Subjective And Objective Honesty

The idea Truth developed first as an essence. Because Truth became despotic subjectivity, the idea Love developed as an essence, to balance Truth. No essence however exists, partly therefore, the ideas Truth and Love should both be prioritized above all, against idolatry, in balance.

Subjective honesty happens when a person does not distinguish between his/her thoughts and actuality outside of him/herself. S/he then says honestly what s/he thinks without considering objectivity. Empiricists often make the mistake, thinking what they are thinking is true, whilst correspondence between words and actualities, people can agree about, clearly shows their subjective honesty is false. Empiricists and pragmatists use lies intentionally to attain their goals. The false puzzle pieces in their memories remove their ability to be objective. That is why empiricism/pragmatism and rationalism opposes. Rationalism promotes objective honesty. Objective honesty refers to the correspondence theory of the idea Truth. Logically thus, the idea objective, developed with the idea Love, in opposition to subjective despotic honesty. Objectivity is a result of independence and division between self and Not-self. The post-modern movement against objectivity, is partly a movement against the idea universal Love. It is a regression into views of an undivided “One”, not distinguishing clearly among parts. Because parts are not distinguished, guilt also do not exist. Having a conscience requires a necessary degree of separation between self and Not-self. Post-modernists who oppose the idea objectivity, actually claim they respect the idea Love, as essence, whilst being idolatrous at the same time, often whilst not recognizing Not-self. When considering two definitions for the idea Love, it is better comprehended, how subjective honesty works against the true definition of the idea universal Love, and objective honesty in favor of universal Love. The true definition of the idea universal Love, represents the Form, which caused manifestations of not-doing evil to all, like selves do not want be done evil to. The “all” indicates universality. The manifestations are universal not-doing to all. The other definition for the idea Love, used often, is doing good to close others/neighbors. This doing kind of Love, often happens after subjective honesty, first disadvantaged others. Subjective honesty then made it possible to do “good” to close others/neighbors.

Distinguishing clearly between self and Not-self is relevant, because objectivity requires the distinction. Differentiated and undifferentiated thinking are very different. Socrates emphasised knowing self in Plato’s books, and Sartre emphasised knowing Not-self, in his book Being and Nothingness. Selfish subjective honesty happens when God are not sufficiently clear in comprehension, apart from self. God are partly parts of Not-self. I capitalized the N of Not-self, not because Not-self are God, but because thinking about Not-self, is a very important pointer towards thinking about God, clearly, without thinking about “Self” as the only human part of God. Due to religious idolatrous views about the ideas Truth and Love, distinguishing God clearly, apart from self, can be problematic when Being, living honest loving human beings, in Group form. Nietzsche wrote the weak singular “God is dead”. Idolaters have not realised the truth of Nietzsche’s view, due to Caiaphas Syndrome, therefore they isolate the-honest with ostracism/excommunication/outlawing. False accusations that the-honest each thinks s/he is “God Himself” or “Mother of God” or “the Father” then happen.

The ideas Truth and Love, must be identified separate from manifestations of the ideas, to comprehend what i mean. A definition represents the Form of an idea and the manifestation of the idea reflects the definition. The definition of the idea Truth, is, correspondence between words spoken or thought, and actuality outside of the speaker/thinker. Manifestations, the idea Truth causes, happen when objective words are actually spoken or thought. The true definition for universal Love is, not-doing evil to all others like selves do not want to be done evil to. Manifestations the idea universal Love causes, happen when not-doing evil to all, actually happens, as it relates to nothingness, for example.

It could be, whilst the idea Truth developed, a struggle existed between objective and subjective honesty. Subjective honesty then got the despotic upperhand, which explains the despotic nature, Truth had. The idea Love then started supporting objective honesty. Objective honesty is closer to the idea universal Truth, than subjective honesty, because objectivities manifest when words correspond to realities outside of selves, and agreement can be reached about reality by more than just a subjective group. Subjective honesty is often just what is thought, without reference to what are realy happening outside of selves. Subjective honesty is often based on fallacious theories, which are part of the education system. Therefore, when paradigm shifts happen, the difference between subjective and objective honesty is especially relevant.

A few years ago Logos started working with regard to a paradigm shift, which is busy happening. Many people started using the term Caiaphas Syndrome, more or less at the same time. The capital I of English changed into a small i and more than one started referring to “God are” instead of “God is”.

Fallacious presuppositions of theories about “God is”, causing subjectivity and mistakes, are making the difference between subjective and objective honesty clear.

Thomas Aquinas wrote about “God Himself who cannot lie”. Did Aquinas refer to subjective honesty or objective honesty of “God Himself”? It could be, Aquinas referred to despotic subjective honest “kings”, who were outlawed, therefore became outlaws, because “He” did not respect the idea universal Love about not-doing evil to others like “He self” did not want to be done to. The “kings” helped to fund churches. It could be, Aquinas referred to objective honesty. In that case “He” were creative vagrants who were outlawed/ostracized/excommunicated, whilst “His” ideas were developed for “the-group”, in line with the Eucharist/Mass. Vagrants respected the idea universal Love.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *