RE: What if Judas didn't do it?
February 28, 2023 at 1:00 am
(This post was last modified: February 28, 2023 at 1:23 am by The Grand Nudger.)
That desire expresses a misunderstanding of objectivity. If every single subjective appraisal agreed, that would still not be, and have never even approached, a truly objective proclamation. Objectivity is not (and cannot be) found in varying levels of subjective assent. Things that are objective are true even when..and especially when, everyone subjectively aggrees to the contrary. If 100 out of 100 people agree to a subjective item of complete communal concordance, it will still not be objectively true.
In fact, valid and meaningful disagreement can only make sense in an objectivist framework. If you say that x is true, and a person is only subjectively objecting, they are not disagreeing that x is true for you, they are only (and can only be) observing that x is not true for them. To state more is to make a commitment to objectivity.
Objectivism...not randian objectivism, just objectivism, is not absolutism. Absolutism explicitly denies objectivism. Absolutism states that things are not some way with respect to their factual states in mere reality, that they are some way absolutely without respect for objective circumstance and difference. Eg. killing is absolutely wrong. Ignore the factual setup, it's always wrong no matter the facts, end of. If we all agreed would this be true..... by sheer force of our agreement? Further, and more importantly.... disagreements as to how things actually are can -only- be cashed in by objectivist thinking. We can only disagree about these matters, genuinely, because we believe that there really are dueling sets of facts. That this is not an illusory artifact of our subjective apprehension.
In fact, valid and meaningful disagreement can only make sense in an objectivist framework. If you say that x is true, and a person is only subjectively objecting, they are not disagreeing that x is true for you, they are only (and can only be) observing that x is not true for them. To state more is to make a commitment to objectivity.
Objectivism...not randian objectivism, just objectivism, is not absolutism. Absolutism explicitly denies objectivism. Absolutism states that things are not some way with respect to their factual states in mere reality, that they are some way absolutely without respect for objective circumstance and difference. Eg. killing is absolutely wrong. Ignore the factual setup, it's always wrong no matter the facts, end of. If we all agreed would this be true..... by sheer force of our agreement? Further, and more importantly.... disagreements as to how things actually are can -only- be cashed in by objectivist thinking. We can only disagree about these matters, genuinely, because we believe that there really are dueling sets of facts. That this is not an illusory artifact of our subjective apprehension.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
