> Subjectivism is a philosophical stance that emphasizes the central role of the individual mind or consciousness in shaping reality, knowledge, or values. It holds that reality, truth, or morality are not objective but are instead dependent on individual perspectives, experiences, or mental states. Metaphysical Subjectivism is the ontological position that reality itself is mind-dependent: objects only exist insofar as they are perceived or conceived by a conscious mind. Mystical Subjectivism is the perspective that mystical experiences, and the knowledge gained from them, are subjective and personal. > Subjective Idealism is the ontological position that reality itself is fundamentally dependent on the mind or consciousness. Subjective idealism advocates the only thing that matters in human existence is the individual and collective interpretation of everything, where there is no objective truths and facts, everything is a purely subjective thing according to each one's wills and thoughts. The only possible objective truth and fact that might exist is "our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience". Leading into panpsychism, the belief that every objective entity (or event) has an inward or subjective aspect. Even advocating each individual interpretation that matters, subjective idealism advocates in a completely subjective society that would lead into a higher plane of existance. It advocates that when people realize everything is purely subjective, human societies are going to become a divine society. Subjective idealism also advocates that Mysticism should be developed in order to increase the subjectivity of human societies to find out that reality is a purely subjective thing such as human existence too. Subjectivism even advocates that Positivism, Rationalism, Atheism and religions are purely subjective things. Subjective idealism also advocates the concept of logical feelism, where both feelings and logic are part of the same subjective mental experience and both logics and feelings coexist with each other in human subjectivity. Subjective idealism differs from nihilism, because subjective idealism advocates that the whole existence is subjective and only what matters is the existential experience on it, while nihilism seeks to see no sense in existence and living. > All is mind/spirit, and matter is manifestation of consciousness.I always has been fascinated by the idea of life being a dream. Solipsism, Non Dualism, Subjective Idealism, as well as the magical synthesis of those aspects like Oneirosophy. The universe being a reflection of ourselves, the world being our own mental landscape. God, as the undivisible eternal conciouss-awareness that is now, being us within us,experiencing forever it's own creation, fragmented across it's own world, reuniting with it's infinity, dreaming forever. Does anyone else feels the same, or in a similar way? Any stories that comes in mind as well? What do you think?
I do think objective reality exists, but as we experience it subjectively, we may not be capable of determining objective reality. Best way to find objective reality is to have honest dialogue with as many different people with as many different beliefs as possible.I do think two different alternate view points can both be true to different people.
>>25350067I think there's no such a thing as an "objective reality", as for the nature of existence, all experience is subjective. For example: Even other people are subjected to our interpretation of them as we can only know them trough us. However, how we conceive of things lead us to the way of thinking how change can come about.
>>25350075think there's no such a thing as an "objective reality", Well, if i punch your face, how can that be viewed in any other way than an objective fact? Your face has punched my hand?>all experience is subjective. For example: Even other people are subjected to our interpretation of them as we can only know them trough us. However, how we conceive of things lead us to the way of thinking how change can come about.Agreed
>>25350104>Well, if i punch your face, how can that be viewed in any other way than an objective fact? Your face has punched my hand?The thing is, i would experience that moment just like i experience any other painful experience: All across my own awareness, with sensations that despite being felt, are "floating" across my field of perception. Some people are uncapable of feeling pain, even if their biology doesn't differ that much from you and i. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqIDnm_6mu4People have also underwent surgery without anesthetics by putting themselves into a trance. Everything i experience has to be across my awareness, through myself, where everything in my experience runs automatically, like in a dream, while at the same time it all "comes from me", as an extension of my consciousness. There are ordinary dreams where, just like in this world, i appear to be divided from it, but becoming lucid i realize that the world is connected to myself, responsive to my thoughts and intentions. This world could stop going on if i wanted to, i could cease to be this avatar right now, because even experiencing this body, what im truly am is the consciousness having the experience of being on this body. While you can escape materialism, you never stop experiencing things, so stepping outside you transcend this world, as what you are not only encompasses this world and any other, but transcend it altogether. Just like in a dream, where behind the dream there's only more dreaming, and so on.
>>25350075At what point is "subjective experience" any different to solipsism?
