"Pure objectivity" is a myth

[lsayre]

So you cannot explain it? Can you give clear real-life examples to help us understand the difference?

Well, since I was politely asked for examples of differences in concept, please allow me this final interjection:

1) Let's say that I'm the product of a subjectivist leaning society that contends (and thereby strongly enforces) the conceptual belief that reality is what we make it. And, taking this literally, I presume that I can step in front of a moving train and have it pass right through me. In such a case the concept of an objective reality will dictate the end result. Or my collective society teaches me conceptually that since my ancestors were collectively oppressed it is my subjective obligation to my clan/group, etc... to loot and maim and destroy businesses, because my learned societal duty is to do so in the name of preventing the rise and spread of any potential present or future conceptually conceived oppression of capitalist fascism. Or society teaches me that my ancestors roughly 200 years ago were the oppressors (despite that my ancestors arrived here after the fact, and or gave their lives fighting against such oppression), and therefore I must conceptually accept that I owe reparation for the "common good", and my greatest good would be to commit suicide for the common good. Or at the very least to submit to equity as transcending equality.

2) Or lets say that I'm the product of a rigidly intrinsicistic society that contends conceptually (and thereby strongly enforces) that duty to my society (or collective) or a god is my (and everyone's) highest virtue. And I take this literally, and I loot and maim and destroy businesses, because my learned societal duty is to do so in the name of preventing the rise and spread and oppression of such as a capitalist fascism. Or I knife to death and/or cut peoples heads off for not believing in god as I do (such as for a Sicarii or ISIS respectfully). Or I get on a plane and fly to Ukraine and head to the front lines whereby to dutifully destroy Putin. Or I round up anyone perceived to be MAGA and gleefully send them to a gulag. Or I vote early and vote often so as to dutifully promote my societal collectives whims and wishes and demands.

3) Or I am free to accept the concept that individual human life itself is the highest attainable value/virtue, and it's objective expression is legally and objectively equally defended via adherence to property rights (including first and foremost the right to that property which is life itself), and I thereby live objectively so as to promote my own life and that of my local self interests (such as my wife and family) and in so doing (as if by an invisible hand) sustain and benefit all human life...

Ones philosophical outlook as to concepts matters. 1 & 2 are examples of force and negations of life. 1 & 2 are subsets of each other. Example #3 promotes life and rejects force sans in defense of property. Which should I morally accept?

[Chrissy Hansen]

"objective law" that thing you haven't proven even exists, and you just rely on rightwing talking points to make assertions about.

And the idea that "objective law" and "property rights" are "joined at the hip" is the most "please endorse capitalism" statement I've heard in a while. This is just your Ayn Rand hero worshiping political screed masquerading as "objectivity."

"Or I am free to accept the concept that individual human life itself is the highest attainable value/virtue, and it's objective expression is legally and objectively equally defended via adherence to property rights (including first and foremost the right to that property which is life itself), and I thereby live objectively so as to promote my own life and that of my local self interests (such as my wife and family) and in so doing (as if by an invisible hand) sustain and benefit all human life..."

You say all of this while promoting Ayn Rand... who was an ardent capitalist who spent her life ranting against welfare and medicare... you know... things which promote, sustain, and benefit all human life.

This just seems like virtue signaling about "human life" and using it to promote capitalist dreams and pretend they are "objective"... I really want to know what the "objective expression" of "human life" is...

[Leucius Charinus]

The map should reflect the mainstream thinking for the history of Christian literature:

(1) New Testament Canonical literature (NTC) including the LXX or Septuagint.
(2) NT Apocryphal literature (NTA) including the Nag Hammadi Library (NHL).
(3) Ecclesiastical History (EH)
(4) Non-Christian literary sources (NCL)
(5) Archaeological evidence (ARC)

ETA: This is obviously just a simple classification system. Can it be improved?

How can all the evidence relating to the study of the history of Christian origins be classified? (Comprehensively)

How objective or subjective can a classification system be?

