What to think of "subject(ive)" and "object(ive)"?

Good point, an opinion is necessarily subjective, according to the definitions presented here, but can also possess a certain degree of objectivity, if understood as correspondence to the objective or subjective reality.

Hi,

I suppose that "truth" has to be independent of anything, that is relating to a person, and specially a mind. I keep thinking about how things are said and done that have a way to interfere with the idea of "truth" and what might be considered its "reality". The psychic world, and the digital-neuro world, try to "picture" this as something that is reachable within our minds, but at what point are we being subjective about it?

My thoughts are that while there is a side of the Internet that is awesome, the other side is that it has a massive tendency to distort any truth out there, up to and including cynical comments ... that have a tendency to lessen the importance of a thread (this board a good example), thus smearing the idea of objective/subjective to a point that it becomes impossible to get a good idea as to what is going on.

suitkees wrote: ... As Nietsche said: "Truth is an illusion of which we have forgotten that it is one." (This makes Nietsche so fun to read: he is "philosophizing with a hammer"). ...

Nietsche saying this during his time makes sense ... saying it today he would get trashed senselessly all over the Internet. Truth, in its most important translation is NEVER an illusion, although for our confused, and likely un-tuned minds, it seems like an illusion, something to search for, thus his comment makes sense to a point during his time.

The one story that is really valuable about this is the one about Jesus of Nazareth, since what he speaks of is a "truth" that everyone around him does not really believe in, and 300 years later, all churches decided to not follow the readings ... only the parts that suited them to get the controls they wanted over the public! This is probably/likely one of the first examples of manipulation of history, to some for of media/social control ... although I am a believer that the stories from Greek Mythology are the worst in this, and certainly the most ridiculous, with analogies that you would not even consider in stories to your own child! The idea of the "chorus" was invented as a sort of social mind that supposedly thought this way or that ... and many of the stories suffer and individuals get trashed senseless. The worst, for me, is Medea, who is accused of being a murderess, when she gave Glauce a robe (with poison per the Messenger) and then Glauce died in a fire ... dude ... how were things lit in those days? Lanterns on top of pillars with oil burning. Heat was kept in by tapestries on the walls and floors. All Glauce had to do was put on the robe and do a turn around and knock one of the pillars off and voila ... instant furnace. Later, her supposedly killing her own children is also bizarre, since an accident in one of those chariots would most likely hurt anyone in it, and specially children ... just go faster to get the rush, hit the rock or a hole ... bingo ... now why is the truth changed to poison? And then murder if it was an accident?

So you can see, how objective/subjective has been systematically DESTROYED to even the point that a definition, is literally impossible to discuss ... it's history, in my book, has been one of lies ... and social controls ... having nothing to do with "objective/subjective" ... and more to do with social and political aims.

I just don't know that we can arrive at a satisfactory discussion on this ... when history has so confused us to the point of simply wearing a beanie with a Question Mark instead of a small fan!