Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

hello. you are going to hate me.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

hello. i'm izopyn.

most, if not all of you, are going to hate me. there may be a few of you that will love to hate me but i think the majority will just hate me. because what i am, or what this is, and by "i" and "me" and "am" and "this", i mean this virtual construction of my ideas and perceptions, is the ardent light of reason and rationality. i understand that you have conflated these terms with hypermaterialism, or the justification of hypermaterialism, but i think you are profoundly confused.

just to lay some things out:

- i saw this site on a google hit, and followed it thinking that it was about real/actual/"most true" objectivism.

- after reading through it a little and finding that it was not about objectivism, but rather a collective commitment to (dare i say delusional?) justifications of self-interest, i signed up anyway because i am a procrastinating whore, and don't want to write my paper.

- my paper, by the way, is an argument that the Bretton Woods Trio (the world bank, the imf and the gatt/wto) and their collaborators (transnational corporations, most of "the west", neoliberal think tanks, some ngos, etc), are genocidaires (a fancy term for someone who has, by the definitions of international law, committed genocide).

- i am uncomfortable with the ideas and ideology of rand for many reasons, but most relevantly is how profoundly flawed her theory of objectivism is. to be succinct, if you put yourself before others you cannot possibly be objective because it requires you to favour yourself, necessarily being "autosubjective", the most basic form of bias.

- i am, as far as evidence and logic have led me to understand, a true objectivist, and a true altruist. evidence and logic have also led me to understand that true objectivism and true altruism are mutually interdependent.

- i may post here for a while, but my expectation is that "i" (this virtual construction of my ideas and perceptions) will encounter fallacious and indefensible platitudes, rationalizations and ad hominem attacks, instead of actual arguments. dare you to prove me wrong.

now that those things are out on the table, i'd like to introduce "myself" more cordially by telling you a little about something i believe in, that is objectivity and objectivism.

very, very simply, objectivity means constantly examining, evaluating and analyzing any and all socially or politically-constructed or learned ideas or values which may inform one's perception, and then putting those ideas or values into little jars which one stores in the attic of one's mind. the essence of objectivity is being able to generally reject any integration of them into one's perception, and therefore being able to perceive and understand as much as possible with as little bias as possible. this is something i have understood, more or less as articulately, since the age of 11 or 12, (when i still wanted to be a "philosopher" when i grew up) and something i have practiced diligently, if not obsessively, since then. i turned 24 last september.

i don't know if i'm a psychopath or just extremely good at compartmentalizing, but i know that i have never felt any "moral" imperatives or compulsions in my life. i have many friends and feel emotions very deeply, but can't fathom the concept of any special value for human life, or what religious people sometimes call a "conscience". what i do have, are six principles that i feel i would die before compromising, which constitute a philosophy i call "objective altruism". they are things i have always followed, but only recently formulated into a "code" due to the need for a rigid and tangible defense for the possibility, practicality, and justification for objectivity. they are a good guide for me, though i don't prescribe them for others. they are as follows.

1. There is no right, there is no wrong. There are no truths, only half truths. ”Relative right” is understanding “half truths” as they are; “relative wrong” is believing them to be truths. All conflict stems from relative wrong, all peace stems from relative right.

2. Act always to serve others and never to please them; these are almost always diametrically opposed paths. Be aggressively passive and be resented more than appreciated, and you will better both yourself and others.

3. There is inclination and there is duty; this is a dichotomy. If duty is endeavoured out of inclination, it is false. If duty is endeavoured solemnly, it is service. Indulging inclination is the path of relative wrong, service is the path of relative right.

4. Emotion is the forbearer of inclination. It belongs exclusively in private life. Reason is the forbearer of service. It should reign in public life.

5. Believing or disbelieving without adequate evidence is indulgence in inclination. It is relative wrong. Instead be always questioning and critical, this is service.

6. In all things, act and speak as though the world was as it should be, not as it is, and in doing so you will help to make it so. You will be perceived as a fool, a meager sacrifice.

That's all I have to say for right now. I have a rarely updated blog here.

Edited by izopyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. There is no right, there is no wrong. There are no truths, only half truths. ”Relative right” is understanding “half truths” as they are; “relative wrong” is believing them to be truths. All conflict stems from relative wrong, all peace stems from relative right.

