What's your way to you refute the "everything you say is subjective" argument? Obviously not to change anyone's opinion, but at least to feel good about myself
Picture is a photo objectively conveying the visual aspect of reality, much like words may convey a universally true notion
"If you thought with logic and reason, you'd be able to see past leftist subjectivism"
>>7995764
Their response is also subjective as well. It leads in circles endlessly, their interpretation of what has been said is also subjective. So if we want to base everything on subjectivity nothing can be understood, so nothing can be known, and therefore any conversation is pointless.
Also, even though it is subjective, it's a product of your experience, which is objectively a real thing which has happened.
>>7995764
The argument is self-defeating. For the position that 'everything is subjective' would itself be subjective, and we could then reject it.
>>7995764
>Sophist: Everything one can say is subjective
>You: Then your proposition that "everything one can say is subjective" is also subjective. Meaning that I have no reason to agree with it, since it is only a statement about your own belief, not anything about reality.
Plato and Aristotle got this covered in Theaetetus and Metaphysics.
insult their taste. Tell them they aren't thinking 'long-term'
>>7995764
Depends. If they're talking about math or science being subjective, lol I won't even bother.
If they say artistic quality is subjective, I'll usually say something like, "You mean personal enjoyment and emotional resonance is subjective. Originality, skill, or depth, don't have any objective ways to be measured, but they definitely can be discussed as a definite thing, and it's really damn generally concieved that great works of art triumph over lesser ones due to those qualities."
arguments don't matter. you don't win a girl's heart with an argument.
>>7995807
No, you win it by pulling it out if her chest.
>>7995764
Tell them they don't exist and that what they say doesn't matter because of that.
>>7995816
Is this to bait them into saying but I do exist so you can zing back with everything you say is subjective?
the argument of "everything you say is subjective" is subjective
>>7995785
this does not matter in the framework that's already established in the mind of a subjectivist by way of circular reasoning which is then also okay, which is really dumb
>>7995827
I didn't really think of that, but I guess.
I was really trying to point out that if everything is subjective then so is reality. If you say that, then a schizophrenic's or paranoid's subjective view of the world is just as accurate as anyone's despite being vastly different from the "normal" view.
It is just subjective. Likewise you can just say that you think you are the only person who exists and no one can tell you otherwise because your subjective view is as good as any.
>>7995871
I have been quoted, I can die in peace.
Everything outside of cold hard mathematics is objective, although their interpretation of the numbers may be subjective, but logically it's not
>>7995788
>Sophist: Everything one can say is subjective
>You: Then your proposition that "everything one can say is subjective" is also subjective. Meaning that I have no reason to agree with it, since it is only a statement about your own belief, not anything about reality.
Sophist: Yes but that's a very sophist statement therefore you're sophist therefore you also believe that everything one can say is subjective
:-DDDDDD
>>7995910
Mathematics is subjective*...()
Fixed it for you
>>7995921
>meaning I have no reason to accept it
Nice try plebbit :^)
>>7995929
yes, implying that one should only accept whatever benefits the argument that they're trying to make.
that is a very sophist approach
>>7995764
There has to be one objective fact when you say everything is subject. Ask them to ask a better question. That is what philosophy is about. Asking better questions, not finding answers.
>>7995936
Except every single argument sophistards can make is nothing but circular and by extension not a real argument.
>>7995764
>"should we sit in a corner and ignore the outside world then, or should we agree on measurable points of data and go from there?"
only use this one if you're a) sure they're not using one scenario as a symbol for another [the secret orgy club that /lit/ missed the invite to in 2011], b) actually care about the point being debated, and c) don't mind looking like an autistic fuck
>>7995942
But that's only true if you prove that everything one can say isn't subjective, and we just saw how you can't prove that.
Okay, so what if somebody said:
"There is only one objective truth: there are no other objective truths."
>>7995949
2+2=4
Done
>>7995949
If you jump off of the Empire state building you will die.
>>7995967
Go jump off of it and prove that what you said is true faggot :^)
>>7995976
>you can't prove that God doesn't exist therefore he exists
:-DDDDD
remind me not to browse /lit/ during the hours when burgers are prime-time
>>7995958
DO IT FAGGOT
>>7995983
You aren't willing to take part in the experiment necessary to prove your position, it's because you know what I have said is a fact.
Remind not to partake in conversation with retards such as yourself.
