Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Objective Fact

tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2012 3:26:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I know this might be really obvious to some of you who are much more philosophically advanced than I...

As some of you know, I'm a moral nihilist. I don't believe in objective morals at all, but I was thinking about objective facts. I jumped onto Facebook to see who was online and Danielle was the only one...

I asked her if she believed in objective facts and she said something I found quite brilliant...

'I think so. "Objective facts don't exist" is an objective fact, or "Objective facts do exist" is also an objective fact...'

Therefore, objective facts DO exist because if no objective facts exist than "No objective exists" is an objective fact.

I just thought it was an interesting thought and that it should be shared.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2012 4:25:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Couldn't you also argue that the statements 'Objective facts exist' and 'Objective facts don't exist' are subjective, meaning they depend on our agreement on the definition of what those words mean?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2012 9:20:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
When you get meta on this subject...

What most people consider to be "objective" is actually only objective from a relative standpoint. Meaning, measuring something, or comparing something(even concepts and intangible things) to another. The human mind works in such a way that we can't understand or make sense of anything without comparing something to something else. This is the closest we can come to communicating objectivity, but it isn't total objectivity.

If something is totally objective, it only expresses itself. Itself is not something, and it isn't nothing. Words cannot effectively be used to describe it, because words rely on the frailty of the human cognitive process. The words are boxes that we place around things, they act as symbols. An object is not the symbol being used to represent it, nor is it an object. It isn't even objective, it just is even though it isn't.

Trust me when I say that the very confusing statement above makes perfect sense and is undeniable truth when you properly understand it.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2012 7:47:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/13/2012 4:25:07 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
meaning they depend on our agreement on the definition of what those words mean?

Is that an objective fact?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 1:47:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
My answer is no. Nothing is objective in that nothing can "be" in any sense that a subjective view can understand "be" to be. The very "fact" that paradoxes can be demonstrated in "objective logic" confirms this. Which is, in itself, a paradox. Anyone who faces the hardest questions about the nature of the universe will find themselves in constant accompaniment from paradoxes. Yet our very idea of what objectivity is is most necessarily founded upon the assumption these objective things "are themselves"; "A is A". So this makes the existence of paradoxes quite paradoxical and also wonderfully ironic. But these paradoxes are not a result of any objectivity, they are a result of our thoughts about this thing we call "objectivity". You see, the irony and paradoxes are nonstop once you confront this frontier of metaphysics. Objectivity is only a subjective idea. So, even if there were anything objective, it could not be objective by any standard we can muster, since our standards are all subjective standards, which is quite redundant to say, really. At this point, the only thing to conclude is...nothing. Anyway to make sense of it is nonsensical. So I choose to make my nonsense of it by saying no.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord