Subjectivity/Objectivity

It is something I run across, often, in many of my experiences with human beings.

A psychological phenomenon that cuts to the root of most debates.

It is obvious, to me, that most people hold onto beliefs and opinions that satisfy an inner need immediately or that supports their existing self-interests.

People are reluctant to even consider a possibility that contradicts either, and vehemently, often viciously, attack anyone that dares to speak any perspective that may come into conflict with these beliefs and opinions.
When they cannot defend them using reason they fall back on personal attacks, insinuations and slander.
My recent partial, and now complete, banishment from ILP proves that anyone the disturbs the majority's peace of mind, must be silenced.

As a consequence, these minds seek an advantage behind every opinion.
They assume that all are just like them - them being a part of a majority - and so they may not understand the other person's opinion but they assume that it offers him/her an immediate advantage.
It must.

I say "immediate advantage" because all perspectives attempt to find an advantage in the information they gather and use to construct a world view or when they accept one as it is provided to them.
But reality, being indifferent to our particular needs, is not always advantageous or does not so easily provide us with solutions to our problems.

Information, knowledge is just that, and nothing else.
If we can then use it to gain an advantage is a matter of personal will and talent and should not be assumed as being liberally provided to us by the information and knowledge itself.
If it is too good to be true....it, most likely, is not true.

Why? Because reality does not come ready made to please us. If it did we would not need to be aware at all.
We would be in paradise.
We are a reaction tot eh fact that reality is not a friendly place for life.

For instance I have been attacked as one that hates women, due to my positions on sexual differences and gender roles and I have also been accused of claiming to be the "ideal" man.

To the first I answer that, this attack can be leveled against anyone that proposes any position, and particularly against one that posits an opinion that is contrary to popular beliefs, and so controversial, or that claims something negative about another human being or a group of them - as if nothing negative can ever be said about anyone unless they dare to say something negative first or if they oppose the beliefs of the majority and expose them as false...in that case anything goes.

To the second I answer that, if anyone actually read my positions, and understood them, they would find that I deny the very existence of an "ideal" altogether, as it is another word for the fantasy of an absolute, and so I cannot be claiming such an absurdity.

It is also ironic that when I also claim that beauty is not merely "skin deep" but that it signifies something and that is why we are attracted by it, that nobody accuses me of being handsome, or when I claim that penis size does matter, I am not attacked as possessing a big member.
I'm hurt by this.


Recently I was asked if I would believe the same things that I do if I had had a daughter instead of a son or if my son grows up to be gay.
This question exposes this very thing I talk about.

It is assumed that reality alters when our self-interests and emotions are involved, as if my personal desires and preferences have any bearing upon how the world is.

If I truly changed my opinions every time my personal circumstances changed, and I tried to adapt them accordingly, then I would truly be a hypocrite and no different than the majority whom can only accept what does not hurt them.

They are the ones that are part of the majority and the ones that are the most boring people I know.
Political correctness, regurgitating established beliefs and adhering to communal rules is what makes the mediocre such boring debaters and so easy to expose as hypocrites and emotional thinkers.

Most have not thought their own opinions through, but accept them as self-evident, because the majority holds them as such.
Anyone that contradicts these popular beliefs must be ill or have some evil ulterior motive.

Is this not herd psychology?

*Yes, I agree.*

The simple fact of the matter is that the Truth hurts. In fact, it hurts very, very badly.

Does the fat woman enjoy being told that she is fat? No.

Does the stupid man enjoy being told that he is stupid? No.

Does the colored man enjoy being told that he is colored? No.

Does the rapist criminal enjoy being told that he is a rapist? No.


People do not like to be reminded of their faults & flaws, because this reminder does just that ... it reminds people of their imperfection. The very notion of an Id-Ego contradicts imperfection. Parental authorities place this concept of Id-Ego (Self) into children with the clear implication for its own perfection. After all, children are children. They are not responsible for anything ... or are they??? The problem that I see in Western Non-culture is that said parental authorities often do not teach their children to be self-responsible, self-respectable, self-motivated, or self-thinking. However, such parents are often, not-ironically, dependent on the Sociality to which they ingrain their enslaved mindset. Likeness mostly-creates likeness. It is the Law of Averages: mediocrity produces mediocrity. Luckily, there are exceptions, deviations, and anomalies to this rule.

The anomaly that you hint towards is "exceptionality". Few people, in the entire world, are capable of exponential degrees of self-reflection or self-introspection. Very few people take it upon themselves to truly-think about the world they live in. If a large number of people actually-did such a thing, then there is no telling how fast our lives would change as a result of this theoretical degree of increasing knowledge. I say this: there are not many "true" philosophers in the world ... in the entire world, very few indeed. The reasons for this can be many, but I will merely-posit a few for the sake of entertaining this topic and thread. First of all, Philosophers are men. And as men should know, males cannot stand each others' company for too long, unless engaged in some sort of task together. Philosophy-itself is no exception to this rule. The world only has room for few great egos. The larger the ego, I imagine, the larger the risk to fall toward ignorance.

