I have the strong impression (am I mistaken?) that, except among backwoods religionists (of whom there are far too many), the most widely held position on this question, both inside and outside the academy, is that either there is no objective knowledge at all, or else scientific knowledge (including mathematics) is objective, but nothing else is; thus, anyone like me who wishes to defend the possibility of objective, non-scientific knowledge feels acutely uncomfortable doing so (unless he or she is an idiot, which I hope I am not, even though I nearly always feel like one).

I think of objectivity as an ideal, something to tend toward.

What can proof be, if not a form of persuasion? How does proof work?

As far as objective non-scientific knowledge goes, I suggest that mathematics (and logic) is non-scientific in a certain sense.

Do we really need this word "objective"?

I agree that there are seemingly universal forms of knowledge not associated in any obvious way with natural science. Investigations like Jung's, for instance. Are you referring to anything like this? The structure of passion, symbols of transformation? Eros high and low?

I have ideas on this I haven't shared with the forum, because it's a dangerous territory.

Of course you may be talking about something entirely different. As far as comfort goes, I welcome your thoughts, on whatever issue. If you ever want a test market, private message me.

That's half of what I do here, but you always claim that you can't or don't understand me. Does anyone seriously accuse me of being at a loss for words?:detective:

It is not a matter of opinion whether it is a matter of opinion whether vanilla or chocolate ice-cream tastes better since there is no fact of the matter about whether something tastes better or not.

So do I, and I think that most statements of opinion do stretch towards objectivity, otherwise what is their point?

Proof is rational persuasion. This of course pushes the problem back to defining 'rational'. I'll duck that!

I was lumping mathematics in with science in what I wrote, but it's definitely not an empirical science (whatever Mill says). In my deranged fantasies (I exaggerate slightly!) I have tended to daydream of mathematics as if it could be a substitute for all non-empirical objective knowledge. This is clearly ridiculous. But I certainly take your point. Many statements of what can and cannot be counted as objective knowledge have mathematics as an obvious counterexample.

This surprises me, because you don't seem to be one to avoid putting yourself in danger here. Just how dangerous is what you have in mind? Are we in H. P. Lovecraft territory?

Since we are incapable of objective observation, you are relying on faith in the perception of others, and the probability that they haven't all been misinterpreting the data

Well, you may have guessed correctly, but you wouldn't know whether your theory was true or not, in the objective sense.

Perhaps you are in a catatonic coma, a dreamworld in which you've fabricated you, me, Quito, Ecuador, South America, The Earth, etc. As ridiculous as it sounds, there would be no way for you to prove or disprove either of our ontological hypothesis, making them equally possible.

Twirlip;170173 wrote:

This surprises me, because you don't seem to be one to avoid putting yourself in danger here. Just how dangerous is what you have in mind? Are we in H. P. Lovecraft territory?

I'll have to look that up! I have theories that unite the sexual, the so-called "mystical," music, and mathematics. Freud, Jung, Blake, Lawrence, the Bible, Cantor, Kronecker, etc. But none of it would matter (these sources) if I did not experience the fusion related to such as "objective" in the sense of a felt universal. The sexual is still taboo, really, especially if connected with religion, and especially if one has a "lust" for the "truth." :devilish:

Maybe it's not the Cthulhu Mythos and the dreaded Necronomicon of the mad Arab Abdul Alhazred, but I daresay with a pinch of Freud, a dash of Crowley, and a soupcon of Robert Anton Wilson, we could whip up a cauldron of occult lore such that one sip would be enough to cause kennethamy's head to explode. Only kidding. :devilish:

Yes, and we should write it in 11 dimensional dream-language (think Finnegans Wake, which is only 3 simultaneous levels of meaning) with footnotes written in slang Esperanto by dyslexic crackheads.

I'm writing part of an extended poem, as an experiment; after I've finished one canto, I'll be able to choose an approach for integrating the patterns within all the arts. I'm employing six modern and four ancient languages; they include most of the significant worldviews of human civilization. Each one provides different shades of meaning and poetic effects; some of the juxtapositions are delightful. Each line of the poem contains neologisms, born by extruding words through the declensions of another language. If I were to complete the entire piece, it could be thought of Finnegans Wake multiplied by Pound's Cantos.

I'm designing a new language. I've reached the limits of conventional languages, and now they frustrate my attempts to progress further. They lack the power to express concepts that I need, and even in their own domain, they're imprecise and unwieldy. They're hardly fit for speech, let alone thought.
Existing linguistic theory is useless; I'll reevaluate basic logic to determine the suitable atomic components for my language. This language will support a dialect co-expressive with all of mathematics, so that any equation I write will have a linguistic equivalent. However, mathematics will be only a small part of the language, not the whole; unlike Leibniz, I recognize symbolic logic's limits. Other dialects I have planned will be co-expressive with my notations for aesthetics and cognition. This will be a time-consuming project, but the end result will clarify my thoughts enormously. After I've translated all that I know into this language, the patterns I seek should become evident.

[...]

