Is objectivity real? Seems like nobody can agree on anything

Objectivity isn't something that's agreed on.

>>25913199
But if something is "objectively correct", provided it's not just a meme, wouldn't that mean that people recognize that as true?

>>25913164

It might not be. Knowledge relies, inevitably, at some point, on an assumption. Things are proved by other things, and somewhere at the root of that must be the first thing, which constitutes belief.

But solipsism is a classroom philosophy, no one lives their life as a solipsist. I think there's plenty of things for which evidence is so overwhelming that defiance of the idea is totally impractical. No one lives their life assuming that everything they perceive is fake, and also no one lives their life like gravity isn't real.

>>25913220
Sure.

If I chopped your head off, you'd die.
If I pushed you out of a plane, gravity would pull you towards the center of the Earth.

Certain things are undeniable no matter what you believe. However, morals and other philosophical nonsense is subjective.

You will never be able to get every person alive to agree that 'x' is irrefutably good or bad. There are people who are fine with rape, theft and murder. There are people who believe it's wrong to kill no matter what. Since there is no apparent ultimate authority on how we live our lives, we can conduct ourselves in any manner we see fit.

>>25913164
For the most part, science is the pursuit of objective knowledge, or at least the closest we can possibly get to it.

File: 1449843756673.png (21KB, 592x533px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 592x533px

>>25913220
Things can be universally true without people acknowledging it.

If you said something to someone and they didn't hear you, it's objectively true that you said it. However, in their reality it is false, because they did not perceive it happening. 2 items plus 2 items will always equal 4 items, even if one is obscured from the viewer and he believes there are 3. Like the old "tree falling in the woods." Certain things are objectively true because they did occur in the universe. Even if every single person on Earth rejects the notion because it does not fit into their frame of perceived reality, it does not make it untrue. That is objective truth.

>>25913164
good thread. I want more like this instead of
>hurr durr tfw no sissy bf

>>25913220
No that other anon is somewhat correct that objectivity isn't something that is true or not. It means looking at the subject. Taking someones opinion from it and deciding it is 'objectively correct' or 'true' is not really being objective it's confirmation bias. Being objective is being okay with someone elses opinion even if it disagrees with your own. If you have to push an opinion toward a consensus you are not being objective.

The only thing that's objective is math. Difficult for 1+1 to equal anything but 2. Everything beyond that is a mess of bullshit though.

>>25913164
The online thing I have faith is 100% fact is that the universe is only one whole. People behave as though the ego is separate from everything else. There is you you and I. Only One.

>>25913164
you talking about social phenomena? like abortion or the metaphysics of dating or videogames are art kind of shit? or just logic and math?

>>25913164
Objectivity is completely real. People are affected by their ethical principles interacting with objective properties to conclude their beliefs, conflicting with other people who had alternate ethical motivations resulting in your perception of objectivity as being vacuous.

>>25913164
yeah I've got one for you

OP is a faggot

Outside of this, there are also political viewpoints that are technically right when viewed as the most rational/logical/beneficial for the greatest good of a nation.

But right/wrong is mostly subjective and a lot of what is seen as a moral right is no more than a social convention passed down from before humans gained sentience, and only retained because it is more beneficial than not to continue following them.

but yeah,

OP is a faggot is a objectively true fact.

Objectivity is a meme used to reinforce dominant ideology and silence criticism

No, it's just an useful idea.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/eqn/the_useful_idea_of_truth/

truth

aeeqwe

>>25913721
sjw detected

also math is the pinnacle of truth

>>25913265
>who is Descartes?

>>25913774
>also math is the pinnacle of truth
in its bubble yes

Is this all philosophy amounts to?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

File: Principia_Mathematica_54-43.png (43KB, 800x333px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 800x333px

>>25913538
This is completely wrong, btw. If you want a fun math read and you can read mathematical writing, you should check out the Russell's Principia Mathematica. There was a lot of logical ideas that had to be established (I think Wikipedia says around 370 pages?) before 1+1=2 could be proved. And on top of that, pretty much any mathematical result that has been proved is objective truth provided there is no error in the proof. Of course, any results are subject to the reader agreeing on the axioms decided on, and there has been a decent fight over acceptance of certain axioms (looking at you, Choice). But, given any set of axioms, anything proven from there is objective truth.
>>25913164
As others have already stated, whether or not people agree on something has no bearing on objectivity. I could completely disagree with a surgeon on what organ is where but I will more than likely be objectively wrong. The problem is that human existence is an inherently solipsistic and subjective experience. I will never know what it's like to be you, because your brain is wired much differently than mine is. I will never even know that you exist beyond my imagination. But as someone else put it, solipsism itself is very much "classroom philosophy" because under no circumstances would any rational person actually live their life as if no one else is real.

File: Words of Power.jpg (48KB, 333x499px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 333x499px

There's a feminist author who said that logic itself is misogyny.

>>25913164
No OP, the old Sonic games are not objectively bad because you said so.
Fscts are objecfive, and opinions are subjective.

Objectivity is simply large scale subjectivity

>>25913538
No it isnt. All of maths is based on unprovable axioms.
Also 1+1 does in General not equal 2. There is at least one body of numbers (GF(2)) where this is not the case.
Also what >>25913927 said is the essential problem. That shows that maths is not objective but rather very arbitrary based on its axioms.

>>25913927
Yes. I am axiomatic, by the way.

>>25913402
>Like the old "tree falling in the woods."
No, this one is different.

>>25913927
This is what lies at the very end of the rabbit hole.
However, that is not what you are looking for, you want to go to Wonderland.

>>25913265

Gravity is subjective to each planet senpai :^)

>>25913265
>If I chopped your head off, you'd die.
Define "die".
Prove that when you chop my head off that I will "die", according to your definition of "die".
Prove that I have a head to chop off.

>>25913164
Axioms of logic and all that can be derieved from them are true.
The axioms are unprovable, but this is because "truth" and "correct" lie in these axioms. Outside of logic there is no truth, and thus nothing that could disprove logic.

The "laws" of logic can be observed in this world just as laws of physics.
Try to imagine shape that is both square and not a square. Imbossible.

>>25913958
This is insane. If I have to read 370 pages to prove that 1+1=2 I'mma give up on ever knowing anything

>>25916343
>Try to imagine shape that is both square and not a square. Imbossible.
It perfectly possible for such a thing to exist, but for me to be incapable of perceiving in such a way.

Your own observations are worthless.