Morality: Objectivity on a Continuum
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2023 9:21 am
There is a lot of fuss from many when I put Objectivity in term of degrees on a continuum say from 0.0001% to 99.9999%.
ALL of reality is continuous and never discrete.
As such, we can apply the continuum concept to any variable within reality, i.e. things, events, objectivity, subjectivity, evil, good, any other dichotomy, etc.
The concept of continuum is and can be adopted with the following;
1. The Bell Curve or Normal Distribution
2. The Yin and Yang Model
3. All other aspects of reality?
0.00001 Objective is 99.99999 Subjectivity
0.00001 Subjectivity is 99.9999 Objectivity
0.00001 White is 99.99999% Black
0.00001 Black is 99.9999% White
thus
we have grey
0.5 White is 0.5 Black
which avoid the contentious Law of the excluded Middle.
In certain areas where there is a very distinct dichotomy, bringing the variables involved to a common denominator is definitely an efficient approach to resolve issues more realistically.
A common denominator will also facilitate analysis and computations.
As such, putting 'objectivity' on a continuum is very useful in resolving the issues related to objectivity in certain contexts; for that matter, it is efficient as putting subjectivity in a continuum.
When one insist upon the Law of the Excluded Middle of 'either p or not-p' people, one is assuming the existence of absoluteness i.e. either 100% say black or 100% white, but a 100% perfection is impossible in the empirical world.
What is critical in the above is one must lay out the specific contexts in using a continuum.
In the case of objective;
What is objective [in degrees] is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
For any conclusion to be considered as objective, it must be logically valid within the conditions of the specific FSK.
There is no exclusivity to objectivity in a continuum.
I can rate the FSK's in terms of subjectivity, i.e. the scientific FSK subjectivity is the standard at 0.001% while the Christianity moral FSK is at 99.999%.
Since the opposite of subjectivity is objectivity, we can substitute 'objectivity' to the above in reverse order.
Generally, objectivity is the more serious variable thus I had focused my attention of 'objectivity' in most of the threads I raised.
I believe why my putting objectivity on a continuum generate such a big fuss is purely psychological due to cognitive dissonances, because to many what is "objective" refers to a mind-independent reality with the duality element of either yes or no.
See:
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
Discuss?? Views??
ALL of reality is continuous and never discrete.
As such, we can apply the continuum concept to any variable within reality, i.e. things, events, objectivity, subjectivity, evil, good, any other dichotomy, etc.
The concept of continuum is and can be adopted with the following;
1. The Bell Curve or Normal Distribution
2. The Yin and Yang Model
3. All other aspects of reality?
0.00001 Objective is 99.99999 Subjectivity
0.00001 Subjectivity is 99.9999 Objectivity
0.00001 White is 99.99999% Black
0.00001 Black is 99.9999% White
thus
we have grey
0.5 White is 0.5 Black
which avoid the contentious Law of the excluded Middle.
In certain areas where there is a very distinct dichotomy, bringing the variables involved to a common denominator is definitely an efficient approach to resolve issues more realistically.
A common denominator will also facilitate analysis and computations.
As such, putting 'objectivity' on a continuum is very useful in resolving the issues related to objectivity in certain contexts; for that matter, it is efficient as putting subjectivity in a continuum.
When one insist upon the Law of the Excluded Middle of 'either p or not-p' people, one is assuming the existence of absoluteness i.e. either 100% say black or 100% white, but a 100% perfection is impossible in the empirical world.
What is critical in the above is one must lay out the specific contexts in using a continuum.
In the case of objective;
What is objective [in degrees] is conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
For any conclusion to be considered as objective, it must be logically valid within the conditions of the specific FSK.
There is no exclusivity to objectivity in a continuum.
I can rate the FSK's in terms of subjectivity, i.e. the scientific FSK subjectivity is the standard at 0.001% while the Christianity moral FSK is at 99.999%.
Since the opposite of subjectivity is objectivity, we can substitute 'objectivity' to the above in reverse order.
Generally, objectivity is the more serious variable thus I had focused my attention of 'objectivity' in most of the threads I raised.
I believe why my putting objectivity on a continuum generate such a big fuss is purely psychological due to cognitive dissonances, because to many what is "objective" refers to a mind-independent reality with the duality element of either yes or no.
See:
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
Discuss?? Views??