At 4/28/12 07:08 PM, PIED3 wrote:
At 4/28/12 06:59 PM, ILove2Grok wrote:
Subjectivism is when a perspective is encompassed by emotion and bias.Okay so you actually don't know what subjectivity is then. I thought you might have just been communicating poorly before but now there is no denying you are misusing the word.
a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
Nothing to do with emotions or bias.
Objectivism is the exact opposite; being that the perception does not come from the person's head.All perception comes from "your head". How can I, as a person, not perceive something as the person me? If you are arguing that coming to objective conclusions as a person is impossible then okay, but i don't think you are.
When a religious person perceives their God to be external; thus, that eliminates the nature of subjectivity through their own eyes.They think god objectively exists, yeah.
We can see the reality of subjectivity in their perception, but, they do not. They truly convinced themselves that God is in the outside world; therefore false objectivity.There is no "reality of subjectivity". We just disagree with them. It isn't "false objectivity" either, it just an objective statement that's false. Just like when you get a maths question wrong, your incorrect answer isn't subjective. There is no subjectivity to maths, you're either right or your wrong and that's it. Likewise with god, either he exists or he doesn't, i don't really see how there is anything subjective about that.
Perhaps you only understand the word 'subjective' remotely. It has everything to do with being accompanied by any form of personal bias or emotion. Anything that obfuscates an external object of perception, is a derivation of subjectivism.
Perception comes from your head, of course. It is when someone takes a subjective perception and turns it into a objective ideology in their own head -- not in reality. That is where the contradicting play-on word 'subjective-objectivism' derives from.
If you were to ask a religious follower who believes God to be external; they would not use the word 'think'. That is why you can not subjectively-objectively contest another's subjective-objectivism. You do not see what they see through their own eyes.
The supposed objective statement is only false due to your own subjective-objectivism. It is not false in the religious follower's eyes. This is my point.
Math questions are external properties built on a distinctive system of inferences. The prominence is no where near the lack of prominence of God. Thus; an example that is irrelevant.
Yes, and no, are two absolutes that can not be incorporated in an incomprehensible ideology.