>>25350140That's what im getting at. Virtually there's no difference in practice, isn't it? Those are not really distinct philosophies, but aspects Subjectivism. Solipsism as, just like in a dream, there's no one else experiencing besides you, you never "escape yourself" even if you forget your current lifeline and start all over again with other set of memories (like the brain in a vat theory sort of), and even if you experienced anything like, for example, remote viewing, what would happen would be akin to put a set of VR googles and "looking trought a window" while remaining being "you", so what are "you" really? Then you have subjective idealism, where this entire world is just a thought (again, like in dreams, what you're seeing is imaginary. It seems solid, liquid, in vapor, yet is all etheric dream-stuff, made of "mind"). Then you have monism, which posits that the fundamental principle of a concept, such as the universe, is only one, and that One-Thing is consciousness-presence, the only "unchanging" indivisible aspect across all experience; The One, imagining all of this. Then you have acosmism, where in reality there's nothing here, just like when you hallucinate, this entire reality is an hologram, a projection of "your mind", that appears real to us because how strong it feels, and yet those sensations float, being mental, and there's no reason why all can dissapear in the blink of an eye, back into the nothingness (NDE experiences are sort of like this). And lastly, non duality: All those ideas are aspects pointing at the fact that living across everything, reality fundamentally being an ilussion, we remain ultimately unified, subjected to experience this moment as a singular One-Thing observing and dreaming the world of it's own creation (Think like a TV: The TV changes channels, but the screen remains the same. Just like we experience the waking world then dreaming, our attention shift moment to moment, from a thought to another). Even calling it a "dream" is just a name. What im saying is: Whatever reality is, i see our dream to be the same, same structure and same fundamental nature. An imaginary world, awaiting for us to wake up to it.
>>25350055It doesn't follow that, because reality/truth/morality depend in some sense on the subject, that there is no objective right or wrong. If you're a free being - and a subjectivist would have to consider himself free or else he's being determined by something outside of him - then you necessarily have a causality that is opposed to the 'real' or objective world. But this causality could not depend on anything within the objective world or else it would not be free. Therefore this causality is directed at itself, which is the say it posits that all rational beings are ends. But we're still sensible beings, hence this is an 'ought', but the very concept of freedom inherently involves the idea of morality and in particular the dignity of man. The only remaining alternative would be that your actions are simply random and unintelligible.>metaphysical subjectivismIt doesn't make any sense to say 'reality itself is mind-dependent' because you're pretending to step outside of reality to opine on the nature of reality but this is impossible. It's a meaningless sentence. So are sentences like 'God, a being beyond being, created the world' and so on, this is all what is called dogmatism.>Subjective idealism advocates the only thing that matters in human existence is the individual and collective interpretation of everything, where there is no objective truths and facts, everything is a purely subjective thing according to each one's wills and thoughtsThe error here is similar to above - if absolutely everything is subjective then nothing is. If you think things are subjective in the sense that you can think about them and interpret them, fine, but you still have a 'real', objective substratum.tl;dr this shit is naive as fuck you guys should read real subjective idealists starting with Kant (everything ffs not just the CPR) and moving onto Fichte.
>>25350183>tl;dr this shit is naive as fuck you guys should read real subjective idealists starting with Kant (everything ffs not just the CPR) and moving onto Fichte.Those are just dream characters tho. See, that's the thing. Everything being a dream, under this perspective, what we "think" of the world is just that, a "thought", how we imagine it to be, while the direct experience we have is impersonal (processed as mind content). The story we adopt have an effect, but they are still subjected to change if we change our minds about it. Beyond the fundamentals aspects: that's it, awareness and intention, everything else are just useful or aesthetically attractive ideas that we can adopt and use to navigate the dream. Not being essential, but helpful to understand the underlying, perennial core of experiencing. Everything is meaningless unless you can concede the ideas as actionable, and capable of producing tangible results in your practical life. There's a difference between being content discussing this stuff and musing about it, and actually set out to live it for yourself. Experiments like pic related are good to get things started on the later. Pragmatism is not mutually exclusive with subjective reality, so practice and experimentation goes along the way.
