The Final Argument.

Throughout the many varied arguments claiming there is a god and why there isn’t the question of evidence is always a central concern. The end result is usually a discussion of the validity of faith vs reason and issues of how we know what we know, i.e. questions of epistemology. However, that implies an oversimplification of the issue, or rather from the argument of reason which goes; since there is no empirical observation or detection then a belief without such evidence cannot be claimed as a truth, and where faith is simply belief without evidence. Such a position denies that subjectivity might have value.

Ultimately the theist asserts that they know a god exists because it communicates with him/her directly once they have come to a sincere acceptance or need. The argument goes that the skeptic can never achieve this state because they are not using the subjective emotional sincerity needed. In other words the alleged god will only reveal itself via a sincere subjective process. Clearly that is beyond current empirical methodologies and a scientific approach.

For example Lightgigantic offers - With theism, however there is the claim of direct perception (which does involve the mind and the senses) and also a process to attain such a state (namely purify the consciousness). Christians and Muslims have similar variations.

My objection is that the claimed knowledge from such a subjective process cannot be distinguished from delusion which is a more credible alternative than the acceptance that a super being exists capable of creating a universe. I further object on the basis that the claimant has no process to verify that their alleged subjective knowledge is real, i.e. we only have their word for it. To my mind this becomes entirely a matter of credibility, but not proof either way.

My question for debate then becomes – is there any basis where we could establish that such a subjective process without any form of individual or independent verification could in fact offer a truth? While it seems on the surface that this could be easily and summarily dismissed by non-believers it is however the crux of the theist position and deserves some deeper attention if there can be any.

Life unites us and our consciousness of beings like us.

To simply answer your question: No there is not.

i would reply but cannot
i refuse to entertain the current delusion
you aint real, chris
neither is your post

all are a product of a delusionary thought process and i wish someone would goddamn pinch me awake

is there any basis where we could establish that such a subjective process without any form of individual or independent verification could in fact offer a truth?

It can definitely offer a personal truth. But then such a person should be true to the nature of such a truth - and keep it personal, so to speak.

greenberg,


It can definitely offer a personal truth.A truth is independent of whether it is personal or impersonal. For example I would not be able to float in the air and defy gravity simply because I feel that is a personal truth. Wishing something true doesn't make it true.

So I'm not sure what you mean here.

My question for debate then becomes – is there any basis where we could establish that such a subjective process without any form of individual or independent verification could in fact offer a truth?Nope there is no basis to establish such a process could offer a truth.

The process can not be distinguished from delusion and in all honestly we both know that's exactly what it is.

Michael

A truth is independent of whether it is personal or impersonal. For example I would not be able to float in the air and defy gravity simply because I feel that is a personal truth. Wishing something true doesn't make it true.

So I'm not sure what you mean here.

"Fresh apples are the best food", "I want to win the next 21k race because there is a nice reward", "I hate my brother and my sisters" are personal truths. There's no point in assuming they are true for all people, but they surely are true for some.

Greenberg,


Fresh apples are the best food", "I want to win the next 21k race because there is a nice reward", "I hate my brother and my sisters" are personal truths. There's no point in assuming they are true for all people, but they surely are true for someNo, that is not correct. A condition is true or false regardless of personal perspective or opinion. You’ve simply confused the context.

The first example is really - “Some people believe fresh apples are the best food”. This condition can be tested objectively and the outcome is either true or false for everyone.

Your assertion that you want to win a race is true for everyone. It doesn’t imply that everyone wants to win a race.

That you assert that you hate your brothers and sisters is again true for everyone since it is specific to you and doesn’t imply that everyone hates THEIR brothers and sisters.

Similarly a god cannot exist simply because someone thinks it is a personal truth.

No, that is not correct. A condition is true or false regardless of personal perspective or opinion. You’ve simply confused the context.

No, I have not. There's more to it.



The first example is really - “Some people believe fresh apples are the best food”.

No, it's not. I put it exactly in the form that some people state it, so as to make the point.

Many people state their personal truths as if they were objective truths - and I think this is the core of the problem that you are proposing in the OP.



Your assertion that you want to win a race is true for everyone. It doesn’t imply that everyone wants to win a race.

That you assert that you hate your brothers and sisters is again true for everyone since it is specific to you and doesn’t imply that everyone hates THEIR brothers and sisters.

Exactly, they are "personal truths", stated in the 1st person form.



Similarly a god cannot exist simply because someone thinks it is a personal truth.

