clearly you are correct.
but does this mean that we personally can view said objectivity?
or just that it as a concept does exist in some form.

Logix doesn´t need an observer. Computers can do logic. Logic is definately objective. It´s results are always the same, for everybody. Logic is merly aplying rules, regardless of the content of these rules, who they apply to etc.

At the LHC in Geneva, humans don´t even do the observing part. Detectors send all of the data straight to a very powerfull computer and the computer simply works through the data like it´s told. When the same set of data is being fed into the system, the outcome will also be the same.

The reason why the words objective and subjective are invented, is to be able to determine whether 'set and setting' may have played a role in a certain assessemnet or not. Set and setting do not affect logic in any way.

Logical statements do not say anything else than basically: 'A=A'. You can say 'A=A' in a very complicated manner or in a very simple manner, but essentially, logic never says anything new. 'A=A' is definately an objective statement. 'when i smoke, i´ll die of cancer', 'i smoke'....therefore 'i will die of cancer', is essentially a little more complicated way of saying: 'A=A'.

Whenever you can say something and filter- out all 'set and setting' elements out of that statement, it´s an objective statement. So the fact that everyone looks at reality from a subjective point of view, is an objective fact. It´s objective, because it´s universally true and it can be said regardless of who you are or where or when. And it´s objective because you CAN strip every subjective element from this assertion.

It´s basically like saying that when you take a picture of something, it will be a picture that would show a particular object or scenery from a particular perspective. You can safely say that this would be the case, regardless of where the picture was taken, from wich angle, what object or scenery was in the picture, at what time the picture was taken, who was holding the camera, etc.

I don´t see how anyone could seriously disagree with that. The only reason why people sometimes tend to argue against there being objective facts is because their political views seem to go against there being objective facts. Some people confuse knowledge with power structures, and because they´re against power structures, they´re against objective knowledge, because they believe that objective knowledge legitimises these power structures. This is a well known position that is mainly held in certain french and american, east coast academic circles that are known to be rather obsessed with political correctness. Especially the philosopher foucault is often a favorite among these people.

On the right, you can sometimes see the same views, but then it´s mostly to legitimise claims of their favorite TV network, that it´s news coverage is fair and balanced: you can only legitimise that fox-news is fair and balanced, as long as objective facts don´t exist.

The denial that objective facts are possible is almost in every occasion, driven by some sort of ideological interest. It´s a self-defeating sort of argument, as has been illustrated by citta and others, but it serves a purpose: people can freely wallow in their own self-rightiousness without having to deal with reality.

Ofcourse some people will call me a fascist because i say this, but i don´t realy care about that. I know the rhetoric´s. i´ve heard it a thousand times before. I won´t loose a single night sleep over it. That´s an objective fact.

Yes, everybody. Meaning every human. Where do you think computers came from? It's simply a human invention with the concept of 1/0 or on/off operating them at the most basic level. Exactly the same thing can be said about logic. When you state something like 'A=A' what you're doing is taking a bunch of human symbols to demonstrate that you can separate a part of the universe and assign a label to it and state that it is the same thing as itself. Now does the universe really have separate objects or "things"? No, that's just a human way of processing it.

What seems to be really hard for some people to grasp is that there is an infinite amount of different ways to view the universe, the human way is just one of them, and any abstraction or concept the human way produces is just as subjective as the human way itself. Sometimes it helps if you can visualize the scale of the universe in your head, and realize how infinitely small and insignificant organism we are. And that's just the currently known universe. We have absolutely no clue about so many things.

Now, if you think about that too much, then in a way there's no point to even talk about this, because we're talking about it with human inventions. So anything I say isn't more right than anything you say, we're both just as wrong, simply because we make the mistake of talking about something that cannot be talked about in the first place. But I think talking and debating about these things is important nevertheless because it might spawn some new out-of-the-box ideas about the universe and therefore some kind of a progress as a species. We are extremely deep inside the box currently.


(Then again, maybe this thread is just a clever word game for some people to define the word objectivity in a more earth-centralized way, and for others in a more universe-centralized way.)

But it´s an objective fact that 'A=A'. There´s nothing subjective about that fact. The fact that something has a subjective dimension doesn´t change the fact that you can say something objective about it.

It doesn´t matter that computers are man-made. It matters that the result of their computations is the same everytime, regardless of anything that could be refered to as 'set and setting'. A computer doesn´t care if it rains or not. If you´d ask it to calculate 1+1 it will give the same answer everytime.

The fact that it does this is objective. That´s what makes it an objective fact: that you can apply the rules of an invented game and that this will lead to the same results regardless of whether it´s raining, whether it´s my birthday or not, or whether i feel happy or sad, etc.

Maybe the rules invented wheren´t objective in the sense that these where the only rules that could have been invented. But that´s not what matters. The very essence of logic is that it´s only about applying rules consistently. Rules may be 'subjective' in that they´re contingent, consistency may be a human invention. But the whole point is that, once these rules have been invented, or the concept of consistency, the outcome of processes related to it is objective.

I cannot understand how someone can not see this, unless they don´t want to see this because it goes against the holy doctrine of everything being equal, not judging, etc.

Like i said, i know the drill: the left-brain fascist conspiracy to opress knowledge about the existance of machine-elves, existing solely out of white males, because all white males are fascists and all women are godesses, and science being a white-man, imperialist doctrine that was invented to rape and dominate nature that is ofcourse female and innocent, because all white man are left-brain imperialist fascists, etc. I know that they´re still teaching that political shit at some french and american east-coast universities.

Point is ofourse: if there is no truth? why bother then?

If there would be no such thing as an objective truth, why would it then be a bad thing if someone would claim there is? The person couldn´t be telling a lie, because if lies exist, then they must exist objectively. And if lies would exist subjectively...i could simply claim that the word 'lie' to me means 'telling the truth' to solve that problem.

Why then, would lying be bad anyway? Or left-brain driven imperialism? If you don´t want to accept that there are objective facts, because that would legitimise the white-male, left-brain imperialist oppression, how could you even argue that imperialism is a bad thing? How could you even protest? I could opress you and claim that i am not, because i subjectively feel so and there would be nothing you could do about it. The moment you´d protest against me opressing you, you would firstly have to admit that there is such a thing as the truth: if you only want to demonstrate against something that may not even be real according to yourself, then in the end, not only would any form of protest be nothing more than expressing a mere opinion, but most of all, there would not be any moral ground either to serve as the foundation of an argument: not only can we not say objectively that i am opressing you anymore, even if i would admit that i am, we cannot say that it´s a bad thing. All i would have to say is 'opression is realy nice', and your protest would be nowhere, once again.

What argument do you have left against me opressing you? You cannot say that it´s wrong of me to do that, because that´s just a subjective statement. Maybe it would end in a 'fair fight' where the winner takes all. But you couldn´t say that would be regrettable. Because that´s only subjective. You could not even say anymore that you don´t want me to opress you, because i can say that even that´s subjective: maybe, deep down, you realy like being opressed by me. You could not claim that it´s a fact that you don´t because it would have to be merely an subjective fact, meaning that i could do away with it by simply the words: ' that´s only your opinion, i on the other hand, do believe that you realy would like to be my slave, so i´m actually realy doing you a favor by enlaving you'. You could´t object that...you could only say that you personally happen to disagree, but then i could argue that even thát is only subjectively so.

In the end, no-one could object against me chaining you, because it may not even be real, and if it would, it would maybe be realy nice actually, and if it wouldn´t be, well, maybe you realy wanted it yourself, etc.

So, relativism in a political guise of political correctness, released from the burden of it´s actual original meaning is definately self-defeating in that sense.