Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Well, why not just say agree or disagree instead of larding on "subjectively"?

...because everyone is only capable of holding subjective opinions about the objective reality of moral law. Moral law cannot be altered by your opinion or mine or anyone else's for that matter. That's the working definition of the word "objective".

 

Quote

You seem only to want people interested to know your opinion without any real explanation for it. "Objective moral standard greater than myself" is only good for that, not the particulars.

 

You summed it up very well, Brant. :smile: 

The description of my view is simple direct and clear. It's not up to me to try to convince you of anything. It's your own free choice whether you agree or disagree with what I said. That's your business, not mine. I use the consequences of my own life as the final judge of the quality of my own moral choices. It's your own choice whether or not to use yours. That's totally up to you, not me. :wink:

 

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, moralist said:

Oh, everyone does lots of reasoning, Tony... it's just all subjective. :laugh:

 

Greg

 

 

Oh right. I knew you'd be on your same horse. There is one thing you overlook, that very statement "it's just all subjective" is an objective one. The proposition is wrong and palpably false, but it is still an *objective* statement concerning reason and reality. So it's not "all subjective". Objectivity always remains one step ahead.

I'll allow that you use the layman's understanding of what subjective and objective mean. You mix up subjective with *personal*. But after all this time ...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Oh right. I knew you'd be on your same horse. There is one thing you overlook, that very statement "it's just all subjective" is an objective one.

That's how you see it, Tony. That is your view.

In my view my subjective opinion happens to agree with objective reality. I did not create that reality. I did not make it what it is. I only acknowledged what is already there... for it exists regardless of whether or not I agree with it... or you... or anyone else.

 

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, moralist said:

That's how you see it, Tony. That is your view.

In my view my subjective opinion happens to agree with objective reality. I did not create that reality. I did not make it what it is. I only acknowledged what is already there... for it exists regardless of whether or not I agree with it... or you... or anyone else.

 

Greg

Greg, a "subjective opinion" and anything goes, doesn't go. My "view" is either in keeping with that "objective reality" or it's not - it is either true or false, by the standard of reality. Since whatever it may be, a "view" has an objective nature which can't be escaped: Anyone must employ objectivity even to deny it. That's your self-contradiction, I mentioned. Because the next word you write, or in fact the next thought or feeling you have, will be objective, i.e., with a character and identity which can be identified. At least first acknowledge the meaning of objectivity, then you may disagree all you want.

And "subjectivity" - basically - is feeling, wishing or hoping for something unreal to be real; equally - for what is real to be non-existent, or have some other identity, and/or be changeable with one's wishes..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's fair for "subjectivity," Tony. If the idea were a person you'd be doing an argumentum ad h. We can say the subjective is not the objective as a path to beginning an understanding of it, but that's only because the objective is much simpler to understand. Once you've got that the subjective is the default, in all its complex glory, open to empirical examination looking for a definition. Now, as for your description, it's not that it's wrong, it's that it's incomplete.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Greg, a "subjective opinion" and anything goes, doesn't go. My "view" is either in keeping with that "objective reality" or it's not - it is either true or false, by the standard of reality. Since whatever it may be, a "view" has an objective nature which can't be escaped: Anyone must employ objectivity even to deny it. That's your self-contradiction, I mentioned. Because the next word you write, or in fact the next thought or feeling you have, will be objective, i.e., with a character and identity which can be identified. At least first acknowledge the meaning of objectivity, then you may disagree all you want.

And "subjectivity" - basically - is feeling, wishing or hoping for something unreal to be real; equally - for what is real to be non-existent, or have some other identity, and/or be changeable with one's wishes..

Rather than to break up your response. I'll just refer to each sentence.

First sentence: Everything does go. Everyone is free to choose their own approach to life. And everyone finds out how well their approach to life works by the objective reality of the results it brings.

Second sentence: That's exactly what I've been saying. Your view is either in harmony with an absolutely objective reality, or it isn't. And your own life will let you know in no uncertain terms which it is.

Third sentence: I not only employ objective reality, I positively revel in it!   :smile:   My approach is to be mindful of how well my actions harmoniously flow with it. This requires the understanding that I am not it. I cannot change its laws. It is my duty to abide by it for my own good and for the good of my loved ones.

Fourth and fifth sentence: This is where our two views diverge. Every word I write is completely subjective because I cannot be objective. I can only agree or disagree with what is objective, because I did not create the objective reality of moral law. It existed long before I was born and will continue to exist long after I leave.

Sixth sentence: I do acknowledge the meaning of objectivity, and I understand that my acknowledgment is subjective. The undeniable fact that we each have a different view is proof of that! :laugh:

Last sentence: It's solely my own personal responsibility to make certain that what I subjectively wish and hope for is objectively REAL :wink:

 

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, anthony said:

Oh right. I knew you'd be on your same horse. There is one thing you overlook, that very statement "it's just all subjective" is an objective one. The proposition is wrong and palpably false, but it is still an *objective* statement concerning reason and reality. So it's not "all subjective". Objectivity always remains one step ahead.