As for me, I don't know how I could work with a system like that.

Texts, as I work with them at least, don't exist in sealed off systems.

The idea is that most of the primary texts related to Christian literature can be classed as being in one of two categories: NTC and NTA. There will be a few exceptions - texts difficult to class as one or the other - but not too many. The strange thing with these two classes of Christian literature is that we cannot identify an author (although many people can identify Paul) and have all sorts of difficulty identifying the chronology of their authorship.

A 3rd class of Christian literature I'd propose is that of Ecclesiastical History which consists of quotations of texts supposedly written by supposedly known Ante Nicene church fathers from the first three centuries gathered together by Eusebius in the early 4th. Three continuators of Eusebius in the early 5th century gather up the quotations of the supposedly known Nicene and Post Nicene Christians from the 4th century.

I have further proposed that Ecclesiastical History can be sub-classified. For example I think the orthodox doctrines and commentary on the texts of the NTC can be logically differentiated from heresiology and commentary on the texts of the NTA.

I don't look at these three forms of Christian literature as closed off systems but rather as an attempt to find a first order valid classification system for any Christian text.

Even late rabbinic literature can sometimes be of some value in helping to interpret much earlier events.

Yes of course. Hence the class of texts external to Christian literature that I've labelled as Non-Christian literature. This includes the texts of Platonist and Stoic philosophers from the first 3 or 4 centuries (or later), the Mishna, Talmud, Josephus, Tacitus, Marcus Aurelius, Philostratus, etc, etc.

I think the internal evidence of some Christian texts -- both your (1) NT+LXX and (2) NTA -- is best explained in a second century provenance and very problematic if placed later.

The diagram shows the mainstream chronology on the left and right edges. The chronology for the authorship of the NTC is given as 40-110 CE. The boxes beneath the first box indicates that the NTC was preserved by later Christians during the 2nd and 3rd centuries and that the library of Origen probably figures in the manuscript transmission. The blue arrows after 400 CE indicate that the NTC was consciously preserved.

The chronology of the NTA is given as 150-400 CE while that of the NHL ends abruptly around the mid to later 4th century (reflecting burial at that time).

These chronological bounds are not meant to be definitive but are approximations since there are various theories about texts of the NTC and the NTA being in some cases earlier or later than these upper and lower bounds.

My method is to try to see what historical events and contexts might best make sense of some of these texts and the emergence of certain ideas.

I can agree with this but as a prior step I am interested to identify a simple classification system for the texts themselves. Such as the above.

[neilgodfrey]

Neil, objective law and property rights are joined at the hip.

What? No, how can that possibly be an "objective" "universal" "truth"? That view is entirely couched in capitalist ideology and other ideologies have an "equally logical" view that simply contradicts such an assertion.

As to rights:

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

And as to life:

There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of “Life” that makes the concept of “Value” possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.

Ayn Rand

I will leave this thread with these as my departing statements...

But those aren't your comments. You are only reducing yourself to be a mouthpiece for someone else. That's not genuine human dignity.

[neilgodfrey]

. .. as a prior step I am interested to identify a simple classification system for the texts themselves. Such as the above.

I don't understand how such a classification contributes to the effectiveness of research into Christian origins.

[neilgodfrey]

"objective law" that thing you haven't proven even exists, and you just rely on rightwing talking points to make assertions about.

And the idea that "objective law" and "property rights" are "joined at the hip" is the most "please endorse capitalism" statement I've heard in a while. This is just your Ayn Rand hero worshiping political screed masquerading as "objectivity."

"Or I am free to accept the concept that individual human life itself is the highest attainable value/virtue, and it's objective expression is legally and objectively equally defended via adherence to property rights (including first and foremost the right to that property which is life itself), and I thereby live objectively so as to promote my own life and that of my local self interests (such as my wife and family) and in so doing (as if by an invisible hand) sustain and benefit all human life..."

You say all of this while promoting Ayn Rand... who was an ardent capitalist who spent her life ranting against welfare and medicare... you know... things which promote, sustain, and benefit all human life.

