budaatum:

No! I'm not having you go lazy on me now after all this work we've been doing!

How please did you come to this conclusion?

rationally speaking, anyone is free to do whatever they want to do as long as it does not affect a third party.

Gggg102:

we both have our subjective opinion about the text, but the objective truth about the text remains.

one of our opinion is the real truth, the other is false. or none might be true and the real truth about the text remains unchanged.

Truth is a very tricky concept. But Jesus set a good scale to measure against by the way. If "love" is lacking from any decision, opinion, and most especially, behaviour involving people, there is nothing godly in it regardless of how much "I am objective", "I believe!" or "Lord Lords" one utters.

I have found that as long as I hold that scale up to check on myself, my failure rate is significantly reduced. I know you to be patient and long suffering, so if you try it and find it works for you too, let me know so I can say I have a second opinion.

budaatum:

Truth is a very tricky concept. But Jesus set a good scale to measure against by the way. If "love" is lacking from any decision, opinion, and most especially, behaviour involving people, there is nothing godly in it regardless of how much "I am objective", "I believe!" or "Lord Lords" one utters.

I have found that as long as I hold that scale up to check on myself, my failure rate is significantly reduced. I know you to be patient and long suffering, so if you try it and find it works for you too, let me know so I can say I have a second opinion.

I believe everyone have a scale. but not everyone uses the same scale.
my scale is a form of empathy.
others may have another scale.
a universal scale would help in progress. for example education leads to rationality and rationality causes progress.
empathy and love are good scales. my opinion is that they become the standard scale to judge all humans.

Gggg102:


I believe everyone have a scale. but not everyone uses the same scale.
my scale is a form of empathy.
others may have another scale.
a universal scale would help in progress. for example education leads to rationality and rationality causes progress.
empathy and love are good scales. my opinion is that they become the standard scale to judge all humans.

"Empathy", "love", same thing, Jesus Christ.
C.f John 14 (buda's understanding)

But people even have different meanings for those words within Christianity. How much more everyone else.

Gggg102:


let me use an example.

1+1=2

no amount of opinion or feeling can make 1+1=anything but 2.

In mathematics, "1 + 1 = 2" has no logical content. It only tells us how "2" is DEFINED.

In a similar way we can define "1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4". Again, the DEFINITION has no logical content, and the question of "opinion or feeling" are not even relevant.

However, now that we have defined "2" and "4", and we have defined the rules of algebra, the statement:

2 + 2 = 4

...is of a different nature. It is the result of ALGEBRAIC LOGIC. Unlike a definition, that logic can be TESTED for VALIDITY, and the philosophical questions of "opinion" or "feeling" can be discussed, and are relevant to the philosophical discourse.

The next point is that the abstract statement 1 + 1 = 2 is categorically different from the APPLIED OBSERVATION

1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples.

Here, we have applied SEMANTICS to abstract symbols. This can be used to highlight where your conclusion -- "no amount of opinion or feeling can make 1+1=anything but 2" -- is inaccurate:

Take the well-known "double-slit experiment" in physics, where electrons are fired at a pair of slits and an interference pattern observed on a screen. Counting the electrons using our classical understanding of number ("1 electron", "2 electrons", etc.) famously gives a FALSE prediction of the result of the experiment.

This proves that APPLYING the statement "1 + 1 = 2" is only as accurate as our INTERPRETATION of the abstract symbols. Scientists come to a consensus of OPINION on how to apply the abstract algebra in a particular scenario. It can go wrong!

More commonplace (or even trite) examples may include the statements:

1 hole + 1 hole = 2 holes

1 drop of water + 1 drop of water = 2 drops of water

These can be matters of opinion or discussion.

Indeed, we have to distinguish between a statement being "true" in the abstract, or "empirically true".

budaatum:

"Empathy", "love", same thing, Jesus Christ.
C.f John 14 (buda's understanding)

But people even have different meanings for those words within Christianity. How much more everyone else.

people have different meanings of the words, but there should be a most rational definition of the words that can be used as standard.

