Mencken1976 wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "if we stumble upon an objective truth none of us can know that "objective truth" objectively.
I know that gravity on earth is real, my experience of it is subjective however my response to it is objective and that is what matters, if I jump off a cliff, I die.
Sounds to me that you are drawing upon Kant. I think the supposition would have more validity if the sum total of human knowledge were based just on perception but it isn't. That's why we have math, physics, construct scientific instruments, etc.
What matters to me about objectivism is how following it's mostly self evident principles makes for a more rewarding and happy life. And for those who live by altruism that's the best way to help others, to make the most of yourself.
I couldn't agree with your last sentence more. Very well put.
My point in saying that no one experiences "objective truth" objectively is that everyone's perceptions cause them to view the world differently. We can all have similar perceptions, but they are all going to be slightly different. I'm sure you're familiar with the blind men and the elephant analogy, which is a bit of a stretch, but has some granular truth to it.
Even your example of jumping off a cliff and dying isn't objective from person to person. How many people have jumped off a cliff and not died? Not everyone experiences gravity the same, even in their responses to gravity.
Maths, physics, scientific instruments, etc. may be, or may lead to the discovery of, objective truths, but those truths still need to be experience by a variegated human population who is going to experience those "objective truths" with a certain amount of relativity.
It's definitely a little Kant, but with Locke/Descartes sprinkled in, with a little topping of William James for some spice.