In thinking about philosophical foundations, principals like Axioms of Truth, Existence and consciousness many people are mislead by ideas that have no existence in reality. When formulating a Axiom or Principal one has to be extremely careful to stay within the bounds of logic and reason. After all it is well known that in order to know a thing exist one must be able to bring the object into ones sense limitations. Without that ability one is imagining the existence of the object and thus their is no measurement that can be applied using logic and reason.
The only test that can be used to determine something exist in the now moments of time is to bring it into the limitations of your ability to sense.
What we see happening in the real world is standard ideas being miss-used to obfuscate the standard and any moral's associated with the ideas. Take for example the use of euphemisms to obfuscate the standard ideas around the none aggression principal. Murder is and always has been against the none aggression principal. However this doesn't stop murder from happening especially mass murder which is always 100% of the time brought about by agencies or tyrannical governments. They just don't call it murder even though it absolutely fits the definition supplied. Instead they call it the killings of war. Which is a euphemism and murder on a massive scale.
The exact same murder of the ideas using euphemisms in philosophy has been going on for a very long time. Lets take a look at what an object is defined as. Than we can look at the word Objectivity and see if we are seeing a euphemism and we will also look briefly at the word existence.
In philosophy
An object is a technical term in modern philosophy often used in contrast to the term subject. A subject is an observer and an object is a thing observed. More at Wikipedia
Existence, in its most generic terms, the ability to physically interact with the universe or multiverse. What existence is exactly is up for interpretation. This is one of the most important and fundamental topics of ontology, the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relations. More at Wikipedia
This is actually describing a verb. The act that is described that is the verb is the being in existence that allows for the condition of interacting with the universe. So what we have is an observer observing an object that is performing the action of being, which is what is being measured. So one could say that a foot that is 12"inches long is existing in a state of being a foot long. So measurements are really measuring the action of being, which is the true state of the universe.
This can be confusing because we are attempting to distinguish between objects at rest (which is a state that doesn't actually exist) and objects in motion. Really however by doing so we deny the action of being-ness of existence and being. In truth when we say an object is stationary we are really describing the apparent state and not the actual state of an object. Thus we can see that in order for something to be observed it must be performing the action of being and thus measurable.
So we can now describe a necessary condition for determining existence, objects, and observers. For an observer to observe an object he must be measuring the being action of the object, which allows for logic and reason to be used to determine the effects or affects (both verbs) of the objects in the universe. Thus in order for us to show an object there must be a measurement of the object. Let us now observe the action or lack thereof of the word Objectivity.
Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. More at Wikipedia
Let take this apart and see if we can find the verb to be measured that tells us we can use logic and reason on the object. So the first part of the definition is telling us"Objectivity is a central philosophical concept" that Objectivity exist as a concept. Where do concept reside and can they be measured. As far as I know they exist in the mind. As far as I know I may be able to measure the thought that occur in the brain and know as an observer that thoughts do exist, but we are not talking about just a thought or are we? The second phrase of importance makes it clear however that Objectivity has not been measured "related to reality and truth which has been variously defined by sources".
The only source that can be used to describe an object is the observer and the only thing the observer can be describing is the object. Otherwise the concept is based in the mind which lots of people don't think exist in and of itself, calling it a projection of the brain.
This post was inspired by @kernel . The quote below is the spark that ended in the words of this post.
"To think otherwise, and imagine consciousness has primacy, is a fallacy, irrational, and objectively unprovable."
By @kernel : Philosophical Foundations: Axioms of Truth, Existence and Consciousness
Other post of interest:
@aconsciousness in informationwar
The weakest link in science/A possilbe solution to the fraud/Join in the informationwar
@commonlaw in phillosophy
Moral thinking is logic and reason in high gear!
@aconsciousness in phillosophy
Your Post Has Been Featured on @Resteemable!
Feature any Steemit post using resteemit.com!
How It Works:
1. Take Any Steemit URL
2. Erase
https://3. Type
reGet Featured Instantly & Featured Posts are voted every 2.4hrs
Join the Curation Team Here | Vote Resteemable for Witness
Remarkable. So, if I got it right, you are saying there exists no objective reality. Right?
No. I am saying we cannot show a objective reality. One after all cannot disprove existence. Thus if you or I am going to make a claim of existence we must show proof through the observations of the subject.
In this case where is the imaginary object when speaking of objectivity. It is in the mind. A subject may not observe the imaginary object. Nothing to observe for the subject, but effects and affects. Not the object, thus the object is not logical nor reasonable. It is irrational. This miss identification of objectivity is what is being used to confuse the subjects.
The subjects attempt to use the rational mind breaks the logic and reason neural pathways of the brain, because there is no measurement that a subject can be using to describe the verb action of being for the imaginary object called objectivity. Making Objectivity Imaginary. Use of the irrational mind is indicated by the state of being immeasurable. This is hard to comprehend because we don't have the right language to discuss this.
Perhaps we can create the right language. All person places or things are verbs. This is because no object in the universe is actually at rest. Thus noun's are a sub category of verbs. When we say something is at rest we are not describing a true condition, but expressing a apparent condition. A perception of the mind that actually in fact doesn't exist. So because it doens't exist in the universe the condition is a irrational projection of the mind. It doens't have anything to do with logic and reason.
Does this Help?
Yes, thanks. So, if you're not saying there exists no objective reality, are you saying there exists a objective reality?
It is like Dark Matter. We see the effect and affects, but not the matter. So the real answer is I don't know! I can't prove it exist. No one can, is what I am saying.
Imaginary means not subject to rules of existence. All things that exist exist subjectively. A rock as far as I know doesn't choose to exist. I don't remember choosing to exist either. Do you?