Gggg102:


people have different meanings of the words, but there should be a most rational definition of the words that can be used as standard.

There's that "should" again, lol!

budaatum:

There's that "should" again, lol!

I can't help it. there should be a general standard. I don't know how else to put it.

Gggg102:


I can't help it. there should be a general standard. I don't know how else to put it.

I understand, trust me, and it's very noble of you. It's why I spend so much time on here trying to make the change I wish to see. And why I try to see the other person's perspective even if I disagree with it. You could not imagine how difficult it is among my own family or my own people in the Orolu Kingdom. I've spent time and money on it and almost lost my life trying, but I now understand that people have their own minds and I'm no god so "respect your limitations, buda, or you would not long meet your maker", if there is one, "for you shall be crucified" just as the Messiah who had the same idea was.

There is no general standard, my friend, and trying to impose one would only make one a tyrant, or a crucified Christ!

I think it's about time I go off and do the Beatitudes in the Gospel According to Luke!

budaatum:

I understand, trust me, and it's very noble of you. It's why I spend so much time on here trying to make the change I wish to see. And why I try to see the other person's perspective even if I disagree with it. You could not imagine how difficult it is among my own family or my own people in the Orolu Kingdom. I've spent time and money on it and almost lost my life trying, but I now understand that people have their own minds and I'm no god so "respect your limitations, buda, or you would not long meet your maker", if there is one, "for you shall be crucified" just as the Messiah who had the same idea was.

There is no general standard, my friend, and trying to impose one would only make one a tyrant, or a crucified Christ!

I think it's about time I go off and do the Beatitudes in the Gospel According to Luke!

if there is no general standard, how do we judge one whose personal standard is completely irrational/how do we create unbiased societal laws with rational morality?

if I would answer myself, I would say rationality is a general standard since is it free from bias and objective, so we can judge/make laws from rationality.

still I would love to see your opinion.

BTW, I think there is a difference between what I see as objective and what you see as objective.

I would consider rationality as objective since it is free from bias and therefore morality gotten from rationality is objective.

Gggg102:


if there is no general standard, how do we judge one whose personal standard is completely irrational/how do we create unbiased societal laws with rational morality?

if I would answer myself, I would say rationality is a general standard since is it free from bias and objective, so we can judge/make laws from rationality.

still I would love to see your opinion.

BTW, I think there is a difference between what I see as objective and what you see as objective.

I would consider rationality as objective since it is free from bias and therefore morality gotten from rationality is objective.

Oh, I agree that rationality is somewhat objective and can be free from bias, and is adequate for accessing one's morality. Except that early this year I had a crisis of rationality (though unrelated to my morals) whereby I began questioning if I was being dishonest and rationalising the irrational.

It's something I took up years ago with my dad in the form of "lying to oneself" . Having thrashed it out for years, we concluded, that if one lies to oneself, one deludes oneself, and it is a delusion to be mindful of, hence my comment about being brutally honest with oneself, at least.

One's objectivity is something one has to be mindful of always in case personal bias creeps in. For it is very easy and commonly done to claim "Blessed am I when people hate me, when they exclude me and insult me and reject my name as evil", when the truth is, I have been being a prick all along!

Not only must one constantly try to be rational in order to maintain objectivity, one must also be honest with oneself and not lie to oneself and be diligent in checking always too.

Let me know the differences you might still see in objectivity. I'd gladly trash it out with you.

For most people, objectivity is only deference to the subjective opinions of people placed in positions of "authority".

In the case of science, the word "truth" is a jargon referring to notions of self-consistency, and utility. Science uses scientific models, with defined domains of applicability, to devise means that are subjectively deemed to be of utilitarian value to mankind.

The reason that this is confused with TRUTH is because it is socially and politically easy to ignore and discard concepts that seem to have no utilitarian value.