>>7995983
>what is a Strawman
>>7995994
>I will remind you that "you can't prove that God doesn't exist therefore he exists"
>as a rebuttal to your laughing at me for claiming that
>"you can't prove that God doesn't exist therefore he exists"
TOP FUGGING :-DDDDD
circular argument more like mathematical-pointal argument
>>7996003
>what is a Strawman
>uses this sentence to give an example of a Strawman
;----------------------------------DDDDDDDDD
>people in the thread saying that everything isn't subjective because they hate liberals
Lol.
Everything can be subjective and still be judged accordingly for what people know is harmful or helpful, good or bad, tasty or awful.
>>7995764
There is literally nothing you can do.
You can use logic and reason, but reality is subjective and also long as they think they won, they have actually won in their own subjective version of reality.
This thread is doing a great job of proving my point.
>>7995994
JUMP! JUMP! JUMP! JUMP!
>>7996006
Says the retard who asserted if he were to jump off of a really tall buildings he wouldn't die.
Still a Strawman. It's okay, you're just retarded.
>>7996021
After you.
>>7996022
You don't have to do anything for reality to become subjective or objective.
Just because it's subjective doesn't mean that everything is completely different for everyone.
>>7996022
>asserted if he were to jump off of a really tall buildings he wouldn't die.
where did I """"""assert"""""" that? I just said it as an introduction into my statement that you have to prove that you're right. but you're taking my specific words out of context in order to prove your point.
that's very sophist, and not even good sophist, it's the blackest-hat of all sophism.
so I guess you must definitely then believe that everything you say is subjective
>>7996048
Reality is reality. It is determined by the laws of the Universe. It doesn't change, and it doesn't make exceptions.
>>7995764
What you see in pictures are different from what you see in real life.
>>7996055
It's common knowledge.
>what is gravity
>>7996020
Charlie Sheen objectively won.
>>7996057
Yeah. But your experience of the world is what changes and that's what makes the concept of reality subjective.
since lying is a human construct, truth is meaningless and objectivity is a non-entity, partly because of this and also in part because everything we observe, we do as humans.
>>7996071
Exactly, the concept, not actual reality.
>>7996063
>what is strawman
also, you used that statement ("If you jump off of the Empire state building you will die.") as proof that everything you say isn't subjective.
(((((obviously not proof)))))
and now you say that it's common knowledge JEJ. like """""knowledge""""" is a category that somehow transcends "subjective personal statement".
remind me not to partake in conversation with retards such as yourself :^)
>>7996057
...in your *opinion*
>>7996075
According to that, everything you just said is complete and utter bull shit.
>>7996082
Do you disagree with that statement then? Do you think that it's a false statement?
Yes or no.
>>7996062
well you see a faithful representation of what you see in real life, and as long as it is indistinguishable from life you can identify them with one another, therefore making the point of which came first mute
>>7996083
Oh? And what's your take on it then?
>>7996075
And that's what people mean when they say it.
>>7996095
Do I disagree with that statement? Why does that matter? It's not proven, that's enough.
If we were to build an argument upon it, that means that we accept that everything you say is subjective, and that therefore it doesn't matter whether it's objectively correct.
Am I saying something stupid because you don't seem to be getting to me at all with your allegedly grand knowledge?
>>7996119
When people fall from really high places they die. It's common knowledge and "proven" to the farthest extent anything can be proven.
So yes, it does matter if you disagree with the statement, because you would be disagreeing with a fact in order to maintain your position. Which means your position is shit.
Mock them for using an obviously passive-aggressive tactic. They're afraid of conflict so they fake humility ("Dude, it's totally subjective :^)))) We're both right in our own ways!") but they get to subtly attack and shame their opponent for being 'arrogant' and serious and call his argument 'shit that doesn't matter. That way, they still get to walk away content with not winning but also not losing. It keeps the ego safe.
It's a pussy move so treat them like pussies.
>>7996126
but what does my position matter when you haven't proven that everything you say isn't subjective?
just to butthurt you, yes I agree. stop strawmanning now
>>7996138
We are both making claims.
Both of us have to prove our positions, not just me my friend.
>>7996138
But since you agree I don't need to prove anything, and I never did because you knew it was true from the beginning.
You need to prove it because you claim that everything you say isn't subjective.
I agreed that our subjective worlds connect in this claim, among others.