>>25350139What you say makes a lot of sense but my response would be that if you can have enough witnesses agree on an event happening, you can be at least pretty close to determining objective reality.
>>25350206Here's another one. While reading about the subject is great, i think all it takes is the premise and idea from the philosophy itself, as well as having in mind a fundamental understanding that observes the mechanism. >>25350212But from the third person view, witnesses of this kind of thing won't fall into the category of anecdotal evidence? See for example the testimonies of messianic figures and mystics, as well as people who testified about the effectivity of new thought teachings like Goddard or Castaneda, or other metaphysical phenomena. Yet, is still airtight because between someone who never experienced that before, with the conditioned skepcticism, and what not, if the experience, our reality, is depending on the perspective we adopt, then testimonies won't determine an "objective reality". In fact, the experience of others beyond our own require faith, that people are honest, that some things beyond our immediacy are true despite never having any proof as such for any metaphysical assertion. Science itself is acting on faith that we are not dreaming, that their senses are trustworthy, that superdeterminism is not true, etc.
>>25350212Following the thread, in a dream, you can dream about different people having different opinions from your own. How is this possible if is all inside your head? And how can you trust them if this is the case? Asking to someone if this a dream or not seems like someone who's still asleep, and even if they confirm it or not, you can dream them either confirming that you're not dreaming or them telling you that, in fact, you're imagining the world, but you won't believe them either way. Is a paradox. Solipsism would take you to decide the nature of your own reality by yourself and submit the experience to fall in line, disregarding what is happening at any present moment. Just like a visual ilussion where you know is an ilussion, but your perception doesn't fall in line at once, you would act on knowing that is a dream.
>>25350206If everything we experience is merely a thought then we're back at dogmatic metaphysics - saying everything is a thought is no different from saying that everything is. But if you want to maintain the "direct", "impersonal" experience, which is "processed", then there is an opposition between subjective thought and experience. But then you're back in the same common sense perspective that everyone already has - "Everything I experience is subjectively interpreted by me". But to go from this proposition to, "everything is a dream, Kant and Fichte are just dream characters" would require obliterating what you call "impersonal experience", and then we're back at the start of the circle again. I won't even try to get you to clarify what you mean by 'useful/aesthetically attractive ideas' which are apparently supposed to be neither subjective 'dreams' nor 'impersonal experience'. I also don't understand how you can go on to claim that only actionable ideas are 'real' when four sentences ago you were telling us everything is a subjective 'dream'. Why can't I 'dream' that unactionable thoughts are what are valuable? There are people who would say that this is no 'dream' at all, actually. But the worst of all this is that you think following whims and fancies is a sort of freedom when it is actually a betrayal of your own subjectivity as you are determined by externalities (albeit externalities that are 'inside' of you) - what Kierkegaard calls 'despair' and the 'sickness unto death'. The notion that following every whim or emotional state is a grand "freedom" is part of the ideology of our society and its economic system and of course you lap it up unthinkingly.>There's a difference between being content discussing this stuff and musing about it, and actually set out to live it for yourself.There's a difference between seriously thinking through subjectivity by studying great works of philosophy and posting nonsensical drivel on 4chan inbetween bowl hits and youtube videos and I hope that I would never, ever want to live in the way that you live.
>>25350104Nta but it's very revealing that those who challenge subjectivism so often resort to violent hypotheticals. Not revealing in a "wow you're a bad person" way, but they understand objective reality as a violent imposition upon the subject. C.f. Dr. Johnson's refutation of Berkeley by kicking a stone. On some level objectivists may admire subjectivism but feel that subjectivity is crushed under external forces, forces which convict them of an adverse objective reality in which decay and conflict are the most apparent constants.t. waffley objective idealist
>>25350263>There's a difference between seriously thinking through subjectivity by studying great works of philosophy and posting nonsensical drivel on 4chan inbetween bowl hits and youtube videos and I hope that I would never, ever want to live in the way that you live.Then you can leave the thread because (funnily enough, proving the point of this thread) there's nothing of value i can say. In fact, keep going down this line it all would see like a nonsensical schizophrenic drivel from your point of view, and i didn't make this thread to make you upset. I never said that those author have nothing of value, or that they are not helpful, or anything like that. Im just saying (or trying to say) that the same conclusion can be arrived at in any way. Dream logic is circular because it has to be: Is not a bug, but a feature. People asking "if this is all a dream why my life fucking sucks shit" is mostly coming from a place of disbelief, of an offset rejection of the premise, that already starts from refraining from conceding things as such (which falls in place; this is what every argument of materialism vs idealism and their variations are all about, we just imagine things and we will always counter each other digging our imagination, endlessly arguing because we are from distinct, diametrically opposed perspectives). Besides, this is nothing new, Berkley, Advaita Vedanta, internet groups dedicated to experimentation, and interpretations of religious traditions of knowledge, this has been observed at since the beginning and keep being rediscovered.
>>25350075You'd like Thomas Nagel
>>253502654chan is a predominantly pessimistic site. If you post any resembleance of an optimistic outlook over something that inspired you, it doesn't take that longer to people post their "kids with cancer and aids and raped by jews" rhetoric followed by some of the nastiest rekt webms that can fit in a single blue board. Is a kneejerk emotional response most of the time, and probably is the reason why the place is declining as most people left use it to vent their frustrations. Is worth asking to oneself "If the circunstances of my life were to be different, a fully realized ideal, would i still be a fatalist?", if not, then is certainly lie, maybe one they themselves find confort in, rather than a philosophy, like a mechanism of defense.
>>25350265>>25350340Im sorry lol my example should have been hugging. Don't know if you guys ate trolling for (yous) or not. Just an example of something you both see and feel. *hugs* how is y'alls day going?
>>25350406Calm down objetibro.
>>25350417No u
>>25350263>But then you're back in the same common sense perspective that everyone already hasThe waves realizing they were the ocean all along.
>>25350055>God, as the undivisible eternal conciouss-awareness that is now, being us within us,experiencing forever it's own creationI would loosely describe myself as a panpsychist, but I think as a position it can get lost in the reeds when you start thinking about consciousness exclusively in terms of oneness. We have an enriched understanding of the universe (and ourselves) precisely because we have so many perspectives with which to experience it. I can’t imagine that god is little more than an immense data set of sensory experience. Every perspective is unique and non-composable with every other perspective, it’s equally as likely that reality is a collective delusion rather than the dream of a singular God.
>>25350406I'm not trolling, I legitimately think objectivists' / realists' choice of hypothetical says something about their subjectivity, and also about reality.
>>25350554I guess if you are not a troll or op bumping his thread then maybe you should read all my posts all the way through. Actually kinda bored so i will save you the trouble.Not sure if objectivity exists because i view reality through a subjective lense. If it does, it would require a communal effort to identify.
If the world was solipsistic I would control my reality, the fact that I can experience undesirable, unwanted stimuli that make me unhappy is proof that my consciousness doesn't control my reality and my reality is controlled by a consciousness that is separate from mind and hostile to mine. There has to be at least 2 consciousnesses in the world, mine and the one that opposes mine, but there probably aren't more than two.If it's my imagination then I would have control over it and therefore the world and other people, if god's imagination is separate from mine then we're separate entities and it obviously is separate or I would have the same degree of control over the world as I do over my imagination. Not to mention my imagination is self-(ego)-centred whereas in real life I only get abused by others, their egos dominate mine meaning their egos are separate from my imagination, if it was MY imagination controlling reality then my reality would be as ego-self-centred as my imagination instead of being centred around the egos of others.My mind gets raped by God and his tranny hivemind minions every second of every day and they terrorize, abuse, harass, threaten etc me for literally anything I think or do, they especially think sexual fantasies are a good excuse to abuse me, they're currently threatening to send me to my dad's faggot brother in alberta to abuse me and make my life hell for masturbating (while they're gone), but not masturbating isn't enough because they're controlled by God as a retarded tranny hivemind that rapes my mind every second of every day and they will just abuse me for literally anything I think, not just sexual thoughts but literally anything.
>>25350566I'd agree that human beings' inherent subjectivity precludes objective understanding. Overlapping subjectivity can bring one closer to or further from objectivity but it depends on the community. Because I'm a religionfag I believe only God has objectivity, albeit His objectivity is somewhat tautological because He created everything and is the ultimate value-judging authority.
