Skip to main content

r/epistemology


Subjectivity and objectivity
Subjectivity and objectivity
discussion

The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity commonly employed in the modern world can be summarized as follows:

  • Subjective = how I perceive or feel.

  • Objective = how things actually are.

This distinction presupposes that one's interpretation of the world can never truly coincide with the way the world actually is. To say that "how I perceive" is distinct from "how things really are" is to assume that human beings can never attain an objective, divine perspective.

Accordingly, subjectivity comes to be understood as something possessed only by the individual, while objectivity is redefined as that which is shared among multiple subjective perspectives—that is, what can be commonly affirmed or validated by many people. The subjective becomes a psychological event confined to the individual mind, while the objective becomes an unattainable ideal. As long as all human knowledge begins from subjective perspectives, even the sciences regarded as objective are understood as continually revising themselves and progressively approaching objectivity, yet never becoming objectivity itself.

Within this framework, an individual's experience of God is necessarily classified as subjective, since it cannot be directly shared with others. It therefore remains excluded from the supposedly objective horizon constituted by what many people can publicly verify.

There is, however, a fundamental misunderstanding in this way of thinking.

To receive divine revelation is not merely to experience a private religious feeling. It is to internalize the divine perspective and thereby come to see the world through it. If this definition is accepted, faith is no longer merely a psychological event occurring within the subject; it becomes a transformation of the very standard by which reality is perceived.

In this event, the divine perspective that is internalized is both subjective and objective. It is the event in which how I perceive reality becomes aligned with the way reality actually is. Scripture describes knowing God as having one's mind renewed, one's eyes opened, and one's capacity to discern truth transformed by the Holy Spirit.

If such a transformation is possible, then the conventional distinction between subjectivity and objectivity no longer holds. When the human perspective participates in the divine perspective, the subjective becomes objective.


Advertisement: There’s a million reasons to play the new Millionaire for Life™ daily draw game, starting with $1,000,000 a year for life or $100,000 a year for life top prizes.
There’s a million reasons to play the new Millionaire for Life™ daily draw game, starting with $1,000,000 a year for life or $100,000 a year for life top prizes.
media poster


Rejecting False Ideas
Rejecting False Ideas
discussion

It is strange how a drawing comes to life. How you can imagine something and write down your thoughts and then illustrate it and bring it to life. Then after creating on paper the ideas in your mind, others can help you bring the thoughts to the 3d world. Like Star Wars. It began as a thought, but people liked the story so much, it became something you can now watch on a screen in the real world. What else is there that has been put on paper, and widely accepted as the truth in mass public opinion, that if rejected by the minority, one can seem to be labeled as not in the right mind if they see things differently. You as a person do not reject the chemical makeup of Love yet also see the problem in Loving Everyone. Maybe the meaning of Loving Everyone implies that a person is An addition to the 0.. meaning that the ones you are to Love are not zeroes but More. I don’t know how this comes across, likely you will gather what I mean in your Thoughts. It really is beautiful in these two places that are merging into One.


When Mathematical Idea feels coherent but remains unverified
When Mathematical Idea feels coherent but remains unverified
discussion

When Mathematical Idea feels coherent but remains unverified

I've spent a significant amount of time studying the Riemann Hypothesis and developing some ideas that I believe may offer a new perspective. I'm aware that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I'm not claiming a proof has been accepted or validated.

What I do have is a line of reasoning that feels internally coherent to me, and I'd genuinely appreciate technically informed feedback.

A challenge I've faced is intellectual isolation. Working independently on deep problems can make it difficult to tell whether you're uncovering something interesting, rediscovering known results, or overlooking subtle mistakes.

For those who've worked on hard unsolved problems—whether in number theory, physics, or elsewhere—how do you evaluate your own intuitions? How do you distinguish between promising insights and elegant dead ends?

If anyone is willing to discuss specific details, I'm happy to share the framework and receive critical feedback.