The False Definition of Objectivity (Part I) - The Popularity Fallacy

[@RubberDuckyManThing]

another reason why lucid's flat earth analogy fell flat is because (and i learned this months ago, so i won't have it 100% accurate) an example of how to actually prove your point in an objective way is by doing an objectivity test, this brings me to the time that some flat earther vs round earther had an argument over what the earth actually is shaped like, they both said "if this structures' (i forgot the name of it but it's like a pillar) shadow touches this part, the earth is round, if it goes straight, (i also forgot this bit partially) the earth is flat" so they decided to go to that part and lord and behold, the shadow touched it, thus proving to the flat earther the earth is round, using a factual method to prove it, mass opinion nor people don't decide what is objective, things demonstrating something objective does

[@military_snake]

yes, i've heard of that experiment before! there was also that flashlight test that the flat earther did to prove the earth was flat, instead accidentally proving the earth to be round. that's my personal favorite

[@b.r.207]

The math comparison by lucid also disproves everything said before. The concept of zero didn't exist for a long time before the foundations of modern mathematics because for many cultures it was not necessary. Did "zero" not exist? Roman Numerals are objectively bad for use in complex mathematics like long division thus many theorems were practically impossible to discover. Did calculus not exist? And finally, there are methods in mathematics to find objective answers, and they're called proofs, but funnily enough there is no proof for 1=1 because it's a definition, yet we accept to be irrefutably true because of *waves arms in the air* everything. If it wasn't, then everything would not be.

[@military_snake]

Exactly! Well said! funnily enough, this reminds me of that inside joke that UFR has (that I think was created, if not in this episode, then in the next one) regarding that question of "if a tree falls in a forest but nobody observes it, did it ever really fall or make a sound? OBVIOUSLY it did, the question presupposes that the tree fell! might not seem related, but I guess my point is that just because people have perceived truth, nature, and foundations of the universe incorrectly (or, in the example of the math that you posed, INCOMPLETELY), that doesn't make truth itself fluid; it just means that we're not seeing it as rightly as we ought to. This is something that is better discussed in Parts II and III, which will be uploaded tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.

[@AIOXYZ]

bro is right ngl

[@military_snake]

'ppreciated \m/

[@tajaribeckles4339]

You low key cooking

[@chrisnaaden3496]

I don't disagree. That is my comment.

[@validcorp.8670]

41:32, isn't the definition of metal you've provided found is other genres that are not metal such as a lot of alternative rock genres like math rock and shoegaze?

[@military_snake]

I was being very general to get the point across, but yeah, I guess so.

[@Mokinono45]

33:25 The planet being flat or circular is not "truth" but "fact" Because you cannot distinguish between these, shows, again, that you're out of your element. Truth is this A + B = C. It is universal and apriori. The conversation of "apriori" is very lacking here. This is bad. The planet is round is this: There is a real material thing called a planet which has the property of round. It is a "state of affairs" and not a "truth", because it is self-referencing. Whereas A+B=C is abstract and is applied to things other than itself. The planet is not an "ideal" being and cannot be abstract, hence it is not capable of being "truth" but only "fact." At this point, maybe you should go to college. 😁

[@military_snake]

or i can download all the information from the internet! pirate king!

[@Mokinono45]

You and me both don't have a voice for this type of work. Also, you really don't have a good grasp of the topic. Btw, the objective/subjective paradigm, I consider advanced undergraduate philosophy. Don't beat yourself up over it, but you're tripping over yourself. For example, at 16:06-16:21 minute mark, you miss use the terms. Again, this is normal for amateurs, as the paradigm is difficult. All experience is subjective by a strict necessity within the context of the paradigm. So when you say, "you subjectively experience," you are actually saying "you experienced your experience" which is redundant. The "thing-in-itself" or the "objective thing" is not objectively bad to experience, because there is a division between the thing being experienced (the object) and the person experiencing (subjective) and the AFFECT one has to the other. This is why the concept of the "Third Term" is present in Platonic philosophy. Person > Object > Essence/enlightenment > Experience. The objective/subjective paradigm is notably weak metaphysical paradigm.

[@military_snake]

one day i'll be able to address this with the appropriate understanding... for now, i'm just addressing these guys, as you would possibly put it, on their level. at your level, it wouldn't even be talking to or about what they said anymore and it makes muh head spin