Is what you stated above a truth? Is it right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is what you stated above a truth? Is it right?

well there is no right, in anything even resembling an absolute sense. if you are asking if it is "relative right", then yes it is, by very definition. as to whether it's a truth, i think that's probably an infinite paradox, wouldn't you? such as "this is a lie", which has been used in film to destroy complex artificial intelligences. i don't know if disputing whether the idea that "there can be no whole truth" is a whole truth is a useful argument, apart from a deconstruction of the fallacies of english semantics, but i won't close myself off to further propositions.

it's my clearest perception, which in my hopeful understanding i have based entirely in evidence, logical reflection, and experience from which all bias has been filtered. it's what i prescribe for no one but myself, but what i argue is the most effective attitude for positive peace and for objectivity. i don't believe that arrogance, greed or initiated violence can possibly manifest in anyone who meaningfully understands this principle, and i would be happy to explain this if anyone would like.

my primary inspiration for the articulation of the first principle were the words of alfred north whitehead, but it's something i've understood to be "true" for over a decade.

Edited by izopyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well there is no right, in anything even resembling an absolute sense. if you are asking if it is "relative right", then yes it is, by very definition. as to whether it's a truth, i think that's probably an infinite paradox, wouldn't you? such as "this is a lie", which has been used in film to destroy complex artificial intelligences. i don't know if disputing whether the idea that "there can be no whole truth" is a whole truth is a useful argument, apart from a deconstruction of the fallacies of english semantics, but i won't close myself off to further propositions.

it's my clearest perception, which in my hopeful understanding i have based entirely in evidence, logical reflection, and experience from which all bias has been filtered. it's what i prescribe for no one but myself, but what i argue is the most effective attitude for positive peace and for objectivity. i don't believe that arrogance, greed or initiated violence can possibly manifest in anyone that meaningfully understands this principle, and i would be happy to explain this if anyone would like.

my primary inspiration for the articulation of the first principle were the words of alfred north whitehead, but it's something i've understood to be "true" for over a decade.

So all these words answered his simple question how?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all these words answered his simple question how?

i was just thinking that the content of this thread should make me optimistic for this web forum.

your assertion that philosophical dilemmas of the existence of truth or morality are simple erodes that optimism. could you have not instead written "tl;dr"?

Troll.

operative01.jpg

Edited by izopyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

- i may post here for a while, but my expectation is that "i" (this virtual construction of my ideas and perceptions) will encounter fallacious and indefensible platitudes, rationalizations and ad hominem attacks, instead of actual arguments. dare you to prove me wrong.

You seem pretty bright with an excellent command of the language so I assume that you realized when you posted the the ad hominem assumption of irrationality on the parts of all posters here, above, that you had framed an argument in such a manner so as to increase the likelihood of the very negative response you claim to expect allowing you the, "see, I told you so moment" when two or ten less rhetorically advanced participants happen to take your bait.

Some of your other points have validity and are worth consideration, though I doubt you have the stamina to withstand, in the long term, the chaos your challenge was designed to stir up when you went swatting on a beehive.

See? I can do it too.

Edited by aequalsa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just curious to what extent you actually understand what Objectivism is. I feel from your post that you don't really have as good an idea of it as you think and may be confusing some things quite a bit.

Start at the beggining:

http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/wiki/Main_Page

This is also a nice guide, setup a bit differently

http://objectivistresistance.ning.com/prof...m-explained-amp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your assertion that philosophical dilemmas of the existence of truth or morality are simple erodes that optimism.

Yea but he was asking if you thought your assertion was true or not. If you can't answer that as yes or no who can? And if you can't what's the point of us debating it? And how does one debate with the point of discovering the true nature of reality if there is no such thing as knowing if you're right or wrong? How would we know when to quit?

Ideas aren't strictly objectively right or wrong relative to someone else's ideas but relative to the nature of reality.