>>25350055>There are no objective truths or facts>This is an objectively true fact according to subjectivists
>>25350611OP is a retarded tranny. God has demonstrably proven that he's a retarded evil sadistic tranny who forces me to exist so that he can abuse me because he's a retarded evil tranny nigger and he manufactures the most retarded excuses imaginable to abuse me because he's a retarded disgusting evil tranny nigger with no moral authority whatsoever. Escaping the reincarnation cycle isn't enough, I have to kill God.
>>25350658Edgy little fella aint ya
>>25350664Fuck off, faggot. God is a retarded sadistic tranny who created this world and forced me to exist as the sole frame of reference for it and only persistently real person in it so that he can dominate and abuse me through everyone else in it. He doesn't value "free will" in any way whatsoever except for himself. He thinks he should be allowed to do literally anything he wants to me through other people while he thinks literally anything that I think can be used as an excuse to abuse me, not just sexual thoughts but literally anything, food, women, houses, clothes, sports, careers, space, fantasy, adventure, anime, colleges, etc literally anything that I think about God believes that he can use as an excuse to abuse me he just sometimes likes to pretend that his only or main problem is sexual fantasies because he thinks it gives him the moral high ground when in actuality he abuses me for literally anything I think, and him raping my mind and harassing, abusing, terrorizing, threatening etc me for thinking about naked women is inherently significantly more evil than me thinking about naked women, thinking about naked women isn't even evil in the first place whereas him violating my mind is, him abusing me is evil, thinking about anything isn't evil, God violating my mind is a greater evil than anything that I could possibly think about and there is literally zero "free will" in even the most restrictive definition of it without freedom of thought because the most restrictive definition of "free will" would be "free possession of a will" and "free thought" is less than even "free possession of a will" because thoughts don't represent genuine wills, the chain goes thought(things desired and undesired, willed or unwilled)-discernment(identifying what is willed or unwilled)-will(desire to act/possession of will)-intent(genuine intention to enact will)-action(enacting/actualizing will) and God intervenes at the "thought" link of the chain, before "free will" even begins.
>>25350681Stopped reading at fuck off
>>25350055Subjectivism is self-refuting. If "all truth is subjective," then that statement is itself only subjectively true, which means it does not bind those who disagree. You cannot assert subjectivism as an objective truth without contradicting yourself. The moment you make a truth claim about the nature of truth, you have stepped outside subjectivism.The classical realist tradition, from Aristotle through Aquinas, holds that truth is the adequation of the intellect to reality: adaequatio rei et intellectus. The mind conforms to what is. It does not create what is. This does not deny that subjective experience is real; it denies that subjective experience is all that is real. Your perception of a tree is subjective. The tree is not.The subjectivist faces an insoluble problem: if reality is mind-dependent, then nothing exists outside your mind. But you did not create yourself. You did not choose your parents, your language, your century, your biology. You woke up in a world you did not make and cannot control. That world confronts you. It resists you. It surprises you. A projection does not surprise the projector.Augustine's insight in the Confessions: truth is not manufactured, it is discovered. The mind is capax veritatis, capable of truth, because truth precedes the mind. God is Truth itself (John 14:6). The mind does not generate truth; it receives it, like an eye receives light. The eye does not create the sun.Kant's turn to the subject was the disaster that made this thread possible. He split phenomenon from noumenon and trapped us behind our own perception. But if we cannot know the thing-in-itself, we cannot know that we cannot know it. The claim undermines itself. The Thomist holds that intellect reaches reality itself, not merely an appearance of it. We know being, not merely phenomena.The punch example earlier is decisive. If all is subjective, so is the fist. But bruises do not care about your interpretation of them.
