On objective existence and objectivism

Mark Torres14 said:Could we perhaps argue, in a much broader sense, that the entire concept of "evil" is nothing more than a sociological construct—a label whose intensity and application depend entirely on how advanced a society has become and, frankly, on whoever happens to be holding the trophy at the time?

I mean, does an equator even exist if there isn't a single human being there to measure it? Are our judgments about the equator objective truths, or are they just subjective interpretations forced upon the landscape? ☕

ironmarlin1 said:I mean, does an equator even exist if there isn't a single human being there to measure it? Are our judgments about the equator objective truths, or are they just subjective interpretations forced upon the landscape? ☕

The equator exists regardless of us, but it only gains subjectivity once a human mind perceives it. Until then, it's just an object.
It’s no coincidence that Heidegger equated history—human history—with battle.

Mark Torres14 said:The equator exists regardless of us, but it only gains subjectivity once a human mind perceives it. Until then, it's just an object.
It’s no coincidence that Heidegger equated history—human history—with battle.

I'm having a bit of a hard time grasping what you mean by subjectivity being realized through human perception. Could you walk me through that? If you're suggesting the equator exists as an object entirely independent of us, what kind of object are we actually talking about?

ironmarlin1 said:I'm having a bit of a hard time grasping what you mean by subjectivity being realized through human perception. Could you walk me through that? If you're suggesting the equator exists as an object entirely independent of us, what kind of object are we actually talking about?

Good grief, ironmarlin1. "Man is the measure of all things." Or do you disagree?

Mark Torres14 said:Good grief, ironmarlin1. "Man is the measure of all things." Or do you disagree?

I suppose there is a certain amount of truth to it, though I wouldn't exactly bank on it being a heavy-hitting argument that can carry much weight in a serious debate. Even so, that particular maxim tends to leave quite a few pressing questions hanging in mid-air, unanswered.

ironmarlin1 said:I suppose there is a certain amount of truth to it, though I wouldn't exactly bank on it being a heavy-hitting argument that can carry much weight in a serious debate. Even so, that particular maxim tends to leave quite a few pressing questions hanging in mid-air, unanswered.

I disagree. It’s one of the strongest arguments out there—clean, logical, and precise. It doesn't leave questions hanging because it establishes a clear starting point: the human being. The Old Testament is over 2,000 years old, and I still find it incredibly useful for making my case.
But let's get back to basics. What’s your take on the points made by me and Caveman? Do you honestly think Christianity is where all evil comes from?

Mark Torres14 said:I disagree. It’s one of the strongest arguments out there—clean, logical, and precise. It doesn't leave questions hanging because it establishes a clear starting point: the human being. The Old Testament is over 2,000 years old, and I still find it incredibly useful for making my case.
But let's get back to basics. What’s your take on the points made by me and Caveman? Do you honestly think Christianity is where all evil comes from?

Does man serve as the metric for the value of pi? Or is that constant just sitting there, perfectly indifferent to our existence?

But let's circle back to what we were discussing. What’s your take on the way the cave allegory and my own reasoning hold up? Do you truly believe Christianity is the root of all evil?

If you ask me, any religion carries the potential for darkness. Sure, religions have their moments of genuine good, but when you drop them into environments steeped in ignorance, you almost inevitably see a twisted, malevolent shadow emerge. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that the most wicked versions of faith are simply the result of taking the messages found in "holy" books to their most literal, unyielding conclusion. If you consider the Old Testament de facto to be a manual for genocide, then a book containing those instructions is inherently evil. It’s an objective reality! 😁

ironmarlin1 said:Does man serve as the metric for the value of pi? Or is that constant just sitting there, perfectly indifferent to our existence?

But let's circle back to what we were discussing. What’s your take on the way the cave allegory and my own reasoning hold up? Do you truly believe Christianity is the root of all evil?

If you ask me, any religion carries the potential for darkness. Sure, religions have their moments of genuine good, but when you drop them into environments steeped in ignorance, you almost inevitably see a twisted, malevolent shadow emerge. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that the most wicked versions of faith are simply the result of taking the messages found in "holy" books to their most literal, unyielding conclusion. If you consider the Old Testament de facto to be a manual for genocide, then a book containing those instructions is inherently evil. It’s an objective reality! 😁

Pi is an object, just like the equator. It only becomes a subject once a human mind actually perceives it.

I'm out of here. It's a full moon night in San Diego and I'm going out to live my life.😁

Mark Torres14 said:Pi is an object, just like the equator. It only becomes a subject once a human mind actually perceives it.

