The Philosophy Discussion Forum

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2026 11:43 pm All meaning is subjective.

Is the meaning of this sentence merely "subjective"? Or do you think you're telling us the objective truth?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2026 6:16 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2026 11:43 pm All meaning is subjective.

Is the meaning of this sentence merely "subjective"? Or do you think you're telling us the objective truth?

One can never escape one's subjective consciousness; that is how one knows a world at all. Biology is the measure and the means of all things, and in its absence, the physical world is totally meaningless. Meaning is how the energies of our surroundings alter the standing state of our biology/body. You do not experience reality; you experience the constant alteration of your biology, so you experience your body, not reality. Your apparent reality is a biological readout. "Is the meaning of this sentence merely subjective? " Yes, all meaning whatsoever is the property of subjective consciousness; anything you perceive has altered your biology in some way, what you understand is an interpretation of your altered biology as meaning. The body is the mind's first idea, or the body is the mind's interface to the energies that surround you. Your biological readout is your apparent reality, your everyday reality.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2026 4:36 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2026 5:46 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2026 7:43 pm
But if there is a truth -- ANY truth, even one -- such as popeye's statement or your agreement with him, then subjectivism isn't true. There IS one objective truth, then...and it's that "For a subjective consciousness, there is no such thing as the objective; the objective is a mistaken consensus across a subjective collective."

But then, the content of that statement, the meaning of it, cannot possibly be objectively true, since it denies there's any such thing as the objective truth. So it is not objectively true that "For a subjective consciousness, there is no such thing as the objective; the objective is a mistaken consensus across a subjective collective."

Which is to say, it has to be false. There can be no other logical conclusion.

Epistemic subjectivism is thus self-defeating. If it were true, it would entail its own falsity. So it cannot be true.

You are quite right to pick up on the epistemological acquiring of knowledge of a claimed truth would entail its own falsity.
Because known truths are just opinions or reflections, or finite limited beliefs, which fall short of absolute truth.

There...what you just said...the thing in the line above this...is it the truth? Or is it just your own "opinion, reflection, and finite limited belief"?

It is the truth according to my own personal opinion and finite limited belief of what truth means to me. So it’s a factual truth from this perspective here, and it’s the only known truth I have according to my belief about it, and what it means to me, based on what’s being perceived here. And this personal belief would be Independent of what anyone else believes or thinks. I think that’s fair to say, already knowing that if I can make my own truth claim according to what it means to me personally, then so can others. Others can make up their own personal truth claims too.
For example: Immanuel can choose to know what he knows,and to him it will be true for him. But that doesn’t necessarily mean what’s true for him will be true for others, as others may or may not recognise Immanuel’s truth claim as being the same as their own. So Immanuel’s truth claim not being recognised as someone else’s,would probably appear false to someone else’s truth claim, even though it’s true for Immanuel. Unless of course there’s a mutual agreement, then it’s a shared truth.

As a finite self, I understand that my belief would be limited, and that a finite being, is a relative knowing that cannot know the absolute truth in the absolute sense because a relative truth coming from a finite voice is bound by time which cannot be alive long enough to even comprehend the entire knowledge of an omnipresent omniscient omnipotent absolute knowledge that is often attributed to the idea of God. In the absolute sense only God is all knowing and is all at once.
And yet everything is already just God in the absolute sense. All at once. How do I know that? Well, because I am a self conscious being which I cannot deny, and yet that’s all I know, I know I’m conscious, but I have no awareness of being born, and I won’t have any awareness of being dead. So this intuitively tells me that my finite consciousness here now must be a finite appearance of the infinite appearing in finite. . .

It’s difficult to explain with words, but I know God is real, because I wouldn’t be here writing on this screen if it wasn’t for God. Something is alive, and consciousness, but I don’t know what that is, but something is, but I cannot name it because that would make me all knowing, which as a finite being, I’m not.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2026 7:43 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2026 4:14 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2026 9:35 am For a subjective consciousness, there is no such thing as the objective; the objective is a mistaken consensus across a subjective collective.

That statement is the only known truth.

But if there is a truth -- ANY truth, even one -- such as popeye's statement or your agreement with him, then subjectivism isn't true. There IS one objective truth, then...and it's that "For a subjective consciousness, there is no such thing as the objective; the objective is a mistaken consensus across a subjective collective."