>rare pepe in the circle in pic related
he doesn't exist
There is no refutation from the individual that it is possible that everything is subjective. We could le all be controlled by le evil god and this 'reality' could be spookily spooked so that our perception of maths being objective is actually false in a a way imperceptible to our inferior deluded minds.
Nothing you can do but say: 'well, that's probably not what's going on' and continue with your day
>>7996168
When people see the same thing, and it happens in the same way every time, and the reach the collective conclusion that this really is so, it's not subjective anymore other than in the sense that we are subjects perceiving something.
>>7996169
>We could le all be controlled by le evil god and this 'reality' could be spookily spooked so that our perception of maths being objective is actually false in a a way imperceptible to our inferior deluded minds.
Only in your *opinion* is any of that possible.
>>7996189
So? That's all it needs to be
>>7996181
yes, so basically, you're saying that the only achievable objectivity is that of a subjective experience being collectively agreed upon as true.
>>7996181
Hume says up wrong m80. Just cause le sun rises every morning doesn't mean it will tomorrow. Cause one day the sun'll explode and your face'll be mighty red as we all laugh at your claim that the sun 'objectively' rises in the morning
>>7996194
No, it needs to be more.
>>7995764
By making an objective argument
>>7996240
HAH
>realists
>>7996236
Don't have objective proof via my own experience (all I have) that you even exist, not convinced you do desu. Dunno why my own mind is straw manning me. What'd Freud analyse that as? If he existed. Which he didn't probably
>>7996248
Don't panic, Anon, but you may be going insane.
>>7995764
You always perceive it through your mind.
>>7996235
But it does, as you have said. Until it explodes. And will do so, until it explodes.
Came here for lips
Ok, here is one weird thing.
"Le everything is le subjective" is universally considered to be a very stupid veiwpoint, because it is zero-informative, it can not influence your thoughts or actions, as opposed to the idea of spooks, for example. But isn't "there is no free will" basically the same thing? This notion has zero impact on your life, to live with this idea is functionally the same as living without it.
>>7995785
It's an objective fact that everything except for this statement is subjective.
Proob me wrong, mate.
>>7995764
I don't, I believe our current notion of objective reasoning is inherently flawed and largely useless.
Don't discuss it in the first place. I try to avoid it anyway I can. The times I answer I try to give a "sometimes objetivism is more useful on x than thinking you can't do something because it's going to be subjective" and shit.
>>7996563
Is it an objective fact that objective things cannot be subjective?
You're the guys who ruin partys.
>>7996655
By definition yes
>>7996666
Then by definition I have proved you wrong.
>>7996681
Not that guy
>>7996683
In your *opinion* you're not that guy.
>>7996082
what are all these ~~~~extra~~~~ buttons on my {{{{keyboard}}} for? :0
>2016
>wasting your time by arguing with 16 yr olds
>>7996710
Oh my
>>7995764
Only a Sith deals in absolutes
>How do i disprove agrippa's trilemma after 2000 years of philosophers failed in every way
>>7996077
Kek that's where the concepts objective and subjective work. They refer to reality when it comes to being understood by the human mind. If something is objective, that does only mean that we're able to regard it like that. "Reality is reality". Ok, that does not carry any information with it, it's tautological. It only means that our subjective and abstract concept of reality is equal to our equally abstract concept of what it's real: reality. Reality is istelf when it comes to our understanding of it, nothing can be said "objetively" about the properties of reality as a whole.
That being said, even assuming that reality is immutable and its form does not depend on any thought, its constituent parts are not intelligible. But our concepts of the several constituent parts of reality can be similar enough, and we can talk about them in a language that we all know. There you have scientifical consensus or mathemathics.
>>7996130
We grown ups be discussing serious shit, if you wanna bitch about your mama being disappointed with you bcuz you're a communist you can go to motherfucking reddit
Man I'm the macho like Randy huh the choppa go Oscar for Grammy
>>7995785
This was actually the argument used by Mussolini in a certain speech to justify Fascism as a doctrine
Ill Duce was an incompetent leader in the sense of statesmanship or war or economics, but a sharp theoretician and orator
>>7995764
If you think "everything is subjective" you are what Plato calls a lover of sights and sounds. While the Sophist will claim "all there is to beauty are beautiful sights and sound", the true Philosopher will realize that there are of course beautiful sights and sounds, but of course beauty itself. And while things can have a compresense of beauty and ugliness, beauty itself can never be ugly and vice versa.