That's supposing that God exists because someone wishes it ... I won't go for that, though.

Consider that it might be a Calvinist version of theism that is the right one.
Granted, it might be one of the more cruel ones. But it is the most logical one, and explains all the problems that theists and non-theists alike have regarding God.

So that version would be: God can be and is known only to the elect. The elect make claims about God that the non-elect have no way of knowing, understanding or proving. The elect might go to heaven, the non-elect will most likely all go to hell. Because God created the Universe, God rules, God judges, it's all up to God's will. If a person doesn't understand something, it's their fault.

I think something that might be causing you to wonder is that you might have the underlying assumption that God, if he is to be any kind of a proper God, should be democratic, loving, just, knowable to all - on terms that you would consider democratic, loving, just, knowable to all.
That isn't necessarily so, especially not with the above mentioned Calvinist version.

The Final Argument...My question for debate then becomes – is there any basis where we could establish that such a subjective process without any form of individual or independent verification could in fact offer a truth? While it seems on the surface that this could be easily and summarily dismissed by non-believers it is however the crux of the theist position and deserves some deeper attention if there can be any.

And my next question, is should religious bodies maintain tax-exempt status until your question is answered!

Greenberg,

I suspect we are somewhat in agreement although it may be just issues of syntax that are causing confusion. I think my objection is to the clause “personal truth”, but I don’t think the point is worth argument.

However, I like your next series of statements that may be worth exploring further.


So that version would be: God can be and is known only to the elect.Ok I’ll buy that but I don’t think it changes the validity of my OP question and it does highlight my second objection. Given that such a god makes the rules and it has decided that some of us will never be able to know or understand then there is still the problem for those who have had the revelation. What process could they use to determine that such a revelation is indeed true and not a delusion? If they were indeed rational then they would need verification to be able to claim a truth.


I think something that might be causing you to wonder is that you might have the underlying assumption that God, if he is to be any kind of a proper God, should be democratic, loving, just, knowable to all - on terms that you would consider democratic, loving, just, knowable to all.
That isn't necessarily so, especially not with the above mentioned Calvinist version.Hmm, no I don’t think so. My perspective is that existence is an axiom and that something exists or it doesn’t. Using reason we should be able to determine at least one of two things – the object exists, or we don’t know.

Since the theist claim to knowledge cannot be verified either to independent skeptics or to themselves then for all practical purposes all rational people must conclude that no one knows that a god exists.

phlo....


And my next question, is should religious bodies maintain tax-exempt status until your question is answered!Perhaps that status could be eroded if a sufficient number of people meet the theist claim -

I know God exists because I have had a personal revelation/calling/second-birth/direct-perception, etc., etc, with -

How have you verified to yourself that what you claim is a truth and not delusion?

I don't believe they can answer that.

Cris

We must take into consideration just how powerful indoctrination can be. Children grow up with their parents, family and friends telling them their god, heaven, hell and all sorts of ghouls and goblins are real.

Ok I’ll buy that but I don’t think it changes the validity of my OP question and it does highlight my second objection. Given that such a god makes the rules and it has decided that some of us will never be able to know or understand then there is still the problem for those who have had the revelation. What process could they use to determine that such a revelation is indeed true and not a delusion? If they were indeed rational then they would need verification to be able to claim a truth.

I would think that's their business.



Hmm, no I don’t think so. My perspective is that existence is an axiom and that something exists or it doesn’t. Using reason we should be able to determine at least one of two things – the object exists, or we don’t know.

Since the theist claim to knowledge cannot be verified either to independent skeptics or to themselves then for all practical purposes all rational people must conclude that no one knows that a god exists.

You know what they say: When God wants to doom someone, He takes away their mind.
On this point, such theists have a bulletproof argument.

Something that suprises me about many non-theists who want to understand issues about God is that they seem to be rather unwilling to explore the more sinister aspects of it all.

Let's not forget that we're talking about a God who has, so the theist account, created the Universe, sent floods, parted seas, rained sulphur, killed thousands and thousands, ... and who will eventually make an end to it all.
Really, human rationality doesn't matter a straw in such a scheme of things.

I think that arguments against theism that are based on pointing out lack of evidentiary support and rationality issues are a cul-de-sac.
That's because theists often give a wrong account of what their faith actually consists of. Glaucon and myself had an interesting exchange about this here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1612652&postcount=51

There are a priori truths called necessarily true and then there are a posteriori truths which are called contingently true.

The process you are talking about is a contingent truth.