You are correct to say that idiocy latches upon itself for its own self-defense, because in reality, what choice is there lest it stand in front of Reason and perish? There is no ulterior choice that I see. As I have argued with females in my life, I have noticed one particular thing above all others: women utilize the Strength of Number, Quantity, when their arguments are defeated by Reason, or Quality. Desperate to placate their own fragile & selfish egos from being exposed, the woman will call another into the mix. Who else is better to fill this role except the Feminized Male? He will happily and willingly-go to her to "rescue" or "aid" her from the "violent" man that is "hurting" her "emotions". The reality is; no such thing has happened. The emotional argument is a fragile one. What supercedes it is the feminized male's desperation to get laid, in an abstract form. The truth is, it is not that he *will* get laid for such a thing. Rather, it is more about their connection (quantity) to the Ideology that they subconsciously-feel is being attacked. The heart of the argument rests on the Emotion of the female. If her Ideal falls, then she becomes even more decrepit and superficial than she already is ... she lives a lie that can become easily-exposed.

This haunts the sub/unconscious minds of both feminized males & females, because both particulars (of quantity) rest on their Ideal (dream-world). If this Reality is shattered, then I predict that an even more powerful feminizing force will grab hold of them. Rather than the weakness of their mind succumbing to turn its course to self-power and Reason, or rather than the dull mind becoming sharp, instead it will posit an even more powerful version of God, or the previous-Ideal. The compartmentalization affect is too astounding to properly-predict in this manner-of-speaking. The weak mind *folds* upon itself, collapsing into an even more pathetic version of itself. It does not temper its spirit. It crumbles into dust instead.

And I say that this completes a certain Separation of Man from his Source. It is a complete divergence of Socialities. It becomes no longer a matter of "haha, I am smarter than you!" It becomes even more diverse insofar as communication is absolutely-severed. A new language is the result ... in other words, a separation of Words & Reasons. The Sociality left behind can no longer even hope to *ever* persue the minds that surpass it. It is traveling to a New Earth, in distant solar systems, and dreaming of the Past, from whence Man came. But must not the New Earth become more powerful than its origin? Not only is it possible, but it is probable, as an "extension of self", forever connected but born anew. It is the white man looking backward onto the face of the black man, acknowledging his past, but not his future. As such, the dull man will probably-never become sharp, lest greatness overtakes his fate in the distant future. But, alas, he will lag behind what he could have known, if he had paid attention thousands-upon-thousands of years ago.

The same words are spoken today that have been for centuries. Few understand this. Few ever will.

After we reach puberty we each begin to establish a world view. By Age 21 it is pretty well set and will generally remain so until menopause twenty one years later.

Thus if you challenge a persona's world view in between the ages of 21 and 42 you are basically attacking that person's established self-image - their sense of being. In a very real way it is like a territorial invasion, a trespass on their own sacredness. Unless one has been extremely tactful from the outset it is seldom that anybody can step out of the box they have put themselves in and see another point of view. Insult is added to injury if you are also boxed into your own world-view. After that it is simply an endless war of words.

Menopause does not necessarily initiate a change or maturation of world views. But that is another, far more complex subject.

Satyr wrote:

If I truly changed my opinions every time my personal circumstances changed, and I tried to adapt them accordingly, then I would truly be a hypocrite and no different than the majority whom can only accept what does not hurt them.

If you change your opinions with fashion.

"Oh blue is so the perfect colour, yah?"

"Oh blue, that's sooooo last season, black is the new blue!"

Then you could, rightly, be accused of hypocrisy. Or, of being a dedicated follower of fashion, especially when it suits you.

But if you changed your opinion based on something previously undiscovered or experienced that refuted the basis of your original opinion, then you could be said to be learning in light of new information.

There is an important difference betwen the two.

A change in personal circumstances can completely change a perspective on a subject only ever viewed from one side as long as one isn't wearing opinionated blinkers.

I do not quite see how this thread relates to objective versus subjective beliefs.
You can classify information as knowledge, but this doesn't really answer any sort of questions pertaining to validity or objective versus subjective. It's true that many people, including myself, deny things based on some sort of objective/subjective/relative argument, but these things should be examined contextually.

Information can be invalid, knowledge can be invalid. Time has taught us by revealing our mistakes. How does that affect your notion of knowledge is information on the objective/subjective scale? (not assumg there is a scale).

A subjective belief is something more than an emotional attatchement, in my opinion.

But this all hinges on differing definitions and concepts. in any case i would like you to clarify the relation of emotion to objectivity versus subjectivity and in a context of valid and invalid information.

It's true that people herd over convincing sophistry, so i said yes to the poll, but why judge a school of thought based on some flunkies?