>>7995764
>>7996071
Experience is subjective, yes.
Reason alone can lead us objectivity however. Take a triangle; your experience or opinion do not suddently make one side of the trinagle longer than the other two combined. There are many objective truths in the world. (World used in its loosest meaning - their ontological statis is in puzzling).
>>7996020
"Reality is subjective"
This makes about as much sense as saying reality is good tasting.
Reality implies "independent of human thought/phenomenon". Experience is the word youre looking for.
>>7997311
Experience is relative.
Any mention of objectivity is a reference to power relations.
There are no "objective truths" there are are only relative interpretations. You seeing a triangle a certain way is you characterizing it according to a set of arbitrary conventions (language) that help you fulfill a certain relative end.. That's relative, not objective.
Please got to college dude and stop embarrassing yourself. That also goes for everyone in this thread.
>>7997337
>That's relative, not objective.
It can be both relative and objective.
You must first presume there is no God, then that there is no metaphysical.
>>7997340
Any mention of objectivity in this conceptual framework is automatically rendered as an assertion to a power relation since anything you would refer to as being objective is characterized by language (signs) and thus is completely relative.
>>7997381
In your *opinion* it works that way.
The worst part about subjectivism is that it's correct.
>>7997385
Mine and many other qualified individuals with expertise in this subject. It's all good though if you think differently, just stay in your element.
>>7997337
>you seeing a trying a certain way
You cannot see, literally or with your mind, a perfect triangle.
You can only calculate it.
The perfect relations of triangularity exist without humans. And since you love to reference Semiotics, Peirce uses perfect mathematics as not a product, but the first cornerstone to all meaning-making (the triadic system of Logic).
>>7995939
this
>>7995811
them titties thoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooough
>>7997406
There's no such thing as "expertise" if everything is subjective.
>>7997389
Is that an subjective statement or objective statement?
>>7997532
It's a subjective one.
I just *feel* like it's correct.
>>7997585
Then subjectivism is not correct. And by no means could it ever be considered correct. It is a dead end.
>>7997459
You haven't been following the discussion there have you bud. Everything is relative, not subjective. See last two pics
>>7996329
What if your in simulation m80
>>7997311
Even if this were how we experience it, isn't it possible that we are living the deceptive illusions of a supreme being who has access to higher truth that human minds can not comprehend in which all these laws about triangles and so on are not true.
We can't know that's not the case so it can't be objective
>>7995764
I really hate this shit. I at least assume by default whenever I'm discussing literature that it IS subjective, but that doesn't mean you can't argue if a piece is better than another. Just look at those angry atheists and theists trying to prove each other the existence or lack thereof of God. I bet that a good amount of them know that this debate has no end. Doesn't mean you should stop and give up on trying to understand why or how you appreciate a certain work. If you can't argue properly or support your opinion with evidence then simply don't try to talk about it. Don't go around using "IT'S ALL SUBJECTIVE GUISE" for literature or whatever area of humanities of your preference. We all know that. And we couldn't care less.
>>7997433
Cool, I'm not talking about a perfect triangle though, I'm talking about anything you would refer to as a triangle. What we refer to as a perfect triangle is "calculated" according to a set of arbitrary axioms that allow us to fulfill a relative end.
>The perfect relations of triangularity exist without humans.
It is characterized by humans in the first place with language, so saying that something exists without humans after characterizing it with signs is further referencing more signs, which is just the way language works and is no big deal considering how helpful it is.
>>7997433
>>7998127
And regarding
>Peirce uses perfect mathematics as not a product, but the first cornerstone to all meaning-making (the triadic system of Logic).
That is a system (or at lease that part of it) caught in a logocentric chase of its own tail like the most of them and you do not fall for it. There is no experimentation without assumptions and no predictions without modelization. Mathematics, and anything else for that matter isn't set in stone. A meaning-making system (whatever that's supposed to mean) can't prove itself, hence the logocentric wild-goose chase. You could substitute the "mathematics" part with religious dogma and that still wouldn't change the way language functions.
>>7995778
>yfw subjetivism comes from Heidegger and Nietzsche, two /pol/ approved philosophers
I can't. Hume told me.