Contingent truths must be measurable. Because the process you are talking about (personal communion with God) is not measurable it is simply not possible to determine if the process is indeed real or (and more likely) delusional.


Funny enough, when people were first introduced to aliens in the 1950s and people believed they were abducted and "probed", when asked, they always describe the spaceships in this 1950's style. With funny knobs and dials etc... They did believe this happened to them. Exactly in the same way people believe they are in commune with God. Some people are just plain weird. Our brain is bifurcated and it's a bit weird. Anyway, were are stuck with only two types of truths, a priori truths and a posteriori truths. Because the Aliens, or Gods, never make an appearance it's impossible to establish whether people were abducted, or in communion with God, or it was all a delusion. It's impossible to establish an a posteriori truth.

Michael

PS: We both know that there are no spaceships with funny dials and knobs kidnapping people and taking them behind the moon.

The Final Argument.

Throughout the many varied arguments claiming there is a god and why there isn’t the question of evidence is always a central concern. The end result is usually a discussion of the validity of faith vs reason and issues of how we know what we know, i.e. questions of epistemology. However, that implies an oversimplification of the issue, or rather from the argument of reason which goes; since there is no empirical observation or detection then a belief without such evidence cannot be claimed as a truth, and where faith is simply belief without evidence. Such a position denies that subjectivity might have value.
this is only the final argument for an empiricist - and just to illustrate its absurdity, one could just as easily be talking about triangles or justice (since there is no empirical evidence for these things either) - IOW this argument falls face down in the mud before it even approaches things like god


Ultimately the theist asserts that they know a god exists because it communicates with him/her directly once they have come to a sincere acceptance or need.
The argument goes that the skeptic can never achieve this state because they are not using the subjective emotional sincerity needed.
you beg the q by assuming that god is not a person or somehow duty bound to be revealed to persons who are not sincere


In other words the alleged god will only reveal itself via a sincere subjective process. Clearly that is beyond current empirical methodologies and a scientific approach.
even to penetrate into the mysteries of physics requires a degree of sincerity (ie dedication, etc) so its not clear what your issue is


For example Lightgigantic offers - With theism, however there is the claim of direct perception (which does involve the mind and the senses) and also a process to attain such a state (namely purify the consciousness). Christians and Muslims have similar variations.

My objection is that the claimed knowledge from such a subjective process cannot be distinguished from delusion which is a more credible alternative than the acceptance that a super being exists capable of creating a universe.
you raised this earlier and I suggested that you would have a difficult time suggesting how anything can exist outside delusion with out accepting something a priori - for instance try and present an argument how the world really exists and is not a delusion and see how far you can get without relying on something a priori


I further object on the basis that the claimant has no process to verify that their alleged subjective knowledge is real, i.e. we only have their word for it. To my mind this becomes entirely a matter of credibility, but not proof either way.
once again, the richness of normative descriptions in scripture tends to suggest otherwise

My question for debate then becomes – is there any basis where we could establish that such a subjective process without any form of individual or independent verification could in fact offer a truth? While it seems on the surface that this could be easily and summarily dismissed by non-believers it is however the crux of the theist position and deserves some deeper attention if there can be any.[/QUOTE]
if thats your sincere belief, its not clear why you don't have a similar crisis on your hands when dealing with empirical issues

Cris

We must take into consideration just how powerful indoctrination can be. Children grow up with their parents, family and friends telling them their god, heaven, hell and all sorts of ghouls and goblins are real.
also similar damage can be done by parents who exert an atheistic influence
;)

also similar damage can be done by parents who exert an atheistic influence

By conditioning children to believe gods, angels, and demons exist, you are conditioning them to believe in things that cannot actually be demonstrated to exist.

I can only presume that you mean atheists condition their children to not believe in gods, angels and demons, and hence, condition them to not believe in that which cannot be demonstrated to exist?

What exactly is getting damaged here? :shrug:

By conditioning children to believe gods, angels, and demons exist, you are conditioning them to believe in things that cannot actually be demonstrated to exist.
incorrect
at least in theism there is the foundation of claims of direct perception
there is no such foundation in atheism however ....


I can only presume that you mean atheists condition their children to not believe in gods, angels and demons, and hence, condition them to not believe in that which cannot be demonstrated to exist?

What exactly is getting damaged here? :shrug:
seems like you have just shot yourself in the foot - unless of course you can demonstrate that god does not exist
;)

incorrect
at least in theism there is the foundation of claims of direct perception
there is no such foundation in atheism however ....

Theists claims are completely without foundation. Theists have nothing but unfounded claims.


seems like you have just shot yourself in the foot - unless of course you can demonstrate that god does not exist

I cannot demonstrate gods do not exist any more than you can demonstrate they do. You cannot demonstrate the FSM (praised be His noodled appendages) does not exist any more than I can demonstrate the FSM (Marinara be His sauce) does.

Wouldn't you much rather we just shot each other in the foot?

Q


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
incorrect
at least in theism there is the foundation of claims of direct perception
there is no such foundation in atheism however ....
”
Theists claims are completely without foundation. Theists have nothing but unfounded claims.

never encountered a normative description in scripture?



“
seems like you have just shot yourself in the foot - unless of course you can demonstrate that god does not exist
”
I cannot demonstrate gods do not exist any more than you can demonstrate they do.
there in lies the problem
falling in line with normative descriptions does enable to attain what you hold as impossible (and its clear the only reason you hold it as impossible is simply because it collides with your preconceived beliefs of non-existence)

I think the question comes back to the reliability of the people who claim that they have indeed spoken to God or God has spoken to them. One of the arguments I would put forward is that the idea of a God communicating with people and revealing things to people, over the history of mankind, all over the world, from the Inuits to the Aborigines, when there wasnt even some connection between these people by which they could communicate with eachother, and telling them that such and such Prophets will arise and that this is the right way to live, is indeed very hard to ignore.

lg,


once again, the richness of normative descriptions in scripture tends to suggest otherwiseLogical fallacy. Truth is not determined by a popular opinion.

"Normative" is an interesting choice of terminology. It has several different meanings used variously by different academic disciplines and one wonders if LG choses such terms in the interest of being vague and ambiguous, true to his post modernist side.

Regardless, since this is a religion subforum and the discipline of science that most effectively and adequately examines religion is anthropology, I find it my distinct pleasure to point out that, in anthropology, normative refers to the value-judgments of a culture based on what should be or what is desired by the culture rather than what is actually the case. In that sense, there are many "normative descriptions" in the religious myths of many cultures.

Lg,


you raised this earlier and I suggested that you would have a difficult time suggesting how anything can exist outside delusion with out accepting something a priori - for instance try and present an argument how the world really exists and is not a delusion and see how far you can get without relying on something a prioriSo what you are saying then is that if someone asserts that the sun exists, for example, then there is no way to show that they are not deluded? So when everyone looks up and sees the sun and feels its heat then they all might be deluded, is that it? Clearly what you propose is simply silly. But then I’m not the one making any claims, but you are, and by way of your challenge here you are very much admitting that you have no way to show even to yourself that your claim of direct perception of a god is not a delusion.

So I again make my simple observation – you claim the existence of some vast supernatural being capable of creating a universe and that there is a similarly vast supernatural realm populated by an infinite number of souls, etc. As opposed to the vastly more credible alternative that you are deluded and that your claim is just a fantasy of your mind.

So given that no one, not even you can show that you are not deluded then why have we any reason to give you any credibility for your fantastic claims?

So given that no one, not even you can show that you are not deluded then why have we any reason to give you any credibility for your fantastic claims?

Seconded.

there in lies the problem
falling in line with normative descriptions does enable to attain what you hold as impossible (and its clear the only reason you hold it as impossible is simply because it collides with your preconceived beliefs of non-existence)

Hilarious. Your inability to demonstrate your claims for a gods existence is somehow my fault due to my so-called 'preconceived beliefs.'

Clearly then, your insignificant and impotent god cannot rise beyond my questioning of his existence. I can therefore crush him out of existence by simply saying so, just like you say so. :D

Oh its Q again.

Thats a good idea..just keep one paragraph and paste and copy it onto every thread. Very original.

falling in line with normative descriptions does enable to attain

This is of course ideally true, not only within a religion, but generally.
And it makes sense.

But the problem is that one cannot deliberately "fall in line with normative descriptions" - because in order to do that, one would in advance need to know what it is like to be in line with normative descriptions in the first place.

greenberg


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
falling in line with normative descriptions does enable to attain
”
This is of course ideally true, not only within a religion, but generally.
And it makes sense.
why can it not be the case with religious teachings?

for instance

BG 4.10 Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me—and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.

wouldn't it stand to reason that the claims of a persons who are influenced by material attachment, fear and anger stands outside of the normative prerequisites for discerning the nature of god?


