hayoholla:
I think there time is relative sire

First, how much of the thread have you read?

Time I don't think can be relative, except it be by location hayoholla. 2pm on Saturday 21 April 2018 in a particular place is 2pm on Saturday 21 April 2018 in that same place regardless, though 2pm on Saturday 21 April 2018 is indeed relative to where one is or one's own time measuring instrument. One's clock could afterall not be working properly.

But perhaps I don't understand what you mean. Mind elaborating please?

vaxx:
false ....in binary, 1+1=10.

In philosophy, you will have to go a long way ,like What is "1"? What is "+"? What is "2"?… if “1” is stands for a single object and "+” action is takes both sides, add them and dived by 2 (for normalization) and we will keep the original mining of “=” and “2” will be 2 objects.
Then, 1+1=2 is a false statement. Therefore logically we can arrive that 1+1 is not 2 unless in a conventional settings where will want to work with agree axioms( you call it opinion in your earlier definition ) I assume.

Exactly vaxx, I agree with you on this one. You see subjectivity makes us unique in our thought. In the end, objective idea or theory exist because of a " consensus agreement" that is why 1+1 may or may not always be equals to 2. But one thing that keeps me confused is, is nature itself objective. Like for example when you wake up in the morning it must never be dark, everything is clear, also at night it is always dark. I can give numerous example of which you and I can relate with. Is the working principle of nature objective regardless of ones subjective view in trying to explain it? Budaatum ,vaxx

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.

Are you an anarchist, budaatum? Your arguments so far leans towards that school of thought. Just asking though.

hayoholla:


Are you an anarchist, budaatum? Your arguments so far leans towards that school of thought. Just asking though.

That's a new label for me based on your subjective understanding. May I ask if its an objective opinion or your subjective opinion of me?

Which arguments would those be that make you think I'm an anarchist?

hayoholla:


Exactly vaxx, I agree with you on this one. You see subjectivity makes us unique in our thought. In the end, objective idea or theory exist because of a " consensus agreement" that is why 1+1 may or may not always be equals to 2. But one thing that keeps me confused is, is nature itself objective. Like for example when you wake up in the morning it must never be dark, everything is clear, also at night it is always dark. I can give numerous example of which you and I can relate with. Is the working principle of nature objective regardless of ones subjective view in trying to explain it? Budaatum ,vaxx

It is the person's view that inputs subjectivity into nature. In this thread somewhere we spoke about a tree that falls in the middle of the forest with no one there to witness it. The questions were, did it fall, and was there an objective noise despite no subject observing it?

budaatum:

That's a new label for me based on your subjective understanding. May I ask if its an objective opinion or your subjective opinion of me?

Which arguments would those be that make you think I'm an anarchist?

Of course its my subjective opinion of you. Most of your argument are in favour of a non coercive subjective view, something similar to anarchism

hayoholla:


Of course its my subjective opinion of you. Most of your argument are in favour of a non coercive subjective view, something similar to anarchism

Non-coercive, as in, don't force anyone; and subjective - to my view; yet, anarchist, as in anti-authoritarian, self-managed and voluntarily, cooperative?

Mind elaborating with an example please. I might have an opinion if I understood what you meant.

Yes, majority of anarchist are non coercive even if they agree objectively to be anti authoritarian, aside that all pyjet of their views are subjective with respect to each belief. Mind you, I know where you are getting at Sir. Anarchism is not a religion, neither is it a school of thought sef, and also may not be wholly about being anti authoritarian, anarchist live their life devoid of any central dogma or belief, save for the one they subjectively created for themselves mostly as form of moral compass. The term anarchism is very complex to practice though. But you lean closer to one. I hope you get and understand me.

hayoholla:
Yes, majority of anarchist are non coercive even if they agree objectively to be anti authoritarian, aside that all pyjet of their views are subjective with respect to each belief. Mind you, I know where you are getting at Sir. Anarchism is not a religion, neither is it a school of thought sef, and also may not be wholly about being anti authoritarian, anarchist live their life devoid of any central dogma or belief, save for the one they subjectively created for themselves mostly as form of moral compass. The term anarchism is very complex to practice though. But you lean closer to one. I hope you get and understand me.

No, I don't get you. You have not exactly explained how you came to your conclusion nor have you pointed to anything I've said to support your view. And unfortunately, subjective opinions don't cut objective ice, least not in this thread. But, first, thank you very much for contributing here. This thread is about a complex topic with profound implications if understood so I can't but be immensely grateful to anyone who engages and comments in it. Those who do will find the subject a thing they'd chew on long after they've engaged in conversation here, and like me, perhaps, would be better for it. Thanks again immensely.

Beliefs, by their sheer nature, are subjective. They are the views and opinions that one choses to hold inside one's head. They are hardly objectively tested or they would no more be beliefs. After all, as I continuously state, no one claims they 'believe' it is raining if rain is falling on their head. Nor have I come across anyone who 'believes' their mother and their father are their parents unless they aren't quite certain who born them - most of us tend to 'know' who our parents are and whether it is rain that is pissing on our heads. That's why, in my own subjective opinion, believers are categorically claiming not to know because they don't have evidence for their claims. If they did have evidence they would no more believe and would know instead. The West came to this understanding when they arrived in the Scientific Age and decided to test their beliefs. It is what has allowed them to "Be fruitful and increase in number; to fill and subdue the earth, and rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground" and to be blessed, so to speak. While believers, on the other hand, tend to still be calling out to God to bless them please or they struggle to elope to the West. (See here for details on this very subjective view of mine).

I have a dear friend who is an anarchist and we hardly agree. Anarchy, I tell him, means devoid of order, order he is finding he can not do without. He manages a library in Chelsea and hates when his staff don't turn up for work or do what he tells them to do. He could not exactly have gotten to where he is if he is anarchical and he'd not like any of his staff to be anarchical neither. Even in his writing he can't be anarchical (I would expect one to be if one were), since it would involve not obeying the rules of language and the writing of unstructured sentences which would be meaningless to the majority of readers. Much order you sentence just words placing try anarchic and you might mean what I making hardly see sense, I would think.

I'll let you into a secret that many contributing to this thread fail to observe. We are discussing two ideas - the subjective, as in made up in the head - or at best one's own point of view; and objective factual evidence, yet many fail to recognise when they themselves are doing either. I can make up any opinion in my head for instance, but I can't necessarily make anyone agree with me except they share my subjectivity or I present compelling objective evidence (albeit subjectively still), or they are stupid and cannot reason for themself. Even my objective fact and evidence based utterances are still subjective since I would have subjectively chosen the objective evidence I present out of all the objective evidence that is available with which I would have spun my own subjective opinion.

You'd see it more by observing this section of NL well where you'd find so called Christians devoid of love for their neighbours and atheists ranting against a God they 'believe' does not exist. Imagine, an atheist, who claims to rely on evidence, 'believing' and ranting against what is claimed not to exist, and a Christian, abandoning the core principle of their faith and not loving others! If we could only learn to understand the subjectivity of our so called objectivity we might see how absurd and ridiculous we can be and perhaps learn to walk our talk. But we go deeper, or don't scratch the surface, would be more precise. Imagine a thread about mysticism where the proponent of the thread is not practising mysticism. You've got to ask if what's being presented is an objective subjective view of mysticism - an art which by it's nature is very subjective in itself, and not objective at all.

What one 'sees' (or believes) depends pretty much on where one stands and looks from, is my point, and changing position changes one's view. One should very much be aware of this fact and not define things by the bit they hold on to, nor mistake the finger for the moon it points to - two sayings that teach of this error and are two "dogmas" I tenaciously hold on to contrary to your observation that I hold on to none. Einstein won a Nobel Prize for making us aware of this very cogent fact he called Relativity.

I'm going to have to agree as you've acknowledged, that you are not in anyway stating an objective opinion about me. I can hardly expect you to since you can't exactly have any objective evidence to base your claim on and you sure haven't presented any evidence, be it subjective or objective at that, for your claim. And that's perfectly okay because this is precisely the thread to practise to differentiate your subjective opinion from objective fact and acknowledge the difference between the two. It is what this thread was created for.

That said, and of course, subjectively speaking, I'm not anarchic, nay. The consistency of my thought as expressed in my writings, despite a recent flip from atheism to theism, is sufficient evidence that I am not. But if you insist, then do please present me with what you see that makes you think I am, for I do love seeing me through the eyes of others since it's very likely they may have a point. After all, it's very unlikely that I can possible have an objective view of my subjective self since I'd always be subjectively observing me from the subjective position of being inside my subjective self looking inside my subjective self. And if subjective I were to subjectively think I'm objectively observing my very subjective self, anarchy would not sufficiently describe the level of stupidity I would be engaging in, I assure you.

Christianity is The Best.

God is Everything.

Philosophy, Science, Arts are all introduced by Spiritology(Pneumatology). For Everything in Heaven and on Earth(Subject, Object, Morality, Sanity and their opposites) are God.

Jesus, Son of God, came and left us a Legacy of three Subjective Truths and four Objective Ways, vis:-

1, We are The Light of The World.

2, We are The Good of The World.

3, We are The Life on Earth.

So Light, Good and Life and their opposites are The Subjective attributes of God on Earth.

4, We are The Faith,

5, The Hope,

6, The Peace and

7, The Love of the World.

These four Spirits and their opposites are our Objective attributes on Earth.