It's very dependent on your point of view. The proponent of objectivity will reject the subjectivist position on grounds that their own statement is subjective and can be rejected as wrong. The subjectivist can in turn reject objectivity on relativist grounds
The answer to this false dichotomy is intersubjectivity: shared consensus. That' not to say that whatever a society 'agrees' upon is inalienable truth, but it serves the function of truth for a certain time period that it is categorically helpful to the society in question
>>7999813
That's not an answer
>>7999798
>The subjectivist can in turn reject objectivity on relativist grounds
In your *opinion* they can do so.
>>7999644
>underrated post
thought i'd tell you before the fanboys weigh in
Write a proof, OP, or present a convincing argument. That's a start. If they are interested in finding truth and not defending a position, the ensuing dialectic may be helpful for everyone.
>>7999825
it is insofar as it deligitimizes the stupid objectivity-subjectivity dialectic. Which it is actually moronic that anyone can posit an 'objective' framework on anything regarding human affairs due to lack of any discernible rubric or record that could ever be found. It is also stupid to drown in a sea of subjectivity, because then nothing can ever be said to be *known* and every point of view is equally legitimate.
>>7999831
yup, and in a proponent of objectivity's point of view, they could not correctly do so. My point stands
>>7999910
That is a pragmatic answer in terms of how to go about things in the face of these unanswerable questions. It's not an answer to the questions
>>7999910
>Which it is actually moronic that anyone can posit an 'objective' framework on anything regarding human affairs
The very notion that humans exist is just your subjective take on the matter. In my subjective opinion, only giraffes exist.
>>7999922
That's what I meant when I said answer dude, the same way Wittgenstein 'answered' the question of meaning/atomic existence by rejecting the question in light of practical human linguistic consensus
>>7999937
so you decided to just completely ignore the rest of the post, eh? Good to know
>>7999940
So by answer you meant not an answer but ignoring the questions because you can't find an answer. If that's what witters did I'm not impressed.
a^2 = b^2 + c^2
>>7999966
I wouldn't expect you to be impressed by my 5-second reduction of the most brilliant philosopher of the 20th century. He shows in Philisophical Investigations that not every question is legitimate, and some are even non-sensical/stupid.
>>7999975
Via your subjective experience which could well be being controlled by a higher power who sees reality on a level that you can not even dream of perceiving and in which that statement does not hold true
>mfw this thread has become overrun by edgy teenagers who think they are BTFO'ing philosophy by being the shittiest devils advocates of all time
>>8000020
>mfw le 'just dropped in to tell you all I'm better than you while contributing nothing' man comes by
Sup friend, keep up the good work
>>7999592
Nietzsche was a perspectivist and didn't believe all perspectives were equal.
>>7995794
>Depends. If they're talking about math or science being subjective, lol I won't even bother.
Found the STEMbot who hasn't read Hume
>>8000244
Hume wouldn't disagree with what he said.
You can't obtain objective knowledge about the physical world because you possess imperfect knowledge of it. However, the mental world is by definition comprised only of things you know, and therefore any thoughts you have about the mental world are inherently objectively true (as by thinking them you make them real). As ethics is the extension of mental laws onto physical reality, I would argue that my intuitions of right and wrong are objectively true.
Use the Zen approach
subjective
>I call it how I see it
Objective
>I call it how it is
Zen
>It isn't anything until I call it
>>7996550
Go on.
>>7996550
m8, you are literally describing all of philosophy. Billions of people live and die just fine without reading self-contained academic posturing
>>8000530
This makes Zen sound suspiciously like solipsism.
>>7995939
this
>>7995910
Reality doesn't exist mathematically, though.
>>8001847
Does mathematically exist reality tho??
>>8001857
No, which means reality's nonexistence doesn't exist in reality.
>>8000800
zen is solipsism. it is detachment from the meaning of things in the world which is why it can only be truly practiced in the context of other people who seek the same detachment. it is unnatural and a castration of the human spirit.
>>8000050
Equal in terms of what though?
The only Metric Nietzche supplies as a scale for judging ideologies is his own ideology.
>>8001979
>it is unnatural and a castration of the human spirit.
So the human spirit has testicles? Or does 'empowerment' come with a package?
You can only call something objective if you can empirically measure and prove it, otherwise it's subjective.
Preference in Literature is subjective. Simple as that.
Like what is your point in all of this? Are you in an argument over liking and disliking a book, and you claimed your opinion infallible?
>>7996655
Nope. Still subjective.
>>7997625
that's your subjective opinion.
Which means that it's correct.
Woah it's almost like this is a back and forth argument that goes nowhere
>>8002207
People. They are not equal.