However, in the matters of transcendence, in particular transcendence of the human condition, precisely the opposite must happen. We do not pander to the human condition with utilitarianism. Instead we seek and value what is beyond and above it.

budaatum:

Oh, I agree that rationality is somewhat objective and can be free from bias, and is adequate for accessing one's morality. Except that early this year I had a crisis of rationality (though unrelated to my morals) whereby I began questioning if I was being dishonest and rationalising the irrational.

It's something I took up years ago with my dad in the form of "lying to oneself" . Having thrashed it out for years, we concluded, that if one lies to oneself, one deludes oneself, and it is a delusion to be mindful of, hence my comment about being brutally honest with oneself, at least.

One's objectivity is something one has to be mindful of always in case personal bias creeps in. For it is very easy and commonly done to claim "Blessed am I when people hate me, when they exclude me and insult me and reject my name as evil", when the truth is, I have been being a prick all along!

Not only must one constantly try to be rational in order to maintain objectivity, one must also be honest with oneself and not lie to oneself and be diligent in checking always too.

Let me know the differences you might still see in objectivity. I'd gladly trash it out with you.

this post is closer to home for me.

of course there would have to be self checks to ensure that we are actually seeing the objective/rational view not just a biased opinion, however, we would know that there is an objective/rational view that we would find if we are unbiased and honest with ourselves.

Gggg102:


this post is closer to home for me.

of course there would have to be self checks to ensure that we are actually seeing the objective/rational view not just a biased opinion, however, we would know that there is an objective/rational view that we would find if we are unbiased and honest with ourselves.

I find I can't be too honest with myself as far as bias and objectivity is concerned. For whenever I think I am fully honest, "O you lying buda" goes a very irritating voice in buda head, "try a little bit harder now, buda". And when I do, I discover how dishonest I'd been being, and how trying harder makes me a tiny bit less dishonest with myself.

Fun, but irritatingly tiresome at times. But it keeps me honest with myself, which is good. Pity I can't hold others to that irritating voice in my head. Whenever I try to the voice goes "forgive them buda, I only talk to you!" I wish it spoke to everyone then my "should" world would be an "is" world, and oh how happy I would be.

budaatum:

I find I can't be too honest with myself as far as bias and objectivity is concerned. For whenever I think I am fully honest, "O you lying buda" goes a very irritating voice in buda head, "try a little bit harder now, buda". And when I do, I discover how dishonest I'd been being, and how trying harder makes me a tiny bit less dishonest with myself.

Fun, but irritatingly tiresome at times. But it keeps me honest with myself, which is good. Pity I can't hold others to that irritating voice in my head. Whenever I try to the voice goes "forgive them buda, I only talk to you!" I wish it spoke to everyone then my "should" world would be an "is" world, and oh how happy I would be.

well, we'll have to try. even if we don't get there, we would get closer.
you said education brings progress. with more education, more people would have similar voices in their head.

budaatum:

I find I can't be too honest with myself as far as bias and objectivity is concerned. For whenever I think I am fully honest, "O you lying buda" goes a very irritating voice in buda head, "try a little bit harder now, buda". And when I do, I discover how dishonest I'd been being, and how trying harder makes me a tiny bit less dishonest with myself.

Fun, but irritatingly tiresome at times. But it keeps me honest with myself, which is good. Pity I can't hold others to that irritating voice in my head. Whenever I try to the voice goes "forgive them buda, I only talk to you!" I wish it spoke to everyone then my "should" world would be an "is" world, and oh how happy I would be.

well, we'll have to try. even if we don't get there, we would get close.
you said education brings progress. maybe with education, more people would have similar voices in their head.

I went to your order thread and found a link to a thread with similar discussion.

kkins25:

wrong sir.
actually in binary 1+1=10 true but not "ten" rather 1+1= one nd zero. in a counting system eg in base ten ; no number should be up to ten. the same goes for other bases. it is therefore wrong to say "1+1=ten" but 1+1=onezero.. its not subjective.

I never said it is 10th I said it is 10 . How does making 10 equal 10th. Or my symbols distract you?

