Objective versus Subjective
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-09-2016, 07:09 AM
RE: Objective versus Subjective
(14-09-2016 10:02 AM)Anjele Wrote:  
(14-09-2016 10:01 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  Anyway, as usual I find bit difficult to extract the actual purpose of your posts.

I think the purpose is to spam the forum with nonsense. Dodgy

And since this was your first post on this thread, you were kind to tell me a lot about you. Thank you.

Facts that don't need evidences:
Sheep for milk live in peace because it is the will of their rich owners.
Dogs obeying rich masters deserve much better food and shelters than free dogs do.
Whoever has ears will hear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2016, 07:13 AM
RE: Objective versus Subjective
(14-09-2016 11:53 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  :Waits to hear how this relates to the rich/powerful ruling men of the world and 9/11:

Don't disappoint me. It's pretty much your gimmick now, and you're obligated at this point.

Sorry, it is about the Internetists... the believers of the modern bible Tongue
By the way, an Internetist could be a formal theist or a formal atheist as well Big Grin

Kerim

Facts that don't need evidences:
Sheep for milk live in peace because it is the will of their rich owners.
Dogs obeying rich masters deserve much better food and shelters than free dogs do.
Whoever has ears will hear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2016, 07:50 AM
RE: Objective versus Subjective
(14-09-2016 09:48 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You're fundamentally misusing those words.

When something is objective, it something not influenced by personal feelings or opinions, and otherwise representative of facts.

When something is subjective, it is influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

I agree with you.... But Wink

Two persons, living in different parts in the world, were talking about a certain fact. One of them was made to believe a story of it... that was approved, and even proven by videos, on the internet. And it happens that the other one lived this fact on the ground and he found out that the story, approved universally, contradicts what he lived.
Should the latter ignore his subjective reality to please the former one who cannot imagine that a story, claimed being accepted universally (though no one can verify this claim by asking millions, one by one) could be a deceiving one?

Anyway, it is all about trust. So the first thing, an expert deceiver does is to let his audience have good reasons to trust him. This also applies on deceiving groups (mainly the religious and political ones).
I personally don't trust any person who is given (by the high class in each community, if he is not already a member in it) privileges that I, one of the common people, don't have. For example and to me in the least, any president (king or alike) may, at best, say a half truth but never the complete truth about something. Why he can’t, this leads us to another story Wink

Facts that don't need evidences:
Sheep for milk live in peace because it is the will of their rich owners.
Dogs obeying rich masters deserve much better food and shelters than free dogs do.
Whoever has ears will hear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2016, 12:55 AM
RE: Objective versus Subjective
(13-09-2016 02:28 PM)KerimF Wrote:  The idea of an important discovery or invention starts always as a subjective one. Then, when the highest class of a community approves it, it becomes objective to its community in the least.

In other words, an objective idea gets its birth from a subjective idea in case of discoveries and inventions.

On the other hand, most people in the world have no interest in discovering or inventing anything. Therefore, their knowledge is about objective ideas only. And the majority of them also believe, if they hear a new subjective idea, they have no right to verify/analyse it in order to determine if it could be accepted as an objective one or not.

For example, the statement above will be refused by most members here because they likely didn’t hear it yet Wink
Yes, they cannot accept a subjective idea and even discuss it before its approval by a certain high class first... a class that Kerim doesn’t belong to for sure Big Grin


Kerim

......

...... that's not what "objective" and "subjective" mean. The difference between "objective" and "subjective" isn't defined by whether some Illuminati-esque "Them" slap a sticker of approval on...

.... you know what? Change of tactics. Okay, so I know three or four different but thematically related definitions for the objective/subjective dichotomy. What's one more, even if it's as off base as this one?

Okay, you've spelled out the concept behind your definition (though it's pretty vague about WHO these high-grand-objectifiers are, and should probably have a name less likely to confuse it with other, unrelated concepts). Why should I care about this concept? What use is it? How does it shed light on new answers or help me evaluate previously intractable questions? In what way does knowing these unidentified objectivity identifiers have rubber-stamped something objective change how I view that thing? How do I even know that this shadowy council has made such a ruling? In what way -- any way at all -- do the properties of objectivity and subjectivity as you have defined them provide any utility to me? Why shouldn't I just toss this concept in the bin of useless concepts and walk away?

