into the "inth" powers of identification, as in identity assuming an identity. That which analyzes is already an identity.

This. OP, I see the approach you've made to your conclusion but you promote a "rightness" model that is incontrovertible. You propose that objectivity exists. That is well and good. What you further posit is ridiculous, in that human beings can perfectly understand, utilize, and otherwise interpret the perfectly objective real.

Reasons for this include the following:

>Human capacity for observation is limited.
-Tell me, what is the temperature in your room? No device. Also, your scale is arbitrary objectively. Oh that's right, you can't see infrared.
-How many atoms compose your monitor? There is an objective answer, all your guesses are subjective.
-Even if you observe all, you will not be able to record it before your inevitable death.

>Human capacity for understanding is limited and variant
-What color is the dress?
-I can tell you something I saw. There is nothing to say you will believe it.
-Flaws in behaviorist approaches to psychology, learning, cognition

>Humans don't like to be wrong
-Scientists are slow to adopt models that conflict with their 'knowledge' and beliefs, even though science itself is adroit in this capacity. A great example of this is black body radiation, google it.
-You, if something is legitimately a social construct. I have given no examples, and you have begun to react. Like government.

Objectivity does not describe the human experience. If we seek to describe our world, pure objectivity is a model we can adopt. If we seek to live in it, our subjectivity is requisite.

And on the fedora issue, your post reeks of it. It is impossible that another is right, if you are. You only adopt your objective model because it is the most defensible position from which to attack others, not because you actually find beauty in knowledge.

Did i say something about anything being "fake"? that's another essentialism i'd also preffer to avoid. read >As long as you continue to accept them as such in the living present
It's not about accepting them, it's about being part of one and same reality, we can't aknowledge the "true existence" of anything as we can't separate our mind from our mind, our mind from our brain and our brain from our body and our body from the reality we live in.
We as humans don't dictate what's real and what's not real, reality exists, things keep making other things do things, it's not about living experience.
I'd say it's a materialist point of view, but without disregarding metaphysics. So disregard "the thing in itself" the "a priory universal", "external reality", "solipsism", even "dialectics".

That wasn't the OP. It was bait and you took it.

Okay.

>Baiting on Veeky Forums

I always forget I'm still on Veeky Forums.

I'm guessing this is OP, what is your reply to this?
Ignoring the fedora points, as the green text masterpiece seems not to have been you.

It is always separated until the moment of seeing as such. The dialectics of representation seen and not seen, even in the same wholeness. I am saying the "truths" are absolute in their instances, but the identification happens in a separate living instace and this is our mind coping with the seeming exterior through our "virtual" body within the same affirming wholeness of both sides. Propensities of varying extents to infinitesmall points.

>It is always separated until the moment of seeing as such
It might, it might... But you just don't know anything about the intimate and independent reality of the things outside of what you know, that's the point. And you can't go further than that, it's not about the dialectics of nothing. The most honest thing i can do to aknowledge reality as it is, it's to let it present itself and to not use a "metaphysical theoretical frame" which summons magical forces to explain what should actually explain those forces, to cite some, "social forces" "market" "nature" "god" "science" "surplus value" "humans".
>"truths" are absolute in their instances
I'm not sure what you mean by this, are you talking about some the platonic heaven where true things stay always true and indivisible? the noumenon?

or maybe the idea that every generation is basically the same is us being intellectually complacent and so deathly afraid of deluding ourselves about life's meaning that we prefer to believe such platitudes, which amount to believing nothing at all. Of course its true in a very general sense, humans are still humans after all, but that dosent change the fact that each generation plays a unique part in history, even if its importance only fully reveals itself centuries later. Surely we can say that the generations which lived through the reformation or the french revolution lived in extraordinary times, and that they were essentially different from all preceding generations by virtue of the ideas which they developed and put into action. I'm saying that history will look back on our generation not for its novel conceptions of religion or politics, but as an experiment in what the kinds of technologies which we have developed in the last 25 years does to community, to attention spans, to culture, etc. Perhaps the next generation will have to develop radically new ways of life when faced with the unprecedented economic upheaval of automation, and history will in turn remember them for it.

I believe you misunderstood my point. What do you mean by objectivity and subjectivity?

>And on the fedora issue, your post reeks of it. It is impossible that another is right, if you are. You only adopt your objective model because it is the most defensible position from which to attack others, not because you actually find beauty in knowledge.
You seem to have gotten the impression that I want my viewpoints to always be accepted with no room for discussion, hence why you proceeded to explain to me in your post why subjectivism is valid, etc etc. However, your explanation has nothing to do with my complaint at all. It's not a rant about how people should always accept my arguments because I'm always right, it's a complaint about how many people nowadays refuse to accept other people's points *despite* all the arguments and evidence they present, by recurring to subjectivity as an excuse or, in other words: "that's just your opinion dude".

Many people can't handle being wrong indeed, and in order to maintain their beliefs when facing conflicting evidence or when they lack arguments to defend them, they resort to the "it's subjective" argument to avoid having to explain their position. This behavior has become more and more common in these post-modernist times, and it's aided by the notion that "every interpretation is equally valid". I've seen it in many discussions: one side offers solid arguments and evidence to back up their points, and when the other side is cornered, they take advantage of the postulates of subjectivity and manage to avoid being refuted.

Objectivism isn't the most defensible position, subjectivity is, because when taken to its extreme, you can't ever be refuted, and that's what people have been doing lately. It's an excelent tool for SJWs and post-modernists to support their own irrationality.

>I dislike this movie that exists to push a viewpoint I don't like.
>JUST TAKE OPINIONS OUT OF IT, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH QUALITY.
>I don't want to buy a book from a writer I hate.
>SEPARATE THE ART FROM THE ARTIST, IT HAS NO BEARING ON OBJECTIVE QUALITY.
>I don't like [food]
>WELL THE CHEF COOKED IT WELL SO YOU HAVE TO LIKE [food]
Oh look, I can be unfair too.

Conservatives:
> My subjective preferences reveal transcendant truths that are outside the realm of rationality
Liberals:
> There is no one truth, my subjective feelings reveal truth for me that you have to accept as fact, because your rationality is a power game!
Libertarians:
> There are few moral truths, so go pursue your subjective preferences as long as you aren't interfering with someone else' pursuit of theirs

Take your pick, but I'm open to correction here.

This is your mind on /pol/

This is such a bad post. Is this what american politics does to your brain?

Baby show me the way.
> inb4 self descriptions
I'm not interested in self-descriptions, I'm interested in accuracy.

"Conservative" , for starters, is an umbrella term. Some conservatives, as, for example, Hobbes, never presumed politic truth to be outside the realm of rationality. Much of the same may be said for liberals and, to a lesser extent, libertarians.
The categories you made, and their descriptions, are far too narrow; they represent a particularly american political landscape.

Fair enough. Was actually what I was aiming at in response to this "subjectivity is one of the greatest ideological ills of today" because these main groups of today have strange relationships with subjectivity anyway.

Also, the way in which you assign "subjectivity" and "rationality" is suspect, at best.

Water is worse than earth

that is not subjectivity that is called dissociation with reality
Since a lot of people on this board are having trouble.

Let us define:
>Subjective - characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived by the mind

>Objective - characteristic of or belonging to reality independent of the mind

What you are describing is dissociation with reality, which is a very strong position in an argument. The ideal way to defeat such powerful debaters is with a bullet to the frontal lobe.