Objective philosophical statements

How many of you believe in 'objective philosophical statements'?

And can you dismantle this statement: things that are true by definition are also by definition human constructs - and so are nonobjective.

 

philosophical statements are always subjective, by their very nature

the whole purpose of the modern sciences is so that you can make objective predictions and statements

 

Are you objectively sure of that?

Is that objectively true?

Unless you have a different definition of subjective/objective to what I have in mind, this is just a variation of the: 'The only thing I know is that I know nothing' contradiction. If you say nothing is objective, then the very statement you are making is also not objective, and so the statement becomes meaningless as it can be disregarded for non-objectivity.

 

You're getting mixed up, the statement that everything is subjective means that I am therefore being subjective, you don't seem to disagree with me.

 

No, if you say that everything is subjective, then is your statement objective or subjective? If it is subjective, then I can disregard it. It doesn't at all prove that no objectivity exists. If your statement is objective, then you've contradicted yourself; it's just a stand-alone premise, and is not an argument.

 

of course it's subjective

the great thing about subjectivity is you can disregard the statements you disagree with, and give your opinion

the fact that nobody is able to prove objectivity in a philosophical statement means that they are subjective

 

If you make an assertion, the burden of proof is on you. It is not by default correct until proven false. A statement is not an argument as well, so you've submitted nothing.

You say that nobody is able to prove objectivity, yet is that not a statement of objective truth, based on an objective framework of logic, which you are relying on to deny the existence of objective truths. Your statements self-contradict themselves.

 

even if i am trying to give an objective truth, it is still subjective because i am unable to prove otherwise, i would like to meet the man who can make a true objective philosophical statement..

 

This doesn't make sense. You're saying, even if I say the sun will rise tomorrow [objective truth], it is still subjective because I am unable to prove that the sun will not rise tomorrow??????? Go outside tomorrow, there's your proof.

You've objectively contradicted yourself. If your argument is that we cannot know the truth, then is that not a statement of a truth? Or you don't know? If it's you don't know, then I don't know therefore truth doesn't exist is an argument from ignorance.

 

you don't make sense

the sun rising tomorrow is a subjective statement because you are unable to objectively prove that it will

maybe you're confused about what we are talking, i don't know, maybe trying too hard to give legitimate answers

 

The problem of induction presupposes the objective nature of logic. Your criticism here is only valid against me IF you presuppose that logic is objective, otherwise you cannot invoke the problem of induction.

 

What I am saying is, you are making the statement of the sun rising based on your own experience of the sun rising everyday... There is no scientific proof to suggest that the sun WILL 100% rise tomorrow, unless I am mistaken.. Thus it is a subjective statement.. The reality is that any statement using scientific proof and statistics, and any statement for that matter, is judged to be objective or subjective by each individual who reads it. Thus, every statement is subjective because it is down to the individuals beliefs to regard it objective or not. Thank you.

 

That was the problem of induction I am referring to. You are making a logical argument. That requires logic to be objective. If logic is objective, then therein exists an objective philosophical statement. You can't have it both ways. Your criticism of my argument requires you to abandon the first proposition you advanced.

As to your second part, that people infuse their subjective judgments into deciding whether something is true or not does not go to the truth value of the statement.

 

Logic is nether objective or subjective, the basis of the logic would be originally subjective, and it may be deemed by some to be objective, but not to everyone. This is followed on in my next bit of deep thinking.

Focusing on the second argument, it is totally true that any statement is viewed by the individual to be objective or subjective. On a deep level of understanding, the truth value of the statement is found by logic and means which may, or may not be viewed as a legitimate non-subjective means by an individual, so they would class it as an subjective statement. Thus, as everyone has different beliefs and attitudes, one can argue that ANY statement has to be viewed on its on credentials, hence why every statement has to be regarded as generally subjective on a very deep level of understanding.

 

Logic is the only way by which humans can determine fact from fiction in reality. If your claim is that logic is 'neither objective or subjective', then you are saying humans cannot determine fact from fiction in reality. Since the point of a debate is to ascertain what is fact or fiction, it presupposes the objectivity of logic, logic being the only tool capable of such ascertainment. There can be no debate with you if you believe truth doesn't exist, and logic is 'neither subjective or objective'. The debate will just be: I think I'm right, No, I think I'm right.

There can be no debate if you do not believe reality is objective. I will invoke the subjectivity of logic: Your argument is wrong because I said so.

 

I am serious, if you think about it on a deep level of understanding, everything is subjective.

 

Reality is primary, consciousness is secondary. You are reversing the two. Our perception of things may be subjective, but reality is still objective. You would be performatively contradicting yourself everyday if you disagree. If you disagree, feel free to blindfold yourself as you cross the road, or consume potassium cyanide, or put your hand between a plank of wood and a nailgun. Why don't you do these things if 'everything is subjective'? Clearly your life is not, because whether you like it or not, if someone runs over your head, your life ceases to exist. That is objectively the case.

 

I disagree, I think they are reversed. There is no reality without consciousness and thus it is the fact we are, that reality exists. I don't do bad things because I know that if I die that reality will cease to exist, and I want it to exist, that is a subjective thing. Some people do bad things because they no longer want reality, on a subjective basis.

 

P1: There is no reality without consciousness.
P2: Your mum is a conscious entity.
C1: Therefore reality exists.

P1: Unborn Scotty is not a conscious entity.
P2: There is no reality without consciousness.
C1: Therefore reality does not exist.

Are you a solipsist? Your statements logically imply that you are.

Anyway, your argument is a contradiction nonetheless: It is a contradiction to say that consciousness is primary. This excerpt gives a good explanation as to why: Mystical_PrimacyOfConsciousness.html

 

Yeah it seems I am a solipsist. Thus everything in subjective at its core, because no two people look at the world in the same way. Everything that I know as reality ends when I die, because of how I think of death.