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem pretty bright with an excellent command of the language so I assume that you realized when you posted the the ad hominem assumption of irrationality on the parts of all posters here, above, that you had framed an argument in such a manner so as to increase the likelihood of the very negative response you claim to expect allowing you the, "see, I told you so moment" when two or ten less rhetorically advanced participants happen to take your bait.

it was not an ad hominem assumption, it was a logical assertion based on evidence that i briefly alluded to when i argued that an idea of objectivism based in selfishness is necessarily subjective (ipso facto not objective). further, the hypermaterialist ideology espoused throughout this forum is based on absolutist moral premises constructed in western society, the origins and impetuses of which are quite visible. believing something in the face of evidence to the contrary, without counter evidence, is irrational.

my expectation of negative responses to what i posted here come primarily from two sources. a) my experience with and study of general human behaviour on the internet, through the facilitation of anonymity and probably motivated by personal insecurities, for which evidence is abundant to put it conservatively. ;) the intense certainty of position and ideology, specifically libertarianism/neoliberalism/materialism/hyperconsumerism/"randism" which i encountered throughout this site with no reprieve of seeing someone posting with an open mind or with actual objectivity. the laws of probability suggests that such posts exist, but i didn't see them.

Some of your other points have validity and are worth consideration, though I doubt you have the stamina to withstand, in the long term, the chaos your challenge was designed to stir up when you went swatting on a beehive.

You have no reason to believe me, but while direct and blunt my introductory post was meant to offer an alternative perspective, with the aim that perhaps someone would consider alternative ways of thinking, assuming that some people here actually want to be objective. and even if all that failed, it was something to do. i assure you, though again you have no reason to believe me, that "chaos" was not my intention even if i realized its likeliness. it's extremely probable that martin luther understood that his 95 theses would very likely raise the ire of the catholic church, but it probably wasn't his intention or motivation for writing them (religious analogy intentional).

See? I can do it too.

i can neither deny nor confirm this without some kind of definition of "it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just curious to what extent you actually understand what Objectivism is. I feel from your post that you don't really have as good an idea of it as you think and may be confusing some things quite a bit.

Start at the beggining:

http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/wiki/Main_Page

This is also a nice guide, setup a bit differently

http://objectivistresistance.ning.com/prof...m-explained-amp

objectivism as i think it is understood by most on this site, is based upon the definition of ayn rand. but rand borrowed the term from gottlob frege, and i think one can only assume that she intended her ideological modification of it to be in the same spirit of frege's, or she a) would have coined a new term or ;) not agreed with 90% of frege's philosophy.

i would make this comparison for you... objectivism as i understand it is to objectivismonline, is as communism was as marx understood it to soviet russia. (appropriate choice of analog, no?)

but as always, i could be wrong. i go off of what evidence is available, and just as "truth" is always uncertain, so is evidence always insufficient.

Edited by izopyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea but he was asking if you thought your assertion was true or not. If you can't answer that as yes or no who can? And if you can't what's the point of us debating it? And how does one debate with the point of discovering the true nature of reality if there is no such thing as knowing if you're right or wrong? How would we know when to quit?

Ideas aren't strictly objectively right or wrong relative to someone else's ideas but relative to the nature of reality.

i think it's as true and as useful a grasp on our reality as one can realistically hope. which is just a simplification of what i already said.

these principles are not objective truths, they are a philosophical formulation for the ability to perceive as objectively as possible, and therefore as truly as possible. they are foundations which i think are necessary to be truly objective and altruistic. a compass is not a direction, but it helps you to find them.

the truth is that there is no truth is only a semantic contradiction, for want of greater sophistication to be easily understandable*.

does that resolve your dilemma? if not...

*if this is still not clear, i will elaborate as fully as possible. but it might be a little convoluted.

Assertion A: There is no such thing as truth.

Assertion B: What I am stating is correct, and you are all wrong.

This is not a matter of English semantics. Your argument is inherently and absolutely self-defeating.

i'm really not sure how i can help you? you either sincerely misinterpret this or are deliberately manipulating it.

Edited by izopyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i go off of what evidence is available, and just as "truth" is always uncertain, so is evidence always insufficient.

Is it "uncertain" that you just wrote the above statement? If it is not, then isn't true that you wrote it? If it is, then how can you be certain that you are "uncertain" if all truth is uncertain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Izopyn,

Your forewarning makes me hesitant, but for the sake of pleasantries... welcome to the forum.

With that in mind, you should understand this forum has a specific purpose and guidelines for use by its members.

I would suggest that you take the time to read the Forum Rules so that you understand that, and potentially save yourself and others a lot of time and effort should the purpose of this board be counter to your purpose in being here.

Thanks,

RB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i can neither deny nor confirm this without some kind of definition of "it".

Ok...one more response and then I'm bored with the game. "It" refers to the sentence

Some of your other points have validity and are worth consideration, though I doubt you have the stamina to withstand, in the long term, the chaos your challenge was designed to stir up when you went swatting on a beehive.

Wherein I created an example of the same trap which I referred to above.

So to be very explicit to avoid any further confusion,

You said in more polite, convoluted terms, "You are all probably poopy-heads. You will all probably call me names." Since we were called poopy-heads, en masse, someone will certainly take offense and call you a name back, which then provides you with evidence that we ALL are, in point of fact, poopy-heads as you had "predicted."

I relied on the same technique saying in more polite and convoluted terms, "you are probably a coward who can't take his punches for long, but if you stay around a long time, you can prove me wrong and be brave," knowing full well by way of my previous experience with people who step in on a contentious note with only a rudimentary understanding of the subject, that you will not last in the long term, thus allowing me the evidence that my "prediction" about you being a coward was correct.

It's very simple, so I am certain that someone with your accuity understands the point now.

On the off chance that this was completely sincere on your part; you should really consider refining your manner of argument if you have true interest in acquiring truth, relative or otherwise, rather than creating an inherent confirmation bias in every belief you hold through this sophistic framing of the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Izopyn,

Your forewarning makes me hesitant, but for the sake of pleasantries... welcome to the forum.

With that in mind, you should understand this forum has a specific purpose and guidelines for use by its members.

I would suggest that you take the time to read the Forum Rules so that you understand that, and potentially save yourself and others a lot of time and effort should the purpose of this board be counter to your purpose in being here.

Thanks,

RB

I read the rules before posting.

The only problem I could interpret would be in the first rule, if there was an asterisk after the word "objectivism", leading to an elaboration that all ideas about what objectivity is must be confined to the Randian "modification", and/or if the word "contrary" was replaced by the word "critical".

If these amendments are in the spirit of your operation here, I'll leave now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it "uncertain" that you just wrote the above statement? If it is not, then isn't true that you wrote it? If it is, then how can you be certain that you are "uncertain" if all truth is uncertain?

If we semantically understand the word "uncertain" to mean "not certain", as I think we should, then yes. There are a number of "far fetched" explanations within the realm of possibility for how I didn't actually write it. Perhaps our idea of what constitutes writing is flawed, or what if this is all a collectively hysterical hallucination, or maybe a different person wrote that from who is answering you now. But okay, it's highly, highly probable that I just wrote the above statement. Evidence is always insufficient, there are no certainties.

I'm going to recapitulate the second question for the sake of brevity.

"The only certainty is uncertainty". Which is basically the same as the first principle. Again, these are contradictions of terms, not a contradiction of ideas. We have no way of understanding every side, every angle, every dimension and aspect of anything. We draw conclusions and take actions based on what we have to work with, and with tremendous humility hope that we don't fuck up. Because there's no other option. For me, this has always been a priori.

So again, because it seems that some people are still having trouble.

"There is no right, there is no wrong. There are no truths, only half truths. ”Relative right” is understanding “half truths” as they are; “relative wrong” is believing them to be truths. All conflict stems from relative wrong, all peace stems from relative right."

This is phrased to be rhetorically pleasing, easy to remember, and easy to understand. The idea is what is important, not the words. It means that we can't ever know what is right or what is true, because our perceptions are flawed and there are unknowable, uncountable circumstances to any situation you can imagine, if you were to have an eternity to ask enough questions. However.

By -realizing- this, we can begin to operate objectively. By understanding that we will always lack the resources and ability to fathom anything with certainty, we obviously will never assume certainty falsely. How could cain have killed abel without believing himself to be of greater worth, despite a lack of evidence or even a barometer by which to gauge worth? how could napoleon have razed europe without believing that france was a superior nation, despite any way of knowing what rights a nation should have, whether they should even exist, or what he was entitled to do with any former conclusion? how could hitler have undertaken his final solution, or stalin the purges, or radio colina the rwandan genocide, or the israeli and palestinian governments their wars, without believing based upon inclination instead of evidence, without understanding half-truths to be truths?

Edited by izopyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...one more response and then I'm bored with the game.

So you won't be reading this, or you won't be responding to it?

