This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Drop by and say hi! (Recycle Bin)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
yep. from your perspective something could be objective, and probably is, or it could not, I don't know, I'm not you.
Objectivity is somewhat elusive, however, things are considered objective if they are discovered rather than created, since they are not formed out of opinion.
"Stars exist." - That is an objective statement.
While you do bring up a philosophical point, I don't think it is well thought out or would be very well recieved by the philosophical world.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
from your perspective...objective...probably...could not...I don't know.
That "objective" looks a bit out of place lol.
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
stars may exist, or they might not, I choose to believe that they do, but even going to one cannot completely prove that they exist. Occam's razor would say at that point that it did, but occam's razor is far from infallible.
Also, there is no observable difference between a universe in which we all observe the same phenomena and a universe which we all observe different phenomena that happens to, when communicated, sound the same. For example, the color blue to you might look like what green looks like to me and the color green to you could look like what blue looks like to me, yet we could both look at the sky and say 'the sky is blue.' In that situation, color would be relative, which means that it is relative in any situation, whether or not something is relative doesn't mean that it isn't effectively the same for two people. You could even hear what is to me 'color' and see what is to me 'sound' but we could communicate in a way that allowed us to see the same thing and observe the same things about it.
That is why there is any merit in your claim. However, it appears that something does not need to be true or real to be objective. In order for something to be objective it must be discovered. Stars have been discovered. Therefore, stars are objective.
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Which, like I said, is what gives your theory any shred of merit. However, if something can be discovered by two independant things, it is considered to be independant of the anyone's thoughts. Name something objective that wasn't ever 'discovered'. Opinions and things of your thoughts are not discovered, but come from you, so subjective things cannot be discovered. Using this 'discovery' test helps distinguish between things which are independant of thought, and things which are not.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
O hai everybody!
Gotcha code- apxen...that so should be a word- someone think of a definition for it
From the Greek apo + xenos (away/distant from strangers/foreigners) - An immigrant to one's own country.
i can haz cookies?
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
marmalade
=O
weird..
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
172996
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
172996
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
172996
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.