This just seems like virtue signaling about "human life" and using it to promote capitalist dreams and pretend they are "objective"... I really want to know what the "objective expression" of "human life" is...

Yes, and it's a cultic type of thinking, in my view -- and that's coming from years in a cult and studying the scholarly research into cults -- not just as religious identities, but as political ones, too -- from Islamism, Nazism, Trumpism, even street gangs. The same operations are busy at work every time.

[lsayre]

So summing this up, points #1 and #2 are perfectly normal, and point #3 is a clear sign of a cult.

There are a lot of Libertarians who are adherents of the tenants of objectivism, including Ron Paul (who even went so far as to name his son 'Rand'). I'm quite sure that he is part of a radical cult that insanely preaches crazy #3 type stuff like world peace, sound money, fiscal sanity, and Laissez-faire Capitalism, while all of the sane #1 and #2 types clamor for war and for diverse means of thought and speech and expression control, and subjective adherence to law, and currency created at will out of thin air, and the freeing of criminals, and forcing (sometimes brutally) people to wear masks and take unproven injections, while simultaneously defunding the police, and opening borders to all.

Tucker Carlson is a Libertarian who has attained the honored level of "Senior Fellow" at the highly respected Libertarian "think tank" called the Cato Institute. I'm certain that he must thereby be insane.

[neilgodfrey]

So summing this up, points #1 and #2 are perfectly normal, and point #3 is a clear sign of a cult.

There are a lot of Libertarians who are adherents of the tenants of objectivism, including Ron Paul (who even went so far as to name his son 'Rand'). I'm quite sure that he is part of a radical cult that insanely preaches crazy #3 type stuff like world peace, sound money, fiscal sanity, and Laissez-faire Capitalism, while all of the sane #1 and #2 types clamor for war and for diverse means of thought and speech and expression control, and subjective adherence to law, and currency created at will out of thin air, and the freeing of criminals, and forcing (sometimes brutally) people to wear masks and take unproven injections, while simultaneously defunding the police, and opening borders to all.

Tucker Carlson is a Libertarian who has attained the honored level of "Senior Fellow" at the highly respected Libertarian "think tank" called the Cato Institute. I'm certain that he must thereby be insane.

No, cultists are not insane, stupid, ignorant or unintelligent. When people think of cults and they think "insane, dumb... etc" they are thinking of popular stereotypes that have nothing to do with the reality.

Cultism is found across a myriad of belief systems. It is not the contents of beliefs that define cultic groups.

[Chrissy Hansen]

So summing this up, points #1 and #2 are perfectly normal, and point #3 is a clear sign of a cult.

There are a lot of Libertarians who are adherents of the tenants of objectivism, including Ron Paul (who even went so far as to name his son 'Rand'). I'm quite sure that he is part of a radical cult that insanely preaches crazy #3 type stuff like world peace, sound money, fiscal sanity, and Laissez-faire Capitalism, while all of the sane #1 and #2 types clamor for war and for diverse means of thought and speech and expression control, and subjective adherence to law, and currency created at will out of thin air, and the freeing of criminals, and forcing (sometimes brutally) people to wear masks and take unproven injections, while simultaneously defunding the police, and opening borders to all.

Tucker Carlson is a Libertarian who has attained the honored level of "Senior Fellow" at the highly respected Libertarian "think tank" called the Cato Institute. I'm certain that he must thereby be insane.

Yeah, open borders has no significant negative affect on the country. In fact, immigrants are a net benefit economically in virtually every capacity. The vaccines we are taken have been proven to work time and again over and over. "Freeing of criminals" like who? Also, if you don't want to wear a mask, then you need to just grow the heck up. If you are minorly inconvenienced by wearing a mask it is worth it to save lives.

This is literally just you throwing out every single nonsense rightwing political point you can think of and you clearly haven't critically thought through any of these things or looked at the data. The fact you throw out Ron Paul and Tucker Carlson kinda just shows how little you actually interrogate your political beliefs. Cult behavior confirmed.

