Subjectivity is Failed Objectivity

But you are missing the point; that a fish is a fish is a human description. It's based on human language. We put the label on all things, and that becomes the identifier when we communicate with others.

"A fish is a fish" is not a description at all. It's not any kind of description.

Please explain. I'm missing "your" point.

I agree with C.I., that whatever objective reality is, we are only concerned with our interpretations of it. Truth is OUR interpretation of reality. To say that objective truth is what corresponds with objective reality is fine, but remember that our truths about the same phenomena continuously change. That's the central fact of scientific history. And that intellectual history is not merely a record of false truths (e.g., alchemy) evolving into true truths (e.g., chemistry). It's a history of changing interpretations.
If we equate truth with reality it is because we forget that "truth' consists not of the objective characteristics of reality but of our changing and competing propositions about those characteristics. I don't think this separation of truth and reality is merely a semantic quibble. I always think of truth in terms of evolving truth claims and truth propositions, never as absolute or fixed eternal verities.
Loosely speaking reality has to do with ontology and truth has to do with epistemology, a kind of mental BEHAVIOR.

"My" (?!) point is that a tautology adds no information. An example of a tutology is, "dead corpse". Putting the word 'dead' in front of the word 'corpse' does absolutely nothing. YOu might as well just say 'corpse'... all corpses are dead.

To describe something is to provide information about it. Since tautologies carry no new information, a tautology cannot be a description of anything. You said that humans put value on whatever humans put value on. That's basically meaningless.

I compared it to saying "a fish is a fish", and you called that a "human description". "A fish is a fish" is tautological. It carries no information, and describes nothing. It's not a description of nay kind, let alone a "human description".

A fish has information and a description. How else would you identify it? It may not provide any information to you, but I use it every time I order "fish" in a restaurant, and tell my wife I prefer "fish" for dinner. It's both descriptive and informational.

Yes, saying "a fish" is informative. But saying "a fish is a fish" is no more informative than just saying "a fish".

and we're probably stuck with it as long as it's "we," after all, if everything was objective, we could say "i" no matter whom we were referring to, right?

knowledge requires perspective. imperfect, subjective knowledge requires seeing part of everything, we can do that. perfect, objective knowledge requires seeing everything. it would take everyone, everything, everywhere to do that.

short of that, how can you be certain that it's in perspective?

Yes, I suppose we might be doomed to fail at finding objective truths. But they are out there - that's what's important to me.

The purpose of my claim, "subjectivity is failed objectivity" was to mock the relativist claim that things can be true 'for me' or true 'for you', and that if two people disagree it does not mean that at least one of them is wrong. These subjective 'truths' are not truths at all, in my opinion. They're attempts at objectivity.

well, the fun is there are unlimited catch-22's in the subjective/objective debate. the idea that objectivity exists may be subjective (in which case the objective truth is there isn't an objective truth)

and your idea that truth is more exclusive than they think may be relatively exclusive. your idea of exclusive truth being objective might have more room to exist logically in a relativist's argument than your own.

i maintain that the only pratical applications are to attempt looking from other angles, and realize you can always be wrong. (or *can* you?!) whether you subscribe to that thinking or not, it's true that "if p then q" depends on what BOTH p and q are. change the context of the argument and you stand to alter the conclusion as well.

"if i hit you, is it wrong?"

"of course!"

"what if you say, 'hit me, or i'll shoot myself!' is it wrong then?"

reality is THIS BIG and our map of it is much smaller, and not even to scale. making big decisions under those conditions give relativists the upper hand in my opinion. it doesn't mean they're always right, of course. by their own argument, you have to be right in some circumstances?

i think reality is like a cat: you can take it apart to get a better idea of how it works, but it only works properly when it's in one piece. what people talk about "nature vs. nurture" i think "what do you mean 'vs.'?!" and when people divide subjective and objective, i know it'll go in circles. i admit, i don't help there- certainly not in the short run vs. the long run.

Maybe the truth that you seek is found in the objective reality of the creation around us? What do you think?

Yes.