Legit question. If I was an objectivist, would I need to agree with you that am awful as you discovered this knowledge with your mind and it is a fact determined by nature you have perceived? Or would I just disagree and say that my objectivist view trumps yours because I discovered it with my clearly right-beliving mind and correct interpretation of nature's facts?

[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's kind of the crux of objectivism. Reality is very much subjective and informed by the individuals past, worldview and plenty of other things. Your perceived reality can change because you skipped breakfast and now that you're hangry; boring, innocuous things are like nails on chalk board to you. There is no universal and objective truth to reality and anyone that would say otherwise is narrow minded and incurious.

To directly answer your question: the answer would be that as an objectivist you would disagree with me and say that your views trump mine for the reasons you stated. This train of thought is demonstrated every time Ben Shapiro opens his mouth in front of a camera

[–] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thank you for that explanation. Based on the downvotes to my question there are some "objectivist" scrollers out there that don't like how stupid their philosophy actually sounds when you point out it is the equivalent of a toddler's "nuh-uh!" logic.

[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Any time! Idk why you'd get downvoted for that either. The only objective thing about objectivists is that they're all insufferable lol