What's your way to you refute the "everything you say is subjective" argument? Obviously not to change anyone's opinion, but at least to feel good about myself
Picture is a photo objectively conveying the visual aspect of reality, much like words may convey a universally true notion
"If you thought with logic and reason, you'd be able to see past leftist subjectivism"
Their response is also subjective as well. It leads in circles endlessly, their interpretation of what has been said is also subjective. So if we want to base everything on subjectivity nothing can be understood, so nothing can be known, and therefore any conversation is pointless.
Also, even though it is subjective, it's a product of your experience, which is objectively a real thing which has happened.
The argument is self-defeating. For the position that 'everything is subjective' would itself be subjective, and we could then reject it.
>Sophist: Everything one can say is subjective
>You: Then your proposition that "everything one can say is subjective" is also subjective. Meaning that I have no reason to agree with it, since it is only a statement about your own belief, not anything about reality.
Plato and Aristotle got this covered in Theaetetus and Metaphysics.
insult their taste. Tell them they aren't thinking 'long-term'
Depends. If they're talking about math or science being subjective, lol I won't even bother.
If they say artistic quality is subjective, I'll usually say something like, "You mean personal enjoyment and emotional resonance is subjective. Originality, skill, or depth, don't have any objective ways to be measured, but they definitely can be discussed as a definite thing, and it's really damn generally concieved that great works of art triumph over lesser ones due to those qualities."
arguments don't matter. you don't win a girl's heart with an argument.
No, you win it by pulling it out if her chest.
Tell them they don't exist and that what they say doesn't matter because of that.
Is this to bait them into saying but I do exist so you can zing back with everything you say is subjective?
the argument of "everything you say is subjective" is subjective
this does not matter in the framework that's already established in the mind of a subjectivist by way of circular reasoning which is then also okay, which is really dumb
I didn't really think of that, but I guess.
I was really trying to point out that if everything is subjective then so is reality. If you say that, then a schizophrenic's or paranoid's subjective view of the world is just as accurate as anyone's despite being vastly different from the "normal" view.
It is just subjective. Likewise you can just say that you think you are the only person who exists and no one can tell you otherwise because your subjective view is as good as any.
Tell the other person to grow up and
I have been quoted, I can die in peace.
Everything outside of cold hard mathematics is objective, although their interpretation of the numbers may be subjective, but logically it's not
>Sophist: Everything one can say is subjective
>You: Then your proposition that "everything one can say is subjective" is also subjective. Meaning that I have no reason to agree with it, since it is only a statement about your own belief, not anything about reality.
Sophist: Yes but that's a very sophist statement therefore you're sophist therefore you also believe that everything one can say is subjective
:-DDDDDD
Mathematics is subjective*...()
Fixed it for you
>meaning I have no reason to accept it
Nice try plebbit :^)
yes, implying that one should only accept whatever benefits the argument that they're trying to make.
that is a very sophist approach
There has to be one objective fact when you say everything is subject. Ask them to ask a better question. That is what philosophy is about. Asking better questions, not finding answers.
Except every single argument sophistards can make is nothing but circular and by extension not a real argument.
>"should we sit in a corner and ignore the outside world then, or should we agree on measurable points of data and go from there?"
only use this one if you're a) sure they're not using one scenario as a symbol for another [the secret orgy club that Veeky Forums missed the invite to in 2011], b) actually care about the point being debated, and c) don't mind looking like an autistic fuck
But that's only true if you prove that everything one can say isn't subjective, and we just saw how you can't prove that.
Okay, so what if somebody said:
"There is only one objective truth: there are no other objective truths."
2+2=4
Done
If you jump off of the Empire state building you will die.
>uses abstract denotation in a philosophical argument
:-DDDDDD
no you won't. otherwise, prove that your statement is true.
Go jump off of it and prove that what you said is true faggot :^)
>you can't prove that God doesn't exist therefore he exists
:-DDDDD
remind me not to browse Veeky Forums during the hours when burgers are prime-time
DO IT FAGGOT
You aren't willing to take part in the experiment necessary to prove your position, it's because you know what I have said is a fact.