I've brought this here because it deserved quiet consideration, Sab, where no gifs no brains don't enter.

IAmSabrina:
I think distinguishing "subjective realities" from "objective realities" is a worthy pursuit that brings simplicity to our daily endeavours. It may be difficult but Sabrina enjoys it

Enjoy it enough to be a scientist? Engineer myself. A make things happener. Structures built on subjective foundations don't bother Babel, they just come tumbling down. And yes, a very worthy pursuit. Research into it alone is mindblowing. Living it subjectively is fascinating. Very enjoyable too. And it gets easy over time.

IAmSabrina:
I'd like to add to that warning and say that people need to have a proper understanding of objectiveness, Buda!

Yes I very agree "that people need to have a proper understanding of objectiveness", and it is very difficult. But how do people get an understanding of objectivity, where do they get it from? How did you get it Sab?

IAmSabrina:
Whether Buda likes it or not, Sabrina's rectangle is Buda's rectangle. We observe shapes exactly the same. My eyes see the exact same thing yours do. Just a little sharper and maybe slight nuances in the colors but the overall picture is identical.

Not quite. Sabrina please do not be lazy! First, we take our photometers to the photometer calibrator who calibrates them then we ensure we are on the same measuring scale on our photometers and are both measuring from the precise same points to the same end points. Still, forgive I see a rhombus!

That "little sharper and maybe slight nuances in the colors" (I presume its not in the picture) might be of more significance than you give, is my point. It's enough to make the overall picture appear different to either of subjective us if not objectively measured. Is it in fact not a different picture since only one of us has "little sharper and maybe slight nuances in the colors" of their picture? Or do you see them too?

IAmSabrina:
Eyes are not subjective, Buda's square is not Martinez's circle, and neither are Sabrina's! We hear things the same way we might interpret them differently, but the sound produced in our heads are the same. Some people can understand objectiveness and some people simply don't have the brain power to do so. If we couldn't understand objectiveness we wouldn't be able to understand math. Punctum Supremum!

How are the eyes in my head not subjective to subject me who's head they are in? Are my eyes in some other subject's head too, Sab?

We hear things the same? How so? Does your brain power not determine what you hear to begin with? If you don't have brain power can you understand maths?

You're going to have to clean this for me, I think I misunderstand. There's a lot of people who have not learnt maths out there, by any objective measure.

IAmSabrina:

If we couldn't understand objectiveness, Sabrina, Martinez, Buda, Lord, JJ, Michelle,.... we'll all be helpless! We wouldn't be able to build a single thing because what were building might not be that. Beans na beans no matter who chop am....

Cc. Martinez39 / Martinez19

Helpless? Stop overdramatising Sab, it can't be that bad, or can't it. It's not as if we understand objectivity now to be honest, though we don't build much on here either, just constant tearing down. I put my beans in a pressure cooker with lots of onions, dried fish, panla, ede, salt, cowtail, water, cook half an hour pour in pepper, tomato, oil, simmer half another hour. You must know some people like theirs agoyin! Beans is not beans, Sab, who chop am matter!


I don't know what "Punctum Supremum" means so I went looking and found this:

The punctum points to those features of a photograph that seem to produce or convey a meaning without invoking any recognizable symbolic system. This kind of meaning is unique to the response of the individual viewer of the image. The punctum punctuates the studium and as a result pierces its viewer. To allow the punctum effect, the viewer must repudiate all knowledge. Barthes insists that the punctum is not simply the sum of desires projected into the photograph. Instead, it arises from details that are unintended or uncontrolled by the photographer. Photography can be distinguished from painting or drawing in that its apparatus visualizes the world automatically rather than being wholly informed by the interventions of the photographer. The theory of the punctum speaks the indexical nature of the photographic medium. It also accounts for the importance of emotion and subjectivity in interacting with photographs.

budaatum:
Enjoy it enough to be a scientist? Engineer myself. A make things happener. Structures built on subjective foundations don't bother Babel, they just come tumbling down. And yes, a very worthy pursuit. Research into it alone is mind blowing. Living it subjectively is fascinating. Very enjoyable too. And it gets easy over time.

