RE: On the consistent use of "objective" and "subjective"
November 15, 2016 at 8:36 am
(This post was last modified: November 15, 2016 at 8:36 am by Edwardo Piet.)
I think that the illusion of a 'midjective' only comes about when people confuse epistemological subjectivity and ontological subjectivity. Our minds exist ontologically: we are 'subjects'... but subjectivity as a whim is epistemological subjectivity. Epistemologically objective/unbiased like science =/= having objective ontological existence. Epistemologically subjective/biased =/= existing ontologically as a subject with subjectivity.
Ontological subjectivity is a subcategory of ontological objectivity... because all ontology is about objective existence whether it's as a mind or 'subject' or not.
However the same is not the case with epistemological subjectivity. It's in direct opposition to epistemological objectivity. Knowable/evincable is very opposted to unknowable/unevincible.
Ultimately everything is a subcategory of ontology. That's ontology itself as opposed to the concept or subject or topic of "ontology". And what I mean by that is ultimately that any thing that is a thing at all has existence or is at least related to existence. We can't be a subject that is biased or unbiased without first existing. And we can't build a useful theory of knowledge without a useful theory of truth and we can't build a useful theory of truth without a useful theory of reality, existence and ontology. To know what the truth is you have to define what truth is and to define what truth is you have to define what the reality we live in that truth corresponds to is.
Ontological subjectivity is a subcategory of ontological objectivity... because all ontology is about objective existence whether it's as a mind or 'subject' or not.
However the same is not the case with epistemological subjectivity. It's in direct opposition to epistemological objectivity. Knowable/evincable is very opposted to unknowable/unevincible.
Ultimately everything is a subcategory of ontology. That's ontology itself as opposed to the concept or subject or topic of "ontology". And what I mean by that is ultimately that any thing that is a thing at all has existence or is at least related to existence. We can't be a subject that is biased or unbiased without first existing. And we can't build a useful theory of knowledge without a useful theory of truth and we can't build a useful theory of truth without a useful theory of reality, existence and ontology. To know what the truth is you have to define what truth is and to define what truth is you have to define what the reality we live in that truth corresponds to is.
