/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13320175]

>Objectivity is collective Subjectivity

Discuss

[Anonymous No.13320178]

Isn't he saying that as an objective statement?

[Anonymous No.13320186]

>>13320175
either "collective subjectivity" is oxymoronic or that entire statement is a tautology. Regardless, its meaningless garbage

[Anonymous No.13320187]

>>13320175
Books on this dangerous relation between authority and truth? IMO true objective measurable stuff is beyond any sort of discussion, 2+2 isn't 5 et cetera.

[Anonymous No.13320235]

>>13320175
Dumb language game.
/thread

[Anonymous No.13320240]

>>13320175
Wrong

[Anonymous No.13320264]

Read this. A large part of its subject matter is the "collective representations", how they've shaped our entire world view and how they've changed over time.

[Anonymous No.13320282]

>>13320175
Sounds an awful lot like Democracy to me. And we all know how evil that is.

[Anonymous No.13320301]

>>13320186
It’s obvious what he means, which is that an objective statement is really just the result of individual subjective beliefs coagulating and becoming the ‘objective’. There’s nothing tautological about ‘collective subjectivity’ either, it’s just badly expressed in this case.

[Anonymous No.13321579]

>>13320301
Only reply that isn't retarded. And that includes this one.

[Anonymous No.13321735]

>>13320187
Not a book, but the movie "Leviathan" and it's presentation of the notion of 'God's Truth's are interesting.

[Anonymous No.13321755]

>>13320301
So how many individuals need to coagulate to make an objective truth? What if it's a 50/50 split on whether 1+1=2, or 1+1=3. Are both objective or neither?

[Anonymous No.13321793]

>>13321755
I think OP's claim only makes sense if you replace "objectivity" with "our perception of what objectivity is". Pretty much every philosopher agrees that whatever objective reality is, we can't experience it directly but instead only model it using science and reason, and we use the resulting model to infer what's objective. The form such a model takes is something you might describe as a collective subjectivity, and it can indeed vary between groups of individuals: what varies between them is the description; not what's being described.

[Anonymous No.13323094]

>>13320175
what tupac track is that from?

[Anonymous No.13323119]

>>13320175
No.
Subjectivity is what a person says.
Objectivity is what the universe says.

[Anonymous No.13323228]

>>13323119
No.
Subjectivity is what a person says.
Objectivity is what God says.

[Anonymous No.13323244]

>>13323119
>>13323228
You're both forgetting that whatever is being said can only be heard by virtue of us having ears.

[Anonymous No.13323286]

wtf even is reality, I've been diving head first into everything I considered immoral, disgusting, bad and lame for the last two years.
I was a satanist, a pervert, a religious person, a capitalist, a communist, a nazi, a furry, a twitter wannabe body builder, a transgender person, a homophobe, a black supremacist, a jew supremacist. Whatever fucking weird internet communities I found, I just ate that shit up, I let them consume me and show me their magical little reality within real reality which isn't even real.
What did I get out of it you ask? An unsolicited awareness, I can't be a person at a party anymore, I can see different realities, I am walking and I can see a mirrored reality walking but surrounded in different situations. What the fuck is wrong with me, WHAT THE FUCK, what the fuck is wrong with us really. Just look, LOOK AT IT! LOOK AT IT! WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHITTY GARBAGE FUCK.

[Anonymous No.13324635]

>>13323244
you know what we mean, don't be a prick

[Anonymous No.13324650]

>>13321793
Good post.

See also: in physics space and time are relative, but the spacetime interval is not.

[Anonymous No.13324694]

Didn't Heidegger get rid of the subject + object dichotomy?

[Anonymous No.13324701]

>>13323286
You keep going until you synergize all ideologies together and become Meta

[Anonymous No.13325715]

>>13324635
Actually I'm not so sure. What do you mean, and how is me pointing out that the observation of objectivity is by definition itself subjective, "being a prick"?

[Anonymous No.13325824]

>>13320175
>>Objectivity is collective Subjectivity

Since recollection can be collected from memory, objectivity can be subjectivity

Take the example of a number written on a piece of paper, then put that piece of paper in a drawer. The number stays the same objectively but how does one know that? Through subjectivity. Suppose the piece of paper is retrieved, the number is seen subjectively so how can one determine objectivity? From the dissociation of the number written on paper. How objective is the measure of a number prior to having been written but known to have been written? Subjective.

Appeal to common sense, as senses can be deceiving.

[Anonymous No.13325861]

>>13325824
If senses can be deceiving, is common sense a common deception?

[Anonymous No.13325903]

>>13325861

The majority doesn't always benefit the minority, taking the example of a jury to reach consensus, what determines the moral course of action is the intention. To quote Kant, what determines an action as immoral is to ask the question if the same action were done by all of humanity, would that benefit humanity? And to quote Sun Tzu or some other general, the essence of warfare is deception.

[Anonymous No.13325980]

>>13325715
Oh. I misread. Sorry.

But you're still wrong. The very definition of objective means that it does not change whether humans can observe it or not. Said by humans and said by the universe is just a mnemonic device I use.
If a human says it- it is a fact that changes depending on it's observation. ie "Strawberries taste good."
If the universe says it- it is a fact that does not change regardless of how, or even if, it's observed. ie "On earth, we are affected by gravity."