On the consistent use of "objective" and "subjective"

[Tonus]

My impression is that they are used to imply something that is immutable versus something that is flexible. Hence the idea that if god says an act is moral it must be moral, but if a human says an act is moral he must be able to convince others that it is. So I just go with it.

[Jesster]

Well that's just your subjective opinion.

Do you think my subjective opinion corresponds well to any objective reality?

[Ignorant]

...

Ha! I know you were joking, but then I was inviting you to share what you actually thought. Now I see that you are not interested, thanks for the image!

[Jesster]

...

Ha! I know you were joking, but then I was inviting you to share what you actually thought. Now I see that you are not interested, thanks for the image!

Yes, I'm sure you did know at some point. Hindsight is 20/20, after all.

[Angrboda]

Subjective and objective are part of a theory of truth. The subjective is that reality which I experience in my mind. The objective reality is that of my subjective experience which corresponds to things outside my mind. Thus a correspondence theory of truth is not incidental to the subjective/objective split, it is required. My major question has to do with the role of the subconscious in all this. Many times theists will throw around the word subjective to imply mere changeable whim. But the evolved structures of our mind are not changeable by whim. That would imply that they are objective, according to such theists. But I would argue that there is a "midjective" which is neither changeable by whim, nor is it objective. These are the base operations of mind which occur in the subconscious. Our sense of morality would be an example of something that is midjective; it's not readily changeable by whim, yet it doesn't reflect an object's existence in our environment.

[Whateverist]

[Whateverist]

Subjective and objective are part of a theory of truth.  The subjective is that reality which I experience in my mind.  The objective reality is that of my subjective experience which corresponds to things outside my mind.  Thus a correspondence theory of truth is not incidental to the subjective/objective split, it is required.  My major question has to do with the role of the subconscious in all this.  Many times theists will throw around the word subjective to imply mere changeable whim.  But the evolved structures of our mind are not changeable by whim.  That would imply that they are objective, according to such theists.  But I would argue that there is a "midjective" which is neither changeable by whim, nor is it objective.  These are the base operations of mind which occur in the subconscious.  Our sense of morality would be an example of something that is midjective; it's not readily changeable by whim, yet it doesn't reflect an object's existence in our environment.

Yes I prefer this trichotomy by far.  I think one reason it seems to many that morality has objective status is the feeling of recognition and resolution we get when we zero in consciously on our midjective moral values.  From our conscious point of view, they do seem fixed.  They certainly aren't easily accessible to deliberate revision, leastwise one can't manufacture moral conviction from reason alone. 

Another issue is that some of the disconnect between what is objectively true and my subjective experience of it is owing to midjective prejudices of which I am not consciously aware.  The fault is subjective, but not of my deliberate doing nor easily accessible (in all cases) for revision.  That is to say, some of the ways in which I am a stubborn asshole are essentially givens for me and not of my own construction; my personal failing in these matters is my inability to penetrate what is midjective for me. [I am so borrowing this term - do I owe you royalties?]  Naturally that means when we are critical of others, some of their faults are likewise in their blind spots.

[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.

[Whateverist]

I don't think one concept trumps or invalidates another. Each sheds some light. Ontology obviously does a lot of work for making sense of things for you. But I haven't really thought a lot about it. If it isn't too annoying to back up so far, I wouldn't mind trying to follow. [Albeit when I get back from this morning's epic walk on the beach.]

[Edwardo Piet]

Right, I'm gonna break down this OP. Brb.