But the problem is that one cannot deliberately "fall in line with normative descriptions" - because in order to do that, one would in advance need to know what it is like to be in line with normative descriptions in the first place.
hence normative descriptions, regardless of what ever field of knowledge one is discussing, can be located by examination of practitioners and books of knowledge related to such practices (the normative descriptions of physics can be discerned by examining physicists and physics text books) – understanding this enables ever opportunity to fulfill the normative requirements

**************************

Cris


lg,

“
once again, the richness of normative descriptions in scripture tends to suggest otherwise
”
Logical fallacy. Truth is not determined by a popular opinion.

truth or conclusion is however approachable by fulfilling the normal
requirements however


Lg,

“
you raised this earlier and I suggested that you would have a difficult time suggesting how anything can exist outside delusion with out accepting something a priori - for instance try and present an argument how the world really exists and is not a delusion and see how far you can get without relying on something a priori
”
So what you are saying then is that if someone asserts that the sun exists, for example, then there is no way to show that they are not deluded?
according to your definition of delusion, yes.


you :
My objection is that the claimed knowledge from such a subjective process
cannot be distinguished from delusion which is a more credible alternative than the acceptance that a super being exists capable of creating a universe.




So when everyone looks up and sees the sun and feels its heat then they all might be deluded, is that it?

you do realize that seeing and feeling the sun is subjective don't you?
(now remember, you have just asserted in your above intro Truth is not determined by a popular opinion, so you also can't assert that the sun exists due to popular opinion or common subjective experience either (after all communities of blind people all over the world don't see the sun - seems like you are making a claim based on popular subjective experiences, which is essentially what you hold as the foundation for ideas indistinguishable from delusion)


Clearly what you propose is simply silly.
clearly your suggestion on defining delusion is silly


But then I’m not the one making any claims, but you are, and by way of your challenge here you are very much admitting that you have no way to show even to yourself that your claim of direct perception of a god is not a delusion.


No - you are making a claim (I even bolded it for you)

you are making the claim of a delusion

I am pointing out that if we want to accept your philosophy it presents an absurd world view, which ironically tars you with the same brush you are trying to paint others


So I again make my simple observation – you claim the existence of some vast supernatural being capable of creating a universe and that there is a similarly vast supernatural realm populated by an infinite number of souls, etc. As opposed to the vastly more credible alternative that you are deluded and that your claim is just a fantasy of your mind.

no its not so simple

first of all I think you should present why your world view is more credible, rather than just begging the question by saying it is - when you do that we can then make a comparison


So given that no one, not even you can show that you are not deluded then why have we any reason to give you any credibility for your fantastic claims?

I think you have missed the point - I am showing how that your definition of deluded is silly and is also hypocritical since even by your own standards of philosophy, your own claims are indistinguishable from delusion.


************************

skinwalker


"Normative" is an interesting choice of terminology. It has several different meanings used variously by different academic disciplines and one wonders if LG choses such terms in the interest of being vague and ambiguous, true to his post modernist side.
true, it does have many different significances - given the context that I brought it up in, I thought it would have been clear however

if this is the standard description for normative

1. Relating to or dealing with norms
"normative discipline"; "normative samples"
2. Pertaining to giving directives or rules

and if the topic of how does one understand a particular conclusion is being dealt with, it should be obvious - for instance how would one normally become familiar with what an electron is? (a cursory examination reveals a degree of familiarity with theory and practice of physics)

as for the rest of your post, it just indicates that you are more interested in asserting your agenda rather than requesting a clarification on the issue actually being discussed – if you want to discuss such things, better that you make your own post rather than drive others off topic

************************************

Q


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
there in lies the problem
falling in line with normative descriptions does enable to attain what you hold as impossible (and its clear the only reason you hold it as impossible is simply because it collides with your preconceived beliefs of non-existence)
”
Hilarious. Your inability to demonstrate your claims for a gods existence is somehow my fault due to my so-called 'preconceived beliefs.'
the high school drop out also lies outside of coming to terms with issues like electrons because they do not believe in the practices of physics
he is probably also laughing too ....

doubt (particularly blind doubt, the opposite extreme of blind belief) is a powerful force of ignorance


Clearly then, your insignificant and impotent god cannot rise beyond my questioning of his existence. I can therefore crush him out of existence by simply saying so, just like you say so.
I think you give yourself more credibility than you deserve - you haven't even come close to the platform of questioning (you have made a remarkable contribution to reiterating your beliefs about god's non-existence however)

[QUOTE=lightgigantic;1629686
the high school drop out also lies outside of coming to terms with issues like electrons because they do not believe in the practices of physics
he is probably also laughing too ....[/quote]

Yes, but your high school dropout assertions have been refuted many times as fallacies.