I'm out of here. It's a full moon night in San Diego and I'm going out to live my life.😁

Which leads us down a rabbit hole: does the equator actually exist in any meaningful sense if there isn't a subject there to witness it?

I’ll leave you all to it for now. It’s a full moon night here in San Diego, and I’m off to go live my life.😁

I might just show up there tomorrow myself (finally 🙏).

ironmarlin1 said:Does man serve as the metric for the value of pi? Or is that constant just sitting there, perfectly indifferent to our existence?

But let's circle back to what we were discussing. What’s your take on the way the cave allegory and my own reasoning hold up? Do you truly believe Christianity is the root of all evil?

If you ask me, any religion carries the potential for darkness. Sure, religions have their moments of genuine good, but when you drop them into environments steeped in ignorance, you almost inevitably see a twisted, malevolent shadow emerge. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that the most wicked versions of faith are simply the result of taking the messages found in "holy" books to their most literal, unyielding conclusion. If you consider the Old Testament de facto to be a manual for genocide, then a book containing those instructions is inherently evil. It’s an objective reality! 😁

Honestly, numbers don't even exist! They’re nothing more than a human convention—just our way of trying to put labels on nature. You can see this clearly when you look at pi; it fails to express the exact ratio it's supposed to represent. Why? Because it isn't "natural." It’s just a clumsy attempt by our limited human minds to try and wrap our heads around the massive, complex world we live in.

Arthur Anderson49 said:Honestly, numbers don't even exist! They’re nothing more than a human convention—just our way of trying to put labels on nature. You can see this clearly when you look at pi; it fails to express the exact ratio it's supposed to represent. Why? Because it isn't "natural." It’s just a clumsy attempt by our limited human minds to try and wrap our heads around the massive, complex world we live in.

Hold on just a second there. We can define Pi or Euler's number with absolute mathematical precision; if we couldn't, the entire foundation of modern mathematics would have crumbled long ago. Now, if you're suggesting that it's impossible for us to "grasp" an infinite string of decimals, well, that’s a completely different conversation, but it certainly doesn't serve as an argument against the existence of numbers themselves. I mean, if numbers don't actually exist, how on earth is a physicist supposed to run any calculations?

Wait, what kind of arguments against the existence of numbers are you even throwing at me? I’m just saying that in the natural world numbers don't actually exist. They’re just a human convention we cooked up. Sure, they’re a bit primitive and oversimplified compared to how nature actually works, but hey, they get the job done pretty well—especially after thousands of years of us tweaking and refining them.

We have tons of these blunt, subjective tools that humans created. A classic example would be things like centrifugal force. Or pressure.

And if you want to get really wild, look at social conventions like "good" and "evil." Those deal with phenomena that are way more complex than physical forces, so they're even less successful at capturing the true essence of reality.

Arthur Anderson49 said:Wait, what kind of arguments against the existence of numbers are you even throwing at me? I’m just saying that in the natural world numbers don't actually exist. They’re just a human convention we cooked up. Sure, they’re a bit primitive and oversimplified compared to how nature actually works, but hey, they get the job done pretty well—especially after thousands of years of us tweaking and refining them.

We have tons of these blunt, subjective tools that humans created. A classic example would be things like centrifugal force. Or pressure.

And if you want to get really wild, look at social conventions like "good" and "evil." Those deal with phenomena that are way more complex than physical forces, so they're even less successful at capturing the true essence of reality.

If that's the case, I struggle to see why nature itself wouldn't be considered just another layer of convention.

We have plenty of those kinds of blunt, subjective human constructs. Take centrifugal force, for instance. Or even the concept of pressure.

So, if those are just tools, what exactly qualifies as an objective "tool" or object in your view?

There are even more glaringly subjective social conventions, such as our notions of 'good' and 'evil.' These attempt to categorize phenomena far more complex than any physical measurement, and as a result, they are even less successful at capturing the true essence of reality.

Based on everything you’ve laid out so far, I’m having a hard time spotting where you draw the line between a purely subjective category and something truly objective.

Arthur Anderson49 said:Honestly, numbers don't even exist! They’re nothing more than a human convention—just our way of trying to put labels on nature. You can see this clearly when you look at pi; it fails to express the exact ratio it's supposed to represent. Why? Because it isn't "natural." It’s just a clumsy attempt by our limited human minds to try and wrap our heads around the massive, complex world we live in.

Now, look—I agree that using specific words or labels to represent certain quantities is definitely a human invention. We gave them names, sure. But the underlying concept? That was there long before we showed up. Think about the binary system; that’s basically the fundamental language of nature itself, and humans just happened to "discover" it. Our decimal system is really just our own way of adapting those natural patterns to make things easier for us.

But honestly, even if you look at it that way, it doesn't really shift the "position" of your argument... I'm just looking at this from a super trivial perspective—kind of like sharing a fun little trivia point here and there. 🙂

ironmarlin1 said:If that's the case, I struggle to see why nature itself wouldn't be considered just another layer of convention.

We have plenty of those kinds of blunt, subjective human constructs. Take centrifugal force, for instance. Or even the concept of pressure.

So, if those are just tools, what exactly qualifies as an objective "tool" or object in your view?

There are even more glaringly subjective social conventions, such as our notions of 'good' and 'evil.' These attempt to categorize phenomena far more complex than any physical measurement, and as a result, they are even less successful at capturing the true essence of reality.

Based on everything you’ve laid out so far, I’m having a hard time spotting where you draw the line between a purely subjective category and something truly objective.

But look, nature isn't some social convention! It isn't just our little interpretation of things. It simply *exists*. Period.

So what exactly counts as an objective "tool" or object then?

There’s no such thing as an objective mental tool—that’s the whole point! Everything we dream up is subjective; it's all just a type of convention. That’s exactly why we have to pause every once in a while and perform a massive reality check on our own mental frameworks. We can't let our ability to construct these ideas carry us too far off the deep end, right?

That’s why comparing our ideas back to nature is so vital. Think about it: in the wild, there is no concept of good or evil. There aren't any human rights out there in the woods. There is no such thing as justice in the natural world. Those are all purely human mental constructs. They are conventions. And we really need to handle them with care, otherwise, we might fall into the trap of thinking they are concrete realities that will still be there the moment we turn our backs on them.

Arthur Anderson49 said:But look, nature isn't some social convention! It isn't just our little interpretation of things. It simply *exists*. Period.

So what exactly counts as an objective "tool" or object then?

There’s no such thing as an objective mental tool—that’s the whole point! Everything we dream up is subjective; it's all just a type of convention. That’s exactly why we have to pause every once in a while and perform a massive reality check on our own mental frameworks. We can't let our ability to construct these ideas carry us too far off the deep end, right?

That’s why comparing our ideas back to nature is so vital. Think about it: in the wild, there is no concept of good or evil. There aren't any human rights out there in the woods. There is no such thing as justice in the natural world. Those are all purely human mental constructs. They are conventions. And we really need to handle them with care, otherwise, we might fall into the trap of thinking they are concrete realities that will still be there the moment we turn our backs on them.

But why wouldn't numbers "just exist"? Is there even a question to be asked there?

NextG said:2. Demands the indiscriminate denial of human nature
well, if everyone actually acted on their raw, primal instincts, we’d descend into pure anarchy; we’d have wiped ourselves out in a hundred years through sheer violence.

I can't help but feel the world is drifting in that exact direction regarding religion, too. In fact, looking back at history, hasn't religion played quite a significant role in facilitating that very decline?

NextG said:3. Incites people toward violence and blind obedience to leaders
where? what nonsense, there is only one God, whereas politics—take someone like Hitler, for instance—is what leads you down that dark path.

And what about something like radical extremist fanaticism?

NextG said:4. An enemy of free thought and inquiry
you are only truly free within faith; if you think today's version of freedom—this whole democracy thing—is true liberty, you would be fascinated to see how much freedom faith actually provides. marking a bubble on a ballot isn't freedom.

To my mind, the reality is quite the opposite—I find I am only truly free once I cast aside all preconceived convictions. As Nietzsche so poignantly put it, "convictions are prisons."

ironmarlin1 said:Which leads us down a rabbit hole: does the equator actually exist in any meaningful sense if there isn't a subject there to witness it?

I’ll leave you all to it for now. It’s a full moon night here in San Diego, and I’m off to go live my life.😁

I might just show up there tomorrow myself (finally 🙏).

It exists.

Arthur Anderson49 said:But look, nature isn't some social convention! It isn't just our little interpretation of things. It simply *exists*. Period.

So what exactly counts as an objective "tool" or object then?

There’s no such thing as an objective mental tool—that’s the whole point! Everything we dream up is subjective; it's all just a type of convention. That’s exactly why we have to pause every once in a while and perform a massive reality check on our own mental frameworks. We can't let our ability to construct these ideas carry us too far off the deep end, right?

That’s why comparing our ideas back to nature is so vital. Think about it: in the wild, there is no concept of good or evil. There aren't any human rights out there in the woods. There is no such thing as justice in the natural world. Those are all purely human mental constructs. They are conventions. And we really need to handle them with care, otherwise, we might fall into the trap of thinking they are concrete realities that will still be there the moment we turn our backs on them.