Wherein I created an example of the same trap which I referred to above.

So to be very explicit to avoid any further confusion,

You said in more polite, convoluted terms, "You are all probably poopy-heads. You will all probably call me names." Since we were called poopy-heads, en masse, someone will certainly take offense and call you a name back, which then provides you with evidence that we ALL are, in point of fact, poopy-heads as you had "predicted."

I relied on the same technique saying in more polite and convoluted terms, "you are probably a coward who can't take his punches for long, but if you stay around a long time, you can prove me wrong and be brave," knowing full well by way of my previous experience with people who step in on a contentious note with only a rudimentary understanding of the subject, that you will not last in the long term, thus allowing me the evidence that my "prediction" about you being a coward was correct.

It's very simple, so I am certain that someone with your accuity understands the point now.

On the off chance that this was completely sincere on your part; you should really consider refining your manner of argument if you have true interest in acquiring truth, relative or otherwise, rather than creating an inherent confirmation bias in every belief you hold through this sophistic framing of the argument.

Thank you for clarifying. I thought you might have been referring to my having a "high command of language", and pointing out that you did as well.

Since you will not be reading or responding to this, I'll only spend a moment. You profoundly misunderstood me. Please refer to principle #2, which I believe will elucidate you completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the rules before posting.

The only problem I could interpret would be in the first rule, if there was an asterisk after the word "objectivism"...

Well, you will note that it was Objectivism (capital O), not objectivism to start; Objectivism being defined as the philosophy of Ayn Rand, not objectivism as however else one may wish to define it. So, yes, it is meant to indicate the "modification" as per your reference.

One can at times be critical of Objectivism, however that should not be their primary intent for being here. One distinction I would make between being critical of Objectivism and promoting contrary ideas would be in whether one is asking questions to challenge and understand Objectivism and its principles or are they asserting a personal philosophy that is not consistent with Objectivism.

Now, the typical criticism we receive is that if we limit the discussion too much to Objectivism, we risk incestuous ideas, being closed-minded, lacking objectivity, etc. etc. The internet is a big place. Many of our members also visit a variety of other discussion boards. Limiting the focus of this particular board in no way limits what our members have access to should they seek to learn things outside of Objectivism. My favorite analogy goes something like this; don't insult a hardware store for not selling high heel shoes. Just go to a shoe store. Of, if you want a broader range of products, go to Walmart.

This board offers our members a specific and focused product. If that isn't the product you want, then it would be best to find another store. If it is, then great.

I would offer that the manner in which you entered the site suggests you really aren't interested in longevity here, though I may have misinterpreted your initial negativity and generalized swipes. Regardless of how accurate you may happen to think they were, they were unnecessary and do not bode well for your welcoming here.

Does this help clarify things for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi izopyn, I have a few questions

first, how can you claim the existence of objectivity at all by your definitions it doesnt seem like that is possible

consider that for something to exist it much be identifiable which means it must be differentiatable

if something is differentiatable then there is some standard by which it can be differentiated

that standard is absolutely relative to the things being differentiated

you seem to argue in this direction, claiming that any knowledge is relative, so what then is objective absolute knowledge

I submit that by your definition there is no objective knowledge, but there is a choice, a subjective relative choice

consider your life, particularly your consciousness, it may exist or not

while you are using it, it exists, while you are not, it does not, this makes the existence of consciousness relative and objective by your standard of objectivity

there is an alternative, which may appear as a subjective choice in some contexts, but in the context of the existence of your consciousness the alternative is clear, you consciousness exists or it does not

the alternative of non-existence results from conditions that disrupt the appearance of functioning of your consciousness

the alternative of existence results from conditions that preserve the appearance of function of your consciousness. from the perspective of preserving your consciouness, there is the appearance of choice, or self-awareness concerning this alternative. Specifically, what you have deemed a subjective choice, is the concept of self, life, and the preservation of self. With such self-awareness, if you desire to preserve it - and in this context your life - you have the rational capacity to understand and perceive existence from the view point of your conciousness.

Although you might consider this to be subjective, there is in fact no way to obtain or use knowledge except through your own conciousness. Any knowledge or effect that does not relate to conscious perception does not exist relative to that perception. It does not exist to you 'subjectively' and therefore does not exist within the entirety of the realm of knowledge possible to you. Therefore you cannot discuss it, gather facts about it, or in any way consider it, so long as you are using your mind or are aware of yourself.