Biggest lie of the century. You can't live out the principles of engineering subjectively. The principles are objective. Your language might be different but the observation and principles are objective and the same.

Edit: Here you admit recognising and making decisions based on objective reality but I later writings, you turn your back on this arguing for "pure subjective reality" for whatever reason known to you.

Not quite. IAmSabrina please do not be lazy! First, we take our photometers to the photometer calibrator who calibrates them then we ensure we are on the same measuring scale on our photometers and are both measuring from the precise same points to the same end points. Still, forgive I see a rhombus!

You are really stubborn. Why do you like complicating things? Who or what is the photometer calibrator? What is the photometer? I guess the eyes. The principle of reflection, refraction and electromagnetic waves are the same throughout the universe and are OBJECTIVE. Given this and the fact that everyone's eyes are built with the same basic framework, everyone with unimpaired eyes will see the same thing.

What I see as round would be seen as round by you. Even though we may have different languages but the observation and concept are the same. If you use the English language, then what I call round is what you will call round. If you use the English language and you claim you see a rhombus then you are saying that you see a quadrilateral whose sides have the same length. What you see as a rhombus is what I see as a rhombus whether I like it or not.

Your observation or oblivion has no bearing on the existence of objective reality. You observe objective reality with your senses.

How are the eyes in my head not subjective to subject me who's head they are in? Are my eyes in some other subject's head too, Sab?

Oga, your unimpaired eyes and brain will observe the same thing as everybody even though they belong to you.

We hear things the same? How so? Does your brain power not determine what you hear to begin with? If you don't have brain power can you understand maths?

Everything one hears the same thing because the nervous system and auditory organ of every human are built on the same basic structure. Given this and the fact that the physical law of sound transmission is the same then everyone will hear the same thing. The only exceptions are auditory hallucinations and hearing impairment.

You're going to have to clean this for me, I think I misunderstand. There's a lot of people who have not learnt maths out there, by any objective measure.

One beauty about objective reality is that your observation and oblivion of it has no bearing on it's existence. Your acknowledgement or denial of objective reality has no bearing on it's existence.

The fact that people haven't learnt maths by any objective standard doesn't mean that the principles of Mathematics are false and subjective. Go anywhere in the universe, the Pythagorean Theorem is valid whether you like it or not; or whether you've studied Mathematics objectively or not.

The language of description maybe different among people but the observation and concept are the same. The principles of Mathematics are valid for every observer. You trying to make it out that if people haven't learnt about certain parts of objective reality then it's not objective to them. There is nothing like "my facts," you only have "your opinion." Facts are facts and don't belong to anybody and are valid even without our acknowledgement.

Helpless? Stop overdramatising Sab, it can't be that bad, or can't it. It's not as if we understand objectivity now to be honest, though we don't build much on here either, just constant tearing down. I put my beans in a pressure cooker with lots of onions, dried fish, panla, ede, salt, cowtail, water, cook half an hour pour in pepper, tomato, oil, simmer half another hour. You must know some people like theirs agoyin! Beans is not beans, Sab, who chop am matter!

This is pure nonsense and deliberate misunderstanding of IAmSabrina's point. She didn't say the preparation would be the same for everyone. This is what I would expect from TATIME. Beans is beans regardless of who eats it. How it is prepared depends on the person's references but it is still beans. SMH, I am very very disappointed. You are simply, in a nonsensical way, waging a war against objective reality. There is a difference between observing objective reality and understanding what you are observing. The fact that you don't understand objective reality doesn't mean it different for you.

Martinez39:
SMH, I am very very disappointed. You are simply, in a nonsensical way, waging a war against objective reality. There is a difference between observing objective reality and understanding what you are observing. The fact that you don't understand objective reality doesn't mean it different for you.