That strikes me as a rather naive way of looking at things—this whole idea of correspondence with reality and those other traditionalist doctrines.

There is no such thing as an objective mental tool. That’s precisely the point. Everything the human mind conceives is inherently subjective; it’s just a collection of conventions. Which is why it becomes vital to periodically test the structural integrity of our mental frameworks—to perform a sort of "reality check"—ensuring our knack for constructing narratives doesn't carry us too far away from the ground.

What kind of "reality check" are we talking about here? Do you honestly believe that when a physicist conducts research, they aren't working under a set of assumptions, attempting to pierce through to some pure reality, whatever that might be?

That is exactly why comparisons to nature are necessary. For instance, nature knows nothing of good or evil. There are no human rights in the wild. There is no concept of justice out there. Those are entirely human mental constructs. Mere conventions. And we have to handle them with extreme caution, lest we fall into the delusion that they possess an inherent existence that remains even when we turn our backs on them.

Once again, I find myself wondering if a "comparison to nature" can even exist. Any comparison of that sort is inevitably colored by values, and if those values are, as you claim, merely conventions, then the very version of nature you are observing is itself just another convention.

Mark Torres14 said:It exists.

But we aren't talking about some physical entity you can drop on your foot like a brick or point to on a map within the spacetime continuum. If it isn't a tangible thing, then where exactly is this supposed to reside, and if it lacks a physical footprint, why shouldn't we assume that objective value judgments don't exist either?

Arthur Anderson49 said:But look, nature isn't some social convention! It isn't just our little interpretation of things. It simply *exists*. Period.

So what exactly counts as an objective "tool" or object then?

There’s no such thing as an objective mental tool—that’s the whole point! Everything we dream up is subjective; it's all just a type of convention. That’s exactly why we have to pause every once in a while and perform a massive reality check on our own mental frameworks. We can't let our ability to construct these ideas carry us too far off the deep end, right?

That’s why comparing our ideas back to nature is so vital. Think about it: in the wild, there is no concept of good or evil. There aren't any human rights out there in the woods. There is no such thing as justice in the natural world. Those are all purely human mental constructs. They are conventions. And we really need to handle them with care, otherwise, we might fall into the trap of thinking they are concrete realities that will still be there the moment we turn our backs on them.

But honestly, I think it comes down to the fact that humans are creators; we are constantly building ourselves and our own little realities within the vast, indifferent landscape of the natural world we inhabit.

The core struggle of being human—and if I can borrow a thought from Reddit here—is really this fundamental split in our existence; it's that sense of duality, the alienation, the suffering, that terrifying fear of true freedom, the deep longing to be whole, and that strange capacity we have to both destroy through hate and build through love...

When you look at ourselves in relation to nature, we are the only beings who actually feel this drive, this absolute necessity, to find a way to bridge that gap and overcome this internal divide; we're basically asking, how are we supposed to actually live?

In that sense, I truly believe religion serves as a way for us to organize ourselves, perhaps providing a smoother or more complete path for people to resolve and move past this uniquely human dilemma.

I'll just touch on a few more layers of what the word religion actually means—it stems from the Latin *religare*, meaning to bind or tie together, and also relates to Greek terms for devotion to rituals or adherence to rules, where the initial need for social integration was clearly the spark for organized religion, as John Zerzan points out.

ironmarlin1 said:That strikes me as a rather naive way of looking at things—this whole idea of correspondence with reality and those other traditionalist doctrines.

There is no such thing as an objective mental tool. That’s precisely the point. Everything the human mind conceives is inherently subjective; it’s just a collection of conventions. Which is why it becomes vital to periodically test the structural integrity of our mental frameworks—to perform a sort of "reality check"—ensuring our knack for constructing narratives doesn't carry us too far away from the ground.

What kind of "reality check" are we talking about here? Do you honestly believe that when a physicist conducts research, they aren't working under a set of assumptions, attempting to pierce through to some pure reality, whatever that might be?

That is exactly why comparisons to nature are necessary. For instance, nature knows nothing of good or evil. There are no human rights in the wild. There is no concept of justice out there. Those are entirely human mental constructs. Mere conventions. And we have to handle them with extreme caution, lest we fall into the delusion that they possess an inherent existence that remains even when we turn our backs on them.

Once again, I find myself wondering if a "comparison to nature" can even exist. Any comparison of that sort is inevitably colored by values, and if those values are, as you claim, merely conventions, then the very version of nature you are observing is itself just another convention.

Nature doesn't need us to function, but we certainly need it. When you step back and look at the world through that lens, you realize that humans are essentially the only creatures "condemned to be free," forced by necessity to constantly invent and define the world we live in.