Your desire dictates what you validate.Your desire is a logical prerequisite to you validating anything.If your desire to validate is not OBJECTIVE then it contaminates your validation with SUBJECTIVITY.
subjective does not equal sample-biased.
So you're conflating my desire with my method?
WTF.This presumes the existence of metaphysical reality (noumenon,) one which you'd have to substantiate before incorporating it as fundamental to the description of subjective.
Are you kidding me?Subjective can be easily described by thinking of it as a contraction of "subject" and "perspective." "Subject's perspective." While the tautology of supposing the subject's subjectivity is ontologically subjective (a priori) it does not exclude the epistemological foundation on which it is contingent.
Yes it does.Objective = unbiasedSubjective = biased and the most fundamental bias of all is sample-bias.
No.They are intrinsically linked, not necessarily "the same thing".I'm pointing out that your desire is prerequisite to your method.Your method means nothing and can never happen without your prerequisite desire.Your desire is biased, shaped by your personal feelings and whims.This bias contaminates your method.Desire is like the battery of a robot.Without desire (a battery) then the robot (your method) is dead (moot).
WTF.NOUMENON = THE UNKNOWN
Do you know everything?
I'm going to guess not.
Are you kidding me?The only way to avoid the "subject's perspective" is for you to not be a subject with a perspective.
The only way for you to not have a "subject's perspective" would be for you to know all things and see all things with 100% equal clarity.
Are you the Kwisatz Haderach?
Please demonstrate.Moral truths are embedded in rationality and the parameters that define rationality are objective.
Objective = unbiasedSubjective = biased and the most fundamental bias of all is sample-bias.Substantiate this claim.
They are intrinsically linked, not necessarily "the same thing".I'm pointing out that your desire is prerequisite to your method.Your method means nothing and can never happen without your prerequisite desire.Your desire is biased, shaped by your personal feelings and whims.This bias contaminates your method.Desire is like the battery of a robot.Without desire (a battery) then the robot (your method) is dead (moot).Explain.
NOUMENON = THE UNKNOWNSomewhat, not exactly. Noumenon is independent from ontological subjectivity, not necessarily isolated from it.
It is possible to represent an object in Noumenon, for example, objectively as a matter of coincidence.
Of course, in order for us to gauge this accuracy we'd of course have to isolate it, but since we're discussing Noumenon, this coincidental representation is ontologically objective.
This obviously is epistemologically insignificant.
The only way to avoid the "subject's perspective" is for you to not be a subject with a perspective.Who said anything about "avoiding"? Embrace it; incorporate it. To be ontologically subjective is not synonymous with to be inaccurate or epistemologically subjective.
The only way for you to not have a "subject's perspective" would be for you to know all things and see all things with 100% equal clarity.In order for you to know that I don't know everything with 100% equal clarity, you'd have to some sense of 100%. Do you?
Please be more specific. I'm not sure I can break this down any further based on the dictionary definitions of "objective" and "subjective".
Please be more specific.
Yes, necessarily isolated from it.
Please provide an example.
Noumenon is epistemologically significant because it demarcates the actual boundary of your epistemology.
Noumenon isn't merely a tautological consequence of epistemology. It's an argument of its own using the premise "we don't know everything." It first assumes "everything," if not its content, its scope (counterintuitive.)
Please qualify this statement.Of course, we'll never know,
For the purpose of this thread, "objective morality" is the position that some moral propositions, like "killing someone without sufficient justification is morally wrong" are *factually* true.
NOUMENON makes absolutely no claims about content or scope....if not its content, its scope...
No, my counterfactual is that i know what I know, I know what I can know, and I don't know what I can't know, making it meaningless. I don't need to quantify it by presuming everything.And your (counter-factual) position is that you do know everything?
Please qualify this statement.
NOUMENON makes absolutely no claims about content or scope.It is merely a place-holder for "beyond perception and beyond comprehension".
You can't comprehensively study and perfectly map a tower that you're trapped inside.
And your (counter-factual) position is that you do know everything?No, my counterfactual is that i know what I know,
I know what I can know,
and I don't know what I can't know,
making it meaningless.
I don't need to quantify it by presuming everything.
By assuming a limit to what we can know, we are necessarily positing the existence of that which we can't know.
This is not to be confused with what we've yet to know which will involve either the creation of new abstracts or the re-rationalization of old ones.
Thus, we either concede that all knowledge is subjective--or to go even further "created"
--or that there is such a thing as the objective, and logic is our bridge.
Are you familiar with Gödel's incompleteness theorems?
A mind CANNOT know everything about itself.
I'd say that "existence" is probably not the best word to describe noumenon (mainly because the definition of "exists" requires empirical verifiability). I believe it is a mistake to imagine noumenon as some sort of "thing" when it is merely an amorphous concept that acts as a place-holder for both "what we don't currently know" (Mysterium Invisus) and "what may be fundamentally unknowable" (Magnum Mysterium). For example, noumenon might be eleventy-trillion layers of sci-fi multiverse, noumenon might be an elaborate alien computer simulation, noumenon might be Brahma's dream, noumenon might be a single super-intelligent (but not omniscient) demiurge that we humans are merely appendages of. In all likelihood, it is conceptually, literally, ultimately and completely beyond our ability to comprehend. All of this makes it very very very difficult for me to believe that we can consider (with any degree of confidence whatsoever) that noumenon is itself comprised of 100% pure, uncut, "objective reality".
Or an inevitable consequence of factors we can never fully know.
It sounds like you are simply jumping into the "objectivity" bandwagon because you don't like the smell of "subjectivity".Please explain how "logic" makes one more coherent than the other.
I just don't conflate "independent" with "isolated"...
We'll use your princess and the pea story. You said that "Clearly there is something under the bed," suggesting ontological objectivity; now this is independent (does not rely) of detection. But does this infer separation or isolation? The detection is fundamentally tied to the something under the bed (otherwise what are you attempting to detect) but it's being something under the bed is not informed by one's detection.Ok, master hair-splitter, what's the functional/relevant/salient/germane distinction between "independent" and "isolated"?
We'll use your princess and the pea story. You said that "Clearly there is something under the bed," suggesting ontological objectivity; now this is independent (does not rely) of detection. But does this infer separation or isolation? The detection is fundamentally tied to the something under the bed (otherwise what are you attempting to detect) but it's being something under the bed is not informed by one's detection.
Is there "knowledge" beyond us? (And I'm not talking about the yet to be known.)
Then what meaning is there in conceptualizing that which is beyond our ability to comprehend? How do we even conceptualize that which is beyond our capacity to comprehend in the first place?