My new language is taking shape. It is gestalt-oriented, rendering it beautifully suited for thought, but impractical for writing or speech. It wouldn't be transcribed in the form of words arranged linearly, but as a giant ideogram, to be absorbed as a whole. Such an ideogram could convey, more deliberately than a picture, what a thousand words cannot. The intricacy of each ideogram would be commensurate with the amount of information contained; I amuse myself with the notion of a colossal ideogram that describes the entire universe.
The printed page is too clumsy and static for this language; the only serviceable media would be video or holo, displaying a time-evolving graphic image. Speaking this language would be out of the question, given the limited bandwidth of the human larynx.

[...]
My mind seethes with expletives from ancient and modern languages, and they taunt me with their crudeness, reminding me that my ideal language would offer terms with sufficient venom to express my present frustration.
I cannot complete my artificial language; it's too large a project for my present tools. Weeks of concentrated effort have yielded nothing usable. I've attempted to write it via bootstrapping, by employing the rudimentary language that I've already defined to rewrite the language and produce successively fuller versions. Yet each new version only highlights its own inadequacies, forcing me to expand my ultimate goal, condemning it to the status of a Holy Grail at the end of a divergent infinite regress. This is no better than trying to create it ex nihilo.

[...]
Revelation.
I understand the mechanism of my own thinking. I know precisely how I know, and my understanding is recursive. I understand the infinite regress of this self-knowing, not by proceeding step by step endlessly, but by apprehending the limit

Revelation.
I understand the mechanism of my own thinking. I know precisely how I know, and my understanding is recursive. I understand the infinite regress of this self-knowing, not by proceeding step by step endlessly, but by apprehending the limit

But of course there is a difference between the question, what justifies my belief that the fire truck is red, and why is the fire truck red.

The answer to the first is that it appears red to me and to everyone else I ask or would ask.

The answer to the second is that it was made or painted red. How could there be no difference? I don't understand what you are asking me to do. If you are asking me why I believe that the hypothesis that the fire truck is red is true (if it is an hypothesis) than my answer is (of course) that the fire truck looks red, and that there is no reason to believe it is not red. That is an adequate justification of the red fire truck hypothesis so far as I can see. Why do you think it is not?

I don't have to have superhuman powers to have knowledge of what you call objective reality. All I need is my normal powers of perception. That does not mean that I may not think I know that the fire truck is red, and it not be red. Of course, since I am human I may err. But, since there is no particular reason to think that I have erred, there is no reason to think I do not know that the truck is red. As I pointed out before, it does that follow that because it is possible that I am mistaken, that I am mistaken, and if I am not mistaken, then, of course, I do know that the truck is red. After all, for me to know that the truck is red it is not necessary for it to be impossible that I am wrong. It just has to be the case that I am not wrong. Now gods, I suppose cannot be wrong. Mortal can be wrong. But from the fact that I am not a god, and so cannot be wrong, why does it follow that I am wrong?

You seem to think that for me to know it must be that I cannot be wrong. But that is false. For me to know it is only necessary that I am not wrong (not that I cannot be wrong, like a god). Gods may have certainty. Mortals have knowledge. That is the difference.

Thanks! I agree with you on the crux. I think that the belief in true objectivity has so little practical backblow that no one bothers to really look at it. It's logically weak, but in a practical sense quite functional. We are so used to looking at the world as if disembodied that we have forgotten that all human life is what they call subjective. Oh, but where is the subject? Of course the subject concept is quite justified practically, but it too has logical weaknesses. An organizing abstraction. That's what it seems to me.

Stirner was an interesting character, by the way.

I have the strong impression (am I mistaken?) that, except among backwoods religionists (of whom there are far too many), the most widely held position on this question, both inside and outside the academy, is that either there is no objective knowledge at all, or else scientific knowledge (including mathematics) is objective, but nothing else is; thus, anyone like me who wishes to defend the possibility of objective, non-scientific knowledge feels acutely uncomfortable doing so (unless he or she is an idiot, which I hope I am not, even though I nearly always feel like one).

What makes you think that because we perceive things, we aren't capable of knowing what is objective? Oh, and faith is belief without justification. I think you're misusing that word.

Well, here's a start. You say he could have guessed correctly. And while it's abundantly clear (except to you) that he didn't actually guess at all (If I look at an atlas and learn where Switzerland is located, this is not me guessing where Switzerland is located. Are you mad?) what the capital of Ecuador is, at least you admit that he could have come upon a truth.

And since he believed something, he had justification for that belief, and that something was true, he knew that something. So, it appears as though he can know things. Well, whatdaya know? Knowledge isn't impossible after all.

That's bull. We have good reason to believe the people and objects you mentioned exist objectively. You know that little voice of reason that made you write "as ridiculous as it sounds"? Give him a home. Start being rational here. Remember that just because it is logically possible that all that nonsense is occurring, that doesn't make any of it plausible.

By the way, if I observed you in your daily life, I'm more than sure I wouldn't find you sincerely considering any of what you just said. No, you'd go about life as it were real. Real life. Go figure!