I'll allow that you use the layman's understanding of what subjective and objective mean. You mix up subjective with *personal*. But after all this time ...?

Greg's got the metaphysics right (objective reality) and basic off the ground epistemology (congruence), but that's it. Never mind complex, broad and/or deep abstract reasoning which he smears over with the jelly he calls "subjective" as if it explained more than his ignorance. Greg: there's no talking to you about reasoning which to you is only results you call "opinions." Complex airplanes are flown by the numbers so they don't crash. That's factual knowledge of the pilot. Objective knowledge of objective reality. You know the same things in your electrical work. It's not subjective opinion. This is not to say an opinion cannot be subjective. Many if not most are. Sometimes one has to go with guesswork to find something that works. Etc.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

I don't think that's fair for "subjectivity," Tony. If the idea were a person you'd be doing an argumentum ad h. We can say the subjective is not the objective as a path to beginning an understanding of it, but that's only because the objective is much simpler to understand. Once you've got that the subjective is the default, in all its complex glory, open to empirical examination looking for a definition. Now, as for your description, it's not that it's wrong, it's that it's incomplete.

--Brant

That's a new one on me! I think one can be as unfair as one possibly can, about subjectivity. It deserves no less. Plumb down deep enough and it can be attributed to nearly all the ills the world faces. Evasion, mysticism, skepticism, egalitarianism, conflict - etc.

I am sure I've highlighted subjectivity quite accurately, according to the O'ist explanation. Might I have left anything out? The fundamental characteristic is of course, primacy of consciousness. Feelings, wishes and the mutability of reality is well covered by that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, moralist said:

Rather than to break up your response. I'll just refer to each sentence.

First sentence: Everything does go. Everyone is free to choose their own approach to life. And everyone finds out how well their approach to life works by the objective reality of the results it brings.

Second sentence: That's exactly what I've been saying. Your view is either in harmony with an absolutely objective reality, or it isn't. And your own life will let you know in no uncertain terms which it is.

Third sentence: I not only employ objective reality, I positively revel in it!   :smile:   My approach is to be mindful of how well my actions harmoniously flow with it. This requires the understanding that I am not it. I cannot change its laws. It is my duty to abide by it for my own good and for the good of my loved ones.

Fourth and fifth sentence: This is where our two views diverge. Every word I write is completely subjective because I cannot be objective. I can only agree or disagree with what is objective, because I did not create the objective reality of moral law. It existed long before I was born and will continue to exist long after I leave.

Sixth sentence: I do acknowledge the meaning of objectivity, and I understand that my acknowledgment is subjective. The undeniable fact that we each have a different view is proof of that! :laugh:

Last sentence: It's solely my own personal responsibility to make certain that what I subjectively wish and hope for is objectively REAL :wink:

 

Greg

Second and third, I have no problem with. You have always been consistent about an objective reality.

And then...? What happens? Somehow you conclude that you aren't a part of it. You openly assert there is a breach between the objectivity 'out there' and the 'objectivity of Greg'. Are you outside of reality? saying over and over that everything you do is -"completely subjective because I cannot be objective"- is not an argument. It is pure faith (and that's subjective).

I take it that you know you exist in reality, with a physical being - senses and a brain - and a mind. You go as far as agreeing that all is in your volitional power and your self-responsibility. But then. Do you really believe that this objective being who clearly sees reality cannot be "objective"? Cannot see, perceive and comprehend reality, and act accordingly?

Bosh.

With whatever you've done and thought and achieved in your profession and life - you belie your words. You self-contradict. Perhaps you may think that not knowing everything there is, means you can't know anything. I'll guess that more likely, your presumable belief in an immortal soul caused the separation. Even granting that, you Greg, are more objective then you seem to be aware.

("Anything goes" - is an obvious fact, so far as the acts of many of the people we see. Those are subjectivists and relativists, who do indeed occur. But you miss my point: That 'anything goes' should not be so, and often is not - is true to reality and man's nature. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, anthony said:

That's a new one on me! I think one can be as unfair as one possibly can, about subjectivity. It deserves no less. Plumb down deep enough and it can be attributed to nearly all the ills the world faces. Evasion, mysticism, skepticism, egalitarianism, etc. I am sure I've highlighted subjectivity quite accurately, according to the O'ist explanation. Might I have left anything out? The fundamental characteristic is of course, primacy of consciousness. Feelings, wishes and the mutability of reality is well covered by that.

You never quit with your ideological reasoning, do you?

Consider the subjective theory of value in (Austrian) economics, for instance.

