Well, yes, congratulations. Objectivity and subjectivity are the same thing. They're just inversely related. At one end of the spectrum, you've got completely objective. On the other end, well, you've got chaos. Everything is relative, so no one can really understand anything or anyone.

The existence of objective truth is a whole other argument. In regards to that, I'd like to point out that by proving there is no objective truth, you've proven an objective truth.

My outlook is that humans can never know anything outside of logic, math, and other purely abstract concepts objectively. We understand everything subjectively, but at levels that differ in how close they are towards objective truth. Thus, our goal should be working towards an understanding of the universe (that includes morals, science, history, cause and effect, etc.) that is less and less subjective.

You've thought this out well.

I especially like that last statement. Very eloquently put.

wat

a Like for the lulz.

This is out of my league.

Makes sense. Pretty nice outlook.

We know what's not objective. Hard numbers, unshakable facts, pure data.

As for our interpretations of that hard data and subjective understanding, I'll have to quote Godel (again): how can you tell if your own logic is "peculiar' (in this case, sound) or not, given that you have only your own logic to judge itself?

I think that I think that I think that I grasp this.

I get this feeling that I'm getting mindblown again.

I think you're confusing objective and subjective in that first sentence. Objective means "of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality." Objective reality is the way things truly are.

That said, I'd be careful what you define as objective. Data is NOT entirely objective. Every measurement is subject to problems with precision. You can only go so far. That ball you think has a diameter of 1.272 cm actually has a diameter of 1.272345930103920382042810218104382043824042843...

Does that make much of a difference? No, but it's still a difference between our subjective reality and objective reality. Plus, when you get to things that are only thousandths of an inch wide, that issue with precision becomes massive. That's what I'm talking about when I say we should strive to get closer to objective reality. Maybe we can calculate that diameter to be 1.2723459301039 in the future.

Edit: "Logic" is a very bad word to use there. "Understanding" or "reasoning" would be much better. Logic itself is objective. If A then B. Applying logic simply says that if you can confirm A, then B is true as well. The issues arise when you are unable to accurately determine whether A is true, or whether B is dependent on A. That has nothing to do with logic, though.

In fact, logic can be flawed too, but I'm not sure if it applies. Inductive reasoning has fallacies: "Adam is Greek. Adam swims fast. All Greeks swim fast." As well, deductive reasoning: "All good teachers can communicate. This teacher can communicate. This teacher is good." I believe that logic is also subjective (to our experiences of society).

That's your misuse of logic, not problems with logic itself. What you just argued is akin to saying "2+2=5, so math is flawed!"; it's nonsense. Hell, check out Wiki's definition of a logical fallacy:

"In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation."

That's your fault. You're incorrectly assigning the "if and only if" relationship to Greek and swimming fast or being a good teacher and communicating. Had you assigned the correct associations, you could not have come to false conclusions logically.

I feel offended with your use of "you", "your" and other related words. See: one. I believe arguments are supposed to be supported with evidence, not opinion, which I provided. Please don't be so harsh and say my logic is flawed. I'm pretty sure this isn't supposed to turn into something personal.

Fuck, screw VuTales, piece of shit

ohoho
Bogdan'd

Relax, you misunderstood. When I referred to "your misuse of logic" I was talking about that whole "Adam is a Greek. Adam is a good swimmer. Therefore, all greeks are good swimmers." thing. I think we both agree that's not the right conclusion. However, your argument was that logic failed you there. That's incorrect. The argument uses faulty reasoning to establish incorrect relationships. If those relationships had been correct, logic would not have led you to an incorrect conclusion. As I pointed out, logical fallacies are defined as mistakes made by a peron in reasoning, not inherent flaws in logic.

I don't really see where my argument is lacking evidence, although I suppose if you read it as a bunch of personal attacks, instead of a response to what you were saying, it would.