Na so madness dey start

Martinez39:
Biggest lie of the century. You can't live out the principles of engineering subjectively. The principles are objective. Your language might be different but the observation and principles are objective and the same.

Edit: Here you admit recognising and making decisions based on objective reality but I later writings, you turn your back on this arguing for "pure subjective reality" for whatever reason known to you.


You are really stubborn. Why do you like complicating things? Who or what is the photometer calibrator? What is the photometer? I guess the eyes. The principle of reflection, refraction and electromagnetic waves are the same throughout the universe and are OBJECTIVE. Given this and the fact that everyone's eyes are built with the same basic framework, everyone with unimpaired eyes will see the same thing.

What I see as round would be seen as round by you. Even though we may have different languages but the observation and concept are the same. If you use the English language, then what I call round is what you will call round. If you use the English language and you claim you see a rhombus then you are saying that you see a quadrilateral whose sides have the same length. What you see as a rhombus is what I see as a rhombus whether I like it or not.

Your observation or oblivion has no bearing on the existence of objective reality. You observe objective reality with your senses.

Oga, your unimpaired eyes and brain will observe the same thing as everybody even though they belong to you.

Everything one hearings the same thing because the nervous system and auditory organ of every human are built on the same basic structure. Given this and the fact that the physical law of sound transmission is the same then everyone will hear the same thing. The only exceptions are auditory hallucinations and hearing impairment.

One beauty about objective reality is that your observation and oblivion of it has no bearing on it's existence. Your acknowledgement or denial of objective reality has no bearing on it's existence.

The fact that people haven't learnt maths by any objective standard doesn't mean that the principles of mathematics are false and subjective. Go anywhere in the universe, the Pythagorean Theorem is valid whether you like it or not; or whether you've studied mathematics objectively or not.

The language of description maybe different among people but the observation and concept are the same. The principles of Mathematics are valid for every observer. You trying to make it out that if people haven't learnt about certain parts of objective reality then it's not objective to them. There is nothing like "my facts," you only have "your opinion." Facts are facts and don't belong to anybody and valid even without our acknowledgement.


This is pure nonsense and deliberate misunderstanding of IAmSabrina's point. She didn't say the preparation would be the same for everyone. This is what I would expect from TATIME. Beans is beans regardless of who eats it. How it is prepared depends on the person's references but it is still beans. SMH, I am very very disappointed. You are simply, in a nonsensical way, waging a war against objective reality. There is a difference between observing objective reality and understanding what you are observing. The fact that you don't understand objective reality doesn't mean it different for you.

I appreciate the help, my brother Martinez . If you want to take my place in this argument, you're welcome. I've grown weary of going round in circles and hence the "I'm Ok with this, Budaatum" comment back in my thread.

IAmSabrina:

I appreciate the help, my brother Martinez . If you want to take my place in this argument, you're welcome. I've grown weary of going round in circles and hence the "I'm Ok with this, Budaatum" comment back in my thread.

Hell no.

Not that there is any value in joining this conversation, but I suppose I could make an observation or two:

1. These people insisting on objectivity over against subjectivity, are they the same people who believe that there is no moral authority, and that we are all our own moral overlords?

2. These people who believe so strongly in objectivity, are they the same people who think that Christians should keep their beliefs to themselves because everybody believes different things?

3. These people so insistent on objectivity, are they the same people who dismiss biblical arguments and the Bible itself right out of hand?

4. BTW, I did notice comments to the effect that the debaters are not dogmatic people who hold on to beliefs unreasonably, but I personally know this to be very false indeed. I should know, since I actually price objectivity, and I have debated with the subjects in question.

5. Following upon the above, both sides of this argument are flawed, but I am particularly impressed by the recklessness of the side for objectivity. Of course, it is not particularly noteworthy considering that the views are held by atheists who, in my observation, are wont to make things up and hold them with a death grip when they find the truth inflexibly opposing them.

6. Is it really very difficult to appreciate that while all truths are objective in nature, appreciation of them is a subjective matter? I mean, although what is is what is irrespective of how we perceive or observe them, each person interprets the information they receive in the way they please. Isn't this obvious?