Objectivists also pursue "the primacy of consciousness"--their consciousnesses. That's when they go off the rails. Talking the talk but not walking the walk.

The totalitarians all thought they were objectively right as they pursued their sundry genocides and bloody wars of conquest--that capitalism was evil.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, anthony said:

Second and third, I have no problem with. You have always been consistent about an objective reality.

And then...? What happens? Somehow you conclude that you aren't a part of it.

I'm subject to it. :wink:

Objective reality affects my life... and yet I have no effect upon the laws by which it operates.

 

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

You never quit with your ideological reasoning, do you?

 

--Brant

Thanks for the compliment! "Reasoning", simply, is plenty. I do find it galvanising to see everyday facts and happenings concurring with principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

I wasn't talking about principles properly used, but blinders.

I invite you to name just one instance, otherwise this is meaningless innuendo. Fwiw, I haven't a principle that is not backed up by a load of experience and thinking. You make a mistake if you consider me one-dimensional.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/17/2016 at 4:08 PM, dldelancey said:

means that he has to figure out if she wants flowers or if she wants the trash taken out.  He does NOT simply do whatever he would want her to do for him.  Yes?

I really wish that we could vote on this board. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

Sometimes you get a glimpse of yourself, or rather a sketch of yourself, while trying to find out something else entirely.

On 2/11/2016 at 0:55 PM, william.scherk said:

Barbara Branden pointed out to me how my own version of the golden rule was fully compatible with 'rational selfishness.'  I am like the monkey who waits and watches and cogitates before he begins to trust another enough to offer him or her a full load of goodwill. ... I have a cold, calculating heart (except in Spring, when it thumps all gay and bright). I give a basic minimum, and it is ready to be retracted and replaced with hostility or neutrality or further social grease or grit. It depends.

Such a great instructive thread, Golden Rule, despite its lurches.  It reminds me again of Barbara Branden's qualities of mind, the stability of her rudder, the precision of her scalpel.  I miss her most, of all the  VIPs.

Looking forward to Spring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Sometimes you get a glimpse of yourself, or rather a sketch of yourself, while trying to find out something else entirely.

Such a great instructive thread, Golden Rule, despite its lurches.  It reminds me again of Barbara Branden's qualities of mind, the stability of her rudder, the precision of her scalpel.  I miss her most, of all the  VIPs.

Looking forward to Spring.

Well said. Barbara is one of the few VIP's to write back to me, though our Atlas Society contributor did also.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2016 at 3:55 PM, william.scherk said:

 

Insert pretty picture of the Baha'i holiest place, in Haifa Pasadena, I believe.

bmb_1175945_preview.jpg

Israel  is the only place in the middle east where a breakaway from Islam sect can safely build its Temple. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also in Israel, atop of Mount Gerizin ... another 'breakaway' sect:

Samaritans on Mount Gerizim during Sukkot
By Edkaprov (Edward Kaprov) - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least we don't have to worry about Israelis going to a bunch of Islamic countries. They're forbidden to enter. And in a few, they wouldn't even find a synagogue since that's prohibited, too.

That's how the Islamic world deals with it.

I suspect the Samaritans would, too, if they could ever get the power to do so.

Oh... I forgot... they are the Islamic victims of the evil Jews...

Is there a Golden Rule somewhere in this?

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I suspect the Samaritans would, too [deal with Israelis], if they could ever get the power to do so.

Oh... I forgot... they are the Islamic victims of the evil Jews...

The Samaritans are Jews ...  and are drafted to the IDF if they hold Israeli citizenship.

47 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

At least we don't have to worry about Israelis going to a bunch of Islamic countries.

The bunch:

Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya , Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, Pakistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates -- supposedly none of these countries allow entry to folks traveling with an Israeli passport**.

On the other hand, Israel has denoted a bunch of nations as enemies of the Jewish state. According to Wikipedia, "Under Israeli law, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen are designated 'enemy states' and an Israeli citizen may not visit them without a special permit issued by the Israeli Interior Ministry."

Do unto your enemies as you would have your enemies do unto to you. 

Tit, meet Tat.

_________________________________

** Oman apparently allows Israeli tourists entry to its territory ... which while odd is perhaps a manifestation of mutual interests and strategic goals in the region.  

Also slightly odd or at least not apparent on the surface is a 'hidden' relationship between countries that officially treat each other as enemies. For example, the UAE may bar Israeli passports ... but. According to a 2013 analysis in the Times of Israel, state-to-state contact happens even while each state considers the other an official enemy. 

Israel and the Gulf states: It’s complicated
They have many common interests, but now more than ever, any rapprochement needs to remain secret, some officials say. So why did Jerusalem open a ‘virtual embassy’ in the Gulf?

