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):

**PERCEPTION**: the act or faculty of perceiving, or apprehending **by means of the senses** or of the **mind**; cognition; understanding

**CONSIDER**: to 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.