OUTLINE: Subjective vs Objective

interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGzGNjLw2fQ

specific segment:

https://youtu.be/aGzGNjLw2fQ?t=13m24s

https://youtu.be/aGzGNjLw2fQ?t=39m13s

dictionary.com says
SUBJECTIVE:existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
OBJECTIVE:being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than  to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).
OBJECT: anything that may be apprehended intellectually:objects of thought.
THOUGHT: the act or process of thinking; mental activity:a consideration or reflection:

APPREHEND: to grasp the meaning of; understand, especially intuitively; perceive.

MAY(used to express possibility), (used to express opportunity or permission):

PERCEPTIONthe act or faculty of perceiving, or apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding

CONSIDERto think carefully about, especially in order to make a decision;contemplate; reflect on; to think, believe, or suppose

PROOF (informal): if you admit one can think of their own thought, then it follows that your thoughts can be the object of your thoughts and belong to the thinking subject at the same time.

also another person can think of your thoughts making it the object of their thought and belong to the thinking subject at the same time.

thus proving that subjective and
objective are not mutually exclusive

now this also applies to ALL thought, therefore, subjective is a subset of objective


in math the longer you use words or a wordy rationalization to prove what you want to show, the more likely the chance that is fallacious.  so any weaknesses in the proof(s) i present here will be the portions in which i use rationale instead of mathematical set law.  since i am confident in my reasoning skill i will highlight these portions in pink. so if you want to attack this proof, your best bet will be the portions in pink.)


in set notation:

let

S = the set of all subjective things

O = the set of all objective things

O′ = the set of all objects

T = the set of all thoughts


to prove a set A⊆ B (A is a subset of another set B)

http://www.people.vcu.edu/~rhammack/BookOfProof/SetProofs.pdf

Proof. Suppose a ∈ A. . . . Therefore a ∈ B. Thus a ∈ A implies a ∈ B, so it follows that A ⊆ B.


PROOF 1 ( T ⊆ O′):

since all t∈T may be apprehended by the thinking subject (original thinker) or by an external mind.

then all t∈O′

therefore T⊆O′

QED


to prove a set A = B (A and B are the same set)

Proof. [Prove that A ⊆ B.] [Prove that B ⊆ A.] Therefore, since A ⊆ B and B ⊆ A, it follows that A = B


PROOF 2 (O = O′):

since any o∈O is being an object of thought

then all o∈O’

therefore O⊆O′

since any o′∈O′ is capable of being an object of thought or perception (proof by contradiction : consider an o’∈O′ that cannot be the object of thought or perception.  the fact that its under consideration makes it an object of thought.  alternate version: try thinking of something that cannot be objective, by doing so youve just made it objective. LOL)

then all o′∈O

then O′⊆O

therefore O=O′

QED


PROOF 3 ( T⊆O):

since T⊆O′  (by proof 1)

then all t∈O′

and since all t∈O′ and O′=O (by proof 2)

then t∈O

therefore T⊆O

QED


PROOF 4 ( T = S ):

since all t∈T exist in the mind and belong to the thinking subject

then all t∈S

then T⊆S

and since all s∈S are an act of thinking, mental activity,sensory perception, consideration, or reflection

then all s∈T

then S⊆T

therefore T=S

QED


PROOF 5 ( S⊆O):

since T=S (by proof 4) and T⊆O (by proof 3)

then S⊆O (by transitivity)

QED


PROOF 6 (S ≠ Ø):

thoughts exists, i could not be writing this or you could not perceive this if they didnt

therefore S ≠ Ø

QED


PROOF 7 ( S∩O ≠ Ø):

since S⊆O (by proof 5)

then S∩O = S

and since S∩O = S and S≠Ø (by proof 6)

therefore S∩O ≠ Ø

QED


this makes it incumbent upon the person relying on this definition set to either redefine the set or find another set that is logically consistent. now even though there may exist an alternate definition set that presents the term objective as mutually exclusive,  i claim if its logically consistent it will match my new definition set only the terms have different names.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s