Vanity Subjectivists vs. Objectivists

As an older adult I am learning something new that takes thinking. The leason book is written for a young adult but works for this old adult to grasp basics.

I decided to take a year long class on the Catholic Faith via our Church and also attend weekly Marine Biology Seminars.

So in this weeks lesson of the Catholic teaching the above came up and I thought well a liberal type would be in my mind a subjectivist person and the avg. Freeper an objectivist in moral truth. Other pertinent vocabulary in this weeks lesson:

daily experience; human reason; subjectivists/objectivist; unchanging behavior of reality; inherent contradiction; capacity for thought;capacity to make free choices

What I would like to ask it for other examples of both in other areas of life such as science,politics, law, medicine and other popular topics here.

This is not a homework assignment for me it is just trying to learn something and stimulate my mind.

The lesson book is "The Truth will set you Free"by Micheal j. Mazza One of my objectives is knowing the diff between what my Church teaches and how it compares to the moral norms of the society we live in. Thanks

BTW My other idea for the New Year was to take a basic grammer/english (before some of you flame me, I know I lack in)

Let's see if I can get a sentence in before you get flamed for posting this on the news forum. :o)

If you say you want examples of objectivism in science etc., do you mean moral objectivism with regards to science, or metaphysical objectivism with regards to reality?

All that it applies to.

I am trying to understand something that I have never approached.

It could be kicked over to the Religeon threads.

I am trying to grasp what may be simple to some here, as I pass over a lot because it is way over my head.

Perhaps I should not be so excited about trying to learn something new and come back with this kind of vanity when I understand more.

Not at all. And if we get kicked to another thread, that's OK, too. Anyways, these concepts are highly fascinating. Well, for you and me at least, not generalizing here. Coming from the science field originally, I started only a year ago getting into this.

Metaphysical objectivism is close to positivism. That is, the notion that knowledge per se must be scientific knowledge. It requires that complex theories can be broken down into individual statements, at least some of which are testable. Contrarlily, constructivism demands that our idea of reality is a subjective construction rather than an assembly of objective statements.

So, if you now take these concepts to the fields of morality and ethics, for objectivism you would need to break down a complex topic (pick abortion) into individual fragments. Eventually, you will end up at the question "what is good" which gets you into a lot of readings. There is the Platonian discussions of good vs. evil (The Republic), you got the Macchiavellian notion of "good is what is good for the state" (The Prince) all the way over to modern leadership theory. Highly interesting stuff, but no simple final answer at the end. Thus, I do not believe in moral objectivism as I think the two are contradictory in terms.

Marine Biology and being good stewards.

on this threadActivists move to save Delta smelt
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1593650/posts

I posted an actual Global study #9 which brings a better objective to the original story of the smelt.

How can someone do a study on a portion of the marine food chain without looking at the whole picture as I feel Dr. Paulie makes the attempt too.

In my simplistic view through what we see on tv documentaries via the media they don't seem to get into the dry details of how conclusions were made and so it makes me question the truth on many subjects.

I guess going back and studying my faith and something like marine eco systems I am trying to build on what is the truth. Reading opinions was the first step to learning years ago but it time to understand science and theology throughout history. OK I am still thinking about your posts so uit may be awhile.

I was reading out loud to another person from this youth Catholic guide.

The capacity to think and make free choices, we have an important dignity:

Example from the book We see a man walking his dog on a leash and think nothing of it, yet if his wife was on the end of the leash we would become upset. OK I said but the friend said not unless the wife enjoyed the submisiveness and wanted to be on the leash.
(I don't think that was the point Mister)
OK but on with the book saying because we are human beings we have rational "souls" this great capacity for thinking and choosing, whereas animals and plants do not.

because we are human beings we have rational "souls" this great capacity for thinking and choosing, whereas animals and plants do not.

Is this really so? If I condition my dog through punishment not to eat the neighbor's bunny rabbits, and he follows, is that different from conditioning a criminal? The dog chooses not to eat the bunny in order to avoid punishment, the criminal chooses not to shoplift in order to avoid punishment. Rather than comparing extreme polarizations, that is an animal just driven by instinct (eg. a snake) vs a highly rational person, move the two groups closer together and compare a primate to people attending the Jerry Springer Show. And the book tries to tell me that the latter have this "great capacity for thinking and choosing"?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.