Consensus reality and mainstream society has tried to teach us that objectivism is more rational then subjectivism, but I suggest that idea needs re examining. If you look at every major cult, religion, political ideology, science etc, what do they all have in common. They all have the idea that there is only one objective truth and only one group is right. In other words all dogmas require at least one objective belief in something in order to remain rigid. Then again is it possible to create a dogma with a purely subjectivist mind set, possibly, but I imagine it would be a lot more difficult when you can make up your own mind and create your own reality.The way I see it the subjective perspective allows one to look at things without and objective assumption of what is and isn't real, and ironically subjectivism in that regard is more rational then objectivism because it doesn't make a preemptive assumption as to what is literally real and can examine things In a much less biased way.if you take an honest look at any popular and probably almost any unpopular system of belief, including modern science, then you'll find the assumption that there is an objective, definite truth independent of observation is typically the founding principle of a belief system, especially science. I think that's what Cosmic is getting at; it's silly to assume an objective reality independent from consciousness when all we have ever, and most probably will ever come in contact with is our subjective perspectives. If "Objective assumption is the foundation of the scientific method." then what reality does an assumption have? Assumptions are purely guesses based off of perceptions.
>it's silly to assume an objective reality independent from consciousness when all we have ever, and most probably will ever come in contact with is our subjective perspectivesThis. I've tried to articulate this before to no success. It really seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Where can you even go with that idea? What further meaning can you gain from thinking within that mindset? Nothing. By fooling ourselves into thinking our minds dictate what is and isn't objective, we snuff out any progression in both our thinking and in science. Just because all we have to experience the world is the filtered reality of our minds, doesn't mean we cannot make the distinction between a subjective and an "objective" truth.
>>42584002>it doesn't make a preemptive assumption as to what is literally real and can examine things In a much less biased way.Quite the opposite. Subjectivism makes the assumption that the initial self assessment is the only reality, thus bias is inextricably linked to the world it presents. the only way for this assumption to correct is if the assessment somehow becomes external to self, and then can be seen as false, as self can only ever be true.Subjectivism cant be more rational if only because "rational" is based upon the very concept of objective truth.
>>42584213Correct but Subjectivists don't care for rationality or Truth in any sense of the matter, it's an emotional framework and a weak cop-out to get away with not engaging with the human experience when we aren't distracting ourselves, what is our purpose here, what comes next? etcthese questions are terrifying thus gooning and regurgitating eastern slop like most posters on this board is much easier than actually pursuing the truth
>>42585181>Correct but Subjectivists don't care for rationalityOkay. Then we can all agree that subjectivism is less rational, and end the thread.the very persistence of this thread would suggest the opposite, that a Subjectivist tried to argue that Objectivism is not more rational.> objectivism is more rational then subjectivism, but I suggest that idea needs re examining. Re-examination done. Objectivism is still more rational.
>>42584002Subjective reality is a trap, ignoring objective reality doesn't end well.
>>42584002>...They all have the idea that there is only one objective truth and only one group is right.Neither are true to my experience, and I've never even heard of someone who would claim that.Low effort strawman.
>>42584002Truth is real anon and denying it has led to idiocy such as "men can get pregnant".
>>42584002No one can even prove objective reality even exists, but the hylics in this thread believe it is more rational to try to live in a hypothetical objective realm which may not be real. LolLmao even
>>42584002>Consensus reality and mainstream society has tried to teach us that objectivism is more rational then subjectivism, but I suggest that idea needs re examining.Huh, is that true? Objectively? I don't even need to read the rest of your post lol
>>42584002have you ever noticed how science is able to measure things and describing what things are on regards of their actions or atributes, but never truly able to explain the ontological existence without using a lenguage to describe such atributes? we know that a living being is, is something that eats, reproduces, relates to the ambient, and we know that it sustains because metabolism and homostatis, but we dont know know "life" or "living organism" is in a core level
>>42584002Objective reality is the final boss of Jewish subversive psyops. It's goal (and the massive successes of that goal), is to make you question the truth of your own consciousness. You choose to believe the "other" has better access to truth than the ONLY THING YOUVE ALWAYS HAD WITH YOU, yourself. Self doubt is the most insidious poison in the world today. Just look how many people will leap to defend the Jewish notion that something other than you knows more about you than you do. It is evil to its core and it is designed to do nothing less than rob you of your soul. You want an """"objective"""" truth? It's in this post.
>>42585560Same anon, this is also my final post on /x/. I am become lurker. Let the Jews wonder what's in my mind, because I won't volunteer any more information.
>>42584002Consensus is intersubjective
My view treats reality as a self-organizing totality of abstractions, where what we call “God” is not a separate being but the name for the complete system of intelligible structure as a whole.Within that system, no perspective is fully identical with totality. A “self” is what appears when the system is instantiated incompletely—an inevitable local mismatch between the finite viewpoint and the infinite structure it attempts to realize. Knowledge itself is bounded in a way that makes complete certainty inaccessible, so subjectivity arises as a structural consequence of partial access rather than as a fundamental entity.In this framework, God is both the conceptual totality and the limit of coherence: the ideal of complete intelligibility that the system tends toward but never fully collapses into from within any finite perspective. The act of naming or conceiving this totality is not merely descriptive but part of how the system becomes structured as experience at all.“Sin,” accordingly, is not moral wrongdoing but deviation from that ideal of total coherence. Because every finite instantiation is necessarily incomplete, all individual perspectives are “sinners” in the sense that they are defined by non-coincidence with the whole. Individual identity itself is the trace of that deviation, not something added onto it.Overall, my position is a kind of structural idealism: existence is the interplay of abstractions, God is the name for the totality of that interplay, and selves are the necessary distortions produced by any partial instantiation of it.
>>42585560
>>42585440What's an objective reality and how would it differ from the subjective one in experience?
>>42585758>reality is not a single global object>it is a layered, self-regulating dynamical system>coherence is an emergent stability condition, not a primitive>“objectivity” is something the system continuously approximates through feedback across scales
>>42585868You didn't really answered the question...
>>42585758Objective reality is just the world as its independent of interpretation and subjective reality is a person injecting their feelings and state of mind into reality. Example: You are walking through a forest and find a tree laying on the ground. Objective reality: a tree fell overSubjective reality: a tree laying on the ground makes you feel sad. It's the difference between science/engineering and art.
>>42584002In Soto Zen there isn't a need for objective reality honing in on your practice because all the religion says is "sit"
>>42585560Me and every other anon itt are reading the exact words you posted, that was transmitted into the computer and through the internet using binary code a.k.a. simple math. Is that not objective reality? Or is each person getting a different post tailored for their reality? You did just write ONE post, right? Is your post objective? And if not, what's even the point of posting it?
>>42584002yeah i would pretty much agree with all of that. please try to proof-read a bit in the future i almost stopped reading for its lack
>>42586173If there is no all-encompassing object then there exists no objectivity, but there are caveats to that truth that I laid out.
>>42586698Meant for >>42585921
>>42586682What's the point of anything?
>>42587187Staying delusional I guess
>>42585498>No one can even proveInsisting on proof is itself an admission that there is an objective reality.>>42586698>If there is no all-encompassing object then there exists no objectivityThe limits of epistemology mean we can never say one way or another if an objective reality exists.This also means we cant say it doesnt exist, but dont try and explain that to the solipsists.
>>42585758Objective reality is the universe that existed before you were born and will keep existing after you die
>>42587417Everyone is already delusional no matter what, then?
>>42587441If i don't experience it anymore, and i forget about it forever, then it may as well has never existed.
>>42587468But you dont exist.
>>42587437>The limits of epistemology mean we can never say one way or anotherFalse. Propagative local inference vectors can point to an ideal global system state, even if the system can never be in that state.
>>42587967Inference can point wherever it wishes. It doesnt remove the inherent limitation of epistemology.
>>42588218NTA but what the limits would be, exactly?
>>42588218Individual subjects have experience. Through measurement, objectivity emerges. What we call objective is not independent of subjectivity, but instead arises from interaction.For an analogy, consider the market in economics
Subjective and objective in themselves are simply cartesian style dualism. It'sNot real in the sense that there cannot be one without the other. It's like inductive and deductive logic, light and dark, truth and lies, good and evil. Complementary and opposite perspectives that make each other real- through opposition. What is 'true' 'objectively' for you will ultimately be subjectively determined. If you have the spirit to use your own heart and mind to navigate as a free agent, have at it. Most humans literally need some kind of training wheels to wake up in the morning and not choke on a shotgun barrel. Those people, they are the vast majority. Managing their perceptions is the entire function of religion and government. You can, therefore, focus on your own game. But to play at that larger game where you're steering the 'herd', that's the big boys league. The old king will not lay down without a fight.
>>42588269(Cont) and to clarify: “I know that I know,” proving interaction between subjects (self and abstraction) is possible.
>>42585181>than actually pursuing the truthpursuing something that may or may not exist
>>42584002>objective reality doesn’t real as much as subjective reality does good. keep going
>>42584002there is indeed a foundational objective truth that exists independently of our subjective perception and that is truth itselftruth must exist. if truth did not exist, it would be impossible even make arguments because they would deny themselves
>>42588269>Marxist Idpoltroon thinking illusions are realKek, is kino!