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
21-09-2016, 02:01 AM
RE: Objective versus Subjective
(13-09-2016 02:28 PM)KerimF Wrote:  The idea of an important discovery or invention starts always as a subjective one. Then, when the highest class of a community approves it, it becomes objective to its community in the least.

In other words, an objective idea gets its birth from a subjective idea in case of discoveries and inventions.

On the other hand, most people in the world have no interest in discovering or inventing anything. Therefore, their knowledge is about objective ideas only. And the majority of them also believe, if they hear a new subjective idea, they have no right to verify/analyse it in order to determine if it could be accepted as an objective one or not.

For example, the statement above will be refused by most members here because they likely didn’t hear it yet Wink
Yes, they cannot accept a subjective idea and even discuss it before its approval by a certain high class first... a class that Kerim doesn’t belong to for sure Big Grin


Kerim

So, what's your point?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2016, 02:50 PM
RE: Objective versus Subjective
(21-09-2016 12:55 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 02:28 PM)KerimF Wrote:  The idea of an important discovery or invention starts always as a subjective one. Then, when the highest class of a community approves it, it becomes objective to its community in the least.

In other words, an objective idea gets its birth from a subjective idea in case of discoveries and inventions.

On the other hand, most people in the world have no interest in discovering or inventing anything. Therefore, their knowledge is about objective ideas only. And the majority of them also believe, if they hear a new subjective idea, they have no right to verify/analyse it in order to determine if it could be accepted as an objective one or not.

For example, the statement above will be refused by most members here because they likely didn’t hear it yet Wink
Yes, they cannot accept a subjective idea and even discuss it before its approval by a certain high class first... a class that Kerim doesn’t belong to for sure Big Grin


Kerim

......

...... that's not what "objective" and "subjective" mean. The difference between "objective" and "subjective" isn't defined by whether some Illuminati-esque "Them" slap a sticker of approval on...

.... you know what? Change of tactics. Okay, so I know three or four different but thematically related definitions for the objective/subjective dichotomy. What's one more, even if it's as off base as this one?

Okay, you've spelled out the concept behind your definition (though it's pretty vague about WHO these high-grand-objectifiers are, and should probably have a name less likely to confuse it with other, unrelated concepts). Why should I care about this concept? What use is it? How does it shed light on new answers or help me evaluate previously intractable questions? In what way does knowing these unidentified objectivity identifiers have rubber-stamped something objective change how I view that thing? How do I even know that this shadowy council has made such a ruling? In what way -- any way at all -- do the properties of objectivity and subjectivity as you have defined them provide any utility to me? Why shouldn't I just toss this concept in the bin of useless concepts and walk away?

You are totally right.
For instance, I was addressing this thread to some friends here. It is okay now Wink

Facts that don't need evidences:
Sheep for milk live in peace because it is the will of their rich owners.
Dogs obeying rich masters deserve much better food and shelters than free dogs do.
Whoever has ears will hear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2016, 03:04 PM
RE: Objective versus Subjective
(21-09-2016 02:01 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(13-09-2016 02:28 PM)KerimF Wrote:  The idea of an important discovery or invention starts always as a subjective one. Then, when the highest class of a community approves it, it becomes objective to its community in the least.

In other words, an objective idea gets its birth from a subjective idea in case of discoveries and inventions.

On the other hand, most people in the world have no interest in discovering or inventing anything. Therefore, their knowledge is about objective ideas only. And the majority of them also believe, if they hear a new subjective idea, they have no right to verify/analyse it in order to determine if it could be accepted as an objective one or not.

For example, the statement above will be refused by most members here because they likely didn’t hear it yet Wink
Yes, they cannot accept a subjective idea and even discuss it before its approval by a certain high class first... a class that Kerim doesn’t belong to for sure Big Grin


Kerim

So, what's your point?

For instance, don't you ask this same question anytime you hear on the news about an event or read an article from an international agency? This is my point Wink

I mean, I personally do ask:
"Why do these generous heroes bother themselves to provide me (and the world) this or that information for free?" Big Grin

Facts that don't need evidences:
Sheep for milk live in peace because it is the will of their rich owners.
Dogs obeying rich masters deserve much better food and shelters than free dogs do.
Whoever has ears will hear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2016, 09:24 PM
RE: Objective versus Subjective
(21-09-2016 03:04 PM)KerimF Wrote:  
(21-09-2016 02:01 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  So, what's your point?

