Audiophile discussion, articles, bake-offs, Doc-Mods, music. NVA reviews, loan scheme, orders & support. Phono stages, amplifiers, semi-omni speakers, cables, headphone amps, digital, vinyl.
https://www.hifisubjectivist.org/
If you HAVE spoken, but there's no-one there to hear it, does that count as having spoken?slinger wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 1:57 pm CAUTION: This post contains Subjectivist content, and attempts at humour.
One cannot know how something sounds without first hearing it. End of story. Isn't it?
One can theorize, and make assumptions, by looking at an oscilloscope or trawling through reams of "meter" readings, but they remain theories and assumptions until you actually hear the object in question.
The problem with Objectivists is that they seem to have confused the words objectivity and reality.
Objectivism is not even a *thing* in this context, it's actually a philosophical system developed by Ayn Rand which has been appropriated and subverted by these "Objectivists."
They are as close to the doctrine of true Objectivism as the average American NRA member is to the reasoning behind the formulation of the Second Amendment.
Objectivism, REAL objectivism, holds that reason—the faculty that operates by way of observation and logic—is man’s means of knowledge. Man gains knowledge by perceiving reality with his five senses, forming concepts and principles on the basis of what he perceives, checking his ideas for consistency with reality, and correcting any contradictions he discovers in his thinking.
Hey, l.ook at that, Objectivists are actually Subjectivists and have been all along.
Rand stated that she chose the name because her preferred term for a philosophy based on the primacy of existence - "Existentialism" - had already been taken. And what is Existentialism? In a nutshell, it's a form of philosophical inquiry that explores the problem of human existence and centres on the subjective experience of thinking, feeling, and acting.
One final thought, before I accept the surrender of these so-called "Objectivists,"...
What do they measure their measuring equipment with, to check its accuracy? How do they know their readings are accurate? How do they measure the equipment they use to measure their measuring equipment? Who decided what figures were good, and what figures were bad, without first hearing a sonic example of the result?
Surely, they are basing their entire pseudo-science on what, originally, someone heard, and said, "Man, that sounds like shit, I wonder what the THD of that thing is. If I measure it, then maybe I can work out what's an acceptable level, to give me something to aim at in future."
Somebody had to hear it first to know it was bad.
I have spoken. The war is over.
Objectivists are both wrong and have been unknowing Subjectivists all along. We should pity them as we accept their surrender.
No, really, I have. Spoken, that is. Look, you can see it on the page, it says "I have spoken," and I can show you the underlying code if you need further proof.
Or you could just read it and believe your eyes.
Very good!slinger wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 1:57 pm CAUTION: This post contains Subjectivist content, and attempts at humour.
One cannot know how something sounds without first hearing it. End of story. Isn't it?
One can theorize, and make assumptions, by looking at an oscilloscope or trawling through reams of "meter" readings, but they remain theories and assumptions until you actually hear the object in question.
The problem with Objectivists is that they seem to have confused the words objectivity and reality.
Objectivism is not even a *thing* in this context, it's actually a philosophical system developed by Ayn Rand which has been appropriated and subverted by these "Objectivists."
They are as close to the doctrine of true Objectivism as the average American NRA member is to the reasoning behind the formulation of the Second Amendment.
Objectivism, REAL objectivism, holds that reason—the faculty that operates by way of observation and logic—is man’s means of knowledge. Man gains knowledge by perceiving reality with his five senses, forming concepts and principles on the basis of what he perceives, checking his ideas for consistency with reality, and correcting any contradictions he discovers in his thinking.
Hey, l.ook at that, Objectivists are actually Subjectivists and have been all along.
Rand stated that she chose the name because her preferred term for a philosophy based on the primacy of existence - "Existentialism" - had already been taken. And what is Existentialism? In a nutshell, it's a form of philosophical inquiry that explores the problem of human existence and centres on the subjective experience of thinking, feeling, and acting.
One final thought, before I accept the surrender of these so-called "Objectivists,"...
What do they measure their measuring equipment with, to check its accuracy? How do they know their readings are accurate? How do they measure the equipment they use to measure their measuring equipment? Who decided what figures were good, and what figures were bad, without first hearing a sonic example of the result?
Surely, they are basing their entire pseudo-science on what, originally, someone heard, and said, "Man, that sounds like shit, I wonder what the THD of that thing is. If I measure it, then maybe I can work out what's an acceptable level, to give me something to aim at in future."
Somebody had to hear it first to know it was bad.
I have spoken. The war is over.
Objectivists are both wrong and have been unknowing Subjectivists all along. We should pity them as we accept their surrender.
No, really, I have. Spoken, that is. Look, you can see it on the page, it says "I have spoken," and I can show you the underlying code if you need further proof.
Or you could just read it and believe your eyes.
I did last nearly three hours which I put down to the time difference on the other side of the pond.