Yes, but your high school dropout assertions have been refuted many times as fallacies.

yes, but only by persons who have fulfilled the normative requirements
;)

...so if "high school dropout" = production of fallacies

...does Einstein qualify as well?

...so if "high school dropout" = production of fallacies

...does Einstein qualify as well?
no, because unlike the scenario presented, this high school drop out doesn't fulfill the normative requirements for physics (unlike einstein, who fulfilled the normative descriptions for physics by irregular means)

no, because unlike the scenario presented, this high school drop out doesn't fulfill the normative requirements for physics (unlike einstein, who fulfilled the normative descriptions for physics by irregular means)

oh so you do believe that exceptions to the system, do exist ;)

oh so you do believe that exceptions to the system, do exist ;)
certainly - but not exceptions to normative descriptions - that is the Final Argument
;)

yes, but only by persons who have fulfilled the normative requirements

Ah, your latest fallacy. Nice. :rolleyes:

Ah, your latest fallacy. Nice. :rolleyes:
another grand statement .....
:shrug:

There is nothing to say to a fallacy other than it's acknowledgement.

There is nothing to say to a fallacy other than it's acknowledgement.
in philosophy that is called begging the question
;)

get back to me when you have something substantial to post, like why it is a fallacy.
(apart from "because I say so")

hence normative descriptions, regardless of what ever field of knowledge one is discussing, can be located by examination of practitioners and books of knowledge related to such practices (the normative descriptions of physics can be discerned by examining physicists and physics text books) – understanding this enables ever opportunity to fulfill the normative requirements

... All this assuming that there exists an objective reality which can be known objectively.

It's this assumption of objective reality that is a problem ...

... All this assuming that there exists an objective reality which can be known objectively.

It's this assumption of objective reality that is a problem ...
if one didn't assume there was an objective reality there would be no serious impetus for the pursuit of knowledge in the first place
:(

if one didn't assume there was an objective reality there would be no serious impetus for the pursuit of knowledge in the first place
:(

Yes, this is a very common conclusion, but it is not necessarily true for everyone and for all pursuits.

One could, for example, focus on the question "What is for my long-term welfare and happiness?" and then by trial and error, by trial and success find ways to long-term welfare and happiness.

This would include knowledge - but knowledge of a kind which we traditionally do not focus on so much.

Yes, this is a very common conclusion, but it is not necessarily true for everyone and for all pursuits.

One could, for example, focus on the question "What is for my long-term welfare and happiness?" and then by trial and error, by trial and success find ways to long-term welfare and happiness.

This would include knowledge - but knowledge of a kind which we traditionally do not focus on so much.

true - any fool can discern their short term interest but venturing into long term interest requires a bit of wisdom - and part of that wisdom involves knowing how "I" interact with "the world" - IOW it becomes very difficult to understand how wisdom can operate without some notion of objectivity

true - any fool can discern their short term interest but venturing into long term interest requires a bit of wisdom - and part of that wisdom involves knowing how "I" interact with "the world" - IOW it becomes very difficult to understand how wisdom can operate without some notion of objectivity

Of course. But this "objectivity" is about a rather small range of things - only things that one deems connected to one's long-term welfare and happiness.

Personally, I feel a kind of "conceptual claustrophobia" when I think about things I deem connected to my long-term welfare and happiness. Because focusing on my long-term welfare and happiness means ignoring a miriad of other things - things that I used to pay a lot of attention to and used to find some temporary satisfaction in them.
The quest for long-term welfare and happiness can feel extremely alienating in that way, it can feel like being fenced in - and thus, "subjective".

Of course. But this "objectivity" is about a rather small range of things - only things that one deems connected to one's long-term welfare and happiness.

Personally, I feel a kind of "conceptual claustrophobia" when I think about things I deem connected to my long-term welfare and happiness. Because focusing on my long-term welfare and happiness means ignoring a miriad of other things - things that I used to pay a lot of attention to and used to find some temporary satisfaction in them.
The quest for long-term welfare and happiness can feel extremely alienating in that way, it can feel like being fenced in - and thus, "subjective".
regardless of how it feels, it is practically seen that a person who doesn't pay attention to their long term self interest has a narrower aperture in terms of their future - for instance a child may not feel any inclination to go to school but the parent forces them since they know (in their greater wisdom) that if their child is not sufficiently educated they will have less opportunities later on in life.