For instance, don't you ask this same question anytime you hear on the news about an event or read an article from an international agency? This is my point Wink

I mean, I personally do ask:
"Why do these generous heroes bother themselves to provide me (and the world) this or that information for free?" Big Grin

Who is providing the news for free? Consider
Most is paid for by advertising, which means we are paying for it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2016, 09:42 PM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2016 11:43 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Objective versus Subjective
(20-09-2016 07:50 AM)KerimF Wrote:  
(14-09-2016 09:48 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You're fundamentally misusing those words.

When something is objective, it something not influenced by personal feelings or opinions, and otherwise representative of facts.

When something is subjective, it is influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
I agree with you.... But Wink

Two persons, living in different parts in the world, were talking about a certain fact. One of them was made to believe a story of it... that was approved, and even proven by videos, on the internet. And it happens that the other one lived this fact on the ground and he found out that the story, approved universally, contradicts what he lived.

You've already fucked up. A fact is a single data point, a single piece of verifiable data. People might interpret a fact or a group of facts differently, and have a rigorous debate over that, but the fact itself is verifiable and not in question. You're already conflating and misrepresenting the meaning of words.

Stop doing that.



(20-09-2016 07:50 AM)KerimF Wrote:  Should the latter ignore his subjective reality to please the former one who cannot imagine that a story, claimed being accepted universally (though no one can verify this claim by asking millions, one by one) could be a deceiving one?

People have missremembered, missperceptions all the fucking time.

Knowing that, one should always have a level of skepticism of their own experiences; let alone those filtered through other people. Belief in any claim should be subject to the strength of the evidence in favor of it. Your example is so utterly bereft of context, that no sound judgement can be made.



(20-09-2016 07:50 AM)KerimF Wrote:  Anyway, it is all about trust.

When it should be about evidence. 'Trust' and personal feeling are terrible epistemological tools.



(20-09-2016 07:50 AM)KerimF Wrote:  So the first thing, an expert deceiver does is to let his audience have good reasons to trust him. This also applies on deceiving groups (mainly the religious and political ones).

You've discovered that appearing trustworthy is the first step to deceiving people. Bravo.

*slow clap*



(20-09-2016 07:50 AM)KerimF Wrote:  I personally don't trust any person who is given (by the high class in each community, if he is not already a member in it) privileges that I, one of the common people, don't have. For example and to me in the least, any president (king or alike) may, at best, say a half truth but never the complete truth about something. Why he can’t, this leads us to another story Wink

So what?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
22-09-2016, 04:55 AM
RE: Objective versus Subjective
(21-09-2016 09:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-09-2016 03:04 PM)KerimF Wrote:  For instance, don't you ask this same question anytime you hear on the news about an event or read an article from an international agency? This is my point Wink

I mean, I personally do ask:
"Why do these generous heroes bother themselves to provide me (and the world) this or that information for free?" Big Grin

Who is providing the news for free? Consider
Most is paid for by advertising, which means we are paying for it.

(21-09-2016 09:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-09-2016 03:04 PM)KerimF Wrote:  For instance, don't you ask this same question anytime you hear on the news about an event or read an article from an international agency? This is my point Wink

I mean, I personally do ask:
"Why do these generous heroes bother themselves to provide me (and the world) this or that information for free?" Big Grin

Who is providing the news for free? Consider
Most is paid for by advertising, which means we are paying for it.

You are totally right.

But do you mean that since people pay for the news, they can be sure that whatever they hear and see (besides reading articles written/approved/inspired by experts) has to be true and real, and is not just another well-prepared (well-edited) Hollywood scene (or fairy tale, made for smart adults)?

I am afraid that, in reality, those who accept being actors (under a certain title) to play some given roles are well-paid.

On the other hand, those who insist to act the way they personally like (assuming they were allowed to join a scene, interview or poll) don’t expect anything in return.
In other words, people pay, with or without their knowledge, to be entertained by actors via their monitors and TVs and not to hear any real true story.

By knowing this universal natural truth, I cannot blame anyone who used believing, as being true and/or real, anything he may read/hear/see on his modern bible (the sites he used trusting without questioning exactly as formal theists do with their holy books).

Your conspiracy nutcase, Kerim Tongue

Facts that don't need evidences:
Sheep for milk live in peace because it is the will of their rich owners.
Dogs obeying rich masters deserve much better food and shelters than free dogs do.
Whoever has ears will hear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: