Marblemarrow

"Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings". So according to the definition objectivity of a claim is actually determined by its universal truth value. Also that definition doesn't implicate that an objective claim is about external reality per se. Sure you could say it's in "relation" to reality when our perceptions and the whole concept of truth to begin with are effects of the mind that you can ultimately link up to being an effect of the underlying "reality", but technically any claim we make is about a projection or an interpretation of reality. Just because we can't perceive the underlying reality that our mind and perceptions are an effect of doesn't mean that such thing doesn't exist. We can still categorize things as being true, like the claim about self-awareness, even though our perceptions don't inform about the reality itself (it being defined as the imperceptible underlying cause for our perceptions). Edit: I think Descartes put it well; "I think, therefore I am", in demonstrating how an universally valid claim i.e. an objectively true claim can be derived from mere experience.

I think we have some heavy collision with the definitions here. I went with the definition of reality as it was stated in Wikipedia ("Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined") which implies that a) we can still make true claims like "I'm self-aware" even though b) reality is unknowable since it can't be imagined etc. What do you define reality as? (Might be pointless to go about this debate if we can't agree on the terms) Again, the definitions. I'll go with Wikipedia again: "A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject", again a claim like "I'm self-aware" is true and you could universalize it like "at least 1 person is self-aware" (an objective, true claim based on perceptual information) and this is not contradictory with the definition of reality as stated above. Now actually I'll go back to repair my statement in that the universal demonstrability of a statement is not the "only" way for universality to work when obviously personal experiences are not necessarily reproducible (like in a solipsistic situation) or demonstrable even though the existence of the experience itself may well be true from my perspective - - then of course universalized knowing that it is true for at least 1 person and so on. My bad. I mean obviously there's disagreement with the definitions but are there any definitions of reality and reality-related concepts that have a consensus among philosophers to begin with? If so, I would definitely switch to them ASAP.

Well, I can reiterate my point: There's no such thing as a claim about reality itself, since reality is unknowable (definition being: "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined"). You said that objective claims are claims about reality and that objectivity of a claim is not defined by its truth value. I disagreed. Point one: I think objective claims are made about the projection of reality. Point two: I think objectivity of a claim is defined by its universal truth value - if we don't know that a claim is universally valid i.e. true, then we can't say it's objective. I hope that clarifies my point. You're going to a conclusion about me being wrong without an actual argument here. That's not valuable in a debate since I can say the same about you but I won't. I'm willing to change my POV if it's invalid but I can't be convinced by your mere certainty. Maybe you don't even want to engage in a debate with me which is just fine, but putting up an assertion like that doesn't prove anything and is useless for this topic.

So I already answered that in a post you quoted just prior to my last post. We can only know things as they are projected. Knowing reality as it is is unintelligible since knowledge is an interpretation of it to begin with. This is why I don't agree that objective claims are claims about external reality. Please read the whole post before criticizing my POV, I vented most of it in the post I just quoted a bit above.

"Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined", granted this is a definition from Wikipedia but that's what I thought what you meant by "external reality". Everything we perceive by that definition is not "reality". Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Nobody can make a claim about the outside-of-perception reality because every claim is a product of an interpretation/projection of that external reality by its roots. In that sense every claim is subjective because there's no such a thing as a claim about the external reality. Therefore I think you can go about universality only from the bottom up, work your way to create a system that is demonstrably true from everyone's perspective. If there's any zit of inaccuracy in 1+1=2, it stops being universally true. Moreover 0.9 + 0.9 = 2 is as untrue as 0.99 + 0.99 = 2 within the confines of math so there's no gradient of truth. I'd say objectivity is only determined by its universal truth value; anything less than that is merely a subjective assertion as an attempt at objectivity. We assume a lot of things to be objective yet only a very few truly are. Science is merely a model of the universe and every paradigm in it is prone to change when its ability to predict universe's next move is demonstrably improved by changing one or maybe every part of its clockwork. Things like maths can be build from simple rules that are universally demonstrably true making them easier to be defined as objective, if we go by my definitions.

Alright. I have a hard time imagining something that is 50% objective. Objective; true/false for everyone, subjective; true/false for some, right? Chocolate tastes good can't be 50% objective, because it's not demonstrably true for everyone, so it's 100% subjective and 0% objective. Now given that, the statement "chocolate tastes good is 100% subjective" is 100% objective within my assumptions and perceptive limitations. If we found out some wacky transcendental dimension that would upgrade our maths, maths would still be objectively true as a system outside the influence of that dimension.Truth is dependant on the existence of the mind so I wouldn't agree that absolute truth is something independent of our perceptions, I'd say it's just a concept that is demonstrably true for everyone i.e objective truth.

It is true that there are concepts that can not be proven or disproven with our current knowledge. For example, there's no information from which you can logically derive that people around you are not merely illusions that don't have any self-awareness. However, in order to establish such a statement like: "Everything is inherently subjective", you assume objective/absolute knowledge. In addition, assuming that everything is inherently subjective, arguing here is futile because there would be no method (like logic or empiricism) that is objectively preferable to guessing in regard to finding out the truth.

In the context of the future one might want to consider the role of business expanding into the outer-space and the material bodies out there that are nothing less than treasures of rare elements. If we assume humanity is going to make it up there (in which there is an increasing interest among entrepreneurs), colonize/extort asteroids and other planets, ever increasing in its ability to grasp and manipulate the cosmos, it would not be too optimistic to conclude that the production of gold among other materials would grow exponentially for long periods. Of course it's hard to predict when mankind is ready and willing to take the next big step; then again going back to gold or breaking the shackles of the state are also things of the future generations, given how they are currently. Anyway, there's some speculation to the mix, hope it wasn't too far off the subject or the type of ideas you were looking for with this topic.

I wasn't attacking him for being anarcho-capitalist or wanting voluntary relationships - if that's what you're suggesting here, then there's been a miscommunication. The facts are that in order for him to have any kinds of social networks outside of his family, it's highly recommendable that he'd keep some of his beliefs away from some of the people in his life in this stage of his life. That doesn't mean that he ought not to seek more elevated relationships and/or diverge from some of the old ones, if and when he sees fit. I have to bring up the fact that Finland is a very patriotic country with a big state (we still have conscription [which he has to deal with one way or the other too], taxes across the roof etc.), with a population of circa 5 million in very low density with very little to non-existent libertarian history or active movement. It's an unfortunate place for a libertarian to say the least. As I said, I'm not trying to put him down or suggest living a life of complete fraud but to wait for the opportunities to get to that point without becoming a complete hermit. The way he went about it, as I quoted in my last post in this thread, was very self sabotaging and thus, ironically, even bordering detrimental to his future prospects of forging philosophically aware relationships as relationships in general may prove hard to make with such zealous output. Anyway, thanks for letting me know how I came across to you (unless I've on the other hand misunderstood you). My point in a nutshell is that there aren't moral obligations for Markus to make sure that everyone around him is aware or approving of his beliefs. Regardless of whether he actually wants to forge a philosophically aware social network or not, I'd suggest for him to be strategic about his efforts to elevate his relationships given that the environment has significant difficulties in all directions in this respect, especially at his age and state of origin. Obviously I'm all for the personal quest to an enlightened life and relationships but it doesn't mean that the only path is to show the tender parts of your flesh, roasted, with salt and black pepper on it to every drool dripping predator out there. Now I'd like to point out that I'm by no means in the position to tell you what to do but I'm bringing out some facts and input that I believe is in the best interest of Markus. Obviously he has to decide this for himself. Ja mukavas nähdä muita suomalaisia, aloin jo vähän huolestua etteikö Suomessa olisi yhtään FDR:än kuuntelijaa. Moderaattorit ei varmaan hirveesti tykkää, jos täällä rupee puhelee suomea liika. Eli eiköhän se tältä erää...

I hope you're not willing to ostracize yourself completely because of your beliefs. I've been reading your posts for a while and I'm surprised that you actually know someone, especially an older guy, who is actually liberally minded and in your own family of origin in Finland! Now that's amazing - unfortunately, that's also almost the equivalent of winning the lottery here. So I'm stepping out of the line here in saying that don't let it get in the way of your happiness. There's nothing immoral in keeping some of your beliefs away from some people in your life, especially this young, when you are very dependant socially and economically on the people around you. I would say that your dad might be one of the only people you meet in real life, especially this young, that is actually going to be fine with your anarcho-capitalism. For all you guys out there advocating this "all or nothing"-dichotomy, you need to understand the context of the other person's life - this is not USA or Canada, guys like Markus or his dad are rare here and the same goes with any such communities. I'm not trying to put you down here. I'm just saying that for you own well being you should be smart about what you say and that it isn't immoral in any way. Just like an atheist probably wouldn't go yelling against god around everyone in Mississippi. Remember even the red pill was "nothing but the truth", it wasn't "go protest x or y or fight against the system all day everyday against your own benefit". Most in this forum haven't evaded taxes and gone into jail just because they think taxation is theft, right? The same way you might want to see into the ramifications of your actions in your own situation given that you're so young. Anyway, I hope you get my point. I wish you all the best dude.- Another dude from your country who has three years more experience in living here.

I think there needs to be a distinction of deliberate consequence and accidental consequence. Let's consider a scenario where I stroll on a hill and I kick a rock that detaches from the rest of the stony body, rolls down the hill, hits a person in the neck and kills him/her. I'm going to use the word "guilty" as a subset of responsible and by guilty I mean something that is morally responsible and therefore the one to compensate for the loss of the victim and all the rest of that jazz.Now first of all, if there's no connection between sentience and consequence in moral responsibility then the rock would be guilty for killing the guy directly among other things that have caused the rock, physically, to ultimately kill the guy. So, empirically, there is some connection in sentience, consequence in responsibility in the moral context because the rock is not penalized for the death of the given person. Also, given that the rock physically caused the death of this person, everything physically connected to the rock ultimately rolling down the hill would be equally guilty. Science tells us that everything is physically connected to everything: Gravitation field among other fields cover everything, also, in general everything in the whole timeline of the universe would've made this event possible since the end state of things (the death of this guy) would not have been in the same universe, ergo same in general, were the universe's past even slightly different. Moreover you could say that the guy is responsible for coming to the place where he was killed and thus guilty of his/her own death. If that were the case the whole concept of being guilty of something would be completely obsolete, since the whole concept of guilt is meant to differentiate the victim and the perpetrator in order to establish who is to pay whom the compensation etc. I think this sides Stefan's argument against determinism.In the case where I kick the rock down the hill accidentally, I would be in the equivalent situation as the rock; physically connected to the event but not sentient in regard to the consequences, and me being guilty in that case would be absolutely meaningless following the logic of the previous paragraph. So I might be called responsible for the effect (killing the guy), if by responsibility you mean a mere physical connection to the situation and not necessarily a moral responsibility. However, if I kick the rock deliberately in an attempt to kill the guy, I'd argue I'm guilty for killing the guy. In that case I can't say that I was like the rock in that I was unaware of the situation and thus indistinguishable from the rest of the universe in the context of moral responsibility, and so I think that makes me single-handedly morally responsible for the death of this guy. This also implies that weren't there a special connection between sentience and responsibility, morality in general would be obsolete. Regardless, OP, you raised an immensely important issue of ethics. This could be turned into determinism vs free will too. Ironically, I tend to incline towards determinism and the argument I just made was not necessarily my own belief but an interpretation of what the statement Stef made about responsibility might have meant.

Hi, I'm Aleksi from Finland. I'm 19 years old. I'm interested in the big questions like most of us here and joined to both elevate and share my knowledge and experiences about life in this pale blue dot. My other interests include arts (something I've done every now and then myself), sciences (something I've delved into educationally for a brief moment and maybe in the near future again) and the human species... :blink:All platitudes aside I got introduced to FDR a few years back, the first video I, if I recall right, watched was about procrastination - after that I stopped watching - okay, jk, after that I spread my spider web of neural connection to other videos as well, mostly the ones concerning psychology and personal relationships to aid my battle against (and for?) my -looking amygdala and relationships. In general I would like to be part of the goodies in the raging cosmos of round things, in fractals, holding hands together and dancing before the fat lady of entropy tells them and thus us to separate. Okay, time for deceleration (and/or less drugs). Living in Finland and thinking how I think about liberal/libertarian ideals is confusing to say the least. We have conscription and every other penny is going to the rubber faced, wax haired politicians, nuff said right? Indeed, Finland is ridden with patriots, not just the caricaturish "guns bang-bang, hippies only gang-bang"-type but a sort of submissive "I'll go with the other flock"-type. Bullies and enablers, right? Anyway, in me that has stirred conflicts both philosophical and emotional (if we assume the voice inside me is mine to begin with) and it's hard to find people to even talk about these things in a respectful manner. So, I'm taking my heart out for you. Figuratively. Hopefully. Anyway, that's a big reason why I decided to go aboard in the boards. Not very punny, I know. I'm quite the loner. So if someone wants to have a chat with me or anything just let me know or I'll find your bedroom and creep under your bed, evolve into a monster and eat all your cookies. My steam url is http://steamcommunity.com/id/viiltaja/ you can use that or the nick found within the page to add me on steam, if you want -- as always. for reading.