Please do not conflate FACT and OPINION
Only they know their inner thoughts and how they really feel about a rainy day.
This is the very definition of PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE (GNOSIS).
PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE is unfalsifiable and can never be REAL-TRUE-FACT.
PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE has NO-TRUTH-VALUE.
PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE is neither TRUE nor FALSE.
PRIVATE-KNOWLEDGE is indistinguishable-from-OPINION.
SINCERITY =/= REAL-TRUE-FACTS.
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
As a follower of @followforupvotes this post has been randomly selected and upvoted! Enjoy your upvote and have a great day!
Subjective blinds me and persuades me to call my opinion as fact. That is why @stefan.molyneux philosophy is so priceless as it attempt to realign humanity towards objectivity, perspective, eternal principles, through the sciences of logic, truth, evidence, patterns, context, etc. Conflation is a common practice, for sure.
Objectivity Promotes Demonization,
The rather bizarre Orwellian concept of "objectivity" has somehow managed to worm its way into our language. Practically everyone falsely believes (with unjustifiable confidence) that "objectivity" exists and is an unquestionable ideal-high-goal and more so that their own beliefs are "more objective" or "fair and balanced" than their detractors, and beyond that, all their detractors are either being disingenuous, "are fundamentally and incurably stupid and/or evil", or intellectually deaf and blind. Case closed. Let's all go back to our bubbles.
This premise about "objectivity" detailed above, allows people to pretend great atrocities are justified against "non believers" because "they deserve what they get". Side note: In order to properly justify such a hypothesis (like "they deserve what they get") would require significant and detailed philosophical exploration. In other words, if you believe in a black and white world and "philosophy" muddies the waters, then "philosophy" is a "problem" and must be wrong, ex post-facto. This is an example of "affirming the consequent" (a logical fallacy) which basically means you are "closed minded" and only seek serious exploration of ideas that you believe are likely to reinforce your own pre-conceived ideas, technically known as prejudices.
And before you think I'm trying to single out one particular group of people, "godless secular liberal progressives" are just as guilty of this type of thinking as the other more obvious religious and political targets.
The simple fact that people are able to very effectively dismiss and deflect all criticism by characterizing their detractors as "biased" proves how pervasive and insidious and anti-intellectual this ideal-high-goal of "objectivity" is. This specific technique is a combination of "false choice" and indirect "ad hominem" attack. In formal logic it is widely recognized as an illegitimate form of argument (logical fallacy). And yet, by all accounts "millions of people" think this qualifies as a plausible line of reasoning.
Now before you dismiss me as "a crack pot", I would like to point out that I do believe "a broad consensus" is a very good standard for "truth". And even Karl Popper admits, when pressed, that science isn't based on "objectivity" but rather on "a broad consensus" of "well qualified individuals", which in a lot of ways is nearly functionally identical, but with the key difference being that "a broad consensus" doesn't necessarily categorize detractors as either being disingenuous, "fundamentally and incurably stupid and/or evil", or intellectually deaf and blind. It at least leaves the door open to the idea that there may be some legitimate disagreement based on contrary evidence or other logical considerations without an automatic reflexive leap to pure demonization (terrorism is another good example of this).
Feel free to expand upon and/or challenge any of the arguments described above or add your own. I look forward to having a civil conversation regarding the topic at hand.
Definitions:
Objectivity - Utterly free of and existing independently from any possible subjective feelings, opinions and/or any prejudice; indisputable and seen identically by all possible observers; not subject to variation, change or interpretation.
Promotes - Lends support or actively encourages.
Demonization - Characterization of individuals or groups as irredeemably and purely evil, disingenuous, "fundamentally and incurably stupid and/or evil", or intellectually deaf and blind. A "black and white" "my way or the highway" point of view that casts all possible human participants as either "the good guys" or "the bad guys".
Source
So, you don't believe in objectivity? If you don't, then I say it is right for me to kill you? If there is no objectivity, then I cannot be wrong.
Objectivity may or may not exist, HOWEVER, by its very definition, it is 100% inaccessible to the human mind.
Moral intuition is 100% SUBJECTIVE.
You can still be factually incorrect.
I think what you mean to say is that your OPINION cannot be proven false (but it also cannot be proven true).
Perhaps 99% inaccessible for the 1% of the most enlighten souls on earth, historically speaking, the greatest minds who has ever lived, globally, during the course of human history. Yes, in my opinion, I believe that murder is objectively bad. I believe in the idea of loving thy neighbor. I believe in the ten commandments. I choose to believe that. Yes, I subjectively believe in what I want to call objective morality. Yes, I could be wrong. But I'm choosing to believe that stealing is bad. I'm going to try not to steal too much or too aggressively or too often. I'm not saying that it is possible to completely not steal at all.
All human actions follow human motives, also known as feelings or emotions. All human motives (feelings/emotions) are personal.
If a human considers a fact, they ostensibly have a MOTIVE for considering that fact.
An action without motive is indistinguishable from RANDOM.
If a human represents a fact, they ostensibly have a MOTIVE for representing that fact.
An action without motive is indistinguishable from RANDOM.
Source Convo
1+1 = 2
Abstract maths shows us relations between numbers. Numbers themselves are concepts. How can conclusions based on concepts prove Reality?
Another thing to keep in mind is that Maths does evolve. Zero is the most popular addition of just a few centuries ago.
By definition, humans are fundamentally subjective.
Everything you know is sample-biased and a consequence of your human motives (e-motions).
FACTS exist, but they are merely TAUTOLOGICAL.
REAL-TRUE-FACT = Quantifiable, independently verifiable, rigorously defined, and or logically necessary (and emotionally meaningless).
Now, That's A Fact!!
Also, the comments are far more interesting than the post. That's some response you got!
Mathematics (logic) only has utility as a DESCRIPTION of reality.
The EFFICACY of mathematics (logic) is verified by ENGINEERING.
Mathematics (logic) in isolation is meaningless (Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems).
Mathematics (logic) cannot verify itself.
Mathematics (logic) does not DICTATE reality, it merely CORRELATES and DESCRIBES (some specific aspects of) reality.
Congratulations @logiczombie! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPVote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!