Can people be objective? Absolutely, but they generally aren't, not even with a gun to their heads.

Is objectivity a good thing? Without a doubt, since the alternative is usually insanity.

Is subjectivity a good thing? Since interpretation and application are subjective matters, of course, when used right. I mean, since we are not God, but rather are finite beings with limits in our abilities to perceive and appreciate things, it is always a good thing when several people perceive different correct comprehensions about the same thing. That can lead to varied but good applications of that thing. For example, water can become amazing displays of art, a means to improve agricultural fertility, a cleansing instrument, a cooling instrument, a means of exercise and conditioning for the body, even a healing tool.

Subjectivity is a problem whenever people use their individuality, their own free will, to pretend that what is is not what is, and that what is not is what is. That is insanity, although it certainly is subjectivity.

In fact, the best that human beings can aim for is good subjectivity that looks to accept what is, irrespective of how one may wish it to be, and use what is in the way it ought to be used, irrespective of how one may wish to use it. In other words, objectivity requires human beings to be humble. That, in my observation, is a very tall order for the debaters here.

PS.: Good subjectivity, of course, begins with objectivity and ends with subjectivity. By accepting reality for what it is, one can apply it in ways that are unique to oneself, but which do not violate the object or principle in question.

Martinez39:
Biggest lie of the century. You can't live out the principles of engineering subjectively. The principles are objective. Your language might be different but the observation and principles are objective and the same.

Edit: Here you admit recognising and making decisions based on objective reality but I later writings, you turn your back on this arguing for "pure subjective reality" for whatever reason known to you.

You like strawmen don't you! Is it an objective strawman, or a subjective one I wonder.

I never said one can live out the principles of engineering subjectively, 39. Nor did I argue for "pure subjective reality" either. If you can read English Language and understand metaphors you'd understand 'bridges that are not built on objective real facts will stand up as good as pie in the sky and come tumbling down'. And I doubt anyone would get very far if they intend to disregard all the objects that make up the objective reality that may stand in their path and expect to walk through some subjective imaginations in their head. Or do you think I walk through walls with total disregard? Here is two pointing out the importance of objectivity. It's unfortunately in English Language so you might struggle a little as you seem to have done here.

Thanks for the response all the same. It's a wonderful show of how much you know of the terms being discussed if nothing else. Don't forget that response you got me waiting for please once you've finished "attending to something".

Ihedinobi3:


PS.: Good subjectivity, of course, begins with objectivity and ends with subjectivity. By accepting reality for what it is, one can apply it in ways that are unique to oneself, but which do not violate the object or principle in question.

Thanks for this, ihe, though I think you might have taken 39's word that I argue for one or the other when the entire thread itself is about the equal importance of both.

Good living begins with understanding that which is subjective and that which is objective and knowing the difference between the two. Subjective thought is how we as subjects, impose our will on objective reality. Without an understanding of how things are (the objective reality), we cannot successfully impose our subjective will to make things how we might like them to be. In science, we first seek for an understanding of the objective reality on which we then create technology by imposing our subjective will on the objective reality we discovered by science. Essentially, we must understand the objective reality in order to successfully “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground”, or we labour in vain. Societies that get this tend to more fruitful on the whole.

budaatum:

You like strawmen don't you! Is it an objective strawman, or a subjective one I wonder.

I never said one can live out the principles of engineering subjectively, 39. Nor did I argue for "pure subjective reality" either. If you can read English Language and understand metaphors you'd understand 'bridges that are not built on objective real facts will stand up as good as pie in the sky and come tumbling down'. And I doubt anyone would get very far if they intend to disregard all the objects that make up the objective reality that may stand in their path and expect to walk through some subjective imaginations in their head. Or do you think I walk through walls with total disregard? Here is two pointing out the importance of objectivity. It's unfortunately in English Language so you might struggle a little as you seem to have done here.

