Consept

I get what youre saying but i dont really agree it defines objectivity, it might define relative facts. Theres a quote i found on another forum i thought was quite interesting and relevant - "In German we have the distinction between Realität (reality) and Wirklichkeit (which best translates into actuality). Realität equals to the facts we have/know, while Wirklichkeit is what is above that/us." - A german guy

OK well thats a separate argument, maybe we'd be happier if we didnt question 'facts' you might be right. For most people thats the case but i think if youre interested in deeper knowledge you will question them, it could be argued that humans naturally will question so called facts and always push knowledge forward that is how evolution occurs. There were probably some cavemen sitting around saying its a fact only god can make fire and then someone questioned that and made fire themselves.

If human thought is not factual, where are your facts coming from did you not think them?

OK so let me try and clarify what youre saying, Objectivity is not permanent and can change dependent on the situation. It is reached by a consensus of different groups of people who decide whether an action is right or wrong. If they decide its wrong for example it would be objectively wrong, however this can later be changed if new technology or a new perspective comes into being. Does that sum it up?

Really consider what you just wrote. At some point the idea of the flat earth was the pinnacle of human knowledge, so much so that you could be killed for claiming otherwise, so it very much was a fact at a certain point in time for humans. By saying things are facts now, youre assuming that we are at the pinnacle of human knowledge and that so called facts can never change, but that has never, ever been the case, things are constantly changing. Modern science you know now that all your facts are based on is relatively new in human history, and in a few 100 years what we think are facts today will most likely be completely different. To you it maybe seems like someone just thought the earth was flat a few hundred years ago as there tech was limited compared to ours, but they could say exactly the same thing about us in a few hundred years.

So you know what im gonna say, if one fact can change over time (flat earth for example) couldnt we say that every 'fact' has the potential to change over time dependent on new information, technology, perspectives? If thats the case how can there be an objective truth, if objective truth has the potential to change and in fact, if history is anything to go by, will almost definitely change?

@Danioover9000 @Psychic crocodile Can facts change through time? Or have facts changed through time, advancing tech etc?

Can you define a fact and who decides what are undebatable facts? Also what happens when two people say something is a fact but they contradict each other?

You'd need to watch it before casting a judgement, he's not really talking about what you're talking about

A consensus amongst people is not the same as objectivity, if the nazis had won the war, the world would've come to a consensus that killing Jews is fine, or during trans Atlantic slavery, the world did come to a consensus that slavery and torture was fine. Consensus can be useful as well but you can't call it objective, if anything it's a collective subjective.

The question will be whether we can move beyond orange before we do irreparable damage to the earth or destroy ourselves.

Thats it!

Why can you not think rationally and have emotions? One doesnt exclude the other. For example i could not believe in something like flat earth due to rational thinking but still be emotional. Its not a binary thing although i can see how if you only learnt rational thinking you may get stuck in a materialist paradigm, but of course you could also learn things beyond rational thinking, but i believe rational or critical thinking should be taught in schools and we should all have an understanding of it to help us get to relative truths. Otherwise everyone will end up being taken in by cults and ideologies, which is whats happening

Facts can be debatable, it would depend on your perspective and level of consciousness. For example I would say capital punishment is wrong, but many who believe in Sharia law would say its justified. Similarly we'd also slavery in the past was wrong but that is from our perspective in the present, those in the future, in 100 years or so may say things we do now are barbaric like eating animals for example. So objectivity would be nearly impossible to prove that it even exists, however we can look at rape from our relative perspective and probably all agree that it shouldnt be allowed, but from a lower consciousness they may not see it like that, so in which case how could it be objective?

If you read the youtube comments a lot of people disagree with Hulse. Its interesting because before this Blue stuff i wouldve said he would appeal more to orange and maybe even green with his biodynamic (i think its called that) stuff, this is such a 180 turn that he mustve alienated a lot of his followers

How is it decided what a fact is?

Be careful with that, cults can definitely be bad. I think ultimately you need to separate the content of what someone says from the person, don't just follow someone because you like what they say, they are still human and still fallable. They can only point you to truth, they are not truth themselves

Obviously this isn't a spiritual take, but I've found that having other perspectives on reality not being real can be helpful, at least for the logical mind. This is a more scientific take, but obviously just a Ted talk, he goes deeper on more content on YouTube

Luck is basically causation from a human perspective. Hard work is a factor but then you could even argue that it was luck that you were born with a certain work ethic or that you were lucky enough to have parents that drummed it into you, or that you didnt have anything when you were young so that encouraged your work ethic. We like to think that we decided to work hard and so if we are successful thats why, but there are plenty of dishwashers that will work harder than a millionaire ever worked in their life but get no where near their success. Its an illusion of control that makes us feel good and really only serves to let us feel better than those we perceive to be below us, because if they only made the same choices and worked as hard as me theyd be where i am now. Its a clever illusion as it keeps everyone working hard and keeping society moving, but an illusion none the less. Its a good way to keep the less advantaged down as well because you can just blame it on them instead of inequality, genius actually

Hes not saying everyone should have the same levels of masculine and feminine, hes saying everyone should have a balance of masculine and feminine within themselves. Hes also not necessarily ascribing traits of each, i think what hes getting at is to get in touch with every part of you. For example if you act overly masculine and macho as a man youre denying your feminine side, that side is still different to someone elses feminine side and can be expressed in many ways, being more compassionate might be one way.

I dont think you can say it's basically objectively wrong. We can't even say what the perspective of higher truth is. For example rape might be a legit mating strategy for some species of animals or even for us thousands of years ago, I don't think a higher perspective is looking at these incidents thinking 'this is so wrong'. In modern day we can look at it and say its wrong as we know the victim is suffering and we can agree that in a civilised society that kind of thing is not going to work, but I don't think you can say its objectively wrong, mainly because who are we to say that and also because how can anything be purely objective without the subjective human lens that we all see through?

That's a definition of relative though

Is objectivity something that even exists or if it does would we be able to know it?

Yes, I think the Portugal model has shown it is possible and the way they've done it has helped a lot of people.

@AtheisticNonduality are you a goth?