Remind not to partake in conversation with retards such as yourself.
>what is a Strawman
>I will remind you that "you can't prove that God doesn't exist therefore he exists"
>as a rebuttal to your laughing at me for claiming that
>"you can't prove that God doesn't exist therefore he exists"
TOP FUGGING :-DDDDD
circular argument more like mathematical-pointal argument
>what is a Strawman
>uses this sentence to give an example of a Strawman
;----------------------------------DDDDDDDDD
>people in the thread saying that everything isn't subjective because they hate liberals
Lol.
Everything can be subjective and still be judged accordingly for what people know is harmful or helpful, good or bad, tasty or awful.
There is literally nothing you can do.
You can use logic and reason, but reality is subjective and also long as they think they won, they have actually won in their own subjective version of reality.
This thread is doing a great job of proving my point.
JUMP! JUMP! JUMP! JUMP!
Says the retard who asserted if he were to jump off of a really tall buildings he wouldn't die.
Still a Strawman. It's okay, you're just retarded.
After you.
You don't have to do anything for reality to become subjective or objective.
Just because it's subjective doesn't mean that everything is completely different for everyone.
>asserted if he were to jump off of a really tall buildings he wouldn't die.
where did I """"""assert"""""" that? I just said it as an introduction into my statement that you have to prove that you're right. but you're taking my specific words out of context in order to prove your point.
that's very sophist, and not even good sophist, it's the blackest-hat of all sophism.
so I guess you must definitely then believe that everything you say is subjective
Reality is reality. It is determined by the laws of the Universe. It doesn't change, and it doesn't make exceptions.
What you see in pictures are different from what you see in real life.
It's common knowledge.
>what is gravity
Charlie Sheen objectively won.
Yeah. But your experience of the world is what changes and that's what makes the concept of reality subjective.
since lying is a human construct, truth is meaningless and objectivity is a non-entity, partly because of this and also in part because everything we observe, we do as humans.
Exactly, the concept, not actual reality.
>what is strawman
also, you used that statement ("If you jump off of the Empire state building you will die.") as proof that everything you say isn't subjective.
(((((obviously not proof)))))
and now you say that it's common knowledge JEJ. like """""knowledge""""" is a category that somehow transcends "subjective personal statement".
remind me not to partake in conversation with retards such as yourself :^)
...in your *opinion*
According to that, everything you just said is complete and utter bull shit.
Do you disagree with that statement then? Do you think that it's a false statement?
Yes or no.
well you see a faithful representation of what you see in real life, and as long as it is indistinguishable from life you can identify them with one another, therefore making the point of which came first mute
Oh? And what's your take on it then?
And that's what people mean when they say it.
I posted this Then
I saw people being stupid and realized I was wrong sorry
Do I disagree with that statement? Why does that matter? It's not proven, that's enough.
If we were to build an argument upon it, that means that we accept that everything you say is subjective, and that therefore it doesn't matter whether it's objectively correct.
Am I saying something stupid because you don't seem to be getting to me at all with your allegedly grand knowledge?
When people fall from really high places they die. It's common knowledge and "proven" to the farthest extent anything can be proven.
So yes, it does matter if you disagree with the statement, because you would be disagreeing with a fact in order to maintain your position. Which means your position is shit.
Mock them for using an obviously passive-aggressive tactic. They're afraid of conflict so they fake humility ("Dude, it's totally subjective :^)))) We're both right in our own ways!") but they get to subtly attack and shame their opponent for being 'arrogant' and serious and call his argument 'shit that doesn't matter. That way, they still get to walk away content with not winning but also not losing. It keeps the ego safe.
It's a pussy move so treat them like pussies.
but what does my position matter when you haven't proven that everything you say isn't subjective?
just to butthurt you, yes I agree. stop strawmanning now
We are both making claims.
Both of us have to prove our positions, not just me my friend.