>Magical pragmatism is a philosophy and mindset that merges imaginative, out-of-the-box thinking (magic) with grounded, real-world execution (pragmatism). It is the art of holding visionary, ordinarily esteemed "almost impossible" goals, while methodically taking the practical, step-by-step actions required to turn those fantasies into concrete realities.>You dream big, approaching problems with creativity, belief, and the suspension of "traditional limits" attributed to the ordinary "human" experience. With Methodological Execution, You evaluate ideas strictly by their practical consequences and effectiveness, using discipline and strategy to achieve the goal. Holding a firm, fundamental, Subjectivism mindset, you affirm that thought imposition, adopted mindsets and frameworks, and held intentions can induce physical changes at global scale, and tangible outcomes if actively cultivated.>How to Apply It? Dream with abandon, outline exactly what the "ideal" or "magical" scenario looks like without worrying about constraints, and then intend from the final state. Reverse-engineering the impossible, break that vision down into the smallest possible actionable tasks. Overall, in everything you do, just act with intention: Commit to the daily, unglamorous habits that bridge the gap between your lofty goals and your current reality, always being mindful of your purpose in any given moment.
>>25352176>The punch example earlier is decisive. If all is subjective, so is the fist. But bruises do not care about your interpretation of them.And it was answered as well with first hand examples of pain being mitigated using the mind (>>25350139). I recommend that you read Sorcery by J. Finley Hurley. It provides a good heavily-sourced overview of the power of mind over matter, starting with basic placebo and meditation and expanding from there. Most of your logic against subjectivism is already rooted from a Body-Mind dualism POV, that only have that frame of reference to make a case, but what you and most of this thread doesn't seem to get is that Subjectivism also contain this possibility, as it would be the adopted perspective that is creating the underlying structure, so you have at hand the reasoning that comes from it, "manifesting" itself as your own ideas and experiences, including physical sensations (Like a seed becoming a tree, and then extending itself in the branches). As OP indicates:>>Subjectivism even advocates that Positivism, Rationalism, Atheism and religions are purely subjective things.>You woke up in a world you did not make and cannot control. That world confronts you. It resists you. It surprises you.Only if you accept it as such. Like in a dream analogy, you can dream with all those things, and yet, is all still "inside your head", inside of you, inside your consciousness. Reality is an illusion.I agree however that the absolute truth is not something we create, but rather something perennial that will never change, because THAT is the truth, that which never change, and you live in a world that is subjected to constant change. That Non-Changing One-Thing is God, but God as is the everlasting presence: Conciouss-awareness, which is the open space background from which (You) look out from, in first person perspective. Which is who you fundamentally are at the core, not metaphorically, but really.
>>25352312>And it was answered as well with first hand examples of pain being mitigated using the mindIf being punched isn't real then why would people see a bruise on your face afterward?
>>25352325How do you know that you're suffering a headache or stomachache if it weren't for a sensation arising telling you so? "Being punched" is "real", just like anything else, what matters here is the effect of the mind over those things.
>>25352332Niggas be deflecting n shiiieeettt
>>25352339How so? All experience is "real" in the sense that there are sensations and traces, but they still are made of "mind" and percetual content, the takeway is what behind them, the implications of it, and how it can be conceived subjectively for experimentation.
>>25352347>How soI axed u sumn
>>25350263We don't need to read philosophy when we have chatgpt
>>25350055>Does anyone else feels the same, or in a similar way? Any stories that comes in mind as well? What do you think?subjectivism is retarded but emotivism is irrefutable
>>25353832We don't need feelings when we have chatgpt
>>25350265If only they resorted to intensely sexual homoerotic situations instead. Objectivists would turn around.
>>25350055I subscribe to this, and I think consciousness is much more alterable than people give credit for. For example, that we even have a sense that the body is "mine" or there's a "doer" in the middle of the head is something people take for granted. It's just a perspective that people can't see outside of because it's like a fish in water, it's all they know. Maybe as babies we don't have this but as we advance our capabilities of modeling the world we just forget how dream-like reality really is. I also think you can de-condition this standard way of seeing the world so that it's more dream-like. Not that the models we have dissapear, but that you're able to see through them, and this is enlightenment; returning to that baby-like state but retaining the conceptual framework with which we use to operate in this world.
>>25355129oh and that this sense the body is "mine" for example, or that there is an external world, not only informs our worldview, but it also is the result of a certain worldview, a feedback loop. This is what gives rise to atheism or materialism, I'd be very curious to know how people historically viewed the world and how they differed from modern folk. Like, did they have the sense the body was "mine", that the outside world was external to them, that thoughts belonged to them?