But then, the content of that statement, the meaning of it, cannot possibly be objectively true, since it denies there's any such thing as the objective truth. So it is not objectively true that "For a subjective consciousness, there is no such thing as the objective; the objective is a mistaken consensus across a subjective collective."

Which is to say, it has to be false. There can be no other logical conclusion.

Epistemic subjectivism is thus self-defeating. If it were true, it would entail its own falsity. So it cannot be true.

Truth is, experience whatever that happens to be, until it is proven to be an illusion or delusion. All meaning, all meanings are the property of subjective consciousness; meaning never belongs to the object or energy producing the alterations to one's biology, and your apparent reality is a biological readout. You do not experience reality; you experience your altered biology as meanings. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. There are only meanings for living things for biological consciousness, and all meanings are relative to the state of one's biology.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2026 6:42 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2026 6:16 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2026 11:43 pm All meaning is subjective.

Is the meaning of this sentence merely "subjective"? Or do you think you're telling us the objective truth?

None of what you write even gets a line or two without self-contradicting. Example:

One can never escape one's subjective consciousness; that is how one knows a world at all.

No, if everything is subjective, one does not know that there is a world at all. Descartes shows that.

Biology is the measure and the means of all things,

No, then, according to Subjectivism, like all other knowledge, biology is merely subjective, and has nothing to tell us about reality.

I really have no time for pointing out all these absurdities. If you can't even believe yourself (that all is subjective), then why should anybody else believe you? Until you understand that self-contradictions are the absolute evidence of incoherence, you'll never be a philosopher. Basic logic is essential.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2026 3:50 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2026 6:42 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2026 6:16 am
Is the meaning of this sentence merely "subjective"? Or do you think you're telling us the objective truth?

None of what you write even gets a line or two without self-contradicting. Example:

One can never escape one's subjective consciousness; that is how one knows a world at all.

No, if everything is subjective, one does not know that there is a world at all. Descartes shows that.

Biology is the measure and the means of all things,

No, then, according to Subjectivism, like all other knowledge, biology is merely subjective, and has nothing to tell us about reality.

I really have no time for pointing out all these absurdities. If you can't even believe yourself (that all is subjective), then why should anybody else believe you? Until you understand that self-contradictions are the absolute evidence of incoherence, you'll never be a philosopher. Basic logic is essential.

LOL!!

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2026 8:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2026 3:50 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2026 6:42 am

None of what you write even gets a line or two without self-contradicting. Example:

One can never escape one's subjective consciousness; that is how one knows a world at all.

No, if everything is subjective, one does not know that there is a world at all. Descartes shows that.

Biology is the measure and the means of all things,

No, then, according to Subjectivism, like all other knowledge, biology is merely subjective, and has nothing to tell us about reality.

I really have no time for pointing out all these absurdities. If you can't even believe yourself (that all is subjective), then why should anybody else believe you? Until you understand that self-contradictions are the absolute evidence of incoherence, you'll never be a philosopher. Basic logic is essential.

LOL!!

Yep, that's all you've got: ridicule, but no response.

Nobody's impressed, of course.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2026 8:47 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2026 8:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2026 3:50 pm
None of what you write even gets a line or two without self-contradicting. Example:

No, if everything is subjective, one does not know that there is a world at all. Descartes shows that.
No, then, according to Subjectivism, like all other knowledge, biology is merely subjective, and has nothing to tell us about reality.

I really have no time for pointing out all these absurdities. If you can't even believe yourself (that all is subjective), then why should anybody else believe you? Until you understand that self-contradictions are the absolute evidence of incoherence, you'll never be a philosopher. Basic logic is essential.

LOL!!

Yep, that's all you've got: ridicule, but no response.

Nobody's impressed, of course.

You need to address the material directly and stop the pretense that you actually know what you're talking about. If you are not prepared to do so, , simple do not respond to anything I post.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 12:04 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2026 8:47 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2026 8:41 pm

LOL!!

Yep, that's all you've got: ridicule, but no response.

Nobody's impressed, of course.

You need to address the material directly

What "material"? You wrote three letters and two exclamation marks. If that's your idea of "material," you're sadly mistaken.