But since you agree I don't need to prove anything, and I never did because you knew it was true from the beginning.
You need to prove it because you claim that everything you say isn't subjective.
I agreed that our subjective worlds connect in this claim, among others.
>rare pepe in the circle in pic related
he doesn't exist
There is no refutation from the individual that it is possible that everything is subjective. We could le all be controlled by le evil god and this 'reality' could be spookily spooked so that our perception of maths being objective is actually false in a a way imperceptible to our inferior deluded minds.
Nothing you can do but say: 'well, that's probably not what's going on' and continue with your day
meant to quote
When people see the same thing, and it happens in the same way every time, and the reach the collective conclusion that this really is so, it's not subjective anymore other than in the sense that we are subjects perceiving something.
>We could le all be controlled by le evil god and this 'reality' could be spookily spooked so that our perception of maths being objective is actually false in a a way imperceptible to our inferior deluded minds.
Only in your *opinion* is any of that possible.
So? That's all it needs to be
yes, so basically, you're saying that the only achievable objectivity is that of a subjective experience being collectively agreed upon as true.
Hume says up wrong m80. Just cause le sun rises every morning doesn't mean it will tomorrow. Cause one day the sun'll explode and your face'll be mighty red as we all laugh at your claim that the sun 'objectively' rises in the morning
No, it needs to be more.
By making an objective argument
HAH
>realists
Don't have objective proof via my own experience (all I have) that you even exist, not convinced you do desu. Dunno why my own mind is straw manning me. What'd Freud analyse that as? If he existed. Which he didn't probably
Don't panic, user, but you may be going insane.
You always perceive it through your mind.
But it does, as you have said. Until it explodes. And will do so, until it explodes.
Came here for lips
Ok, here is one weird thing.
"Le everything is le subjective" is universally considered to be a very stupid veiwpoint, because it is zero-informative, it can not influence your thoughts or actions, as opposed to the idea of spooks, for example. But isn't "there is no free will" basically the same thing? This notion has zero impact on your life, to live with this idea is functionally the same as living without it.
It's an objective fact that everything except for this statement is subjective.
Proob me wrong, mate.
I don't, I believe our current notion of objective reasoning is inherently flawed and largely useless.
Don't discuss it in the first place. I try to avoid it anyway I can. The times I answer I try to give a "sometimes objetivism is more useful on x than thinking you can't do something because it's going to be subjective" and shit.
Is it an objective fact that objective things cannot be subjective?
You're the guys who ruin partys.
By definition yes
Then by definition I have proved you wrong.
Not that guy
In your *opinion* you're not that guy.
what are all these ~~~~extra~~~~ buttons on my {{{{keyboard}}} for? :0
>2016
>wasting your time by arguing with 16 yr olds
Oh my
Only a Sith deals in absolutes
>How do i disprove agrippa's trilemma after 2000 years of philosophers failed in every way
Kek that's where the concepts objective and subjective work. They refer to reality when it comes to being understood by the human mind. If something is objective, that does only mean that we're able to regard it like that. "Reality is reality". Ok, that does not carry any information with it, it's tautological. It only means that our subjective and abstract concept of reality is equal to our equally abstract concept of what it's real: reality. Reality is istelf when it comes to our understanding of it, nothing can be said "objetively" about the properties of reality as a whole.
That being said, even assuming that reality is immutable and its form does not depend on any thought, its constituent parts are not intelligible. But our concepts of the several constituent parts of reality can be similar enough, and we can talk about them in a language that we all know. There you have scientifical consensus or mathemathics.
We grown ups be discussing serious shit, if you wanna bitch about your mama being disappointed with you bcuz you're a communist you can go to motherfucking reddit
Man I'm the macho like Randy huh the choppa go Oscar for Grammy
This was actually the argument used by Mussolini in a certain speech to justify Fascism as a doctrine
Ill Duce was an incompetent leader in the sense of statesmanship or war or economics, but a sharp theoretician and orator
...