RE: Being Unbiased - objectivity, facts and post-truth
I agree with what you say about objectivity and opinions. There is a slight bump I'm not understanding though, namely this thought:
There is no such a thing as an idea that exists outside of being already connected to you thinking it.
Going off of the sentences before it, it sounds like you're saying an idea cannot exist outside of a being. If so, that does not seem right to me.
Also, I'm still trying to grasp what you're saying about objectivity, truth, and reality. From my understanding, it sounds like you're saying not everyone may subscribe to the same worldviews, and thus
The consequence of all this is that the division that 'objectivity' tries to lay out, is an illusion.
For the most part, I agree. If it were raining outside, I could exclaim, "it is raining outside", and someone could still disagree because they do not subscribe to the empirical and do not perceive it to be raining.
However, I believe it is still possible to achieve objectivity. Logic, although largely empirical, can help us get there. For example, p = p (identity), p is p, is objectively true. Even outside of empirical bounds, I don't think it is possible to deny an identity statement. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
For this reason, I study logic. I believe in "scientific" and empirical truths because they are practical. But like you said, it is entirely possible for someone to throw practicality and empiricism out the window because of their worldview.
Yes, logic is a very specific method of defining and coming to truths. But even logic is itself based upon some form of worldview, it is not itself outside of a worldview.
The problem is, that nobody will say they throw out empiricism, but that at the same time there is a huge range and different understandings of what empiricism is and what level of truth it establishes. Even idealism doesn't throw it out, but simply doesn't rely on it as a first entrance towards the concept of truth/reality.
p = p is objectively true within a specific world. I can only refute it if I do not subscribe to the fundamental nature of that world. Only when I belong to that samen world in which p=p is considered true, can I discuss whether it is true or not. When I am outside of that world, that doesn't make sense. This is what Wittgenstein referred to when he defines 'nonsense'.
I do realize that logic is based on a worldview, namely empiricism. The other day, I ran into some guy telling me to prove reality and argued against the existence of the world. So yeah, there are some people that just deny empiricism as everything was only a perception to them, thanks Nietzsche!
Not quite. I can very much talk about worlds that do not apply to me, ie. abstract worlds, metaphysical entities, possible worlds etc. For example, an atheist can discuss the capacity of God's omnipotence even if the atheist does not subscribe to the nature of God.
Returning to my p = p example, I do not know of any ideology that denies an object of its own identity, which is why I claim p = p to be an objective fact. Even supposing the denial of the existence of p in the first place, well then the empty set is still equal to the empty set.
You can talk about them, sure. But the things you say will not make sense for those inside those other words. In that sense it is nonsense. It is non-sensical when you want to proof the truth of that world, because truth is local to your world.
Have you ever looked into speculative realism? I'd think they have problems with p=p.
Sorry, I'm not following. How are my claims about a non-local world automatically nonsensical?
Your claims only make sense in your world. They don't make any sense (and thus are non-sensical) to those not in your world.
If you're really interested in this, and also with your logic background, you might want to read Alain Badiou's 'Logic of Worlds' which I think is a nice take on this. Although I don't agree with his finer points, but he does make this point very nicely, I think.
Also, don't thank Nietzsche for that. Nietzsche is one of the most misunderstood and misappropriated thinkers I know of. I don't think he is to blame for what other people have done with his work.