This is what is truly objective and factual. That which can be known, and your rational capacity is the absolute reference point. I cannot perceive a million of something, but I understand the concept by relating it to something I can perceive: 1.

Altruism is not objective. By what objective standard, according to your understanding, would others have value? The best word to describe your objectivism is nihilism. Egoism - for self; altruism - for others; nihilism - for nothing. Your argument only claims that egoism is not objective, this does not imply that altruism is.

Ultimately, you are very confused. This is not an attack, because I am only responding to your contradictory way of thinking - which you have set forth. There is no relativity without reference points, the alternative is chaos - by very definition. You might argue that there are no reference points without relativity. That may be true, but there are then reference points! You want to keep the second piece while ignoring the first. That is a clear contradiction, and shows your confusion.

Again, I do not attack you, but I offer a theory for your mindset. I believe that you are a subjectivist contrarian. Your own perception of life, through your feelings and impressions, is your standard of knowledge. You rationalize away the contradictions within your own feelings by creating a philosophical double standard you call objective. Objective, because when it suits you to use facts and absolutes against knowledge you dislike, you can. A double standard, because when facts and absolutes support the knowledge you dislike, you appeal to relativism and the non-absolutism of absolutes. You simply switch standards when it suits you, thus rationalizing your own subjectivism. Your only honest recourse given this double standard is to accept nihilism, and so you have no reason to argue anything at all, and might as well - should your fingers contact a keyboard - type something like this: klfsnjogniaq[pas;lgigper eg ofg pdfkj.

You, your conciousness, your life is your reference point. It provides objective definition to all reality - that is, an epistemological foundation for identifying things that exist in reality. As such, the first truly objective observation you can make about value and right vs. wrong is that your life is valuable, because you could not exist in reality or perceive it without preserving your life. This is egoism. There is no more objective value than that.

My life is valuable to me, so other things that support my life are valuable to me. Knowledge is valuable. People, in fact, are valuable. My life is valuable - important enough - to me that I fight and struggle and go through discomfort, somtimes pain, and so forth on occasion and if necessary in order to preserve it and be happy. Likewise, in this context, I value the lives of others - personally. I value them for their virtues, which are reflective of my virtues. I do not value them for their needs.

Why should life be valuable? Isn't that subjective, you might ask? It actually is subjective, objectively there is the alternative between life and death. You may choose death, objectively, but then you will have no values. But if you choose life, then your values fall into place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you will note that it was Objectivism (capital O), not objectivism to start; Objectivism being defined as the philosophy of Ayn Rand, not objectivism as however else one may wish to define it. So, yes, it is meant to indicate the "modification" as per your reference.

My mistake. Is it capital O Online as well? Just kidding.

Perhaps I slipped a little into hypocrisy and based my understanding of this forum partly on my inclination to discuss the merits, challenges, practicality and possibility of objectivism with like-minded people online; Rand isn't a very big deal outside of the United States, at least not in my experience, and it didn't immediately occur to me that there could be this many people this intensely dedicated to her ideas, which to me seemed self-evidently flawed in too many ways to be useful as a singular philosophical or theoretical framework.

I would offer that the manner in which you entered the site suggests you really aren't interested in longevity here, though I may have misinterpreted your initial negativity and generalized swipes. Regardless of how accurate you may happen to think they were, they were unnecessary and do not bode well for your welcoming here.

See: Principle #2.

Does this help clarify things for you?

I feel rather embarrassed actually. Cheerio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello izopyn, I'm hunterrose. Welcome :lol:

Objectivity means constantly examining… ideas or values which may inform one's perception… the essence of objectivity is being able to generally reject any integration of them into one's perception.
One problem is that informing oneself of an idea and integrating an idea are philosophically the same thing. If I think the sun revolved around the earth, there would be no epistemological difference between me informing myself of that half truth and integrating that half truth. The essence of objectivity, according to your argument, is rejecting objectivity.

We can't ever know what is right or what is true, because our perceptions are flawed and there are unknowable, uncountable circumstances to any situation
Implications don’t work with half-truths. In this case, your argument is incorrect because (qua half-truth) sometimes we can know what is right or true, even if it’s half true that our perceptions are flawed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...