It is widely believed that Jerusalem still maintains some sort of engagement with various states in the Persian Gulf region. Yet the government is extremely careful not to publicly admit such ties — in order not to jeopardize them. One thing is certain: Jerusalem is vocally advocating for stronger ties with the overwhelmingly Sunni Gulf states in the Gulf, hoping both for commercial opportunities and geo-strategic advantages. On July 18, the Israeli Foreign Ministry opened a Twitter channel exclusively “dedicated to promoting dialogue with the people of the GCC region.” The GCC, short for Cooperation Council of Arab States in the Gulf, includes Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, and Kuwait. (Never mind that Israel still officially considers Saudi Arabia an enemy state and prohibits its citizens from entering the country.)

Edited by william.scherk
Tit, Tat, Toe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

The Samaritans are Jews ...  and are drafted to the IDF if they hold Israeli citizenship.

William,

Not really mainstream Jews according to Wikipedia (albeit similar) and I misspoke about them. Sorry. I was going too fast from trying to figure out who these dudes in the picture were.

I know very little about modern Samarians, although oddly enough, I know something about the ancient ones (from my Great Courses studies of religion).

Gotta give it up.

Despite the Samaritanism-Jewish nuance, about them, I am wrong and you are right.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

The bunch:

Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya , Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, Pakistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates -- supposedly none of these countries allow entry to folks traveling with an Israeli passport**.

On the other hand, Israel has denoted a bunch of nations as enemies of the Jewish state. According to Wikipedia, "Under Israeli law, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen are designated 'enemy states' and an Israeli citizen may not visit them without a special permit issued by the Israeli Interior Ministry."

Do unto your enemies as you would have your enemies do unto to you. 

Tit, meet Tat.

William,

According to your quote (and leaving aside the sort-of preemptive info in your post), that still leaves Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei, Kuwait, Malaysia, Oman, Sudan, and United Arab Emirates.

That's only eight surrounding countries. Only eight... Only half of the sixteen...

So where can Tit meet Tat for them?

:)

Going only on this, it seems like the Israelis are a lot more friendly to Islamic countries than Islamic countries are toward Israelis.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Going only on this, it seems like the Israelis are a lot more friendly to Islamic countries than Islamic countries are toward Israelis.

I think you are quite right.  

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

According to your quote [...] that still leaves Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei, Kuwait, Malaysia, Oman, Sudan, and United Arab Emirates.

Only two of these countries are close to democratic, Bangladesh and Malaysia. The others are sultanates or emirates or kingdoms, or otherwise top-down authoritarian or despotic despite some trappings of democratic rule.  

In some of the countries its very foundation was an act of exclusion.  Whatever remnants of Jewish people were left, they were harshly repressed, and as you noted, had synagogues demolished (as with Bangladesh).  I wonder about the states of mind that result in countries that are implacably anti-Israel.  Does the official stance translate into demented racism by the people? At least in Malaysia, that is the case. Crazy antisemitism.

An interesting exception to this slide into stupidity is Qatar.  Although an autocracy with a harsh penal code built on Sharia-lite, and an officially Muslim state, it probably has the second-most 'open' society of all in the Gulf.  It is in Doha that I think most of the secret diplomacy of Israel (with 'enemies') takes place.  But of course, nothing is ever simple  ... how does Israel deal with a state that supports Hamas?

Then there are the Emirates, and their jewel of commerce, Dubai. Up until 2010, a laissez-passer regime was in place, apparently, allowing Israelis to do business benefiting the emirate. But that changed when a Mossad 'hit team' purportedly assassinated a ranking terrorist from Hamas -- while traveling on faked passports from Australia and European countries.  

One of the most illuminating actions of the Jewish state -- one that shows its Western, universal values -- came with the civil war in Syria. Although in a state of truce not peace with Syria, it has consistently offered medical services to Syrians caught up in battles near the borders. Meaning it takes in injured civilians and militants, patches them up, and returns them once healed.  This sometimes results in headlines, most times not. In some cases the spin on the news makes Israeli action seem bizarre or incredible, ie -- in the Daily Mail: 

Saving their sworn enemy: Heartstopping footage shows Israeli commandos rescuing wounded men from Syrian warzone - but WHY are they risking their lives for Islamic militants?

-- back briefly, to those cunning Qataris:

Qatar Criticizes the Palestinian Authority, Which Responds in Kind

According to the Times of Israel on Sunday:

Qatar’s special envoy to Gaza, Muhammad al-Amadi, said that he maintains “excellent” ties with various Israeli officials, and that in some case it is Palestinian officials who are holding up efforts to better the lives of residents of the Strip.

Al-Amadi said he planned to meet with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah on Sunday regarding an agreement that would help solve the Gaza energy crisis.

He said that while Israel has agreed to take part in the deal, the Palestinian Authority has been holding it up.

Finally, Bahrain!  What a weird place. See Finding the Persian Gulf’s Only Synagogue.

Edited by william.scherk
Spellinx, Bahrain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now