And frankly, if you think capitalism would help create world peace given its long track record of mass murder, genocide, slave labor, and worse, then I think you are probably the last person anyone should ask about what a good future for the world looks like. Yeah, Apple Inc., the company that is infamous for having to set up suicide nets to catch suicidal employees due to their overworking... we should just remove government interference and let them have their way. That's going to go really well.

I personally also just find Ayn Rand's "objectivism" to be one of the most repugnant ideas ever. Rand's statement of "with productive achievement as his noblest activity" is just... well... I find this to be horrific. Basically saying "the best you can do is contribute to the capitalist work machine." But then again, there is a reason why the vast majority of economists, philosophers, and others find Rand's work to be terrible and unworthy of even entertaining. Probably why she and Peikoff are the ones that the Far Right has to constantly cite, because no one else supports their pseudo-religious worship of capitalism.

And once again, you can't define truth or objectivity. You are just a parrot for far right talking points and nothing else. You haven't offered anything substantial. Just throwing out dog whistles and quotations. Given you are just unable to even engage in these discussions without turning them into your altar call for rightwing politics, I don't think it is worth engaging with you anymore. This is just your culture war going on, and if I wanted to know or engage your rightwing politics... there is no need to even talk to you since I can literally just go read a Fox News opinion piece and get everything you said practically verbatim. You just aren't adding to the conversation. You are just distracting us with political tangents.

[neilgodfrey]

I have developed a slogan that reflects upon this view of "society", and I often apply it as my "tag line":
"Democracy rests solely upon the validity (or non-validity) of the presumption that collective wisdom arises from a pool of individual ignorance.

I find myself returning to your words on ignorance. That is part of the black-and-white dualist world view that one tends to find in cult thought. The "world" is bad, dark, ignorant. That's a terrible way to think of others.

Might I add that wherever there is societally demanded "sacrifice" there are those who appoint themselves to collect the sacrificial offerings. This is my conception of what actually arises from a pool of individual ignorance. And thus I oppose ignorance.

This is an elaboration of that dualistic worldview that paints humanity in either black or white camps.

It is about alienation: must not be "tainted" by "the world" -- must remain "free". Again, this is a horrible way to view social relationships. It is a rejection of what is good in our fellow creatures.

At root, it is another form of "them-us" thinking that is divisive and destructive and harmful. It is the kind of thinking that characterizes religious cults and extremist political groups -- Nazis, terrorists are the historical extreme examples but we all have the potential to be led to those places.

I can never forget watching an interview with a former German Nazi explaining what it was like: he described a mood of belonging, of optimism and decency. I was listening to my own thoughts and memories of what it was like for me when I was part of a cult. If there were questions, one was always free to ask them so long as one did so in the "right attitude", so there was no "brainwashing" -- another grossly misunderstood term and process. They could see nothing but good in what they were about. They felt like family, a brotherhood, a real bond unlike anything else.

They were about restoring a better past. Something good about the past had been lost and needed restoration.

They felt like they were part of an "elect" who were the only ones who could "see clearly" the "real state of the world" -- as it really is, and that others had their heads in the sand, were blinded, sometimes wilfully or fearfully so.

That feeling of somehow being a bit special for having such insight about "reality" -- its a warm kind of narcissism.

And the way one sees the world is the only way; there is only one way that is "true" and correct. Ambiguity and shades of grey and complexities among humans are seen as threats, not positives.

And there always an authority of some kind: if not Hitler, it is Ayn Rand and her prophet, or another religious leader, .... always someone or some authoritative book or writing that is the bedrock of all thought. Another Bible.

And there is a fundamentalism about it all. A belief in fundamental truths -- whether about the nation or religion or party.

And all of that closes off a person from open-minded inputs and genuine critical thinking and critical self-reflection. And from other people as they really are (they are not "ignorant" or slave-makers when you get to know them, not really).