Thanks for the response all the same. It's a wonderful show of how much you know of the terms being discussed if nothing else. Don't forget that response you got me waiting for please once you've finished "attending to something".

Lying buda. Despite acknowledging objective reality and pointing out it's importance at the beginning, you then fervently tried, in all your arguments, to suggest that subjective reality is always the case and that objective reality is subjective. Oh yes, that has been your arguments so far. What is the photometer? Who or what is the photometric calibrator? I could dig out your posts to show that what I say is the truth but I have lost interest in this argument and other arguments between you and me. Let's agree to disagree and save ourselves precious time.

As for denying that you never said one can live out the principles of Engineering subjectively, here is a post of yours. Good night, lying buda.

Martinez39:
Lying buda. Despite acknowledging objective reality and pointing out it's importance at the beginning, you then fervently tried, in all your arguments, to suggest that subjective reality is always the case and that objective reality is subjective. Oh yes, that has been your arguments so far. What is the photometer? Who or what is the photometric calibrator? I could dig out your posts to show that what I say is the truth but I have lost interest in this argument and other arguments between you and me. Let's agree to disagree and save ourselves precious time.

As for denying that you never said one can live out the principles of Engineering subjectively, here is a post of yours. Good night, lying buda.

You really have problems understanding English, don't you? I never said "one can live out the principles of Engineering subjectively". What I wrote was:

"Research into it alone is mind blowing. Living it subjectively is fascinating. Very enjoyable too. And it gets easy over time."

If you do understand English Language, you'd likely get that the "it"s above all refer to "objectivity", and not engineering as you appear to have misunderstood!

If you build a bridge on or by the created in your head (which is usually what it is) subjectivity, it will most definitely come tumbling down, and that's if you get it off the ground to start with!

I hope that's clear to you now.

Martinez39:
tried, in all your arguments, to suggest that subjective reality is always the case and that objective reality is subjective.

I can't believe you say this with a straight face! How can anyone claim the subjective nonsense they cook up in their head is always the case? Do such people plan to completely ignore all the objective real stuff that surrounds them? And how can objective reality that stands all on its own be subjective?

Thankfully, you don't have to go far to provide objective evidence to justify your claim so if you got any provide it please. Just make sure it is not down to your own subjective inability to comprehend simple English Language.

Vaxx, you should know science itself is not all that unified science which based itself of objective truth aided by empirical data, statistics stem from an individual subjective view. Another thing is you know there are several school of thought on science. This makes it of the view that the seed science of a proven theory started out as a subjective thouhgt. This is the basis of where other theory was laid. Or have you not heard about various theory In science being discarded or not possible. How are you sure we are even practising the right science, is it because it works for us.

To each is own reality, in the end, everything Is a paradox

[quote author=budaatum post=66918270]
There is a reason why I am careful when I write stuff, especially on forums. Experience has shown me that words can easily be misunderstood, especially by those who are hell bent on sticking to their positions irregardless of opposing evidence.

If I had 100 Naira in my pocket at 2pm on Saturday 21 April 2018, and spent half of it by 4pm that day. It is still absolutely true that I had 100 Naira in my pocket at 2pm on Saturday 21 April 2018 even though I had only 50 Naira by 4 pm that day. And there's nothing relative about it. Time just passed, and circumstances changed!

Prince Harry may one day become the president of Nigeria, but currently (and you may go back and see that I have been careful not to omit that word), it is an absolute objective verifiable truth to claim that Buhari is the current president of Nigeria, and Prince Harry is not. And by current, I mean today, 21 April 2018.

Please note that in my opinion, a person who claims that absolute truth is impossible has no basis on which to claim gods absolutely exist. Such a person would find it difficult to simply cross a road because they would never be certain they wouldn't get run over by the invisible non-existent approaching car! In fact, that person would not live very long at all!

What Ogun an Sango above saw is not relative, but observed at different times! Or perhaps the sekete they drank with their dinner went to their eyes![/quote

I think there time is relative sire