You are talking about not being able to escape subjectivity

Yes

I guess

Do you think that is inescapable? That conception only is applicable under existentialism/materialism

Being subjective?

Of course it's inescapable

Everyone is an individual and views things in seperate lights

That has no bearing on reality

What does have a bearing on reality

Reality is objective sure but how you interpret the reality is subjective

You can have subjective interpretations that doesn't mean there are no ways of obtaining truth.

I never said that

You claimed it's inescapable

If we can ground objectivity then it is

But is that something we can do

Sure, you start with the principle of being and you can discern plenty of things from obviously correct premises

But on the grounds of discussing things like religion is subjectivity not inescapable

It's plenty escapable

By all being the same faith I assume

But we aren't

@Doktor Goon @Eoppa The scientific method has no scientific proof for its validity. It is incomplete under its own bearing (authority), as the Godel was also able to say. To accept it as true, another reference is needed, and another. Thus it must be ground either arborescently or hierarchically, but it must be ground, as pragmatism dictates.

Yeah idk why you said that but sure

That is correct

It's the argument behind this one

But I'm not arguing scientific method

@Doktor Goon we don't need to be the same faith to argue objectivity

@Doktor Goon replace "scientific" with whatever method you are arguing

I'm completely fucking lost this started with Mongolite telling me I do things by ego

Which if you know anything about psychology that's why anyone does anything

The ego is a spook <:really:591181753625083905>

But I feel like that is defining psychological egoism into truthhood

@Doktor Goon According to the Freudians. Other psychological positions must deny the Freudian account. They cannot all be compatible under "psychology"

I'm more of a Jung kinda fellow

@Doktor Goon For example, Jung denied Freud's ego as too reductionistic of the self.

Join the Deleuzian anti Freud coalition

In Latin, "ego" just means "I" in the first person, but Jung saw that as too limited within the experience of the self to either account for the self or how the self tells stories about itself across time. Rather, Jung saw the self more than just a referent. It was alive at each point it was referenced, though not distributed across all its references.

Thus, to Jung, the self wasn't gestalt nor operative.

Freud was like, "what are you on bro".

😂

Freud was like "how's it about sex though"

@Doktor Goon But, Eoppa makes a good point. If you can understand the subject this way, for what it is, you then have to talk about how it came there, both historically and logically; correspondantly and consistently. This is why subjectivism from subjectivism (from subjectivism....) only gets you as far as "elephants all the way down". And, reality isn't built on strict reference alone, since patterns are perceived, not just patterned. That story of self cannot tell you the origin, either in terms of an originating act or an originating subject. And, so you come to a place of mystery (as mysterium).