I would like to apport my two cents with an article from “objectivismforintellectuals.wordpress.com”, dealing with the subjects of  Subjectivism (Represented by Feminists), Intrinsicism (Religionists) and Objectivism (MGTOW):

“Subjectivism holds that truth, in effect, resides only in the mind. For a subjectivist, a particular statement can be true for one person and false for another. (Kant (by implication), Wittgenstein, James, Sartre, etc.) “Truth” amounts to whatever one believes, and there is no such thing as “knowledge” of reality; only some sort of “experience” inside one’s own mind.

<span style=”font-style: inherit; line-height: 1.625;”>Intrinsicism holds that truth resides disembodied out in the world. Typically, intrinsicists hold that all people have to do is somehow “open their hearts to God,” or “pay attention to their intuitions,” or “open their minds to the light of truth,” and the “external truth” will infallibly push its way in. If the truth is already “out there,” then there’s no reason to think that any special processing is required to reach it; one merely has to absorb it. (Plato, Aristotle (partially, in regard to essences), Apostle Paul, Augustine, etc.) For an intrinsicist, conceptual knowledge is whatever external truths one happens to have absorbed. A particular statement is “true” for everyone, whether they have any evidence or not. (And it’s an arbitrarily answerable question whether various people can be held responsible for not grasping all the “floating truth” out there.) (<span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>1</span>)</span>

Objectivism holds that truth and falsehood are aspects of conceptual knowledge. Truth (and perceptual knowledge) is a relationship between a consciousness and reality. Truth is reality, as conceptually processed by a consciousness. Truths do not exist disembodied in external reality. Only physical entities (and their aspects–including other consciousnesses) exist in external reality. I can only reach a truth when I choose to conceptually process percepts by reasoning (by the method of logic.) For an Objectivist, a particular statement cannot be true for one person and false for another, (<span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>2</span>) but it can be arbitrary for one person and either true or false for another. People can have different levels of evidence that change how the statement ranks on their “epistemological determinacy” scale. (From arbitrary, to possibly true or false, to probably true or false, to certainly true or false.)

There is much more to be said about this topic, and I recommend Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, by Leonard Peikoff, for more.

—–

(1) To be clear, most modern, intellectual intrinsicists (and many such subjectivists) go to great pains to cloak their theory of knowledge in the appearance of reasoning from observation. They use the language of natural science and the formalism of deductive arguments. But this is all rationalization or inconsistency, because, for intrinsicists, the ultimate basis of “knowledge” is just to “feel the [allegedly external] truth.” For subjectivists, whatever their pretenses about subjectivism being necessitated by objective science, that self-contradiction wipes out objectivity on their part, and they thus imply that there’s no such thing as knowledge of reality. (What distinguishes knowledge of reality from fantasy is that knowledge is objective.)

(2) So long as the statement actually has matching referents in both cases. The same words referring to different people aren’t actually the same statement, because the words have different referents in each context.”

I only show reality as it is

MGTOW Observe reality, react to reality and adapt to reality. Ultimately, by “obeying Nature they command it” and create their ow reality. All of our actions are rooted in Observation, Reality and Reason, unlike females, leftists and religionists.

Females are Subjectivist, they act always on a whim, whatever the random gina tingle of the day, no sense of direction or clear goals.

Religionist are intrinsicist, they say: Obey the word of that god who incarnated a pigeon who got a virgin pregnant. He cares about YOU. Really?
They say: kill those infidels and you will f~~~ 72 virgins in a paradise. Some individuals who like to f~~~ goats under US drone surveillance believe them.

Leftists are both Subjectivists and Intrinsicists, theirs is both a mental psychotic disorder (caused by genetic decay I think) and adoration tho the State and Society as gods. So they kinda live in a theocracy.

MGTOW observes the reality for what it is and doesn’t allow moochers and parasites to bring him down or blur his view of the facts. we are Objectivists, we act in conformance with the Laws of Nature and the Universe. And this why at the end we will triumph.

<span class=”bbp-breadcrumb-current”>Objectivism, Subjectivism, Intrinsicism are all bulls~~~.  Putting a name over an abstract thought, which would qualify as all three, does not make it any more or less real than a unicorn.</span>

Because you feel objectivism is the “way of truth” I will delve into that subject first.

Truth is <span style=”font-family: Thread-00000ed4-Id-0000006b;”>reality, as conceptually processed by a consciousness</span>. Truths do not exist disembodied in external reality. Only physical entities (and their aspects–including other consciousnesses) exist in external reality. I can only reach a truth when I choose to conceptually process percepts by reasoning (by the method of <span style=”color: #005cab;”>logic</span>.) For an Objectivist, a particular statement cannot be true for one person and false for another, (<span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>2</span>) but it can be <span style=”color: #005cab;”>arbitrary</span> for one person and either true or false for another. People can have different levels of evidence that change how the statement ranks on their “epistemological determinacy” scale. (From arbitrary, to possibly true or false, to probably true or false, to certainly true or false.)

Your above statement is not logical or ill-logical. It is just a statement.  An abstract thought.  It is not embodied in the world and is subject to belief.  It is intrinsicist in nature.

Or because it resides in the mind, I can say it is subjective.    Anyhow your argument for objectivism is not objective.

Your response is not very logical, just emotional.  I thought you were an objectivist?

Let me state clearly one thing: All of you commenting here have it all wrong. You are not talking Real Philosophy here, but the feminized version of Philosophy, thats it:

Guy shouts random thoughts => Girl says: Wow, I like his “Philosophy”!

This s how most of you here are talking about Philosophy. What WOMEN understand by “Philosophy”

But Real, Grownup, Cultured Men know one thing: you are full of s~~~.

Because Real Philosophy deals with with 5 Normative Branches:

1 Metaphysics

2 Epistemology

3 Ethics

4 Politics

5 Aesthetics

So if in your talking about Philosophy you don’t talk about any of these Normative branches, you are full of s~~~.

Objectivism, Subjectivism and Intrinsicism in my post all relate to Epistemology, so bad you are ignorant and totally missed it.

So to compensate for your poor education, I highly recommend you to put down the Xbox and start reading non-fiction books like grownups do.

Civilization may depend on it.

And it doesn’t help that NOBODY commenting here has related to the topic but instead were moved to comment only when they smelled dispute, like gossiping old women. I expected to deal with real, successful and intelligent men here and maybe doing business with worthy individuals, but I’m starting to think I’m looking in vain here.